Related: diary
Jun-23-2013: Crowd Bot - Pay now, buy later.
Allocating Goods and Services by Scheduling Property and Promises
Three known portals:
#.) Promise-to-work
Workers become owners
Workers trade skills before production begins.
This eliminate traditional wages and income tax.
#.) Investors are the real co-owners.
Workers and other investors own the means-of-production for their own mutual benefit.
#.) Product is the owners' natural return.
There is no need to buy that which you already own. The co-owner of an Avocado tree owns his portion of the fruit (and all potential fruit from that tree) even before it is created.
The product is not be sold because it already belongs to those who need it.
Co-owners pay costs and receive product as the natural return.
#.) Profit is the payer's investment.
Surplus is sold for profit to those with insufficient co-ownership.
That profit is immediately invested on behalf of the person who paid it.
This causes all consumers to incrementally gain the co-ownership they need.
This auto-distributes property to those willing to pay for that expansion.
#.) Allows any subgroup to secede and retain their portion of
ownership when there is a conflict. This is a (rough) attempt to
solve the Tyranny of the Majority issue.
Apr-17-2013: Comparing lightweight 3d game engines: Raydium.org, Ares.GoogleCode.com, Maratis3D.org, GameKit.GoogleCode.com
Apr-07-2013:
Problem1. Consumers must currently buy all the goods and services they need because they do not already own those products.
Solution1. Consumers can avoid this for any product they can *predict* they will need by becoming co-owners in the Means of Production for that good or service.
For example, the owner of a cow does not buy milk from himself - he owns it already as a side-effect of owning the cow.
Similarly, the owners of a dairy do not need to buy milk from themselves - they own it already as a side-effect of owning the cows.
This is a modified form of crowd-funding where the customers prepay (notice the time reference here) for a product and receive real co-ownership in the Means (or Physical Sources) of that product.
This eliminates Profit because the price those people pay as consumers is exactly the costs they paid as owners. Surprisingly, this also eliminates sales taxes since there is no transaction for the government to target.
The second time-based problem and solution concerns the elimination of traditional wages:
Problem2. Workers must currently work for money in return for work they do "at will" - meaning they have little commitment to showup for work and are in peril of being arbitrarily fired.
Solution2. Workers can avoid this by cross-committing to work in the *future* in return for those promises being treated as real investment and so receive co-ownership in the Means of the products they need to consume.
By "cross-commit" I mean each worker will promise to work in a specific part of the Production Arena (say milking cows) in return for receiving co-ownership in many other parts of the Production Arena needed to supply him with all of his basic needs.
I need to refine how I explain this, because there is a bit more to it that I did not include in the above...
Each investors (whether committing money or future labor) will usually receive a 'bundle' of property-rights *and* commitments from others to perform the future labor necessary to accomplish that production.
For example, the cow-milker would usually receive both ownership in the dentist office *and* commitments from the dentist to fix his teeth in the future when necessary.
When used in conjunction these commitments create the kind of security that insurance pretends to deliver. I sometimes call it "life assurance".
April 3 at 12:56pm · Like · 1
And so, to answer the original question of "how to fund the evolution":
We will attract middle-to-upper-income investors to supply the money to buy these Physical Sources for an advertised return of organic goods and services in the future - though they will actually be receiving real co-ownership in the Production Arena, and receiving the goods and services as a 'side-effect' of that co-ownership. In this way we eliminate the buying and selling of those goods and services.
And we also attract middle-to-lower-income investors to cross-commit their *future* labor in return for co-ownership in the Production Arena. In this way we eliminate the payment of traditional wages.
See:
http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com
http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com
https://plus.google.com/u/0/109257381582565372473
http://p2pfoundation.net/User_Owned
http://ImputedProduction.Blog.com
Yes, I can definitely see some correlation with Cook's model, but I have had a hard time understanding some of his high-finance lingo, so it is hard for me to say how close they are.
It would be useful to see how his model would look when applied to a milk dairy as described above; specifically, *who* would be the owners, and would the customers be required to buy the product from those owners.
One thing I am quite sure of is that he is not trying to solve the second problem of eliminating wages. Eliminating wages is especially complicated because it requires a "Production Arena" that can supply workers with their most common needs.
I sometimes call this a "Basic Outcome".
Another, very crucial part of this model is similar to something Cook does in his model:
1. Profit is the payer's investment. This means we will sell surplus to outsiders for a price above cost (collect profit) but then immediately invest those extra funds on behalf of the consumer who paid them. I think maybe we need to not allow the consumer to immediately "cash out", but am not yet sure how long the waiting period should be or under what conditions the payer becomes the full vested owner, but they must finally gain control of those investments.
Treating profit as an investment from the payer autodistributes the growth of the organization to those willing to pay for that growth.