Showing posts with label p2pfoundation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label p2pfoundation. Show all posts

Saturday, 27 July 2024

A somewhat s hortened version of the P2pP foundation entry on Transfinancial Economics

The following is a brief paper which also appears in a respected academic book edited by Dr Debesh Bhowmik. It is entitled An Approach Towards Central Bank Digital Currency published by Kunal Books, New Delhi, 2022. In Chapter4 the material below is presented. Also, it should be mentioned that a paper published in 2016 entitled Orthodox Monetary Theory: A Critique From Post-Keynesianism and Transfinancial Economics by Dante A. Urbina appears in a book called International Monetary System. Past, Present, and Future Regal Publishing, India. RS




FUTURISTIC ECONOMICS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY?


Robert Searle


Abstract 


The following is in brief concerned with the very basics of an emerging paradigm known as Transfinancial Economics or TFE. It can be seen as a form of Keynesian Economics. Basic to it is the huge relevance of the use of computers and information technology in finance. This would act as a means of notably influencing the economy towards a more ethical, and greener environmentally friendly economy as never before. Many will regard TFE as being similar to Modern Monetary Theory or MMT which has gained a large amount of publicity in recent years. However, the latter is regarded as being a precursor and possible stopgap to TFE which is far more advanced. At the time of writing what follows is still “work in progress”. Of course, it raises many questions which may be answered in the near future such as TFE’s connection with exchange rates and of course the possible emergence of Central Bank Digital Currencies, or CBDCs.



Keywords: Transfinancial Economics, Modern Monetary Theory, Inflation Taxation, Digital Price Controls, Climate Change


JEL Classification Codes: E42,F33,F65,G00,O3,Q54


1. Nationwide Electronic/Digital Price Controls


Essentially, Transfinancial Economics or TFE believes notably that new unearned repayable and non-repayable money can be digitally created ex nihilo and phased into the economy safely without leading to uncontrolled levels of inflation or indeed hyperinflation. This is simply done with the aid of highly flexible electronic digital price controls used for nearly every kind of financial transaction in real time. Thus, if there is a concern about some rise in the prices of certain goods and services these could be digitally capped temporarily. This would be an instantaneous process and could occur automatically in any part of the economy. This could be undertaken with the help of supercomputers or more likely by quantum computers (Clegg, 2021).


Of course, such digital price controls are not the ideal way of doing things but they are better than nothing. Some form of compensation could be created for retailers if desired. However, it must be stressed here that with the right algorithms the market price is allowed to change naturally as much as possible. Whether we like it or not most of the money exists as digital data in a bank. It is used in any number of transaction but “real” money like cash and coin can still be used (unmonitored or possibly monitored in some way) but it would make up only a tiny fraction of the overall economy, and hence, would have near zero significance in our understanding of the whole economy. This is an important but basic point to understand.


Also, in connection notably with vital climate change projects a legally binding agreement should ideally be undertaken to use certain algorithms to track funding. They could detect and instantly ” freeze” in real-time any money that may be involved in fraud.



2. Big Data and Real-Time Economics/The Uncloaking of the “Invisible Hand”.


As one might well realize it would be possible to understand the entire economy in real-time (or near real-time). This colossal accounting data would be created 24/7 with virtually every transaction notably using barcodes, or something similar. The central Inflation Authority would be programmed to instantly check the inflation status of each product or service and if at all necessary instant temporary price capping may occur. Hence, a huge picture of the economy would be possible and could prove invaluable for future economists. Also, such incoming real-time economic indicators would be totally up to date and as such would have no long-time lags unlike conventional economic data.


In spite of this though such information cannot fully rule out uncertainty in the economy. Yet, the data emerging instantaneously should at least give us a far better idea of how it is “working” and this could be important for decision-making. AI or Artificial Intelligence could also play a vital role in all this. Apart from identified transaction data there are what are referred to as Faster Indicators. These use various types of economic activity to be factored in to give us an even wider understanding of the economy in real time (Salina, 2020; Haldane, 2018).


It must be made clear that what we have been saying so far is a capitalist economy. TFE though can also be adapted into a socialist or communist type of economy because it can notably make central planning a lot easier and more likely to succeed unlike conventional economics. Indeed, Economic Cybernetics is an example of this kind of approach, and it is also possible in some future time to have an economy which is “completely” automated and where money is no longer necessary (Cockshott & Cottrell, 1993).


The concepts of TFE are like those proposed by Clifford Douglas and his Social Credit Movement but they have the added dimension of using Big Data and instant digital price capping which did not exist in his time. If he were around today, he would have been impressed by the use of computers, smart phones, plastic cards, et al in developing a futuristic economy. Modern Monetary Theory or MMT is to some extent similar. It should be added too that the term “Social Credit” has nothing to do with the dystopian system of the same name in China (Heydorn, 2014).


Finally in this section of this brief paper it should be said that in time the financial industry will hopefully be powered more and more by sustainable (non-fossil fuel) electricity, and it should be said too that it is possible to have a high degree of commercial confidentiality in connection with the digital transaction data instantaneously going to the Inflation Authority 24/7 for specific businesses of one kind, or another.


3. Maintaining the Value of Money in Real-Time.


TFE would be able to maintain the value of money in real-time at the point of sale (POS). For example, person T buys product A in a shop and its retail price is instantly checked for its inflation status. It is found to be above the inflation rate by 50p and the customer though has already spent this amount but is compensated for it digitally by having it recreated into his or her account. This is called Above Inflation Adjustment. In another instance, person T buys product C which is 30p below the inflation rate and it is the retailer who gets the extra 30p by a digital recreation of it in her or her account. This is called Below Inflation Adjustment. (McDermott,2004).



4. Dynamic Pricing in Real-Time


Fintech is short for Financial Technology. It is a critical part of the TFE paradigm without which it cannot exist. A good example of such financial technology which exists now is Dynamic Pricing. Essentially, it can automatically deal with variable pricing due to changes in supply and demand. It has been successfully utilised in areas such as transportation, hospitality, professional sports, retail, and the like. Even Amazon uses it along with many other companies (Sharda, 2018). All this adds greater credibility to the idea of developing a genuine real-time economy on a national and ultimately international scale. Of course, it has to be realized and remembered that real-time data is used by financial markets around the world in which investors can keep an eye on the value of their shares, or securities. Traders can use such information to make “bets” on the rise and fall of prices of the various companies such as Apple, Google, Unilever, and many other lesser-known ones.



5. TFE and the Climate Change Emergency


At present the greatest challenge facing humanity is the climate change emergency. Tragically, it seems highly likely that it will become irreversible (if it is not already). As such governments, Bigtech companies, and smaller businesses must try if possible to make serious efforts to create credible resilient adaption and mitigation projects on a scale never before known in human history. All this ultimately costs money. Hence, TFE. With this emerging paradigm it would be possible to create new money to fund credible and “feasible” green projects. Of course, investors could be invited to invest venture capital into such investments which could prove lucrative. Such projects may seem in some cases more like “science fiction” but now is the time to think outside the box otherwise we could see the global demise of the human race. It is simple as that. Climate change emergency is not just a physical challenge it is also a spiritual one of the highest order.


Here are a few examples of potential green projects which need to be undertaken (though some of them are in the making or have already been done but not on a scale ultimately necessary for human survival) and they include more solar and wind and solar power facilities; more factory plants and mechanical trees to suck carbon emissions out of the atmosphere; more electric cars; more advances in Nanotechnology in which atomic structures could create new materials in a world of limited resources; possible underground cities and even underground agriculture may be a required to some extent; natural solutions; sun dimming which may be necessary but a controversial move; more flood defences; more recycling centres and so on. At the same time with all this going on the likes of entrepreneurs such as Bezos and Musk can “wisely” continue with the possible colonisation of the moon and even mars (Gates, 2002; Carney, 2021).


6. The Basic Differences between Transfinancial Economics and Modern Monetary Theory



Modern Monetary Theory is at the time of writing been in the public spotlight for several years and has attracted much public attention. It is similar to Transfinancial Economics or TFE. MMT claims that the government is the sole issuer of the national currency and can fund public expenditure and only raises taxation, if necessary, as a means of controlling inflation at some future date. In this respect, TFE is in agreement. Infact, something like MMT already exists. It is called Deficit Spending. This is when governments need more money and can borrow it and (or) create new amounts of it (Kelton, 2020). This of course works but only to a limited extent. Now, the key differences are:

a) TFE uses digital price controls to monitor and if necessary, cap the market price. These would cover the entire economy and not just tiny sections of it. MMT though would use taxation to control inflation instead but may ultimately use price controls.


b) Unlike MMT TFE has a very advanced understanding of the economy via Big Data in real-time whilst the former would probably largely rely on old outdated understanding of economics.


c) As MMT continues to create new money into the economy a point may be reached that too much money will circulate and could lead to not just gradual rises in inflation but to a sudden mass catastrophic state of hyperinflation. With TFE such problems are dealt with directly by digital controls that would instantaneously control the situation at a touch of a button or indeed happen automatically.


d) Since TFE would have a far more accurate comprehension of the economy in real-time it can assess the potential inflation tax liability (possibly as an online sales tax) months or years ahead. On the other hand, MMT could find itself in a situation in which the overall inflation tax liability would be too heavy, and could even cause social unrest. Incidentally, it should be added that a tax rebate is possible in which the inflation taxation paid could be digitally recreated in full, or in part at a future date.


e) Unlike MMT TFE can adjust the value of money if necessary and instantaneously when products and services are bought in real-time at the point of sale (POS). This of course is when the inflation status

is checked by the Inflation Authority. Thus, the purchasing power of money is largely or wholly maintained. This was explained in brief early on using two examples.

f) In MMT the government is seen as the key issuer of currency as something which is non- repayable. However, special private banks could be had in which such grants or (non-governmental) “subsides” could be created digitally.



Key References

[1] Carney, Mark. (2021). Value (s), Building a Better World for All. William Collins.


[2] Clegg, Brian. (2021). Quantum Computing; The Transformative Technology of the Qubit Revolution. Icon


[3] Cockshott, W. Paul., & Cottrell, Allin. (1993). Towards a New Socialism. Spokesman Books.


[4] Gates, William Henry. (2021). How to avoid a Climate Disaster; The Solutions we have and the Breakthroughs. Allen Lane.


[5] Haldane, Andy. (2018, April 30). Mapping the economy in real time is almost within our grasp. Financial Times.https://www.ft.com/content/58190dc2- 4c79-11e8-97e4-13afc 22 d86d4


[6] Heydorn, Oliver. M. (2014). Social Credit Economics. Canada: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.


[7] Kansas, Salina. (2021, October23). The Real-Time Revolution; How the pandemic reshaped the dismal science. The Economist.https:// www.economist.com/briefing/2021/10/23/enter-third-wave-economics


[8] Kelton, Stephanie. (2020). The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and how to build a Better Economy. John Murray.


[9] McDermott, John. (2004).Economics in Real Time, a Theoretical Reconstruction. The University of Michigan Press.


[10] Sharda, Sahaj. (2018). The Extinction of the Price Tag; How dynamic pricing can save you. New Degree Press.







Some key Points to understand in brief



I. One possible problem with TFE is ofcourse shortages due notably in connection with food security. This is not mentioned in the above paper in detail. This could be alleviated to a large extent with forward thinking and credible planning using special monitored non-repayable money. However, as Climate Change worsens governments will probably be forced to introduce manual price controls but such a measure though would largely be resisted by mainstream economics. Ofcourse, conspiracy theorists would come out of the wood work if and when this happens. Another issue is that highly flexible digital price controls unlike their manual counterparts would be far more efficient (though they could be better termed as inflation controls).But the former could act as a stopgap for the latter if absolutely necessary.



II. Apart from the Central Bank creating new green non-payable money which ofcourse is already happening to some extent new green repayable money can also be created. Special private banks or indeed, existing ones could also be used in part and would have an operating fee as profit instead of charging interest. The source of such funding would come from the Central Bank or some other kind of legal entity.In other words, the private sector could profit greatly via TFE.



III. In the normal state of affairs green goods and services should as time goes by become cheaper and hence more attractive as demand naturally increases from the public. However, this process is already happening somewhat "slowly" but there are marketing stratagies which could artificially alter this situation, and this needs to be developed to create green competition using small or large subsidies. Companies that could loose out at first would be compensated using new captial created ex nihilo. The details of exactly how green artificial "competition" could work out is still being developed in detail at the time of writing.



IV. The originator of TFE is very much aware that Transfinancial Economics would increase emissions. This is unfortunate but hopefully with further funding the way or ways to deal with this problem would be better funded as never before. There are ofcourse a number of so-called carbon capture programmes in the world, but much more needs to be done. Anyway, all this means is that if we have Rapid Green Growth or RGG many people would still die during the Climate Change Crisis. This is tragically unavoidable. But if this were slowly undertaken (as is the case now) it is more probable that the death toll would be much higher in the long run.


V. It is important to understand that when TFE becomes a reality there is no direct or indirect of taxation. The reason is simple. Since money can retain its value in real time it cannot be inflated to a serious degree, and cause devaluation of money. This means ofcourse that more money can be transmitted into the economy safely. All this has notable implications for charities, and NGOs, or governmental organisations as it would mean that raising money from earned sources would no longer be abolutely necessary. This is revolutionary. The only limits ofcourse for this are limited human and natural resources at any point in time.


Originally, the above entry included a lengthy piece on TFE but this is not included here, though it may re-aapear. It maybe found elsewhere probably on The Economics Realms blogspot easily found on the internet. Furthermore, over the years TFE has been circulated around on the internet, and has attracted a number of influential people including Steve Keen, Ellen Brown, Richard Murphy, Hazel Henderson (who was especially keen on TFE), et al.

Tuesday, 3 June 2014

From the Communism of Capital to a Capital for the Commons

          
From P2P Foundation
Jump to: navigation, search


Introduction

Michel Bauwens:
The labor/p2p/commons movements today are faced with a paradox.
On the one hand we have a re-emergence of the cooperative movement and worked-owned enterprises, but they suffer from structural weaknesses. Cooperative entities work for their own members, are reluctant to accept new cooperators that would share existing profits and benefits, and are practicioners of the same proprietary knowledge and artificial scarcities as their capitalist counterparts. Even though they are internally democratic, they often participate in the same dynamics of capitalist competition which undermines their own cooperative values.
On the other hand, we have an emergent field of open and commons-oriented peer production in fields such as free software, open design and open hardware, which do create common pools of knowledge for the whole of humanity, but at the same time, are dominated by both start-ups and large multinational enterprises using the same commons.
Thus, we need a new convergence or synthesis, a ‘open cooperativism’, that combines both commons-oriented open peer production models, with common ownership and governance models such as those of the cooperatives and the solidarity economic models. What follows is a more detailed argument on how such transition could be achieved.


The Main Argument

Today we have a paradox, the more communistic the sharing license we use in the peer production of free software or open hardware, the more capitalistic the practice, with for example the Linux commons becoming a corporate commons enriching IBM and the like … it works in a certain way, and seems acceptable to most free software developers, but is it the only way?
Indeed, the General Public License and its variants, allow anyone to use and modify the software code (or design), as long as the changes are also put back in the common pool under the same conditions for further users. This is in fact technically ‘communism’ as defined by Marx: from each according to his abilities, to each according to their needs, but which then paradoxically allows multinationals to use the free software code for profit and capital accumulation. The result is that we do have an accumulation of immaterial commons, based on open input, participatory process, and commons-oriented output, but that it is subsumed to capital accumulation. It is at present not possible, or not easy, to have social reproduction (i.e. livelihoods) within the sphere of the commons. Hence the free software and culture movements, however important they are as new social forces and expression new social demands, are also in essence ‘liberal’. This is not only acknowledged by its leaders such as Richard Stallman, but also by anthropological studies like those of Gabriela Coleman. Not so tongue-in-cheek we could say they are liberal-communist and communist-liberal movements, which create a ‘communism of capital’.
Is there an alternative ? We believe there is, and this would be to replace non-reciprocal licenses, i.e. they do not demand a direct reciprocity from its users, to one based on reciprocity. Call it a switch from ‘communist’, to ‘socialist’ licenses’.
This is the choice of the Peer Production License as designed and proposed by Dmytri Kleiner; it is not to be confused with the Creative Commons non commercial license, as the logic is different.
The logic of the CC-NC is to offer protection to individuals reluctant to share, as they do not wish a commercialization of their work that would not reward them for their labor. Thus the Creative Commons ‘non-commercial’ license stops the further economic development based on this open and shared knowledge, and keeps it entirely in the not-for-profit sphere.
The logic of the PPL is to allow commercialization, but on the basis of a demand for reciprocity. It is designed to enable and empower a counter-hegemonic reciprocal economy that combines commons that are open to all that contribute, while charging a license fee for the the for-profit companies who want to use without contributing. Not that much changes for the multinationals in practice, they can still use the code if they contribute, as IBM does with Linux, and for those who don’t , they would pay a license fee, a practice they are used to. It’s practical effect would be to direct a stream of income from capital to the commons, but its main effect would be ideological, or if you like, value-driven.
The enterpreneurial coalitions that are linked around a PPL commons would be explicitely oriented towards their contributions to the commons, and the alternative value system that it represents. From the point of view of the peer producers or commoners, i.e. the communities of contributors to the common pool, it would allow them to create their own cooperative entities, in which profit would be subsumed to the social goal of sustaining the commons and the commoners. Even the participating for-profit companies would consciously contribute under a new logic. It links the commons to a enterpreneurial coalition of ethical market entities (coops and other models) and keeps the surplus value entirely within the sphere of commoners/cooperators instead of leaking out to the multinationals. In other words, through this convergence or rather combination of a commons model for the abundant immaterial resources, and a reciprocity-based model for the ‘scarce’ material resources, the issue of livelihoods and social reproduction would be solved, and surplus value is kept inside the commons sphere itself. It is the cooperatives that would, through their cooperative accumulation, fund the production of immaterial commons, because they would pay and reward the peer producers associated with them. In this way, peer production would move from a proto-mode of production, unable to perpetuate itself on its own outside capitalism, to a autonomous and real mode of production. It creates a counter-economy that can be the basis for reconstituting a ‘counter-hegemony’ with a for-benefit circulation of value, which allied to pro-commons social movements, could be the basis of the political and social transformation of the political economy. Hence we move from a situation in which the communism of capital is dominant, to a situation in which we have a ‘capital for the commons’, increasingly insuring the self-reproduction of the peer production mode.
The PPL is used experimentally by Guerilla Translations! and is being discussed in various places, such as for example, in France, in the open agricultural machining and design communities.
There is also a specific potential, inside the commons-oriented ethical economy, such as the application of open book accounting and open supply chains, would allow a different value circulation, whereby the stigmergic mutual coordination that already works at scale for immaterial cooperation and production, would move to the coordination of physical production, creating post-market dynamics of allocation in the physical sphere. Replacing both the market allocation through the price signal, and central planning, this new system of material production would allow for massive mutual coordination instead, enabling a new form of ‘resource-based economics’
Finally, this whole system can be strengthened by creating commons-based venture funding, so as to create material commons, as proposed by Dmytri Kleiner. In this way, the machine park itself is taken out of the sphere of capital accumulation. In this proposed system, cooperatives needing capital for machinery, would post a bond, and the other coops in the system would fund the bond, and buy the machine for a commons in which both funders and users would be members. The interest paid on these loans would create a fund that would gradually be able to pay an increasing income to their members, constituting a new kind of basis income.
The new open cooperativism is substantially different from the older form. In the older form, internal economic democracy is accompanied by participation in market dynamics on behalf of the members, using capitalist competition. Hence a unwillingness to share profits and benefits with outsiders. There is no creation of the commons. We need a different model in which the cooperatives produce commons, and are statutorily oriented towards the creation of the common good, with multi-stakeholders forms of governance which include workers, users-consumers, investors and the concerned communities.
Today we have a paradox that open communities of peer producers are oriented towards the start-up model and are subsumed to the profit model, while the cooperatives remain closed, use IP, and do not create commons. In the new model of open cooperativism, a merger should occur between the open peer production of commons, and the cooperative production of value. The new open cooperativism integrates externalities, practices economic democracy, produces commons for the common good, and socializes its knowledge. The circulation of the common is combined with the process of cooperative accumulation, on behalf of the commons and its contributors. In the beginning, the immaterial commons field, following the logic of free contributions and universal use for everyone who needs it, would co-exist with a cooperative model for physical production, based on reciprocity. But as the cooperative model becomes more and more hyper-productive and is able to create sustainable abundance in material goods, the two logics would merge.


More Information

Expanded, integrated version, see the article
* Article: From the Communism of Capital to Capital for the Commons: Towards an Open Co-operativism. By Michel Bauwens, Vasilis Kostakis. Triple C, Vol 12, No 1 (2014)
URL = http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/561
Abstract:
"Abstract
Two prominent social progressive movements are faced with a few contradictions and a paradox. On the one side, we have a re-emergence of the co-operative movement and worker-owned enterprises which suffer from certain structural weaknesses. On the other, we have an emergent field of open and Commons-oriented peer production initiatives which create common pools of knowledge for the whole of humanity, but are dominated by start-ups and large multinational enterprises using the same Commons. Thus we have a paradox: the more communist the sharing license used in the peer production of free software or open hardware, the more capitalist the practice. To tackle this paradox and the aforementioned contradictions, we tentatively suggest a new convergence that would combine both Commons-oriented open peer production models with common ownership and governance models, such as those of the co-operatives and the solidarity economic models."

Wednesday, 15 January 2014

Business from P2P

Category:Business
Blogger Reference Link http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics          

From P2P Foundation


Jump to: navigation, search

Light beats heavy. Open beats closed. Free beats paid. Good beats evil.
- Umair Haque [1]

No matter who you are, most of the smartest people work for someone else.
- Bill Joy [2]

This section collates material related to peer production, P2P Business developments, and P2P Economics issues.

* Micro-economically:
Externally, the business world is engaging/moving towards an adaptation to productive communities, while productive communities are building their own Phyles
Internally, businesses are starting to engage in Social Business Design, by moving from Systems of Record to Systems of Engagement.

* Macro-economically:
We are moving towards Open Business Models, and a commons-oriented global economy. Profit-Maximisation can no longer be contained by pure external state regulation, but needs new forms, that embed the profit function into higher ethical requirements, that are embedded in the very corporate structures, while at the same time, new economic forms are created directly by autonomous productive communities, so that they can maintain their independence.
More here, in our new special section on Economics


Contents

 [hide

Our P2P Business Network


Vernaallee.jpg Adamarvidsson.jpg Brunsaxel.jpg TiaCarr.bin.jpg Sam Rose.jpg
Verna Allee Adam Arvidsson Axel Bruns Tia Carr Sam Rose
verna.allee AT valuenetworks DOT com adam DOT arvidsson@unimi.it snurb (at) snurb.info tiacarrwilliams@gmail.com samuel dot rose at gmail dot com  
Coop.jpg Marcin Jakubowski.jpg Michel Bauwens.jpg Marc dangeard-medium.jpg
Matt Cooperrider Marcin Jakubowski Michel Bauwens Marc Dangeard      
mattcooperrider at gmail dot com joseph dot dolittle at gmail dot com michelsub2004 at gmail dot com marc at dangeard dot com



Introduction and Visualization

Recommended reading:

Typology:
The business cycle for the material economy [3]:
  1. Incubation: Where do the basic "raw materials" come from?
  2. Production: How are goods and services produced?
  3. Exchange: How do goods and services move from production to use?
  4. Distribution: How is the consumption and use of goods and services organized?
  5. Allocation: How is surplus generated in the economic cycle used? How does surplus re-enter and reinvigorate the cycle?

Articles:
  1. Michel Bauwens: An Introduction to Open Business Models. OSBR, April 2008
  2. Laurel Papworth: Social Media Business Models, outlines 22 revenue streams in 4 quadrants, with "member to member" corresponding to "peer to peer"
  3. Internet Business Models: typology by Michael Rappa.
Also:
  1. How Low Participation Costs make Peer Production Inevitable
  2. Markets are inefficient for non-rival goods. Josh Farley
  3. In peer production, the interests of capitalists and entrepreneurs are no longer aligned
  4. Can peer production make washing machines?. Graham Seaman.
Please note that the issue of physical peer production or "open design communities for physical production" is monitored separately in this section
For inspiration: Principles of Ethical Social Entreprises (Franco Papeschi & Tory Dunn)

What we Know about Open/Free and Commons-Based Business Models

  1. Business Models for the Commons ; Business Models to Support Content Commons
  2. Open Business Models ; Open Business
  3. Open Film Business Models ; Open Music Business Models
  4. Free Software Business Models ; Open Source Business Models; Open Source Software Business Models
  5. Free Business Models
  6. Open Source Hardware Business Models ; Open Hardware Business Models
More here, in our new section on Open Business Models


Key Initiatives

  1. Corporation 20/20: What would a corporation look like that was designed to seamlessly integrate both social and financial purpose? Corporation 20/20 is a new multi-stakeholder initiative that seeks to answer this question. Its goal is to develop and disseminate corporate designs where social purpose moves from the periphery.
  2. JAS Economics: principles for grassroots economics


Comparative Table: The Logic of the Market versus the Logic of the Commons

Market Commons
Focus What can I sell?Exchange value What do we need?Use value
Core beliefs Scarcity Plenty
Homo oeconomicus Homo cooperans
It's about resources (allocation). It's about us.
Governance Market-State Polycentric / Peer-to-Peer Governance
Decision making hierarchical horizontal
Command (Power, Law, Violence) Consensus, Free Cooperation, self-organization
Social relationships Centralization of power (monopoly) Decentralization of power(autonomy)
Property Possession
Access to rival resources Limited by boundaries & rules defined by owner Limited by boundaries & rules defined by usergroups
Access to nonrival resources Made scarce (to ensure profitability) Open access (to ensure social equity)
Use rights Granted by owner Co-decided by user groups
Dominant strategy Out-compete Out-cooperate
Results
For the resources ErosionEnclosure Conservation Reproduction & Multiplication
For the people Exlusion & Participation Inclusion & Emancipation


Visualization

P2PBusinessVisualization1.jpg
Expand
A map with a conceptual overview of the peer to peer business space. Every concept in the map is searchable via our wiki search box on the upper left.
See also:
  1. the New Economy mindmap
  2. a really superb introduction to the new economy in prezi by Arthur Brock: http://prezi.com/xmzld_-wayho/new-economy-new-wealth/


Recommended Internal Entries

Check the following priority entries:
  1. Vision Statement
    1. Michel Bauwens on the Underlying P2P Values: Video
  2. From consumption to produsage
    1. The new partnership economy
      1. Peer Production; Direct Economy; Production without Manufacturer; Circulation of the Common
      2. Co-Creation ; Co-Design ; Co-production ; Citizen Product Design ; Crowdsourced Design
      3. Crowdsourcing ; Crowdfunding ; Crowdpricing
    2. Affinity Markets and Social Commerce
      1. Affinity Investing  ; Affinity Markets ; Recognition Markets
      2. Community Supported Manufacturing ; Community Trading Software ; Community Wealth Building
      3. Long Tail ; Social Commerce
    3. New marketing practices
      1. Group Buying ; Group Purchasing
      2. User-created Advertizing ; User-driven Advertizing ; Citizen Marketers ; Crowdsourced Advertising
    4. New Economic Logics
      1. Attention Economy ; Economics of Attention; Intention Economy ; Pull Economies
      2. Conversation Economy ; Markets as Conversations
      3. Ethical Economy ; Bottom of the Pyramid ; Blended Value; Good Capital, Inclusive Capitalism
      4. Fair Trade ; Social Entrepreneurship
      5. Markets without Capitalism ; Natural Capitalism ; Steady State Economy
      6. Economics of Sharing; Altruistic Economics ; Cooperative Economics, Collaboration Theory , Collaborate to Compete
      7. Quarternary Economics; Adventure Economy ; Process Economy
  1. New coopetitive practices
  2. New distributed infrastructures
    1. Physical P2P Production
      1. Open Design ; Open Peer to Peer Design, Open Hardware ; Free Hardware Design ; Product Hacking
      2. Desktop Manufacturing ; Personal Fabricators ; Multiple-Purpose Production Technology
      3. Rapid Manufacturing ; Rapid Prototyping ; Rapid Tooling
  3. New institutional formats
    1. New business models
      1. Open Music Business Models; Open Film Business Models; Free Software Business Models; Open Source Business Models ; Open Source Commercialization
    2. The new capitalism
      1. Hacker Class, Netarchical Capitalism ; P2P Capitalism ; Cooperative Capitalism ; Peer Production Entrepreneurs
  4. New funding models

Key Resources



  1. The Top 100 Open Innovation Companies

Key Articles

  1. Principles of Distributed Innovation. Karim R. Lakhani and Jill A. Panetta.
  2. When to engage in open innovation? Bhaskar Chakravorti.
  3. Heather Young: The Three Circles of the Economy.
  4. Marjorie Kelly: Not Just For Profit: Emerging alternatives to the shareholder-centric model could help companies avoid ethical mishaps and contribute more to the world at large. Explores three new-style corporate designs: 1. stakeholder-owned companies; 2. mission-controlled companies; and 3. public-private hybrids.
  5. Jean-Francois Noubel: Economics of Flow vs Economics of Accumulation
  6. Introduction to Commons-centered economics. By Sam Rose, Paul Hartzog et al.
  7. Umair Haque: Towards an Ethical Economy Based on Allocative and Creative Advantage
Also:
  1. Five reasons online community building trumps old style marketing

Corporate Reform

  1. Using Corporate Governance Law to Benefit All Stakeholders. Kent Greenfield [4]
  2. Internal Transformation of Corporations. Michael Thomas and Bill Veltrop [5]
  3. Revisiting Corporate Charters. Charles Cray [6]
  4. Emergence of New Corporate Forms. Susan Mac Cormac. [7]
  5. Action Agenda for Corporate Redesign. Deborah Doane [8]

Key Books

  1. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom - by Yochai Benkler
  2. Democratizing Innovation - by Eric Von Hippel
  3. Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything - by Don Tapscott, Anthony D. Williams
  4. We Are Smarter Than Me: How to Unleash the Power of Crowds in Your Business - by Barry Libert, Jon Spector, Don Tapscott (foreword)
  • The Mesh: Why the Future of Business is Sharing Lisa Gansky. Portfolio / Penguin Group, FALL 2010
  • What's Mine is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption, by Rachel Botsman and Roo Rogers (Fall, HarperCollins), 2010


Also:
  • Brafman, Ori and Rod A. Beckstrom, The Starfish And the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations, Portfolio, 2006.
  • Chesbrough, Henry, Open Innovation — The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Harvard Business School Press, 2003.
  • Fingar, Peter, and Ronald Aronica, Dot Cloud. Meghan-Kiffer Press, 2009.
  • Hayes, Tom, Jump Point: How Network Culture is Revolutionizing Business, McGraw-Hill, 2008.
  • Howe, Jeff, Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of Business, Crown Business, 2008.
  • Kelly, Kevin, New Rules for the New Economy, Penguin, 1999.
  • Li, Charlene and Josh Bernoff, Groundswell: Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies, Harvard Business School Press, 2008.
  • Malone, Thomas W. et al, 1) Inventing the Organizations of the 21st Century, MIT Press, 2003; 2) Coordination Theory and Collaboration Technology, Erlbaum, 2001.
  • Mulholland, Andy et al, 1) Mesh Collaboration, Evolved Technologist, 2008l 2) Mashup Corporations: The End of Business as Usual, Evolved Technologist, 2008.

Key External Articles

  1. Vision Statement
    1. The Not An Employee Manifesto
  2. On the Economics of the Commons
    1. Circulation of the Common. Nick Dyer-Whiteford.
    2. Common Rights vs Collective Rights is an essay by Dan Sullivan in which he also explains the difference between Common Property and collective property.
    3. Can peer production make washing machines?. By Graham Seaman.
    4. Contrasting Firm Strategies for Open Standards, Open Source and Open Innovation. by Joel West. Excellent intro to the economic realities limiting true openness.
  3. On Information Economics
    1. JP Barlow, “The Economy of Ideas: A framework for patents and copyrights in the Digital Age”, Wired 2.03 (March 1994)
    2. E Dyson , “Intellectual Value”, Wired 3.07 (July 1995)
    3. K Kelly, “The Economics of Ideas”, Wired 4.06 (June 1996)
  4. On Open Source economics
    1. The economics of open source
    2. Open source as user innovation – von Hippel
    3. Analysis of OS Business models
    4. Allocation of resources in OS mode
    5. Open source outside software – Clay Shirky
  5. On the Economics of Participation
    1. Ten Principles for an Ethical Blogger Approach For Marketers
    2. Which tools to use for collaboration in business? - recommended overview table.
    3. The Open Business Guide
  6. Miscellaneous
    1. List of Social Media managers in US businesses



Key Podcasts/Webcasts

Podcasts:

Webcasts:
See: P2P Videos on Business and Economics, list compiled in 2008
Here's a primer on economimc growth, that every economist and business person should watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqwd_u6HkMo&feature=player_embedded#

Key Tags

Citations

Long Citations

Competing 'on top' of the Commons

"One of the best ways to stimulate competition, innovation and lower prices is for participants in a market to honor the commons (a shared pool of resources, a minimal set of safety or performance standards) and then to compete "on top" of the commons. Instead of being able to reap easy profits from monopoly control over something everyone needs -- say, a computer operating system like Windows -- a company must work harder to "add value" in more specialized ways."

- David Bollier [9]


Obtaining Economic Advantage through Serving and Sharing

"The future of advantage is radically different from the past for a simple reason: because it's economically better. 20th century advantage focuses firms on simply extracting resources from people, communities and society — and then protecting what they extract. 21st century advantage focuses firms on creating new resources, and allocating them better. The former is useful only to shareholders and managers — but the latter is useful to people, communities, and society. The old Microsoft was useful to shareholders, but a lot less useful to society — and that's exactly how Google and Apple attacked it, and won."
Umair Haque [10]


The Sharing Economy should be distinguished from the Monetary Economy

"... the quest for self-determination and meaningful and memorable experiences ultimately will hinge on people's understanding that they are not merely consuming a product, but that they are actually participating in a meaningful social process not guided by an extrinsic logic (profit), something that rather has intrinsic, or 'sovereign' value. I don't believe that these two can be fused into one
- Eric Kluitenberg, iDC archive [11]


Market Logic vs. Network Logic

"The philosophy that undergirds exchange also contrasts sharply across forms. In markets the standard strategy is to drive the hardest possible bargain in the immediate exchange. In networks, the preferred option is often one of creating indebtedness and reliance over the long haul. Each approach thus devalues the other: prosperous market traders would be viewed as petty and untrustworthy shysters in networks, while successful participants in networks who carried those practices into competitive markets would be viewed as foolish and naive... In a market context, it is clear to everyone concerned when a debt has been discharged, but such matters and not nearly as obvious in networks."
- Walter Powell - "Niether Market Nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization" 1990


From Profit-Maximization and Market-Orientation to Mission-Focused

Profit maximizing limits access to knowledge, by limiting it to paying customers. If anyone thinks this is just a side-effect of today's market incentives, then we can put the situation differently: Profit maximizing doesn't always limit access to knowledge, but is always ready to do so if it pays better. This proposition has a darker corollary: Profit maximizing doesn't always favor untruth, but is always ready to do so if it would pay better. ... Instead of hypnotically granting the primacy of markets in all sectors, as if there were no exceptions, we should remember that many organizations compromise profits or relinquish revenues in order to foster their missions, and that we all benefit from their dedication. Which institutions and sectors ought to do so, and how should we protect and support them to pursue their missions? Instead of smothering these questions for offending the religion of markets, we should open them for wider discussion.
- Peter Suber [12]

Markets without Money

"Money is a very important and useful medium of exchange for high-value, tangible products. For small-value, intangible products, the costs tend to exceed the value of the transactions—especially when you add in the overhead associated with making payments at a distance. Fortunately, human beings are clever. We’ve begun to find a variety of substitutes for money that work better."
- Tim Lee [13]


Social Commerce and the Intention Economy

"only 13% of consumers say they buy products because of their ads. Contrast that to 60% of small business owners in North America that say they use peer recommendations to make their buying decisions and over 70% of 18-35 year olds who report the same for their media purchases."
- Tara Hunt [14]


Monetization vs. Community value creation

"When you try and "monetize your users", you accept the almost obscene assumption that people are meant to be pimped out, sold to the highest bidder, resources to be slashed, burned, and exploited. But that's not how the edgeconomy works. Businesses need what connected consumers have to give more than connected consumers need what businesses have to sell.
Let's put that a little more formally. Monetization is ugly because it blinds us to the truth that value must flow in many directions. That's the essence of edge strategy, in fact."
- Umair Haque [15]


The New Social Capitalism

"Capitalism takes a narrow view of human nature, assuming that people are one dimensional beings concerned only with the pursuit of maximum profit. The concept of the free market, as generally understood, is based on this one- dimensional human being. Mainstream freemarket theory postulates that you are contributing to the society and the world in the best possible manner if you just concentrate on getting the most for yourself. [...] The presence of our multi- dimensional personalities means that not every business should be bound to serve the single objective of profit maximization"
= Muhammad Yunus [16]



Short Citations

  • Our First Curve economy is dominated by hierarchical organizations focused on managing costs. In the Second Curve economy, business models focus on creating networks and value webs. [17]
  • When costs of participation are low enough, any motivation may be sufficient to lead to a contribution.- Michael Feldstein [18]
  • Peer production is viable when: 1. capital costs (needed for production) fall far enough and 2. coordination costs fall far enough. Cheap computing and communication reduce both of these exponentially, so peer production becomes inevitable. - Anomalous Presumption [19]
  • Working together as equals. Profiting from each others success. These two ideas represent a surprisingly radical redefinition of work. - Bernie DeKoven [20]
  • We genuinely believe that radical sharing is a win-win for everyone. Expanding markets create new opportunities. - Tim Bray, Sun Microsystems [21]
  • The best people (to solve any given problem) don't work for your organization. A corollary to this: if you don't have the best people working for you, you will fail. Use transparency and the marketplace to find the best people located outside your organization. - John Robb [22]
  • Post-industrial modernization brings a fundamental shift in economic strategies, from maximizing material standards of living to maximizing well-being through life style changes. The "quality of experience" replaces the quantity of commodoties, as the prime criterion for making a good living - Alan Moore [23]
  • The Implicit Goal of Attention Economy is: to tightly intertwine everyone at the level of mind. But that involves individuals seeking, obtaining and/or paying attention. - Michael Goldhaber [24]
  • the money in this networked economy does not follow the path of the copies. Rather it follows the path of attention, and attention has its own circuits. - Kevin Kelly [25]
  • The peer producers are their own consumers. They get a better product by tapping into the knowledge pool. And they get a product that exactly fits their needs because they help design it. - Eric Schonfeld [26]
  • In this new world, if it doesn’t spread, it’s dead. And those companies which seek to prohibit the manipulation and circulation of their content will find themselves cut off from the mechanisms which generate value in this new media economy. - Henry Jenkins [27]
  • The crisis we are now living through is essentially a value crisis, where . . . exchange value no longer adequately reflects use value, or, to put it in less cryptic terms, there is a general sensation that a lot of the real values that circulate in our economy cannot be adequately represented. - Adam Arvidsson [28]

The P2P Business Encyclopedia


Subcategories

This category has the following 3 subcategories, out of 3 total.

C

M

U