'ofcourse resources are not scarse' --> 'ofcourse resources are scarce.'

Till now I havent said my solution to this but let me say it is required of us to lose part of the ownership we have of our work, ie making  Rival, excludable products into Rival, non excludable products.  (products, not goods)  http://p2pfoundation.net/Abundance_vs._Scarcity

(we have already talked about this solution with patrick, i am trying to find out if it is the only natural one)




2011/12/17 Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson@gmail.com>
Note :

my previous comments apply only in the case of a centralized law making entity.

An alternative I may prefer, is a distributed approach where each individual has access to information regarding transactions and costs, and can choose what economic systems to support, or not, by visualizing inter-dependencies.

see : http://sharewiki.org/en/Transaction_Graphs


On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson@gmail.com> wrote:
In addition to previous comments ( thanks for opening up the discussion ),

I would add "set a limit to private accumulation".

In addition, by law reduce costs and prohibit speculation on goods and services needed for survival ( shelter, food, water, sources of energy for heating, access to learning opportunities, access to the internet, etc ... ), and outlaw externalization of costs ( or at least include the real costs through taxes when these are externalized onto society and nature )

In some ways, this would lead to a distributist approach ?

Can such kind of law disrupt artificial scarcity driving up speculative profits in a "market" based system, by forcing excess accumulation to be put back on the market or given to a commons, as to avoid hoarding.

Yet, such measures may not be sufficient.

Ideally, it could also be applied to any other forms of assets providing individual privileges ( such as accumulation of monetary assets ), and lead to a redistribution of such assets.

Cooperatives could be encouraged, and surplus/profits redistributed to various projects supporting social and ecological sustainability.


On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <xekoukou@gmail.com> wrote:
Michel , the reason I make those assumptions is so as to simplify things.
Ofcourse, resourses are not scarse and we have to find a way to distribute them equally. This adds the question of how to distribute them.
 i wanted to not overcomlicate things for now to make a point.

For the same reason, i said that people dont cheat and that we have unlimited time to bargain. (the unlimited time is not necessary here but could happen in a computer aided bargain,http://viff.dk/doc/applications.html#nordic-sugar )

So what I am doing is creating an abstraction.

After I create that abstraction, I say that the rules are the problem and not that we dont abide by the rules(cheating),


For the last question, i would love to hear your opinion, Having the person as a unit is the basis of my theory and an assumption that I would like your opinion about,

Just remember that this economic system is supposed to be a fair one, not an ideal one, I believe that after creating a fair system, we could create another one on top of it based on solidarity and the commons,

So in conclusion, I attack the belief that a free market based on the first rule which i think individual anarchists call "free market" is the solution,

Exploitation will emerge like it emerged a few thousand years ago, 



2011/12/17 Michel Bauwens <michel@p2pfoundation.net>
hi Apostolis,

why start from an erroneous assumption in the first place; since natural resources are by no means infinite. I strongly recommend reading Roberto Verzola on the abundance-scarcity polarity,

see http://p2pfoundation.net/?title=Special%3ASearch&search=%22Roberto+Verzola%22&fulltext=Search

your further assumptions are equally questionable; we have no infinite time to bargain and people do cheat.

How to built a fair system on such assumptions; sounds like neoclassical economics and neoliberalism ..;

why also start the axioms with one person as basic unit?

On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <xekoukou@gmail.com> wrote:

As some of you may know i am trying to create/simulate a fair economic system. I would like the opinion of the members of this list as to what is in their opinion a fair economic system. I write down a few thoughts of mine.

To simplify things, lets assume that there are infinite natural resources and that all can discover each other and they have infinite time to bargain. Let us also assume that no one can cheat, everyone plays by the rules.

The first most reasonable rule is this one:

  1. The owner of a thing is the person that decides the way that this thing will be used or decides the transfer of ownership to another person. (trading)

Each person is the owner of the products of his work.

I think that the first rule could describe the idealization of our current economic model.

Since all natural resources are infinite, the only reason for someone to transfer the ownership of his work would be if ,in that way, he could obtain something he likes and is a product of someone else s work. That product could have been created in the past or will be created in the future

The creation of promises adds a new characteristic to our system. It gives it memory. Things that happened in the past affect the future. They specifically affect the ownership of the wealth that is created in the future.

I will now write my second rule under which an economic system is fair and show that for the second rule to work the first rule needs to be changed slightly.

     2.  At every single moment, each person should have equal opportunity to create or obtain wealth(products) for himself.

The most important part of the rule is that it should happen always.

In other words , we want the memory of our system to not affect the equality in opportunity to create or obtain wealth for ourselves.


Now I will explain in my opinion why the first rule gives our system memories that affect the second rule.

I will now create a very specific example that will demonstrate those bad memories. 

Two beings A and B exist in Mars. They have their own will, don’t like to work, in fact they can only work 8 hours a day, and abide by the first rule.

A likes apples and oranges and can make apples and everything else except oranges.

B likes apples and makes oranges.

A can make 3 apples a day and the best possible outcome would be to have 1 apple and 1 orange a day.

B makes 1 orange a day and wants exactly 1 apple a day.

If A doesn’t have his orange he is 2 times worse than B when he doesn’t have his apple.

In any case we can create an example of 2 persons in which A gives 2 apples to B to receive an orange based solely on the first rule.

The fact that A is forced to give 2 apples is the way trading works. Please notice that the difference in the state of their condition is affected only by 2 factors, their needs to a product and their abilities to create products.

Also note that wealth will be accumulated in the hands of B but till now, past created wealth doesn’t not affect how new wealth is distributed. Our second rule still works.


Now lets go 2000 years in the future. (these apples cannot rot, lol)

A new invention is found and is known to both.

B decides to give oranges to A only if A creates a tool based on this invention.

A has no other choice than to accept.

Now B is the owner of this tool that could allow A to make apples at one third of the work.

Now A would certainly like to work 2/3 of the previous time to create 6 apples in which he would give 5 to B if B gave him the tool and one orange every day. Now B is given 5 apples instead of 2.


What is important is not that he is given more apples than before. That could have happened anyways. The important thing is that the memory of the system has played an important role in the bargain.

In other words, now there is a 3rd factor, the memory of the system.

This contradicts our 2nd rule since there is a factor that is not dependent on the current qualities of the persons.

In conclusion , in an ideal world where the 1 rule applies, it is possible for the second rule to not work.


It is also important to note that we started in a state where the both rules worked and went into another where the 2nd didn’t work.

This is important to the p2p movement because a lot of projects try to decentralize, distribute the means of production, ie they are trying to go to a state where both rules work and they dont think whether our way of tracking ownership and promises could revert their efforts.

Let us also note that the second rule doesn’t prohibit a world in which someone is richer than another. In fact we can create an economic system in which the huge inequalities in accumulated wealth wouldn’t not affect the 2nd rule.


What kind of 'laws' should we put in order to have both rules obeyed and what is your ideal economic system?


-- 

Sincerely yours, 
     Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis

_______________________________________________
P2P Foundation - Mailing list
http://www.p2pfoundation.net
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation




--
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

_______________________________________________
P2P Foundation - Mailing list
http://www.p2pfoundation.net
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation




-- 

Sincerely yours, 
     Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis


_______________________________________________
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




-- 

Sincerely yours, 
     Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis