[p2p-research] Capital Club

[Stan Rhodes]

Vinay,

I'm not sure which behaviors you're referring to.  If you mean establishing
vested commons, then I'd say that it doesn't just correlate, it directly
increases freedom.  If you mean something else, which I think you may, I'm
afraid I don't know what it is.

I have two main problems with the concept of the hypercar presented by
Lovins: the claims he makes, and the root problems that he doesn't offer
real solutions to (consumerism, space taken, and injury: he tries to hit on
them in the end).  Granted, it's all speculation anyway, but that
speculation hasn't panned out in the 9 years since it was published.  RMI's
page on the hypercar hasn't changed at all, and they've changed the focus of
Hypercar, Inc (now Fiberforge) to composite materials.  That's probably a
really good thing, because they might be able to make some solid inroads
there.  However, this lack of progress speaks volumes to how hard making new
vehicles is.

I'm not sure how I would misunderstand what the stuff was about, since
Lovins is pretty explicit in what he's talking about (aerodynamic, strong,
safe, cheap), just not how it's feasible (safe because it's light... huh?).
Also I think Lovins' solution doesn't address the real problems anyway, so
me providing a better solution in what I see as their non-solution context
would be moot.  As for my "real" solutions to the big problems, they're
already out there, I've just integrated into a particular vision of them,
and that's what I'm working on making presentable.  In my opinion, the
hexayurt project, OSE, and other purpose-based, results-visible, consumer-up
projects are already undermining the industrial-consumption mindset that the
book tiptoes around without truly addressing.  In other words, I think your
work shows you're more clued into the "big solution" than the authors of the
book.

I'm sorry I cannot follow through much more about it right now, but I
suppose it doesn't need to go to the entire group either.  You asked what we
thought, and I told you what I thought. ;)  For both disclosure and what
it's worth (maybe not much), I currently work for a large vehicle
manufacturer.

-- Stan



On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 2:43 AM, Vinay Gupta <hexayurt at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Stan,
>
> I think the behaviors you are discussing strongly correlate with freedom.
> A lot of this evolves unless somebody stops it, and usually that means
> coercion and restriction of my right to do what I like with my life.
>
> Beyond that, I think we could get into a long discussion about the
> relative merits of Hypercar and so on, but I'm not sure it would help unless
> we spent a lot of time on it. I'm pretty sure you're either misunderstanding
> what that stuff is about, or you've got a picture of reality which will have
> to be validated before you can prove to me that it's a better solution than
> the incremental steps suggested by RMI.
>
> Vinay
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Vinay Gupta - Designer, Hexayurt Project - an excellent public domain
> refugee shelter system
> Gizmo Project VOIP: 775-743-1851 (usually works!)
> http://hexayurt.com/
> Cell: Iceland (+354) 869-4605
>  Skype/Gizmo/Gtalk: hexayurt
> People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest
>        Herman Hesse
>
>
> On Mar 7, 2008, at 3:53 AM, Stan Rhodes wrote:
>
> Vinay,
>
> NatCap is very naive, to the point where it's simply wrong, in my
> opinion.  The solutions aren't really solutions, they're just improvements
> on top of a rotten model.  That doesn't mean the solutions wouldn't be good,
> but it does mean they wouldn't solve the root problem.  I do want to add
> that some of the solutions ARE pretty silly: the stuff on the hypercars
> alone, for instance, is really quite ridiculous.  But, they're dreamers.
> Rather than digging into the systemic problem, NapCap tries to convince that
> the solution is already in the wing, but it's simply not believable.  I
> asked others who read it what they thought too, including some economists,
> energy buffs, and generally smart people.  Their impressions were similar:
> it just doesn't hold up.
>
> Btw, I think Paul Hawken is guilty of similar wishful thinking in Blessed
> Unrest, as if the presence of all these organizations and people means there
> is A global movement rather than just... global movement.  Can't blame him
> for wanting it to be, I think we all want it to be.
>
> Muhammad Yunus, in his newest book, strikes straight to the heart of the
> socioeconomic matter: the problem of profit-driven business.  This is the
> same problem Chris Cook, Patrick, and myself all identified in our analysis
> as well.  His solution is also aligned: the "social business," aka my
> businesstrust, aka Chris Cook's open corporate partnership.  Yunus' take on
> why profit-driven businesses aren't feasible for real public good is concise
> and accurate.  If you get a chance, please check it out, but if not, his
> thoughts will be included with my "synthesis" of the models.  I put that in
> quotes because, in reality, they're describing the same systems with little
> variance.  This is why in my first conversation with Cook he told me
> casually 'it's an emergent phenomenon.'
>
> The for-profit business model selects for rent-seeking, collusion, and
> monopoly.  Everything that's happened in the US and world makes perfect
> sense if you look at the selective pressures.  Hindsight's 20/20 and all
> that.
>
> Sorry, I only have a hardcopy of Yunus' book, otherwise I'd send you a pdf
> or copy the text.
>
> -- Stan
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:16 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.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20080309/95571006/attachment-0001.html