diary-aug-2010

Aug-31-2010: Title ideas: Retargeting Growth as Payer Property, Product as Return, Use-Value as Compensation for Risk, Breaking our Addiction to Scarcity,

Aug-31-2010: Wiki.Debian.org/FreedomBox >>Inspired by Eben Moglen's vision of a small, cheap and simple computer that serves freedom in the home, we are building a Debian-based platform for distributed applications.

Aug-31-2010: UtahsOwn.Utah.Gov >>Utah's Own.....keeping it here at home...... Shop Utah - Buy Utah - Build Utah Find locally produced products

Aug-31-2010: HansenHives.com

Aug-26-2010: Some ideas for using the Filesystem in User Space (FUSE) library:

Mount Web Sites, Email Accounts, Blogs, Forums, RSS.
* The 'Subject' is a directory name containing one or more messages.
* Each message appears as a plain text file.
* Attachments appear as regular files in that same directory.

Mounting a wiki is a bit different because each file has multiple versions.

We could deliver and synchronize *all* files for an entire OS.

This is related to the goals of LazyLoad.

We could install and update software, configuration files, and content of all varieties.

For example: A 'Movies' directory might contain a small screenshot of everything available, but those files would not be streamed or downloaded unless the user attempts to view them...

Notice this is the same operational paradigm as a web page.

This approach could also be used in MiniMacs to 'vote' for changes in configuration files, etc.

Aug-26-2010: Consumer Ownership Groups (COGs):
Organize groups of consumers to buy and own the Physical Sources of that which they consume.

Aug-26-2010: P2PFoundation.net/Invested_Consumption >>Vera Churiloy: The Hoop team calls it an experiment in invested consumption: an analytical assessment of the impact we make from what we consume, with what we get in returns. Jones believes no one's mixed consuming and investing before. -- JoinTheHoop.com

Yes, let's help consumers invest for *real* co-ownership.

Workers will avoid debt

When users own Sources, the Objects are not bought or sold.

When you own an Apple tree, you also own the Apples - even before they are formed.
You wouldn't buy the Apples from your yourself, because you own them already.

But what if you owned the tree with a neighbor?
How would you divide the Product each season?

The owner of a cow doesn't buy milk, he owns it already.
The owner of bees doesn't buy honey, he owns it already.

The owner of a vine doesn't buy wine, he owns it already.
The owner of barley doesn't buy beer, he owns it already.

But those Sources must be hosted by the Land, Water, Tools and Energy they need.

Aug-26-2010: Thinking about lists of ITEMS as "Titles", "Chronological Events" or "Discrete Terms".

Aug-19-2010: Synthetic, Virtual, Fake, Hosted

Aug-19-2010: JASSS.SOC.Surrey.AC.UK >>Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation

Aug-13-2010: Noticed Blog.ShareWiki.org

Aug-13-2010: Joined Lists.FreeActive.net/pipermail/sharewiki-freeactive.net

Aug-12-2010: http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=47678&t=1&c=37&cg=4&mset=1011 >>Jim Rogers says wheat, agricultural commodities set for steep price rises

Aug-09-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Samuel Rose wrote:
> If a worker cannot accumulate what they earn,

Nobody can 'earn' Profit!

Profit only occurs when Consumers lack ownership.

Consider this scenario:

Let's say I'm good at jack-hammering, but am sick and tired of my boss being paid more than it really costs him to supply the tools and to pay my wage.

After many years of saving I finally have enough to buy my own jack-hammer. So I quit my job as a wage-slave and advertise my services as an entrepreneur.

Soon I have many clients and things are going quite well.

One day a wealthy so-and-so suddenly decides he is going to open a tool-rental business with a strange goal: The terms of operation for this business is to "Break even, but do not charge enough to Profit."

So now everyone in the area is able to rent jack-hammers and pay exactly the same amount it costs me in oil, repairs, extra parts, etc.

Now whenever someone needs such work done, I can only charge the real Costs plus Wages - where Wages are determined on the "open market".

This, by definition, means I will no longer be able to collect Profit because competition in that field is now under perfect competition.

In other words, competition reduces Profit and perfect competition *eliminates* profit.

The reason for this is that before the tools were available to the Consumers "at cost", I was able to keep other workers from competing against me because the barrier-to-entry was the initial expense of the Means of Production (the jack-hammer).

This shows that Profit has nothing to do with Work, but is only a result of Consumers lacking at-cost access to the Sources of Production - and where the *ultimate* guarantee of at-cost access is through real ownership.

Aug-09-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Josef Davies-Coates wrote:
> Patrick Anderson wrote:
>> Profit is *undefined* when the Consumer
>> is also the Owner.
>>
>> There can be no difference between
>> Price and Cost in that case because
>> the product is not being purchased.
>
>
> Er, no.
>
> Take the example of The Co-operative Group
> in the UK.
>
> They are technically owned by the Consumers.

I guess by 'technically' you mean 'not'.

Sorry, but these Co-operatives are not doing what i describe.

Consider a small group that owns a small dairy.

You'll need to keep the sizes small during this mental exercise because we have been programmed to believe larger groups *MUST* be governed in a representative manner even though that is not true.

Imagine the number of members just 2 people if you must.

Now, when the milk is taken from the cattle and stored in the refrigerator, *who* is the owner of that product?

Will each of the owners be required to *buy* the milk from the collective as a whole, or will they just split it up according to how much ownership they each have in the dairy?

If there were just two people, will they each be required to pay into some strange pool that they will then pay themselves again?

Does this change at 3 people? 4, 5, 10, 20, 100, 1000?

> Profits are re-distributed to members

That is what those cooperatives are ignorantly doing, but that is not what I am describing.

This is a result of a poor arrangement where the owners have to buy the product back from themselves! What a bunch of fools!

Those extra transactions are also targets for the containing governments to punish them with sales tax and open them to scrutiny as to whether they should be allowed to sell something as dangerous as raw milk, whereas what I describe side-steps these issues altogether.

> Consumer Co-ops are the solutions to your
> problems Patrick.

Er, no.

Cooperatives are definitely not what we need to move forward to a world of freedom and diversity.

Profit can safely and fully eliminated when the consumers are *real* co-owners in the means of production, and not until then.

Aug-09-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures

Samuel Rose wrote:
> In Josef's example, we can only call "profit" by it's name > while the worker simply accumulates wealth.

Profit is the difference between Consumer Price and Owner Costs. Why pretend it is anything else?

Profit is *undefined* when the Consumer is also the Owner.

There can be no difference between Price and Cost in that case because the product is not being purchased.

> What often happens is that the
> worker, over time, either by need, or choice, needs to redistribute
> that "profit" towards procuring food, energy, access, etc.

We are addicted to the notion that all these things must be purchased instead of realizing we could own them as a "side effect" of having ownership in the Means of Production AS A CONSUMER.

For example, if you co-own part of a dairy, then you do not need to *buy* your portion of the milk from the collective others - you own it already as a result of your having ownership in the Sources.

This is a great way to side-step the Gestapo trying to stop us from trading locally: simply stop trading products and trade only services instead. But in order to do so, the Consumers must invest and own the Sources of that which they need with the ROI being at-cost product.

> This may be resolvable by the worker owning the means of production.

This will be resolved when the workers own the means of production for that which they CONSUME, for then they will not need to beg for work nor will they need to remain on the side of the Capitalists who seek scarcity in their drive to keep Prices above Costs.

Aug-09-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures

Josef Davies-Coates wrote:
> In most workers co-op members are both paid a wage and receive a
> dividend (share of profits) relative to how much work they have done.

Profit is not a result of Worker Effort, it is a result of Consumer Dependence caused by lack of ownership in the Means of Production.

So, from a systems perspective, treating Profit as a reward for owners is dangerous because it creates a positive-feedback loop that further concentrates ownership into the hands of those few.

Treating Profit as a reward for the current owners is the cause of Primitive Accumulation and the concentration of power we already see in the absentee-landlord ownership arrangement.

Aug-09-2010: I've begun to notice the in-fighting

Aug-09-2010: Revisiting EconFuture.WordPress.com >>econfuture offers random thoughts on what the economy of the future will look like. How will accelerating technology intertwine with globalization to shape the remainder of the twenty-first century? What realities will our children face when it is their turn to enter the workforce?

Aug-09-2010: Joined Unstructure.org >>Unstructure is an open discussion platform for business professionals, bloggers and contemporary thought leaders to discuss and debate action ideas that would aid the evolution of business. Unstructure consists of an online discussion forum (where you are currently), an annual physical event and a book of insight and action ideas for businesses of the future.

Aug-09-2010: Title idea: Tactical Abundance -- Designing Investment and Production Strategies for an Age of Plenty

Aug-08-2010: Posted to Alex Rollin
Alex Rollin wrote:
> I feel the need to say yhat workers are consumers
> when the production systems are in the common pool.
>There need be no difference in status class or rights
> from my view.

I've been trying to loosen my views lately in the direction you describe, but I see some big problems with being so inexact.

There are many psychological troubles here - where the hardest workers are rewarded no more than the lazy, and so are taught each round to work less and less.

But maybe even more important is the issue of who owns the outputs.

Profit is *undefined* when Consumers co-own the Sources directly (this is not how Consumer Cooperatives work. Instead, a committee *sells* the products to the Consumer-Owners [who should already be the owners], and in doing so collects Profit against those owners! What a bunch of dumb-asses.).

We need to short-circuit the exchange of the final goods because the corporate-run governments will continue to increase the number and variety of products they claim citizens are not allowed to sell to one another.

Direct Consumer Ownership in the manner I envision side-steps this bullshit by eliminating the exchange of goods altogether - for the owners of a Apple tree does not *buy* Apples, but owns them already as a side-effect of his owning the Sources.

Please let me know if what I describe does or doesn't make sense.

Thanks,
Patrick

Aug-06-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Michel Bauwens wrote:
> prefer that both consumers and producers own
> their means of production to the maximum extent

I want producers to have ownership IF IT IS THE RIGHT THING, but have not yet seen a good argument for them spending their value in that direction.

What I propose - even as it stands now - does not *disallow* workers from investing in the Means of Production.

The thing that will determine where ownership flows in the system I envision will be the treatment of Profit.

If the "Terms of Incorporation" says part of Profit must be treated as the Worker's investment, then they will gain ownership alongside the Consumer.

Since I don't see this as a major threat to the idea as a whole, I am going to try to assimilate it into the new form so I can get this business going.

> I remember you had no concrete interest in
> implementing it, only to talk and argue about it,

Well, I didn't have any money back then, and was still trying to iron out the bugs, so couldn't yet go forward with implementation.

> and to convince people 'by reason', that
> your system is the best ever

Sorry that is what you see. I think Kevin has a similar view according to his "Rosetta Stone" comments in the past...

I don't care *who* is right.
All I care is *what* is right.

And the reason I care is because we need to get this figured out so we can incorporate in a new way that will protect us from the current system.

I kept asking why the workers need ownership because I didn't understand why they needed it.

Even now I still don't understand, but I think it is best to concede that point partially so I can attract others to invest with me since it is such a hot psychological issue.

One problem I will have when changing the "Terms of Operation" is to know how much the Workers should receive compared to those who pay at the point-of-sale.

> I favour the sovereignty of the creators of value,
> that's all, it's an a priori preference, and I accept,

I also want those who add value to be sovereign.

And for those who do not add value (bankers and bums) to have little or no say.

I see that sovereignty coming through ownership in the Means of what those workers consume.

But will try to understand and merge the ideas of the workers needing extra ownership in everything they operate so we can get this party started.

Aug-06-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Michel Bauwens wrote:
> ideally, a coop should make all participants
> cooperators, and not hire labour

Assume for the moment I agree workers need equal ownership.

Some questions:

1.) If you will not allow the cooperative to pay the workers, then why would they work?

2.) How will the workers pay for things like food and shelter if they are not being paid?

3.) What benefit is there for a member to declare himself a worker as opposed to being a consumer only, who can just be lazy? In other words, what is the difference, or is there any difference in 'compensation' if I do work for the cooperative or if I stay home and lay in the sun? If there is a difference, then *how* is it different from what is now called 'wage'.

Thanks,
Patrick

Aug-05-2010: Not yet Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Kevin Carson wrote:
> So my approach is to remove the structural conditions that make wage
> labor artificially prevalent, and to increase the bargaining power of
> labor so that wage labor has less of a "master-servant" character
> where it exists.

This can be done by helping workers to gain property ownership in the Sources of those things which they consume.

Under those conditions, working for others is an option that can simply be ignored.

You will still need to work, but can use that time tending your portion of the Salmon farm, your portion of the Barley acreage, your part of the Hops area, etc. for your own purposes.

You will also have far more variety in the Means of Production available to you, so you

> Or to paraphrase Clinton abortion, to make wage
> labor "safe, legal, and rare."

Aug-05-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures

Alex Rollin wrote:
> if the worker is not a consumer, what then?

The worker is guaranteed to be the consumer of *something*, for no human can exist unless they consume the outputs of other organisms.

So every worker needs ownership in that which he consumes.

And every non-working 'dependent' also needs ownership in that which he consumes.

This ownership protects each human from paying profit and also gives him full dominion over that production.

Even more astounding, when a worker (human) has sufficient ownership in the Sources of that which he consumes, then the 'problems' of abundance and automation disappear.  There is no longer a reason to throttle production or destroy product or be afraid of innovation.

So it is true that workers (humans) need ownership, but it is for the purpose of consuming, not for the purpose of working.  We don't *need* work, we only *need* to consume.

Maybe the problem in understanding this concept is that we must consider all industries at once.

Within the context of Workers having sufficient ownership in the Sources of those things which the *consume*, what reasons are there for Workers to have *extra* ownership in Sources simply because they possess skills needed to operate those Sources?

Disconnecting Ownership from the Work allows humans to easily choose and change occupations without being bound to one course because of heavy financial investment.

It is also more likely for us to escape the claws of the bankers since the number of humans that consume any product is almost always much larger than the number of workers needed in that pursuit.

Let's say I like to milk cows but am allergic to milk.  I don't need any ownership in the dairy to successfully work there.  What good would it do me?

So I may not be able to consume cow-milk, but we know I must consume *something*.

If I like Almond-milk, I need some ownership in a Almond orchard and the equipment needed to create that product even if I never work there.

My ownership in the orchard will protect me from paying profit and will also give me full dominion over what goes into my body.

The workers in the Almond orchard and those who shell and grind/press the nuts into milk need only as much ownership in those Sources as they have interest in consuming that product.

Ownership in the Sources is vital for Consumers, but is only a liability for Workers.

The only value I see in Worker Ownership is the coercive power it gives them to stop other potential workers from doing that work for a lower wage or to force those Consumers to pay more than real Costs in other ways.

Aug-05-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures

Michel Bauwens wrote:
>
> I'm in favour of governance and ownerhship models that combine stakeholders,

I know you (and most everyone else) say the workers will otherwise be 'disenfranchised'.

But what is meant by that *specifically*?  What do the workers intend to gain as compared to the case where the Means of Production are 100% Consumer Owned?

Will they prop-up their wages by disallowing other, non-owning Workers from competing?

Is this a form of 'protectionism'?  Does this mean Worker Owned enterprises do not qualify as "Free Trade"?  I wonder what Kevin Carson would say.

Will they force the Consumers to pay Price above Cost so they can collect that Profit as a reward?

If so, then will the Consumers be disallowed from gaining enough ownership for themselves to 'escape' that punishment?

What if a Consumer wants to pick his own Olives from his % of the co-owned orchard?  Will he be allowed to supply that labor for himself?

What if a Consumer discovers a way to automate that picking.  Will he be allowed to fully own his portion of the orchard and use automation without paying tribute to workers that labor in other parts of the orchard?

How will the workers protect themselves from consumers choosing automation?

What is the reasoning behind forcing the consumers to pay the worker-owner even when the work is fully automated?

> the details matter less than the principle,

We are supposed to accept this idea without any backing of logic?  That sounds like religion.

Why does this concept have priority over any other?

What is the basis for this unquestionable declaration of truth?

Aug-04-2010: Not yet Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures

Samuel Rose wrote:
> If not, they were surely free to at least debate and discuss.

Debate and discussion is toothless against property ownership.

Goals, even when they can be objectively proven as more correct, are not chosen *unless* they can be made 'popular' by someone with that magic social skill.

It is this psychological disease that keeps the populous in-line while politicians make horrendously backward choices such as choosing to rent money instead of issuing it for the nation as they should.

Without real property rights my unpopular ideas have nowhere to live.

Consider the idea of User Ownership - which I have repeatedly proven to be superior to Worker Ownership - and yet nobody will listen because they are hypnotized by the popular ideas of Marx and the dawning of a new day when all industry is owned and operated by those wielding hammers and sickles.

And consider the current discussion: Revealing my dislike for representative authority has produced exactly what I despise! : http://P2PFoundation.net/P2P_Foundation_Board_of_Directors

I keep telling myself to just give-up, but I cannot because I cannot do this alone and we must find a way to wrest ourselves from under the thumb of the usurists who keep us paying mortgages and profit even though these externalities could easily be eliminated *forever* if we would just gather together as Consumers to fund Use-Value production for our own good while doing the same for latecomers by also treating their overpayments as personal investments.

Aug-04-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Subject: In Defense of Worker Ownership

We read about a group of end users investing for Use-Value alone at http://P2PFoundation.net/Cooperative_Public_Phone_Booth_Model

They say these Means of Production (the phone booth) has such low maintenance that there will be no need to hire anyone to do any work.

But the initial connection of the booth to the phone company's lines must certainly have been done by a worker.

And it seems likely there will be a time in the future when some part of the phone must be serviced where none of the users has the expertise to do so.

And even if a user can be found with those skills, why should he not receive some 'extra' ownership for his exertion even if he doesn't receive a Wage?

So, in defense of the idea that production cannot be fair unless Workers have at least part of the Ownership, shouldn't those workers gain some ownership in that phone booth?

What do proponents of Worker Ownership hope to achieve for those who labor when they say User Ownership is insufficient to 'protect' those workers?

In what way is a worker "disenfranchised" when he does not have extra ownership (beyond what he needs as a user) in the Means of Production?

When the users own the Means of Production they might hire workers, especially when that labor is highly skilled.

What demands will a worker proclaim and be able to require when he has 'sufficient' ownership?

Will this ownership be used to increase his own Wage? Does that mean Worker Ownership is a form of protectionism against market-driven Wages?

If so, then why would Users choose to include workers in this way?

Sincerely,
Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com

Aug-02-2010: Working an approach to trade that is even more direct, and even more "short circuit".

The overall idea is to eliminate exchange of finished goods by instead selling the vertically integrated sources (VIS) of that product as a 'package' deal...

Aug-02-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Subject: Authority, Representation and Secession in a P2P Net work

Can the concepts of authority and representation be used within a net work that claims to be Peer2Peer?

Is it realistic to give *everyone* 'root' access to a shared resource?

Is it realistic to give *everyone* the keys to our community center?

There seems to be a need for gate-keeping - especially when protecting ourselves from 'outsiders' that are not yet trusted.

But even within a trusted circle, is there a level of scale when representation *must* come into play?

This seems a valid question considering the failure of current 'authorities' and 'representatives' to achieve the goals of those they supposedly serve.

But it also seems difficult to answer given the chaos that might ensue if there were no 'levels' of access to ... I'm not sure yet what needs to be constrained...

I wonder if part of it may be the need to "slow down" the deliberation of change so we can discover what all other co-owners want in each case.

But does such deliberation require 'representation' and levels of 'authority', or could it be done in some other way?

If giving everyone 'root' access is wrong, maybe giving any one person 'root' access is also wrong?

Is that why we tend toward *groups* of representatives?

But even in that case we fail to achieve freedom because those committees almost invariably make decisions and enact policy that suffers from the problem of "Tyranny of the Majority" because there is not an easy way for individuals and minority sub-groups to secede from the majority without loosing all of their investments.

It is said these minorities have the "Right to Leave", but that is not sufficient because they then relinquish all the value they have added.

I think part of the solution lies in discovering a way for these non-majority groups to 'split' or 'fork' those physical resources during such conflicts. But that pre-supposes they had real ownership to begin with - which is usually not the case, so real co-ownership may be a pre-condition to sharing physical resources in a P2P manner.

* Notice even things you may not think of as 'physical' - such as a wiki - really *are* because of the equipment needed to 'host' that activity.

Aug-01-2010: To: eskerda@hacklaviva.net
Hi mrc,

Thanks for writing.

I've been working the last few days on a completely different approach to my goals that may eliminate many of these apparent problems, but for now will try to explain what I mean within the (loaded) terms I chose for the text you are examining.

mrc wrote:

> The No's:
> #  Wage: Set between Worker and Owners.
> (no wage further than an optional maintenance request should be allowed)

Are you saying I cannot pay a Dentist to fix my teeth?

I know wage-slavery is a big problem now, but how will I attract skilled artisans to help me if I am not allowed to reward them in some way?

Do you suppose they will do that work because they 'like' me?  What if they do not like me?  How can I get my teeth fixed if the only Dentist in the community dislikes me - even for no reason at all?

Psychology sometimes plays tricks on people and they are biased against someone for no reason - such as - what if I remind the Dentist of someone they disliked in their past and for that reason they dislike me without consciously understanding why?

What is the proposed manner of sharing skilled *labor* in the case that compensation is disallowed?

How can I offer a service such as "clean the bathroom" in exchange for someone else helping me to fix my teeth?

> # To "Share" an Object means any action which causes the Object to be made
> available to another User in any form or capacity of access that enables
> other parties to make or receive copies, excluding subleasing. Sharing
> includes the actions: display, host, perform, project, relay, remote
> control, rent, sell, serve, share, trade, transfer, transmit, transport.
>
> (Excluding subleasing is bad,

My reasoning here is that subleasing is not necessary since that person can rent the item directly instead.

Allowing subleasing may disconnect the user from responsibilities they would otherwise be bound-to (such as requiring they 'clean' the device being leased, etc.).

> royalty free & extra restrictions further
> than the invitation are required preconditions)

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

>
> (there are not need verbs like trade-share-sell are forbidden, dispaly,
> host, perform, project are an OK Addon, and the others i doubt why they
> are necessary)

I'm trying to indicate when, or under what conditions the owners must follow the "Rules of Engagement" for a shared resource so they cannot take advantage of those needing to rent that resource because of their current lack of ownership.

>
>
> 1. Sources
>
>    * The "Source" of a GPL Object means the exact parents of this Object
> or the preferred forms (such as the machines, plants, tools, etc.) for
> making copies of or modifications to the Object.
>
> (I think the source "freedom"-availability is not a precondition for being
> shreful further than the one conflicting with product liability)

The deep reasoning for making physical sources accessible to the non-owning user is to help that latecomer gain control over their destiny instead of being perpetually dependent upon those that are already established through property ownership.

>
> (Is there a need to specify as necesary that "Owners should estate wether
> this Shareful Good necessarily requires other non shareful goods for
> operating Fully. ... . At Fully there's the key: i may use a shareful
> computer for a while just for decoration, if the operationing is left to
> subjectiveness it gives an extra hint for in other cases peoplez not being
> able to ban 'not sleeping in the corridor in my shareful house'  which
> iḿ looking for despite accepting including a Humble Moral
> Restrcitions..)

I don't understand what you mean.  Could you give another example?

> ....
>
> (I'd love to include the Modifying Good rights' policy and the exclusive
> use if privacy is need, (without invading the multiple cousing: ex: for
> just me using this 5 floors shareful house i need it to be empty... wrong,
> isnt' it?... ))
>

I don't think there is a problem because i view these transactions in the more traditional sense of owner vs. non-owner in an arrangement more similar to typical 'rental' or 'lease' arrangements.

It seems unrealistic to me that everything is shared without limit and without accounting of who will be using it during that time.

If the owners of a resource do not want someone to be able to exclusively occupy all 5 floors of a shareful house, then they can simply withhold such excessive offers and instead only offer 1 floor for rent.