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

Sun Dec 18 07:42:25 CET 2011

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 <
xekoukou at gmail.com> 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 <dante.monson at gmail.com>
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis <
>> xekoukou at gmail.com> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20111218/0c9b0bd3/attachment.htm 