[p2p-research] Fwd: [ox-en] No more money trickery propaganda please
Michel Bauwens
michelsub2004 at gmail.com
Thu May 14 05:58:16 CEST 2009
Hi Stefan,
In the coming days, I will try to process what happened at Oekonux, and I
will attempt to do so by writing about the social process and ideas, not
your person. It will be important for me to indicate which difference has
been crucial in creating that conflict and what the social mechanism behind
it is.
But obviously I know have a problem with an environment that creates a taboo
around a certain topic, which for me is a sign of religious functioning and
not rational, and protects that taboo through the threat of an accusation of
a grave form of human oppression.
It is very important to me that an open debate remains possible.
So a few responses. Yes, I have indicated time and again, and invited you to
change or stop that usage. But since you don't want to accept the
legitimacy of monetary transformation, I can't suggest another term for you,
you will have to come up with one yourself.
You confirm that you asked to not have an open inquiry about a certain
topic, though yes, you expressed this in a moderate manner. The closure of
debate is unacceptable for me, though I will refrain from participation in
list-en, since it is a taboo subject there, triggering outbursts and
personal conflicts. There are many other places where open inquiry can take
place without having such effects.
This I find particulary intruguing, who could have ever said what you claim,
see your citation just below, since the very argument of the monetary
re-design communities is that it is the interest itself, which favours
accumulation? Surely you must know that only children can believe in the
tooth fairy and that money would grow under a cushion? It really baffles me
you could come up with something like that.
So please if you can reference a quote of anyone on list-en having said
that, I would be very very curious.
(your citation: "If someone states that you can keep money and get interest
for it at
the same time then it is absolutely obvious that this is wrong. The
money in my pocket does not raise any interest neither does the money
under my cushion. Only if I do *not* keep my money but give it away
then I can get interest for it.")
Stefan, I just want to remind you how the process of dialogue went. Yes, we
are different in our appreciation, but those of us who have inquired into
monetary design issues have never used demeaning words towards your position
as far as I now, or at least not systematically. Using it once is very
different from using it systematically. Anyway, people just ignored it
though it did become an issue for me at the end, and I invited you to change
that. Then, triggered by Christian Siefkes discussion of the issue, I
responded by mentioning an overview of the arguments,
This was the article:
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/there-is-such-a-thing-as-peer-money/2009/05/09.
This article is a reasoned overview of the arguments about why monetary
reform and peer-aggregated financial mechanisms. If I'm not mistaken is to
this article that you responded with the famous "Stop this Propaganda" and
your famous phrase that anyone thinking that interest can generate more
money must be a fool (though you are now phrasing it differently by accusing
your opponents of thinking that money grows out of cushions, I hope you
will soon realize how laughable such an accusation is).
I don't think neither you nor me are monetary experts, we are interested lay
people and activist trying to make sense of the general world situation.
Nevertheless, I claim to have informed myself on this topic, and I claim
that the Peer Money article is a reasoned argument (which of course can be
mistaken) and not unacceptable propaganda.
Before concluding with an interesting development on the above analysis, I
just want to make sure you understand my plan. I probably want to spend a
week or two processing what has happened, and why Oekonux seems to have
reached a dead end deciding that open inquiry is not acceptable. Then, I
want to lay the issue and our personal conflict to rest, and hopefully, time
will hava a 'healing' effect. But I must admit the feeling I have is like
one of divorce, the painful but inevitable separation. Sometimes in such a
process, you feel obliged to push the person a way, to sever the painful
emotional ties. It is sometimes necessary as a transition to move to a
post-divorce friendship. So let's hope for that, but realizing it may not
happen immediately.
So, here is the development I wanted to conclude with, showing how serious
and expert neo-marxist economists are coming to the same conclusion as the
P2P Foundation on the topic of the importance of peer-aggregated finance.
Here's the entry, at
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/peer-money-as-the-solution-for-sudden-system-stock/2009/05/14
Peer Money as the Solution for Sudden System
Stock<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/peer-money-as-the-solution-for-sudden-system-stock/2009/05/14>
[image: photo of Michel Bauwens]Michel Bauwens
14th May 2009
“Bank finance has nothing to do with either saving or investment. Banks
create liquidity ex nihilo, and the entrepreneurs’ opportunity to
materialize their plans is not an issue that can be decided by savers. In
the real world, entrepreneurial plans depend upon bankers’ choices.”
The latest issue of the European Journal of Economic and Social
Systems<http://ejess.revuesonline.com/article.jsp?articleId=13141>deals
specifically with the issue of “
*Money and Machinery*”, i.e. *what is the role of money and finance in the
development of our economic system*.
Guest editors are *Andrea Fumagalli and Stefano Lucarelli* known for their
work in analyzing the mechanics of cognitive
capitalism<http://p2pfoundation.net/Cognitive_Capitalism>
.
Their introduction<http://ejess.revuesonline.com/article.jsp?articleId=13142>is
entitled,
*Money and Technological Change The Role of Financing in the Process of
Evolution*, and is very much worth reading.
In a gist, the topic of study is:
*“The purpose of “Money and technological change” is to collect a number of
papers focusing on the understanding of how credit and finance systems
effectively operate. At the same time, the papers address the issue
concerning both their role in shaping firms’ innovative strategies and
determining their performances. Our scope is to show that capitalism is a
monetary economy of production in continuous evolution.”*
*In their introductory essay, they discuss a very important contribution,
that shows the crucial role that peer money will play in the next wave of
development.*
The essay in question is:
*Badalian L., Krivorotov V., “Technological shift and the rise of a new
finance system <http://ejess.revuesonline.com/article.jsp?articleId=13147>:
the market-pendulum model”, European Journal of Economic and Social Systems,
Vol. 21, No. 2, 2008, p. 231-264.*
This essay is an update on the research and theories on long waves of
development, as developed by Schumpeter and Kondratieff, as also recently
updated by Carlota Perez in het book Technological Revolutions and Financial
Capital<http://p2pfoundation.net/Carlota_Perez_on_Technological_Revolutions_and_Financial_Capital>.
In short, capitalist development is market by long cycles of about 50-60
years. In the first dynamic phase, a number of combined technological
innovations is matched to crucial financial innovations, which provide the
necessary investment vehicles, so that innovation can occur. But in the
second phase, the very pathologies of financialization undercut growth,
inevitably leading to a *Systemic Sudden Stop*, i.e. the very crisis we are
going through.
*For a new wave to occur, a new set of technological innovations must be
matched by a new finance system.*
Here is the crucial paragraph:
*“The authors define market equilibrium as a period when the market
functions at full capacity, and show that this lasts for only a few decades
in the mid-movement of a pendulum. As supply-demand imbalances gradually
increase, there is a Systemic Sudden Stop (3S), that is, a profound market
failure, with scenarios ranging from the stagflation of the 1980s, the Great
Depression of the 1930s, and similarly dramatic events in our past and
present. These diverse situations were united by a simple fact – purely
market-related forces could not resolve them on their own, starting long
downturns, or worse, revolutions and wars. The implementation of a radically
new technology able to restart growth after a 3S depends on finding a
brand-new Accumulation Engine. Badalian and Krivorotov’s market-pendulum
shows that the great historic shifts in technology and economic development
were caused by the exhaustion of territory under domestication and its
ability to feed many more people within a globalizing world. The need for
more supplies pushed toward the cultivation of former wastelands, by
developing radical technologies able to raise their output. The need in
scale efficiencies then flipped the situation to shortages of demand. In
this approach, financial systems play a crucial role. Historically, the
challenge of living off a much harsher environment required great
investments, with uncertain prospects of returns. The authors show that the
2008 crisis may be indicating the upper limits of the US- style financial
system, overstretched to its extreme by the sheer size of the globalizing
world. This is causing a 3S of an immense size while calling for new forms
of financing, much more powerful in their capacity to raise funds and
motivate the population.”*
*But where could such a new system of financing come from?*
The answers of the authors are surprising, and create a juncture with our
own work investigating monetary
transformation<http://p2pfoundation.net/Category:Money>and peer-based
currency alternatives<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/there-is-such-a-thing-as-peer-money/2009/05/09%5C>
.
Fumagalli does not provide details of the alternatives described but quotes
from Badalian and Krivorotov when they conclude:
*“Surprisingly, these financing mechanisms, in their early form, might be
available already, presenting a resurrection of old communal customs. Their
diversity mirrors the variation of the local geo-climatic conditions
including Sovereign Wealth Funds, community selfhelp groups, grassroots
organizations, self-organizing virtual marketplaces on the Internet and
other self-organizing commons.”*
I am of course heartened by these conclusions which confirm the importance
of continuing to monitor and study the field of monetary innovation.
And please note that the authors make a crucial analytical step:
*far from seeing the new monetary innovation as mere defensive measures
against the metldown, undertaken by local communities and affinity groups to
become more resilient, they are actually seeing it as a crucial step in the
radical reformation of the political economy, a conditio sine qua non for a
new long wave of development to occur.*
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 11:56 PM, Stefan Merten <smerten at oekonux.de> wrote:
> Hi Michel!
>
> Today Michel Bauwens wrote:
> > I have to my knowledge not said anyting which isn't true.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I think I have to believe you. So ok, you did not lie. But please
> believe me that your knowledge is very limited here. I'll use this
> mail to outline this in this community because probably not all
> followed [ox-en].
>
> > You have consistently used the term of money trickery to demain the
> monetary
> > reform movement, true or not?
>
> I used the term "money trickery" because IMHO it describes the nature
> of what you are relating to very well. I have no better term for this
> since IMHO the term "monetary reform" is already part of the problem.
>
> If that is all you have a problem with then I'm sorry and grateful for
> a matching but neutral term you can accept.
>
> > You have tried to impose your diktat against this theme in the discussion
> on
> > the book, true or not?
>
> No. In fact I said
>
> > If you would be able
> > to omit this topic [named above] altogether I really would be grateful
> because this
> > to me is really a showstopper.
>
> I think all the victims of dictators would be glad if their dictator
> would have talked to them so friendly.
>
> > You have used terms like propaganda and esotericism to characterize
> > arguments for monetary reform, true or not?
>
> If someone states that you can keep money and get interest for it at
> the same time then it is absolutely obvious that this is wrong. The
> money in my pocket does not raise any interest neither does the money
> under my cushion. Only if I do *not* keep my money but give it away
> then I can get interest for it.
>
> If then someone continues to state obvious nonsense like this then I
> reserve the right to call *this statement* propaganda / esotericism,
> yes. As a maintainer of the Oekonux project in Oekonux it is even my
> duty.
>
> And no the keeping-money-and-getting-interest is not a unimportant
> detail in this debate. It is rather all or nothing. But since you
> probably did not understand all the other stuff it is really pointless
> to go on.
>
> Anyway I have far more important things to do than to discuss this
> topic any longer. I said what I think is necessary and you either take
> it or leave it. I can take your position though it is probably harder
> for me than for you to do the same vice versa. I can live with this
> difference and you may want to try to see it similarly.
>
> > You have hinted that talk about monetary reform is related to
> anti-semitism?
>
> I once said that especially the criticism on interest is in danger in
> inviting interpretations you probably don't want - especially
> anti-semitic ones. I did this in a case where the criticism on
> interest was accompanied by Nazi rhetoric - and I never did before. In
> fact there is lots of historical evidence to this and I think during
> the financial crisis it is easy to see how easy this connection can be
> refreshed.
>
> You scandalized this and still label this as tactics. I don't think
> such scandalization is useful in such a debate and to label this as
> tactics is really mean. But I believe you really did not understand
> the whole point.
>
> BTW: I never was an Anti-Deutscher and did not like them at all.
> Nonetheless there are important insights on the structure of
> anti-semitism in this debate. Among them is - AFAICS - that racism is
> different from anti-semitism - which you equated recently. As Andreas
> said: in the country of those who did the atrocities the Left is
> probably a bit more sensible about these topics.
>
> > I have said nothing else that what you yourself have stated and is easily
> > documented.
>
> Well, see above. I now gave my perspective on things also in this
> community and (I hope) this is my final word on the topic of [named
> above].
>
> > It is you who have stopped the dialogue at the list,
>
> That is wrong. You unsubscribed from [ox-en] while I stayed here.
>
> > so where else can I
> > react then on the p2p list?
>
> Feel free.
>
> > Please be responsible for your own choices and decisions.
>
> I am.
>
> > This being said, it is true I am upset and may be in a period where it is
> > hard to me to see the silver ligning and the future cooperation.
> Sometimes,
> > often, conflicts are more acute with people who are very similar. and
> this
> > seems what has happened to us.
>
> I don't think we are very similar. I like you as a friend but I think
> we are quite different in many respects. At least this is my way to
> explain to myself why it is so hard to agree on this topic of [named
> above]. But that I see as a challenge and grounds for a fruitful
> cooperation - which IMHO we already had and I enjoyed.
>
> > I am conflicted between the desire for cooperation, and what I think
> should
> > be demanded in civil cooperation, i.e. stopping to use demeaning terms in
> > the conversation.
>
> See above.
>
> > I also find it very difficult to keep an artificial boundary between
> > obviously related subjects, just because you are declaring them
> off-limits,
>
> Well, I think in the recent debate on [ox-en] it became really clear
> that exchange in general is opposed to openness and thus the [named
> above] stuff at the very least does not support peer production.
>
> So to me there is no relation. Since I'm interested in peer production
> (i.e. open and based on Selbstentfaltung), its embedding in existing
> societies and expansion of peer production to create a society based
> on it to me discussing exchange based systems as something you can
> hope for is a waste of time.
>
> > so I rather say nothing anymore than continuously impose self-censorship.
>
> Michel, this is really childish. You have so many interesting things
> to say beyond the [named above].
>
> > So I think it is better to aim for a pause, and let time heal the wounds,
>
> Fine with me. You know where you find me. I'll wait.
>
>
> Grüße
>
> Stefan
>
--
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/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090514/3902935d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the p2presearch
mailing list