Comments below:

   > -----Original Message-----
   > From: Tim May [[1]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.)
   >

References

   1. mailto:tcmay@got.net