Message 05125 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT05107 Message: 17/46 L14 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox-en] Re: The Future of Un-Money // was "Re: There IS such a thing as peer money"

[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]Continued:
The previous articulation mixes philosophical and scientific threads intoone model (in an attempt to bridge the humanities and scientific notions ofenergy, and I'm neither a scientist nor a humanist), so here is a strictlyalgorithmic version:
Part I:
P2P theories recognize the requirement to keep peer exchange ratios(inflow/outflow) at near unity (i.e. you get as much as you give) in orderto have a sustainable peer production economy also recognize that the timerange for the exchanges (time between inflow and outflow) is inverselyproportional to peer productivity. In other words, exchanges (whetherone<-->one or one<--->many) that happen in real-time and where the exchangeratio is at or near unity (example: BitTorrent sharing where the downloadand upload limit are both set to maximum limit) allow for maximum peerproductivity, while, in the other extreme, exchanges that happen over a longperiod of time and where the exchange ratio is much lower or much higherthan unity are not sustainable. Exchanges that happen in a moderate amountof time and where the exchange ratio is near or at unity are in the middleof the road when it comes to peer productivity. The latter type may be trueof generalized exchanges.

Part II:  Tokenized Energy Exchangeable for Regular Currency
This idea is an upgrade to the P2P Social Currency model. It replaces theidea of backing of a community currency with stored electric energy with theidea of 'tokenizing stored energy' where the tokens can be exchanged forregular currency, e.g. US dollar.
To make a virtual P2P currency that acts as a carrier (or tokenizer) ofelectric energy to enable exchanges of anything for anything else (usingpotential energy for potential energy as opposed to BitTorrent's bandwidthfor bandwidth which is limited to digital files, i.e. since electric energyis more universally exchangeable than bandwidth) and to allow near unityexchange ratios between peers the ratio of virtual tokens (money) toelectric energy must be fixed, e.g. 1 token is always redeemable for 1000joules, and the number of tokens created must correspond to the amount ofsurplus peer-produced electric energy available in the grid (e.g. storedelectric energy) at the time the tokens are created. Once the tokens arereleased (i.e. paid to peers in return for surplus peer produced electricenergy) they will have a US dollar value based on energy supply and demandsuch that 1 virtual token can be worth e.g., 10 or 20 US cents etc, but mustalways stay above the cost in US dollars of 1000 joules to enablesustainable peer production of energy. The price per virtual token in USdollars will continue to go down as peer energy output increases to fillincreasing demand and the cost in US dollars of peer energy productioncontinues to goes down, but the tokens themselves will always maintain theirvalue in energy. This discourages saving of tokens except for the purpose ofstoring potential energy while enabling the exchange of tokens for USdollars and for peer produced energy.
So the question I still have for Michel is if current P2P theory is designedfor sustainability and highest possible peer productivity (i.e. if thepeer-to-peer exchange ratio is near unity and if the the full exchange(inflow and outflow) happen in real-time, for highest productivity, or ifthey happen over a long period of time, for most forgiving/relaxedpeer-to-peer exchange model, or if they happen at moderate speed for thebest of both worlds.
And the second question is do current P2P theories take peer productivityand sustainability of the whole into consideration on the detail level?
The statement in the previous resposne about non-sustainability of one-sidedpeer exchanges (i.e. something for nothing) still holds but the way the sameis stated in this message re: sustainability is more general (going muchabove or below unity for exchange ratio, i.e. giving a lot more than gettingor getting a lot more than giving, is unsustainable)

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 7:02 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi> wrote:
Hi Michel,>> Here is the P2P Thermoeconomics theory I'm using to ground P2P social> theory (of any flavor) in physics, and, specifically, thermodyanmics.>>> *P2P Thermoeconomics *(Theory)>> Given that human and machine processes and the communiction/transportation> infrastructure for both require energy to continue functioning and given> that this energy cannot be made from nothing or destroyed (i.e, conserved)> then, in order for human and machine processes and the> communiction/transportation infrastructure for both to continue functioning,> energy must flow, as potential energy, e.g. tokens (money) or as electric> current or fuel, between the energy sources, the humans, the machines and> the infrastructure:>> 1. the peers (who can then autonomously, with the help of other peers or> with the help of machines convert the potential energy in whatever form,> e.g. tokenized form, to products, services, and human creation, e.g. music,> movies, new life, etc and to other forms of potential energy, e.g.> happiness, consciousness, love, trust, wisdom, etc),>> 2. the machines (which can then autonomously, with other machines, or with> the help of humans convert the potential energy, in the form of electric> current or fuel, to products, services and man+machine or machine-only> creation), and>> 3. the infrastructure (which uses ponetial energy, in the form of electric> current, to enable the interaction of peers with other peers, using the> machines)>> P2P social theories that recognize the need for energy to flow, as> potential energy, between the people, machines and infrastructure, at a> non-zero cost of energy production and distribution, must also recognize> that peer production systems cannot *sustainably* support the free "giving> away" of products, services and resources.>> In other words, the energy needed by peers, machines and the infrastructure> (as described above) and everything in the universe is conserved, i.e.: it> cannot be created from nothing nor can it be destroyed.>> If a peer, machine or part of the infrastructure needs to use a certain> amount of energy to continue functioning then that peer, machine or part of> the infrastructure needs to get that energy from somewhere, which itself> requires energy, and, since energy in the universe is conserved, the energy> has to flow, as potential energy, between everything in the universe,> including the peers, machines and infrstructure, and that's how anything> that is functioning can continue to function.>> Traditional money cannot act as a carrier of the potential energy (in the> thermoeconomic model) because it's created from nowhere when needed and> destroyed when needed, without respect to the potential energy available to> the given economy. So if we were to make P2P money as a carrier (or> tokenizer) of potential energy then the number of virtual tokens (money)> issued must be based on the amount of potential energy available to the> economy, using a fixed ratio of tokens to potential energy, e.g. 1 token> issued per each 1000 joules in available potential energy (e.g. stored> electric energy,) and once created the virtual tokens (money) must not be> destroyed (i.e. 1 virtual token must always be redeemable for 1000 joules> and the virtual tokens cannot be taken out of circulation), but the virtual> tokens in circulation can change in dollar value based on supply and demand> of energy, so 1 virtual token (i.e. 1000 jules) can be worth 1 dollar or 70> cents etc., but must always stay above the cost of producing and storing> 1000 jules to enable sustainable abundance of potential energy.>>> --->> I'll integrate this with the rough section on Thermoeconomics started> already on the P2Pf wiki and then link to it from P2P Social Currency (also> on P2Pf wiki) which, as of the next 0.72.0 version, will include the> additional clarifications gained from writing this P2P Thermoeconmics> addendum regarding the fixed ratio of "virtual token to potential energy" vs> the variable price of a virtual token. It's the difference between> tokenizing energy and then giving the token a makret price vs tying the> currency to potential energy directly, which I've moved away from since I> realized the conflict between thermodynamic theory and supply-and-demand> economics, which has caused me to adapt the latter to the former, using the> virtual token to separate the concept of potential in thermodynamics from> the concept of energ-as-a-commodity in demand-and-supply economics.>> The key thing with respect to your comment is:>> P2P social theories that recognize the need for energy to flow, as> potential energy, between the people, machines and infrastructure, with a> non-zero cost of energy production and distribution, must also recognize> that peer production systems cannot *sustainably* support the free "giving> away" of products, services and resources.>> Does this impact the current thinking as far as existing peer production> theories?>> Thanks,>> Marc>>>>> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004>wrote:>>> Hi marc,>>>> I read your 2 last messages, especially your reasoning in the previous>> one, and do not disagree with your basic premise that 'near zero' is not>> free, and that right incentives supports sharing choices,>>>> I personally do not see a contradiction between social and physical p2p>> theory, one being grounded in the other,>>>> that I pay less attention to the physical does not mean I deny it,>>>> Michel>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 5:39 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi> wrote:>>>>> Hi Michel,>>>>>> I do not mean to suggest that social p2p theory is any less important>>> than a physical theory but it means that we ought to understand real>>> limitations imposed on any social theory that involves physical processes>>> and resources, which places my side of the discussion firmly in the area of>>> thermoeconomic theory.>>>>>> So maybe we can put P2P Theory under a stereoscope, i.e. using the social>>> and physical lenses rather than just the social lens.>>>>>> Model Update:>>>>>> 1. Re-introduced Model's Scope>>>>>> 2. Updated "Original Idea" by removing reference to where money gets its>>> value today. A whole section called "Existing Model" would have to be added>>> that details the model of the economy in use today...  I would consider that>>> once the game/simulation proves the merits of the model I'm developing.>>>>>> 3. Under "Peer Credits" I gave a definition for "peer production value of>>> money", which I believe is a new phrase.>>>>>> 4. Clarified wording under Anti-Dumping and Anti-Monopoly Caps for Energy>>> Production, with emphasis on why a cap on energy production per peer, which>>> is calculated based on demand, is needed to sustain the abundance model (and>>> removed mention of price setting since it's explained under Energy Price>>> Regulation)>>>>>> 5. Clarified wording under: Energy Price Regulation, with emphasis on the>>> 2-variable price regulation function>>>>>> 6. Added a note re: affinity matrix and current applicability (at end of>>> Clarification to Affinity Matrix)>>>>>> 7. Improved explanation under Value Creation Model (fka Value Creation>>> Process)>>>>>> 8. Introduced the concept of investing in marketing vs investing in>>> production as a model for lending (accumlating credit points) vs investing>>> in goods and services>>>>>> 9. Updated "Why Demurrage Is Bad">>>>>> R 0.58.0 which incorporates the above is at>>>>>>>>>>>> Merry xmas and happy holidays to all :-)>>>>>> Marc>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:45 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi>wrote:>>>>>>> Hi Michel,>>>>>>>> Bandwidth as well as energy have a cost, even if in the case of energy>>>> it comes from the sun or the wind etc. The cost of production, while it>>>> approaches zero (energy/hour) over time will never be zero.>>>>>>>> So then with abundant production that "near zero" figure will rise.>>>> There is also the cost of the distribution grid and its maintenance, just>>>> like the telecom grid, which adds to the cost of peer energy production,>>>> i.e. the grid's maintenance is paid for by the peers (e.g. as a tax) since>>>> there is no concept of "state" and no one else to pay for infrastructure but>>>> the peers themselves, collectively. This is similar to how each person now>>>> pays a flat fee for all-you-can-eat bandwidth.>>>>>>>> This cost of energy production that each peer carries has to be offset>>>> so if I pump my excess energy into the grid then I'd like to get paid for it>>>> but the money I get does not grow on its own, i.e. there is no interest and>>>> it can't grow over time. It has to be converted to goods and services,>>>> invested in appreciable assets (including revenue generating) or loaned>>>> interest-free to others in return for credit points which give the lender>>>> the ability to sell more goods and services. That's the incentive.>>>>>>>> If I make $1M and let it sit idle while everyone else is investing their>>>> money, using it to make products and services or lending it to others>>>> (interest free for seller credit points), my $1M will buy less over time as>>>> people who do all of the above accumulate greater wealth and as the prices>>>> of appreciable assets rise with the increase in wealth generated. So my>>>> incentive is to share (lend with zero interest) my money with others or use>>>> it myself (for producing goods and services or investing in appreciable>>>> assets)>>>>>>>> The idea of money sitting idle (e.g. in a bank) and collecting profit is>>>> eliminated so in order to grow wealth (this is the main incentive) people>>>> have to share the money or make productive use of it, both of which spur>>>> economic activity.>>>>>>>> The nature of money in this model does not change. Only its behavior>>>> changes, and that ultimately changes the nature of the society that is>>>> largely built around it. It's almost like a way to get capitalists off a bad>>>> drug called interest (bad for their soul, bad for society) and give them a>>>> healthy alternative (good for their soul, relatively speaking, and good for>>>> society)>>>>>>>> Despite being 20-30 years away from implementability the model is itself>>>> a transitional one, not the model we all hope to have in 100 years. It's a>>>> way to get society to consider thinking differently.>>>>>>>> My gripe with idealism is that I often see ideas that conflict with>>>> basic physical laws. How can you get energy for free? or anything for>>>> "free"? There is an energy cost to everything including energy production. I>>>> can invest in solar panels for my home and get "free" energy (there is a>>>> cost which is the maintenance of those panels but that can be near zero)>>>> However, the minute I connect my generator to the grid (to share excess>>>> energy) I absrob a portion of the cost of the grid and its ongoing>>>> maintenance. Entropy, in other words, makes sure that there is a cost to>>>> keeping things in working order, and while we see the cost of creation going>>>> to near zero (after sunk cost) the cost of transport (information or energy)>>>> is still a very real cost. The cost of transport is connected to population>>>> and geographic scale, so as those continue to rise the cost of transport>>>> will continue to be a real cost, even as the cost of transport per mile>>>> continues to drop.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Michel Bauwens <>>>> michelsub2004> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Marc,>>>>>>>>>> I think that Bittorrent works best because it recogniwed bandwidth>>>>> scarcity even within the context of abundance, but it still seems to me that>>>>> the incentive is between the individual and the system, not tit for tat>>>>> between individuals; hence the logic is one of managing the commons, rahter>>>>> than a gift economy logic ...>>>>>>>>>> To the degree a system moves to the scarcity continuum, it needs>>>>> management of the commons to incentive participation and discourage>>>>> free-riding, to the degree it moves to real abundance; it needs those less>>>>> ...>>>>>>>>>> So as you are dealing with physical constraints, such as finite energy,>>>>> your research on incentives is more crucial,>>>>>>>>>> Michel>>>>>>>>>> On 12/22/08, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Michael,>>>>>>>>>>>> I totally appreciate your support and generous help in accomplishing>>>>>> my objectives.>>>>>>>>>>>> I think this discussion is of general usefullness so I'm going to dig>>>>>> deeper a bit, and see what comes up.>>>>>>>>>>>>  <<>>>>>>> does bittorrent follow the principle: voluntary participation,>>>>>>> available to all: to that degree it is peer to peer, to the degree it does>>>>>>> introduce conditionality it is not; but it tries to use the second in the>>>>>>> context of the first>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It tries to use the second in the context of the first, and>>>>>> unfortunately the first is *not* possible without the second.>>>>>>>>>>>> So what does it mean that something can only exist in a modified form?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If 5 peers were downloading a given file from 1 peer (and you can have>>>>>> many such exchanges going at the same time at the ratio of 5 downloading to>>>>>> 1 seeding) then it would not be a "Torrent." It would be a Trickle and would>>>>>> take much longer, during which the seeding peer is more likely to go off>>>>>> line. So the whole model becomes dramatically less efficient. In fact,>>>>>> that's why BitTorrent as a protocol became so wildly popular (because it>>>>>> enforced sharing of each downloading peer's upstream bandwidth.)>>>>>>>>>>>> The question becomes idealism vs efficiency (and effectiveness), and a>>>>>> balance is required.>>>>>>>>>>>> The context of "tit for tat" is very important. At its most basic>>>>>> level, tit for tat is "cause and effect" and while much of poetry and beauty>>>>>> is non-causal, classical physics (the laws governing our physical reality)>>>>>> is...  Including in that is the laws of thermodynamics. So if I was to build>>>>>> an energy driven economy that works in the real world (not inside an>>>>>> arbitrary computer model) with real people (not abstract automatons) I would>>>>>> have to understand energy and information flows in nature (and hence, the>>>>>> interest engineers and scientists have taken in thermoeconomics and, for me>>>>>> personally, the next layer of that is the models of energy>>>>>> minimization/simulated annealing/self-optimization found in statistical>>>>>> thermodyanmics) and that is because people, goods and services, and material>>>>>> basis for the real-world economy (land, mineral mines, water, sun, wind,>>>>>> etc) are all subject to the laws of nature.>>>>>>>>>>>> That does not mean that the value of a social P2P theory is less than>>>>>> the value of a thermodynamic P2P theory. Not at all. The social theory gives>>>>>> guidance to the model builder but without an understanding of how nature>>>>>> works, we can wreck havoc on it and/or on ourselves. We are not a closed>>>>>> system. Nothing is. So we need to understand nature's own way of things not>>>>>> just the social/ethical ways we espouse. There is really a need to>>>>>> understand both, not one or the other. That's my opinion.>>>>>>>>>>>> The last thing I'd want to do is destroy the fish. They're going>>>>>> extinct in 50 years, all species (except the mercury-laden farmed varieties)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The whole idea is to work with nature, but that takes a negotiation>>>>>> between what man wants (the evolved, conscious man) and how to make it work>>>>>> the "natural" (or nature cognizant) way.>>>>>>>>>>>> BitTorrent works the natural way, and by doing so it leverages the>>>>>> power of natural law (in this case, "you can't create bandwidth from>>>>>> nothing") rather just the social law (in this case, content as a common pool>>>>>> or the seeding peer's bandwith as a common pool). Instead it treat's the>>>>>> peers' upstream bandwidth as a common pool and in doing so it forces every>>>>>> peer to contribute.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can it paradoxically enhance the sharing, sometimes it can, but at>>>>>>> other times it can't and produces crowding out effects>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think the important thing is to see what is primary and>>>>>>> secondary>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for example, ITQ fishing permits are a market based system but placed>>>>>>> in the context of a commons so that fish cannot be destroyed ..>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the bittorrent case I would argue that the tit for tat is a>>>>>>> secondary incentive, so I agree with you that tit for tat depends on context>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all this being said, I fully support what you are trying to achieve,>>>>>>> and hope it will work as this is indeed a very important protocol you are>>>>>>> working on,>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michel>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it is also useful to distinguish sharing from a real commons>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:13 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi>wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I get the part about no "tit for tat" but the most successful P2P>>>>>>>> model in practice, i.e. bittorrent/file sharing, forces a tit for tat for>>>>>>>> practical reasons (e.g. to make sure every peer downloading a given file is>>>>>>>> contributing to the common bandwidth for that file). If there was no tit for>>>>>>>> tat the sharing model simply stops working.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the model I'm working on in order for someone to have more wealth>>>>>>>> they have to share some of their money (i.e let others use some their money>>>>>>>> for free and the more they share of their money the more money they can>>>>>>>> make, without punishing the borrower with interest.) If I was to design it>>>>>>>> so that people can get wealthy without sharing their money, i.e. if remove>>>>>>>> the tit (sharing money) for tat (making more money, building wealth), then>>>>>>>> the model of "the more you share, the more you have" would not exist.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "tit for tat" in itself is not bad. It's a tool. It all depends on>>>>>>>> how it's used.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What I'm building is a P2P economic model predicated on the>>>>>>>> tokenized exchange of energy, where "the more you share, the more you have">>>>>>>> is enabled by a form of "tit for tat" that does not punish and only rewards.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as the family types, as you pointed out, all 7 types may have>>>>>>>> some or all of the relationships (per Fisk's definition) but what I'm saying>>>>>>>> is that, in a P2P economy, a family can interact with another family through>>>>>>>> a single point of contact (e.g. a trading interface) rather than having each>>>>>>>> member of the family interact with individual peers out there. It may work>>>>>>>> for some families some of the time, as it does in today's society. For>>>>>>>> example, the Jones family has a common budget that they use to buy>>>>>>>> groceries. Any member of the family can use that budget to buy food items.>>>>>>>> If they use a single ID/interface then they will appear as a single peer to>>>>>>>> the rest of the network. In some exising non-affluent communities, where>>>>>>>> there is a single bread earner the family may have just one account on the>>>>>>>> p2p transaction network and so in such a community there may be more family>>>>>>>> (as peer) to family (as peer) interactions (for local trading) than>>>>>>>> individual peer to individual peer.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Michel Bauwens <>>>>>>>> michelsub2004> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the family is not a separate structure, there are at least seven>>>>>>>>> fundamentally different family structures worldwide, if I remember correctly>>>>>>>>> (according to Emmanuel Todd's landmark book on the topic)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest you read>>>>>>>>> for a>>>>>>>>> fourfold relational grammar that includes equality matching, authority>>>>>>>>> ranking, market pricing and communal sharing.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peer to peer is specifically communal sharing or 'non-reciprocal>>>>>>>>> exchange' (also called generalized exchange because there is no tit for tat)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within the family several modalities are possible>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - when father gets more: authority ranking>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - when you compete for giving a birthday gift to another family>>>>>>>>> member who gave you one before: equality matching>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - when you sell your motorbike as second hand to your sibling:>>>>>>>>> market pricing>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - when you selflessly give to your children: communal shareholding>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P2P Theory, as I define it, is the study of communal shareholding>>>>>>>>> dynamics within distributed structures,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michel>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 2:42 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi>wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then that makes the case that "Peer To Peer" is a universal but>>>>>>>>>> non-trivial social theory that has many facets and that is not one theory>>>>>>>>>> but several...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I understand that there is no easy way back to "family" in the old>>>>>>>>>> sense of the word and that "family" is now a group of people who have shared>>>>>>>>>> affinity to each other or certain ideals (e.g. the P2P and Open Source>>>>>>>>>> movements)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet, someone can still argue a return to the traditional genetic>>>>>>>>>> family, which is still very alive and well in non-Westernized societies, and>>>>>>>>>> by doing so they'd emphasize Family structure over the more modern P2P>>>>>>>>>> structure with its evolved theories. I happen to dig P2P theories and want>>>>>>>>>> to challenge them at the same time, by borrowing analogies and simulations>>>>>>>>>> from statistical thermodynamics (as applied to the self-governance and>>>>>>>>>> evolution of P2P systems) which is something I started thinking about while>>>>>>>>>> working on the P2P currency model, which by the way is predicated on the>>>>>>>>>> tokenized exchange of energy, per the laws of thermodynamics, and what I was>>>>>>>>>> saying earlier re: Un-Money is that non-tokenized exchange of energy is the>>>>>>>>>> closest thing we can get to as far as removing the concept of money. Prior>>>>>>>>>> to the laws of thermodynamics people were interested in perpetual motion>>>>>>>>>> machines and "free energy" etc. These ideas are creeping back into current>>>>>>>>>> thinking on free culture. To me, p2p theory is subject to the laws of>>>>>>>>>> physics because it has real world usage. It's not merely a social theory.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to go too far too soon with that thought, especially>>>>>>>>>> not before reading/understanding all the amazing work that has been done,>>>>>>>>>> including yours.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marc>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Michel Bauwens <>>>>>>>>>> michelsub2004> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marc,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peer to peer does not exclude/disrupt the family,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but rather than a return to premodern holism, it is based on>>>>>>>>>>> affinity-based aggregation around common value, on top of other existing>>>>>>>>>>> relational modes,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is indeed built on the positive achievements of western>>>>>>>>>>> invidiualism, while also an attempt to rectify its many weaknesses through>>>>>>>>>>> alternative voluntary relationality>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see for more>>>>>>>>>>> extensive investigation of these aspects,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michel>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 6:51 AM, marc fawzi <>>>>>>>>>>> marc.fawzi> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The idea is to disrupt the disruptor so like surface of the>>>>>>>>>>>> ocean our>>>>>>>>>>>> common vision is in constant renewal.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Along these lines, I could make up the argument that P2P is too>>>>>>>>>>>> much>>>>>>>>>>>> abou the individual and not abou the Family. So based on this I>>>>>>>>>>>> would>>>>>>>>>>>> proceed to say that Family2Family would be a more socially fit>>>>>>>>>>>> paradigm than peer to peer, where peer refers predominantly to a>>>>>>>>>>>> single individual.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where Centralized is Parent2Child, we have moved too fast to>>>>>>>>>>>> individualism and forgot about the social importance of family.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Disrupting the disruptive model allows the model to be in a>>>>>>>>>>>> constant>>>>>>>>>>>> state of renewal.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So what I'm saying is that I don't have to use the word peer in>>>>>>>>>>>> an>>>>>>>>>>>> unorthodox way to disrupt the existing P2P theory. I can offer>>>>>>>>>>>> another>>>>>>>>>>>> theory such as Family2Family.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But all change is good as long as we all derive meaning from it,>>>>>>>>>>>> as you sated.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/19/08, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>> > Marc,>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > I personally do not object to your usage of peer money, as>>>>>>>>>>>> long as we know>>>>>>>>>>>> > what is meant, which is why I tried to clear the conceptual>>>>>>>>>>>> place.>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Neither my own p2p theory nor oekonux has any monopoly on the>>>>>>>>>>>> "peer" term,>>>>>>>>>>>> > but as you know understand, in our frame, it is somewhat>>>>>>>>>>>> contradictary, but>>>>>>>>>>>> > while Stefan only accepts capitalist money in the transition,>>>>>>>>>>>> I call for>>>>>>>>>>>> > and>>>>>>>>>>>> > support efforts to change the current monetary protocols ...>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > Michel>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 3:48 AM, marc fawzi <>>>>>>>>>>>> marc.fawzi> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Some of you did not see this reply (came empty?), so I'm>>>>>>>>>>>> taking the>>>>>>>>>>>> >> opportunity to send you a fuller version of it.>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> -->>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Thanks Michel.>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Per your articulation of "peer informed money" vs. the ideal>>>>>>>>>>>> "p2p>>>>>>>>>>>> >> society,">>>>>>>>>>>> >> I now get where Stefan is coming from with his statement that>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no>>>>>>>>>>>> >> such thing as "peer money" ...>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Indeed, labels are often used for convenience and>>>>>>>>>>>> commonality, so instead>>>>>>>>>>>> >> of proliferating and splintering ad infinitum we tend to use>>>>>>>>>>>> common>>>>>>>>>>>> >> labels,>>>>>>>>>>>> >> e.g. peer money, to refer to a common context, even where a>>>>>>>>>>>> new label (in>>>>>>>>>>>> >> this case: peer informed money) would be more accurate.>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> The case for standardized labeling is if we were to label the>>>>>>>>>>>> same roads>>>>>>>>>>>> >> on>>>>>>>>>>>> >> a map using different names then chances are people will have>>>>>>>>>>>> a hard time>>>>>>>>>>>> >> following us to our common destination.>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I'm going out on a limb here in saying that the penultimate>>>>>>>>>>>> replacement>>>>>>>>>>>> >> for>>>>>>>>>>>> >> money (or "un-money") for the ideal p2p society would be>>>>>>>>>>>> non-tokenized,>>>>>>>>>>>> >> natural energy transfer as opposed to capturing and>>>>>>>>>>>> transferring various>>>>>>>>>>>> >> forms of energy (e.g. work energy, creative energy, emotional>>>>>>>>>>>> energy,>>>>>>>>>>>> >> mental>>>>>>>>>>>> >> energy, 'intentional' energy, etc) as "tokens">>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I agree that as we drive toward the same destination, we>>>>>>>>>>>> should not "dead>>>>>>>>>>>> >> end" certain lanes of the highway so that only a few of us>>>>>>>>>>>> would make it>>>>>>>>>>>> >> to>>>>>>>>>>>> >> the destination. All lanes should remain open and the various>>>>>>>>>>>> exits on>>>>>>>>>>>> >> the>>>>>>>>>>>> >> way labeled in a standard way.>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> And I agree that we have to recognize when we're on the road>>>>>>>>>>>> vs having>>>>>>>>>>>> >> arrived at our destination. For now, we're definitely still>>>>>>>>>>>> on the road,>>>>>>>>>>>> >> so>>>>>>>>>>>> >> the concept of "no money, "which is basically moving away>>>>>>>>>>>> from tokenized>>>>>>>>>>>> >> energy transfer, e.g. I pay $1 for a bus ride, to>>>>>>>>>>>> non-tokenized energy>>>>>>>>>>>> >> transfer, e.g. the bus is powered by the energy of its>>>>>>>>>>>> passengers, is>>>>>>>>>>>> >> what>>>>>>>>>>>> >> we will ultimately end up with, IMO, but we don't have the>>>>>>>>>>>> technology yet>>>>>>>>>>>> >> for such universal, non-tokenized, natural energy transfer.>>>>>>>>>>>> By "energy" I>>>>>>>>>>>> >> mean all forms (work energy, creative energy, emotional>>>>>>>>>>>> energy,>>>>>>>>>>>> >> 'intentional' energy, mental energy, spiritual energy, i.e.>>>>>>>>>>>> "energy in>>>>>>>>>>>> >> all>>>>>>>>>>>> >> its forms")>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> In other words, the natural flow on energy in its all forms>>>>>>>>>>>> between>>>>>>>>>>>> >> people>>>>>>>>>>>> >> is the ultimate "un-money">>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I may add an addendum explaining non-tokenized energy>>>>>>>>>>>> transfer, which to>>>>>>>>>>>> >> me, would make the ultimate "un-money" but it's so far out>>>>>>>>>>>> that it would>>>>>>>>>>>> >> only serve the most forward looking individuals, and only on>>>>>>>>>>>> a>>>>>>>>>>>> >> metaphysical>>>>>>>>>>>> >> level, so it may end up in an article on its own, separate>>>>>>>>>>>> from the ideas>>>>>>>>>>>> >> for the near future expressed in the P2P Social>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Currency<>>>>>>>>>>>> >article.>>>>>>>>>>>>  >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Marc>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Michel Bauwens <>>>>>>>>>>>> >> michelsub2004> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> I would just like to clarify something, about the concept>>>>>>>>>>>> of peer>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> money,>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> taking into account's Stefan's critique>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> First of all, I agree with Stefan that peer production>>>>>>>>>>>> should be>>>>>>>>>>>> >> exclusively>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> used to moneyless processes involving voluntary>>>>>>>>>>>> contributions and>>>>>>>>>>>> >> universal>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> availability of the resulting common value.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> In this sense, peer money is contradictory.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> However, at present, peer to peer dynamics exist within a>>>>>>>>>>>> broader>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> field>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> dominated by market (and state) processes, and it is of>>>>>>>>>>>> interest to>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> peer>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> producers that the context in which it operates is as>>>>>>>>>>>> close as>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> possible>>>>>>>>>>>> >> to>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> the non-alienating values of p2p.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Thus it is legimate that it is our wish to move towards a>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> peer-informed>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> society and context, at least until such time as a>>>>>>>>>>>> presumable fuller>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> p2p>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> society would exist, in which even lots of physical>>>>>>>>>>>> resources could>>>>>>>>>>>> >> possible>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> be produced and distributed in such a way.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> I think it is crucial to think about such distinctions,>>>>>>>>>>>> between peer>>>>>>>>>>>> >> money>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> and peer-informed money and processes, the latter not>>>>>>>>>>>> being a>>>>>>>>>>>> >> contradiction>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> in terms>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> (however, there remains a theoretical possibility of peer>>>>>>>>>>>> money: if>>>>>>>>>>>> >> there>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> were some unconditional way to reward peer producers, with>>>>>>>>>>>> some form>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> of>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> value that were usable outside the peer production process>>>>>>>>>>>> itself,>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> that>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> could probably be characterized as peer money?)>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> So, one of the questions is then, how to reform the market>>>>>>>>>>>> structures?>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> A crucial aspect of this reform is to reform/transform the>>>>>>>>>>>> monetary>>>>>>>>>>>> >> system,>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> to arrive at a peer-informed monetary system. This>>>>>>>>>>>> involves refusing>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> the>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> built-in infinite growth protocol of existing capitalist>>>>>>>>>>>> money, and>>>>>>>>>>>> >> using>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> money and finances with value-sensitive designs.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Otherwise we arrive at the, in my opinion, absurd position>>>>>>>>>>>> of Stefan,>>>>>>>>>>>> >> which>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> basically says: until such time as we have a peer to peer>>>>>>>>>>>> society, we>>>>>>>>>>>> >> are>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> happy to let capitalist money be, 'because it's all money>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway'.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Such a position is similar as the one saying: fascism and>>>>>>>>>>>> the>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> keynesian>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> welfare state are all manifestations of bourgeois society,>>>>>>>>>>>> there the>>>>>>>>>>>> >> same>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> anyway, so  we don't choose one over the other.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> No, they are not the same, and neither are the current>>>>>>>>>>>> system>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> producing>>>>>>>>>>>> >> the>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> financial meltdown, and alternative value-conscious,>>>>>>>>>>>> peer-informed>>>>>>>>>>>> >> monetary>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> systems that have totally different results for social and>>>>>>>>>>>> natural>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> externalities.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> So, in this sense, a project like Marc's called peer money>>>>>>>>>>>> for>>>>>>>>>>>> >> convenience's>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> sake, is totally legitimate and important,>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Michel>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 6:30 AM, marc fawzi <>>>>>>>>>>>> marc.fawzi>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > [Converted from multipart/alternative]>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > [1 text/plain]>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Hi Stephan, Michel, Sam, others,>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > I tend to see Stefan's argument that there is no such>>>>>>>>>>>> thing as "peer>>>>>>>>>>>> >> money">>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > is a case of one person's operative reality versus that>>>>>>>>>>>> of another,>>>>>>>>>>>> >> not a>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > case of discourse within a globally or locally shared>>>>>>>>>>>> reality.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Here is the latest draft of the P2P Currency model I've>>>>>>>>>>>> been working>>>>>>>>>>>> >> on:>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > (with simplified arguments and clearer construction)>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > And here is a particularly interesting endorsement>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > <>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> of>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > the shared reality I'm working within, from a European>>>>>>>>>>>> based group>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > promoting>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Google Credit, a project that is in the running for the>>>>>>>>>>>> Google>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > 10^100>>>>>>>>>>>> >> prize>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > (see Article of the Year Award on right hand side under>>>>>>>>>>>> video). I>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > have>>>>>>>>>>>> >> no>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > relation to them and did not know they exist up till a>>>>>>>>>>>> few days ago.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > There are many others who have the same operative>>>>>>>>>>>> reality as myself,>>>>>>>>>>>> >> in>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > full>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > or in part, when it comes to the peer money and peer>>>>>>>>>>>> credit.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > I'm working on game design that would energetically>>>>>>>>>>>> align people's>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > operative>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > realities with my own, i.e. to create a locally shared>>>>>>>>>>>> reality by>>>>>>>>>>>> >> changing>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > people's perceptions through imagination.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Iff money, not just peer money, can be derived and used>>>>>>>>>>>> more>>>>>>>>>>>> >> intelligently,>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > then there is nothing in my (and other people's)>>>>>>>>>>>> operative reality>>>>>>>>>>>> >> against>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > its existence. In fact, it's existence is demanded in>>>>>>>>>>>> such scenario,>>>>>>>>>>>> >> partly>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > because of pragmatism (and knowledge of the current>>>>>>>>>>>> maturity of man,>>>>>>>>>>>> >> or>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > lack>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > of) and partly because such new money would enable>>>>>>>>>>>> society to take a>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > qualitivate step in the right direction.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > I hope this enables further discussion.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Regards,>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Marc>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > --->>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > *From: Stefan Merten* <smerten> Reply-To:>>>>>>>>>>>> >> list-en>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > To: list-en>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Cc: Stefan Merten <smerten>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Date: Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:57 AM>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----->>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Hash: SHA1>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Hi list!>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Sorry for being so quiet but - as usual - the conference>>>>>>>>>>>> preparation>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > eats up a lot of my free time / energy.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > The following is something I promised Michel to do. It>>>>>>>>>>>> has been>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > triggered by the use of the term "peer money" which I>>>>>>>>>>>> think is a>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > contradiction in terms. This is an attempt to give>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons why I>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > think>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > that money and peer production are generally in>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > Having said that I should also say that they can walk>>>>>>>>>>>> together for>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > some time but according to germ form theory that is no>>>>>>>>>>>> contradiction>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > to the contradiction thesis. But one should keep in mind>>>>>>>>>>>> that to use>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > money for peer production projects is always a twisted>>>>>>>>>>>> approach>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > because of that contradiction.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > The approach below is based on comparing features of>>>>>>>>>>>> money and peer>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > production. In that it is also a contribution to further>>>>>>>>>>>> define peer>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > production.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > * Structural force vs. volunteering>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  Money is a structural force used to force your will>>>>>>>>>>>> onto others.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  This is exactly what we call buying - though it doesn't>>>>>>>>>>>> sound so>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  nice. If you would not need to force others to do>>>>>>>>>>>> something (for>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  you) you don't need to pay them.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  Compared to direct force like violence money is a>>>>>>>>>>>> structural force>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  because it is indirect. As such it needs a societal>>>>>>>>>>>> framework to be>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  effective at all: Payment makes no sense unless the>>>>>>>>>>>> payee can buy>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  something himself.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  Peer production on the other hand is largely based on>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  Volunteering, however, is the exact opposite of being>>>>>>>>>>>> forced to do>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  something. Someone volunteers for a task because it is>>>>>>>>>>>> own wish to>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  do something. In fact the volunteering is a central>>>>>>>>>>>> feature of>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  Selbstentfaltung.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > * Scarcity vs. ampleness>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  Money is based on scarcity. In fact in a way it encodes>>>>>>>>>>>> scarcity as>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  a societal concept to a so-called real abstraction. In>>>>>>>>>>>> fact money>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  which is not scarce in some way simply makes no sense.>>>>>>>>>>>> If I am>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  allowed to create arbitrary amounts of money at every>>>>>>>>>>>> time why>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  should I require the money of others at all?>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  Peer production on the other hand is based on ampleness>>>>>>>>>>>> of the>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  product. All examples we found so far for peer>>>>>>>>>>>> production are based>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  on ampleness (which is simpler to have in the digital>>>>>>>>>>>> world). In>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  fact ampleness of the product is the typical goal of>>>>>>>>>>>> peer>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > production>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  projects.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > * Force needed to keep vs. built-in sustainability>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  I said that money encodes scarcity as a general>>>>>>>>>>>> principle of>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  society. However, money being an abstraction is not>>>>>>>>>>>> scarce by>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > itself>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  - everybody can print more dollars. Thus scarcity must>>>>>>>>>>>> be enforced>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  by some external means. Typically this is done by the>>>>>>>>>>>> state. In>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  effect each money system needs a forceful>>>>>>>>>>>> super-structure to keep>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > it>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  running.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  Peer production on the other hand is based on a>>>>>>>>>>>> built-in>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  sustainability. A peer production project is not based>>>>>>>>>>>> on some>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  abstract principle but on the need for / want of a>>>>>>>>>>>> perfect solution>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  for a problem. It needs no external means to keep a>>>>>>>>>>>> peer production>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  project up. All the power comes from within.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > * Abstract vs. concrete>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  One of the central features of money is that it is>>>>>>>>>>>> abstract. Money>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  is not related to any concrete thing - which you easily>>>>>>>>>>>> understand>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  when you look at the global flow of money compared to>>>>>>>>>>>> the global>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  flow of goods.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  Peer production projects on the other hand are always>>>>>>>>>>>> concrete. The>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  goals are concrete and the effort spent is for concrete>>>>>>>>>>>> reasons.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > * Reduction vs. multi-facet perspective>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  Money is always a reduction - which is in fact the>>>>>>>>>>>> central feature>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  of an abstraction. The result is that huge bunches of>>>>>>>>>>>> concrete>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  aspects are projected into a number.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  In peer production projects on the other hand a>>>>>>>>>>>> multi-facet>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  perspective is the rule. Though at some times decisions>>>>>>>>>>>> need to be>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  made which prefer one possible way over an other>>>>>>>>>>>> possible way these>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  decisions are made by a complex consideration of many>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  facets.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > * Exchange value orientation vs. use value orientation>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  Money based production is based on a orientation on>>>>>>>>>>>> exchange value:>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  You produce because you want to exchange your product>>>>>>>>>>>> for money.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > The>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  product itself does not matter to you and it is totally>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficient>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  to produce relative quality and relative use.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  In peer production projects on the other hand the very>>>>>>>>>>>> reason of a>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  project is producing use value. Why should a peer>>>>>>>>>>>> production exist>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  at all otherwise?>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > * Alienation vs. Selbstentfaltung>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  While money is based on alienation from things and>>>>>>>>>>>> humans peer>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  production is based on Selbstentfaltung of humans ->>>>>>>>>>>> which is the>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  opposite of alienation.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > * Immorality included vs. no immorality>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  Money as an alienated principle can be used to to>>>>>>>>>>>> immoral things ->>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  like waging wars. This is something we all know and>>>>>>>>>>>> bemoan more>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  often than not.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  Peer production on the other hand is based on>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering and>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >  nobody volunteers for goals which s/he finds immoral.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> > I'll stop here looking forward to responses and further>>>>>>>>>>>> insights.>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >                                               Grüße>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> >                                               Stefan>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> [2 text/html]>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> _________________________________>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Web-Site:>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> Organization:>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> 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>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > BEST VIDEO ON P2P:>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->>>>>>>>>>>  The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to>>>>>>>>>>> peer alternatives.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at; Blog, at>>>>>>>>>>>; Newsletter, at>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Basic essay at;>>>>>>>>>>> interview at>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->>>>>>>>>  The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to>>>>>>>>> peer alternatives.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at; Blog, at>>>>>>>>>; Newsletter, at>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Basic essay at;>>>>>>>>> interview at>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->>>>>>>  The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer>>>>>>> alternatives.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at; Blog, at>>>>>>>; Newsletter, at>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Basic essay at;>>>>>>> interview at>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->>>>> The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer>>>>> alternatives.>>>>>>>>>> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at; Blog, at>>>>>; Newsletter, at>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Basic essay at; interview>>>>> at>>>>>>>>>> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -->> The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer>> alternatives.>>>> Wiki and Encyclopedia, at; Blog, at>>; Newsletter, at>>>>>> Basic essay at; interview at>>>> BEST VIDEO ON P2P:>>>>>> KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at>>>> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,>>>>>>

[2 text/html]�������������������������{��0����{������jب���0����{��zK�����#zK����

Thread: oxenT05107 Message: 17/46 L14 [In index]
Message 05125 [Homepage] [Navigation]