B.I.O.S. to lock out non-Windows code ?

[Hugh Reilly]

>From: Anton Markov <anton-F0u+EriZ6ihBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org>
>Reply-To: tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org
>To: tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org
>Subject: Re: [TLUG]: B.I.O.S. to lock out non-Windows code ?
>Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 22:23:12 -0400
>
>Can you please explain this vision of 'abundant currency' in political and 
>economical terms? (seriously)
>
>Be sure to read Peter's reply first please.

OK, I read Peter's email. First, by "abundant" currency, I do not mean the 
kind of hyperinflated currency that ruined the Weimar republic and perhaps 
contributed to the rise of the Nazi party in Germany between the wars. That 
kind of hyperinflation is caused by printing more and more money which 
remains backed by the still limited productive capacity of the economy. 
Finite economic capacity divided by (approaching) infinite currency units 
equals valueless money, or hyperinflation. That doesn't work.

Today we have a new class of economic product; digital/virtual products 
whose marginal cost (approaches) zero, and that can be reproduced and 
distributed ad infinitem (and is therefore fundamentally abundant). 
Software, MP3s (for example), even information and knowledge itself fall 
into that category in the Internet age. As more and more of the overall 
economic activity is comprised of these abundant economic products, we have 
the opportunity to match production of these products exactly to 
demand--without the need for "rationing" by raising prices until the demand 
and supply curves meet.

Before I get to how this can apply specifically to the open-source movement, 
here's the broad vision of how this would work overall politically and 
economically. (This may raise more questions than answers. If there was 
sufficient interest, I'd enjoy presenting this at a TLUG gathering).

A better way to maintain currency stability (minimize the threat of either 
inflation or deflation) is to decentralize it away from the nation-state 
(that's real monopoly money--money managed by a government or central bank 
monopoly) and into the hands of those who have the actual capacity to 
produce goods and/or services and/or knowledge that is of real value to 
people. When this occurs, new currencies are backed by the productive 
capacity of their managing organizations, and currency values can fluctuate 
freely relative to one another in a free market currency exchange system. In 
other words, companies and organizations can establish and maintain their 
own currencies, allowing them to self-capitalize (and removing the threat of 
undercapitalization or cannibalization due to externally created money 
scarcity). Organizations who make wise economic decisions and 
self-investments will see their currencies rise relative to other 
currencies, while the reverse is also true. Thus, the free market will 
provide incentive to make good decisions. Plus, the problems inherent in the 
monoculture of nation-state currencies (inflation, deflation, and the 
vulnerability of productive organizations to suffer from bad economic 
management at the hands of government and banks) will disappear.

BTW: In the Internet age, "organizations" can be very decentralized and 
truly virtual. I like the non-hierarchical icosohedron form of organization 
proposed by Stafford Beer designed to optimize information flow among its 
participants.

With respect to open source, I believe some of these ideas can be applied to 
overcome some of the problems that open source companies and developers are 
dealing with. Like, does RedHat even have a viable business model yet? The 
IPO isn't a business model, it's just a short term cash injection and they 
got lucky (good thing for the Ti-Cats). Bruce Perens certainly didn't have 
any good ideas for open source business models, other than to suggest that 
it could "reduce costs" within a company's regular business model--but we 
already knew that.

The impetus for the GPL came from the right idea that information should be 
free, and that everyone will be better off if the fruits of knowledge (in 
this case, code) should also be free and free to build upon. Using a new kid 
of "abundant" currency, copyright holders, artists, inventors, and 
distributors would be rewarded for their creation and contribution, and 
information could be “free” in the sense that it would be universally 
available and universally affordable. IsnÂ’t that really what we mean by 
“free” anyway?

An "abundant" currency is one where, on the personal level, an account 
balance of zero is not an impediment to spending. The account holder can 
continue to spend and reduce his balance into the negative. The negative 
balance need not be paid for with "interest", but is in fact backed by his 
or her own capacity to create value within the context of the larger 
organization which is responsible for managing that particular currency.

Does that clear thing up?

:)



-Hugh
_______________________________________________
Hugh Reilly
XEN Technology Group | LinuxLab
600 Bay Street, Suite 405
Toronto ON  M5R 1G6
tel: 416-204-9951
fax: 416-204-9723
email: info-2K4XOyu7qTosA/PxXw9srA at public.gmane.org
_______________________________________________
http://www.xen.ca  |  http://www.linuxlab.ca

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml