[p2p-research] [p2p energy economy] Fwd: Follow up

[Ryan Lanham]

Marc:

This may seem a bit governmental, but I'd argue the key to your system is
the policy objective a given currency wishes to optimize--set through some
collaborative governance mechanism or by a representative group (e.g. a
chamber of commerce or a community foundation).

Use arbitrage between currencies allow different "pots" of money to
reallocate.  In a prison, cigarettes might be used to buy services, and cans
of mackeral used to buy goods, but you can have a market between mack and
cigs.

In other words, think of a rainbow of color currencies.  Orange is for this,
blue is for that.  If you want blue to optimize efficient production of
non-carbon energy, price it in energy units accordingly.  Let market
mechanisms reallocate with possible REGULATORY governance actions that can
intervene to change supply/demand in arbitrage options.

There is a tendency for people to dislike markets because of some of their
failings.  That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  The key to a
polyarchic currency system, I believe, is to allow rapid creation of policy
objectives (new colors) combined with rapid introduction of market-based
arbitrage between colors.  Use limited numbers of price-settings in auctions
to reduce speculative games.  In other words, the rate set between orange
and blue may only be set twice a day, etc.

Who sets?  The high bidder, up to some limit...then the next highest bidder,
and so forth.

The key is allowance of persistent coupon systems matching policy aims (like
a bond market really, but more liquid and fungible).  In current worlds,
that aim (the policy objective of a currency) is the growth of a given
currency economy or allowance of government actions that can use currency
devaluation to achieve some governmental policy objective (e.g. short term
consumption against long-term pain.)

Ryan Lanham



On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:24 PM, 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
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "P2P Energy Economy" group.
> To post to this group, send email to p2p-energy-economy at googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> p2p-energy-economy+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com<p2p-energy-economy%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com>
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/p2p-energy-economy?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090416/cc491536/attachment.html>