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

Sat Dec 17 17:16:10 CET 2011

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

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

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

2011/12/17 Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson at gmail.com>

> Note :
>
> my previous comments apply only in the case of a centralized law making
> entity.
>
> An alternative I may prefer, is a distributed approach where each
> individual has access to information regarding transactions and costs, and
> can choose what economic systems to support, or not, by visualizing
> inter-dependencies.
>
> see : http://sharewiki.org/en/Transaction_Graphs
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <
> dante.monson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In addition to previous comments ( thanks for opening up the discussion ),
>>
>> I would add *"set a limit to private accumulation"*.
>>
>> In addition, by law reduce costs and prohibit speculation on goods and
>> services needed for survival ( shelter, food, water, sources of energy for
>> heating, access to learning opportunities, access to the internet, etc ...
>> ), and outlaw externalization of costs ( or at least include the real costs
>> through taxes when these are externalized onto society and nature )
>>
>> In some ways, this would lead to a distributist approach ?
>>
>> Can such kind of law disrupt artificial scarcity driving up speculative
>> profits in a "market" based system, by forcing excess accumulation to be
>> put back on the market or given to a commons, as to avoid hoarding.
>>
>> Yet, such measures may not be sufficient.
>>
>> Ideally, it could also be applied to any other forms of assets providing
>> individual privileges ( such as accumulation of monetary assets ), and lead
>> to a redistribution of such assets.
>>
>> Cooperatives could be encouraged, and surplus/profits redistributed to
>> various projects supporting social and ecological sustainability.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <
>> xekoukou 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>
>

-- 

Sincerely yours,

     Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20111217/de20d6b1/attachment.htm 