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

Sun Dec 18 17:01:46 CET 2011

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 <dante.monson at gmail.com>

> 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 <michel at p2pfoundation.net>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 <
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20111218/23a4eb10/attachment.htm 