February 2013 - P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

emergent holoptism as OCL Re: open capital License?
by Dante-Gabryell Monson 07 Feb '13

07 Feb '13

Hi Flawer, Hi All, I totally get you flawer. Somehow, I see a variety of contracts, with shareable being one type of license / contract that could be used , amongst other ontologies many seem to be taking for granted , of which perhaps certain could overlap ? Sometimes, and I do not mean this for this list in particular, but generally speaking, I have the feeling that its not easy to communicate such views, except for examples related to collaborative consumption. Most people seem to understand the idea of a library of objects. Or the idea of renting some object or place from / to someone. Moving one step further, into the realm of currency, and metadata , is often a stage which seems to be more difficult to bridge. My impression is that very often people understand currency as an object, as in the case of a book in a library. And not in terms of data and metadata, created out of specific contracts. I liked Etienne's approach of explaining it as a "game"... *A game other people need to agree to play with, for the currency to have any value.* Hence, I would hope that granular and modulable metadata assembled into contextualized descriptions, enables* all games to be taken into account, and provide a framework for "game 2 game" transactions. * Actually, before even the stage of facilitating transactions, such "meta game" enables its users to provide each other with context to support choice making, become aware of the current, or potential effects of interdependencies , opening up a *"meta-game of emergent contextualized collective intelligence".* I realize that once I start talking about an emergent system , it seems to become difficult ( too abstract ? ) for many to grasp ? Perhaps at it becomes a 4th order cybernetic order ? http://attainable-utopias.org/tiki/FourthOrderCybernetics I may need to find different ways of explaining it. Perhaps conversations on this list can help... How can one best explain that any transaction can potentially choose its license / conditions , and that such license can not only itself become currency when accepted by others, but that the combined descriptions of conditions by all users, the contextualized metadata , becomes a type of (meta)currency, as the context and its interdependencies creates a defacto a license to choose from. In other words, becoming aware of potential economic networks creates a license to choose from, and to contribute from. In effect, the context created through emergence, becoming an open capital license... Related concept : http://p2pfoundation.net/Holoptism On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:43 PM, flawer <flawer(a)shareful.be> wrote: > > > a) it decides whether the tools for the project are created and by > > whom they are used. > > b) they decide the price of those tools( through lending). > > > > After this analysis, we see that a bank does decide what the economy > > produces. In general, the owner of money controls the economy because > > of those 2 reasons. > > > > Any ruleset thus has to find a way to remove those abilities from > > money. > > if you attach a contract that promises the universalization of access > you are giving more responsability and less rights to ownership (what > money could buy), you won't be able to ask for money for the produced > thing, and should let others use it, etc, so investing in my property is > increasing my responsability, so i'd like to share that charge (peer > property) and i'd like not being owner of too many things (i prefer to > be plain user). the "a)" reason you mention is mentioned to be universal > use by default. > > i believe a job agency of workers investing their sales/budgets for the > commons can be bought by a rich in $ (and it's an internal matter of us > whether we know how to spend well the $ and if we still need to 'accept' > them), and this not being a power over from the rich in $ towards us. It > is rather a way we should experiment more, we shouldn't have much > competition in the actual 'market' if we corporate so. > > > also the clausing of community currencies with the shareful producing > condition, whether they choose the shareful project to be just accesible > for their associates or for the whole world, should help defining their > values and even justify the giving of 'basic incomes' for shareful > producers works in this way (who could buy preferent use/access for > those produced shareful things) (who could require to retain the > ownership of the shareful production or give it to the corp) > > _______________________________________________ > P2P Foundation - Mailing list > http://www.p2pfoundation.net > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation >

5 13

open capital License?
by Michel Bauwens 06 Feb '13

06 Feb '13

hi Apostolis, probably not related but chris cook uses the concept of http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Capital (more via http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:OpenCapital) my material on money is here http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Money and the material on licenses is here http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Licensing a list of open currency related concepts: - Open Bank Project <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Bank_Project> - Open Book Management <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Book_Management> - Open Capital <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Capital> - Open Currency <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Currency> - Open Data Currencies <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Data_Currencies> - Open Fair Credit Standard<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Fair_Credit_Standard> - Open Hardware Microcredit<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Hardware_Microcredit> - Open Identity Currencies<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Identity_Currencies> - Open Money <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Money> - Open Money as a Commons<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Money_as_a_Commons> - Open Money Bibliography<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Money_Bibliography> - Open Money Blogtalk Radio<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Money_Blogtalk_Radio> - Open Money Manifesto <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Money_Manifesto> - Open Money Project <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Money_Project> - Open Patent Alliance <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Patent_Alliance> - Open Rules Currencies <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Rules_Currencies> - Open Source Bounties <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Bounties> - Open Source Core Banking<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Core_Banking> - Open Source Credit Rating Agency<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Credit_Rating_Agency> - Open Source Currency <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Currency> - Open Source Finance Meetup Group<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Finance_Meetup_Group> - Open Source Financial Transactions Processing<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Financial_Transactions_Processing> - Open Source Hardware Bank<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Hardware_Bank> - Open Source Hardware Reserve Bank<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Hardware_Reserve_Bank> - Open Source I-Bills <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_I-Bills> - Open Source Ratings Are Needed To Break the Ratings Agency Oligopoly<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Ratings_Are_Needed_To_Break_the_Rating…> - Open Source Voucher Payment Project<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Source_Voucher_Payment_Project> - Open Transact <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Transact> - Open Transactions <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Transactions> - Open Transport Currencies<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Transport_Currencies> - Open UDC <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_UDC> - Open Wallet <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Wallet> - Open Xchange <http://p2pfoundation.net/Open_Xchange> - Open-Universal Digital Currency Project<http://p2pfoundation.net/Open-Universal_Digital_Currency_Project> - OpenCoin <http://p2pfoundation.net/OpenCoin> - Opensocial Virtual Currency API Proposal<http://p2pfoundation.net/Opensocial_Virtual_Currency_API_Proposal> Message: 1 Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 11:32:08 +0200 From: Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <xekoukou(a)gmail.com> Subject: [P2P-F] open capital License? To: P2P Foundation mailing list <p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org> Message-ID: <CAOX4E5HhTj7sT-C1g0BTc-nkoEoyMYAJ+q1+j+9Vm_GPWdnWTA(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" If we define the open paradigm as the one's right to access information or resources, then what is the equivalent ,to GPL, license when it comes to resources and especially capital(infrastructure)? (When it comes to capital, open access can be a bit more restrictive, ie allowing only the consumers and producers to have access ) The gpl license prohibits that subsequent releases of the code as closed-source. This is a protection mechanism that needs to be used for capital as well. Here capital is not an idea, but a material thing that either exists now or we have a promise for its existence in the future(money). Has anyone defined a license or a set of rules that need to apply to money and the existent capital so as to be called open capital? I think that we are lucking a good rule set when it comes to money. As I have said in this list many times before, inequalities can arise even in an environment where all knowledge is open source and all resources are peer governed simply because we have small differences in abilities and thus a difference in accumulated value(money) which if it reaches critical mass could lead again to big inequalities(since money create money). -- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

5 9

Should "Open Government Data" be a Product or a Service (and why does it matter?)
by Michel Bauwens 05 Feb '13

05 Feb '13

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: michael gurstein <gurstein(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:11 PM Subject: [P2P-URBANISM] FW: Blogpost: Should "Open Government Data" be a Product or a Service (and why does it matter?) To: p2p-urbanism-world-atlas(a)googlegroups.com This may be of interest... http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/02/03/is-open-government-data-a-product-o r-a-service-and-why-does-it-matter/ http://tinyurl.com/cgzgd8o M -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to "P2P-Urbanism" group. >From now on you can also subscribe to Cityleft///Open Source Urbanism at this link http://cityleft.blogspot.com/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to p2p-urbanism-world-atlas+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "P2P-Urbanism" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to p2p-urbanism-world-atlas+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0

Maps of the colonization of p2p ?
by Dante-Gabryell Monson 04 Feb '13

04 Feb '13

Thank you for this interesting thread ! :) ( on the economy of monasticism ) Could some of us see ourselves in some ways as monastics of a digital / "post print" age ( albeit distributed / spread out ? ) and, if so, still in a stage of formation ? with a convergence of interdependent viable self sustaining production infrastructures still to develop ? Does the approach ( memes ? ) some of us use on this list differ from the communes cited and compared with the monastic communities in that book ? How do monastic or intentional community modes of production , governance and property relate or differ to p2p approaches ? Are such monastic orders "blue" ( authoritarian ), and are intentional communities they are compared to ( from the 60 ies, and after ? ) "green" memes ?<http://www.spiraldynamics-integral.nl/uploads/images/headers/Value_systems.…> ( egalitarian ? ) If this emerges as yellow, turquoise and beyond, what would it look like ? How have ( if they have ) old monasteries adapted to changes in memes ? What is the level of interconnected critical diversity required to enable viable self sustaining p2p production / governance / property systems ? What would the relation of a p2p viable system be to space / distance ? Is there anywhere on earth where a diversity of systems, such as documented on p2pfoundation , appropedia, etc already converge as to mutually self sustain ? What would its cost be, in terms of infrastructure development ? ( if/when acquiring production infrastructure on the capitalist monetized markets ) And what transition dependencies does it have in relation to current ( industrial era ? ) infrastructures ? Based on physical distance factors , what have been past conditions of a certain form of emergence, and how would it compare with today ? What would the maps look like, if some aspects of p2p meme development would be considered as colonizing monastics ? Monastics of a certain meme ? Where are such memes most represented and interconnected ? Is there a need for a critical mass combined with a critical diversity within a specific geographical area and along certain levels of interconnectedness within such potential systems ? What would its current main development centres be ? Berlin and San Francisco ? or simply... the internet... and any place with high internet connectivity and creative / information based economies ? And if so, what do we potentially see emerging from a combination of internet and spatial face to face dynamics ? Did our interactions on the internet lead to any of us converging and living together ? ( open source ecology project maybe ? ) On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Kevin F <kev.flanagan(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Anna, > > Monastics also provided services to the communities of which they are > a part. In the past the monasteries were great repositories of > knowledge. They were not limited to scriptural works alone. In the pre > print era scribes also produced copies of philosophical, technical and > historical works. They provided opportunities for people to educate > themselves and in turn those same people became stewards of that > knowledge which was of general benefit to communities that grew up > around the monasteries. > Now as you say it is true that as celibate institutions they fail to > reproduce themselves. However it can also be said that the knowledge > of which the monasteries were caretakers contributed to the > sustainability and in turn the re-productivity of the lay communities > and that seeing monasteries as socially valuable in this way was one > reason people from those communities chose to join. > Of course this is not the only motivation to join. For some it was to > pursue the spiritual life, for others it was to escape poverty, while > others joined because of social or family pressure. > One of the big rules was that monks and nuns should not own property. > If monks or nuns were to have families things become more complicated > as humans tend to look out for the welfare of their own before that of > the community as a whole. One of the arguments for celibacy in the > church is that it acts as an anti corruption measure. When Priests, > Abbots and Nuns have families it is easy for mini dynasties to emerge > as quite quickly it is the son of the Abbot who inherits his fathers > prestigious and influential role. This situation is avoided when they > are required to be celibate. > The other advantage of a celibate community is that its members have > more time to focus on intellectual work. When this is applied to > technical problems, inventive and innovative solutions can be shared, > improving the health and sustainability of the broader lay community. > All of these dynamics change as societies become better off. Today we > no longer depend on monasteries to preserve and reproduce important > texts. Nor do we depend on them for education or health. None of this > was true 500 years ago. As the quality of life improves for people > across the globe the appeal of monastic life is waning. Everywhere > fewer and fewer young people are taking vocations. The tables have > turned in a way. While at one time communities depended on monasteries > today most monasteries depend heavily on charity. What they have to > offer society more generally has come into question and their futures > are indeed uncertain. > I do not wish to romanticise the historical role of monasteries, I > just want to point out that their social function has changed over > time. While I agree that today these institutions have become in some > sense parasitic my point is that it was not always so. > What I gained from reading this paper was more from the analysis of > incentives and motivations both of which can be applied to analysis of > intentional communities. Also worth considering is the power of shared > values that may be not be so strong in more secular arrangements. > > Regards > > Kevin > > > On 30 January 2013 19:22, Anna Harris <anna(a)shsh.co.uk> wrote: > > The element left out of this analysis is the fact that monasteries are > > single sex establishments which do not have to cope with child rearing. > They > > are therefor parasitic in the sense that they live off the produce of the > > society at large which provides them with the personnel while leaving > them > > free to indulge in their 'spiritual capital'. > > > > There is no doubt in my mind that child rearing is the most difficult and > > undervalued profession, since it is performed in the main voluntarily by > > untrained people out of love, and therefore does not appear to require > any > > specific investment. Consequently it can be ignored as in the above > > discussion as though living in a secular socialist commune could be > compared > > to living in a monastery. > > > > I am not decrying the need for a spiritual element in helping to sustain > > indivuals and groups. Indeed I think it is essential to bring meaning in > the > > present situation of imminent 'collapse of civilisation', but it needs > to be > > able to be interwoven into our everyday lives, not hived off into > separate > > cloisters which may be beneficial for the inmates but do not really > > contribute to the sustenance of the rest of us. > > > > Anna > > > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Kevin F <kev.flanagan(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> I've been reading 'The Economics of Monasticism by Nathan Smith' over > >> the past week. He makes some interesting points in comparing the > >> sustainability of intentional communities with that of Christian > >> monasteries. Citing a study by Rost et al (2008) that > >> "An average longevity of 463 years makes monasteries more durable not > >> only than firms, but even than most states." and further suggesting > >> possibilities as to what makes them so successful. > >> > >> I will add it to the wiki when I get a chance over the coming days. > >> > >> The Economics of Monasticism - Nathan Smith > >> > >> "Since their emergence in ancient times, Christian monasteries have > >> proven to be among the most durable of all human institutions, and in > >> the medieval centuries made enormous contributions to the emergence of > >> Western civilization. They are organized internally on socialist > >> lines: monks own no property and owe total obedience to the abbot, > >> making the monastery a miniature ‘centrally planned economy.’ A > >> puzzling contrast exists between the longevity of monasteries and the > >> transience of secular socialist communes. This paper presents a > >> theoretical model which shows why voluntary socialist communes might > >> be viable despite ‘shirking’ problems, yet fail due to turnover, and > >> how worship, which induces people with high ‘spiritual capital’ to > >> self-select into the monastery and then grows that spiritual capital > >> through ‘learning-by-doing,’ can solve the turnover problem and make a > >> worship-based socialist commune—a monastery—stable. Monasticism, like > >> the market, is a form of ‘spontaneous order,’ but unlike the market, > >> it does not depend on third-party enforcement (e.g., by a state) to > >> function: this explains why monasticism (unlike capitalism) was able > >> to thrive in the anarchic Dark Ages. Monasteries, in principle and > >> largely in practice, are a form of society based on consent of the > >> governed, unlike liberal states which preach but do not practice > >> consensual governance, and it is interesting to juxtapose the real, > >> live ‘social contracts’ of the monasteries with the notional social > >> contracts of liberal political theory." > >> > >> http://www.thearda.com/workingpapers/monasticism.asp > >> > >> -- > >> > >> > ============================================================================= > >> GPG KEY > >> > >> > ============================================================================= > >> If this email is not signed or encrypted its because it is sent via > >> the browser. For private communications I encourage friends to use > >> GPG. If you are interested in learning more about GPG try the Enigmail > >> plugin with the Thuderbird email client. A quick search for > >> 'kev.flanagan(a)gmail.com' on public keyservers should find my most up > >> to date key. > >> > >> For example try - > >> > >> > http://sks.spodhuis.org:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=kev.flanagan%40gma… > >> OR > >> > >> > http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=kev.flanag… > >> > >> > ============================================================================= > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> P2P Foundation - Mailing list > >> http://www.p2pfoundation.net > >> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > P2P Foundation - Mailing list > > http://www.p2pfoundation.net > > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > > > > > > -- > > ============================================================================= > GPG KEY > > ============================================================================= > If this email is not signed or encrypted its because it is sent via > the browser. For private communications I encourage friends to use > GPG. If you are interested in learning more about GPG try the Enigmail > plugin with the Thuderbird email client. A quick search for > 'kev.flanagan(a)gmail.com' on public keyservers should find my most up > to date key. > > For example try - > > http://sks.spodhuis.org:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=kev.flanagan%40gma… > OR > > http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=kev.flanag… > > ============================================================================= > > _______________________________________________ > P2P Foundation - Mailing list > http://www.p2pfoundation.net > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation >

2 1

The Economics Realms....................................
by robert searle 04 Feb '13

04 Feb '13

Some of you may have come across the new blog called The Economic Realms which I have put up on the internet. It is starting to get a great many hits, and hopefully in time it could become very influential. http://theeconomicrealms.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/modernising-money.html RS.

1 0

Old Hat Thinking, and Understanding............................................
by robert searle 04 Feb '13

04 Feb '13

Monday, 4 February 2013 Profits of World's 100 Wealthiest Could End Poverty Four Times Over: Report A short comment by the blogger preceeding the main article. Re: Old Hat Thinking, and Understanding. The old redistributionist argument for the gaining of financial wealth via taxation is laudable as far as it goes. However, it is often very difficult to achieve especially in connection with tax "avoidance" by corporations. Morever, we need more intelligent, and visionary thinking which could become practical reality with the help of relevant experts. Here, one refers to the development of Transfinancial Economics. In such a "futuristic" system in its more advanced stage, it would be possible to create new money electronically without fear of serious inflation, and currency devaluation. In present day economics, interest rates, and tax rises are the basic means to try, and achieve "control" over inflation. With advanced stage TFE, direct electronic means would probably be more effective, and powerful to achieve this, and would not seriously damage the Free Market Price in the present capitalist system. The implications of this are far-reaching for the social, economic, and political development of the world. It could also end poverty as there would always be the funding at the ready. Using redistribution is the hard way to achieve all this. Whether we like it, or not the rich, and the super rich will fight to ensure that they can keep as much of their profits as possible. Advanced stage TFE ultimately goes beyond the usual "obssession" of redistribution, and offers the possibility of financial easing for many socio-economic project without using earned money, and/or earned tax money all the time. http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics The following text is on the subject matter of the main article RS Jon Queally's ZSpace Page / ZSpace The profits of the world's one hundred most wealthy individuals last year would be enough to wipe out world poverty, says a new report. And not just once over, or twice over, but the vast amount of money that has flowed to the top of the world's financial food chain would be enough to eradicate the worst kind of poverty a full four times over. Such an explosion in extreme wealth and income inequality represented by these numbers is exacerbating and hindering the world’s ability to tackle poverty, warns international aid group Oxfam International in a new analysis published ahead of the World Economic Forum starting in Davos this week. According to the report, ‘The cost of inequality: how wealth and income extremes hurt us all,’ the $240 billion net income in 2012 of the richest 100 billionaires would be enough to eliminate extreme poverty four times over. In releasing the report, Oxfam is calling on world leaders to curb today’s income extremes and commit to bringing back inequality levels to at least those experienced in the early 1990's. “Concentration of resources in the hands of the top one per cent depresses economic activity and makes life harder for everyone else – particularly those at the bottom of the economic ladder," said Jeremy Hobbs, Oxfam's executive director. “We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many – too often the reverse is true," he said. “In a world where even basic resources such as land and water are increasingly scarce, we cannot afford to concentrate assets in the hands of a few and leave the many to struggle over what’s left.” In addition, Barbara Stocking, Oxfam's chief executive, says the world's extremity of wealth inequality is "economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive and environmentally destructive". Oxfam is calling for a 'new global deal' which would stabilize the world's economic systems and bring equality back in way that would benefit all humanity. “From tax havens to weak employment laws, the richest benefit from a global economic system which is rigged in their favour. It is time our leaders reformed the system so that it works in the interests of the whole of humanity rather than a global elite.” The group estimates that closing tax havens – which hold as much as $32 trillion or a third of all global wealth – could yield an additional $189bn in additional tax revenues. In addition to a tax haven crackdown, elements of the "global new deal" Oxfam envisions would include: * a reversal of the trend towards more regressive forms of taxation; * a global minimum corporation tax rate; * measures to boost wages compared with returns available to capital; * increased investment in free public services and safety nets. According to Al-Jazeera: The group says that the world's richest one percent have seen their income increase by 60 percent in the last 20 years, with the latest world financial crisis only serving to hasten, rather than hinder, the process. "We sometimes talk about the 'have-nots' and the 'haves' - well, we're talking about the 'have-lots'. [...] We're anti-poverty agency. We focus on poverty, we work with the poorest people around the world. You don't normally hear us talking about wealth. But it's gotten so out of control between rich and poor that one of the obstacles to solving extreme poverty is now extreme wealth," Ben Phillips, a campaign director at Oxfam, told Al Jazeera. ________________________________ From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives URL: MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "email.zsustainers.org" claiming to be http://www.zcommunications.org/profits-of-worlds-100-wealthiest-could-end-p… _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

1 0

open capital License?
by flawer 04 Feb '13

04 Feb '13

> Has anyone defined a license or a set of rules that need to apply to money and the existent capital so as to be called open capital? http://sharewiki.org/en/Shareful_Invitation +clauses: http://app.wisemapping.com/c/maps/84819/public , http://sharewiki.org/en/Sha (i think this is the point you are asking for..) is not http://sharewiki.org/en/Shareful_note **is not released yet** eee --------- similar effort, by patrick anderson: Here's part of my attempt based on the GNU GPLv2: * http://patware.freeshell.org/gplv4%20draft%201.htm [1] And another try using a mixture of GPLv3 and v2: * http://patware.freeshell.org/general%20public%20law.htm [2] ------------------------- Links: ------ [1] http://patware.freeshell.org/gplv4%20draft%201.htm [2] http://patware.freeshell.org/general%20public%20law.htm

1 0

Fwd: ZNet Daily Commentary: Profits of World's 100 Wealthiest Could End Poverty Four Times Over: Report By Jon Queally
by Michel Bauwens 04 Feb '13

04 Feb '13

Profits of World's 100 Wealthiest Could End Poverty Four Times Over: Report January 24, 2013 By *Jon Queally* Jon Queally's ZSpace Page<http://email.zsustainers.org/wf/click?upn=xrLDuKs9E-2FW2gJyS-2BCwKWwqejxOUz…> / ZSpace<http://email.zsustainers.org/wf/click?upn=xrLDuKs9E-2FW2gJyS-2BCwKWwqejxOUz…> The profits of the world's one hundred most wealthy individuals last year would be enough to wipe out world poverty, says a new report. And not just once over, or twice over, but the vast amount of money that has flowed to the top of the world's financial food chain would be enough to eradicate the worst kind of poverty a full four times over. Such an explosion in extreme wealth and income inequality represented by these numbers is exacerbating and hindering the world’s ability to tackle poverty, warns<http://email.zsustainers.org/wf/click?upn=xrLDuKs9E-2FW2gJyS-2BCwKW3VplGJ6N…> international aid group Oxfam International in a new analysis published ahead of the World Economic Forum starting in Davos this week. According to the report, ‘*The cost of inequality: how wealth and income extremes hurt us all*<http://email.zsustainers.org/wf/click?upn=xrLDuKs9E-2FW2gJyS-2BCwKWwZV1k6Mt…>,’ the $240 billion net income in 2012 of the richest 100 billionaires would be enough to eliminate extreme poverty four times over. In releasing the report, Oxfam is calling on world leaders to curb today’s income extremes and commit to bringing back inequality levels to at least those experienced in the early 1990's. “Concentration of resources in the hands of the top one per cent depresses economic activity and makes life harder for everyone else – particularly those at the bottom of the economic ladder," said Jeremy Hobbs, Oxfam's executive director. “We can no longer pretend that the creation of wealth for a few will inevitably benefit the many – too often the reverse is true," he said. “In a world where even basic resources such as land and water are increasingly scarce, we cannot afford to concentrate assets in the hands of a few and leave the many to struggle over what’s left.” In addition, Barbara Stocking, Oxfam's chief executive, says<http://email.zsustainers.org/wf/click?upn=xrLDuKs9E-2FW2gJyS-2BCwKWyuntSBdL…> the world's extremity of wealth inequality is "economically inefficient, politically corrosive, socially divisive and environmentally destructive". Oxfam is calling for a 'new global deal' which would stabilize the world's economic systems and bring equality back in way that would benefit all humanity. “From tax havens to weak employment laws, the richest benefit from a global economic system which is rigged in their favour. It is time our leaders reformed the system so that it works in the interests of the whole of humanity rather than a global elite.” The group estimates that closing tax havens – which hold as much as $32 trillion or a third of all global wealth – could yield an additional $189bn in additional tax revenues. In addition to a tax haven crackdown, elements of the "global new deal" Oxfam envisions would include: - a reversal of the trend towards more regressive forms of taxation; - a global minimum corporation tax rate; - measures to boost wages compared with returns available to capital; - increased investment in free public services and safety nets. According<http://email.zsustainers.org/wf/click?upn=xrLDuKs9E-2FW2gJyS-2BCwKW40wpP5Yb…> to *Al-Jazeera*: The group says that the world's richest one percent have seen their income increase by 60 percent in the last 20 years, with the latest world financial crisis only serving to hasten, rather than hinder, the process. "We sometimes talk about the 'have-nots' and the 'haves' - well, we're talking about the 'have-lots'. [...] We're anti-poverty agency. We focus on poverty, we work with the poorest people around the world. You don't normally hear us talking about wealth. But it's gotten so out of control between rich and poor that one of the obstacles to solving extreme poverty is now extreme wealth," Ben Phillips, a campaign director at Oxfam, told Al Jazeera. ------------------------------ *From:* Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives<http://email.zsustainers.org/wf/click?upn=xrLDuKs9E-2FW2gJyS-2BCwKWwqejxOUz…> *URL:* http://www.zcommunications.org/profits-of-worlds-100-wealthiest-could-end-p…<http://email.zsustainers.org/wf/click?upn=xrLDuKs9E-2FW2gJyS-2BCwKWwqejxOUz…>

2 1

Fwd: exploring the use of G+ for the p2p foundation
by Kevin F 04 Feb '13

04 Feb '13

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kevin F <kev.flanagan(a)gmail.com> Date: 4 February 2013 16:01 Subject: Re: exploring the use of G+ for the p2p foundation To: Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> It's an interesting article about the benefits of G+ social search vs Facebook's new Social Graph. When friends on Google+ use Google Search it presents related material discussed by friends on G+. This feature is called 'Search + Your World'. If you integrate Google Authorship with your blog all your posts that appear in Google's Search results will have a direct link to your G+ profile. The author suggests that both these features combined create a powerful positive feedback in terms of your contents ranking on Google for both friends and non-friends. The author list the benefits that G+ adds to Google Search and compares it to Facebook's new Graph Search and argues that G+ gives a higher quality search result. Facebook's new Graph Search is based on what people 'like' and he argues that what people 'like' on Facebook is different from what we mean when we normally say we like something. This is because on Facebook we 'like' things for all sorts of different reasons. For example we 'like' pages so as to take part in competitions or to take part in promotions. He also says that Facebook's 'like' feature is regularly gamed where G+ has anti-gaming built into it. Thus Google's social search is more accurate. Anyway thats a very light summary for you. It would be worth investing what's involved in integrating Google Authorship into the P2Pblog. Best Kevin On 4 February 2013 14:06, Michel Bauwens <michel(a)p2pfoundation.net> wrote: > hi Kevin, I hope you have time to read the below and discuss with me later > on, > > > I have not yet succeeded in finding anything partciularly useful about g+ > > Michel > > > ** > > Since my first day here (Google+ Day 3), I've been saying that there is so > much more under the hood of what Google has created with Google+ than most > people--even most "social media experts"--understand. > > You are reading this on the most powerful networking and influence-spreading > tool in the history of the world. I truly do not believe I am exaggerating > in the slightest. > > Read the > article:http://windmillnetworking.com/2013/01/30/your-google-plus-network-i… > > -- > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ -- ============================================================================= GPG KEY ============================================================================= If this email is not signed or encrypted its because it is sent via the browser. For private communications I encourage friends to use GPG. If you are interested in learning more about GPG try the Enigmail plugin with the Thuderbird email client. A quick search for 'kev.flanagan(a)gmail.com' on public keyservers should find my most up to date key. For example try - http://sks.spodhuis.org:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=kev.flanagan%40gma… OR http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=kev.flanag… ============================================================================= -- ============================================================================= GPG KEY ============================================================================= If this email is not signed or encrypted its because it is sent via the browser. For private communications I encourage friends to use GPG. If you are interested in learning more about GPG try the Enigmail plugin with the Thuderbird email client. A quick search for 'kev.flanagan(a)gmail.com' on public keyservers should find my most up to date key. For example try - http://sks.spodhuis.org:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=kev.flanagan%40gma… OR http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=kev.flanag… =============================================================================

1 0

exploring the use of G+ for the p2p foundation
by Michel Bauwens 04 Feb '13

04 Feb '13

hi Kevin, I hope you have time to read the below and discuss with me later on, I have not yet succeeded in finding anything partciularly useful about g+ Michel ** Since my first day here (Google+ Day 3), I've been saying that there is *so* much more under the hood of what Google has created with Google+ than most people--even most "social media experts"--understand. You are reading this on *the most powerful networking and influence-spreading tool in the history of the world.* I truly do not believe I am exaggerating in the slightest. Read the article: http://windmillnetworking.com/2013/01/30/your-google-plus-network-is-more-p… -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/

1 0