Related: diary
Feb-25-2011: Unions for Immaterial Production?
The effectiveness of collective bargaining has always been threatened by independent peers who are willing to accept lower wages and endure poor working conditions.
For traditional manufacturing jobs, these 'alternate' workers can usually be kept from accessing the Means of Production by forming a physical barrier around the worksite or through various threats that can be carried out because it is easy to monitor who is actually entering the establishment.
Yet these valuable techniques of intimidation and coercion so vital to protecting Worker Rights are unlikely to be applicable in the realm of "immaterial production".
When it comes to something like Free Software, how can we, the International Programmers of the World, unionize effectively to *stop* independent programmers from creating the solutions that consumers need?
This is a catastrophic issue, as many of these independents are willing to work not just for a low Wage, but for Free! They often fix bugs and add features without any pay at all!
How can workers in the 'immaterial' sphere possibly "make a living" with such anarchy and disrespect for organized labor, and with no ability to stop that production?
Feb-21-2011: Quora.com/High-prices-help-owners-and-low-prices-help-consumers-but-what-if-owners-and-consumers-were-the-same-group
> High prices help owners, and low prices help consumers, but what if owners and consumers were the same group?Edit
> In that case, where those consumers were investing for the purpose of receiving the product itself (instead of being paid with profit), then the prices they paid for that production would be equal to the real costs of production, and so prices would be the lowest possible minimum and profit would be 0 (actually profit would be *undefined* since the product would not even be sold since it would already be the property of those consumers who need it.)
Feb-21-2011: Quora.com/The-US-government-currently-owes-about-14-2-Trillion-Who-did-we-borrow-that-money-from-and-how-did-those-financiers-get-that-money
> The US government currently owes about $14.2 Trillion. Who did we borrow that money from, and how did those financiers get that money?
> Has that money always been on earth? If not, then where did it come from? Did somebody issue it into existence? If so, then by what authority did they do so, and for what reason do nations lack that authority?
Feb-21-2011: Quora.com/What-are-the-criticisms-of-the-Federal-Reserve-Should-it-exist
> What are the criticisms of the Federal Reserve? Should it exist?
> Why do people write books like this? http://www.scribd.com/doc/2490203/The-Federal-Reserve-Monster-1922
The primary problem with the system which includes the Federal Reserve is that we suffer the terrible consequences of a National Debt that would be exactly zero if we, as a nation, would simply issue our own currency instead of borrowing money from outside entities.
You may think "Well, of course we must borrow it - how else can you get money!?".
But that reasoning is obviously flawed when we ask the question "Where did that money come from?".
Either the money has always been on earth, or it has been 'issued' into existence.
So the banks behind the Federal Reserve who issue currency into existence "out of thin air" (it is fiat money with is not backed by any material thing) are able to buy bonds against our land while expending no value and taking no risk whatever.
So we are accumulating debt and losing our sovereignty for no sensible reason.
If those banks are able to issue currency, then why will our government not issue currency?
Our nation has issued it's own currency in the past, and had no National Debt, but the bankers tricked us into subservience by playing on our fears, and so now we are at the mercy of those who conquer nations through trickery and deception.
After we default on those needless loans, they will arrive on our shores declaring we must leave, as they are now the owners of this land because of the bonds they hold against it.
Feb-20-2011: Quora.com/What-would-be-the-optimal-approach-for-globally-realigning-the-incentives-of-current-economies-from-maximizing-profits-to-maximizing-value
> What would be the optimal approach for globally realigning the incentives of current economies from maximizing profits to maximizing value?
Profit is commonly used as a return for investors who took risk.
It may seem there is nothing else we can do, for what else would investors accept?
There is a special case we seemed to have overlooked, where we can use product to reward those who are willing to pay early.
This special case only applies to investors who are simultaneously potential consumers of that product - and who invest only as much as it will take to produce what they, personally, will consume.
So the answer is similar to "Crowd Funded", but more like "Consumer Owned" - where those funders are property owners in the Means of Production for the sole purpose of thereby having ownership in the outputs of that production as a sort of "side effect".
Notice the product is not sold (for it is already the property of those who will use it). This causes profit to be undefined - for the Price of the finished product is exactly the Costs which were paid for that production.
Feb-20-2011: Quora.com/What-are-the-fundamental-requirements-and-building-blocks-of-a-distributed-internet
> What are the fundamental requirements and building blocks of a distributed internet?
The most important issue we must address is the difficulties faced during co-ownership of shared physical resources required to host that production.
1.) The users themselves must have real ownership, and so must be the initial and ideally the only investors.
2.) The 'return' the users will receive for this investment is at-cost access to the outputs of that production - in this case, internet connectivity.
3.) For late-coming users who want to buy any surplus product (network bandwidth, data storage, CPU cycles), we should charge price above cost (profit) for as much as "the market will bear".
4.) All profit collected from non-owners must be treated as that payer's investment in more physical sources - so that each and every user incrementally becomes a co-owner in the material assets required to host that production.
When any user pre-pays (whether as an up-front investment, or when
paying price above cost (profit)), they receive two items:
A.) A title of ownership over those co-owned physical assets.
B.) A book of "Scheduling Tickets" or "Allocation Tokens" that the
owner would use to prove ownership of and therefore collect the
outputs of that production.
Feb-20-2011: To info@FreedomBoxFoundation.org
Hello all,
I would like to help discuss organizational strategies for this
important project but don't see how to join anything from the
http://FreedomBoxFoundation.org website.
Maybe those discussions are not yet open to the general public?
Feb-17-2011: Some links to investigate
OpenTheFuture.com
EndOfTheAmericanDream.com
NewEcoHumanity.BlogSpot.com
LivingEconomiesForum.org
FearlessRevolution.com
Feb-17-2011: [P2P-F] Debt, Human Rights and Nature
M. Fioretti wrote:
> "These bankers are not proposing to loan their money to the
> world. Rather, they propose creating new money out of thin air..."
I don't understand.
If THEY can create money "out of thin air", what is stopping US from
doing the same?
Who gave THEM that authority, and who took it away from US?
Why do NATIONS rent money from those private bankers?
Just curious.
Anyone? Beuler?
> Who gave THEM that authority, and who took it away from US?
Why did NATIONS give THEM that authority, and who took it away from NATIONS?
Kevin Carson wrote:
> The government, at least to the extent that bank licensing and legal
> tender laws are enforceable.
So governments had the authority to issue currency for themselves,
but then gave it away to private corporations?
How funny.
I wonder why they did this. It must be for the best, right?
I've heard people say "It is to control inflation" as though those
private corporations have more self-control than governments.
If this logic is true, does that mean all the P2P currencies are
fundamentally flawed?
If this logic is false, does that mean our governments and the
corporations that operate those governments are lying to us?
Kevin Carson wrote:
> You just won a cigar!
Ha, ha.
Yes, I know I'm playing the fool, and these are stupid questions
with obvious answers for those in the know...
But if it is all so obvious, what makes it so impenetrable to
reconsideration by all the nations throughout the world?
Why do most all citizens choose to quibble over the theatre of
politics and the minutea of ineffective bandages while this
massive issue is left untouched?
How is it that our education systems leave this fundamental
misdesign out of the curriculum?
How is it that so few people I know are aware of this?
Feb-17-2011: Article : Debt Defaults, Austerity, and Death of the "Social Europe" Model
Here is a quick summary of an approach I've been working on.
----
My answer to http://Quora.com/What-are-the-fundamental-requirements-and-building-blocks-of-a-distributed-internet
The most important issue we must address is the difficulties faced
during co-ownership of shared physical resources required to host that
production.
1.) The users themselves must have real ownership, and so must be the
initial and ideally the only investors.
2.) The 'return' the users will receive for this investment is at-cost
access to the outputs of that production - in this case, internet
connectivity.
3.) For late-coming users who want to buy any surplus product (network
bandwidth, data storage, CPU cycles), we should charge price above
cost (profit) for as much as "the market will bear".
4.) All profit collected from non-owners must be treated as that
payer's investment in more physical sources - so that each and every
user incrementally becomes a co-owner in the material assets required
to host that production.
When any user pre-pays (whether as an up-front investment, or when
paying price above cost (profit)), they receive two items:
A.) A title of ownership over those co-owned physical assets.
B.) A book of "Scheduling Tickets" or "Allocation Tokens" that the
owner would use to prove ownership of and therefore collect the
outputs of that production.
Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
> I would like to have a tool that goes to the core,
> so that any agents in the system can find out or choose if they can make
> overlapping agreements between their preferred conditions for transactions (
> property, vectors and their potential objective or subjective units
> of measurement, etc )
Hey Dante,
I would like talk more about this when you have some time.
Could you give me an example of what you mean?
Here are some concepts to frame the discussion:
I've been trying lately to devise the most simple scenario,
for co-ownership and have come up with the following:
Imagine some agents are attempting to share the physical
sources required for storage.
Whether they are attempting to store bytes or bread doesn't
make much difference, in both cases the product being
stored is subject to decay and destruction.
One question I have is: Who, ideally, should be in control
of those physical assets? (I would say "who should own",
but if I remember right, you are reluctant to use property
ownership in our quest to secure the Means of Production?)
Another question comes as a result of accepting outsiders.
Imagine they want to increase the size of the operation
for even more benefits associated with economy of scale.
Should they charge Profit (Price above Cost) against those
latecomers? And if so, what should be done with that
value? Notice, if you do not charge Profit, then it is likely
someone will 'scalp' the product by buying a large amount
and then reselling it closer to what the "market will bear".
...
Hi Dante,
Thanks for helping me understand you better.
I see now you are designing a tool which
you and others can use to discover *which*
set of system dynamics are best for society,
while I have been trying to design and debug
one specific set of dynamics which groups
can then use to make better societies.
I have found my approach is a bit too direct
for most people because they interpret my
proposals as though I am declaring what
they must or must not do, even though my
intent is for those readers to help change
what is wrong and clarify what is right...
Now I will try to understand you even more
clearly by asking questions according to
what I perceive as your intent in each case:
Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
> I would like to have a tool that goes to the core,
> so that any agents in the system can find out or
> choose if they can make overlapping agreements
> between their preferred conditions for transactions
> For example, an agent has a project,
Does "a project" mean "a plan for production"?
> and this project has a request,
Maybe something like "need the cow milked"?
> and the agent defines the project,
Maybe this includes details of compensation?
> the requests, and the conditions of each
> of the transactions with metadata, and
> based on this metadata, it can more easily
> be queried and matched.
Do you mean so we can trade skills,
so we can have specialization?
> Actually, in the approach I imagine,
> any kind of transaction contract can be
> described / suggested, queried,
> then agreed upon.
I like this idea if it will help us work toward
improving a 'best' Transaction Contract
which can then be suggested to all newcomers,
a bit like the way the GNU GPL is the
defacto standard for most Free Software.
I think this is important so we can gain
the sufficient momentum needed to overcome
Capitalism - to make that system obsolete.
> my principal concern is to reduce
> the opportunities for centralized control,
> hence any approach that goes towards
> further distributing control suits me best.
Absolutely.
We want to "dis-tribute" control -
so we can finally stop paying
tribute (profit) to others.
Paradoxically, that is why I claim
we must, as groups, collect profit
from those who do not yet have
ownership so we can treat it in
the 'correct' manner - for if WE
do not collect profit, OTHERS
certainly will, and at that point
the decision about how to treat
that special value will be out of
our jurisdiction.
> I do not mind a "shares" approach,
> especially if it are shares owned
> by the people that use it.
Yes, of course. By *all* the users,
even if they arrive late.
We must worry about "late coming"
users who do not yet have ownership
because they are dependent upon
the current owners in such a way
that allows those owners to charge
a price above the real costs of
production - coercing those late-
comers to pay profit.
If that overpayment is treated
as that payer's investment, the
ownership of that payer increases
incrementally - so that profit
within the whole system will
naturally, continuously and safely
approach zero as it should.
> The intention to reduce then eradicate monopolies,
Yes, yes, let's dis-tribute all
ownership by helping everyone
invest - even latecomers who
will be investing for their own
good when they pay profit.
> I could imagine such conditions could be defined
> in the "license" of the shares ?
Yes, I think of this as a
Terms of Operation, which
I think is quite common for
organizations of all types
to have drawn up for the
purpose understanding the
goals and restrictions within
that domain...
> For example, only enable purchase of shares
> equivalent to the potential usage of a person,
> and in case it is not for personal usage
> ( in the case of an investment ), define
> specific conditions which do not make it speculative.
I agree, and have some very
specific approaches to trying
to achieve those goals, but
won't go into that now for fear
of overloading the conversation.
Feb-17-2011: Welcome to the oscd-list
Jason Hibbets wrote:
> Welcome to the list.
Thanks.
I'll be lurking at first and reading archives.
If the community seems fit, I would eventually like to present my
findings about how we can move toward Open Source production in the
physical realm.
I'm not just talking Open designs. I'm talking about a plan to bring
about the Opening of instances of *Physical* Sources - where the
Physical Source of an egg is a chicken and all 'supporting' sources
such as land, water, feed, etc.
Feb-11-2011: Reading about "Corn Laws" used to prop-up grain prices.
Feb-11-2011: [P2P-URBANISM WA] Biourbanism, a definition
Romulo Krafta wrote:
> I definitely will not give up my
> scotch whiskey, chilean salmon
> french brie, amazoniam pirarucu
I wonder why proposing local production
causes a fear of losing global purchasing.
Not everyone can afford to pay for the costs of
shipping alcohol, cheese and fish around the world.
Most people just need good, clean food under their
own control and at the real costs of production.
In-city aquaculture doesn't need to be a burden
for those that do not want to co-own those
productive sources.
We already dedicate massive land and water and
other resources to zoos and theme-parks that raise
only ornamental organisms.
We can move toward choosing plants and animals
that serve a dual purpose of creating beauty for
the citizens as a whole while also being a source
of employment and nourishment for those with less.
Feb-11-2011: [P2P-URBANISM WA] Biourbanism, a definition
Growing some amount of food within a city need not to be such a stark yes/no question.
A look outside my city window shows hundreds, even thousands of trees and bushes and vines that could be the varieties that produce nuts, fruit, spices, herbs and for other purposes such as raw materials of soapmaking, cloth, even building materials.
Jan Wiklund <jan.wiklund@srf.nu> wrote:
>
> The only thing we can be sure of is that spreading out of people not working
> in the agricultural business is stealing land from agriculture and
> increasing the ecological footprint of cities.
Sprawl is caused by a property tax system that punishes improvements instead of holdings.
This can be addressed by weighting taxes against holdings instead of against improvements.
Feb-10-2011: Article : Debt Defaults, Austerity, and Death of the "Social Europe" Model
Jeffrey Sommers and Michael Hudson wrote:
> There is an alternative, of course.
> It is for creditors at the top of the economic pyramid to take a loss.
This assumes all investment must be for exchange-value.
The very people in need can invest if they can learn to cooperate for production of that which they need.
People can co-invest for use-value by committing Capital and Labor toward production for which they have immediate use of the output.
These consumers-as-investors will then not rely upon keeping price above cost, for the product will not even be sold - it is already in the hands of those who will use it.
The only other important part is for those groups, when they finally have surplus product, to recognize that selling that product can usually be done at a price above cost because the late-coming buyer is at a disadvantage.
If they can see that price above cost is a measure of the payer's dependence upon the current owners, they can then see why treating that difference as an investment from that payer will act as a negative-feedback loop causing price to continually approach cost in a safe manner as all users incrementally gain ownership (for the purpose of use-value) in the amount they are willing to overpay for that which they need.
Feb-10-2011: Joined ContactCon.com
Feb-07-2011: Global Dimming through Aerosol Geoengineering - does it increase or decrease the damage?
I've been watching them spray our skies for years now.
Angered and saddened as each beautiful morning is turned to an artificially overcast afternoon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_%28geoengineering%29 talks about the benefits.
What are the opinions on this list?
Should this be part of our game/simulation?
It will effect the agriculture output, and so limit the population. Is this good or bad?
Feb-07-2011: Gurstein.WordPress.com/2011/02/04/is-facebook-a-human-right-egypt-and-tunisia-transform-social-media
Is water a human right?
Is food? Is shelter?
Is communication and transportation?
If so, then why do we leave it up to the corporations to supply us with those needs when we know those entities must never allow us to fully succeed, for to do so would destroy the only motive for their existence: profit.
And of course government entities can never do anything of value, as they are simply an arm of those usurist corporations, and so are held in check to keep us from gaining the ground that would bring us from under the thumb of those who revel in our misery because of the way scarcity increases Exchange Value.
We could organize as consumers of those things to co-own the Means of Production for Use-Value if we could only see what enormous benefit it would bring.
We, as consumers, must create new organizations that allow us to invest for the purpose of receiving at-cost product.
Our ROI would be the product itself which we would attain without paying tribute to any others, and under our collective control.
For as long as we do not organize to own the sources of that which we need, those who *do* organize to own the sources of that which we need will use that ownership against us to keep those objectives artificially scarce for the purpose keeping price above cost in their quest to be paid without working.
Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
Feb-05-2011: Would you like to write about how to set up a mesh network
The following are not necessarily focused on 'mesh' networking, but are more generally addressing the shared property ownership of that physical infrastructure.
On a similar note: I am forming a plan for an alternative organizational form (or business model) that solves the typical problem of power concentration during the growth of such endeavors which would apply across all types of sharing, not just internet access.
----
http://Frankston.com >>My current interest is moving beyond the 19th century concept of telecom to community owned infrastructure. This would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the US and much more value by creating opportunity for what we can't imagine.
http://VillageTelco.org >>an easy-to-use, scalable, standards-based, wireless, local, do-it-yourself, telephone company toolkit
http://TheConnective.net >>Together we can replace the telco's 'last mile' - the communication networks at the neighborhood level - with our own 'first mile' of free and open connectivity.
http://netBlazr.com >>netBlazr customizes next-generation, but commercially tested, directional radios and networking equipment to deliver high-speed broadband through your office window.
http://MuniNetworks.org >>Communities across America have set up community broadband networks to ensure access to affordable, fast networks.
http://MediaPolicy.NewAmerica.net/publications/policy/from_the_digital_divide_to_digital_excellence >>From the Digital Divide to Digital Excellence
http://WeRebuild.eu >>We Rebuild is a decentralized cluster of net activists who have joined forces to collaborate on issues concerning access to a free Internet without intrusive surveillance.
http://seattlewireless.net >>SeattleWireless is a grassroots Community Wireless Network project in Seattle, Washington. Its goals include the creation of a broadband wireless metropolitan area network, as well as the creation of tools that help us achieve that goal.
http://Sites.Google.com/site/wasabinetwifi >>Do you want $9.99/month wireless Internet without needing a telephone line, cable TV, or satellite? Do you want free email? Do you want to own your community's Internet network with your neighbors?
http://guifi.net
----
Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com
Feb-03-2011: INETEconomics.org >>The Institute for New Economic Thinking
Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
> for alternative economics/governance,
> I personally want to use transaction tools that enable anyone to create or
> share protocols.
I think I understand what you mean, but let me ask to make sure:
Are you saying you want to build some sort of "interaction platform" that helps individuals express their own understanding or approach to what needs to be done?
If so, then I agree. More on that below.
> An open source distributed approach, not economic and governance protocols
> decided by an elite. ( some of these think thanks think about "alternative
> economics", but not much of it looks "open source" and equipotentially
> participatory )
Yes, I agree here too, but I like to investigate what the elite are doing to glean bits that may be useful in out own construction, and to also have a peek into what they are doing wrong, so we can try to avoid those parts.
> I believe in contributing to a trans-disciplinary intentional aggregator for
> people supporting such tools facilitating the emergent bottom up approach to
> folksonomies and ontologies for transaction contracts - across and between
> various relational dynamics and economic networks.
Wow, that's a mouthful. I'm not sure I completely understand.
Maybe you could tell me using smaller words? Sorry if that sounds rude - I'm just burned-out from work and am having trouble thinking right now.
> I believe we have , together, the connections to environments and individual
> people,
> who have sufficient experience , skills, knowledge, or even reputation,
> as to further converge resources and their development towards such open
> source user interfaces.
Is this about a game/wiki/mail-list/software of some sort?
> When these emerge, I feel each of the variants of economic contracts and
> transactions can be proposed.
I think I understand. My vision is to make a simple game system that represents a portion our physical reality so rudimentary needs such as food and shelter must be dealt with, and to not impose any artificial constraints such as property-law, but also to *allow* such constraints - so that groups of players will start organizing as they try to fulfill their needs.
I imagine most players would organize as standard Capitalism teaches us, and I would want the game system to allow such gatherings.
Others would organize differently from Capitalism, as they fit. Some of those patterns would be more effective in meeting goals and in preserving nature, while others would be even worse.
> I am in touch with Seth ( bcc ), and I resonate a lot with the "story
> telling" approach,
> which enables propositions to be made,
> and as I would then like to see it,
> enable visualization of choices for interdependencies.
I don't think I've heard of this. I feel so alone in my search, as I think I have solved one small part of the problem, but have great difficulty expressing it in a digestible manner.
> I am also in touch with Bernard Lietaer, here in Belgium, who could,
> based on a plan,
> facilitate such process through the recognition he has in certain
> backgrounds.
> There is a possibility for partnerships.
> Define precise goals, converging friends,
> and eventually get institutional support,
> is what I would like to move towards.
> How to start communicating such approach ?
I hope we can find a way.