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 2 nd 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
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%2... 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 < [email protected]> 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 2 nd 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 Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
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 <[email protected]>
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%2...
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 < [email protected]> 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 2 nd 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
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
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 < [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
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%2...
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 < [email protected]> 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
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
_______________________________________________ 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
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 < [email protected]> 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 < [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
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%2...
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 < [email protected]> 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
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
_______________________________________________ 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
'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 <[email protected]>
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 < [email protected]> 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 < [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
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%2...
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 < [email protected]> 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
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
_______________________________________________ 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
Apostolis wrote:
it is required of us to lose part of the ownership we have of our work
I hadn't thought of it quite like this, but maybe it coincides with my viewpoint... The way I see it, those who choose to organize production are at an advantage compared to those who did not organize. The latecomer's disadvantage is easily measured by the amount the organized can charge *above* the real Costs of some Good or Service. In other words, Profit measures Payer dependence or disadvantage compared to those who already have co-ownership. We can 'balance' this difference by allowing the latecomer to pay Profit, but then treat that overpayment as an Investment FROM THAT PAYER. This is the way I would concur with your assertion that we "lose part of our ownership". I would say Profit does not belong to the already organized (does not belong to the current owners), but actually belongs to the Payer - but not as a Price cut - as an Investment in more Means of Production needed to move that Payer toward co-ownership needed to avoid ever again paying Profit. Sincerely, Patrick Anderson http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com
Yes patrick that is what i mean. I also think that this is the only natural - common sense thing to do. But i would like to hear what the others say because i may be wrong. I also agree with Dante about limiting private accumulation but I think that if we do what patrick and i say, we will nullify the previous wealth from affecting the future creation and distribution of wealth. Think of this wealth like a ferrari. Let them have this wealth. the ferrari cant make more ferrari s and increase inequality in opportunity. (I am also in the direction of automating the whole process. People will put what they want and how much they like to work at a specific job, and the programm will automatically designate what job is the best for each person and the prices and amount of products that will be created. Engineers will also be able to put new production methods and the new graph will be instantly computed plus the price that people would be willing to pay for the new production method.) There is one problem though. Since profit will not exist, it will just flow back to the consumers and producers, we will have a problem of competition with the rest of the world in which workers and consumers are forced to pay profit. If people decide not to accumulate wealth to increase productivity, they will unfortunately revert back to the system that creates inequality since in the rest of the world we are forced to increase productivity(through the profit maximization aim of enterprises). 2011/12/17 Patrick Anderson <[email protected]>
Apostolis wrote:
it is required of us to lose part of the ownership we have of our work
I hadn't thought of it quite like this, but maybe it coincides with my viewpoint...
The way I see it, those who choose to organize production are at an advantage compared to those who did not organize.
The latecomer's disadvantage is easily measured by the amount the organized can charge *above* the real Costs of some Good or Service. In other words, Profit measures Payer dependence or disadvantage compared to those who already have co-ownership.
We can 'balance' this difference by allowing the latecomer to pay Profit, but then treat that overpayment as an Investment FROM THAT PAYER.
This is the way I would concur with your assertion that we "lose part of our ownership". I would say Profit does not belong to the already organized (does not belong to the current owners), but actually belongs to the Payer - but not as a Price cut - as an Investment in more Means of Production needed to move that Payer toward co-ownership needed to avoid ever again paying Profit.
Sincerely, Patrick Anderson http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
Yes patrick that is what i mean. I also think that this is the only natural - common sense thing to do. But i would like to hear what the others say because i may be wrong.
I also agree with Dante about limiting private accumulation but I think that if we do what patrick and i say, we will nullify the previous wealth from affecting the future creation and distribution of wealth. Think of this wealth like a ferrari. Let them have this wealth. the ferrari cant make more ferrari s and increase inequality in opportunity.
Thanks - ok , let the super rich keep their Ferrari. ( or Yacht , or Villa ) What if we use the example of accumulated property of land and housing ?
(I am also in the direction of automating the whole process. People will put what they want and how much they like to work at a specific job, and the programm will automatically designate what job is the best for each person and the prices and amount of products that will be created. Engineers will also be able to put new production methods and the new graph will be instantly computed plus the price that people would be willing to pay for the new production method.)
So you would still keep a market pricing approach ? This leads me to another p2pf page http://p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske as for the software, I know other projects are in development, such as http://www.automenta.com/netention
There is one problem though.
Since profit will not exist, it will just flow back to the consumers and producers, we will have a problem of competition with the rest of the world in which workers and consumers are forced to pay profit.
The way I understand it through these conversations, is that there is interest in setting up what, to me, resembles very much consumer and worker cooperatives ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_cooperative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
If people decide not to accumulate wealth to increase productivity, they will unfortunately revert back to the system that creates inequality since in the rest of the world we are forced to increase productivity(through the profit maximization aim of enterprises).
Right now, i think that there should be a redistribution of wealth. In a fair society, it will be 'fair' that someone has more houses. Something to be fair doesnt make it is optimal. To answer the general question about the commons ,like land, each person should have equal time to use an object. Land cannot be owned. Each person will use it for a specific amount of time. One could also trade his right for this land to get another part of land or resource. I liked the article on Fiske. I start from the individualistic point of view, ie the worst case scenario. Communal sharing involves not measuring what one gives and what not. For a fair system , we try to measure equality. My whole effort is to have equality in opportunity. I have found only the market to be able to represent economic relations between people (that are measurable). The problem i have is the problem of transformation.* There is no objective measure to measure happiness or effort.* If it existed we would then exchage 1 unit of effort of a person A to 1 unit of effort of person B. Since there is no such measure, the only thing i found that does that is the market.* The problem of the market is that a person could try to exploit someone else in the bargain. With the proposal we make he will only be expoited due to his current needs and his current skills, ie there is an upper limit that is based on human properties. An economic system that keeps bad memories has no boundary in its ability to exploit.* netention --- I would love if you explained to me how it works. my abstact model right now deals with contracts between consumers - workers. Reality has more variables that can not be put in a model. Let me explain my opinion on this. The production process involves 2 parties. Both gain through it, but they also have conflicting goals. Consumers want good quality of products and a low price. A workers cooperative could create bad products since that way workers will get more money. Workers want good working conditions(1/3 of their life is spent in their work) and a good wage. Consumer cooperatives could create hazardous or generally bad environment for the workers to minimize the cost of production. I think it is best if they cooperated. This is my exact proposition to have both rules work together. *Any person that has ownership of a means of production can retain that part of the ownership that is used for creating non tradeable goods for him as a consumer. For the rest of the means of production he retains the right to not allow someone else to use it. If he allows a part of it to be used by others, the owners will be paid the cost for creating such an item multiplied by the percentage o time that they used it. After that part of means of production is allowed to be used by others, it is considered part of the commons ,like land, and everyone has equal right to use it.* * * I made this to retain the 2nd rule at all times.* I also ask you to try to use accumulated wealth to exploit people**.* I think that it is impossible. This rule also has the consequence that workers cannot own the means of production because then those workers would have better opportunity than others. Now that i am writing this email i think that we could make a similar rule to the previous one where we allow workers to retain ownership to the means of production which they use to work but i am uncertain right now. 2011/12/18 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]>
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
Yes patrick that is what i mean. I also think that this is the only natural - common sense thing to do. But i would like to hear what the others say because i may be wrong.
I also agree with Dante about limiting private accumulation but I think that if we do what patrick and i say, we will nullify the previous wealth from affecting the future creation and distribution of wealth. Think of this wealth like a ferrari. Let them have this wealth. the ferrari cant make more ferrari s and increase inequality in opportunity.
Thanks - ok , let the super rich keep their Ferrari. ( or Yacht , or Villa ) What if we use the example of accumulated property of land and housing ?
(I am also in the direction of automating the whole process. People will put what they want and how much they like to work at a specific job, and the programm will automatically designate what job is the best for each person and the prices and amount of products that will be created. Engineers will also be able to put new production methods and the new graph will be instantly computed plus the price that people would be willing to pay for the new production method.)
So you would still keep a market pricing approach ?
This leads me to another p2pf page
http://p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske
as for the software, I know other projects are in development, such as http://www.automenta.com/netention
There is one problem though.
Since profit will not exist, it will just flow back to the consumers and producers, we will have a problem of competition with the rest of the world in which workers and consumers are forced to pay profit.
The way I understand it through these conversations, is that there is interest in setting up what, to me, resembles very much consumer and worker cooperatives ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_cooperative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
If people decide not to accumulate wealth to increase productivity, they will unfortunately revert back to the system that creates inequality since in the rest of the world we are forced to increase productivity(through the profit maximization aim of enterprises).
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
3 additions then, the 'dante' rule, a maximum limit to wealth accumulation a minimum rule, i.e. basic income periodic reset, i.e. jubilee note that historically stable societies never had free market pricing but just price theories and practices, i.e. prices were set politically and socially according to what these societies saw as worth maintaining (which was an unequal but stable social order) On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
Right now, i think that there should be a redistribution of wealth. In a fair society, it will be 'fair' that someone has more houses. Something to be fair doesnt make it is optimal. To answer the general question about the commons ,like land, each person should have equal time to use an object. Land cannot be owned. Each person will use it for a specific amount of time. One could also trade his right for this land to get another part of land or resource.
I liked the article on Fiske. I start from the individualistic point of view, ie the worst case scenario. Communal sharing involves not measuring what one gives and what not. For a fair system , we try to measure equality.
My whole effort is to have equality in opportunity. I have found only the market to be able to represent economic relations between people (that are measurable).
The problem i have is the problem of transformation.* There is no objective measure to measure happiness or effort.* If it existed we would then exchage 1 unit of effort of a person A to 1 unit of effort of person B.
Since there is no such measure, the only thing i found that does that is the market.* The problem of the market is that a person could try to exploit someone else in the bargain. With the proposal we make he will only be expoited due to his current needs and his current skills, ie there is an upper limit that is based on human properties. An economic system that keeps bad memories has no boundary in its ability to exploit.*
netention --- I would love if you explained to me how it works.
my abstact model right now deals with contracts between consumers - workers. Reality has more variables that can not be put in a model. Let me explain my opinion on this.
The production process involves 2 parties. Both gain through it, but they also have conflicting goals. Consumers want good quality of products and a low price. A workers cooperative could create bad products since that way workers will get more money. Workers want good working conditions(1/3 of their life is spent in their work) and a good wage. Consumer cooperatives could create hazardous or generally bad environment for the workers to minimize the cost of production.
I think it is best if they cooperated.
This is my exact proposition to have both rules work together.
*Any person that has ownership of a means of production can retain that part of the ownership that is used for creating non tradeable goods for him as a consumer. For the rest of the means of production he retains the right to not allow someone else to use it. If he allows a part of it to be used by others, the owners will be paid the cost for creating such an item multiplied by the percentage o time that they used it. After that part of means of production is allowed to be used by others, it is considered part of the commons ,like land, and everyone has equal right to use it.* * * I made this to retain the 2nd rule at all times.* I also ask you to try to use accumulated wealth to exploit people**.* I think that it is impossible.
This rule also has the consequence that workers cannot own the means of production because then those workers would have better opportunity than others.
Now that i am writing this email i think that we could make a similar rule to the previous one where we allow workers to retain ownership to the means of production which they use to work but i am uncertain right now.
2011/12/18 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]>
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
Yes patrick that is what i mean. I also think that this is the only natural - common sense thing to do. But i would like to hear what the others say because i may be wrong.
I also agree with Dante about limiting private accumulation but I think that if we do what patrick and i say, we will nullify the previous wealth from affecting the future creation and distribution of wealth. Think of this wealth like a ferrari. Let them have this wealth. the ferrari cant make more ferrari s and increase inequality in opportunity.
Thanks - ok , let the super rich keep their Ferrari. ( or Yacht , or Villa ) What if we use the example of accumulated property of land and housing ?
(I am also in the direction of automating the whole process. People will put what they want and how much they like to work at a specific job, and the programm will automatically designate what job is the best for each person and the prices and amount of products that will be created. Engineers will also be able to put new production methods and the new graph will be instantly computed plus the price that people would be willing to pay for the new production method.)
So you would still keep a market pricing approach ?
This leads me to another p2pf page
http://p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske
as for the software, I know other projects are in development, such as http://www.automenta.com/netention
There is one problem though.
Since profit will not exist, it will just flow back to the consumers and producers, we will have a problem of competition with the rest of the world in which workers and consumers are forced to pay profit.
The way I understand it through these conversations, is that there is interest in setting up what, to me, resembles very much consumer and worker cooperatives ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_cooperative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
If people decide not to accumulate wealth to increase productivity, they will unfortunately revert back to the system that creates inequality since in the rest of the world we are forced to increase productivity(through the profit maximization aim of enterprises).
_______________________________________________ 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: 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
Yes, these three suit me. I would perhaps also like to add, regarding the minimum rule - basic income -, that it not be measured monetarily, as speculation could devaluate / evaporate its value. So instead, have the minimum income ( above an individual's vital needs ) be measured in a variety of units corresponding to ( locally produced ) : - minimum access to water , both drinkable and non-drinkable. - minimum access to basic food income : with a variety of units in terms of food calories intake, access to nutrition diversity and quality - healthcare - minimum access to housing : amount of square meters, quality of the housing, ... - access to heating ( of water, of the housing ) - access to minimum income in energy units ( at least electricity ) - generalized access to internet, with a minimum bandwidth ( sufficient to upload or download medium quality definition videos in streaming ) //// Regarding the Jubilee : Historically, if I remember properly, the jubilee seemed to be decided by the king/queen - as all initial debt was contracted to them - forms of money such as tally sticks<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick>, as far as I understand, at that time was "spent" into circulation, and demand for such money was initially created through the possibility to pay one's taxes with it ? In a larger, more complex system, with a variety of currencies ( at least for the currencies which emanate out of contracts ? ), I imagine that having a free transparent market with a diversity of currencies could enable local economic networks to form themselves and choose their preferred mixture of currency usage. Ideally, some of these currencies would include a Jubilee. Ideally it would be the ones spent into circulation and on which some form of tax ( or membership fee ) could be paid with. If governments do not cover externalities anymore, I could imagine that forms of organization such as cooperative networks could, and that a membership fee and other payments such as a form of use value insurance could be paid with such alternative cooperative network currency. //// Regarding Cooperatives, if most of the production can be local, and "sold"/allocated locally, to its members, hence also to the active producers of the cooperative, I would imagine there could be an additional incentive to create quality products. I could imagine that a part of the production could be sold for another type of currency, such as euros, enabling trade for certain products or resources the local economic network of cooperatives may not be able to produce, or more ideally, to invest in production technologies and further increase autonomy of the interdependent economic network. Actually, this is why I would like to use a "Transaction Graph" approach, explained below... //// Regarding Netention, I will in a separate mail put you in touch with one of its main developers. Dear Apostolis, I am not a programmer, yet I am interested in the approach you intend to take, or the work you may have already done in trying to program a certain tool. A brief description of Netention, as I understand it, and in addition to the pdf presentation on http://www.automenta.com/netention : I see it as a way for agents ( individuals, or other entities ) to express their current and future desired needs, and then enable to match them within a network as to create interdependencies based on their choices. A kind of emergent decision making tool. I would like to use a netention graph approach, for what I tend to call "transaction graphs" http://sharewiki.org/en/Transaction_Graphs ( transaction graphs is not necessarily netention, but I would like to use it in such way ) Which could for example make it possible for agents ( any person, or a construction/legal entity ) to express the needs of a project, enable others, as in crowdfunding, to express their support for such project, by expressing its relation to one of their personal needs, or by expressing a possible interdependent approach in which such project can support other projects and individuals needs, by contributing in making explicit the needs related to such project, by expressing a willingness to support based on expressed needs - either inconditionally, either conditionally. Conditional offers for support can for example be connected to expressed personal needs, such as, in reply to a tuition project, one could answer as conditional offer : "I can provide tuition for 10 children if I am provided with a room to live and some food". Hence such approach in effect can create and use a variety of currency architectures, without necessarily creating a dependency on a monetary monopoly, yet being able to include it in such graphed approach of expressed inter-dependencies. Once that the needs and offers are expressed, a query can be used, eventually there can be an automatic suggested matching, from which individual users can choose preferred suggestions from ( using also other metadata for choice, such as geolocation - distance metadata ) Once these are chosen, a contract confirmation of engagement can be set, based on the various metadata ( type of resource, timing, etc ) being included. In some cases, contracts can be more complex - and can require a certain pledging for a variety of needs being fulfilled. On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>wrote:
3 additions then,
the 'dante' rule, a maximum limit to wealth accumulation
a minimum rule, i.e. basic income
periodic reset, i.e. jubilee
note that historically stable societies never had free market pricing but just price theories and practices, i.e. prices were set politically and socially according to what these societies saw as worth maintaining (which was an unequal but stable social order)
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
Right now, i think that there should be a redistribution of wealth. In a fair society, it will be 'fair' that someone has more houses. Something to be fair doesnt make it is optimal. To answer the general question about the commons ,like land, each person should have equal time to use an object. Land cannot be owned. Each person will use it for a specific amount of time. One could also trade his right for this land to get another part of land or resource.
I liked the article on Fiske. I start from the individualistic point of view, ie the worst case scenario. Communal sharing involves not measuring what one gives and what not. For a fair system , we try to measure equality.
My whole effort is to have equality in opportunity. I have found only the market to be able to represent economic relations between people (that are measurable).
The problem i have is the problem of transformation.* There is no objective measure to measure happiness or effort.* If it existed we would then exchage 1 unit of effort of a person A to 1 unit of effort of person B.
Since there is no such measure, the only thing i found that does that is the market.* The problem of the market is that a person could try to exploit someone else in the bargain. With the proposal we make he will only be expoited due to his current needs and his current skills, ie there is an upper limit that is based on human properties. An economic system that keeps bad memories has no boundary in its ability to exploit.*
netention --- I would love if you explained to me how it works.
my abstact model right now deals with contracts between consumers - workers. Reality has more variables that can not be put in a model. Let me explain my opinion on this.
The production process involves 2 parties. Both gain through it, but they also have conflicting goals. Consumers want good quality of products and a low price. A workers cooperative could create bad products since that way workers will get more money. Workers want good working conditions(1/3 of their life is spent in their work) and a good wage. Consumer cooperatives could create hazardous or generally bad environment for the workers to minimize the cost of production.
I think it is best if they cooperated.
This is my exact proposition to have both rules work together.
*Any person that has ownership of a means of production can retain that part of the ownership that is used for creating non tradeable goods for him as a consumer. For the rest of the means of production he retains the right to not allow someone else to use it. If he allows a part of it to be used by others, the owners will be paid the cost for creating such an item multiplied by the percentage o time that they used it. After that part of means of production is allowed to be used by others, it is considered part of the commons ,like land, and everyone has equal right to use it.* * * I made this to retain the 2nd rule at all times.* I also ask you to try to use accumulated wealth to exploit people**.* I think that it is impossible.
This rule also has the consequence that workers cannot own the means of production because then those workers would have better opportunity than others.
Now that i am writing this email i think that we could make a similar rule to the previous one where we allow workers to retain ownership to the means of production which they use to work but i am uncertain right now.
2011/12/18 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]>
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
Yes patrick that is what i mean. I also think that this is the only natural - common sense thing to do. But i would like to hear what the others say because i may be wrong.
I also agree with Dante about limiting private accumulation but I think that if we do what patrick and i say, we will nullify the previous wealth from affecting the future creation and distribution of wealth. Think of this wealth like a ferrari. Let them have this wealth. the ferrari cant make more ferrari s and increase inequality in opportunity.
Thanks - ok , let the super rich keep their Ferrari. ( or Yacht , or Villa ) What if we use the example of accumulated property of land and housing ?
(I am also in the direction of automating the whole process. People will put what they want and how much they like to work at a specific job, and the programm will automatically designate what job is the best for each person and the prices and amount of products that will be created. Engineers will also be able to put new production methods and the new graph will be instantly computed plus the price that people would be willing to pay for the new production method.)
So you would still keep a market pricing approach ?
This leads me to another p2pf page
http://p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske
as for the software, I know other projects are in development, such as http://www.automenta.com/netention
There is one problem though.
Since profit will not exist, it will just flow back to the consumers and producers, we will have a problem of competition with the rest of the world in which workers and consumers are forced to pay profit.
The way I understand it through these conversations, is that there is interest in setting up what, to me, resembles very much consumer and worker cooperatives ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_cooperative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
If people decide not to accumulate wealth to increase productivity, they will unfortunately revert back to the system that creates inequality since in the rest of the world we are forced to increase productivity(through the profit maximization aim of enterprises).
_______________________________________________ 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: 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
Thank you all for your comments. In conclusion, one of the consequenses of trading and society is that individualistic rules should be changed to maintain the health of the Society. 2011/12/18 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]>
Yes, these three suit me.
I would perhaps also like to add, regarding the minimum rule - basic income -, that it not be measured monetarily, as speculation could devaluate / evaporate its value.
So instead, have the minimum income ( above an individual's vital needs ) be measured in a variety of units corresponding to ( locally produced ) :
- minimum access to water , both drinkable and non-drinkable. - minimum access to basic food income : with a variety of units in terms of food calories intake, access to nutrition diversity and quality - healthcare - minimum access to housing : amount of square meters, quality of the housing, ... - access to heating ( of water, of the housing ) - access to minimum income in energy units ( at least electricity ) - generalized access to internet, with a minimum bandwidth ( sufficient to upload or download medium quality definition videos in streaming )
////
Regarding the Jubilee :
Historically, if I remember properly, the jubilee seemed to be decided by the king/queen - as all initial debt was contracted to them - forms of money such as tally sticks<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick>, as far as I understand, at that time was "spent" into circulation, and demand for such money was initially created through the possibility to pay one's taxes with it ?
In a larger, more complex system, with a variety of currencies ( at least for the currencies which emanate out of contracts ? ), I imagine that having a free transparent market with a diversity of currencies could enable local economic networks to form themselves and choose their preferred mixture of currency usage. Ideally, some of these currencies would include a Jubilee. Ideally it would be the ones spent into circulation and on which some form of tax ( or membership fee ) could be paid with.
If governments do not cover externalities anymore, I could imagine that forms of organization such as cooperative networks could, and that a membership fee and other payments such as a form of use value insurance could be paid with such alternative cooperative network currency.
////
Regarding Cooperatives, if most of the production can be local, and "sold"/allocated locally, to its members, hence also to the active producers of the cooperative, I would imagine there could be an additional incentive to create quality products.
I could imagine that a part of the production could be sold for another type of currency, such as euros, enabling trade for certain products or resources the local economic network of cooperatives may not be able to produce, or more ideally, to invest in production technologies and further increase autonomy of the interdependent economic network.
Actually, this is why I would like to use a "Transaction Graph" approach, explained below...
////
Regarding Netention, I will in a separate mail put you in touch with one of its main developers.
Dear Apostolis, I am not a programmer, yet I am interested in the approach you intend to take, or the work you may have already done in trying to program a certain tool.
A brief description of Netention, as I understand it, and in addition to the pdf presentation on http://www.automenta.com/netention :
I see it as a way for agents ( individuals, or other entities ) to express their current and future desired needs, and then enable to match them within a network as to create interdependencies based on their choices.
A kind of emergent decision making tool.
I would like to use a netention graph approach, for what I tend to call "transaction graphs" http://sharewiki.org/en/Transaction_Graphs ( transaction graphs is not necessarily netention, but I would like to use it in such way )
Which could for example make it possible for agents ( any person, or a construction/legal entity ) to express the needs of a project, enable others, as in crowdfunding, to express their support for such project,
by expressing its relation to one of their personal needs, or by expressing a possible interdependent approach in which such project can support other projects and individuals needs,
by contributing in making explicit the needs related to such project,
by expressing a willingness to support based on expressed needs - either inconditionally, either conditionally.
Conditional offers for support can for example be connected to expressed personal needs, such as, in reply to a tuition project, one could answer as conditional offer : "I can provide tuition for 10 children if I am provided with a room to live and some food".
Hence such approach in effect can create and use a variety of currency architectures, without necessarily creating a dependency on a monetary monopoly, yet being able to include it in such graphed approach of expressed inter-dependencies.
Once that the needs and offers are expressed, a query can be used, eventually there can be an automatic suggested matching, from which individual users can choose preferred suggestions from ( using also other metadata for choice, such as geolocation - distance metadata )
Once these are chosen, a contract confirmation of engagement can be set, based on the various metadata ( type of resource, timing, etc ) being included.
In some cases, contracts can be more complex - and can require a certain pledging for a variety of needs being fulfilled.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>wrote:
3 additions then,
the 'dante' rule, a maximum limit to wealth accumulation
a minimum rule, i.e. basic income
periodic reset, i.e. jubilee
note that historically stable societies never had free market pricing but just price theories and practices, i.e. prices were set politically and socially according to what these societies saw as worth maintaining (which was an unequal but stable social order)
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
Right now, i think that there should be a redistribution of wealth. In a fair society, it will be 'fair' that someone has more houses. Something to be fair doesnt make it is optimal. To answer the general question about the commons ,like land, each person should have equal time to use an object. Land cannot be owned. Each person will use it for a specific amount of time. One could also trade his right for this land to get another part of land or resource.
I liked the article on Fiske. I start from the individualistic point of view, ie the worst case scenario. Communal sharing involves not measuring what one gives and what not. For a fair system , we try to measure equality.
My whole effort is to have equality in opportunity. I have found only the market to be able to represent economic relations between people (that are measurable).
The problem i have is the problem of transformation.* There is no objective measure to measure happiness or effort.* If it existed we would then exchage 1 unit of effort of a person A to 1 unit of effort of person B.
Since there is no such measure, the only thing i found that does that is the market.* The problem of the market is that a person could try to exploit someone else in the bargain. With the proposal we make he will only be expoited due to his current needs and his current skills, ie there is an upper limit that is based on human properties. An economic system that keeps bad memories has no boundary in its ability to exploit.*
netention --- I would love if you explained to me how it works.
my abstact model right now deals with contracts between consumers - workers. Reality has more variables that can not be put in a model. Let me explain my opinion on this.
The production process involves 2 parties. Both gain through it, but they also have conflicting goals. Consumers want good quality of products and a low price. A workers cooperative could create bad products since that way workers will get more money. Workers want good working conditions(1/3 of their life is spent in their work) and a good wage. Consumer cooperatives could create hazardous or generally bad environment for the workers to minimize the cost of production.
I think it is best if they cooperated.
This is my exact proposition to have both rules work together.
*Any person that has ownership of a means of production can retain that part of the ownership that is used for creating non tradeable goods for him as a consumer. For the rest of the means of production he retains the right to not allow someone else to use it. If he allows a part of it to be used by others, the owners will be paid the cost for creating such an item multiplied by the percentage o time that they used it. After that part of means of production is allowed to be used by others, it is considered part of the commons ,like land, and everyone has equal right to use it.* * * I made this to retain the 2nd rule at all times.* I also ask you to try to use accumulated wealth to exploit people**.* I think that it is impossible.
This rule also has the consequence that workers cannot own the means of production because then those workers would have better opportunity than others.
Now that i am writing this email i think that we could make a similar rule to the previous one where we allow workers to retain ownership to the means of production which they use to work but i am uncertain right now.
2011/12/18 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]>
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
Yes patrick that is what i mean. I also think that this is the only natural - common sense thing to do. But i would like to hear what the others say because i may be wrong.
I also agree with Dante about limiting private accumulation but I think that if we do what patrick and i say, we will nullify the previous wealth from affecting the future creation and distribution of wealth. Think of this wealth like a ferrari. Let them have this wealth. the ferrari cant make more ferrari s and increase inequality in opportunity.
Thanks - ok , let the super rich keep their Ferrari. ( or Yacht , or Villa ) What if we use the example of accumulated property of land and housing ?
(I am also in the direction of automating the whole process. People will put what they want and how much they like to work at a specific job, and the programm will automatically designate what job is the best for each person and the prices and amount of products that will be created. Engineers will also be able to put new production methods and the new graph will be instantly computed plus the price that people would be willing to pay for the new production method.)
So you would still keep a market pricing approach ?
This leads me to another p2pf page
http://p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske
as for the software, I know other projects are in development, such as http://www.automenta.com/netention
There is one problem though.
Since profit will not exist, it will just flow back to the consumers and producers, we will have a problem of competition with the rest of the world in which workers and consumers are forced to pay profit.
The way I understand it through these conversations, is that there is interest in setting up what, to me, resembles very much consumer and worker cooperatives ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_cooperative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
If people decide not to accumulate wealth to increase productivity, they will unfortunately revert back to the system that creates inequality since in the rest of the world we are forced to increase productivity(through the profit maximization aim of enterprises).
_______________________________________________ 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: 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
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
Just a small reply to Michel. Yes the only other alternative to the market is if the society as a unit decides democratically for a fixed price. 2011/12/18 Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <[email protected]>
Thank you all for your comments.
In conclusion, one of the consequenses of trading and society is that individualistic rules should be changed to maintain the health of the Society.
2011/12/18 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]>
Yes, these three suit me.
I would perhaps also like to add, regarding the minimum rule - basic income -, that it not be measured monetarily, as speculation could devaluate / evaporate its value.
So instead, have the minimum income ( above an individual's vital needs ) be measured in a variety of units corresponding to ( locally produced ) :
- minimum access to water , both drinkable and non-drinkable. - minimum access to basic food income : with a variety of units in terms of food calories intake, access to nutrition diversity and quality - healthcare - minimum access to housing : amount of square meters, quality of the housing, ... - access to heating ( of water, of the housing ) - access to minimum income in energy units ( at least electricity ) - generalized access to internet, with a minimum bandwidth ( sufficient to upload or download medium quality definition videos in streaming )
////
Regarding the Jubilee :
Historically, if I remember properly, the jubilee seemed to be decided by the king/queen - as all initial debt was contracted to them - forms of money such as tally sticks<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick>, as far as I understand, at that time was "spent" into circulation, and demand for such money was initially created through the possibility to pay one's taxes with it ?
In a larger, more complex system, with a variety of currencies ( at least for the currencies which emanate out of contracts ? ), I imagine that having a free transparent market with a diversity of currencies could enable local economic networks to form themselves and choose their preferred mixture of currency usage. Ideally, some of these currencies would include a Jubilee. Ideally it would be the ones spent into circulation and on which some form of tax ( or membership fee ) could be paid with.
If governments do not cover externalities anymore, I could imagine that forms of organization such as cooperative networks could, and that a membership fee and other payments such as a form of use value insurance could be paid with such alternative cooperative network currency.
////
Regarding Cooperatives, if most of the production can be local, and "sold"/allocated locally, to its members, hence also to the active producers of the cooperative, I would imagine there could be an additional incentive to create quality products.
I could imagine that a part of the production could be sold for another type of currency, such as euros, enabling trade for certain products or resources the local economic network of cooperatives may not be able to produce, or more ideally, to invest in production technologies and further increase autonomy of the interdependent economic network.
Actually, this is why I would like to use a "Transaction Graph" approach, explained below...
////
Regarding Netention, I will in a separate mail put you in touch with one of its main developers.
Dear Apostolis, I am not a programmer, yet I am interested in the approach you intend to take, or the work you may have already done in trying to program a certain tool.
A brief description of Netention, as I understand it, and in addition to the pdf presentation on http://www.automenta.com/netention :
I see it as a way for agents ( individuals, or other entities ) to express their current and future desired needs, and then enable to match them within a network as to create interdependencies based on their choices.
A kind of emergent decision making tool.
I would like to use a netention graph approach, for what I tend to call "transaction graphs" http://sharewiki.org/en/Transaction_Graphs ( transaction graphs is not necessarily netention, but I would like to use it in such way )
Which could for example make it possible for agents ( any person, or a construction/legal entity ) to express the needs of a project, enable others, as in crowdfunding, to express their support for such project,
by expressing its relation to one of their personal needs, or by expressing a possible interdependent approach in which such project can support other projects and individuals needs,
by contributing in making explicit the needs related to such project,
by expressing a willingness to support based on expressed needs - either inconditionally, either conditionally.
Conditional offers for support can for example be connected to expressed personal needs, such as, in reply to a tuition project, one could answer as conditional offer : "I can provide tuition for 10 children if I am provided with a room to live and some food".
Hence such approach in effect can create and use a variety of currency architectures, without necessarily creating a dependency on a monetary monopoly, yet being able to include it in such graphed approach of expressed inter-dependencies.
Once that the needs and offers are expressed, a query can be used, eventually there can be an automatic suggested matching, from which individual users can choose preferred suggestions from ( using also other metadata for choice, such as geolocation - distance metadata )
Once these are chosen, a contract confirmation of engagement can be set, based on the various metadata ( type of resource, timing, etc ) being included.
In some cases, contracts can be more complex - and can require a certain pledging for a variety of needs being fulfilled.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]
wrote:
3 additions then,
the 'dante' rule, a maximum limit to wealth accumulation
a minimum rule, i.e. basic income
periodic reset, i.e. jubilee
note that historically stable societies never had free market pricing but just price theories and practices, i.e. prices were set politically and socially according to what these societies saw as worth maintaining (which was an unequal but stable social order)
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
Right now, i think that there should be a redistribution of wealth. In a fair society, it will be 'fair' that someone has more houses. Something to be fair doesnt make it is optimal. To answer the general question about the commons ,like land, each person should have equal time to use an object. Land cannot be owned. Each person will use it for a specific amount of time. One could also trade his right for this land to get another part of land or resource.
I liked the article on Fiske. I start from the individualistic point of view, ie the worst case scenario. Communal sharing involves not measuring what one gives and what not. For a fair system , we try to measure equality.
My whole effort is to have equality in opportunity. I have found only the market to be able to represent economic relations between people (that are measurable).
The problem i have is the problem of transformation.* There is no objective measure to measure happiness or effort.* If it existed we would then exchage 1 unit of effort of a person A to 1 unit of effort of person B.
Since there is no such measure, the only thing i found that does that is the market.* The problem of the market is that a person could try to exploit someone else in the bargain. With the proposal we make he will only be expoited due to his current needs and his current skills, ie there is an upper limit that is based on human properties. An economic system that keeps bad memories has no boundary in its ability to exploit.*
netention --- I would love if you explained to me how it works.
my abstact model right now deals with contracts between consumers - workers. Reality has more variables that can not be put in a model. Let me explain my opinion on this.
The production process involves 2 parties. Both gain through it, but they also have conflicting goals. Consumers want good quality of products and a low price. A workers cooperative could create bad products since that way workers will get more money. Workers want good working conditions(1/3 of their life is spent in their work) and a good wage. Consumer cooperatives could create hazardous or generally bad environment for the workers to minimize the cost of production.
I think it is best if they cooperated.
This is my exact proposition to have both rules work together.
*Any person that has ownership of a means of production can retain that part of the ownership that is used for creating non tradeable goods for him as a consumer. For the rest of the means of production he retains the right to not allow someone else to use it. If he allows a part of it to be used by others, the owners will be paid the cost for creating such an item multiplied by the percentage o time that they used it. After that part of means of production is allowed to be used by others, it is considered part of the commons ,like land, and everyone has equal right to use it.* * * I made this to retain the 2nd rule at all times.* I also ask you to try to use accumulated wealth to exploit people**.* I think that it is impossible.
This rule also has the consequence that workers cannot own the means of production because then those workers would have better opportunity than others.
Now that i am writing this email i think that we could make a similar rule to the previous one where we allow workers to retain ownership to the means of production which they use to work but i am uncertain right now.
2011/12/18 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]>
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
Yes patrick that is what i mean. I also think that this is the only natural - common sense thing to do. But i would like to hear what the others say because i may be wrong.
I also agree with Dante about limiting private accumulation but I think that if we do what patrick and i say, we will nullify the previous wealth from affecting the future creation and distribution of wealth. Think of this wealth like a ferrari. Let them have this wealth. the ferrari cant make more ferrari s and increase inequality in opportunity.
Thanks - ok , let the super rich keep their Ferrari. ( or Yacht , or Villa ) What if we use the example of accumulated property of land and housing ?
(I am also in the direction of automating the whole process. People will put what they want and how much they like to work at a specific job, and the programm will automatically designate what job is the best for each person and the prices and amount of products that will be created. Engineers will also be able to put new production methods and the new graph will be instantly computed plus the price that people would be willing to pay for the new production method.)
So you would still keep a market pricing approach ?
This leads me to another p2pf page
http://p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske
as for the software, I know other projects are in development, such as http://www.automenta.com/netention
There is one problem though.
Since profit will not exist, it will just flow back to the consumers and producers, we will have a problem of competition with the rest of the world in which workers and consumers are forced to pay profit.
The way I understand it through these conversations, is that there is interest in setting up what, to me, resembles very much consumer and worker cooperatives ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_cooperative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
If people decide not to accumulate wealth to increase productivity, they will unfortunately revert back to the system that creates inequality since in the rest of the world we are forced to increase productivity(through the profit maximization aim of enterprises).
_______________________________________________ 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: 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
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
thanks apostolis! On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
Just a small reply to Michel. Yes the only other alternative to the market is if the society as a unit decides democratically for a fixed price.
2011/12/18 Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <[email protected]>
Thank you all for your comments.
In conclusion, one of the consequenses of trading and society is that individualistic rules should be changed to maintain the health of the Society.
2011/12/18 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]>
Yes, these three suit me.
I would perhaps also like to add, regarding the minimum rule - basic income -, that it not be measured monetarily, as speculation could devaluate / evaporate its value.
So instead, have the minimum income ( above an individual's vital needs ) be measured in a variety of units corresponding to ( locally produced ) :
- minimum access to water , both drinkable and non-drinkable. - minimum access to basic food income : with a variety of units in terms of food calories intake, access to nutrition diversity and quality - healthcare - minimum access to housing : amount of square meters, quality of the housing, ... - access to heating ( of water, of the housing ) - access to minimum income in energy units ( at least electricity ) - generalized access to internet, with a minimum bandwidth ( sufficient to upload or download medium quality definition videos in streaming )
////
Regarding the Jubilee :
Historically, if I remember properly, the jubilee seemed to be decided by the king/queen - as all initial debt was contracted to them - forms of money such as tally sticks<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick>, as far as I understand, at that time was "spent" into circulation, and demand for such money was initially created through the possibility to pay one's taxes with it ?
In a larger, more complex system, with a variety of currencies ( at least for the currencies which emanate out of contracts ? ), I imagine that having a free transparent market with a diversity of currencies could enable local economic networks to form themselves and choose their preferred mixture of currency usage. Ideally, some of these currencies would include a Jubilee. Ideally it would be the ones spent into circulation and on which some form of tax ( or membership fee ) could be paid with.
If governments do not cover externalities anymore, I could imagine that forms of organization such as cooperative networks could, and that a membership fee and other payments such as a form of use value insurance could be paid with such alternative cooperative network currency.
////
Regarding Cooperatives, if most of the production can be local, and "sold"/allocated locally, to its members, hence also to the active producers of the cooperative, I would imagine there could be an additional incentive to create quality products.
I could imagine that a part of the production could be sold for another type of currency, such as euros, enabling trade for certain products or resources the local economic network of cooperatives may not be able to produce, or more ideally, to invest in production technologies and further increase autonomy of the interdependent economic network.
Actually, this is why I would like to use a "Transaction Graph" approach, explained below...
////
Regarding Netention, I will in a separate mail put you in touch with one of its main developers.
Dear Apostolis, I am not a programmer, yet I am interested in the approach you intend to take, or the work you may have already done in trying to program a certain tool.
A brief description of Netention, as I understand it, and in addition to the pdf presentation on http://www.automenta.com/netention :
I see it as a way for agents ( individuals, or other entities ) to express their current and future desired needs, and then enable to match them within a network as to create interdependencies based on their choices.
A kind of emergent decision making tool.
I would like to use a netention graph approach, for what I tend to call "transaction graphs" http://sharewiki.org/en/Transaction_Graphs ( transaction graphs is not necessarily netention, but I would like to use it in such way )
Which could for example make it possible for agents ( any person, or a construction/legal entity ) to express the needs of a project, enable others, as in crowdfunding, to express their support for such project,
by expressing its relation to one of their personal needs, or by expressing a possible interdependent approach in which such project can support other projects and individuals needs,
by contributing in making explicit the needs related to such project,
by expressing a willingness to support based on expressed needs - either inconditionally, either conditionally.
Conditional offers for support can for example be connected to expressed personal needs, such as, in reply to a tuition project, one could answer as conditional offer : "I can provide tuition for 10 children if I am provided with a room to live and some food".
Hence such approach in effect can create and use a variety of currency architectures, without necessarily creating a dependency on a monetary monopoly, yet being able to include it in such graphed approach of expressed inter-dependencies.
Once that the needs and offers are expressed, a query can be used, eventually there can be an automatic suggested matching, from which individual users can choose preferred suggestions from ( using also other metadata for choice, such as geolocation - distance metadata )
Once these are chosen, a contract confirmation of engagement can be set, based on the various metadata ( type of resource, timing, etc ) being included.
In some cases, contracts can be more complex - and can require a certain pledging for a variety of needs being fulfilled.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Michel Bauwens < [email protected]> wrote:
3 additions then,
the 'dante' rule, a maximum limit to wealth accumulation
a minimum rule, i.e. basic income
periodic reset, i.e. jubilee
note that historically stable societies never had free market pricing but just price theories and practices, i.e. prices were set politically and socially according to what these societies saw as worth maintaining (which was an unequal but stable social order)
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
Right now, i think that there should be a redistribution of wealth. In a fair society, it will be 'fair' that someone has more houses. Something to be fair doesnt make it is optimal. To answer the general question about the commons ,like land, each person should have equal time to use an object. Land cannot be owned. Each person will use it for a specific amount of time. One could also trade his right for this land to get another part of land or resource.
I liked the article on Fiske. I start from the individualistic point of view, ie the worst case scenario. Communal sharing involves not measuring what one gives and what not. For a fair system , we try to measure equality.
My whole effort is to have equality in opportunity. I have found only the market to be able to represent economic relations between people (that are measurable).
The problem i have is the problem of transformation.* There is no objective measure to measure happiness or effort.* If it existed we would then exchage 1 unit of effort of a person A to 1 unit of effort of person B.
Since there is no such measure, the only thing i found that does that is the market.* The problem of the market is that a person could try to exploit someone else in the bargain. With the proposal we make he will only be expoited due to his current needs and his current skills, ie there is an upper limit that is based on human properties. An economic system that keeps bad memories has no boundary in its ability to exploit.*
netention --- I would love if you explained to me how it works.
my abstact model right now deals with contracts between consumers - workers. Reality has more variables that can not be put in a model. Let me explain my opinion on this.
The production process involves 2 parties. Both gain through it, but they also have conflicting goals. Consumers want good quality of products and a low price. A workers cooperative could create bad products since that way workers will get more money. Workers want good working conditions(1/3 of their life is spent in their work) and a good wage. Consumer cooperatives could create hazardous or generally bad environment for the workers to minimize the cost of production.
I think it is best if they cooperated.
This is my exact proposition to have both rules work together.
*Any person that has ownership of a means of production can retain that part of the ownership that is used for creating non tradeable goods for him as a consumer. For the rest of the means of production he retains the right to not allow someone else to use it. If he allows a part of it to be used by others, the owners will be paid the cost for creating such an item multiplied by the percentage o time that they used it. After that part of means of production is allowed to be used by others, it is considered part of the commons ,like land, and everyone has equal right to use it.* * * I made this to retain the 2nd rule at all times.* I also ask you to try to use accumulated wealth to exploit people**.* I think that it is impossible.
This rule also has the consequence that workers cannot own the means of production because then those workers would have better opportunity than others.
Now that i am writing this email i think that we could make a similar rule to the previous one where we allow workers to retain ownership to the means of production which they use to work but i am uncertain right now.
2011/12/18 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]>
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
> Yes patrick that is what i mean. I also think that this is the only > natural - common sense thing to do. But i would like to hear what the > others say because i may be wrong. > > I also agree with Dante about limiting private accumulation but I > think that if we do what patrick and i say, we will nullify the previous > wealth from affecting the future creation and distribution of wealth. Think > of this wealth like a ferrari. Let them have this wealth. the ferrari cant > make more ferrari s and increase inequality in opportunity. >
Thanks - ok , let the super rich keep their Ferrari. ( or Yacht , or Villa ) What if we use the example of accumulated property of land and housing ?
> (I am also in the direction of automating the whole process. People > will put what they want and how much they like to work at a specific job, > and the programm will automatically designate what job is the best for each > person and the prices and amount of products that will be created. > Engineers will also be able to put new production methods and the new graph > will be instantly computed plus the price that people would be willing to > pay for the new production method.) >
So you would still keep a market pricing approach ?
This leads me to another p2pf page
http://p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske
as for the software, I know other projects are in development, such as http://www.automenta.com/netention
> > There is one problem though. > > Since profit will not exist, it will just flow back to the > consumers and producers, we will have a problem of competition with the > rest of the world in which workers and consumers are forced to pay profit. >
The way I understand it through these conversations, is that there is interest in setting up what, to me, resembles very much consumer and worker cooperatives ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_cooperative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
> If people decide not to accumulate wealth to increase productivity, > they will unfortunately revert back to the system that creates inequality > since in the rest of the world we are forced to increase > productivity(through the profit maximization aim of enterprises). > > > _______________________________________________ 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: 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
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
--
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 Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Hartmann: Why the 1% are Less Empathetic to the Poor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7GcNqVbco /// Hence I feel inspired to suggest some additional principles, on the governance side of it, in case of some form of ( sociocratic ? ) representation : make it meritocratic and vote based. That is, leave the choice to individuals to either vote directly on issues, either find a representative to choose to vote for them on a vote by vote basis ( and not be granted a 4 - or more - year term ). Also, I suggest to forbid private direct profit ( / corruption ) by "representatives" based on their votes, and forbid rich individuals from becoming representatives , putting a limit to personal wealth ownership of representatives , and a limit to total income lower then 3 times the minimum income, yet cover living and operational expenses. This relates to some cooperative governance principles, such as within Mondragon, in which all owner workers can vote, and managers own maximum 3 to 9 times the lowest wage. On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
Just a small reply to Michel. Yes the only other alternative to the market is if the society as a unit decides democratically for a fixed price.
2011/12/18 Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <[email protected]>
Thank you all for your comments.
In conclusion, one of the consequenses of trading and society is that individualistic rules should be changed to maintain the health of the Society.
2011/12/18 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]>
Yes, these three suit me.
I would perhaps also like to add, regarding the minimum rule - basic income -, that it not be measured monetarily, as speculation could devaluate / evaporate its value.
So instead, have the minimum income ( above an individual's vital needs ) be measured in a variety of units corresponding to ( locally produced ) :
- minimum access to water , both drinkable and non-drinkable. - minimum access to basic food income : with a variety of units in terms of food calories intake, access to nutrition diversity and quality - healthcare - minimum access to housing : amount of square meters, quality of the housing, ... - access to heating ( of water, of the housing ) - access to minimum income in energy units ( at least electricity ) - generalized access to internet, with a minimum bandwidth ( sufficient to upload or download medium quality definition videos in streaming )
////
Regarding the Jubilee :
Historically, if I remember properly, the jubilee seemed to be decided by the king/queen - as all initial debt was contracted to them - forms of money such as tally sticks<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick>, as far as I understand, at that time was "spent" into circulation, and demand for such money was initially created through the possibility to pay one's taxes with it ?
In a larger, more complex system, with a variety of currencies ( at least for the currencies which emanate out of contracts ? ), I imagine that having a free transparent market with a diversity of currencies could enable local economic networks to form themselves and choose their preferred mixture of currency usage. Ideally, some of these currencies would include a Jubilee. Ideally it would be the ones spent into circulation and on which some form of tax ( or membership fee ) could be paid with.
If governments do not cover externalities anymore, I could imagine that forms of organization such as cooperative networks could, and that a membership fee and other payments such as a form of use value insurance could be paid with such alternative cooperative network currency.
////
Regarding Cooperatives, if most of the production can be local, and "sold"/allocated locally, to its members, hence also to the active producers of the cooperative, I would imagine there could be an additional incentive to create quality products.
I could imagine that a part of the production could be sold for another type of currency, such as euros, enabling trade for certain products or resources the local economic network of cooperatives may not be able to produce, or more ideally, to invest in production technologies and further increase autonomy of the interdependent economic network.
Actually, this is why I would like to use a "Transaction Graph" approach, explained below...
////
Regarding Netention, I will in a separate mail put you in touch with one of its main developers.
Dear Apostolis, I am not a programmer, yet I am interested in the approach you intend to take, or the work you may have already done in trying to program a certain tool.
A brief description of Netention, as I understand it, and in addition to the pdf presentation on http://www.automenta.com/netention :
I see it as a way for agents ( individuals, or other entities ) to express their current and future desired needs, and then enable to match them within a network as to create interdependencies based on their choices.
A kind of emergent decision making tool.
I would like to use a netention graph approach, for what I tend to call "transaction graphs" http://sharewiki.org/en/Transaction_Graphs ( transaction graphs is not necessarily netention, but I would like to use it in such way )
Which could for example make it possible for agents ( any person, or a construction/legal entity ) to express the needs of a project, enable others, as in crowdfunding, to express their support for such project,
by expressing its relation to one of their personal needs, or by expressing a possible interdependent approach in which such project can support other projects and individuals needs,
by contributing in making explicit the needs related to such project,
by expressing a willingness to support based on expressed needs - either inconditionally, either conditionally.
Conditional offers for support can for example be connected to expressed personal needs, such as, in reply to a tuition project, one could answer as conditional offer : "I can provide tuition for 10 children if I am provided with a room to live and some food".
Hence such approach in effect can create and use a variety of currency architectures, without necessarily creating a dependency on a monetary monopoly, yet being able to include it in such graphed approach of expressed inter-dependencies.
Once that the needs and offers are expressed, a query can be used, eventually there can be an automatic suggested matching, from which individual users can choose preferred suggestions from ( using also other metadata for choice, such as geolocation - distance metadata )
Once these are chosen, a contract confirmation of engagement can be set, based on the various metadata ( type of resource, timing, etc ) being included.
In some cases, contracts can be more complex - and can require a certain pledging for a variety of needs being fulfilled.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Michel Bauwens < [email protected]> wrote:
3 additions then,
the 'dante' rule, a maximum limit to wealth accumulation
a minimum rule, i.e. basic income
periodic reset, i.e. jubilee
note that historically stable societies never had free market pricing but just price theories and practices, i.e. prices were set politically and socially according to what these societies saw as worth maintaining (which was an unequal but stable social order)
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 3:10 AM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
Right now, i think that there should be a redistribution of wealth. In a fair society, it will be 'fair' that someone has more houses. Something to be fair doesnt make it is optimal. To answer the general question about the commons ,like land, each person should have equal time to use an object. Land cannot be owned. Each person will use it for a specific amount of time. One could also trade his right for this land to get another part of land or resource.
I liked the article on Fiske. I start from the individualistic point of view, ie the worst case scenario. Communal sharing involves not measuring what one gives and what not. For a fair system , we try to measure equality.
My whole effort is to have equality in opportunity. I have found only the market to be able to represent economic relations between people (that are measurable).
The problem i have is the problem of transformation.* There is no objective measure to measure happiness or effort.* If it existed we would then exchage 1 unit of effort of a person A to 1 unit of effort of person B.
Since there is no such measure, the only thing i found that does that is the market.* The problem of the market is that a person could try to exploit someone else in the bargain. With the proposal we make he will only be expoited due to his current needs and his current skills, ie there is an upper limit that is based on human properties. An economic system that keeps bad memories has no boundary in its ability to exploit.*
netention --- I would love if you explained to me how it works.
my abstact model right now deals with contracts between consumers - workers. Reality has more variables that can not be put in a model. Let me explain my opinion on this.
The production process involves 2 parties. Both gain through it, but they also have conflicting goals. Consumers want good quality of products and a low price. A workers cooperative could create bad products since that way workers will get more money. Workers want good working conditions(1/3 of their life is spent in their work) and a good wage. Consumer cooperatives could create hazardous or generally bad environment for the workers to minimize the cost of production.
I think it is best if they cooperated.
This is my exact proposition to have both rules work together.
*Any person that has ownership of a means of production can retain that part of the ownership that is used for creating non tradeable goods for him as a consumer. For the rest of the means of production he retains the right to not allow someone else to use it. If he allows a part of it to be used by others, the owners will be paid the cost for creating such an item multiplied by the percentage o time that they used it. After that part of means of production is allowed to be used by others, it is considered part of the commons ,like land, and everyone has equal right to use it.* * * I made this to retain the 2nd rule at all times.* I also ask you to try to use accumulated wealth to exploit people**.* I think that it is impossible.
This rule also has the consequence that workers cannot own the means of production because then those workers would have better opportunity than others.
Now that i am writing this email i think that we could make a similar rule to the previous one where we allow workers to retain ownership to the means of production which they use to work but i am uncertain right now.
2011/12/18 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]>
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
> Yes patrick that is what i mean. I also think that this is the only > natural - common sense thing to do. But i would like to hear what the > others say because i may be wrong. > > I also agree with Dante about limiting private accumulation but I > think that if we do what patrick and i say, we will nullify the previous > wealth from affecting the future creation and distribution of wealth. Think > of this wealth like a ferrari. Let them have this wealth. the ferrari cant > make more ferrari s and increase inequality in opportunity. >
Thanks - ok , let the super rich keep their Ferrari. ( or Yacht , or Villa ) What if we use the example of accumulated property of land and housing ?
> (I am also in the direction of automating the whole process. People > will put what they want and how much they like to work at a specific job, > and the programm will automatically designate what job is the best for each > person and the prices and amount of products that will be created. > Engineers will also be able to put new production methods and the new graph > will be instantly computed plus the price that people would be willing to > pay for the new production method.) >
So you would still keep a market pricing approach ?
This leads me to another p2pf page
http://p2pfoundation.net/Relational_Model_Typology_-_Fiske
as for the software, I know other projects are in development, such as http://www.automenta.com/netention
> > There is one problem though. > > Since profit will not exist, it will just flow back to the > consumers and producers, we will have a problem of competition with the > rest of the world in which workers and consumers are forced to pay profit. >
The way I understand it through these conversations, is that there is interest in setting up what, to me, resembles very much consumer and worker cooperatives ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_cooperative
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
> If people decide not to accumulate wealth to increase productivity, > they will unfortunately revert back to the system that creates inequality > since in the rest of the world we are forced to increase > productivity(through the profit maximization aim of enterprises). > > > _______________________________________________ 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: 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
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
participants (4)
-
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis -
Dante-Gabryell Monson -
Michel Bauwens -
Patrick Anderson