Related: diary
Jul-27-2011: Source Control - Freedom through Sharing
Devin Balkind wrote:
> the more value a laborer can create,
> the higher the wage they can demand.
Yes, I agree. Sorry for my wording.
By "wages approach zero" I meant
there is so much work being done
without tokens changing hands.
Not paid in money, but paid instead with product.
They usually do the work because they want the
result for themselves or maybe the are showing off...
I'm talking about the 'artisans' I know of on the
internet that create so much beauty without pay.
[try http://FreeGamer.BlogSpot.com for examples]
When the users are allowed at-cost access to the
sources of production (without paying more than
the real costs of that access) they will start tinkering
and after a bit can fix and build all they need ...
when allowed to cooperate.
This is true for software as much as it is
true for aquaculture.
When the users own the sources of production,
they can be paid with the product itself.
In that scenario, there is no sale of the product,
and so there is also no profit and no reason to
use money at all!?
I'm just saying many would be willing to work for
a co-owned Farm for a wage of food and shelter
never receiving another Federal Reserve Note.
Jul-20-2011:
Sepp Hasslberger wrote:
> corporations who want our money
> but don't care about our well being.
Corporations are against our well being
because profit requires scarcity.
Corporations require profit because that
is the return their investors expect.
We could use the product itself as a return
if the investors were the users.
A corporation owned by the users
would not require scarcity because it
would not require profit because the product
would not even be sold!
Corporations will produce use-value when
the investors are paid in use-value.
Investors cannot accpept use-value as
a return unless those investors are
also users of that product in the same
amount in which they invested.
We, the users, already pay all the costs
of production but enjoy none of the
control and price-savings of being owners.
We cannot gain control of our planet until
we are willing to accept the responsibilties,
risks, fears, dangers, etc. of begining to
buy and co-own all of the Earth's resources
back from the Feudalists that are currently
using them to manufacture artificial scarcity
to keep price perpetually above cost.
Jul-18-2011:
Michel Bauwens wrote:
> is this really what you are proposing Patrick??
>
> i.e. "causing competition between workers to approach maximum
> and wages to approach zero"
I observe this occurs when users control Sources.
This is why much Free Software work is done by
developers that receive no wages, but receive the
product itself as payment (scratch their own itch).
We must decrease the prices of the things workers
need as biological *INPUTS* instead of trying to
increase the prices of the things do as artistic
*OUTPUTS*. We are attacking the wrong side of the
equation by trying to prop-up wages and profits.
We must develop a system that can take advantage
of this interesting result or we will forever be
protecting scarcity in the name of abundance...
Jul-18-2011:
Atrus wrote:
> It makes sense as more people want/need/will use
> a bar of soap then a machine that makes soap.
It is economically dangerous to allow users access
to the Source of that which you intend to sell.
It is true that many users will not or cannot setup,
operate and maintain the Sources of Production.
But when those unskilled users gain full access to
those Sources (and ownership is the ultimate access),
they can then hire anyone that happens to have those
skills, causing competition between workers to
approach maximum and wages to approach zero.
Profit disappears in a puff of greasy smoke, since,
though the unskilled users must pay all the costs
of production, including wages to any workers, they
cannot pay Profit because they do not buy the
Product, but own it already as a side-effect of
their owning the Sources.
Manufacturing will be far closer to 'Open' when we
begin helping users gain co-owership in the Sources
of all the things they need.
The Sources of food are self-replicating, solar-powered,
manufacturing plants that we do not yet know how
to co-own for our own, mutual, use-value benefit.
The keys to operating in this GNU way are:
1. Organize users to pre-pay for the products they need.
2. Those investors become the co-owners of Physical Sources.
3. Skilled users can commit Work toward that production.
4. Unskilled users can commit Land or Capital.
5. The return for those investments is the product itself.
6. The product is not sold because it is already allocated
to the persons who intend to *use* it.
7. In the special case of surplus, the product can be sold
to 'outsiders' (users with insufficient ownership), and
Profit should be charged against those latecomers, but
some percentage of that Profit must be treated as though
it were an investment from the user who paid it.
8. Treating profit as user investment causes those payers
to slowly gain co-ownership in the Sources of Production
as they become the proprietors of the growth they caused
when they paid more than cost.
Jul-15-2011: Closing the Loop on Local Production
We can share the costs of the land, tools, plants
and animals required for the products we need.
We already pay these costs when we buy products
from others who own the sources of those products.
We can buy and co-own the Sources of Production for
our own, mutual benefit by pre-paying for product.
We can then swap skills to do all the work needed
within the aggregate to create those products.
The aggregate 'pays' workers and other investors
with products created within the aggregate.
Investors should be end-users of those products, for
the only ROI they receive is the product itself.
As a special case, to decrease the startup time,
Venture Capitalist can also invest in the aggregate
with their return being a % of the profit gained
from selling product to outsiders.
Some % of that Profit must always be treated as an
investment from the person who paid it.
This causes outsiders to slowly gain ownership in
the Sources needed to insure that future production.
And in doing so, those outsiders incrementally gain
co-ownership in the growth of the aggregate until
they also have sufficient ownership and so no longer
need to buy that product since they own it already.
We must charge Profit during those sales, for if we
do not collect the Profit, a middle-man will buy all
the products we offer at Cost, and then resell them
while charging a Profit anyway.
Similar to how the GNU GPL enforces Copyleft through
Copyright to insure users gain access to Virtual
Sources of Production, we propose to create a
PropertyLeft document enforced through Property Rights
used to insure users gain access to Physical Sources
of Production by treating profit as payer investment.
This social contract can be applied by co-owners of any
material assets to insure freedom for all users.
This is also an actual, *true* Insurance for any product or
service we want to guarantee will continue.
Initial stages could have some workers in mobile homes and
eating food bought in bulk.
An example organization:
* Payers commit Physical Sources and Work toward production.
* Those with skills needed by the aggregate can commit
to work in exchange for Use-Shares.
* You may also buy Use-Shares by offering land, tools,
plants or animals needed by the Aggregate.
* Payers receive Use-Shares representing those investments.
* Use-Shares authorize the holder to access specific Sources
and Products within the Aggregate.
* Use-Shares have 3 parts:
Product: Quality and quantity of a good or service.
Sources: Title to the land and capital needed for production.
Workers: The people who commit to achive that production.
* For example:
Product: 1 dozen grade AA eggs each week until July 2013.
Sources: 3 RIR, land at {GPS coord.}, water rights, barn
Workers: [Farm Boys(TM) Ag and Landscaping Group]
* A Use-Share is only as valid as the specific "Sources"
and "Workers" called-out on the document. If either of
these preconditions are not met, production will fail.
Jul-15-2011:
Michel Bauwens wrote:
> can you explain 'closed loop'?
I use this for two reasons:
Ecologically, the system must be able to operate on it's own, without
external inputs.
This is done by the Aggregate owning the Physical Sources of all the
Products being used. Another term for this is "Vertical Integration".
Initially no Aggregate will be strictly closed-loop because we will
just buy shovels instead of trying to mine Iron ore, etc.
Economically, the system must allow the users to create value for
themselves without paying external entities.
This is done by helping the users gain real ownership whenever they
pay for that growth (usually when paying profit), and to retain that
ownership when paying costs (usually through work).
This can be imperfect as well, just so the payer receives *some*
ownership - for it is the ownership in Sources that eliminates the
need to buy Products. In computer terminology this is similar to the
concepts of "predictive schedule", "pre-cache" or "pre-allocate"
because the Product is not moved (sold) at the last moment, but is
already the property of the entity that will use it.
Jul-14-2011: Crowd Control: Funding Freedom in Closed-Loop Production Aggregates
This Production Model uses Imputed Production at it's core
with optional funding from traditional Venture Capital.
* Potential users pre-pay to fund the purchase
of land and capital to form a vertically integrated,
permaculture based system we call a Production Aggregate.
* This Aggregate is a set of carefully chosen plants, animals
and tools required to create the solutions needed by all
of those workers such as food/drugs, shelter, cloth, soap,
sanitation, health care, dental, eyes, etc.
* If a payer has skills needed by the Aggregate, they can
contract to work somewhere within the Aggregate in exchange
for the Aggregate supplying them with Products they need.
* Those workers receive co-ownership in the Aggregate in a
form we call "Use Shares" which are similar to full co-
ownership, but with some initial limitations on selling
or renting those Tools or Products.
* Use Shares are used by the holder to prove that he has the
right to use the Tools (limited by schedule) or consume some
of the Products (limited by % of holdings within that Unit)
of any restaurant, apartment, bus, hospital, etc. operating
within the Aggregate.
* The workers do not buy products from the investors, but own
those products already because of their Use Shares in the
Aggregate awarded for commitments to Work or from commitments
of Land or Capital.
* After some amount of time, or after some series of events
the Use Shares should vest more fully to the payer to
allow for selling and/or renting of those Sources or the
Products of those Sources.
* Initial stages of development might have some workers living
in mobile homes and eating food the Aggregate bought in bulk.
* Later, after the agriculture is installed and producing, the
system will become "self hosted", being able to operate
without requiring any external inputs.
* Soon afterward, the system will be producing surplus that can
be sold to outsiders to collect Profit.
* If Venture Capitalists helped fund the operation, part of the
Profit will be used as their ROI.
* We may want to distribute part of the Profit to the Workers,
since that is a popular thing to do.
* We may we to distribute part of the Profit to random charities,
since that is a popular thing to do.
* But we MUST handle some non-zero % of the Profits as though
that overpayment were an investment from the payer.
* We should charge Profit during those sales, for if we don't
collect the Profit, a middle-man will buy all that we offer
at Cost, and then resell it for a Profit anyway...
* So we will charge Profit against the Payer, but we will also
treat (at least part of) that magic value as Payer Investment.
* This causes these late-coming users to slowly gain ownership
and therefore to eventually stop buying that product too.
* Similar to how the GNU GPL enforces Copyleft through Copyright,
we propose to create a PropertyLeft document enforced through
Property Rights used to apply this requirement to the Aggregate.
* This social contract can be applied by co-owners of any
material assets to insure freedom for all users.
* Notice this is also a literal form of Insurance.
* These users must cover all the real cost of production
just as any owners do, but they do not buy the product
since they own it already - and they don't sell the
product because they need to use it directly.
* The product is not traded unless there is surplus, and
in that case the Payer must cover all the Costs of that
production so the owner of Sources can be compensated
for paying when they didn't need to...
* The Payer will usually also pay Profit, according to how
much the "market will bear". Some % of that overpayment
must be treated as an investment from that payer so the
growth of the Aggregate is incrementally autodistributed
to all those willing to pay for that growth.
* At some point, and under certain constraints, and mostly
to resolve disputes, subgroups must finally be allowed to
fork from the rest while retaining property ownership.
Jul-12-2011: Cross Product: Sharing Costs and Swapping Skills for Use-Value Production
1.) Users commit Physical Sources toward production.
Physical Sources are: land, capital or labor.
2.) The product is the return for the risk they take.
3.) Each investor owns a portion of the product
according to the amount of Sources they own.
4.) For example, if you own 12% of a dairy cow,
then you receive 12% of the milk each day.
5.) These co-owners must continue to pay the costs
of production, but cannot pay profit.
6.) The product is not sold because the people who
will use it are already the owners.
7.) This reduces our need to trade products and
therefore also reduces the possibility of
external government interference such as taxes
or licensing etc. that are meant to protect
consumers from owners - since, in this case,
the consumers and owners are one and the same.
8.) Similarly, we can eliminate traditional wages by
selling workers a portion of the Sources needed
for the products *they* use - so those who commit
to labor (for example) picking apples will receive
commitments of land, capital and labor to insure
(for example) his teeth are fixed and his car
repaired when he needs solutions for which he does
not have skills, or just wants to swap.
Jul-12-2011: [P2P-F] Investing for Goods (was: equity-based crowdfunding in the UK)
http://www.crowdcube.com/pg/how-it-works-4 wrote:
> 'crowd' of like minded trendsetters willing to
> invest smaller amounts of cash in exchange
> for rewards and a stake in their business.
If the Crowd were the Users,
and the Stake was co-ownership,
and the rewards were the Product,
We then have Use-Value Production.
Free Software is a Use-Value Product.
Peer Production is also for Use-Value.
We need not worry about Exchange Value
when the Users are the Owners, for in that
case, the Product is not Sold, but is already
the Property of the Agent who needs it!
For example, each co-Owner of a fruit/nut orchard
would 'pay' the collective others within that group
by committing either Land, Capital or Labor.
Once all Costs are covered, Production begins...
Each Agent collects the same % of the Product
as they have co-Ownership, and so the funding
model wound need to target micro-payments
from a large number of potential Users.
This short-circuits and even eliminates some
amount of Exchange. It reduces the Agent's
need to Trade finished Goods, while
simultaneously increasing the Agent's ability
to Trade Skills.
We can organize in this way to co-own the
Hardware needed to host the Software we
want to use for a better internet.
But most importantly we must learn to
share the Costs of our basic needs so we
can finally enjoy the benefits of increased
size as the economy of scale would allow
us to finally own all forms of Production
through the entire supply chain (tree) for
all the Products we need.
Jul-08-2011:
> Ownership by the people is a different thing to having access.
Yes, but we need more than just access.
> Creating an open source 'something like Facebook'
> doesn't really mean it is owned by the people.
Unless the people co-own the hardware needed to host that app.
> By ownership, do you mean under the proprietorship of the people?
I just mean regular old property ownership.
> For example, could 'the people' constrain Microsoft's use of the
> platform technology for corporate profit making purposes?
The more general question is "could owners constrain ...",
The answer is usually 'yes' - because owners RULE! ;)
> Or is the expectation that the open source model is sufficient
> to lead naturally to the desired outcome of not being employed
> for corporate profit?
We must Free (Open is not enough) the Physical Sources of Production
by learning how to scale co-ownership for our collective benefit.
Here is what I understand about this so far:
* Users can Invest and co-own the Physical Sources of Production.
* The Return for that risk is the Product itself.
* Each User has the same % of ownership in the Product
as they have ownership in the Sources.
* There is no reason to sell the Product because it is already
the property of those who intend to use.
This eliminates Trade and so eliminates Profit and Sales Tax.
* Skilled Users can Invest by committing to accomplish goals.
This eliminates Wages and so eliminates Income Tax.
* We should charge Profit against any surplus sold to non-owners.
* That Profit must be treated as an Investment from that Payer.
* Treating Profit as Payer Investment causes Profit to approach 0
because, as that new User gains co-ownership, he no longer buys
that Product because he owns it already because he paid all the
Costs of that Production.
Jul-07-2011:
When Users co-own the Sources of Production,
they receive Product itself as the Return.
Profit is undefined when the Product is not sold.
Users only buy what they do not already own.
They pay Profit because they are unprepared.
This can be balanced by reflecting Profit
(collected during the sale of any surplus
to non-owners) back toward the Payer as an
investment in more Sources that will grow
the size of the groups holdings.
The Payer holds title of that tiny sliver
of co-ownership he bought when he paid
more than the real Costs of that Production.
People pay Profit when they buy Products.
People buy Products when they don't own them.
People don't own Products because they
don't own the Sources of those Products.
People pay for those Sources,
but somebody else owns them.
People who own Sources need not buy Product,
for they own it already, as a side-effect.
People who own Cattle need not buy Milk,
People who own Bees need not buy Honey.
We can short-curcuit this part of Trade,
to eliminate the need for that transaction.
The Product (bandwidth in this case) is
never sold to those co-owners because
they already own their % of Product from
their % of ownership in the Sources.
Jul-06-2011: Posted to ImputedProduction.Blog.com
Subject: Incorporating for Product -- Investing for Goods
Let's make new corporations owned by the Users of those Products.
We will organize groups to co-buy the Sources needed for Production.
We will help workers contract (promise or bond) to work in the future in exchange for food and shelter now.
Shareholders as Consumers receive the Product itself as a natural Return for those investments. Each co-owner in the Sources of Production is co-owner of the Product in that same amount. If you own 15% of a milk-cow, then you own 15% of the milk (assuming you 'paid' your portion of the costs). This can be true even if you co-own a small % of a 'good' sized dairy with many other Consumers.
That leaves Profit to be treated as Payer Investment in more Sources - to become the real Property of that Consumer - causing him to incrementally gain the ownership in Sources that will allow him to finally stop buying that Product late, but instead pay the Costs early and then own the Product as a side-effect of his ownership in Sources...
We will build new corporations that outperform the Capitalists when we finally recognize Price above Cost as a measure of the Consumer's lack of Ownership - and so must be treated as though that payer had just invested in more Sources needed to grow the collective.
This auto-distributes ownership as the organization grows to those willing to pay (whether in Capital or in Work) for that growth.
These for-product corporations will treat Profit as a misallocation of property and 'govern' that steam by reflecting it back to the Payer as his new (probably not yet vested) co-ownership in that growth.
Burn-Ring funding model
Growth Edge Funding