Message 03877 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT03736 Message: 24/31 L13 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Re: transition from slavery to feudalism, mirror for transition from capitalism to peer society

Hi Zbigniew,

reed and metcalfe are only mathematical laws pointing
to the maximal potential value that can be created, so
I understand your point, but that is not related to my
point nl, that

 - a lot more social value is created (documents and
videos being valuable 'ethically' for many different

- and that only a very small part of  it is monetized

This remains through even if the full mathematical
potential of these laws is not fullfilled to its

By the way, I found an interesting quote that
contradicts an earlier remark about markets .. (I
agree that they are not our end horizon)

however, in david laibman's deep history (which I
strongly recommend I read), after his overview of
anthropological literature:

"markets have been known throughout all recorded
history, there are no known cultures without any

The point is of course double: 1) markets are not
synonymous with capitalism; 2) even if they continue
to exist, they do not preclude other forms


--- Zbigniew Lukasiak <zzbbyy> wrote:

I was reading that long email, and I have to say I
agree with most of
you say there, utill this point:

On 9/4/07, Michael Bauwens <michelsub2003>
a recent thoughtpiece:
But I would like the readers to entertain the
following proposition, nl. That:
1)      The creation of non-monetary value is
2)      The monetization of such value is linear
In other words, we have a growing discrepancy
the direct creation of use value through social
relationships and collective intelligence (open
platforms create near infinite value through the
operations of the laws of Metcalfe and Reed), but
a fraction of that value can actually be captured
business and money. Innovation is becoming social

It is so fashionable to quote Metcalfe or Reeds laws
- but frankly it
is also so shallow.  Metcalfe law assumes that I see
any value in
belonging to all of the 2^n possible groups of n
people - I don't.
There might be some value in the possibility of a
new group creation -
but the more groups there are the value is smaller -
because the
groups overlap each other.

There is another analysis:
that tries more
honestly analyse what is the value of a
communication network of size
n and comes to the number around n log n.

Contact: projekt

The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer alternatives.

Wiki and Encyclopedia, at; Blog, at; Newsletter, at 

Basic essay at; interview at; video interview, at

Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT03736 Message: 24/31 L13 [In index]
Message 03877 [Homepage] [Navigation]