Related: diary
Feb-22-2012:
Here are some of my comparisons so far.
Cook's begin C:, Anderson's with A:
C: Nondominium: Associative, consensual agreement for sharing Sources.
A: IOTA: Intra-Owner Trade Agreement for sharing Sources and swapping Skills.
C: Unitization: Units comprise a loan by investors direct to the land.
A: Pre-Pay: Consumers fund production, become real co-owner of the Sources, and so own the Product as the natural return for those holdings.
A: I sometimes write this as:
A: Product is the Investor's Return
C: Any amount paid in excess of rental will buy units.
A: Any amount paid in excess of cost will buy Sources.
A: I sometimes write this as:
A: Profit is the Payer's Investment
C: Sellers give buyers interest-free credit or "time to pay"
A:
C: Capital Partnership -- Direct P2P investment in productive assets
A: Burn-Ring Funding Model --
C: Productive assets are held by a custodian
C: Investor put in money or money's worth
A: Investments are commitments of Sources and Skills
http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/innovations/data/000085
https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/resilience/2011/06/10/the-irish-patient
https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/resilience/2011/10/04/nondominium-establishing-consensus-and-collaboration-for-the-caspian-nations/
Feb-22-2012:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ch02.htm#c6
> In saying that the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour worked up or crystallized in it, we mean the quantity of labour necessary for its production in a given state of society, under certain social average conditions of production, with a given social average intensity, and average skill of the labour employed.
Feb-22-2012:
Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> I'm starting to think of money as
> functions of both debt and TRUST.
Imagine a money where each note is a
claim over the Sources and Skills
required for production.
Debt as a "promise to pay" means a
worker can promise apply his Skills
in the future for food and shelter today.
TRUST as the land, plants, tools, etc.
needed to host that production.
This currency represents 3 things:
0. A PRODUCT of some predicted type, quantity and quality.
1. Commitments of the SOURCES such as land, mineral/water rights, buildings, tools, etc. required for production. This co-owned property must be constrained by legally binding social contract. See the GNU General Public Law and PropertyLeft for attempts.
2. Commitments of all the SKILLS required for production.
For example:
0. One dozen grade A, medium chicken eggs every week.
1. Co-ownership in land and tools etc. of a chicken farm and to grow their feed.
2. Commitments from all the people required to make it happen.
THIS TITLE IS A PREDICTION OF PERFORMANCE
#0 IS INSURED ONLY IF #1 AND #2 ARE SECURED
Feb-21-2012:
> create a collective/joint agreement and entity as a
> 'Custodian' of commons such as land and knowledge,
> the various stakeholders have a negative right of veto
> not the dominant positive rights of a (divine right of
> capital) owner, or the positive control exercised by a
> Trustee on behalf of a beneficiary.
> create an associative/several agreement between
> the same stakeholders individually.
> ie the 'User' group and the 'Manager' group.
> Investment will come from selling forward the
> use value simply by creating credits redeemable
> in payment for it.
This recent presentation is relevant
http://www.slideshare.net/ChrisJCook/keith-community-partnership
The point is that the future 'Society 3.0' does not involve
intermediary organisations extracting profit or rent in one from or
another, but with collective and associative agreements for self-
organisation,and the creation, sharing and exchange of surplus value
in all its forms, of which our existing currency is not one.
Best Regards
Chris Cook
Feb-21-2012:
> the dividend paid is their fair share of the profit
> based on how much they have invested (i.e. spent).
this is similar to my proposal,
but the devil is in the details.
Let's rewrite the two models in 'restricted'
language to more carefully compare them:
====Consumer Co-Op
Members do NOT own the Product as a result of co-owning Sources,
and so must always buy the Product from the Entity and pay Profit.
NON-Members buy the Product from the Entity and pay Profit
but do NOT become Members.
Profit is treated as reward for the current Members,
causing that payer to remain a NON-Member.
====Imputed Production
Members own the Product as a result of co-owning the Sources,
and so do NOT buy the Product and do NOT pay Profit.
NON-Members buy the Product from the Entity and pay Profit
and become Members as the Entity invests that ovepayment
into more Sources that will vest as real co-ownership to
that new Member at some point in the future.
Profit is treated as an Investment from the NON-Member,
causing that payer to incrementally become a Member.
====Glossary
Sources: The Means of Production such as land, plants, tools.
Product: Any good or service offered by the Entity.
Entity: The group of humans with Title to a shared property.
Member: One human within an Entity.
NON-Member: One human with insufficient co-ownership in Sources,
so must resort to buying Product and paying Profit.
Feb-21-2012: Consumer Hosted Production -- from indie to interdie
Feb-20-2012:
> Consumer co-ops, of which there are 1000s,
> are owned by the consumers.
And yet they still *buy* from themselves,
collect Profit during that transaction, and
then dole out those funds in whatever way
they deem 'ethical' without regard for the
system as a whole.
It's as though the high-pressure line to the
steam engine's governor valve were disconnected
and then pointed at various parts of the engine
or the boiler or wheels of an out-of-control
train representing the economy.
This is warmed-over Capitalism with a sprinkle
of charity for public relations.
Since they seek Profit just as all Capitalists,
these co-ops also suffer when Price approaches
Costs because their Investors demand Profit as
a Return for the risk they took.
Just as the Capitalists, these co-ops cannot
allow full and absolute abundance at the real
Costs of production, let Profit fail.
Prices are not Imputed in Consumer Co-Ops because
they are internally no different from any other
business with a goal to keep Price above Cost.
> The Co-op Group in the UK is a consumer co-op
> with over £10billion turnover.
And yet they have not overgrown the Capitalists
to retake the governments - though if they did
it still would not solve the underlying drive
to scarcify and destroy because these co-ops
*also* seek Profit, and so can never be satiated.
> Personally I much prefer multi-stakeholder co-ops
> that are owned by workers, customers, investors together
I want that too, in a certain manner.
Every Worker is necessarily a Consumer.
And every Consumer can be and Investor.
Feb-20-2012:
CSAs and coops are rarely co-owned by the Consumers, and so those Consumers can only visit the farm as observers, or as a very limited participants.
We must have *real* ownership. We cannot do with anything less.
We will continue to hope and plead with the owners to do the right thing until we are the Title holders.
Furthermore, in almost all cases the Product is being sold and Profit is being collected and then haphazardly distributed in some well-intended ways that usually do little to stablize the system.
Collecting Profit from the sale of Surplus is important, but Profit must be treated as Growth Vector in need of direction lest the steam engine wind out of our control.
We can 'reflect' Profit back at the Payer by co-buying even more Sources that become that Payer's real Property.
This causes Profit to safely approach 0 so Society can again approach Security.
Feb-20-2012:
This is a call
to gather together
to purchase the land,
the plants and animals and tools
for the food and housing we all need
for no more than the skills we apply for each other.
Then we will live in peace without paying tribute to others.
But this cannot happen until we understand why we pay now.
~~~~
[dreaming]
Why do we pay?
Who do we pay?
What do we want?
What do we need?
[awakening]
~~~~
The Source Owner does not buy Objectives.
The chicken owner does not buy eggs.
The cattle owner does not buy milk.
The beehive owner does not buy honey.
This is pre-allocation.
The product is not bought or sold,
because the user owns it already.
...
But what about the worker?
How do we swap our skills?
Can we pre-allocate that too?
This is more like scheduling.
ommits to specific work in the future
Feb-10-2012:
Production can be for the Use-Value of that Product, but ONLY if the Consumers co-own the Sources and accept Product as their Return.
In Use-Value Production, the Product is never sold* because it is already the Property of the person who will Use it. You might say it is "pre-distributed".
In Use-Value Production, scarcity is not goal, and abundance is not dangerous. For example, if you co-own a diary for your own benefit, then it does you no harm when another corporation 'dumps' milk in the area because you, as a co-owner, are not attempting to SELL the milk.
Only Consumers can Invest for Use-Value Production because only Consumers can accept Product as a Return for that risk.
(*) During Surplus, the Product can be sold to non-owners, and we should even charge Profit against those latecomers, but must treat that overpayment as an Investment from that Payer - so that each Consumer slowly gains the co-ownership needed to discontinue purchasing that Product in the future.
Feb-10-2012:
Product: Any good or service.
Sources: All the land and tools required for Production.
Skills: All the human interaction with Sources required for Production.
Property: A social agreement defining a claim over Sources and the Products of those Sources.
Owner: A Property-holding human.
Properly: A social agreement defining a claim over Skills.
Artisan: A Skills-holding human.
Invest: To Commit Sources or Skills to future Production in return for co-Ownership in the Sources and the Products of those Sources.
Commit: To make a legally binding agreement transferring Property or Properly to one or more other humans.
Production: Artisans applying Skills to Sources across Time to create Products.
Wages:
Prices:
Profit: Payer dependence upon Owners.
Profit: 1/Property
Profit: Price - Costs
Price: Costs + Profit
Costs: All the environmental and
Feb-07-2012:
Kellia wrote:
> token never acquires a value apart
> from the things that it stands for.
> how do you keep it from obtaining
> independent intrinsic value?
> There must be another part of the
> social contract that forbids it.
I understand what you mean.
On the one hand I think owners who
intend to keep the SOURCES for the
PRODUCT will naturally take care of
that property and trade the SKILLS
needed to achieve that production.
On the other hand, the owner might
want to pretend the Token is valid
once he decides to use it in trade.
I'm not sure what we can do other
than maybe require a 'notice' on
Tokens using our social contract.
The notice would explain the PRODUCT
is an expected but not guaranteed
quantity and quality.
The social contract itself would
contain instructions about how this
notice must be legible and even a
prominent part of the coin or card.
Feb-07-2012: Real Insurance
Imagine a Token system (a currency) representing 3 things:
0. A PRODUCT of some predicted type, quantity and quality.
1. Commitments of the SOURCES such as land, mineral/water rights, buildings, tools, etc. required for production. This co-owned property must be constrained by legally binding social contract. See the GNU General Public Law and PropertyLeft for attempts.
2. Commitments of all the SKILLS required for production.
For example:
0. One dozen grade A, medium chicken eggs every week.
1. Co-ownership in land and tools etc. of a chicken farm and to grow their feed.
2. Commitments from all the people required to make it happen.
THIS TITLE IS A PREDICTION OF PERFORMANCE
#0 IS INSURED ONLY IF #1 AND #2 ARE SECURED
Feb-05-2012:
==Definitions
Product: Any good or service.
Sources: All the land and tools required for Production.
Skills: All the human interaction with Sources required for Production.
Production: Applying Skills to Sources across time to create Products.
Property: A social agreement defining a 'claim' over
Property
Profit is a measure us payer dependence.
Profit does not exist when Product is the Investor's Return - for in that case, the Product is not sold, and so Price and Cost are the same
thing.
Profit occurs during Property misallocation, and can be 'corrected' using a negative-feedback-loop of "Profit is the Payer's Investment" - causing the Payer of Profit to incrementally gain co-ownership in the Sources of that which they use.
To treat Profit as a reward for the current owners is a positive-feedback-loop (the rich get richer) inciting scarcity, destruction, and even war.