[p2p-research] excellent contribution on flow money by Martienvan Steenbergen

[Wittel, Andreas]

Hi Martien,

 

  

>  I must disagree. I had two loadspeakers on the shelve for a couple of

>  years, did not use them. Gave them to my son the other year, but the

>  rubber rim of both woofers pulverized on first use.

>  

>  Similar speakers, used daily, have been working for more than 20
years

>  now.

>  

>  So, it depends. Some stuff that is not used decays quicker than when

>  it's used. Even a car shows these kind of symptoms.

 

Point taken. So this can't be generalised, it depends on specific
objects, which makes this issue even more complicated.

 

 

>  >

>  > The second point is more important. Gesell's theory can only work
in

>  > small and local settings. If two people on an island develop

>  > exchanges,

>  > they do not need money or any other mediators to measure exchange.

>  > Thus

>  > they do not need to implement interest. However they would have to

>  > negotiate by when Robinson is supposed to get back the clothes and
the

>  > sacks of wheat that he gives to the stranger. If they don't talk
about

>  > time for reciprocity the stranger might decide that he could return

>  > clothes and wheat 40 years later, and til then keep borrowing
things

>  > from Robinson. In an extremely localised setting (two people on an

>  > island) this negotiation does not need to be formalised, it would
sort

>  > itself out eventually (at some point Robinson would stop lending if
he

>  > doesn't receive anything back.

>  

>  If I understand you correctly, the point is that sometimes the lender

>  needs things back in a timely manner. Well, negociate and agree on
the

>  time period and perhaps a fair price for use. Perhaps we should not

>  call this interest. It's just pay for use. E.g. it sounds fair to me

>  to pay a certain percentage of price of an object for each day that I

>  use it. Rent.

 

It is of course possible to see this not as interest but as rent. But
time plays an important role. In terms of practicality it seems nearly
impossible to make these arrangements for every single transaction,
every single item that is being borrowed.

 

  

>  True. But everyone can simply pay for borrowing the goods, right? And

>  they can make formal agreements for returning the good. Pay upfront,

>  pay later, pay over time, malus, bonus, what have you. But no compund

>  positive interest, please!

 

Again: it is not practical to make formal agreements for the exchange of
every single good.

Apart from that, Gesell claims that this form of rent is unnecessary if
exchange is not based on money. You take something, return this item
later, not matter when. This is where the problem lies with Gesell's
claim. As soon as you include the idea of rent, you need to measure the
time and the value of this time between the transaction and the return
of the action. (So where is the difference to compound interest?

 

  

>  > Interest, I would argue, is not intrinsically linked to money as
such,

>  

>  True. It is a characteristic of a money system. One of the dials one

>  can turn to influence the flow of money through the system.

>  

>  > but to the idea of measurement. Any model of exchange that operates
on

>  > the basis of measurement (of the commodities and of labour) is
bound

>  > to

>  > end up introducing interest.

>  

>  I do not see this. Please elaborate. Or prove that a system without

>  compound positive interest will fail.

 

 

I am not saying that a system without compound interest will fail. There
is a long history of economic exchange before the invention of
capitalism, and they have worked. So clearly interest is not needed.

I am merely questioning that interest is instrinsically linked to money.
But there is not much disagreement between our views. Yes, it is linked
to money systems. And what else are money systems than systems of
measurement, systems of quantification. As soon as measurement becomes
important in exchanges the idea of interest is unavoidable. You can
develop alternative money systems, but they will all be based on
attempts to value labour and value goods, and this is the core problem.

 

>  

>  > The problem is that there is no just way to

>  > measure the value of individual labour.

>  

>  It's about time we put some thought and work to that, then.

 

 

Here we disagree: IMO you can think about this problem as much as you
want, the value of labour is beyond measure. Qualities cannot be
transferred in an objective way into quantities. Different people value
different perceptions. One football fanatic might argue that football
stars deserve to earn what they do. Another one might argue they should
earn significantly less, but still more than a bin man. And someone with
no interest in football might argue the labour of a bin man has higher
value (as it is socially relevant labour) than the labour of a football
star.

But there are plenty more argument: Innovation, ideas, creativity can't
be measured in an accurate way. It is just impossible. This is why many
great artists died in poverty. 

Or: Should we assume that the labour of someone like Britney Spears is
more valuable that that of all members of say, the London Philharmonic
orchestra just because she has a bigger audience?

 

If we cant measure the quality of labour, could we find a way out
measuring the quantity of labour, that is the hours and days we spend
working? Again this does not work. It is increasingly impossible to
separate work from leisure, not just for artist but for most people. 

 

>  

>  > Only those economic models that are established on the idea that

>  > everybody should contribute with as much labour as he or she wishes
to

>  > donate to the commons could avoid operating on the basis of
interest.

>  

>  Yes. Contribute what you want, when you want it. If it gives you a

>  happy live, enjoy it. 

 

Agreed. However this still doesn't lead to a solution what people should
get paid...

 

Andreas


This email is intended solely for the addressee.  It may contain private and confidential information.  If you are not the intended addressee, please take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone.  In this case, please reply to this email to highlight the error.  Opinions and information in this email that do not relate to the official business of Nottingham Trent University shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the University.
Nottingham Trent University has taken steps to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus-free, but we do advise that the recipient should check that the email and its attachments are actually virus free.  This is in keeping with good computing practice.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090528/552b8ab7/attachment.html>