[p2p-research] [Open Manufacturing] Re: [ox-en] "Trading at Cost" with joule tokens

[marc fawzi]

Franz

If it takes Jill 5MJ to grow the same quantity of apples that take Tom 10MJ
then Jill is an outlier as far as energy conservation, which means that she
had put energy/money into acquiring or building more efficient energy
production, so what would seem like 5MJ in profit relative to Tom is in fact
a recouping of her continuous investment in more efficient energy
production.

Let's say there are 3,000 small-scale apple growers in a given community.

They all use demand-matched, predictive inventory, so they never produce
more than is in demand. That's covered in the last paragraph of Price
Registry in the model's description:

"In order for producers to minimize their losses, they must adopt a model of
sustainable abundance in their production, which involves using renewable
energy and renewable resources as well as a predictive inventory to match
supply to demand to eliminate loss to themselves due to over-production. "

Those 3,000 apple growers submit their joule estimates for growing an apple,
using certain easy to understand (multiple choice) settings (e.g. do they
hand pick or machine pick the apples, do they carry the apples to market on
donkey or by truck, how costly is their irrigation method, etc) built into
the estimation software.

The average or median from all cost submissions (by those 3,000 growers)
becomes the "cost" in Price Registry for apples.

I can work out the detailed model for collective price setting so that it's
realistic as well as practical.

The key thing here is that the joule tokens have an absolute value in energy
(spent) whereas the existing currency does not. Therefore, we have something
different here and it's possible thru the use of simple statistics to figure
out how collective price setting would work.

This is what we will test during the simulation...

People are not animals to be fed to lay their eggs or produce milk. People
need a sense of fairness and appreciation. If I spend 500MJ making something
that I would like to give to the world then I better get that 500MJ back
somehow (most efficient way is direct exchange) and if I'm paid back 600MJ
or 350MJ then I will have an idea if I'm producing the thing efficiently or
inefficiently, so this model promotes more and more efficiency, not more and
more scarcity.

I'll add these arguments to the Price Registry section later today.

You can find the whole model description here:

http://p2pfoundation.net/P2P_Energy_Economy




On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Franz Nahrada <f.nahrada at reflex.at> wrote:

>
> Marc
>
> the argument against money refers to the joules alike.
>
> 1. It is never sure how many joules are really in a product. Tom can
> produce with 10Mjoule while Jill can do the same thing with 5Mjoule.
> 2. If too much of a product is produced, how to count the "lost joules" ?
> 3. If productivity changes, the product not yet being sold: old Joules or
> new Joules?
>
> and so on.
>
> Its a big sigh for me, there is no absolute measure for value and
> distribution cannot be based on sure grounds unless the quantity and
> quality is fixed before by agreements between the producers. Then the
> whole measurement in one abstract quantity of labor is useless and
> senseless.
>
> >What matters is that
> >Tom made it and wants to give it to the world without starving himself.
> >That's why artists give away music, or why software developers make free
> >and
> >open source software. It's the creative impulse that exists within all of
> >us. What this model allows that the current does not is for John to give
> >back Tom the average energy Tom put into producing and delivering the
> >product to John. This means that Tom does not make a profit, but he will
> >not
> >starve due to giving things for free.
>
> So its much more important to keep people from starvation than to measure
> their contribution.
>
> Its much more important than ever, because by the increasing intellectual
> nature of labor and the reproduceability by digital means the idea of
> measuring any contribution has grown absurd.
>
> Society cannot but refuge to a sort of need - production matrix, based on
> basic needs and assurance of basic needs. Or keep the whole unsolveable
> money problem and deal with it for the next thousand years.
>
> Franz
>
>
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Open Manufacturing" group.
> To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing at googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> openmanufacturing+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com<openmanufacturing%2Bunsubscribe at googlegroups.com>
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090117/fe1da246/attachment.html>