[P2P-F] Fwd: New moneyless economic system described

Tue Mar 1 10:17:36 CET 2011

I was just wondering where *exchange* fits in the scheme below. It 
sounds more peer-to-peer than distribution too. Greetings to all,

Roberto

> The basic components of an economic system are:
>
>   1.
>
>       Need clarification,
>
>   2.
>
>       Resource extraction,
>
>   3.
>
>       Production,
>
>   4.
>
>       Distribution,
>
>   5.
>
>       Use of the produce, and
>
>   6.
>
>       Re-use of resources
>
>
> *Needs*
>
> Market equilibrium, i.e. balance between supply and demand, has not 
> been reached in top-down approaches. Capitalism is producer-driven 
> guesswork vulnerable to formation of monopolies and distorted by 
> profit-motive driven creation of artificial needs. On the other hand, 
> the central-planning of socialism and communism cannot answer to rapid 
> changes of people’s real needs and preferences.
>
>
> In a moneyless society the basic needs for survival are quite easy to 
> fulfill because we all need nutritious food, warm clothes, comfortable 
> shelter, clean water, functioning sanitation and all that. The human 
> needs that guide the basic production are somewhat unchanged and 
> predictable.
>
>
> However, there are more advanced needs that derive from individual 
> preferences, interpersonal relationships and from ideas for societal 
> development. An individual might want to create a piece of art that 
> requires equipment, two people in different geographic locations might 
> want to meet each other out of a whim and a research team might 
> realize that a bridge needs to be built to link two cities together.
>
>
> In order to enable all this, people need to have an easy means to 
> express their changing needs so that required products and services 
> can be delivered. We do this already: we order stuff from Amazon, we 
> book trips over internet and we create wikis and documents together 
> with our peers and professional colleagues to plan larger projects. 
> All we need to do is to link the information systems we already have, 
> open them up to public scrutiny and make these massive amounts of data 
> accessible in a common database that can guide production decisions.
>
>
> If it seems that we cannot possibly fulfill everyone’s needs without 
> exceeding the carrying capacity of the Earth (not enough resources to 
> make everything happen at once), we can then assign numerical values 
> for resources, e.g. time and amount needed for a final product. And 
> then we can utilize various mobile and internet technologies to design 
> tools that allow people to “vote” on a daily basis to inform 
> production of their needs, i.e. use direct democracy to guide the 
> production decisions.
>
>
> *Material and energy extraction*
>
> The sporadic, short-sighted and predatory resource extraction of today 
> cannot continue much longer. The same goes for fossil-fuel based and 
> highly centralized energy production and distribution.
>
>
> In a moneyless society all energy comes directly or indirectly from 
> the sun (including geothermal, wave, tidal, and wind energy). _Jeremy 
> Rifkin_ <http://p2pfoundation.net/InterGrid> talks about the 
> “Inter-grid” – the internet of energy – where all of us are both 
> consumers and producers of energy. It is possible to set up with 
> current day technology, today, if we want it to happen.
>
>
> For the material extraction to be sustainable we need to understand 
> where, how much and what kind of resources we have. This applies both 
> to untapped sources and products that can be re-used.
>
>
> *Manufacturing process*
>
> In our current system there is a whole lot of overlap in production: 
> competing organizations create similar products and services with 
> lowest possible cost – often leading to poor quality products – and 
> they all try to sell their stuff to the consumers with whatever the 
> means, creating a lot of artificial needs and desires in the process 
> of doing so.
>
>
> In a sane sustainable system we would produce exactly what is needed, 
> as locally as possible, to as many as possible, with as little waste 
> as possible.
>
>
> The shifting needs “from bombs to food” would take us little by little 
> towards abundance. Automation would no longer be viewed as the evil 
> machines that take people’s jobs but as a means to set people free 
> from the drudgery of manual labor, bearing in mind that nothing would 
> stop you from growing your own carrots or knitting your woolen socks.
>
>
> *Distribution*
>
> Nowadays we ship stuff all over the world without much thinking of the 
> consequences. Raw materials are shipped to where it’s cheapest to 
> produce something out of them. Then this produce is shipped to be 
> processed where it’s cheapest to do. The cargo then moves through 
> various assembly points to the wholesaler, to the retail store and 
> finally consumers pick it up and ship it to their homes. They use it, 
> trash it and the junk is shipped to the other side of the world. 
> Rational? No. Cheap? Hell yeah!
>
>
> Distribution in a moneyless society should minimize the distance (i.e. 
> energy use) and maximize the ease and access of use. Most of the food 
> would probably be wisest to deliver to large restaurants or community 
> kitchens in large quantities. Consumer goods such as toiletries could 
> have filling stations where anyone could fill up their soap bottle 
> near where they live. Durable goods, such as furniture, could be 
> ordered directly to your home from the manufacturer. The latest 
> consumer electronics, appliances and tools could be borrowed from a 
> local “library”.
>
>
> If it would seem that transferring some of the products to another 
> side of the world is not sustainable then distribution would also 
> guide production decisions, and alternatives would be found. We might 
> come into conclusions such as using _the common sea-buckthorn_ 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippophae_rhamnoides> for pepping up 
> people in the Northern hemisphere and leaving the luxury of sipping 
> coffee for those living in areas where it’s viable to produce locally. 
> Please note that hard-core coffee addicts would always be welcome to 
> relocate to South America if that is what they value in life.
>
>
> We would supplement, and over-time probably replace, the current 
> marine, air, train and road cargo services with new more efficient 
> technologies such as _Evacuated Tube Transport_ <http://et3.com/ett.asp>.
>
>
>
> *Use*
>
> Currently many people buy stuff to feel happy. People want to own a 
> sleek car to show off their prosperity. This ego-driven material 
> happiness doesn’t last long, however. Little by little people are 
> waking up to feel the void within. To fill that void they need love 
> and better relationships, education, culture and arts, time for 
> reflection and experiences in nature. And yes, most people on this 
> planet need to eat.
>
>
> More important than ownership is access to goods and services that 
> fulfill our real needs. In a moneyless society people would use the 
> products and services that they need to live a good life. You’d be 
> surprised how this might actually be much less – not more – than what 
> an average person owns nowadays. And through sharing durable goods 
> many more people could have access to what they need. The same goes 
> for services: it’s much wiser to use highly effective and comfortable 
> _public transportation_ <http://www.zeitnews.org/transportation/> that 
> always takes you to your destination, rather than worry about fixing 
> and maintaining your car that sits on the parking lot for 95% of the 
> time. Hoarding junk just doesn’t make sense, especially if everything 
> is _freely available_ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_good>.
>
>
> *Re-use*
>
> Today we live in _the culture of disposability_ 
> <http://www.kerismith.com/blog/the-culture-of-disposability-part-2/> 
> and most of the stuff we use ends up in landfills. Even fast moving 
> consumer goods such as oil and jelly is packed in plastic or glass 
> containers that are not going to decompose any time soon. As for the 
> durable goods, just by sharing efficiently what we already have we 
> could for instance have free clothes for the next 10 years.
>
>
> Re-use has to be designed into the whole process so that each product 
> has gone through a proper _cradle-to-crave assessment_ 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_cycle_assessment>. If we take this 
> seriously we can soon imitate nature where everything that is disposed 
> of becomes quickly used again in another part of the process we call life.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>   