[p2p-research] [Commoning] Fwd: article: Markets vs Free Markets by Center for a Stateless Society

Tue Apr 13 20:08:35 CEST 2010

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Brigitte Kratzwald <
brigitte.kratzwald at attac.at> wrote:

>
> allowing argumentation that overcomes some of
> the contradictions the reference to markets always include. and it is an
> argumentation that doesn't stick to either-or-positions but is open to
> very different modes of regulation, where markets can somtetimes possibly
> be part of.
>
>
Yes, I think this is the right approach!

>
> > your last sentence suggest that the commons is a full set of solutions,
> > I'd
> > like to know more about that,
>
> no, I didn't want at all to suggest that commons is a set of solutions, in
> my opinion the commons perspective is a starting point for political
> action and social struggles, allowing argumentation that overcomes some of
> the contradictions the reference to markets always include. and it is an
> argumentation that doesn't stick to either-or-positions but is open to
> very different modes of regulation, where markets can somtetimes possibly
> be part of.
>
> what I forgot to mention before: the market massimo called a common, is
> not in any way a free market, but its rules are - at least partly - made
> by its participants. But - as I said - from the mail of Marzio Veneman one
> doesn't know, who makes the rules in this "free markets", this is why I
> don't really understand how it is supposed to work. anyway, as massimo put
> it, even if once implemented commons are not a solution forever, but still
> challenged.
>
> brigitte
>  >
> > Michel
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Brigitte Kratzwald <
> > brigitte.kratzwald at attac.at> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear all!
> >>
> >> I want to answer to this mail, though with some delay. As I don't have
> >> more background information about this concept and this text deals only
> >> with the level of circulation and exchange, not referring to production
> >> and decision making, it's hard to find a fair judgement. Besides, of
> >> course, I don't want to reproduce a kind of good-bad-scheme. But I'd
> >> like
> >> to make some points that seem crucial to me when discussing this concept
> >> in context with commons:
> >>
> >> 1.They say: „The only alternative to a market is to have rationing by
> >> command.“ It is exactly this argument that kills any discussion by
> >> reducing it to this either-or-position. There are a lot of possibilities
> >> in between, one of them, also I wouldn't favour it so much, is the
> >> Keynesian Welfare State. And another one, I favour much more, is
> >> commoning, the democratic, need-oriented control of production by all
> >> people concerned.
> >>
> >> 2.They complain about the banks' „unnatural control over buying labor
> >> and
> >> selling their products.“ But they do not question, whether buying labour
> >> and selling products, i.e. commodities, is the best way to organise the
> >> production and reproduction of our lives.
> >>
> >> 3.Markets, even if they are „free“, allocate commodities according to
> >> how
> >> much money one has and not according to needs. Even, if they suppose,
> >> that
> >> money would be distributed more equal in their system, this is
> >> questionable.
> >>
> >> 4.The focus on the market still reduces people to consumers, and social
> >> relations to economic relations, instead of stressing the importance of
> >> co-operative production and democratic regulation as commons do.
> >>
> >> 5.And at last, the notion of „free marktes“ as far as I know, should
> >> support circulation and thus stimulate consumption and possibly is
> >> useful
> >> for situations of deficiency. But in our situation, where it is about
> >> reducing consumption of ressources I don't think that free markets are a
> >> solution. It is the big value of a commons' perspective that it is
> >> possible to combine social justice with sustainable ressource use.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Brigitte
> >>
> >>
> >> > One could debate about the following text, but it is interesting for
> >> the
> >> > following reason: these people are inspired by the same emancipatory
> >> > spirit,
> >> > and therefore, should be allies, not enemies,
> >> >
> >> > this are not the 'royal free libertarians', who excuse any kind of
> >> > domination, but left-sided libertarians, who years for a truly free
> >> > 'market', and they don't mean 'capitalism',
> >> >
> >> > Michel
> >> >
> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> > From: MARZIO VENEMAN <max.rythmos at yahoo.com>
> >> > Date: Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 5:28 PM
> >> > Subject: [p2p-research] article: Markets vs Free Markets by Center for
> >> a
> >> > Stateless Society
> >> > To: p2p research <p2presearch at listcultures.org>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >  Dear subscribers P2P
> >> >
> >> > With reference to this recent article, I take pleasure informing you
> >> as
> >> > follows:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > http://c4ss.org/content/2165
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Libertarians throw the phrase “free market” around a lot, but the
> >> > important
> >> > word among those two is *free*.  Markets, per se, are really an
> >> > after-thought. It’s not as if we don’t want freedom in our non-market
> >> > activities.  We want to have freedom, in all ways, including in our
> >> > “market
> >> > transactions”.  The word market confuses a lot of people because they
> >> > imagine “markets” to be an institution, a thing that one can point to
> >> and
> >> > say “this is a Market”.  But we don’t mean it that way, really.
> >> There’s
> >> > no
> >> > such *thing* as a market.  It’s just a catch-all term to cover the sum
> >> > total
> >> > of all exchanges.
> >> >
> >> > The only alternative to a market is to have rationing by command.  One
> >> > monopoly with control of all goods who hands them out to people
> >> according
> >> > to
> >> > a scheme that monopoly has planned out in advance.  A situation where
> >> > there
> >> > is any sort of trade at all, is technically a market.
> >> >
> >> > Now it is true that any exchange leaves people better off than they
> >> would
> >> > be
> >> > had they not made the exchange, or they wouldn’t do it.  This even
> >> applies
> >> > to a simple robbery.  When the robber says “your money or your life”
> >> and
> >> > you
> >> > hand over the money, at the time, you felt that that was the better
> >> > option.
> >> >  *However*, this is where context comes in.  To paraphrase Lysander
> >> > Spooner,
> >> > one must question how the robber came into the position to offer you
> >> that
> >> > exchange.  For another oft used example, when the sweatshop owner
> >> offers
> >> > people a job under terrible conditions, and they take that job,
> >> certainly,
> >> > to them, it was better than not having that job.  Simply banning that
> >> > transaction will leave those people with even worse options to
> >> survive.
> >> > But
> >> > again, what must be questioned is how the sweatshop owner came into
> >> the
> >> > position of making that offer.
> >> >
> >> > When the politicians and media pundits talk about “market-based
> >> solutions”
> >> > or “markets” at all, one must wonder what sort of markets we are
> >> dealing
> >> > with.  Almost certainly not “free markets” for many, many reasons.
> >> The
> >> > biggest culprit here, and the one that is the least visible to most
> >> people
> >> > is the banking system, with central banking as it’s lynchpin, the
> >> piece
> >> of
> >> > the machine that holds the whole thing together.  Even people that
> >> > complain
> >> > about “the Fed” generally see the problem with it being “inflation”,
> >> > meaning
> >> > price inflation.  The part that is less seen is how the banking system
> >> as
> >> > we
> >> > know it creates oligopoly/oligopsony, meaning a market with a few
> >> large
> >> > producers who are able to wield unnatural control over buying labor
> >> and
> >> > selling their products.
> >> >
> >> > A fiat currency, that is to say a currency not backed by anything in
> >> > particular except the government forcing people to use it, floats
> >> against
> >> > the value of all goods and services that can be bought with that
> >> currency.
> >> > As more currency enters the system, the marginal value of each unit of
> >> > currency goes down.  This is ordinarily seen in the form of price
> >> > inflation,
> >> > but that depends on how quickly goods and services are being produced
> >> in
> >> > relation to how quickly currency is entering the system.  Either way
> >> > though,
> >> > X amount of currency will buy less if there is 10000*X amount of
> >> currency
> >> > than if there was 1000*X.
> >> >
> >> > Now when a bank lends currency to a large corporation, to a great
> >> extent
> >> > (95-99%), that currency is “produced” out of thin air.  A number goes
> >> into
> >> > a
> >> > ledger, and now *poof* that account has, say, 100 million dollars in
> >> it.
> >> > This currency doesn’t really exist in the system until it is spent.
> >> > Whatever that corporation spends that money on, it has essentially
> >> stolen
> >> > from everyone else who is holding an amount of that currency.
> >> Assuming
> >> > the
> >> > loan is going to be paid back, then it is the bank who has stolen it.
> >> >
> >> > (If I rob your house and lend the money I steal to someone to buy a
> >> lamp,
> >> > who does the lamp actually belong to?)
> >> >
> >> > Whoever sold the corporation whatever it bought benefits a certain
> >> amount
> >> > from that new money as well.  They are getting a signal that there is
> >> more
> >> > demand for X, and will raise their prices.  They in turn will spend
> >> that
> >> > money, etc… Whoever sees that money last, will benefit least because
> >> > prices
> >> > have already gone up to match the new level of currency.
> >> >
> >> > To simplify this model, you can see it as a redistribution of
> >> purchasing
> >> > power.  Those who borrow the most gain the most, and those who save,
> >> lose
> >> > the most.  In the end the banks themselves gain the most because they
> >> get
> >> > all of that purchasing power back and then some, *as long as interest
> >> > payments are able to keep up with inflation*.  This forces the banks
> >> to
> >> > make
> >> > sure that interest rates are high enough to account for inflation, or
> >> they
> >> > will lose purchasing power in the long run.
> >> >
> >> > But this leads to a situation where those who establish themselves
> >> early
> >> > in
> >> > a market are able to compete for banking dollars better than late
> >> comers.
> >> > Plus, the money they got was more valuable than the money the late
> >> comers
> >> > got.  This leads to an ever escalating “barrier to entry” as the fixed
> >> > costs
> >> > of doing business rise and rise.
> >> >
> >> > This alone eventually creates oligopoly, with no other intervention.
> >> To
> >> > make it worse, almost everything that the government does either
> >> destroys
> >> > capital outright, inhibits new capital formation, or controls how
> >> capital
> >> > can be transferred.  This makes the marginal cost of capital higher,
> >> which
> >> > benefits the existing owners of capital at the expense of everyone
> >> else.
> >> > This artificial scarcity of capital creates an artificial abundance of
> >> > labor
> >> > relative to capital, which leads to unemployment and low wages.
> >> >
> >> > Regulation is a big part of this scheme.  The regulatory state as we
> >> know
> >> > it
> >> > was created by the progressive movement in the late 1800s and early
> >> 1900s.
> >> >  Though the mythology of American history implies otherwise, it was
> >> well
> >> > known at the time that this would create oligopoly.  Oligopoly was
> >> > promoted
> >> > as a more “rational” way of having markets than the “chaos” of free
> >> > markets.  Of course once you establish oligopoly, regulation becomes
> >> > “necessary” in order to prevent the oligopoly from completely screwing
> >> > everyone else over.  It’s a chicken-egg type of self-fulfilling
> >> prophecy.
> >> >
> >> > If it came to pass that the only beverage suppliers, including water,
> >> were
> >> > CocaCola Inc and PepsiCo, and it was impossibly expensive for anyone
> >> else
> >> > to
> >> > *legally* provide beverages, there would be a good case to be made to
> >> > regulate those companies in order to prevent them from selling us
> >> sewage
> >> > at
> >> > 10 dollars a bottle.  There would certainly be a black market in
> >> water,
> >> > which the “law and order” types would cry about.  The quality and
> >> price
> >> of
> >> > that black market water would be questionable and people would be
> >> killing
> >> > each other over turf.  There would probably be some right wingers at
> >> that
> >> > point saying “let them die of thirst” but in this case, the
> >> left-wingers
> >> > would be right, *in context*.  But one must again question how such a
> >> > situation came to pass.
> >> >
> >> > One of the major forms of oligopolistic regulation and one of the most
> >> > obvious is the idea of “intellectual property”.  Copyrights and
> >> patents
> >> > directly establish oligopoly, if not monopoly, for a certain amount of
> >> > time.  Patents at least are fairly limited in their time and scope.
> >> But
> >> > copyrights are essentially perpetual for the purposes of any human
> >> > lifetime.  And the precedent has been set of extending copyright terms
> >> > indefinitely, specifically to protect copyrights already held by big
> >> > business. (see Disney for an example)
> >> >
> >> > After the fact of establishing this system of oligopoly, the
> >> government
> >> > then
> >> > will step in and subsidize those at the bottom of this
> >> government-created
> >> > pyramid in order to prevent mass starvation and riots.  Interestingly
> >> > enough, this subsidy also creates a barrier to entry in markets, by
> >> > putting
> >> > a floor on labor costs, making oligopoly worse, and pushing more
> >> people
> >> > down
> >> > to this floor in the long run.
> >> >
> >> > Eventually the logic of this system leads to a sort of Kapitalist
> >> > Leninism,
> >> > in which there is one large producer that sells everything and employs
> >> > everyone who is employed and everyone else is on welfare.  The movie
> >> > Wall-e
> >> > showed this sort of “business communism” pretty well.
> >> >
> >> > Right wingers talk about “markets” all day long, but to a large
> >> extent,
> >> > what
> >> > they oppose is merely the welfare part of the system.  They oppose the
> >> > redistribution from the rich and middle class to the poor, but not the
> >> > redistribution from the poor and middle class to the rich.  If one
> >> takes
> >> > their ideology to its logical extreme, we would have the banks owning
> >> > everything, maybe the top 10% of all workers in each field would have
> >> a
> >> > job
> >> > and everyone else would be forced to join the military or starve.
> >> This
> >> > military would necessarily be employed to protect “private property”
> >> from
> >> > looters and rioters, so the common man would be forced to kill his
> >> > neighbors
> >> > or be killed by them.  The Kapitalist Leninism of the liberal
> >> consensus
> >> > almost looks good in comparison.  This is what so-called liberals or
> >> > progressives envision when you say the term “free markets” or
> >> “capitalism”
> >> > to them.  Neither the “left” nor the “right” as we know them today
> >> > understands or opposes the mechanism of oligopoly, they’re just
> >> fighting
> >> > over how the spoils are spread around.
> >> >
> >> > To our descendents who will live in a free society, “Dilbert” wouldn’t
> >> > make
> >> > any sense.  No one could stay in business doing those things, because
> >> > someone else would rise up to challenge any business run so poorly.
> >> > “Office
> >> > politics” would be impossible because you’d lose money, and there
> >> wouldn’t
> >> > be endless reams of financing and “bailouts” to keep you in business.
> >> > Capital would grow horizontally and organically, because there would
> >> be
> >> an
> >> > incentive to save.  This would lower the price of capital and make
> >> > businesses more and more competitive, in wages, prices and product
> >> > quality.
> >> > Without banks redistributing capital to the core and without the
> >> > government
> >> > raising the barriers to entry, “big business” as we know it –
> >> oligopolies
> >> > who decide who is employed and who is unemployed, who produce shoddy
> >> > products with poor customer service because “where else are you going
> >> to
> >> > go?” would be impossible.  This is why the “free” part of the phrase
> >> free
> >> > markets is much more important than the market part.  We already have
> >> > markets.  What we don’t have is freedom.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I trust this information is sufficient for your purposes, in case you
> >> > require any additional details, please do not hesitate to contact the
> >> > undersigned.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Yours sincerely,
> >> > Cordiali Saluti
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Marzio Veneman
> >> > The Netherlands
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > *Click here to visit my international professional profile and
> >> connect!
> >> > *http://nl.linkedin.com/in/Rythmomachy
> >> >
> >> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rythmomachy
> >> >
> >> > http://www.thefacebook.com/Rythmomachy
> >> >
> >> > Free Mobile telephone worldwide http:// <
> >> http://www.jaxtr.com/max.rythmos>
> >> > www.jaxtr.com/max.rythmos
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > This email message may contain privilliged information and is solely
> >> > intended for the recipient(s) mentioned above.  To ensure that you
> >> > continue
> >> > receiving our emails, please add max.rythmos [at] yahoo_com to your
> >> > address
> >> > book or safe list.
> >> >
> >> > ------------------------------
> >> >
> >> >  ------------------------------
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > p2presearch mailing list
> >> > p2presearch at listcultures.org
> >> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think
> >> > thank:
> >> > http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
> >> >
> >> > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
> >> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
> >> >
> >> > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> >> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >> >
> >> > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> >> > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
> >>  > _______________________________________________
> >> > Commoning mailing list
> >> > Commoning at lists.wissensallmende.de
> >> > http://lists.wissensallmende.de/mailman/listinfo/commoning
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think
> > thank:
> > http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
> >
> > P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
> >
> > Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> > http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >
> > Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> > http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
> >
>
>
>

-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100414/b670efc4/attachment.html>