Free Markets & Free Use Commons (Post-Scarcity) (was: Alternative Currency to Transform...)

[Nathan Cravens]

Let us assume, to make this problem area easier to address, that all materials are infinite or adequately cycled above rates of demand; public domain and free use. Let us also assume spacial boundaries are adequately negotiated without exchange trade, state authority, or personal compromise. Based on a free market environment founded on labor alone, it is assumed people are able to earn enough to pay for goods, because prices are reduced in accord to labor cost, since only money goes to pay for labor and no more. Now to address some of the issues that prevent this outcome. 

Labor costs will differ based on rates of able bodies per demographic versus demand for output, itself grounded in best known practices of production technique. This depiction means labor is paid per time per outcome based on demands granted by a market area's labor earnings alone. To better represent the variety, in theorem:

"L" or able labor, multiplied by, "T" or time, multiplied by, "D" or demographic demand, minus, "P" or production technique, equals, "M" or labor/market exchange value

or

(L · T · D) - P = M

The representation expressed by Paul Fernhout to make a similar point, however, is more fun. :p

""
Jobs = (Demand + War + Schooling - Abundance)) / (Automation + Design)

Demand is limited (the best things in life are free or cheap).
War and compulsory schooling are evil.
Automation and Design are increasing.
Abundance is increasing faster than decay.
Given that, plot the curve of jobs. :-)
""

To adequately argue for a post-scarcity outcome, one must prove: labor must require zero time, or demographic demand must be fully met without labor, or labor must not be necessary. In essence, the synergies between labor and demand have over time become production technique itself, as decline in labor value since the 1970s indicates in the United States,[1] assuming the labor value of those producing imports into that country also decreased, as the present global exchange trade collapse seems to prove. Decline in labor value alone is not enough to conclusively prove a post-scarcity outcome, but at least we have reduced the problem area to labor as a scarcity indicator before working to achieve universal peer production. (post-scarcity or free use commons) 

Given we define a free market appropriately as one based on labor exchange value alone, and that it adheres to 'perfect information', and that too is adequately grounded in the problem areas open manufacturing addresses, (up for scrutiny in conclusion) these sorts of complications can be addressed by any user and negotiated with the producer via the market until labor is null. Once labor 'no longer equates' it is up for the user to decide based on production technique alone. The free market that comes before this will enhance competition to the degree productions rapidly trend toward full automation or sole peer production (universal peer production) and therefore 'free use' status. Imports from one demographic to another may become an issue as labor costs will differ based on the theorem above, so the challenge is to produce as locally as possible to ensure economic integrity. One production technique used for an outcome may require more able bodies than demand can handle, but if we assume transparency of production technique globally (perfect information), the best production standards can be adopted as quickly as possible anywhere on the globe. This prevents monetary inflation, whether by lack of demand (inflated to compensate payment for work cycles or output without demand) or by excessive demand (inflation due to scarcity of labor). Deflation, in post-scarcity terms, assuming basic needs 'free use commons' are available, means a reduced rate of income is a non-issue. 

Free markets, however, do not in themselves adequately address those unable or unwilling to participate in the market. To request free use of resource acquisition of market produce would be to subject it to inflation. By placing demands on labor without labor participation, each non-labor market user is a blow to aggregate labor value and therefore a market's value. Those able, but unwilling to participate in labor activity within a market environment are often ostracized into the workforce or commit suicide, socially or otherwise. Those able to work that choose willingly not to participate in the workforce, but enjoy the fruits of the market, may be interpreted as exploiters from a strictly free market perspective, yet as populations in industrialized areas continue to reduce birth rates versus the rate of elderly increase, this becomes unethical in practice, if free markets ever were. Japan is the most radical example. Due to rapid birthrate decline, the 'Information and Technology Research Initiative' (IRT) was organised to meet these particular future demands. According to IRT's 'Basic Organisation of IRT Research Initiative'[2], by 2025, 4.27 million workers will be needed in Japan: many of them to care for elderly; others to replace the jobs the elderly once occupied. By 2050, at present birth rates, nearly half of Japan's population will consist of elderly. By this time the United States and Europe will have demographics issues similar to that of Japan decades earlier. This means that free markets in response to productive demand is inappropriate in the long run. Backed by the University of Tokyo and a plethora of corporate sponsorship, IRT intends to meet demands with the deployment of 3.53 million general purpose robots. Based on this information, it does not require much economic imagination to recognize that if general purpose robots are made to perform "the problem of insufficient labor," and we hope for obvious reasons the practices of producing these devices become public knowledge, the need for labor at all and the work ethic itself will come into further question. 

Therefore, a basic income must compensate those unable to work, whether elderly or replaced by advanced machinery like general purpose robotics, or even for those able, but unwilling to work. In kind, since these funds are going to a dwindling labor pool as demand for post-labor output rises; workers; paid or unpaid, must quickly automate labor processes, with or without general purpose robotics, to adequately meet these demands within 'free use commons', whether 'free use' is founded on full automation or automated to the degree processes are peer produced without monetary reward or state authority. (i.e. universal peer production) In a basic income / free market fusion beyond state regulation, (i.e. financial commons) users in concert with labor will have more free time to further perfect productive processes used, which will increase the value of the exchange currency, due to labor or task efficiency per product output—including (we hope) quality. Increased efficiencies mean less need for labor, which is good, as able bodies decrease over time, until 'free use' is attained. Without labor required per outcome category, and given output exceeds rates of demand, the item becomes 'free use' by default.

The Holistic Problem 

• There is yet a central point of access to all the world's manufacturing diversity.

Parts of the Holistic Problem 

Information Technology 

 Design | Materials Science | Information Science 

• What product or outcome is required?
• Why is something required in the first place?
• How are novel or specialized processes standardized, modularized, and integrated or rendered cyclical or cradle-to-cradle for simplicity? Or, in other words:

• How are the fundamentals of manufacturing processes better understood simply as functions, steps, or ingredients, so uncertainty or novelty when encountered becomes an acceptable challenge rather than a protective deterrent?
• What design is assembled?
• What is the best way to represent the design for people and machines? (images, words, Braille, python, FLOWS, ect)

• What tools applying materials are used?
• How are the most basic tools made to make more specialized tools and vice versa? 
• What materials apply to product or tool?
• How are tools made with what materials?
• What are the materials needed for the design? (or) 
• What alternative materials when optimal materials are unavailable?
• How are materials made from more basic materials?
• Where are the materials? 
• How are materials made easy to log and warehouse or locate by anyone?
• How is it observed at the location to ensure viability? 

• Who or what will assemble it?
• How is it delivered? 
• How are materials or use of land or other spacial boundaries accessed or occupied without personal or global compromise?
• What causes exchange trade? How is money made? Where is it going? And: If the points above are adequately addressed: Why money? 

Sources:

1. Wolff. 'Capitalism Hits the Fan'. http://www.vimeo.com/1962208

2. Information and Technology Research Initiative. 'Basic Organisation of IRT Research Initiative' http://www.irt.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp/intro/index_03_e.shtml

Nathan

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Kevin Carson <free.market.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 10/7/09, Nathan Cravens <knu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Non-renewables can be circulated according to use to make the value infinite
> rather than linear. If this cannot be accomplished, alternatives must be
> found, if they cannot, use of non-renewables must be restricted.

I believe the distribution problem can be addressed through the
market, with price as a means of rationing scarce resources to their
most productive use (a sort of cap-and-trade system in which the cap
is imposed by the quantity in existence).  The main moral objection,
that rationing is according to ability to pay, would not apply in a
genuine market where purchasing power resulted from effort rather than
privilege.

> If people have basic needs met without a work requirement; people will want
> to work freely without payment; boredom therefore base line motivator.
> Freedom is too precious in a post-scarcity environment; paid labor is
> comical and a sign of the drudgery of the past. You work because you want
> to; anything less is insincere or in "bad faith."

But this state of affairs will exist in the real world to the extent
that labor ceases, in fact, to be drudgery.  Until that point is
reached, I think the laborer is the best judge of his reasons for
working, and what he wants in return for his labor.

> When materials are well accounted for and freely accessed from 'free use
> commons' materials are free to use.
> Again, when basic needs are met for each person without a work requirement,
> they will be motivated to work harder than ever, because they are given the
> incentive (no longer a dirty word to imply compromise) to work in the areas
> they find interesting. This assumes a highly coordinated and automated
> world;

It does indeed.  In the meantime, it's best to let things sort
themselves out through individual choice.  So long as production is
not, in fact, automated, we leave it to the producers to decide what
is sufficient to motivate them, when there are not enough interesting
or pleasant jobs to go around.

> > > Markets and temporary scarcity rents actually play an important role
> > > in increasing supply and driving price to production cost.

> I'd like to know more on this point. Sounds interesting. :)

When the demand for a good at cost of production is greater than the
existing supply, the buyers bid up the price until the number of
buyers who can afford it equals the supply of goods.  But the
existence of a price above production costs causes rival producers to
rush into the market to reap  the scarcity rents, which increases
supply until  price is driven back down to production cost, and the
supply equals the number of people willing to buy it at cost of
production.

> Philosophers do not like this approach, Paul. ;p
> If you demand $5 to take out the trash, someone else will demand $10 to
> recycle it, and so on, then you will need to demand another $5 for some
> arbitrary task category to pay the recycler. That's just lame. ;p

It's the other way around.  My landlord wants $350 for the rent right
now, so I want $15 for a hour's labor.

> > > IMO it's almost the direct opposite.  All the disequilibria result
> > > from artificial scarcity, which breaks the link between effort and
> > > consumption.  If IP, artificial scarcity of land and capital, and
> > > entry barriers that impose artificial levels of capitalization and
> > > overhead are eliminated, then workers and consumers will appropriate
> > > the full value of their increased productivity.  It's artificial
> > > scarcity that breaks the link between effort and consumption, so that
> > > increased productivity is expropriated by rentiers who own artificial
> > > property rights.  The link between effort and consumption, in itself,
> > > is a good thing.

> Hi Kevin, will you explain that paragraph differently with some examples? I
> want to make sure I know what you mean before responding.

When a subsistence farmer meets most needs autarkically, and he
figures out a new work process to reduce the amount of labor inputs
required for a unit of consumption, he doesn't consider the reduced
work  time as an evil ("unemployment" or reduced hours at his "job"),
because he appropriates the full fruit of his labor.  It's only when a
class of IP owners and rentiers are able to appropriate the gains of
efficiency, and pay the laborer for less work without the reduced cost
being translated into a lower price, that "technological unemployment"
lowers the standard of living.

 So  without IP as a legal barrier to such
> > > competitive pressure, producers that make products with such qualities
> > > will do better in the competitive market.

> This assumes 9-5 work, a requirement for a market to flourish, so labor in
> theory can have enough income to continue market activity. That is a fool's
> game; machinery has captured labor value and placed it into a commons we are
> yet unable to adequately measure. In the US:

No.  In a genuine market, where labor appropriates the full benefits
of its own productivity gains, the wages from any amount of labor will
be enough to buy the product of that labor.  IP prevents the increased
productivity of machinery from being transferred to the commons by the
natural process of market competition.  Market competition is perfect
socialism, because it socializes the productivity benefits of
innovation.

> The sort of labor you are describing Kevin began to die in the 1920s; this
> is that good 'ol equal-for-equal exploitation within the market compromise
> you are advocating. If we do not create financial and free use commons then
> we will have the drudgery you believe is right.

If it requires less labor to produce a given unit of output, and labor
gets the full output, how is it exploitation?  If worker A and worker
B exchange products of 16 hours of their  labor, that would have taken
50 hours to produce in 1920, they are progressively working less hard
over time.  Exploitation is when someone lives off another's labor
without working himself.

> But not to worry Kevin, we may disagree, but I still like you, because you
> know your Political Economy. ;)

I'm reassured!

--
Kevin Carson
Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org
Mutualist Blog:  Free Market Anti-Capitalism
http://mutualist.blogspot.com
Studies in Mutualist Political Economy
http://www.mutualist.org/id47.html
Organization Theory:  A Libertarian Perspective
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html