Re: [ox-en] New economic model for free technology?
- From: Michael Bouwens <michelsub2003 yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 02:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
Thanks for the input. I'm doing my best to understand
what you mean, but I'm not sure I'm getting it.
Forgive me if I reiterate some points, you don't have
to reply necessarily.
Yes, peer to peer realises use value, and the market
generates exchange value. and yes, there is more and
more use value which cannot be captured. But, the
market is still expanding and intensifying monetising
many areas that were not before. And there's a huge
reserve of exchange value in Asia, and new
pro-capitalist schemes to unearth it (microcredit,
bottom of the pyramid schemes, social capital, etc..)
Capitalism as a productive system is still doing
pretty well, even as it is destroying our environment
and our psyches. It is not excluded that major
reforms, on a global scale, might stimulate the
economic machinery. Smarter currencies systems for
example.
I'm open to the argument that a basic income might
weaken the capitalist productive economy, but how and
why, that I'm not hearing, or not understanding. On
the other hand the literature pro-basic income is very
sophisticated nowadays. If you have any references on
the topic, please do let me know,
So, I promise to be quiet now, and not to repeat the
same points all over again,
Michel
--- Franz Nahrada <f.nahrada reflex.at> wrote:
Hi Michael,
in this debate we really work with many unknown
factors.
that makes it interesting, but also difficult:
A full basic
income seems unlikely at present, but may be the
result of a major crisis (just as the universal
suffrage and the welfare state had to wait major
wars).
As I pointed out, the problem with basic income is
that it requires an
enormous value transfer from a productive business
sector to the
distributing agency.
but this is precisely why we have peer to peer
realising use value, and why the basic income is
needed. In the western countries, there seems to be
no
fundamental funding problem.
im my eye it is not possible to transfer use-value
in the same way you
transfer money. As you say correctly, the
peer-to-peer economy is based on
the enormous distribution of "capital" in form of
computers and
decentralised means of production. If we choose to
call this
"value-creation" at least this type of "value"
cannot be material of
funding by the state. This is "value" which is
"already there", but not
value in the sense of "possibility to command social
wealth", to use
aggregated social power as a thing that we can
possess and enact and
transfer.
As I said: my fundamental point is that that this is
exactly our problem:
that the productive power of the individual is
rising whereas the
productive power of capital to produce and realize
value
(labor-money-means of production-labour-more value)
is dramatically
shrinking. But only the latter "value" can be dealt
with by the state. (by
taxation mainly)
You are right, the state is still incredibly rich,
but it is limiting its
people at the same time because the mechanism of
value-generation needs
more care than ever, and so we increasingly "burn
the violines" to feed
the economy instead of doing it the other way round.
That is what
generated the need for basic income in the first
place: that more and more
people are set aside by the economy which is simply
demanding for more and
more productivity from �less and less people. The
catch is you always need
a successful economy to guarantee basic income.
Out of peer-to-peer activities there comes no
revenue and no taxes. It is
that simple.
later more.
Franz
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de