[p2p-research] query on Money Publications?

[Stan Rhodes]

Marc,

Thank you for organizing your thoughts on the p2pf wiki in a way which
makes it quick to identify some of the assumptions, and really helps
show the rationale behind it all :) If you hadn't, this email wouldn't
be going out.  Quickly, I'd like to challenge a few of these
assumptions, starting (and ending, in this email) with your axioms:

1. Money is a carrier of both power and information, and as such it
transfers both power and information in every transaction.

"Money" can mean a lot of things, which must not be confused.  I'll
stick with credit and fiat.  In both those cases, money is
information.  In the case of a dollar bill, you could say it is
carrying information, but when it comes to most USD we're talking
about binary bits.  These binary bits describe a relationship between
two entities.  Money is really a relationship.  It's not actually
trust (just ask Michael Linton http://tinyurl.com/6jztlq ), but it is
a relationship, and the most fundamental unit is always information
manifested in some substance, but it a bill or a bit.

If an authority controls the money supply, it is that authority that
is the carrier of power.  Authority that can require a money to be
"legal tender," and enforce it.  One must look at not only the
explicit authority, but the transactional infrastructure (VISA for
example).  In the case of a local currency that's not legal tender, I
am not required to use it, or accept it.  The power is held in the
relationships between users, money does not transfer it.


2. Most people agree on what's good for society, e.g. less toxins in
food, more generosity, less selfishness, etc

All people are overloaded with information.  In short, information
asymmetry is inherent in human interaction, and is a fundamental
factor in economic transactions.  People are ok at agreeing on
something obvious being a problem, but they're not very good at
identifying root causes, and they're particularly bad at coming up
with solutions.  We shouldn't feel bad about this: it's really hard.
I don't think this is really a usable or workable axiom.


3. Enough people will exercise socially conscious judgment when given
the opportunity.

I think this axiom doesn't work at all.  What is the "opportunity?"
How would we define a "socially-conscious judgment?"  Does it have to
actually lead to a mutually-beneficial decision, or just somehow be
aware of others in some way? Rather than an axiom, I think this should
be flipped into a question: at this time, what is the best situation
that enables the best opportunity for beneficial decision-making?  The
work that is most enlightening in this realm Elinor Ostrom et al's
work on common pool resource governance, and mechanism design theory
(Maskin and others) as the game theory attempt to answer this
question.


4. In the peer-production-based economy (or P2P economy) of the
future, it is natural (as well as ideal) for everyone to be a
seller/producer, a buyer/consumer, a lender, a borrower, and a creator
of money, all at the same time. In other words, all roles within the
future P2P economy may be carried out by all peers.

The core concept of money (as credit or fiat) IS this, it is not
unique to a peer-production economy.  This seems an appropriate axiom
for a democratic and equitable monetary system.


In short, I do not think these meet the standard for "axioms" in
traditional logic.  I'm not trying to be pedantic with this, I think
that in designing better systems, we must start with postulates that
are "grounded" in science, and many "truths" that seem obvious to
people are actually incorrect assumptions.  In this case, there's
already a lot of work done we can draw on to frame a critique.

I apologize for not covering more, but I think this gets a critique
started, challenges some assumptions, and gives you some possible
leads, if you had not found them already.  I skimmed background work
you've done, and I saw Chris Cook responded, but I did not see
responses from Michael Linton or Thomas Greco, who I believe are both
on the p2pf Ning.

In closing, consider that this: "adding meaning to each transaction to
bring money flows in sync with people's conscious values" is what the
free market is supposed to allow, and most efficiently.  The problem
with that, once again, is information asymmetry.

Good luck,
-- Stan

> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:41 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I am feeling _pretty confident_ about the current state of the currency model:
>>
>> http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Social_Currency_Model
>>
>> I'd like to approach academic journals in Europe (more forward thinking these days!!!) about consideration for publication.
>>
>> I had passed up an opportunity to publish the 'Wikipedia 3.0' article back 2 years ago in the IEEE Transactions on INternet Computing (I was contacted by an editor there but I just couldn't get the time I needed)
>>
>> I'm free these days and I'm looking to spread well-thought out ideas.
>>
>> The big idea, that I know you're very aware of, is that good ideas have good consequences.
>>
>> I'm continuing to take a step back and visualize the game, so I can actually deliver something that engages people.
>>
>> But for now, given my level of confidence, it would be great to get more exposure for the model itself in academic circles.
>>
>> Do you know of any academic publications that are concerned with renewable energy or new currencies?
>>
>> It's key that they're academic because at this point the narrative is inaccessible to the mass reader.
>>
>> Thanks again for any tips/help here
>>
>> Marc
>>