[P2P-F] What is a fair economic system to you?

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

In addition to previous comments ( thanks for opening up the discussion ),

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

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

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

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

Yet, such measures may not be sufficient.

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

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


On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <
xekoukou at gmail.com> wrote:

> Michel , the reason I make those assumptions is so as to simplify things.
> Ofcourse, resourses are not scarse and we have to find a way to distribute
> them equally. This adds the question of how to distribute them.
>  i wanted to not overcomlicate things for now to make a point.
>
> For the same reason, i said that people dont cheat and that we have
> unlimited time to bargain. (the unlimited time is not necessary here but
> could happen in a computer aided bargain,
> http://viff.dk/doc/applications.html#nordic-sugar )
>
> So what I am doing is creating an abstraction.
>
> After I create that abstraction, I say that the rules are the problem and
> not that we dont abide by the rules(cheating),
>
>
> For the last question, i would love to hear your opinion, Having the
> person as a unit is the basis of my theory and an assumption that I would
> like your opinion about,
>
> Just remember that this economic system is supposed to be a fair one, not
> an ideal one, I believe that after creating a fair system, we could create
> another one on top of it based on solidarity and the commons,
>
> *So in conclusion, I attack the belief that a free market based on the
> first rule which i think individual anarchists call "free market" is the
> solution,*
>
> Exploitation will emerge like it emerged a few thousand years ago,
>
>
>
> 2011/12/17 Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net>
>
>> hi Apostolis,
>>
>> why start from an erroneous assumption in the first place; since natural
>> resources are by no means infinite. I strongly recommend reading Roberto
>> Verzola on the abundance-scarcity polarity,
>>
>> see
>> http://p2pfoundation.net/?title=Special%3ASearch&search=%22Roberto+Verzola%22&fulltext=Search
>>
>> your further assumptions are equally questionable; we have no infinite
>> time to bargain and people do cheat.
>>
>> How to built a fair system on such assumptions; sounds like neoclassical
>> economics and neoliberalism ..;
>>
>> why also start the axioms with one person as basic unit?
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <
>> xekoukou at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As some of you may know i am trying to create/simulate a fair economic
>>> system. I would like the opinion of the members of this list as to what
>>> is in their opinion a fair economic system. I write down a few thoughts of
>>> mine.
>>>
>>> To simplify things, lets assume that there are infinite natural
>>> resources and that all can discover each other and they have infinite time
>>> to bargain. Let us also assume that no one can cheat, everyone plays by the
>>> rules.
>>>
>>> The first most reasonable rule is this one:
>>>
>>>
>>>    1. *The owner of a thing is the person that decides the way that
>>>    this thing will be used or decides the transfer of ownership to another
>>>    person. (trading)*
>>>
>>>  Each person is the owner of the products of his work.
>>>
>>> I think that the first rule could describe the idealization of our
>>> current economic model.
>>>
>>> Since all natural resources are infinite, the only reason for someone to
>>> transfer the ownership of his work would be if ,in that way, he could
>>> obtain something he likes and is a product of someone else s work. That
>>> product could have been created in the past or will be created in the future
>>>
>>> The creation of promises adds a new characteristic to our system. It
>>> gives it memory. Things that happened in the past affect the future. They
>>> specifically affect the ownership of the wealth that is created in the
>>> future.
>>>
>>> I will now write my second rule under which an economic system is fair
>>> and show that for the second rule to work the first rule needs to be
>>> changed slightly.
>>>
>>>      2. * At every single moment, each person should have equal
>>> opportunity to create or obtain wealth(products) for himself.*
>>>
>>> The most important part of the rule is that it should happen always.
>>>
>>> In other words , we want the memory of our system to not affect the
>>> equality in opportunity to create or obtain wealth for ourselves.
>>>
>>>
>>>  *Now I will explain in my opinion why the first rule gives our system
>>> memories that affect the second rule.*
>>>
>>> I will now create a very specific example that will demonstrate those
>>> bad memories.
>>>
>>> Two beings A and B exist in Mars. They have their own will, don’t like
>>> to work, in fact they can only work 8 hours a day, and abide by the first
>>> rule.
>>>
>>> A likes apples and oranges and can make apples and everything else
>>> except oranges.
>>>
>>> B likes apples and makes oranges.
>>>
>>> A can make 3 apples a day and the best possible outcome would be to have
>>> 1 apple and 1 orange a day.
>>>
>>> B makes 1 orange a day and wants exactly 1 apple a day.
>>>
>>> If A doesn’t have his orange he is 2 times worse than B when he doesn’t
>>> have his apple.
>>>
>>> In any case we can create an example of 2 persons in which A gives 2
>>> apples to B to receive an orange based solely on the first rule.
>>>
>>> The fact that A is forced to give 2 apples is the way trading works.* **Please
>>> notice that the difference in the state of their condition is affected only
>>> by 2 factors, their needs to a product and their abilities to create
>>> products.*
>>>
>>> Also note that wealth will be accumulated in the hands of B but till
>>> now, past created wealth doesn’t not affect how new wealth is distributed.
>>> Our second rule still works.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Now lets go 2000 years in the future. (these apples cannot rot, lol)
>>>
>>> A new invention is found and is known to both.
>>>
>>> B decides to give oranges to A only if A creates a tool based on this
>>> invention.
>>>
>>> A has no other choice than to accept.
>>>
>>> Now B is the owner of this tool that could allow A to make apples at one
>>> third of the work.
>>>
>>> Now A would certainly like to work 2/3 of the previous time to create 6
>>> apples in which he would give 5 to B if B gave him the tool and one orange
>>> every day. Now B is given 5 apples instead of 2.
>>>
>>>
>>>  *What is important is not that he is given more apples than before.
>>> That could have happened anyways. The important thing is that the memory of
>>> the system has played an important role in the bargain.*
>>>
>>> *In other words, now there is a 3rd factor, the memory of the system.*
>>>
>>> This contradicts our 2nd rule since there is a factor that is not
>>> dependent on the current qualities of the persons.
>>>
>>> In conclusion , in an ideal world where the 1 rule applies, it is
>>> possible for the second rule to not work.
>>>
>>>
>>>  It is also important to note that we started in a state where the both
>>> rules worked and went into another where the 2nd didn’t work.
>>>
>>> This is important to the p2p movement because a lot of projects try to
>>> decentralize, distribute the means of production, ie they are trying to go
>>> to a state where both rules work and they dont think whether our way of
>>> tracking ownership and promises could revert their efforts.
>>>
>>> *Let us also note that the second rule doesn’t prohibit a world in
>>> which someone is richer than another. In fact we can create an economic
>>> system in which the huge inequalities in accumulated wealth wouldn’t not
>>> affect the 2nd rule.*
>>>
>>>
>>>  *What kind of 'laws' should we put in order to have both rules obeyed
>>> and what is your ideal economic system?*
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>>
>>> Sincerely yours,
>>>      Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
>>> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
>>> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>
>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20111217/dae1e7ae/attachment.htm