P2P Foundation

Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices



  • Subscribe



  • Donate

    If you value the insight and content of this site, gift us with a contribution.

  • Communities and Networks Connection
  • Recent Comments:

    • Jaun Millalonco: Excellent YouTube post ! thanks for sharing. I’ll be adding your...
    • Michel Bauwens: Hi Otto, I can’t find that phrase in the text, I need more...
    • Otto Newhouse: On your suggestion, Michel, I took time to look through the link to...
    • oldguy: In the wake of the global economic collapse due mainly to uncontrolled greed,...
    • Christian Siefkes: @Kevin: Second, the portion of your article that actually does...

  • Authors

  • Open source community for liberating gov data | DIYcity

    photo of chris pinchen
    chris pinchen
    2nd July 2009


    From DIYcity

    Hi DIYcity

    The City of SF has undertaken an experiment to develop an open source platform with the community that will help improve public access to raw government data in machine readable formats. We see a great opportunity to work with other cities and developers in creating technology that is re-usable, free and open source to solve a common challenge. As members of DIYcity, this might be of interest.

    You can learn more at our wiki and if you’re technically inclined check out our documentation. Our next open meeting is 7/2 @17:00 PDT dial in: 219-509-8111 [252380#]

    http://apps.sfgov.org/opendata
    http://apps.sfgov.org/opendata/index.php/Documentation

    Jay Nath
    jay [dot] nath (at)sfgov[dot]org

    [From Open source community for liberating gov data | DIYcity]

    Conversation: Add your Comment »

    Posted in: Free Software, Open Content, Open Design, Open Government, Open Innovation, Open Models, P2P Culture, P2P Governance, P2P Public Policy, P2P Theory, P2P-Collaboration, Peer Production | del.icio.us:Open source community for liberating gov data | DIYcity digg:Open source community for liberating gov data | DIYcity newsvine:Open source community for liberating gov data | DIYcity

    Program - 4th Inclusiva-net Meeting: P2P Networks and Processes - Medialab-Prado Madrid

    photo of chris pinchen
    chris pinchen
    2nd July 2009


    Program - 4th Inclusiva-net Meeting: P2P Networks and Processes

    place: Medialab Prado · Plaza de las Letras, C/ Alameda, 15 Madrid

    Program of presentations, lectures, and roundtables of the Inclusiva-net: P2P Networks and Processes at Medialab-Prado from July 6 ot 10, 2009. Moderated by Juan Martín Prada.

    This international seminar will focus on an analysis of “peer-to-peer” networks and network processes, highlighting the social potentials of cooperative systems and processes based on the structures and dynamics inherent to these types of networks.

    Limited seating. Registration required

        > Register for the general meeting
        > Register for the discussion groups

    550_0.jpg

    Free entrance to the meeting, but previos registration required. Limited seating. Simultaneous translation English/Spanish.

    In order to attend the meeting and take part in the discussion groups you must register (for the general meeting, fill in the form below; you can also take part in one of the four discussion groups by submitting the specific form):

        > Register for the general meeting
        > Register for the discussion groups

    Follow the Meeting and take part through the FORUM and the BLOG

    Program

    Monday, July 6

    Morning:

    12 noon – 1 pm: Presentation of the Meeting

    1 pm – 2 pm: Lecture by Juan Martín Prada: P2P Networks and Processes: Beyond the Logics of Exchange (Redes y procesos P2P: Más allá de las lógicas del intercambio)

    Evening:

    5 pm - 6 pm: Paper by Ulises Ali Mejías: Peerless: The Ethics of P2P Network Disassembly

    6 pm – 7 pm: Paper by Florencio Cabello: P2P Broadcasting: Mesh Networks and the Democratization of the Radio Spectrum (Radiodifusión P2P: Redes de malla y democratización del espectro de radiofrecuencia)

    Tuesday, July 7

    Morning:

    10 am - 11 am: Paper by Ál Cano Santana: Guifi.net: Peer-to-peer network and Free Social Web for collective empowerment (Guifi.net: Red entre iguales y Web Social Libre para el empoderamiento colectivo)

    11 am - 12 noon: Paper by Karla Brunet: The Use of P2P Networks as a Source of Culture Manifestations in Brazil. The Example of Submidialogia Network

    12 noon - 12:15 pm: Break

    12:15 am - 2 pm: Discussion Groups [+info and registration]

    Evening:

    5 pm - 8 pm: Seminar given by Michel Bauwens: Conditions for the Radicality of the P2P Paradigm [+info]

    Wednesday, July 8

    Morning:

    10 am - 11 am: Paper by Ioana Ionescu: P2P Searches: A New Approach to the Search Engine Model (Buscadores P2P: un nuevo acercamiento al modelo de los motores de búsqueda)

    11 am - 12 noon: Paper by Antoine Fressancourt: Implementation Challenges for P2P Systems in Mobile Network Environments

    12 noon - 12:15 pm: Break

    12:15 pm - 2 pm: Discussion Groups [+info and registration]

    Evening:

    5 pm - 8 pm: Roundtable: P2P Economies and Forms of Production (Economías y formas de producción P2P), moderated by Juan Freire. Participants: Gonzalo Martín, María Ptqk, Rubén Díaz and Rubén Martínez [+info]

    Thursday, Juy 9

    Morning:

    10 am - 11 am: Paper by Bodó Balázs: Movie Piracy and (the Lack of) Cinemas in Hungary

    11 am - 12 noon: Paper by Simona Levi, in representation of EXGAE: The Pirates are the Parents: Defending Rights Related to Exchanges on the Web (Los piratas son los padres: de defender los derechos relacionados con el intercambio en la red)

    12 noon - 12:15 am: Break

    12:15 am - 2 pm: Discussion Groups [+info and registration]

    Evening:

    5 pm - 8 pm: Roundtable P2P Networks: Law, Philosophy, Technology, Politics (Redes p2p: Derecho, Filosofía, Tecnología, Política), moderated by Javier de la Cueva. Participants: Andoni Alonso and Vicente Ruiz Jurado [+info]

    Friday, July 10

    Morning:

    10 am - 11 am: Paper by Hector Fouce: Beyond the Crisis in the Recording Industry: P2P Networks, Music, and Generational Cultural Experience (Más allá de la crisis de la industria discográfica: redes P2P, música y experiencia cultural generacional)

    11 am - 12 noon: Paper by Andrew Whelan: Leeching Bataille: peer-to-peer Potlatch and the Acephalic Response

    12 noon - 12:15 pm: Break

    12:15 pm - 2 pm: Discussion Groups [+info and registration]

    Evening:

    5 pm - 8 pm: Roundtable: The Gift Practices and P2P (Prácticas del don y P2P), moderated by Juan Martín Prada. Participants: Antonio Lafuente, Margarita Padilla and Joaquín Rodríguez [+info]

    *Simultaneous Translation Spanish/English and English/Spainish by AICE Asociación de Intérpretes de Conferencia España

    [From Program - 4th Inclusiva-net Meeting: P2P Networks and Processes - Medialab-Prado Madrid]

    Conversation: Add your Comment »

    Posted in: Integral Theory, P2P Theory | del.icio.us:Program - 4th Inclusiva-net Meeting: P2P Networks and Processes - Medialab-Prado Madrid digg:Program - 4th Inclusiva-net Meeting: P2P Networks and Processes - Medialab-Prado Madrid newsvine:Program - 4th Inclusiva-net Meeting: P2P Networks and Processes - Medialab-Prado Madrid

    Mathieu O’Neil: Durova Statement

    photo of mathieu
    mathieu
    2nd July 2009


    The following statement was sent by my publisher to Ms Broer a few days ago. My publisher gave her two opportunities to respond and advised that if she chose not to I would make the statement public in an effort to correct the misleading impression of my book Cyberchiefs conveyed in Ms Broer’s public statements and correspondence. As Ms Broer has not responded, my statement follows. The Wikipedia Signpost review of my book has been amended to clarify any ambiguity that may have existed.


    Statement by Mathieu O’Neil regarding Durova


    29 June 2009


    I was contacted recently by Ms Lise Broer about my book Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes. There is some discussion in this book of actions which Ms Broer performed as an administrator in the English version of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia under the pseudonym “Durova”, which are publicly archived on the internet. It became clear that Ms Broer was not happy about being referred to, and also with not having been forewarned about this publication. I wrote to her as follows: “You might argue that I lacked courtesy in not informing you that I was writing about you. In my view, that’s a matter of opinion: many people write about public events and figures without necessarily informing their subjects that they are doing so. But I am willing to acknowledge that you feel that would have been appropriate and hence also willing to apologize to you for not informing you previously.”


    That being said, I had to disagree with her notion that there are restrictions on the use of material created in Wikipedia. The license clearly states that content can be freely reproduced. Indeed, there is nothing unusual about researchers dealing with contentious issues on Wikipedia – for example I have recently come across an article which systematically maps conflicts in the French Wikipedia and uses the online identities of Wikepedians. Wikipedia has become an important public resource, and it is entirely reasonable and in the public interest for the scientific community to be able to study its operations.


    However Ms Broer argued that in this case there were exceptional circumstances. She claimed that:


    a) “the bulk” of a chapter of my book was devoted to studying her as a “case study”; and

    b) this chapter focused on the issue of harassment, and specifically on analysing Ms Broer as a victim of harassment.


    By writing these things, she said, I had caused her to potentially become subjected to more harassment and committed a grave breach of research ethics. Before saying anything more, I want to affirm what I would say to any victim of harassment: that I offer my sincere condolences to her, as I imagine that the experience would be horrifying. I can say this, without any fear of contradiction, because neither of the above claims is based in fact. This may stem from Ms Broer’s knowledge of my book deriving from a book review in the Wikipedia Signpost.


    The Signpost review of my book suggests that “the bulk of [my] discussion” deals with Durova. In fact, in the course of a book dealing with authority and governance in online communities, the so-called “case study on Durova” represents only 3 1/2 pages of a 22 page chapter on issues of expertise, collaboration, governance, justice, policing, and the legitimacy of power in the English Wikipedia. This will need to be corrected in the Signpost book review and in any other other forum where this erroneous information appears. More importantly, the case study does not focus on harassment or on Durova as a victim of harassment.


    Within this chapter on governance in Wikipedia, there is a section that deals with conflicts, in particular the management of so-called “sock-puppets”. When people have been found guilty of disruptive behaviour such as vandalism, disinformation, or bias, and subsequently banned from the English Wikipedia by its administrators, they sometimes create false identities to re-infiltrate and cause trouble; these fake identities are known as sock-puppets. On the English Wikipedia a whole vocabulary on “socks” has emerged – sock farms, sock infestations, sock hunting.


    Within the section on conflicts in Wikipedia, there is a sub-section which deals with a specific incident which occurred in 2007 where Durova (who was then a Wikipedia administrator known for her skills in hunting socks) banned a user who appeared to conform to the profile of a “mole” trying to infiltrate Wikipedia to cause trouble. She had circulated these findings to a private mailing list. However the suspected mole was merely a returning participant who was contributing usefully under a different pseudonym for personal reasons. After being apprised of this, Durova acknowledged her error and unbanned him. When these facts became widely known, they generated a lot of discussion on the English Wikipedia about transparency in justice and policing and protection against injustice. Wikipedia’s high court, the “Arbitration committee”, subsequently found that Durova should “exercise greater care when issuing blocks”.


    In my book, I use this incident to illustrate how policing and the fight against disruptive users operates on Wikipedia. It allows me to examine Wikipedia’s administrative structure, the roles and positions of different groups of people within that structure, the more or less democratic nature of the project, and other issues relating to the sociology of organisations. It is an important example, but by no means represents the “bulk” of the chapter or a case study on harassment.


    The reason I am giving so much detail is that Ms Broer is making a very serious accusation against me: she is asserting that my case study on Wikepedia “analyses Durova as a victim of harassment”. However, this is not the case at all. I have written a case study on the English Wikipedia. I refer to Durova in her role as an administrator who at one time played a role in uncovering returning disruptors or vandals (”socks”). In the entire chapter I use the word “harassment” twice, in very general terms, and the only relationship that I establish between Durova and this issue is that the list to which she reported her suspicions was devoted to “cyberstalking”, and that this revealed an undercurrent of tension in the project. I did not provide any details as to what kind of harassment there may be, or as to the identity of the victims, apart from the fact that they appeared to be mostly female. I certainly did not assert that Durova herself was a victim of harassment, nor make her reported situation as a victim of harassment the subject of my case study. I referred to her solely as a “sock hunter”. Any assertion to the contrary is simply false, and misrepresents my book. I understand that Pluto Press has offered to send Ms Broer a copy of the book, so that she may familiarise herself more extensively with its contents. This strikes me as a sensible idea.


    I am happy for this statement to remain a private matter. However if Ms Broer, having now been apprised of the true facts, continues to make erroneous claims about me and my book, I will have no choice but to make it public.


    Mathieu O’Neil

    Conversation: Add your Comment »

    Posted in: Uncategorized | del.icio.us:Mathieu O'Neil: Durova Statement digg:Mathieu O'Neil: Durova Statement newsvine:Mathieu O'Neil: Durova Statement

    The Portuguese digital and collaborative learning revolution

    photo of Michel Bauwens
    Michel Bauwens
    2nd July 2009


    Interesting reportage in the Wikinomics blog, about the recent experiences in Portugal.

    (however, do read the comments for more sceptical accounts from the field itself)

    Don Tapscott:

    “A modest country across the Atlantic that’s turning into the world leader in rethinking education for the 21st century.

    That country is Portugal. Its economy in early 2005 was sagging, and it was running out of the usual economic fixes. It also scored some of the lowest educational achievement results in western Europe.

    So Prime-Minister Jose Socrates took a courageous step. He decided to invest heavily in a “technological shock” to jolt his country into the 21st century. This meant, among other things, that he’d make sure everyone in the workforce could handle a computer and use the Internet effectively.

    This could transform Portuguese society by giving people immediate access to world. It would open up huge opportunities that could make Portugal a richer and more competitive place. But it wouldn’t happen unless people had a computer in their hands.

    In 2005, only 31% of the Portuguese households had access to the Internet. To improve this penetration, the logical place to start was in school, where there was only one computer for five kids. The aim was to have one computer for every two students by 2010.

    So Portugal launched the biggest program in the world to equip every child in the country with a laptop and access to the web and the world of collaborative learning. To pay for it, Portugal tapped into both government funds and money from mobile operators who were granted 3G licenses. That subsidized the sale of one million ultra-cheap laptops to teachers, school children, and adult learners.

    Here’s how it works: If you’re a teacher or a student, you can buy a laptop for 150 euros (U.S. $207). You also get a discounted rate for broadband Internet access, wired or wireless. Low income students get an even bigger discount, and connected laptops are free or virtually free for the poorest kids. For the youngest students in Grades 1 to 4, the laptop/Internet access deal is even cheaper — 50 euros for those who can pay; free for those who can’t.

    That’s only the start: Portugal has invested 400 million euros to makes sure each classroom has access to the Internet. Just about every classroom in the public system now has an interactive smart board, instead of the old fashioned blackboard.

    This means that nearly nine out of 10 students in Grades 1 to 4 have a laptop on their desk. The impact on the classroom is tremendous, as I saw this spring when I toured a classroom of seven-year-olds in a public school in Lisbon. It was the most exciting, noisy, collaborative classroom I have seen in the world.

    The teacher directed the kids to an astronomy blog with a beautiful color image of a rotating solar system on the screen. “Now,” said the teacher, “Who knows what the equinox is?”

    Nobody knew.

    “Alright, why don’t you find out?”

    The chattering began, as the children clustered together to figure out what an equinox was. Then one group lept up and waved their hands. They found it! They then proceeded to explain the idea to their classmates.

    This, I thought, was the exact opposite of everything that is wrong with the classroom system in the United States.

    The children in this Portuguese classroom were loving learning about astronomy. They were collaborating. They were working at their own pace. They barely noticed the technology, the much-vaunted laptop. It was like air to them. But it changed the relationship they had with their teacher. Instead of fidgeting in their chairs while the teacher lectures and scrawls some notes on the blackboard, they were the explorers, the discoverers, and the teacher was their helpful guide.

    Portugal has been careful to invest in teacher training to capitalize on the possibilities of the laptops in schools. They’re also thinking of creating a new online platform to allow teachers to work together to create new lessons and course materials that take advantage of the interactive technology. Through this collaboration, the Portuguese school system will create exciting new online materials to educate children. Lots of ideas are already making their way into Portuguese classrooms, says Mario Franco, chair of the Foundation for Mobile Communication, which is managing the e-school program. There are 50 different educational programs and games inside the laptops the youngest children use. The laptops are even equipped with a control to encourage kids to finish their homework and score high marks. If they do, they get more time to play.

    It’s too early to assess the impact on learning in Portuguese schools. Studies of the impact of computers in schools elsewhere have been inconclusive, or mixed. One key problem is that simply providing computers in schools is not enough. Teachers facing a classroom of kids with laptops need to learn that they are no longer the expert in their domain; the Internet is.

    Yet Portugal is on a campaign to reinvent learning for the 21st century. The technology is only one part of that campaign. The real work is creating a new model of learning.”

    Conversation: Add your Comment »

    Posted in: P2P Education | del.icio.us:The Portuguese digital and collaborative learning revolution digg:The Portuguese digital and collaborative learning revolution newsvine:The Portuguese digital and collaborative learning revolution

    The Amateur Class, or, The Reserve Army of the Web

    photo of Michel Bauwens
    Michel Bauwens
    2nd July 2009


    Our collaborator Vasilis Kostakis published an article in Rethinking Marxism.

    Here’s the editor’s note:

    “Web 2.0 is exploiting a reserve army of amateurs. That’s the evocative argument advanced by Vasilis Kostakis concerning the transformation of the computer industry inaugurated by the new version of the Internet. The netarchists and netocrats who now own the platforms promote the participation of amateurs who produce value for the administrators on a wide variety of sites, including Flickr, MySpace, Facebook, del.icio.us, and YouTube. The amateur enjoys the pleasures of creation, communication, and socialization while the corporations make huge profits. The alternative, according to Kostakis, might be called Social Contract 2.0, which encompasses new meanings and ways of production (peer production) and ownership (peer ownership) and constitutes “an abstract act of commitment towards the creation of a real sphere of the Commons.”

    Conversation: Add your Comment »

    Posted in: P2P Theory | del.icio.us: The Amateur Class, or, The Reserve Army of the Web digg: The Amateur Class, or, The Reserve Army of the Web newsvine: The Amateur Class, or, The Reserve Army of the Web

    A call for a global network of city arcologies

    photo of Michel Bauwens
    Michel Bauwens
    1st July 2009


    In Reality Sandwich, the writer by the name of Doctress Neutopia has an interesting essay which describes the relatively failed urban project of Paul Soleri, i.e. the Arcology project. She believes that the time is now ripe for a worldwide coalition of such urban renewal projects, especially needed in the context of what Peak Oil will do the urban living.

    I asked one of our p2p-architectural friends, for his comments.

    Tino Rizzo:

    “The article is really interesting, but as architect, engineer, and planner I’m a bit skeptical about Soleri’s model.

    Arcology is a comprehensive device which need to be created by a top-down authority….need to have 100% consensus…in one word is not that democratic. Risking to be a bit polemic, I would say: better to have sprawl than a dictatorship…because that’s the kind of project.

    As architect I’m really fascinated by these pure and organic forms, but the reality is much complex and I don’t see many chances for Soleri’s project to be successful. Yet we can’t address a problem so complex (namely, change our way of live) in such simplistic terms.

    The author says ” we need the other half of the genius” to make possible Arcology. I’m more interested in this aspect, whether Arcology project is worth or not. I think we need to create sustainable models for democratic research-networks across the world.

    With “democratic research-network” I mean not only a network of Universities or national institutions, but a hybrid network made of individuals, NGOs, professionals, architects, programmers, universities, parties and so on.

    What I think is that we need an “Arcology” at the level of research, a brain convergence in a worldwide P2P network engaged in many different sub-projects. In these terms, Soleri’s Arcology, or any other proposal discussed, would be one project among thousands proposals - depending on the context (political, cultural, economical, etc.) - rather than the only one choice.

    We could think that this P2P network could be a sort of worldwide task-force financed by national bodies, individuals, banks, cooperative projects and so on….In these terms it is indispensable to allow people from the second and third world to be part of this institution (I’m thinking about the O3B project).

    If researchers and non-researchers from all over the world could converge in this “P2P university” (or whatever it could be) through internet and with local cells, than maybe would easier to build consensus around proposals, get funding, and implement projects (bottom-up).

    We could think that this p2p university could deliver know-how just like a normal university. Yet it could provide courses, but with new trans-disciplinary subjects. The letter aspect, transdisciplinarity, it’s crucial in order to create a sustainable research paradigm - what Universities refuse to do by chopping fields in narrow strands.

    So far, what I want to say is that we need first to come up with a P2P-transdisciplinary task-force which is concretely engaged in the making of (open source) knowledge - challenging the autoreferenciality of universities - and then, step by step, implement projects.”

    Conversation: Add your Comment »

    Posted in: Collective Intelligence, Open Innovation | del.icio.us:A call for a global network of city arcologies digg:A call for a global network of city arcologies newsvine:A call for a global network of city arcologies

    The continued importance of unions

    photo of Michel Bauwens
    Michel Bauwens
    1st July 2009


    The report indicates that if California workers were compensated for 100 percent of their productivity gains since 1980, the average wage would be more than 30 dollars an hour, or 40 percent higher than the average real wage in 2007.

    The following is from the LIVING WAGE COALITION OF SONOMA COUNTY website in California.

    The excerpt shows the real price of the neoliberal model in terms of social justice and fair distribution of society’s wealth, towards those who really produce it.

    Martin J. Bennett:

    “A new study released by the Center for American Progress, an independent and progressive think tank, reveals that during the first several decades after World War II productivity gains and worker pay increased together. Between 1947 and 1974 both productivity and median family income roughly doubled. This also was a period when unions were relatively strong. In the mid-1950s nearly 40 percent of California workers were union members.

    Beginning in the late 1970s and accelerating during the 1980s, workers experienced a ‘great disconnect’ between productivity and wages. In California the report demonstrates that between 1980 and 2007 worker productivity grew by 70 percent while inflation-adjusted wages increased by just 21 percent. Simultaneously, by 2007 union membership in the state slipped to only 18 percent of the work force.

    The report indicates that if California workers were compensated for 100 percent of their productivity gains since 1980, the average wage would be more than 30 dollars an hour, or 40 percent higher than the average real wage in 2007.

    Clearly productivity gains have not been widely shared.

    This is one of the main reasons why labor, environmental, civil rights, and religious organizations across the nation have joined together to support the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that will remove major barriers to union organizing and help to rebuild the middle class.

    According to the Economic Policy Institute, unions raise wages by 28 percent on average. Moreover, union workers are much more likely to receive comprehensive medical and retirement benefits. The total union advantage for wages and benefits combined is 44 percent more than nonunion.”

    Conversation: Add your Comment »

    Posted in: P2P Economics | del.icio.us:The continued importance of unions digg:The continued importance of unions newsvine:The continued importance of unions

    How Siefkes’ Peer Economy model differs from the market model

    photo of Michel Bauwens
    Michel Bauwens
    30th June 2009


    The following refers to Christian Siefkes book, From Exchange to Contributions: Generalizing Peer Production into the Physical World. (Edition C. Siefkes, Berlin, 2007), and the occasional critique that the proposed effort sharing scheme is in fact a market.

    Christian Siefkes:

    “Markets are based on private, uncoordinated production using privately owned means of production, whose output is afterwards exchanged.

    In the peer economy model, production is not private but social from the very start: Since the tasks necessary to satisfy peoples wishes are shared (divided up), producers always know that they are meeting an existing need, that there will be somebody who will use their products.

    In the peer economy model, resources and means of production are commons. They may be used by projects (i.e. they become possession–something that is used), but they are never privately owned by anybody: nobody has the right or the effective means to sell them or withhold them until the others fulfill one’s conditions. (Owners of resources and means of production have the means of backmail non-owners–that’s never the case in peer production.)

    So these, I think, are the fundamental differences between markets and the commons-based peer economy: production is social from the very start since tasks are shared; and production is based on commons, not on private property.

    There are, of course, other important differences such as that, in a peer economy, nobody would need to suffer hunger or other basic wants due to being unable to successfully sell anything. But these differences actually follow from the differences outlined above, between sharing tasks (where there is a bit to do for everybody) and selling/exchanging stuff, as well as between private, exclusion-based access to resources and means of production vs. common, inclusion-based access.”

    Conversation: Add your Comment »

    Posted in: P2P Books, P2P Commons, P2P Economics, Peer Property (IP) | del.icio.us:How Siefkes' Peer Economy model differs from the market model digg:How Siefkes' Peer Economy model differs from the market model newsvine:How Siefkes' Peer Economy model differs from the market model

    Thomas Greco on implementing regional mutual credit clearing associations

    photo of Michel Bauwens
    Michel Bauwens
    30th June 2009


    Reality Sandwich republishes an extensive excerpt from Thomas Greco excellent new book on monetary transformation, which we featured here before.

    An excerpt from that larger excerpt, focused on how to implement bank-replacing ‘credit clearings’ on a regional level.

    Thomas Greco:

    “Doesn’t it therefore make more sense to nurture the businesses that are already part of the local economy? Doesn’t it make sense to support those companies that are locally owned or managed and have a stake in the prosper­ity and quality of life in their home communities? Communities that have a high quality of life, an able workforce, and a clean and pleasant environment do not need to offer bribes to outsiders. Relocalization efforts cannot get very far without the creation of metasystems that support buying locally, selling locally, investing locally, and saving locally. Conventional political forms of money, and huge banking companies that are owned and managed by remote entities, by their very nature militate against relocalization. There is no need for antagonistic opposition to those entities; they can be made less relevant and less destructive by implementing creative methods that localize control over both exchange and finance.

    I propose that groups and organizations that seek to promote healthy, sustain­able local economies should make it a priority to organize regional mutual credit clearing associations as the centerpiece of a comprehensive program. As these associations develop and grow, they will provide their regions with an increasing measure of independence from the outside forces that control conventional money and banking, enabling communities to rise above “the race to the bottom” that has resulted from the kind of globalization that has been architected and forced upon the world by the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. The credit clearing exchange is the key element that enables a community to develop a sustainable economy under local control and to maintain a high standard of living and qual­ity of life.

    The possibilities inherent in such a plan should not be judged by past expe­rience with local currencies and other exchange alternatives. Just as a modern jet aircraft bears little resemblance to the Wright brothers’ first airplane, so too are the more optimized exchange structures proposed in my book unlike any community currency, LETS, or commercial “barter” exchange with which people might be familiar. Based on the principles we have outlined, it is now possible to engineer and build exchange systems to carry heavy economic loads within local bioregions and to operate them according to sound busi­ness principles. This is a multistage project that will proceed in the following sequence:

    1. Institute measures that promote import substitution.

    2. Provide an alternative payment medium, independent of any political currency and banking establishment.

    3. Issue a supplemental regional currency.

    4. Develop basic support structures that strengthen the local economy and enhance the community’s quality of life.

    5. Develop an independent value standard and unit of account. “

    How to implement such a system?

    Stage II: Mutual Credit Clearing Provides an Alternative Means of Payment

    The second stage is the most important and unique stage of the project. It provides an alternative means of payment based on the community’s own credit through the process of direct credit clearing.

    Working capital in the form of conventional money is always scarce and expensive for most businesses. Mutual credit clearing is an extension of the common business practice of selling on “open account,” but it is done on a more organized multilateral basis, which has the effect of sharing the risks and enabling a participant’s sales to pay for purchases without the use of any third-party credit instrument such as conventional money. As a member of a mutual credit clearing exchange, a business can have an interest-free line of credit, it will be able to acquire the things it needs without the use of cash, and (because it accepts payment in the form of exchange credit) will be a preferred source of supply for others who are members of the exchange.

    The allocation of credit in a clearing exchange involves the granting of an “overdraft privilege,” which means that a member’s account may have a nega­tive balance up to some specified limit. In allocating lines of credit, it is impor­tant (especially in the beginning) to allocate the greatest share of credit to “trusted issuers” — i.e., those that are well established, financially sound, and whose products and services are in greatest demand within the local region. This is the key to maintaining a rapid circulation of credits through the system, avoiding defaults, and preventing the excessive accumulation of credits in the hands of businesses that cannot easily spend them. In brief, the businesses that you wish to have accept community credits in payment are the ones that should be issuing them in the first place. By beginning with “trusted issuers” the value and usefulness of the community credits is quickly demonstrated beyond any doubt. As the process gains credibility and general acceptance in the community, more businesses and individuals will want to join the credit clearing exchange and as each member develops a trading history they too can earn an overdraft privilege commensurate with their volume of sales within the system.

    Like any network, a credit clearing system becomes more valuable and useful as it continues to expand and a greater variety of goods and services become available within the network. By way of example one may note that the first fax machine was very expensive — but useless. As more fax machines were deployed and connected in an expanding network, the fax became more valuable to all users — even as prices plummeted and quality improved. The same will happen with clearing networks, but it is essential that the network and each node in it be properly designed and operated from the very start.

    Stage III: The Credit of “Trusted Issuers” Provides an Alternative Currency for Regional Circulation

    The third stage of the program will be the joint issuance of credits into the general community by the members of the clearing association. This is accom­plished by the association members buying goods and services from nonmem­bers who are outside the credit clearing circle. They make these purchases by using some form of uniform credit instrument, like a voucher or certificate, which all association members are obliged to redeem — not for cash, but for the goods and services that are their normal stock in trade. That provides a sound regional currency based on the productive capacity of the region’s leading enterprises, a currency that can circulate among any and all as a supplemental medium of exchange. The availability of such a currency to supplement the flow of official money insulates but does not isolate the local economy. Just as a breakwater protects a small boat harbor from the turbulence of the open sea, a sound regional currency provides a measure of protection from the turbu­lence of the global economy and centralized banking and finance.

    This externalization of credits from the clearing association into the general community can be achieved using any of several available forms and devices. Credits may take the form of paper notes, coupons, vouchers, or certificates; they might be placed on stored value cards like the gift cards that are commonly issued by major retailers and are so popular these days with consumers; or they could manifest as credits in accounts that reside on a central server that can be accessed by use of a debit card and point-of-sale card reader.”

    Conversation: Add your Comment »

    Posted in: P2P Money | del.icio.us:Thomas Greco on implementing regional mutual credit clearing associations digg:Thomas Greco on implementing regional mutual credit clearing associations newsvine:Thomas Greco on implementing regional mutual credit clearing associations

    Bre Pettis on Rapid Prototyping

    photo of Michel Bauwens
    Michel Bauwens
    30th June 2009


    Enthusiastic presentation on the joys of do it yourself production:

    Conversation: Add your Comment »

    Posted in: Desktop Manufacturing, Video | del.icio.us:Bre Pettis on Rapid Prototyping digg:Bre Pettis on Rapid Prototyping newsvine:Bre Pettis on Rapid Prototyping

     

    Video & Audio Comments are proudly powered by Riffly