[p2p-research] Fwd: Follow up

[marc fawzi]

Well, both suggestions make a lot of sense.

However, for the second suggestion I have a problem with the definition of
"non scarce" and "immaterial" and, coincidentally Patrick was asking the
same question today on Stefan's list, and no one really is giving a
realistic answer, IMO.

Digital and services goods are not immaterial and they have actual costs (of
R&D, energy and maintenance) associated with the underlying infrastructure,
so I consider them "non scarce" but still bound to costs and subject to some
kind of sustainable exchange... So the question is what is the most liberal
kind of exchange that is still sustainable (given digital goods and services
do have costs)

Marc

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Marc,
>
> thanks for sharing,
>
> concerning your para 1, why not consider 'subsidiarity' as a policy
> framework, i.e.letting the lowest but most appropriate level do the work and
> use centralisation as an enabler? in other words, start with household based
> renewables, complement with neighborhood-based, regional, national,
> international, each doing what the previous layer can't do on its own
>
> concerning para 2, I wonder if exchange or the market is hierarchical by
> itself, when it involves equivalent exchange, without passing by prior
> inequality and the forces expropriation of producers that was the condition
> for capitalist markets?however, you seem to talk about non-scarce resources,
> so you mean in the immaterial economy, then in that case, markets are
> unnecessary and only exist because enforced scarcity,
>
> Michel
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:24 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just sharing some notes on the current problems in the P2P Energy Economy
>> model
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>> Date: Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:23 PM
>> Subject: Follow up
>> To: James Edwards <bluecollargreenie at gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi James,
>>
>> I'm sorry to have dropped the ball on our discussion re: energy flow based
>> currency...
>>
>> I went to Arizona where we had no Internet and learned all about solar
>> power
>>
>> Then I became homeless for a while, lost my girlfriend, etc
>>
>> And now I'm back to work thanks to a sudden and unexpected turn of events
>>
>> The problems with the P2P Energy Economy as of v3.00.00 boil down to this:
>>
>> Issue 1:
>>
>> "it's hard to see how individual energy producers would have any
>> substantial surplus if they had tiny solar generators and it's even harder
>> to see how there could be a flow of energy from peers with surplus to peers
>> with deficit if everyone had a surplus. This is the basic and universal
>> issue (or two issues,) IMO. For each given type of product (e.g. energy,
>> milk, cars, etc) we can't have everyone be a producer because the "flow of
>> energy" is the "economy of life" and without a deficit on one side and a
>> surplus on the other there is no flow (or movement) of energy (and no flow
>> of energy equal no life, literally.)
>>
>> So in order to have both the maximum surplus of the thing being produced
>> and the maximum flow of that thing from the surplus side to the deficit
>> side, the production tends towards centralization (within each geographic or
>> virtual market)"
>>
>> Issue 2:
>>
>> The very act of paying someone (for a non-scarce resource) and expecting
>> some service back creates a master-slave (or more mildly a 'customer-server'
>> relationship) relationship... and this is a type of hierarchy basically. I'm
>> having an issue with the idea of a hierarchy even though it's established in
>> nature and even if we use the kind of renewable hierarchies that I describe
>> (in passing) in the P2P Energy Economy. I'm studying two game theoretical
>> models, the Prisoners Dilemma game and the Snowdrift (or Hawk-Dove) game in
>> the context of hierarchies, latices with limited set of neighbor-to-neighbor
>> interactions per element and networks with random interactions. I haven't
>> had enough time with all that has been happening to produce any insight as
>> far as the best type of system from a moral and evolutionary perspective but
>> I know the P2P Energy Economy sections concerned with organization are
>> lacking.
>>
>> If you have anything to share on your end, as far as your work goes,
>> please feel free to do so.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Marc Fawzi
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
> http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
> Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
> http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
> http://p2pfoundation.ning.com
>
> Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens
>
> The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
> http://www.shiftn.com/
>



-- 

Marc Fawzi
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090415/cfae4425/attachment-0001.html>