[p2p-research] What comes next?

[Robin]

  On 07/12/2010 10:21 PM, Ryan Lanham wrote:
> Daniel,
> Nothing can replace capitalism.

Hi.

What an absurd statement. How do you define capitalism? It currently 
consists of many elements: a 'free' market, state-regulation, 
wage-labour, competition, private ownership of means of production, etc.

All of those can be replaced and have been replaced. I personally like 
to look at how competition works and how that is effectively making us 
less efficient. I like to co-operate not compete (though I do see how 
competition can be embedded within co-operation I can't see any benefit 
in it being the other way around!)

If you're talking here about market-capitalism, then please say so. Then 
you're talking about the allocation of goods, products and services, not 
about the other elements (per se).

I believe we can also find many ways of replacing market capitalism, 
through a community controlled and p2p based way of networking people, 
groups, etc. In the past there have been many examples of how this has 
been implemented. I think here for example of the cooperative movement 
of late 19th Century, that has effectively been co-opted by the state, 
resulting in the social welfare state.

With the 'decrease' of the social-welfare system, the increase of 
autonomy and new technology one can expect a resurgence of systems that 
are based on this and that we can explore again old & new ways to 
replace these capitalisms and to ensure its sustainability. That's why I 
am on this list for example.

> There is no known capacity now that would lead to economically 
> efficient outcomes.  Could we have more efficient capitalism?  Yes.  
> Could we all be poorer and have systems that do away with markets, 
> contracts, free trade?  Yes.

Economic efficient outcomes? That's a statement that comes straight out 
of any generic scholar-book about liberal economics. I see ourselves 
living in a highly inefficient society, as per the reasons you are 
stating yourself also below. Those are no bugs, but features of a system 
whose only way to survive is by creating problems (environmental waste 
for example) that can only be solved by having more penetration of the 
same logic. Its existence relies on crises.

Robin.


> Asia has 4.2 billion people.  Africa has 1 billion.  The rest of the 
> planet has a little over 1.4 billion...750 million of which live in 
> Europe.  If pollution is the problem, we know that either the US and 
> Europe must not continue as today, or the rest of the world must not 
> become like the US and/or Europe.  Granted, the US is the worse of the 
> two in rates and per capita, but Europe is overwhelmingly the worse of 
> the two in total outputs.  Europe has 750 million people.  The US 
> has 308 million.  If China equalled the US in productivity and output 
> for even a fraction of its population, it is highly likely that its 
> consumption would exceed the US usage rates.  That's the "pollution" 
> problem.
> Then there is the debt problem.  Real income must come from someone 
> consuming.  The US has, for a long time, been the world's consumer.  
> We buy German cars and Pianos, Japanese electronics, Canadian trees 
> and oil, etc. far more than anyone else.  Without someone consuming, 
> it is very hard for anyone to be a net producer.  Now that the US is 
> becoming depleted, that means people will have to sell stuff to a much 
> poorer and much less sophisticated China...or the world must become 
> poorer.  This the "consumption" problem.
> Given that nations must build and maintain infrastructure like roads, 
> armies, and social security systems to keep populations productive, 
> governments must spend funds.  But if taxes go too high, some believe 
> that incentive is lost.  This is the "debt" problem.  Really it is the 
> same as the consumption problem.
> No system besides capitalism has a prayer of solving these issues.  
> Arguing the issues don't exist is simply mad if one has any economic 
> sense of income and wealth.  Many do not have such a sense.  Perhaps 
> the majority of humans do not.
> For most people the 1-2 billion people who live life in the upper 1/3 
> of humanity are all that primarily matters.  Whether this is just or 
> not is a political and moral question.  For now, it seems few in the 
> developed world (even those who are most activist) really do much to 
> help the poor of the world.  Nor have they done much.  If those poor 
> become richer, there are endless issues.  If the rich become poorer, 
> there are endless issues.  Since I am in the rich group, I prioritize 
> my own problems.  I hope the poor can do better, but I would not 
> change 60% of the U.S.'s income and wealth for doubling the income and 
> wealth of 2/3s of the world's poor.  Even if I did have the capacity 
> to make such a trade, the laws of productivity suggest it would be a 
> lost gain in a matter of a few years.  The only thing that makes 
> people wealthy is skills, systems, good governance and free trade.  
> Few places can or do have those things in excess....probably less than 
> 1 billion of the world's people...most of which live in Europe, North 
> America, or their satellite regimes.
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Daniel Araya 
> <levelsixmedia at hotmail.com <mailto:levelsixmedia at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Very nicely layed out Ryan. My thoughts also.
>
>     As you say, what comes next? Thats the question. One possibility
>     is simply no growth economies in advanced countries (Japan simply
>     got there first). And a significant shift in power/wealth to
>     industrializing countries (which are the bulk of the world's
>     population anyway).
>
>     And yet there is that nagging question of P2P. Could it replace
>     capitalism... I like Michel's optimism there... just not sure on
>     this myself
>
>     1. I believe free market capitalism has largely proved the
>     happiest time for humans by far.
>     2. I believe in governments regulating markets.
>     3. I believe these things require careful balances.
>     4. I believe that technology is all important in changing the rules.
>     5. Technology has made labour and learning problematic.
>     6. Because of 5, the credit/debt economy of the world is now broken.
>     7. There may be ways to fix 6, but I don't see how.
>     8. If there is no way to fix 6, there will be great disruption and
>     trauma.
>     9. Something else will ensue.
>     10. P2P may be part of 9.  I think "free" economies are a logical
>     technical outcome.
>     11. Understanding free economies is therefore important.
>     12. There is no future in the past.
>     13. State socialism and communism are the past.
>     14. It is possible that debt-based capitalism is becoming the past.
>     15. If 14 is true, there is an urgency to uncover some means of
>     solving what will replace it.
>
>     Ryan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100713/54b51d39/attachment.html>