- P2P-Foundation - lists.ourproject.org

Fwd: Book : The Lost Science of Money, by Stephen A. Zarlenga
by Michel Bauwens 09 Feb '11

09 Feb '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:17 PM Subject: Book : The Lost Science of Money, by Stephen A. Zarlenga To: gssmi(a)googlegroups.com, gtmonnaie(a)gtmonnaie.be, sustainable_solidarity(a)yahoogroups.com, hc_ecology(a)yahoogroups.com, econowmix(a)googlegroups.com Historical overview on monetary systems ? The Lost Science of Money by Stephen A. Zarlenga http://www.monetary.org/lostscienceofmoney.html TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTERS: 1. The Origins of Money Systems13. The Usury Debate Continues2. Rome's Bronze Nomisma: Better Than Gold 14. U.S. Colonial Moneys3. A Monetary View Of Rome's Decline 15. The Money Power vs. The Constitution 4. Re-Instituting Money In The West 16. U.S. Government Money vs Private Money5. Crusades End Byzantium's Monetary Control 17. The Greenbacks: Real American Money6. Renaissance Struggles For Monetary Dominance 18. Nineteenth Century Monetary Crimes - The Great Deflations7. The Scholastics - The Moral Economists 19. Establishment Of The Federal Reserve8. 1500 - History's Pivot: Power Shifts From The Mediterranean To The North Sea20. Federal Reserve System Wrecks America9. The Rise Of Capitalism In Amsterdam 21. Germany's 1923 Hyper-Inflation Under A Private Central Bank10. Transferring Capitalism To England 22. International Monetary Organizations11. Hatching The Bank Of England 23. The European Monetary Union12. Political Economists: Priesthood Of The Bankers Theology 24. Proposals For U.S. Monetary Reform Plus an Index Click Here to View the Selected Bibliography<http://www.monetary.org/selectedbibliography.html> -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [Commoning] new capitalism and commoning
by andreas.exner＠chello.at 09 Feb '11

09 Feb '11

Hi Michel I consider initiatives such as Planetmath, that want to expand metacommons by using funding by institutions and businesses, as paramount. The incorporation of "social values" into business might also be seen as a last step of capital to colonize lifeworld. So I am not so cheerful about this, while acknowledging at the same time, that it might sometimes open up new opportunities for commons. Solidarity Economy is not only about "normal" enterprises, but also about demonetized (and then, of course, strictly non-capitalist) initiatives. Talking about capitalism, one points toward a debate of what constitutes capital. Concerning Mondragon, workers are at the same time capitalists, they internalized the class contradiction (it would not be overcome by multiplying "Mondragon" - as soon as a labour market appears, the initial class split also comes to the fore again.) Nevertheless, Mondragon is a very important example that steps forward to a more direct and egalitarian form of cooperation are possible and can even coexist (for a while and under specific circumstances, i.e. Basque nationalism...) with capital. best, Andreas > Hi Andreas, > > this I think is a crucial insight: > > "Certain forms of business might reinforce commons, but only to the > detriment of > business, in the long run. Probably, the structural and personal > shortsigthedness > of capitalists will enable to exploit this asymetrical synergie without > harming the > "mutual relationship" in the short run." > > Lenin had a famous phrase, 'they will sell the ropes we will hang them with" > > But what we are seeing now is more than that: a huge movement towards market > forms that are not geared towards profit maximisation at all: cooperatives, > solidarity economics, social economy, fair trade, mission-oriented > enterprises, social investing, and many more. They operate within > capitalism, as do we all, but they are not themselves capitalistic in nature > if they do not strive for profit maximisation. Each case is of course > different and has to be looked at carefully. For example, Mondragon is > currently involved in a strike action by Polish workers who feel exploited > by their non-cooperative holdings. In this case I would stay, it is great > that Mondragon shows the viability of cooperatives, but it is regretful, and > must be changedd, that they are creating a two-tier system where they > themselves act as capitalist vis a vis exploited labourers abroad. > > These are significant developments, but the question is: what do they mean, > especially in the context of the commons. My take would be that a number of > these developments are commons-positive and can be used by commoners to > strengthen commons and move towards a commons-centered economy > > Michel > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 5:55 PM, <andreas.exner(a)chello.at> wrote: > > > Structures do not exist beyond people, and "people", in the sense of > > subjects, > > do not exist beyond structures. > > > > We should not forget, that people do not reproduce as simply "people", but > > as > > wage labourers and capitalists or petty commodity producers or peasants. > > Those subjects will tend to reproduce their status (or improve on it, i.e. > > becoming > > capitalists). > > > > Reproduction and status improvement function within structures. In as far > > as > > people tend to reproduce and improve their lives and status within those > > very > > structures, they will defend those structures (by force of the state). > > > > So capitalists will defend their position to exploit labourers. And > > labourers will > > defend their position of being exploited - in a way that seems "acceptable" > > to them. > > Peasants will ususally defend the possibility to become small capitalists > > and > > sell to regional and/or global markets (most of them currently do this only > > to a very > > limited extent, worldwide). > > > > While markets were not invented by capitalists, they defend them because it > > is > > the market - as long as the capitalist mode of production exists - that > > enables them > > as a class to exploit labourers. (And it is the capitalist mode of > > production > > that propagates the market - but this discussion we already had...). That > > holds true for > > any business that participates on the social surplus value pressed out of > > labourers. > > > > While markets are not controlled by capitalists, capitalists do control > > labourers > > directly within the realm of their domination, i.e. the office, factory, > > outgrower > > associations etc... So strengthening commons means limiting markets and > > abolishings > > capital. > > > > Certain forms of business might reinforce commons, but only to the > > detriment of > > business, in the long run. Probably, the structural and personal > > shortsigthedness > > of capitalists will enable to exploit this asymetrical synergie without > > harming the > > "mutual relationship" in the short run. > > > > > "Non profit business" -- there is no such thing. Business means profit, > > if > > there is no profit, you are quickly out of business. > > > > So: "are these people 'enemies'"? No, capitalism is not about people, it > > is about structures being exclusive or inclusive. Thus "enemies" are not > > people, but those structures which exclude people. > > > > Generally, markets are exclusive, because you can not participate if you > > have nothing to sell or to buy -- be it on the world market or on Tahiti > > square. > > > > Thus business can not be a commons. But there can be an intimate > > relationship between commons and business, which has to be analysed > > carefully. > > > > While we say "There is no commons without commoning" the same holds true > > for business: "There is no business without commoning", but the > > relationship addressed here is completely different. > > > > Best, > > Stefan > > > > On 2011-02-08 10:07, Massimo De Angelis wrote: > > > you can work out the answer by reflecting on the motto of the web > > > page http://fearlessrevolution.com > > > > > > : "collaboration is the new competition" . . .well actually, > > > > > > competition has always been based on degrees of collaboration, > > > pitting different forms of social cooperation one against the other > > > . . .the ideas of this web page would be great, assuming 90% of our > > > livelihoods was reproduced outside capitalist markets, so as if we > > > really needed something outside the commons, well, this could be how > > > to go for it . . .But as they stand, they are just another way to > > > make business, one business strategy among many, maybe preferable > > > and kinder than others, maybe its novelty may help some in time of > > > crisis and in presence of lack of imagination and effective powers > > > to work out a non- profit business alternative, . . .hence, if > > > contingent necessity requires it, let us collaborate . . . but > > > please, do not conflate this type of stuff being debated on the > > > Harward Business Review with the emancipatory practices that are > > > core for the production of a socially and environmentally just world > > > . . .please, just look at Egypt, they have businesses along many > > > commons in Tahiri square > > > (http://english.aljazeera.net//news/middleeast/2011/02/2011271626444 > > > 61244.html ), small vendors, but they operate within the contexts of > > > the commons, hence they are not the enemy, but they reinforce the > > > commons. They would become opponents in the very moment they were to > > > declare that all in the square had to organise as a market, or if > > > they were to define procedures that for every problem one had to > > > find a market solution and this is precisely what seems to be > > > happening in the example you are circulating. > > > > > > m > > > > > > On 8 Feb 2011, at 07:51, Michel Bauwens wrote: > > > > I got this from Pat Kane, an initiative that resonates with Umair > > > > Haque's Capitalist Manifesto > > > > > > > > See: http://fearlessrevolution.com/blog/introducing-common.html > > > > > > > > "Benefiting people, communities, society, the environment and > > > > future generations is the new advantage in business. Our new > > > > capitalist brand is about transitioning from competitive advantage > > > > to collaborative advantage. COMMON is a brand that is community > > > > designed, community owned, and community directed. It is a single > > > > open source brand — a living network — for rapidly prototyping > > > > many progressive businesses that unleash creativity to solve > > > > social problems." > > > > > > > > Michel's comments: > > > > > > > > why is this interesting, well, in the context of the stress that > > > > our friends like Massimo and Silvia Federico place on opposing > > > > 'capitalist commons' > > > > > > > > my question is the following, generally, as I don't know much about > > > > this particular initiative: > > > > > > > > - are these people 'enemies' simply because they are > > > > 'pro-capitalist' > > > > > > > > - or are they friends because their heart is in the right place, > > > > and they want to create and share value, and have generally > > > > progressive social goals > > > > > > > > This is not just a matter of analysis, but also of language, and it > > > > poses a key question: should a new 'hegemony' (not the right word, > > > > I know, but even in a distributed world, something like that does > > > > exist) for a progressive commons approach, not necessarily include > > > > progressive social and other enterpreneurs ? > > > > > > > > My answer would tend to be yes, as many young people in the West, > > > > but even outside the West, especially here in East Asia, think that > > > > way; they want to see progress, don't believe in old-style > > > > socialism, believe in cooperation and sharing, but believe only > > > > free enterpreneurship offers progress and dynamism for their > > > > society and their own projects. > > > > > > > > Such an approach would require an analysis that distinguished > > > > exploitative commons approaches, from genuine commons; but also in > > > > a language that doesn't construct such people as enemies, and a > > > > pragmatic openness. > > > > > > > > To come back to the notion of capitalist/anticapitalist commons, > > > > through an example. > > > > > > > > Take the free software movement, a movement of a particular labour > > > > aristocracy, that has resulted in the creation of a strong commons, > > > > strong relatively autonomous communities, but also with a strong > > > > ecology of supportive corporate entities, that both profit from > > > > those commons, but also, pay wages to free software developers, > > > > practice various forms of benefit sharing, and support the > > > > communities and commons in various ways. (this of course needs to > > > > be problematized, but nevertheless, this is an important side of > > > > the equation) > > > > > > > > So here we have a commons that is both instrumental to corporate > > > > entities and 'capitalism', but also beneficial in substantial ways > > > > to a particular type of knowledge workers. In this scenario, both > > > > sides have both concurring and antagonistic interests. > > > > > > > > The model of the free software movement is not unique, as it is now > > > > largely replicated in many other open knowledge, open design and > > > > open manufacturing projects, for whom it served as a successfull > > > > template > > > > > > > > I'm not advocating either uncritical support of the model, nor a > > > > pure antagonistic approach, but rather an approach that starts with > > > > the interests of the peer producing communities and their commons, > > > > and looks at how they can optimally reproduce within current > > > > economic and power structures, and advance their goals, step by > > > > step, until they are stronger to achieve more fundamental > > > > transformations, > > > > > > > > In many cases, the creation of a successful ecology of corporate > > > > entities, and the attraction of progressive young enterpreneurs who > > > > may be willing to create non profit maximisation market-operating > > > > entitities, will be a sine qua non for the social reproduction and > > > > growth of the concrete commons and their contributors/users > > > > > > > > Michel > > > > > > > > > > > > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: > > > > http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundatio > > > > n > > > > > > > > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/ > > > > mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; > > > > http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > > > > > > > Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Commoning mailing list > > > > Commoning(a)lists.wissensallmende.de > > > > http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning > > > > > > -- > > Start here: www.meretz.de > > _______________________________________________ > > Commoning mailing list > > Commoning(a)lists.wissensallmende.de > > http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Commoning mailing list > > Commoning(a)lists.wissensallmende.de > > http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning > > > > > > -- > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: > http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > > Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/

3 3

connectivism page deleted/censored from Wikipedia
by Michel Bauwens 08 Feb '11

08 Feb '11

pretty sad story and typical of the way the Wikipedia hierarchy operates through power over knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Connectivism -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/

2 2

mapped swarming
by Michel Bauwens 08 Feb '11

08 Feb '11

hi Tomas, wondering if you could discuss this on our blog, see http://irevolution.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/maptivism-london and http://irevolution.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/check-ins-with-a-purpose -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/

1 0

Fwd: Towards and OER university -- International open planning meeting 23 Feb and pre-meeting seminar.
by Michel Bauwens 08 Feb '11

08 Feb '11

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Franco Iacomella <franco(a)freeknowledge.eu> Date: Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:28 PM Subject: Towards and OER university -- International open planning meeting 23 Feb and pre-meeting seminar. To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> -------- Mensaje original -------- De: Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wayne(a)gmail.com> Hi Everyone, The OER unversity concept aims to aims to provide free learning for all students worldwide. We need your help in co-designing these futures. *Open international planning meeting for the OER university * The OER Foundation is hosting an open international planning meeting for the OER for assessment and credit for students projec <http://wikieducator.org/OACS>t scheduled for 23 February 2011 (New Zealand time).**UNESCO is sponsoring a live web steam of this open strategic meeting on the internet to enable virtual participation by education leaders and interested persons around the world. You can register remote participation on this wiki page < http://wikieducator.org/OER_for_Assessment_and_Credit_for_Students/Meetings…>. * Pre meeting seminar* BCcampus <http://wikieducator.org/BCcampus/Case_study>, an international leader in the implementation of OER in post-secondary education and founding member of the OER Foundation is hosting the pre-meeting SCOPE seminar for the OER university concept <http://scope.bccampus.ca/mod/forum/view.php?id=8738> from 16 February to 2 March 2011. The first week of this seminar, is intended to generate discussion and input on the context, problem, concept, partners, and objectives of an OER university. The outputs of this seminar will provide inputs into the agenda < http://wikieducator.org/OER_for_Assessment_and_Credit_for_Students/Meeting_…> of the open planning meeting of 23 February 2011. The second week following the meeting will provide an opportunity for summary, follow-on discussions, and recommendations for the way forward. Paul Stacy will facilitate the OER university seminar and present the outputs of the first week during the inaugural planning meeting. 2011 will be a quantum shift year for the mainstream adoption of OER in formal education. Working together, we can make OER futures happen. Cheers Wayne -- Wayne Mackintosh <http://wikieducator.org/User:Mackiwg>, Ph.D. Director OER Foundation <http://www.oerfoundation.org> Director, International Centre for Open Education, Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand. Founder and elected Community Council Member, Wikieducator <http://www.wikieducator.org%20> Mobile +64 21 2436 380 Skype: WGMNZ1 Twitter <http://twitter.com/#%21/Mackiwg> | identi.ca <http://identi.ca/waynemackintosh> -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] Current Call for Grants | Institute for New Economic Thinking
by Michel Bauwens 08 Feb '11

08 Feb '11

thanks Paul On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Paul D. Fernhout < pdfernhout(a)kurtz-fernhout.com> wrote: > Maybe p2p economics would fit? > > See: > http://ineteconomics.org/initiatives/grants/spring-2011 > "In our first round of research grants, awarded in Fall 2010, INET awarded > nearly 40 grants totaling over $5 million. For the second round of research > grants, these four areas remain our focus: > 1. Macroeconomics and Finance (M&F) > 2. History and Political Economy (H&PE) > 3. Economic Development and Growth (EDG) > 4. The Economics Profession (EP) > Within these four broad areas, in this round we would particularly like to > invite proposals that address: > * Sources and remedies of financial instability > * Institutional design for radical (Knightian) uncertainty > * Political economy of the state and public goods provision > * Political economy of income and wealth distribution > * Corporate governance in an age of economic globalization > * Human capability and economic development > ... > Research grants will be awarded twice per year. The timeline for the first > cycle of 2011 is planned as follows: > January 28, 2011 Research Grant Program announced > March 5, 2011 Stage 1 Proposals due to INET > April 5, 2011 INET announces Proposals nominated into Stage 2 > May 1, 2011 Stage 2 Proposals due to INET > May 31, 2011 Research Grant awards announced by INET" > > Mentioned by these people: > http://heterodoxnews.com/n/htn111.html > http://heterodoxnews.com/HEN/home.html > > --Paul Fernhout > http://www.pdfernhout.net/ > ==== > The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of > abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity. > > -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] [GiftEconomy] the debt-virus : "every paid back loan must be replaced by two new loans"
by TheEndofMoney＠gmail.com 08 Feb '11

08 Feb '11

Under the current system, when lending decreases the economy slows. Isn't that one of the problems of today's global "recession" ? Another problem with interest is that if it is allowed to grow uninterrupted, it outstrips all other resources. Dr. Margrit Kennedy, author of Interest and Inflation-free money" says that a penny invested at the time of the birth of Christ and getting five percent annually through the year two thousand would be a sum equal to six gold balls, each the size of the earth. But there is disruption in mounting interest, she notes, by the periodic destruction of value, typically in wars. Capitalism has always sought to force open markets, with physical force eg Admiral Peary sailing into Tokyo Harbor to wage war on Japan in the 19th Century, through to more subtle force eg all the modern free-trade agreements. On Feb 8, 2011 8:21am, Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "under the current system, the more we work the faster everything we > produce and everything we own, will end up being owned by the banks. > There is nothing to be done about it, under the current system. Therefore > we can say that the system is unstable. " > " every paid back loan must be replaced by two new loans, leading to > exponential payments to the banks by the economy as a whole." > "By accumulation of interest, the whole of the economy thus ends up > working for the banks, in addition to being forced to continually expand > (with consequences for us humans in the rat race, and for the environment > being destroyed in the process). So there is really little argument that > the system is inherently unstable." > "Anyone who can conceptualize the economy as a whole, as opposed to just > one single loan, can see that something doesn't add up and that reform is > urgent. " > more details below... > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Sepp Hasslberger sepp(a)lastrega.com> > Date: Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 3:13 PM > Subject: Re: [P2P-F] An update on BIBO, financial stability standards, > and the debt-virus hypothesis > To: Michel Bauwens michelsub2004(a)gmail.com> > Cc: p2p-foundation p2p-foundation(a)lists.ourproject.org> > Dear Michel, > it is a largely technical discussion and I hope it can resolve, although > I have doubts that the two people doing the discussing can listen to each > other, or comprehend and find common ground. > Probably the operative word in this (the subject of contention) is a > difference between "infinite" and "unbounded". > While there is no infinite creation of debt, it certainly is unbounded, > meaning the system does not provide a limit to the debt being created. As > a matter of fact, charging interest on money created by the banks > substantially out of nothing, initiates a flow of resources towards the > banks that becomes ever greater, the more the economy grows. Since most > of our money we currently use is created by commercial banks through > loans, most of our money (except a small part that is actual cash) is > expected to pay interest. As individual loans are repaid, other loans > must take their place, so overall, our economy is perpetually in debt, > and perpetually pays a tribute to the banks creating the money, through > the mechanism of interest. > It is this mechanism that brings about instability of the economy. There > can be no growth without a corresponding growth of the tribute, which > incidentally is never being created. Only the principal is being created, > but the repayment is ALWAYS more than the principal. So under the current > system, the more we work the faster everything we produce and everything > we own, will end up being owned by the banks. There is nothing to be done > about it, under the current system. Therefore we can say that the system > is unstable. > Ardeshir argues that every individual loan gets paid back within a > certain number of years, and therefore the debt cannot grow towards > infinity. He fails to see that every paid back loan must be replaced by > two new loans, leading to exponential payments to the banks by the > economy as a whole. > In Ardeshir's own paper, he has several tables of repayment of loans. > Looking at those tables (let's use the first table in his article), it is > quite clear that the money created by the loan (the balance in year 1) is > 13,800. After 30 years, the total of payments made is 28,260, more than > double of the money first created. So an initial sum of money is created, > and after a period of years, twice that money is paid back to the bank, > extinguishing the original loan. The taker of the loan had to 1) pay back > the money he originally obtained, and 2) pay back another time that much, > which he had to obtain from somewhere else. > In the overall view of the economy, two things are necessary to do so. > 1) Someone else has to take a loan of 13,800 just to keep the economy > going steady state (the money originally borrowed vanished out of the > economy by repayment and has thus to be replenished). > 2) Someone else again has to take a loan of 14,460 so that the first > person taking the original loan could find somewhere in the economy the > money to pay the interest. > By accumulation of interest, the whole of the economy thus ends up > working for the banks, in addition to being forced to continually expand > (with consequences for us humans in the rat race, and for the environment > being destroyed in the process). So there is really little argument that > the system is inherently unstable. > Marc expresses that instability with a mathematical formula. Ardeshir > says the instability does not exist (actually his argument is a technical > one saying the instability isn't infinite). Anyone who can conceptualize > the economy as a whole, as opposed to just one single loan, can see that > something doesn't add up and that reform is urgent. > Kind regards > Sepp > "The individual is supreme and finds the way through intuition" > http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/ > http://www.laleva.org > http://blog.hasslberger.com/ > http://www.facebook.com/hasslberger > http://twitter.com/healthsupreme > . > On Feb 8, 2011, at 5:14 AM, Michel Bauwens wrote: > Dear Sepp, > because the discussion is largely technical, this is all I can do, but > perhaps you can add an extra comment? > also, if you are in contact with Marc, please give him a chance to say > something about the evolution of the bibo project since december 2009, > Michel > standards, and the debt-virus hypothesis" target="_blank"> > Michel > Bauwens > 16th February 2011 > In December 2009, Sepp Hasslberger introduced > to us Bibo, a proposed standard for stable currencies, that would > replace the current inherently unstable banking money system. > This article has become our most comment rich article, in particular > through a recurring debate between one of the Bibo co-authors Marc, and > Ardeshir Mehta. > Ardeshir has written an article that challenges one of the main > points of monetary reformers, ie that the current system leads to the > infinite creation of debt through compound interest. > You can find it here. > The context: > “Currently, most if not all money is loaned into existence by > banks, and is thus based on interest-bearing debt. There is no question > that neither interest nor debt-based money are good for society, and I > have written denouncing both debt and interest elsewhere. However, > there is a fairly common thesis, based on the fact that money is loaned > into existence as interest-bearing debt, that if new loans are not > continually being issued in ever-increasing amounts, enough money will > not be created to pay the interest on existing loans; and as a result, > at least some those loans will be defaulted upon, resulting in > inevitable foreclosures. “ > -- > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: > http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens > Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/ > _______________________________________________ > P2P Foundation - Mailing list > http://www.p2pfoundation.net > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

1 0

Re: [P2P-F] Mapping 'Citizenship 2.0'
by Michel Bauwens 08 Feb '11

08 Feb '11

it has been ninged, facebooked, twittered and distributed via mailing lists <g> Michel 2011/2/8 José Carlos Mota <jcmota(a)ua.pt> > Dear Michel Bauwens > > > The civic project *'No economic recovery without cities [& citizens]' *(*) > is launching a challenge of creating a global list of > 'blogs [or sites] of streets, neighbourhoods, villages or cities’ promoted by citizens or > groups of citizens that whish to think collectively about the > future of the places they live and/or work. > > The initiative is developed under the spirit of '2011 European Year of > Volunteering to promote more active citizenship’ ( > http://europa.eu/volunteering/) and seeks to involve citizens and groups > of citizens worldwide. > > The provisional list can be found here: > http://noeconomicrecoverywithoutcities.blogs.sapo.pt/31893.html. > We appreciate all the help you can give in spreading the idea! > > Comments and suggestions to noeconomicrecovery(a)gmail.com > > Best regards > > > > José Carlos Mota > > email: josecarlosmota(a)gmail.com & noeconomicrecovery(a)gmail.clom > > *'NO ECONOMIC RECOVERY WITHOUT CITIES & CITIZENS' CIVIC INITIATIVE* > > > > *(*)* > * > > 'NO ECONOMIC RECOVERY WITHOUT CITIES & CITIZENS' CIVIC INITIATIVE | > 'MOVIMENTO CIDADES PELA RETOMA' > > site/blog > ** **http://noeconomicrecoverywithoutcities.blogs.sapo.pt/*<http://noeconomicrecoverywithoutcities.blogs.sapo.pt/> > > *facebook **http://www.facebook.com/CidadespelaRetoma*<http://www.facebook.com/CidadespelaRetoma> > * & *http://www.facebook.com/NoRecoverywithoutCities > -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/

1 0

An update on BIBO, financial stability standards, and the debt-virus hypothesis
by Michel Bauwens 08 Feb '11

08 Feb '11

Dear Sepp, because the discussion is largely technical, this is all I can do, but perhaps you can add an extra comment? also, if you are in contact with Marc, please give him a chance to say something about the evolution of the bibo project since december 2009, Michel <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/understanding-the-logic-of-intervallic-period…> <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=13869> [image: photo of Michel Bauwens] Michel Bauwens 16th February 2011 In December 2009, Sepp Hasslberger introduced to us<ttp://blog.p2pfoundation.net/bibo-a-standard-for-stable-currencies/2009/12/…>Bibo, a proposed standard for stable currencies, that would replace the current inherently unstable banking money system. This article has become our most comment rich article, in particular through a recurring debate between one of the Bibo co-authors Marc, and Ardeshir Mehta. Ardeshir has written an article that challenges one of the main points of monetary reformers, i.e. that the current system leads to the infinite creation of debt through compound interest. You can find it here<http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/DebunkingTheDebt-VirusHypothesis.html> . The context: *“Currently, most if not all money is loaned into existence by banks, and is thus based on interest-bearing debt. There is no question that neither interest nor debt-based money are good for society, and I have written denouncing both debt and interest elsewhere. However, there is a fairly common thesis, based on the fact that money is loaned into existence as interest-bearing debt, that if new loans are not continually being issued in ever-increasing amounts, enough money will not be created to pay the interest on existing loans; and as a result, at least some those loans will be defaulted upon, resulting in inevitable foreclosures. “* -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/

2 2

Fwd: 2 Obama Betrayals in one Day: 1. Abandons Egyptian Democracy Demonstrators' Demand to Oust Mubarak 2. Embraces US Chamber of Co
by Michel Bauwens 08 Feb '11

08 Feb '11

from the tikkun folks 2. Administration bows to the Corporate Hierarchy Running America--with Little Response Obama Urges US Corporations To "Invest In America" To mostly positive media reviews, President Obama yesterday addressed the Chamber of Commerce in Washington. Though a number of stories describe the reception afforded the President as rather chilly, the coverage tends to present him as focused on the economic recovery, and reaching out to his political opponents in order to spark job creation. ABC World News said the President "delivered an urgent message to the companies to get in the game, start spending money and hiring workers -- throwing down a gauntlet but also trying to build a bridge." The CBS Evening News said "Obama continued his campaign to improve relations with business," urging "corporate America to invest the nearly $2 trillion it has saved up and start hiring again." The Los Angeles Times recounts "there was little hearty applause, and after the president shook a few hands and walked back to the White House, Chamber members were guarded in their reviews of his message." The New York Times reports that "the chamber, too, is eager to tone down the rhetoric, according to senior officials there. At the height of the high-profile fight with the White House, several big-name companies left its board, citing concern about the chamber's opposition to the administration's efforts." The Washington Post's Dana Milbank writes that "Obama at times paused after what should have been applause lines, but the room was so quiet that the air could be heard coming out of the vents, as when he vowed to take 'domestic discretionary spending down to the lowest share of our economy since Eisenhower was president.' No applause." Bloomberg News reports that in his remarks, "Obama said he is doing his part to improve the business climate after a free- trade agreement with South Korea, a deal to extend Bush-era tax cuts, and a State of the Union address that proposed more government support for infrastructure and 'innovation.'" Politico says a "decoding of" Obama's speech "also offers the first whiff of the desperation inside the White House about the slowness of the economic recovery, the high unemployment figures, and the need to get the business community fully engaged in turning things around." The AP reports that "some liberals bristled at Obama's outreach." Christy Setzer, "spokeswoman for US Chamber Watch, a pro-labor group," said, "While...Obama calls on businesses to invest in America, the only thing the US Chamber's investing in is their own bottom line -- lining the pockets of corporate CEOs while shipping the jobs of hard-working Americans overseas." News Analysis: Obama Wins Media Over With Centrist Moves Politico reports on Obama's reaction to the November election, noting that the "three-month metamorphosis says something about Obama's survival skills," but it "says even more about the mainstream media: Obama is playing the press like a fiddle." Obama is "doing it by exploiting some of the most long-standing traits among reporters who cover politics and government - their favoritism for politicians perceived as ideologically centrist and willing to profess devotion to Washington's oft-honored, rarely practiced civic religion of bipartisanship." *NSP Analysis*: Instead of a New Deal Program to help Middle Income People, the Poor, those losing their homes and the 18% of Americans unemployed or severely underemployed, or at least trying to help Americans explain why the corporate elite has experienced a major economic recovery but pocketed the money rather than create jobs for the unemployed or agree to plans for government to help, OIbama chose to beg America's corporate elite to do what Democrats used to know was the task of government inside a capitalist society: provide help to allleviate the suffering of those most wounded by the "free marketplace." So what we get is a government pleading with the rich to be more generous, and the elites of wealth respond with indifference and private satisfaction that the forces that once might have challenged them are instead now simply wimpering in despair. And the rest of us? Too traumatized by the thought of a Republican victory in 2012 to seriously challenge the Obama Administration on any front. Not so, the NSP--please read and then help usn seek city council endorsements and endorsements from your other elected officials (particularly Congressional reps who will soon be approaching you for donations for their next campaigns) for our ESRA--Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--the only way the power situation in the US could change back in favor of real democracy in the U.S. Please read it at www.spiritualprogressives.org/ESRA<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=5hdBldJ%2FeG5j24eZgz…> . ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Network of Spiritual Progressives <info(a)spiritualprogressives.org> Date: Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:39 PM Subject: 2 Obama Betrayals in one Day: 1. Abandons Egyptian Democracy Demonstrators' Demand to Oust Mubarak 2. Embraces US Chamber of Co To: Michelsub2004(a)gmail.com <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=jDRqhJU2OdJ9uEf30Sgl…> *1. Administration Backs Suleiman, Comes Out Against Immediate Mubarak Exit * With the political crisis unresolved in Egypt, the volume of US media coverage continues to dwindle – but remains considerable. For the first time since the protests began, not all three networks led with the story, which continues to receive coverage on the front pages of major dailies. Reports and analyses agree that the Obama Administration, after what the AP describes as "several days of mixed messages about whether it wants to see [Hosni] Mubarak stay or go," yesterday "conceded Monday that it will not endorse the demands of Egyptian protesters" for the "embattled" president Mubarak "to step down immediately, saying a precipitous exit could et back the country's democratic transition." The Administration "coalesced around a position that cautiously welcomes nascent reform efforts begun by newly appointed Vice President Omar Suleiman that may or may not result in Mubarak's resignation before September." The CBS Evening News reported that President Obama "said...Egypt is making progress on a transition to democracy. But the Administration is easing the pressure on...Mubarak, saying forcing him to leave immediately could threaten that transition." The New York Times reports on its front page that after "two weeks of recalibrated messages and efforts to keep up with a rapidly evolving situation, the Obama administration is still trying to balance support for some of the basic aspirations for change in Egypt with its concern that the pro-democracy movement could be 'hijacked,' as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton put it, if change were to come too quickly." Under the headline "US Eases Off Call For Swift Egypt Reform," the Los Angeles Times says that the Administration "has reconciled itself to gradual political reform in Egypt, an approach that reflects its goal of maintaining stability in the Middle East but is at odds with demands of the protest movement in Cairo that...Mubarak relinquish power immediately." Fox News' Special Report similarly reported, "It appears...Obama's insistence that the transition in Egypt begin immediately does not, in fact, require...Mubarak to step down." *NSP Analysis*: De Facto, Obama has opened the door for Mubarak's regime, led by Egypt's CIA-head and now VP Suleiman to a. repress the demonstrators if they don't give up soon, and b. install a phony process of "consultation" with the protesters that will in fact lead to an election in which the military dictatorship which installed Mubarak will remain in power with some changes to the names of the people at the top but little change in the economic suffering and political oppression of the Egyptian people. 2. Administration bows to the Corporate Hierarchy Running America--with Little Response Obama Urges US Corporations To "Invest In America" To mostly positive media reviews, President Obama yesterday addressed the Chamber of Commerce in Washington. Though a number of stories describe the reception afforded the President as rather chilly, the coverage tends to present him as focused on the economic recovery, and reaching out to his political opponents in order to spark job creation. ABC World News said the President "delivered an urgent message to the companies to get in the game, start spending money and hiring workers -- throwing down a gauntlet but also trying to build a bridge." The CBS Evening News said "Obama continued his campaign to improve relations with business," urging "corporate America to invest the nearly $2 trillion it has saved up and start hiring again." The Los Angeles Times recounts "there was little hearty applause, and after the president shook a few hands and walked back to the White House, Chamber members were guarded in their reviews of his message." The New York Times reports that "the chamber, too, is eager to tone down the rhetoric, according to senior officials there. At the height of the high-profile fight with the White House, several big-name companies left its board, citing concern about the chamber's opposition to the administration's efforts." The Washington Post's Dana Milbank writes that "Obama at times paused after what should have been applause lines, but the room was so quiet that the air could be heard coming out of the vents, as when he vowed to take 'domestic discretionary spending down to the lowest share of our economy since Eisenhower was president.' No applause." Bloomberg News reports that in his remarks, "Obama said he is doing his part to improve the business climate after a free- trade agreement with South Korea, a deal to extend Bush-era tax cuts, and a State of the Union address that proposed more government support for infrastructure and 'innovation.'" Politico says a "decoding of" Obama's speech "also offers the first whiff of the desperation inside the White House about the slowness of the economic recovery, the high unemployment figures, and the need to get the business community fully engaged in turning things around." The AP reports that "some liberals bristled at Obama's outreach." Christy Setzer, "spokeswoman for US Chamber Watch, a pro-labor group," said, "While...Obama calls on businesses to invest in America, the only thing the US Chamber's investing in is their own bottom line -- lining the pockets of corporate CEOs while shipping the jobs of hard-working Americans overseas." News Analysis: Obama Wins Media Over With Centrist Moves Politico reports on Obama's reaction to the November election, noting that the "three-month metamorphosis says something about Obama's survival skills," but it "says even more about the mainstream media: Obama is playing the press like a fiddle." Obama is "doing it by exploiting some of the most long-standing traits among reporters who cover politics and government - their favoritism for politicians perceived as ideologically centrist and willing to profess devotion to Washington's oft-honored, rarely practiced civic religion of bipartisanship." *NSP Analysis*: Instead of a New Deal Program to help Middle Income People, the Poor, those losing their homes and the 18% of Americans unemployed or severely underemployed, or at least trying to help Americans explain why the corporate elite has experienced a major economic recovery but pocketed the money rather than create jobs for the unemployed or agree to plans for government to help, OIbama chose to beg America's corporate elite to do what Democrats used to know was the task of government inside a capitalist society: provide help to allleviate the suffering of those most wounded by the "free marketplace." So what we get is a government pleading with the rich to be more generous, and the elites of wealth respond with indifference and private satisfaction that the forces that once might have challenged them are instead now simply wimpering in despair. And the rest of us? Too traumatized by the thought of a Republican victory in 2012 to seriously challenge the Obama Administration on any front. Not so, the NSP--please read and then help usn seek city council endorsements and endorsements from your other elected officials (particularly Congressional reps who will soon be approaching you for donations for their next campaigns) for our ESRA--Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment to the U.S. Constitution--the only way the power situation in the US could change back in favor of real democracy in the U.S. Please read it at www.spiritualprogressives.org/ESRA<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=5hdBldJ%2FeG5j24eZgz…> . * Never say, "There was nothing I could have done." There is something you could do: join the Network of Spiritual Progressives as a dues paying member at www.spiritualprogressives.org,<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=6sftkWtSwGU%2By8qMUp…>or at least make a substantial donation, help us build a campaign for the ESRA (you don't need anything more than a willingness to talk to your neighbors to get them to sign our petition and then to go to elected officials to insist that they embrace the ESRA--and if you are house-bound then you can write letters to our list of key media people at www.spiritualprogressives.org/article.php/media<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Il5USqqaTLTFEU6CBoHM…> **. You could also come to Tikkun's 25th anniversary celebration March 11-14 in Berkeley (details at **www.tikkun.org/celebrate*<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=exPUcUZ82mBHSNsb5XP3…> * ) to show public support for those who refuse to despair and who keep on putting out the message that social justice, peace, generosity and love== The Caring Society--Caring for Each Other, Caring for the Earth==is still the best path to save our society and save the planet.* * Embrace the prophetic politics of Tikkun and the NSP, and please do it now! With membership in NSP comes a free subscription to Tikkun's new quarterly, and access on our new on-line magazine to special sections that will only be available to subscribers. Please stand with us together, or each of us will fall into cynicism and passivity by ourselves!!!!!** --Rabbi Michael Lerner (just turned 68 yesterday and still bringing forth the prophetic tradition's message that the future of all life on this planet urgently depends on building The Caring Society). Best birthday gift you can give? Join the Network of Spiritual Progressives, come to the Tikkun 25th anniversary, or donate to Tikkun (and it's even tax-deductible). RabbiLerner(a)Tikkun.org (if it's your first time writing me, you'll get a "spam arrest" message--just follow the instructions one time to prove that it is you and not a spam machine that is writing, and you'll never have to do it a second time. * ------------------------------ web: www.spiritualprogressives.org<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=6g%2BiAD1lYxfD213Pu9…> email: info(a)spiritualprogressives.org Click here to unsubscribe<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Q%2FPOY3FGx%2Fpr7YT2…> ------------------------------ Copyright © 2010 Network of Spiritual Progressives®. 2342 Shattuck Avenue, #1200 Berkeley, CA 94704 510-644-1200 Fax 510-644-1255 [image: empowered by Salsa] <http://www.salsalabs.com/?email> -- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens Commons Strategies Group, http://www.commonsstrategies.org/

1 0