[p2p-research] quote on early history as gift economies

Fri Feb 20 09:16:24 CET 2009

So it seems that the model I have built over time for succeeding in my
line of work is in response to the current socio-economic system and
so taking that model and extending it to its fullest version (all the
ideals I have) and laying it over the current system is what I had
done with the P2P Energy Economy.

Yet where I went wrong is in building a system based on my ideals
which are the co-product of what I feel is fair and the defenses or
response I have developed to the existing system.

In the next model, I will take ideals out of it and focus solely on
scalability and efficiency but to do that it will have to be in a much
more specialized economy (i.e. much smaller context of application)

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:00 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Michel,
>
> I will go over this with my eyes wide open for anything new and
> different than my set of assumptions.
>
> However, for now I want to highlight a few things:
>
> <<
> You look for mutual empowerment but this is rarely the case in market
> society, where the unequal relationship of having access to capital,
> or not, is structurally embedded.
>>>
>
> I was making my comment in the context of the P2P Energy Economy model.
>
> It does enable equal empowerment but in the given context of the
> model, where everyone is a producer with skills in many areas, which
> is also an end state that the model encourages.
>
> Where that end state is not reached, the model will harbor injustices.
> Its core assumption is that people can empower of disempower
> themselves with their own choices but that such choices are NOT the
> negative choices we have today but positive choices such as sharing
> revenue in order to grow (rather than hoarding it and using it
> exclusively for one's own growth), becoming more efficient over time,
> and learning more skills and turning those skills into higher
> productivity. It's life as I would live it, not as any person would
> live it. That's what I realized eventually and as a result I decided
> it was time to change course and scope down the ambition (by starting
> with a specialized economy) as well as make the model much simpler and
> lighter with far fewer assumptions.
>
> Having said that, the P2P Energy Economy model also treats the
> hierarchy exactly as stated in the following statement from what you
> wrote:
>
> "(4) The sole role of hierarchy is in its spontaneous emergence in the
> initiation and continuous flowering of autonomy-in-co-operation in all
> spheres of human endeavor"
>
> But it does not permit the hierarchy to set in place because that is
> seen as creating single points of failure. The solution I had come up
> with for making sure the hierarchy does not set in place is impersonal
> in that it is prevents the accrual of dependency and accrued trust
> does not factor in anywhere in the model.
>
> :-)
>
> My smile indicates that I realize what I have done wrong.
>
> I think in deciding to change course and taking time to think of it I
> will be able to come up with a model that is better.
>
> What I have learned is that the design of a socio-economic system
> requires a level of consciousness (understanding of myself in whole)
> and a moral intuition that seems always a step beyond my reach, but
> I'm sure I'll grasp it one day.
>
> However, the way peer production theory is today is also very lacking
> in terms of the scalability and efficiency of its generalized exchange
> model, and where you don't have scalability and efficiency you don't
> have sustainable abundance.
>
> So I'm going to think about a very thin kind of economy (much thinner
> than P2P Energy Economy) that will not deal with moral and social
> aspects at all and that will focus on scalable and efficient exchange
> model, in a the specialized economy of open software and open software
> development, where this statement of yours is certainly true: "I think
> this mostly works in areas where freelancers have coveted rare skills,
> but that is rarely the case."
>
> So I think we are converging at one level.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Michel Bauwens
> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> your example is almost an extreme of market theory, and totally impersonal.
>>
>> now what I like about peer to peer dynamics, as opposed to pure market
>> dynamics, is that it extends trust towards strangers, which through p2p
>> interaction become more related.
>>
>> I think it is a legitimate option and your experience, but I see many other
>> players, having build successfull institutions based on accrued trust.
>>
>> I think these choices will have different advantages/disadvantages,
>>
>> for example, what's better, many current companies, where people change all
>> the time, and have no loyalty at all (works both sides of course), or a more
>> traditional system like the Japanese, where you can feel fairly certain that
>> the company will keep you for a long time, even in bad sides.
>>
>> I think by no means is it sure that the first system is better.
>>
>> You look for mutual empowerment but this is rarely the case in market
>> society, where the unequal relationship of having access to capital, or not,
>> is structurally embedded. I think this mostly works in areas where
>> freelancers have coveted rare skills, but that is rarely the case.
>>
>> This is why crowdsourcing approaches, despite their benefits, also have
>> serious drawbacks in a capitalist society, where they may create structural
>> precarity (in crowdsourcing, all the risk of failure is shited from capital
>> to workers).
>>
>> In a true peer to peer dynamic, where there is no dependency, I would call
>> it peer governance, whereby leaders can self-select the responsiblities, as
>> long as the consensus accepts them, have to behave in community-compatible
>> ways, because they have no other way to lead without losing consensus, and
>> forking is the ulitmate 'exit' in cases where things do get wrong...
>>
>> You could call it a peer hierarchy, peer leadership?
>>
>> see:
>>
>> Please read the following excerpts of David Ronfeldt on the Evolution of
>> Governance
>> You may want to read this important discussion document by Erik Douglas,
>> Peer to Peer and the Four Pillars of Democracy, which examines the
>> relationship between Peer Governance and representative democracy.
>> Henry Mintzberg's Taxonomy of Organizational Forms, is good as backgrounder.
>> Billy Matheson's graphical representation on how relationality may or will
>> affect governance
>> Felix Stadler insists: The Governance of Peer Production is Meritocratic,
>> not Egalitarian
>>
>>
>> I always return to the scheme of John Heron:
>>
>> The key question is: do the centralized and hierarchical elements in the
>> protocol, enable or disable participation? This is shown in the following
>> account of the development of the theory and practice of hierarchy,
>> submitted to us by John Heron in a personal communication. In true peer to
>> peer, the role of hierarchy is to enable the spontaneous emergence of
>> 'autonomy in cooperation':
>>
>> "There seem to be at least four degrees of cultural development, rooted in
>> degrees of moral insight:
>>
>> (1) autocratic cultures which define rights in a limited and oppressive way
>> and there are no rights of political participation;
>>
>> (2) narrow democratic cultures which practice political participation
>> through representation, but have no or very limited participation of people
>> in decision-making in all other realms, such as research, religion,
>> education, industry etc.;
>>
>> (3) wider democratic cultures which practice both political participation
>> and varying degree of wider kinds of participation;
>>
>> (4) commons p2p cultures in a libertarian and abundance-oriented global
>> network with equipotential rights of participation of everyone in every
>> field of human endeavor."
>>
>> Heron adds that "These four degrees could be stated in terms of the
>> relations between hierarchy, co-operation and autonomy.
>>
>> (1) Hierarchy defines, controls and constrains co-operation and autonomy;
>>
>> (2) Hierarchy empowers a measure of co-operation and autonomy in the
>> political sphere only;
>>
>> (3) Hierarchy empowers a measure of co-operation and autonomy in the
>> political sphere and in varying degrees in other spheres;
>>
>> (4) The sole role of hierarchy is in its spontaneous emergence in the
>> initiation and continuous flowering of autonomy-in-co-operation in all
>> spheres of human endeavor
>>
>> From all of the above, we can conclude that hierarchy does not disappear in
>> peer to peer processes, but that it changes its nature. Hierarchy, or
>> authority ranking as it is called by Alan Fiske, takes on new forms such as
>> peer governance, servant leadership, multistakeholdership.
>>
>> Here is how Joseph Rost defines leadership in the new collaborative era:
>>
>> "The first is that the activities be influential, that is, noncoercive. The
>> second is that the activities be done by people in a relationship. The third
>> is that the activities involve a real significant change. And the fourth
>> element is that the activities reflect the purposes of the people in the
>> relationship, not just a single person. All of these standards insure
>> collaboration rather than the notion that leadership is a great leader doing
>> great things ."
>>
>> Similarly, another author on leadership, Jeffrey S. Nielsen distinguishes
>> 'rank thinking', from 'peer thinking':
>>
>> "I define rank thinking as the belief that only a few in any organization
>> should be given special privilege to monopolize information, control
>> decision-making, and command obedience from the vast majority either through
>> coercive or manipulative power. Peer thinking, on the other hand, is the
>> belief that everyone in the organization should have equal standing to share
>> in information, participate in the decision-making process, and choose to
>> follow through persuasive means. Peer thinking assumes that we each have
>> equal privilege to speak and an obligation to listen. Peer-based
>> organizations create a space--an arena--where we come to recognize and
>> respect one another as equal participants in organizational life ."
>>
>> See also, in our wiki:
>>
>> Informal leadership models that are pragmatically used to govern such
>> projects: what is the nature of leadership and hierarchy in peer production?
>>
>> See Hierarchy, Leadership, Benevolent Dictator, and search for these
>> concepts as well as "Authority" in the wiki's search box.
>>
>> The use of formal management models.
>>
>> See Chaordic Organizations - Characteristics , Consensus , Consent vs.
>> Consensus , Coordination Format , Council Ceremony , Harmonization
>> Governance , Heterarchy , Holacracy , Horizontal Accountablity , Leaderless
>> Organizations , Open Organization , Sociocracy
>>
>>>
>>> So that's why I had resorted to picking a new contractor for every new
>>> project, after years of working on the basis of accrued trust, i.e.
>>> sticking with one contractor.
>>>
>>> The Internet has given me this option.
>>>
>>> The kind of hierarchy that emerges from such model is one where both I
>>> and the contractor are equally empowered and where neither of us have
>>> a dependency on the other.
>>>
>>> What would this kind of hierarchy be called to distinguish it from
>>> hierarchies that develop built-in dependencies and power imbalances
>>> (in either direction) over time?
>>>
>>> I'm asking Michel as well as asking openly.
>>>
>>> If anyone has a suggestion as to how to categorize this kind of
>>> hierarchy, please feel free to state it.
>>>
>>> I do feel it's different enough than the type pf hierarchies that
>>> exist in today's economy, but that may be changing as more people take
>>> advantage of the Internet and abundance of qualified suppliers to
>>> isolate themselves from dependence, while at the same time being
>>> empowered by a high degree of transient interdependence in their
>>> production network.
>>>
>>> Marc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Michel Bauwens
>>> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Marc,
>>> >
>>> > I wonder if your example is a good one,
>>> >
>>> > what you describe has high transaction and uncertainty costs, and I
>>> > think
>>> > this is why people rely on trust networks, or on hierarchical
>>> > recommendations or filtering systems, etc ...
>>> >
>>> > But I think that ancient and medieval systems of democracy relied on
>>> > random
>>> > elections, as schemes to make sure that power would not accrue,
>>> >
>>> > however, I'm not an expert in these alternative schemes
>>> >
>>> > Michel
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:56 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> As always, very thoughtful analysis Michel. Thanks.
>>> >>
>>> >> I just want to add a note on hierarchies....
>>> >>
>>> >> You can have a functional hierarchy (not a political one that keeps
>>> >> power at the top) between equally empowered peers where the structure
>>> >> of the hierarchy is known but where the nodes are occupied by randomly
>>> >> picked peers from a set of all peers that meet a given functional
>>> >> criteria.
>>> >>
>>> >> In such a hierarchy, all the peers are equally empowered AND no
>>> >> built-in dependency is created on any peer in particular.
>>> >>
>>> >> What would such hierarchy be known as?  It exists today due to Search
>>> >> technology. When someone running some business goes out to find
>>> >> suppliers they go to Google and search for e.g. Python developer. They
>>> >> find tons of links. They pick one or pick one that leads them to
>>> >> another search engine which ultimately leads them to some supplier.
>>> >> Now we have a hierarchy of two levels: the business owner and the
>>> >> supplier. If the business owner repeats this every time she needs a
>>> >> Python developer, which some people do, and uses the same criteria but
>>> >> picks another supplier from the range of all potential suppliers
>>> >> (those matching the criteria) then that is power to the business owner
>>> >> and power to the developer. Neither is stuck with each other, and
>>> >> neither develops a dependency on each other. I ran a number of
>>> >> projects like that in the past with higher reliability than depending
>>> >> on the same developer for all projects. Every developer had to prove
>>> >> themselves and I had to prove my ability to manage the project.
>>> >>
>>> >> Marc
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Michel Bauwens
>>> >> <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > thanks David,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > David Graeber has written a whole book examining 'value' throughout
>>> >> > different (anthropological) societies.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I think the other David must have had the same experience as me
>>> >> > during
>>> >> > my
>>> >> > university years, I was explicitely taught the barter-leads-to-market
>>> >> > story,
>>> >> > with no mention at all of the gift economy, a notion I only
>>> >> > encountered
>>> >> > years ago. Perhaps neoclassical economists have evolved over time,
>>> >> > integrated other types of knowledge ..
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Still, there is a difference between saying, early economies had
>>> >> > barter,
>>> >> > which was complicated, so they invented tokens which became money and
>>> >> > ultimately resulted in capitalism and the other story which is: we
>>> >> > had
>>> >> > gift
>>> >> > economies, but when force intervened, we created debt, which
>>> >> > eventually
>>> >> > resulted in the necessity of inventing money ...
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Whether force is constituent to the human experience, even before the
>>> >> > advent
>>> >> > of unequal class societies, is  perhaps difficult to resolve, but I
>>> >> > tend
>>> >> > to
>>> >> > believe that it is inherent to the human condition; this is why I
>>> >> > think
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > state cannot be simply abolished, and I'm not an anarchist.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > You are right about 'economies' being a misleading term, and I have
>>> >> > read
>>> >> > remarks of Graeber in the same sense, it's an industrial concept we
>>> >> > are
>>> >> > projecting backwards, but perhaps also a distinction we have learned
>>> >> > to
>>> >> > see;
>>> >> > so I think it is okay to use by analogy, as long as we know its
>>> >> > limitations.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > This brings me to the crux of the debate: the role of networks.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Like hierarchies, and markets, I do not see them in a univocal way.
>>> >> > Rather,
>>> >> > hierarchies can be feudal, or meritocratic; markets can be
>>> >> > capitalist,
>>> >> > or
>>> >> > not; and similarly for networks: they cannot be divorced from the
>>> >> > class
>>> >> > structure of society, even as they have their own 'independent'
>>> >> > effect
>>> >> > of
>>> >> > society which adapt these forms. But these forms will be thoroughly
>>> >> > adapted
>>> >> > and changed through the process of differential adoption.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > So, my view is the following: networks first arose for the privileged
>>> >> > elite
>>> >> > through private networks (multinationals and such), then became
>>> >> > democratized
>>> >> > and peer to peer. This leads to widespread adoption of new economic,
>>> >> > political and social practices, which are more productive in many
>>> >> > ways
>>> >> > than
>>> >> > the earlier modes. Hence, peer production, governance and property,
>>> >> > as 3
>>> >> > new
>>> >> > modes. As more productive ways of doing things, they are not only
>>> >> > practiced
>>> >> > by the bottom of society, but by all sectors, which initially use
>>> >> > them
>>> >> > within the existing dominant mode, just as early capitalist practices
>>> >> > were
>>> >> > used to strengthen an ailing feudal order. But as it is adapted it
>>> >> > also
>>> >> > changes the order, and new social forces are organizing around it.
>>> >> > Chiefly,
>>> >> > the knowledge workers and other associated producers on one hand, but
>>> >> > also
>>> >> > what I call 'netarchical capitalists', who created new forms of
>>> >> > activity
>>> >> > and
>>> >> > business based on 'enabling and empowering social production'.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > As our infinite growth mechanism is hitting its limits, it is groping
>>> >> > for a
>>> >> > change towards markets which include former externalities (green
>>> >> > capitalism), but also realizing it can't be done, or much less
>>> >> > effectively,
>>> >> > without adopting much wider participatory practices (co-creation,
>>> >> > co-design,
>>> >> > crowdsourcing, peer production and sharing modes of all kinds),
>>> >> > hence,
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > force of the new modes of peer production, governance and property
>>> >> > are
>>> >> > growing, from emergence to eventual equivalence.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > If the current infinite growth system succeeds in being a natural
>>> >> > capitalism, that may be the end of the story, otherwise, a phase
>>> >> > transition
>>> >> > will eventual occur, with the former core mode becoming a subsystem
>>> >> > in a
>>> >> > new
>>> >> > meta-system based on peer to peer dynamics.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Will this totally eliminate force? I do not think so, but it may
>>> >> > significantly reduce their centrality to social life. But we can
>>> >> > already
>>> >> > see
>>> >> > that successful networks or peer production efforts also deal with
>>> >> > threats
>>> >> > to their existence, i.e. to violence directed at them (even if
>>> >> > through
>>> >> > spamming, trolling, etc...). So there are three elements to network
>>> >> > production: 1) enabling participation; 2) finding mechanisms for
>>> >> > selection
>>> >> > of excellence that are no threat to that universal participation and
>>> >> > availability; and 3) defense against threats.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Michel
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 8:15 AM, David Ronfeldt <ronfeldt at mac.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> many thanks, michel, for including me on this.  but i find it
>>> >> >> confusing.
>>> >> >>  i also find it confused, for i think the author is conflating.  i'm
>>> >> >> not
>>> >> >> aware that any major social theorist has grandly claimed that
>>> >> >> societies
>>> >> >> once
>>> >> >> had economies based solely on barter.  that barter may have been an
>>> >> >> important element, yes.  and that barter preceded money, yes.  but
>>> >> >> that's a
>>> >> >> narrower and different kind of claim.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> perhaps there are economists who claim that barter came first, but
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> conceptual hinge for them may be that, from their perspective,
>>> >> >> economies do
>>> >> >> not exist unless material trade is taking place.  however, the
>>> >> >> economists i
>>> >> >> happened to see at lunch today, though not historians, saw no
>>> >> >> particular
>>> >> >> reason to start economic history with barter, and a couple thought
>>> >> >> it
>>> >> >> could
>>> >> >> start with gifts, esp if the gifts had an exchange aspect.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> but that raises another matter.  early tribes depend significantly
>>> >> >> on
>>> >> >> gifting.  we've agreed on that before, citing mauss in particular,
>>> >> >> and
>>> >> >> graeber seems to be in agreement too.  but are we really talking
>>> >> >> about
>>> >> >> a
>>> >> >> "gift economy" with ancient tribes.  not exactly.  especially not if
>>> >> >> there
>>> >> >> is no economy per se that is separable from what else goes on in a
>>> >> >> tribe.
>>> >> >>  and particularly not if the purpose of the gifting is to create
>>> >> >> honorable
>>> >> >> relationships and social solidarity, rather than just to engage in
>>> >> >> potentially equal material exchanges.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> but perhaps i'm not seeing the point you wanted me to see.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> in any case, i took a look at his long article and something else
>>> >> >> caught
>>> >> >> my eye:  he claims that "neither states nor markets can exist
>>> >> >> without
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> constant threat of force."  he repeats this at various points, once
>>> >> >> or
>>> >> >> twice
>>> >> >> referring to "societies" instead of "states" since "Societies' are
>>> >> >> really
>>> >> >> states."  i'd question this, but i'd rather raise another point:
>>> >> >>  tribes
>>> >> >> also have not existed without the threat of force.  tribes often get
>>> >> >> idealized, perhaps especially by people fed up with
>>> >> >> states/hierarchies
>>> >> >> and
>>> >> >> markets.  but tribes can turn out to be as based on force and
>>> >> >> violence
>>> >> >> as
>>> >> >> other forms of organization.  if the author were to add this to his
>>> >> >> analysis, i wonder where it would lead.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> which leads to a question:  what about the kinds of information-age
>>> >> >> networks that you and i are hopefully counting on?  as an emerging
>>> >> >> form
>>> >> >> of
>>> >> >> organization, they look marvelous and necessary (in my timn view, as
>>> >> >> much so
>>> >> >> as tribes, hierarchies, and markets).  but their present-day
>>> >> >> emergence
>>> >> >> is,
>>> >> >> in many areas, tied to the nature of force.  and some networks may
>>> >> >> turn
>>> >> >> out
>>> >> >> in practice, once embedded in future multiform societies, to reflect
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> roles of force, even though many networks will be directed at the
>>> >> >> public
>>> >> >> good.  does this end up meaning that all forms of societal
>>> >> >> organization
>>> >> >> depend, to some extent, on the possibility of force?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> just a thought.  and i'm not entirely sure about it.  but it relates
>>> >> >> to
>>> >> >> some propositions for the timn framework i'm trying to develop.
>>> >> >>  i'll
>>> >> >> eventually get around to elaborating.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> meanwhile, i'll leave you with two quotes i happen to have handy
>>> >> >> that
>>> >> >> relate a bit to all this and get at contrasting dynamics that
>>> >> >> underlie
>>> >> >> civilization (though i'm not sure the author above approves much of
>>> >> >> what
>>> >> >> others know as civilization):
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>        "All great civilizations, in their early stages, are based on
>>> >> >> success in war."  (Kenneth Clark, Civilisation: A Personal View (New
>>> >> >> York:
>>> >> >> Harper & Row, 1969, p. 18)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>        "Every living culture must possess some spiritual dynamic,
>>> >> >> which
>>> >> >> provides the energy necessary for that sustained social effort which
>>> >> >> is
>>> >> >> civilization."  (Christopher Dawson, Progress and Religion: An
>>> >> >> Historical
>>> >> >> Inquiry (London: Sheed and Ward, 1929; reissued: Washington, D.C.:
>>> >> >> The
>>> >> >> Catholic University of America Press, 2001, pp. 3-4)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> enough.  onward.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> ===
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Feb 18, 2009, at 11:46 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> Dear friends,
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> this is a quote from anthropologist david graeber, that has a
>>> >> >>> bearing
>>> >> >>> on
>>> >> >>> our earlier discussions on how to characterize tribal societies:
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> "One of the traditional roles of the economic anthropologist is to
>>> >> >>> point
>>> >> >>> out that the standard narrative set out in economic textbooks – the
>>> >> >>> one we
>>> >> >>> all take for granted, really, that once upon a time there was
>>> >> >>> barter;
>>> >> >>> that
>>> >> >>> when this became too inconvenient, people invented money; that
>>> >> >>> eventually,
>>> >> >>> this lead to abstract systems of credit and debt, banking, and the
>>> >> >>> New
>>> >> >>> York
>>> >> >>> Stock Exchange – is simply wrong. There is in fact no known example
>>> >> >>> of
>>> >> >>> a
>>> >> >>> human society whose economy is based on barter of the 'I'll give
>>> >> >>> you
>>> >> >>> ten
>>> >> >>> chickens for that cow' variety. Most economies that don't employ
>>> >> >>> money
>>> >> >>> – or
>>> >> >>> anything that we'd identify as money, anyway – operate quite
>>> >> >>> differently.
>>> >> >>> They are, as French anthropologist Marcel Mauss famously put it,
>>> >> >>> 'gift
>>> >> >>> economies' where transactions are either based on principles of
>>> >> >>> open-handed
>>> >> >>> generosity, or, when calculation does take place, most often
>>> >> >>> descend
>>> >> >>> into
>>> >> >>> competitions over who can give the most away. What I want to
>>> >> >>> emphasise
>>> >> >>> here,
>>> >> >>> though, is what happens when money does first appear in something
>>> >> >>> like
>>> >> >>> it's
>>> >> >>> current form (basically, with the appearance of the state). Because
>>> >> >>> here, it
>>> >> >>> becomes apparent that not only do the economists get it wrong, they
>>> >> >>> get it
>>> >> >>> precisely backwards. In fact, virtual money comes first. Banking,
>>> >> >>> tabs, and
>>> >> >>> expense accounts existed for at least 2 thousand years before there
>>> >> >>> was
>>> >> >>> anything like coinage, or any other physical object that was
>>> >> >>> regularly
>>> >> >>> used
>>> >> >>> to buy and sell things, anything that could be labeled 'currency'.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> (http://www.metamute.org/en/content/debt_the_first_five_thousand_years)
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> --
>>> >> >>> 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/
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --
>>> >> > 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/
>>> >> >
>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> > 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/
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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/
>>
>