[p2p-research] Capital Club

Fri Mar 7 00:07:22 CET 2008

Hi Vinay,

a small remark on my side.

If we define capitalism as a regime for the endless and infinite
accumulation of capital, can just an infinite growth system exist within a
finite natural system. My answer would tend to be negative.

So, I would distinguish the market from capitalism, the market simply being
a technique to deal with scarce goods, which is not necessarily coupled to a
infinite growth engine.

I think that natural capitalism, as an attempt to marry the recognition of
natural constraints and externalities with a market or capitalist system is
a good thing, an improvement, and I think it will be attempted, but I am not
convinced that it will succeed.

So my position is that the core logic of the system needs to change, with
the market being a subsystem of the new meta p2p logic.

But such a fundamental re-orientation won't succeed and be tried before
attempts to change the system from within, so natural capitalism is the next
big thing,

Michel

On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Vinay Gupta <hexayurt at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> What do y'all think of Natural Capitalism from Lovins et. al.?
> Vinay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Vinay Gupta - Designer, Hexayurt Project - an excellent public domain
> refugee shelter system
> Gizmo Project VOIP: 775-743-1851 (usually works!)                Skype/Gizmo/Gtalk:
> hexayurt
> Cell: Iceland (+354) 869-4605
> http://hexayurt.com
> "Poverty is the worst form of violence" said Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
>    But what to do?
>
>
>
> On Mar 6, 2008, at 7:48 PM, Marcin Jakubowski wrote:
>
> Patrick,
>
> Before we get further into this important topic, I'd like you to define
> your problem statement more clearly. You are presenting certain content,
> with a stated goal of explaining centralization of power. Is your goal that
> in itself, or is your further goal to address this ill and propose a
> solution? If so, then I would like you to phrase your content in the form of
> an explicit, testable hypothesis. This will help clarify and motivate your
> set of concepts, and provide a springboard for practical critique, relevant
> to the underpinnings of society. If what you are proposing cannot be tested,
> then for the purpose of my work, it would have limited use. Please expand on
> your motives and scope.
>
> Marcin
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello fellow researchers,
> >
> > This post is a first step toward describing the very basics of
> > economic activity - including such topics as ownership, production,
> > profit, policy, governance, growth.
> >
> > This material should be understandable by any audience, but
> > concentrates on issues that are not so commonly discussed, so should
> > be interesting to even the most hardened economist.
> >
> > I hope you will help me shape this into a full description of how we
> > have arrived at the dangerous centralization of power we now face at
> > the global level.
> >
> > Please give critical feedback with logical arguments.
> >
> > This first part shows that individual consumer ownership is the most
> > efficient arrangement when utilization/price is large enough, and that
> > individual consumers already choose that path.
> >
> > Part One: The Utilization-to-Price Ratio
> >
> > Why do most people choose to buy an automobile instead of renting?
> >
> > Why do most people choose to rent a rug-doctor instead of buying?
> >
> > When a person can make use of (utilize) a machine to a sufficient
> > degree, it is more efficient for them to OWN instead of RENT.
> >
> > But wait, how could that be?  The owner (whoever he is) must pay all
> > costs either way.  A rental agency must pay for the initial
> > investment, upkeep/repair/maintenance/wear, insurance,
> > protection/security, storage, taxes, and any wages to workers needed
> > to do any of those thing.  A private owner must pay those exact same
> > costs, so how could it possibly be cheaper to own outright instead of
> > rent?
> >
> > The difference is called 'profit'.  Profit is the difference between
> > the costs an owner pays and the price a consumer is willing to pay.
> > When the owner and consumer are the same person, there is no such
> > thing as profit.  That is the savings in ownership over rental.
> >
> > But what about machines that are not "worth it" to own because that
> > individual cannot sufficiently utilize them?  It must be worth it for
> > SOMEONE to own them, otherwise the rental agency wouldn't do so.  The
> > difference here is a matter of utilization.
> >
> > How can a consumer increase utilization to the point of making
> > ownership "worth it"?  One way is to buy the machine with a group of
> > other consumers.  Organizing with your neighbors to buy a rug-doctor
> > is cheaper if there are enough of you to keep that equipment busy, so
> > why don't we (consumers) do this more often?  Why do we leave that
> > work of organizing up to a business that intends to charge us price
> > above cost?
> >
> > There is real work involved in the act of organization, but that cost
> > (wages to management) must be paid either way.  So what is keeping us
> > (the consumers) from organizing and cooperatively owning machines,
> > buildings, even land?
> >
> > I think part of the problem is a long-standing belief that whoever
> > possesses the skills to operate those machines should be the owners,
> > but doesn't the above argument show that the consumers must be the
> > owners for optimum efficiency?
> >
> > I think another part of the problem is in figuring out how those
> > resources should be shared among the owners.  It is a difficult,
> > sticky situation that most people would rather just avoid altogether
> > because of the in-fighting they perceive would occur.  It seems such a
> > group could write some 'rules' about how to schedule access and how
> > much each individual must compensate the others for any extra wear or
> > exclusion they cause.  I see such a contract, if 'properly' written,
> > would be the only thing our society needs to begin down the road of
> > peace and abundance, but will delay that discussion for now.
> >
> > Cooperative consumer ownership is quite rare today, but there are a
> > few cases where a group of friends wanting a private airplane make a
> > "shared investment", and then rent the plane from the collective
> > others whenever they want to use it.  None of those people need the
> > ability to fly themselves, they can just hire a pilot and pay that
> > wage as a cost while still saving money by not paying profit.
> >
> > Another example is shared ownership of a vacation house.  The
> > for-profit "Time Share" industry has grown around that desire, but I'm
> > referring to the less common case when a private group of people buy a
> > house that they share amongst themselves in whatever way they see fit.
> >
>
>
>

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

Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at
http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p

Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at
http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html
BEST VIDEO ON P2P:
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4549818267592301968&hl=en-AU

KEEP UP TO DATE through our Delicious tags at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20080307/80889b3a/attachment.html 