Comments below:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim May [mailto:tcmay@got.net]
> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 5:51 PM
> To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
> Subject: Re: Questions of size...
>

<snip>

> By the way, one topological aspect of a geodesic dome, to go back to
> that, is that each node is surrounded by some number of neighbors.
> Applied to a "geodesic economy," this image/metaphor would strongly
> suggest that economic agents are trading with their neighbors, who
> then trade with other neighbors, and so on.
>
> Tribes deep in the Amazon, who deal only with their neighbors, are
> then the canonical "geodesic economy."

I would disagree with the supporting logic here. You could theoretically conclude
that such systems were geodesic in nature if you really wanted to, but it would be
due to the fact that there is a minimum economic distance (cost, perhaps) in dealings
between participants. I don't think it is safe to say that these transactions are
canonically geodesic, unless you are also willing to propose that the "surface" of the economic
structure is bound inseperably to the geography of the planet. I believe that when we are talking
about a distance metric associated with the structure of economic transactions (we are
talking about transactions, right?), the most natural metric to be used in geodesic
economics would be cost. That's not to say that I have, at this point, read any material
that makes a great logical case for the geodesic nature of the economic transactions that
Mr. Hettinga describes. I am currently operating on a little blind faith and a big hunch
when assuming for the sake of conversation that Mr. Hettinga's proposed transactions would
be reduced-cost. It just seems to make sense. I agree with you, Mr. May, that a seemingly
geodesic economomic system can be achieved through localization of the market and direct
trade. I do not believe that localization is a defining element of a geodesic economy.
It seems that a broad move toward localization being in-efficient in our own economy
(one would have to prove this, and why), the concepts that Mr. Hettinga proposes may
provide a working substitute for localization, by proposing a means of direct interaction
between parties that breaks geographical limitations, and thereby
reducing E.D. (economic distance). Again, one would have to prove that cost is a
good metric for E.D., and then one would have to prove that Mr. Hettinga's proposals
result in reduced cost in transactions. It's a tough case, but my hunch sides with Mr.
Hettinga.

> This is precisely the _opposite_ of the mulitiply-connected trading
> situation which modern systems make possible.
>
> So, aside from the cuteness of suggesting a connection with geodesic
> domes, with buckybits as the currency perhaps?, this all creates
> confusion rather than clarity.
>
>
> --Tim May
> --
> (This .sig file has not been significantly changed since 1992. As the
> election debacle unfolds, it is time to prepare a new one.
> Stay tuned.)
>