Am 07.10.2005 um 13:30 schrieb Michael Bouwens:
Thanks Franz, that is very valuable, and the first
paragraphs are exactly what I was trying to say,
which
is that, property or not, natural goods <are>
scarce.
Dear Michael,
I think, scarcity is a term which only makes sense
when we put it
into relation to existing needs. When we need so
much fossil fuels as
we do nowadays then we can conclude: Yes, there is
an objective
scarcity of fossil fuels. The fossil fuels are
supposed to be finite.
So the question should be: Could we replace the
fossil fuels by other
energy sources? From a technical point of view I
would say yes, of
course, from the social point of view I would say:
as long as
production is subordinated under the purpose of
making profit, then
it is hard to believe that the renewable energy will
be developed
sufficiently. What I would like to stress is that
one cannot talk
about scarcity without taking into consideration the
needs *and* the
social context, in which the needs are supposed to
be satisfied.
Furthermore I guess that to think about scarcity in
such an abstract
manner is a result of capitalism itself which
generates certain
"thinking pattern" about scarcity and non-scarcity,
completely
adapted in the modern economic theory as well as in
our everyday
life. But this is an excursus only, which I don't
want to outline in
detail.
regards
Sabine
If I would want to read about Daly, where would I
start, what book?
Michel
--- Franz Nahrada <f.nahrada reflex.at> wrote:
Michael Bouvens on list-en oekonux.org schrieb am
Freitag, 07. Oktober
2005 um 12:59 +0100:
I think that peer
production can work for non-rival goods without
reciprocity; but when you dealing with scarce
physical
goods, reciprocity will be required.
Even without capitalism, without 'scarce' money,
the
resources will still be limited.
Michael,
I recenty fund an interesting statement that I
want
to add here;
it does not mirror my opinion 100% but it is good
as
a matrix of
discussion.
In a later post I will say a little bit more
about
scarcity and the way
to transcend from rival to non-rival when it
comes
to material
objects and goods.
Franz
-----
The E. F. Schumacher Society is s an educational
non-profit organization
founded in 1980. Their programs demonstrate that
both social and
environmental sustainability can be achieved by
applying the values of
human-scale communities and respect for the
natural
environment to
economic issues. So they are a natural match to
global villages.
In their recent newsletter they have published a
speech summary of a
lecture of Herman Daly - professor at the
University
of Maryland's School
of Public Affairs and co-founder and board member
of
the journal
Ecological Economics. I think although he is not
critsizing money and
value and talking completely in the realm of
traditional economics, he
brings up a lot of important distinctions which
help
us understand the
possible path of the development of Free Modes. I
just took these points
of the excerpt
With permission of Jing Cao and the E.
F.Schumacher
Society --
www.smallisbeautiful.org
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Sustaining Our Commonwealth of Nature and
Knowledge."
Summary of talk by Herman Daly prepared by Jing
Cao
of the E.F. Schumacher
Society.
(shortened,FN)
A commonwealth is a resource created either by
nature, or by aggregate
human effort. Natural resources would fall into
the
first category;
knowledge belongs to the second.
Sustaining our commonwealths means using with
maintenance. We must realize
what the maximum amount of a resource we can
consume
while still
maintaining our commonwealths. .....
The problem in the current economy is that nature
is
treated as a
non-scarce
resource when it is in fact scarce. Knowledge has
the opposite problem, it
is treated as scarce when it is in fact
non-scarce.
In economics, goods are either rival or
non-rival,
and excludable or
non-excludable.
A rival good is one where if I consume it, that
prevents you
from consuming it. Clothing, for example, is
rival.
Sunlight is non-rival
since my consumption of it doesn't prevent you
from
enjoying it. Rivalness
is a physical property.
Excludability is a legal concept. Excludable
goods
can be made private
property, such as a private residence.
Non-excludable goods are those not
privatized.