diary-jun-2008

Related: diary

Jun-30-2008: Posted to Oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04644.html
Stefan,

I agree the money we use right now is terrible.

The debt-based, fiat currencies that almost every nation rents from the international bankers (such as the US Federal Reserve Note) have massive problems, but does that really mean all forms of money we could ever devise are certain to be bad?

>  Money is a structural force used to force your will onto others.

Within the current situation we find ourselves, I see part of what you mean here, but could a new kind of money ever be created that remained 'fair' and allowed peers to pay each other to perform specialized tasks?

Similarly, are you saying that P2P must not include barter?

Must a P2P society not allow specialization?  Must we each do all work of every type for ourselves?  If so, then what is the point of getting together in the first place?

I'm not saying that is what you claim, I am just trying to understand what you mean.

> * Scarcity vs. ampleness
>
>  Money is based on scarcity. In fact in a way it encodes scarcity as
>  a societal concept to a so-called real abstraction. In fact money
>  which is not scarce in some way simply makes no sense. If I am
>  allowed to create arbitrary amounts of money at every time why
>  should I require the money of others at all?

That is currently true for the international bankers who issue currency whenever they please, but that problem could be fixed when designing a new currency by backing it (issuing it against) something real such as Capital or Labor.

> * Force needed to keep vs. built-in sustainability
>
>  I said that money encodes scarcity as a general principle of
>  society. However, money being an abstraction is not scarce by itself
>  - everybody can print more dollars. Thus scarcity must be enforced
>  by some external means. Typically this is done by the state. In
>  effect each money system needs a forceful super-structure to keep it
>  running.

That appears to be true as we examine the system we currently struggle within, but I have some ideas (and I know others do) about how to make a currency meaningful between peers without relying upon an enforcing state.

> * Abstract vs. concrete
>
>  One of the central features of money is that it is abstract. Money
>  is not related to any concrete thing - which you easily understand
>  when you look at the global flow of money compared to the global
>  flow of goods.

That is currently true of the debt-based fiat currencies, but again, could design a new type of money without such a problem?

>  Money based production is based on a orientation on exchange value:
>  You produce because you want to exchange your product for money. The
>  product itself does not matter to you and it is totally sufficient
>  to produce relative quality and relative use.

That is true for the exchange of product, but what about the exchange of LABOR?  In other words, is specialization an important part of Peer Production, and will it be ok to compensate each other for trading jobs (you bake bread while I thresh the wheat)?  Or must we each live a solitary existence with no exchange whatsoever?  I'm not saying that is your claim, I am asking if it is.

>  In peer production projects on the other hand the very reason of a
>  project is producing use value. Why should a peer production exist
>  at all otherwise?

Producing for use value is, in my opinion, the primary driving force behind Peer Production.  I think independent Free Software developers are working because they are the initial CONSUMER of what they produce, NOT because they wish to donate their time and effort to others.

They are applying their skills to scratch their own itch.  Allowing others to copy that solution is a minor factor, and is also somewhat selfish (in a good way) in that it is probably mostly to gain some friends and fame.

Sincerely,
Patrick

Jun-26-2008: Posted to Blog.P2PFoundation.net/a-reply-to-ideas-about-the-loss-of-credibilty-and-viability-of-the-movement/2008/06/25
Two open-ended questions to all peers:

Does the notion of give them ready and free, unfettered space, time, tools, infrastructure mean those things must be available at absolutely ZERO cost, or will it be ok (as far as sustaining the 'movement') to charge enough for cost recovery?

Raoul Victor at http://Oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04638.html says "Open raw material", "universal availability", "no exchange", "commons and possession, not property" require free/gratis access to material means of production and consumption. "Voluntary free aggregation" and "free cooperation" require (if universalized) free/gratis access to material means of consumption.

If it is ok to charge 'cost', then is it also ok (as far as growing the 'movement') to charge more than cost during times of true rivalry? Or in other words, does profit have a meaningful place in P2P? If so, what is the purpose (goal, destination) of charging price above cost? Who should receive that surplus, or how should it be distributed?

Franz Nahrada at http://Oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04615.html says Do you think the world is truly better if price equals cost? I just can say for the moment: I dont.

Jun-25-2008: Watching DavidHarvey.org >>A close reading of the text of Marx’s Capital, Volume I.
DavidHarvey.org/media/Capital_Class_01.mov >>Introduction
DavidHarvey.org/media/Capital_Class_02.mov >>Chapters 1 & 2
DavidHarvey.org/media/Capital_Class_03.mov >>Chapter 3
More to follow.

Jun-21-2008: Fresh Farm News issue 5
Merry Midsummer.  Today is shorter than yesterday.

For the Litha ritual chant to our SUN: "Osiris, Adonis, Cernunnos, Pan, Dionysis, Shiva, Demmuzi".

It is not too late.  Many seeds should not be planted until now.

I watched the following video a few years ago when I was especially interested in using mycoremediation (using mushrooms and other fungus for symbiotic solutions).  My study was for nut trees which I have read will do poorly and hardly produce without their associated mycorrhizoial partner.

This video and article shows the importance of using enormous amounts of rough mulch (grass clippings, bark, leaves, twigs, etc.) to retain water, and the surprising value of mushrooms in solving the high-saline trouble they faced.

"'Use of permaculture under salinity and drought conditions'"
http://YouTube.com/watch?v=sohI6vnWZmk
http://PermaCulture.org.au/?p=258

Jun-11-2008: Posted to www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A981&page=3&commentId=2097821%3AComment%3A1323&x=1#2097821Comment1323

"all the folks in my community co-equally own my yarn and knitting needles," and all co-equally share in any gain I get from my hats.

This is definitely not what I am talking about.

I am talking about UNequal or 'weighted' co-ownership accomplished through regular property rights in groups of minimum size. There is no communism, it is just standard, private property shared among small groups willing to invest for those products. The only real difference is the contract that those co-owners have chosen to apply to that property. Applying the contract is a choice in just the same way that the GNU General Public License is a choice made by the copyright holders. There is no coercion, and there is no communistic state.

Investing consumers that are skilled in that area can invest with work, while those unskilled in that particular area will invest with money that they received working in the trade they are skilled in. This amounts to trading labor while avoiding the exploitation of external owners.

In other words, what I propose is that groups of people buy some Means of Production (say the tools to make hats) in the normal way, right inside of Capitalism. There is no magic or wishful thinking. It is straight, regular property ownership.

Then, when that group has purchased those tools, hopefully a few of them have the skills to operate them, but not everyone is skilled at making hats right? Even if nobody in that group happens to have those skills, it is beneficial for the consumers AND for the skilled workers for the consumers to be the owners (as compared to a random group being the owners), since the consumers had usually been paying a price that included both wages AND profit, whereas now they will only be paying wages (and all the other costs that they always pay).

The objectives or output of that production are certainly not "communally owned" either. This is all just regular property ownership with a single rule enforced by the contract that they CHOOSE to apply:

|All profit gained against a consumer must be treated as an investment from the person who paid it, whether that payment was with work or with money.|

Since the only reward you can receive for investing in such a for-product corporation is aquiring product for your own use, only consumers will ever invest. I'm not trying to exclude non-consuming workers from owning. They can invest if they like, but why would they?

There are a few different cases to consider in determining who owns the product, and I don't think I have this completely understood.

Maybe this is part of why Sepp says it is "hugely complicated and rather inefficient". But I think it is only because there is more freedom, and that freedom allows more choices. In a way it is more complex in potential, but each group can always disregard or even disallow any cases they feel are too strange, or that cause them too much management headache.

(We need better titles or classifications for these)

1. For sources where the "inputs to be modified" are not clearly defined: Let's say a large almond tree is owned by 3 people with personA owning 70%, personB owning 20%, and personC owning 10% (that ownership would be based on the amount they invested because of the amount they intend to consume). The costs of sustaining that tree and harvesting the almonds are split among those owners in the same proportion to their ownership. PersonA pays 70%, PersonB pays 20% and PersonC pays 10%. They each also receive as much product as they they have ownership - 70%, 20%, and 10%. There is no forced co-equal redistribution with some larger community. It is really quite intimate and private.

2. For sources where the "inputs to be modified" are clear:

2a. When the product is wanted repeatedly in fairly predictable amounts: Let's say 1000 people have invested in the building and tools for a restaurant. Since food is something you want every day, and in about the same quantity, it would probably be most efficient (easiest) for those owners to hire one or more full-time cooks for 'regular' timeslots. This would look mostly the same as a regular restaurant except the consumers would be paying a lower price, so could easily pay the cook a higher wage. For 'irregular' timeslots (say 1am-5am), when few customers want to eat, each customer could rent the grill from the collective others (the other 999 owners) as described in 2b below.

2b. When the product is wanted rarely or in unpredictable amounts: Let's say 100 people have invested in the tools to make hats. Since a new hat is something you need only occasionally or suddenly, it would probably make sense for the collective others (the other 99 owners) to charge rent to anyone wanting to use those tools. The rent would cover extra wear they inflict.

That said, part of the problem in this debate may stem from the fact that 'we' post-mod Westerns have not been working in a paradigm where things are produced locally from discrete sources; it may be difficult for Swadeshi to make sense in a world where the polyesther was made in Candada, spun into fibre in China, marketed and distributed from New York, and sold to me by my local Wal-Mart in Clovis, New Mexico.

Yes, this is a big problem. What I propose attempts to address this by incrementally purchasing the *sources* of production whenever a consumer pays price above cost so that we slowly gain control of the entire chain of production in a local setting.

For instance, when a consumer with insufficient ownership buys a hamburger (a consumer with sufficient ownership would not buy the hamburger, as he would already have ownership in the case of frozen burgers he had previously purchased, and other condiments, and gas to run the grill, etc.) - so when a consumer pays "price above cost" (profit), the amount he paid would be treated as HIS investment in more productive sources of that type: beef cattle; seeds to plant mustard, lettuce, tomatoes, wheat (for the bun), sesame plants; chickens for the mayonaise; and the land and water rights needed to 'host' those plants and animals.

Jun-09-2008: Posted to Oekonux.org/list-en
Michel,

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:

> - you write: " it becomes more and more clear that the owners are in control
> even if the virtual sources being used are free."
>
> MB: Take the case of free software: can you really say, with the universal
> availability insured by the GPL itself, and the relative control on the
> productive process by the free software developers, that the owners of the
> hardware carrying that software are in control. Surely we have a complex
> equilibrium here.

Maybe I should have said "the hardware owners are in control of that INSTANCE even if the virtual sources being used are free."  The owners of the hardware for each instance of that software are in control of that particular copy.

Consider Software as a Service (SaaS).  Google or MySpace or Flickr (there are probably better examples) are in control because they own the hardware hosting that software.  I understand much of that software may not be Free, but even if it is/were, the only way for the consumers to "get around" them is to organize and buy more hardware to host yet another instance.  That is too difficult and expensive for a single consumer, and really hardly makes sense considering the 'sociality'

By the way, even if SaaS software is under the GPL, the hardware owners do not have to allow "at cost" access to the virtual sources because they are not actually 'distributing' the software.  That is what the AGPL attempts to solve because those hardware owners are stopping others from organizing to run their own instance.

For example, while all copies of the WikiMedia software are Free, the INSTANCE running at http://Wikipedia.org is controlled by the people that own that hardware.  So when you edit Wikipedia, you are at the mercy of those owning the hardware that host that instance.

This is also trivially true for unshared hosting.  The copy of Firefox running on my hardware, here at my house, is controlled by me, the owner of the hardware.

> - you write: "The kernel of my idea is to write a contract that causes any
> price paid above cost (what would usually be called profit) to become an
> investment in more physical sources"
>
> MB: why would an existing owner of physical means do that, who could
> 'oblige' him/her to do this? So, is it correct to assume that such a system
> would only work for new initiatives, iniated by users themselves

This will mostly only work by starting new organizations funded by consumers who "pre-pay" for the objectives of that organization.

But notice this is not too different from how most Free Software is funded.  Most Free Software developers 'invest' their skills and labor because they are "scratching their own itch" - they are consumers that can "pre-pay" with work because they are also producers.  They are produsers, prosumers, conducers.

I don't think this is so undoable for Physical Sources.  Would you "pre-pay" $100 to be a voting shareholder in a for-product cell-phone system that is guaranteed to be lower in price, with that price continuing to fall over time?

If we can sell 1 million such accounts, we will have $100million in funding to begin a phone system that is owned and controlled by the consumers that utilize it.  Wouldn't it be nice to have "at cost" communication?  Would you, personally, pre-pay for that?

> - you write: "The contract would then be used by any group of consumers that
> buy physical sources for the purpose of product instead of profit."
>
> MB: presently in free software, the users are potentially limitless, because
> of the obligation of free availability; would that ownership be also
> limitless. If that is the case, beyond ownership, how do you manage the
> process? Who is deciding for the others the many details of a production
> process?

If the consumers can't or don't want to manage it themselves (and I assume this will be common, especially as the organization grows), then they will hire others to do it for them.  I know this causes concern, and sounds like the system will be exploiting those workers, but it won't because those same workers are also consumers of their own needs, and will be gaining ownership in the physical sources of THOSE products.  All workers are consumers, and except for dependents, all consumers are workers.  I'm trying to protect the worker, but from the consuming side instead of from the production side.

>
> And here I come to my more fundamental 'spiritual' objection to your scheme.
>
> The voluntary self-aggregation of human energy and effort is one of the key
> characteristics of peer production, as is the naturally flowing
> participatory nature of the actual process of production. This is a great
> social achievement, that it is the developers themselves, the actual
> "do-ers" who are autonomous; mere users can join to the degree they become
> productive participants themselves, it is already an open process in that
> sense.
>
> My concern is the following: if the users, instead of the actual
> participants, become the owners, do they then also become the 'masters' of
> the process, and have we then not replaced one tyranny by an other?

But why would anyone participate unless they were a consumer of that product?  If it is for the wage they will be paid, then are you saying we should not have specialization?  Wage workers will need to be protected by having ownership in the physical source of what they consume.  We can protect them from exploitation by insuring they can consume their needs "at cost".

>
> Every other argument of yours thereby becomes a technical detail, if I find
> that core argument objectionable.
>
> Therefore, my sense is that for physical ownership, it becomes a matter at
> best of multiple stakeholders; and at the most, an ideal scheme would
> associate both the actual producers/workers, and the actual consumers/users,
> in the ownership.

I agree in that many workers would also be consumers, and that is why they would be working - it would be their investment.  In the case of consumers that don't happen to have those exact skills, the investment would be accomplished by trading labor, or in other words, by paying workers a wage with money the consumer had earned doing that which he is more skilled in.

>
> Below is a concrete proposition going in that sense.
>
> However, it suffers from the same utopian problem, as it requires one
> project to start, and to slowly evolve.
>
> So, here is another argument. As I see things, actual free software/peer
> production is hyperproductive and outcompetes private intellectual property
> as a format, which is why it is growing so strong. But in physical
> production, I have not yet seen such a format which outcompetes a
> traditional market player.

I agree, I have not found anyone interested in the "user freedom" (Richard Stallman's term) in the physical realm.

>
> However, if the social awareness of the free software communities changes
> (or 'rises' you may say),then perhaps they will slowly develop preferences
> for those modes of physical ownership, that are more equitable, and start
> choosing to gear their development efforts towards those more equitable
> users/owners of physical means.
>
> This then, would give an evolutionary incitement for more participatory
> forms of business ownership, which would compplement the natural evolution
> of peer production in the physical sphere.

I'm not quite understanding you here.  How does "social awareness" rise?  What do you mean by "evolutionary incitement"?

>
> Here is the reference I wanted to mention above:
>
> Pour un communisme libéral par Dominique Pelbois / Dominique Pelbois (12
> avril 1947 - 16 août 2003), a fait aboutir en 1999 sous la forme
> universitaire d'une thèse de Doctorat (sous la direction d'Alain Gouhier
> puis, par intérim, d'Etienne Balibar) un travail de recherche mené à titre
> personnel en pensée économique et politique qu'il avait commencé bien des
> années auparavant, en 1975, hors de tout cadre universitaire, et auquel il
> n'a envisagé que très tard de donner une forme académique....
> http://www.eleves.ens.fr/home/pelbois/Pelbois/communismeliberal.html
>

I'd like to read this, and have repeatedly tried (you've sent me this link, or the link to the pdf a few other times), but have never been able to make it work.  This time the links are all dead.  Do you have a copy on you machine that you could send to me as an attachment?

Jun-09-2008: Posted to Oekonux.org/list-en

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Samuel Rose wrote:
> [Converted from multipart/alternative]
>
> [1 text/plain]
> Patrick,
>
> I could just as easily dismiss everything you talk about as "Puer Economic
> Models".

Sam,

I should have been more careful and complete with my labeling.

I know VIA Technologies and Marcin are both accomplishing more than design.

The *Pure Design* label was showing that only the designs (Virtual Sources) are being made 'Open' or 'Free(dom)', whereas I want to talk about the strange case of making the Physical Sources of those things 'Open' or 'Free(dom)'.

> I don't think that you have hit on some kind of seminal, irreducible "core"
> of human systems problem solving with your proposed economic ideas.

This isn't an ego trip for me.  I'm only reporting what I observe.

I am severely concerned about the welfare of our planet and the unnecessary starvation-levels in food production caused by treating profit as a reward - which has caused agribusiness to drive the US government to pass legislation that has brought us toward the brink of disaster all in the name of keeping price above cost.

> Economic ideas are only useful if people will use them.

Yes, and many people are surprised that software developers are willing to invest (mostly labor) into Free Software for which they only receive use-value.  Those developers are investing (doing that work) because they are also consumers of that software wanting more control and a lower price.

> I think your concepts are sound, as I've said before. But, I'd challenge you
> to find even 10 people who are willing to adopt what you suggest in
> practice. Who are willing to *invest* in your idea, by adopting and
> employing it.

I think almost any consumer would want to invest toward getting a better product at a lower price.  The problem is a matter of organization, and I'm no businessman.

We should go after high-need + high-profit businesses first.  Organic food production is number one on my list.

> I think in time, maybe 3 years, maybe 5 years, maybe more, that more people
> will emerge who's thinking is aligned with yours. But, at this time, it's
> too radically different from the way that most people are solving their
> problems of existence.

Are you saying I should just be quiet and wait?

> This is why I concentrate on ways of solving problems of existence that
> don't demand or insist that everyone must stop solving problems in part by
> employing capitalistic systems. because, everyone won't. I want to make
> systems that can *interface* with existing systems, and even employ them. I
> don't accept that just because you have found a better economic model that
> it is unethical and immoral, or irrelevant that I do not immediately adopt
> it.

I do not care about ethics or morals since they are arbitrarily defined.

> For instance, an even better economic model than the one that you are
> proposing would be for me, and everyone else to just give everything to each
> other for free, and completely trust that every person would supply every
> other person with something. This is even more theoretically efficient than
> User Owned. Not only is there no "Price above cost", there is NO PRICE AT
> ALL! In my model, not just "users" or consumers own the means of production.
> EVERYONE owns them! So, I don't understand why you don't adopt my
> "everything is free" model over "User Owner"?  My model is obviously the
> most ethical, moral choice that there could ever be in an economic model,
> period.

I just look at it as transactions between processes vying for hardware.  I'm assuming everyone (every process) will try to "get away with" as much as they can.

If everyone would just "do the right thing", we wouldn't already be in this mess.

> But seriously, I believe that to have the highest likelihood for success in
> actually seeing change, that the conditions for helping change happen must
> emerge first.

Should I just wait silently?

> It is my belief that everything that you are dismissing as "*pure design*"
> is in fact helping to create the conditions of change that people who are
> *locked* into current paradigms need. It's clear to me, at least, that a
> huge swath of people are not anywhere near giving up their current solutions
> (ie exchanging money for goods).

I don't want to stop using currency, though we do need to wean ourselves off of the terrible Federal Reserve Note that we purchase and then rent from private, off-shore bankers.

> I think a possible pathway is for people to
> find ways to eliminate the need to depend on the entities that help bolster
> and support price above cost.

Profit is extremely dangerous because it incents artificial scarcity, destruction, and finally war.

> Then, when these people have some breathing
> room, and some of the long standing economic pressure is removed, they can
> start build the cultural infrastructure, and personal literacies that WILL
> be needed for a solution like the one that you propose.

It's really only a matter of making sure your investors are consumers.  You can then pay them in product instead of profit.

> You'd be surprised at how many people don't really know how to collaborate,
> how to be involved in civic ways, how to build and sustain good
> relationships, all of which would be needed for people to succeed in the
> model you describe.

I don't see why.  I'm not saying the consumers would be required to do that specific work.  We need division of labor for an efficient society, and I assume the consumer would often be retreiving the income to pay those workers by doing his own work in some other field.  A consumer owned business could operate quite the same internally.

>
> We are getting closer, though. The paradigm of a "commons", and the
> accompanying emerging ways that people are learning to co-manage them is
> leading towards groups of people who will be able to sustain "user owned"
> systems.

Why or in what way would a manager need to respond differently to for-product shareholders than he would to for-profit shareholders?

Jun-08-2008: Fresh Farm News issue 4

"'The U.S. Has No Remaining Grain Reserves'" http://www.tristateobserver.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=10121 and http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/wid2a.pdf

"'Governor Schwarzenegger Proclaims Drought and Orders Immediate Action to Address Situation'" http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/9796/

"'Rock dust grows extra-big vegetables'" http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/rock-dust-grows-extrabig-vegetables-and-might-save-us-from-global-warming-529332.html

"'The urban farmer: One man's crusade to plough up the inner city'" http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/features/the-urban-farmer-one-mans-crusade-to-plough-up-the-inner-city-836358.html

"'Refrigeration without electricity'" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icy_Ball

"'Farm Fresh Ideas - for sustainable, regenerative, and transformative development - through open source collaboration.'" http://OpenFarmTech.org/weblog/?p=242

:.:.:.

Jun-08-2008: Posted to http://www.oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04600.html
Michel,

I didn't find any references to Graham's work here.

I've gone through each post and noted the deficiencies in each.

"How Open is VIA’s OpenBook Design?"
*Pure Design*

"What are the specific challenges for open hardware?"
*Pure Design*

"Kevin Carson on peer production as a crisis of capitalism"
Kevin is working on sharing physical sources among DEVELOPERS, not among CONSUMERS, so has an end-goal of ensuring profit even though profit can be safely eliminated when physical sources are co-owned by the consumers.

"Building a post-scarcity society in a patent-and-copyright-encumbered intellectual climate"
*Pure Design*

"Peernet: Constructing the Open Mesh"
At least Sepp is talking about physical sources here, but it sounds like all of it will be individually owned. There is no sharing as far as I can tell.

"Marcin Jakubowski comments on Stan Rhodes’ Peer Trust Net work proposal"
This is as close as we get. Stan is working on the real issue: sharing physical sources.

His approach is different from mine, and it sounds like he has decided sharing physical sources will require more technology?!

"Such a productive infrastructure may consist of digital and flexible production Fab Labs fueled by open design. This way, an entire, robust economy may be created to provide the wealth generation required by prospective entrants into a property trust. I believe simply that without such robust, low-cost, replicable production capacity, it is too expensive or complicated to generate a productive economy necessary for inviting people into a commons."

My approach can happen right now with the most ancient of technologies.

"Marcin Jakubowski: an appeal for global collaboration on open product development."
*Pure Design*

"Steve Bosserman on Economic Sustainability in a world of Open Design"
*Pure Design*

"Marcin Jakubowski: A call for open engineering and a commons coalition for P2P Energy"
*Pure Design*

"Proposed OSE specifications aim to guarantee truly open physical peer production"
*Pure Design*

Jun-08-2008: Posted to http://www.oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04599.html
This is just another "Open Design" project. There is no intention of
making the factory available "at cost" to the consumers or to
potential consumers.

The act of creating INSTANCES of the car is completely ignored. We
need "Free as in Freedom" physical production, not just plans.

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 gmail.com> wrote:

 [Converted from multipart/alternative]

 [1 text/plain]
 Graham,

 http://www.p2pfoundation.net/C%2Cmm%2Cn

 I remember hearing once that the dutch open source car project C,mm,n could
 be manufactured as early as 2011

 But in the article, Bruce Perens says it is decades away.

 Any commentary, both concretely on the common car, but more generally a
 timeline of open hardware on a more general scale, would be of great
 interest,

 Michel

 On 6/6/08, graham <graham theseamans.net> wrote:

 http://technocrat.net/d/2008/6/5/42592

 discussion on several different oekonux related themes..

 Graham

Jun-06-2008: Posted to www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A981
That's why I want to see you work out your idea in the form of an operations manual for a restaurant.

I failed to find such a manual on the internet. I wish I knew what the template was so I could better understand what you are looking for.

I will try to answer questions you included:

Where's the food come from?
A group of consumers starting a restaurant (think of it as a shared kitchen) could just buy large lots "in bulk" at first - to get going, but will use profits to invest in the "chain of production" for each product. For instance, a group could buy cases of hamburger patties to get going, but if they are collecting profit from non-members, then those funds would go toward purchasing cattle, land, water rights, etc.

Where's the money spent?
The collective owners can spend any of their own wages in any way they like, but all profit should be invested in more "physical sources" so the facility incrementally owns the entire "chain of production" for all that they consume.

As for how costs are decided, such as how much is spent on preventative maintenance or insurance or just generally the 'quality' of the operation is in the hands of those specific owners. They may choose to spend alot or little depending upon their own tastes. I don't think there is any reason to legislate this.

How are the wages set?
It appears to me that wages are set just as they are today in regular Capitalism. The person offering the best performance for the least pay will likely be employed.

A related difference is how employment generally will not need to be 'protected' as the worker's ability to consume is more and more protected. Does this part make sense?

A society where each person has sufficient ownership in the sources of production required for the things he consumes can 'withstand' fully automated production.

Employment is not a 'need' in itself when the sources of that production are in the hands of the consumers.

"how does this help me, personally, do it?"
Consumer Ownership means we are protecting the worker's ability to consume. It also means those workers have "at cost" access to the Means of Production (except when real scarcity drives the price higher through auction).

A Consumer Owned restaurant really is (y)our kitchen (both yours, and ours). If you like salmon and buffalo, you will stock part of the freezer(*) with those meats. When you want something different, you will begin buying that ingredient instead. The restaurant can offer the dishes of any other restaurant, so will never become boring. As much as you can find cooks that know how to prepare the dishes you like, you can have African, American, Brazilian, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, Italian, ...

Here are some answers to questions Sepp asked at P2PFoundation.Ning.com that may be what you are looking for:

But any restaurant can't survive only on the habitual customers.
I think you are saying a restaurant can't grow with only habitual customers. That is true, but growth is not required (will level off) as all the potential customers in the area have access to such a restaurant.

What do those occasional clients get out of their visit to the restaurant? It could only be a lower price for their meal. I see no sense in making these customers owners.
A client without any ownership will notice little difference between this restaurant and a 'normal' capitalist restaurant except they will receive a strange receipt that is also a bond issued in the amount they paid above cost. They can throw the receipt away if they like, and in that case nothing will be different. But the bond is valuable (it becomes a deed to real property when it matures), so if they understand what it is, they could also sell it to someone wishing to invest in the business (I call this a pre-production-bond). There is much more to say about this part.

Each customer that doesn't yet have sufficient ownership in the kind of thing they want will be buying product, but consumers that have already stocked up on things they want will just be retrieving their own property from the pantry or fridge or whatever. Think of it as a kind of shared kitchen. In some cases we may need lockers, but not always. It is common for college students to share a house with a shared kitchen. Sometimes food gets stolen. The problem with security will probably increase with the number of owners.

In either case the consumer might pay a cook to prepare the food for them or they can sign-up (bid) for a time-slot where they can rent equipment such as a grill. Usually you will just pay a cook who has already rented the grill, but sometimes (especially during odd hours) you might also cook for yourself.

Renting the grill (or anything else) is "at cost" when there is no rivalry (say at 4 in the morning). You would only be paying for the gas and any sort of wear you might inflict. But

Still, getting a meal at close to cost would be a possible way to attract customers, a thing any restaurant has to do to stay in business.
A Consumer Owned organizations may offer product at a price above cost if they want to attract more consumer-owners, but it is not a requirement of operation; they can safely hold price "at cost" indefinitely. A capitalist business cannot do this because the investors expect to receive profit instead of product.

How would the late comers be required (would they at all?) to make up for that first investment of the original owners?

(*) Part of the costs of operation is the expense of purchasing and running a freezer. Your payments to the collective others will include rent for any space you occupy there. Just as any other part of the business, if availability is running low, the space (or time-slots) will be auctioned off to potential users. This will cause the winner of the auction to pay more than cost. That price above cost will be invested toward a new freezer, and the amount that winning bidder paid will 'vest' to him as his property.

Jun-06-2008: Posted to www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A981
If you are working (even as a manager or just generally organizing the business), you should receive a wage.  Since it sounds like you are the only owner, you can arbitrarily label your income as 'profit' or as 'wage'.  The more important case is when there are multiple owners.  Those multiple owners would not allow a managing-owner to overpay himself, they would put that job up for others to reverse-bid upon.

If you really are working (and not just an absentee owner), then you would need to be receiving a wage for your labor.

I'm not talking about lowering prices directly, I'm talking about them being lowered as a result of how profit is treated.

Let's say you sell the table for 150.
You pay each of your workers AND yourself 40 apiece.
You have 20 in costs for material, electricity, machine wear etc.
You have 10 profit.

You will likely keep that 10 as a 'reward' for yourself.  You might even reinvest it back into the table-shop.

If you reinvest it for yourself, we see the shop will experience growth, but the ownership of the shop will be further concentrated into your hands.

Since you are being rewarded for keeping price above cost, you will want other table-producers to fail, and would vote for any political measures that keep table price artificially high (such as import tariffs or government subsidies paid to NOT make tables (this really does happen, especially in agriculture)).

If that overpayment (10 profit) were treated as an investment from the consumer that paid it, then that consumer would move closer to being able to receive his next table "at cost".  He wouldn't be required to work at the shop, he could hire someone to do that skilled work, but running the equipment himself would also become an option if he could show the other co-owners that he could do so safely (without harming the equipment or others).

If you are not working, why should you be paid?  Because you were "there first"?

You should also be compensated for your investments in the tools and for all the work it takes to form such an organization.  Those payments should be labeled Costs, not Profit.

Thanks for asking these questions.  I hope it helps others see what is wrong with "the economy".

It is my opinion the only reason Swadeshi hasn't already succeeded over Capitalism because profit is being mistreated.

Jun-06-2008: Posted to www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A981
If there is no profit because the consumer owns the source, then how can you pay the workers?

Workers are paid Wages that are calculated as a Cost. Profit is "price above cost". Wages are on the other side of the equation.

Treating profit as a reward is dangerous because profit increases in direct proportion to scarcity, so the perpetuation of profit requires the perpetuation of scarcity - often through destruction.

Profit would not exist in a society where everyone could get what they wanted "at cost" because profit can also be thought of as a measure of inefficiency. Efficiency destroys profit.

Profit is a valuable tool to those that desire to be paid for reasons other than work. Profit only arises when the sources of production are not fully distributed. Profit is a tool of subjugation and slavery when it is not treated as that consumer's investment because it causes the laborer (as a consumer) to pay more than the real costs of production without allowing them a foothold to climb out of their predicament.

How strange that people think profit is 'OK' until it reaches some arbitrary and undefined size. I think it is because we have been trained since childhood that we will try to "get ahead" to the point where we can collect "residual income" from those that continue to work. It's a sort of Ponzi scheme.

Jun-04-2008: Posted to www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A981

Scaling Swadeshi: Part One - The Meaning and Purpose of Profit

This post is the first in a series of investigations into why Swadeshi has not yet succeeded, what must be changed for that success, and how that change can be implemented.

This first part is meant to be purely observational research attempting to avoid any pre-conceived conclusions.

I hope questions and responses here will help simplify and codify these results into a concise problem statement and an associated course of action.

1. What is profit?
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit says "'Accounting profit is the difference between price and the costs of bringing to market whatever it is that is accounted as an enterprise (whether by harvest, extraction, manufacture, or purchase) in terms of the component costs of delivered goods and/or services and any operating or other expenses.'"

So, for the purposes of this discussion, profit will be described as the difference between Consumer Price and Owner costs or in short form "price above cost".

2. Why does a consumer pay "price above cost"?
I have an answer for this, but don't know how to 'prove' it is true.

Another way to look at this is to ask:
2a. When does a consumer NOT pay profit?
A product consumer does not, and in fact cannot pay profit when he owns the physical Sources (Means of Production) for that product.

As an example, if you own a chicken, you must pay the same costs of production as a large poultry farm, including wages to any work you hire out, but those are all costs.

Paying profit makes no sense when the product consumer is also the source owner unless he were to pay himself.

3. When a consumer pays "price above cost", what should be the destination of those funds?
The profit that consumers pay causes the organization to grow, so my answer to this is that profit should be understood to be a consumer's "plea for growth".

If the current owners were to treat it as an investment from the consumer who paid it, then the ownership of that enterprise would be continuously distributed to those that are paying for that growth.

Jun-04-2008: Posted to www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A861

"Profit is not a reward, it is a measure of monopoly of ownership over the Means of Production."

- a "reward" for what?
I am saying that most owners of the Means of Production act as though profit (price above cost) is something they 'deserve' as payment from consumers, but consumers ONLY pay profit when they do not yet have sufficient ownership in the Means of Production.

As an example, let's say you own an apple tree. It is your ownership in that tree that 'protects' you from paying profit for the apples thereof. You must pay the COSTS of producing those apples, including wages for any work you don't do yourself, but whether or not you pay someone else to do the work of dealing with that production is not the issue. If you pay someone to plant, water, prune the tree and to harvest, pack and store the apples, then you will be paying the same costs any corporation would pay for such work. Those payments are called 'wage', and are calculated as a 'cost' of production. You can't pay profit (price above cost) when you are the owner of the Means of Production, for who would you pay it to?

But if you sell some of those apples to a consumer that doesn't have ownership in the Means of Production (does not own an apple tree), you will likely be able to charge price above cost (profit) because that consumer is not 'protected'. Again, costs must be paid either way, but profit arises only when ownership in the Means of Production are not yet in the hands of the consumers that are in need of those products.

Owners of the Means of Production treat the payment of profit as a 'reward' in that they pretend/assume/think they 'deserve' that payment, but consumers only pay profit while they have insufficient ownership in the Means of Production.

- a "measure of monopoly of ownership over the means of production".
Consumers typically pay a Price that is higher than the Owner's Costs of production. The difference between "Consumer Price" and "Owner Costs" is called "profit". Wages are one of the Costs of production.

But consumers do not pay profit when they have enough ownership in the Means of Production. In that case, they pay all costs, including wages, but they can't pay profit. If you think they would be paying profit, please tell me who they would pay it to.

Who does the measuring?
It seems to be an expression of nature. Like gravity or friction, mathematics does the measuring. Profit is a sort of 'pressure' that property ownership exerts against product consumers causing them to pay more than cost. Or maybe better to describe it as a kind of 'vacuum' caused by a consumer's LACK of ownership.

In what other way would it be measured?
You might also observe it as a consumer's dependence on owners. It is an inverse measure of competition that causes price to not reach cost.

In what way(s) is the new way better?
By "new way" do you mean "Consumer Owned"? If so, the reason consumers already tend to own some of the Means of Production is because it is just more efficient. Why do you own a stove instead of renting it? If you rented it instead, then you would not have full dominion over it, and you would also be paying "price above cost" (profit) for no reason.

The reason consumers don't already own much more expensive Means of Production is because it is not "worth it" for a single person to own an entire factory for themselves on the one hand, and on the other hand we haven't yet figured how to collectively own such things together.

If 100 consumers could "get together" to purchase a small farm, then they could have "at cost" produce, but as soon as they start selling some of those products to non-owners they would likely charge price above cost while not treating that difference as that consumer's investment. When that happens (as it tends to always happen), the organization will grow from the profit that is paid, yet ownership is more and more concentrated as those owners treat those payments as a 'reward' instead of understanding them to be an investment from those who paid them.

How do we get from A to B?
By organizing under a contract - a sort of "Trade Agreement" that enforces the requirement "profit must be treated as an investment from the consumer that paid it".

What do different players gain or lose when measuring things differently?
Owners who choose to play in this way will lose out on the immediate 'reward' of concentrating ownership into their own hands, but win in a subtle way as a successful community grows around them.

May I suggest you start a new conversation on this?
Yes, I just started the topic "Scaling Swadeshi: Part One - The Meaning and Purpose of Profit" at http://www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A981

Jun-04-2008: Posted to www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A861
"Many hands make light work."

Why won't you help me? I post here about this because I need help describing it and need feedback about whether or not my claims are sound.

Is there anything I've said that isn't true? Is my logic flawed? If so, please tell me in what way so we can get on with this urgent work.

Are you saying I must single-handedly begin a business in this manner and then report back here about how it goes before you (or anyone) will consider listening? If I could do that, I wouldn't be here wasting your time, but I don't have such talents. Does that make my observations false?

I think it must be a psychological barrier caused by an assumption that profit is a reward to be won and my challenge of that causing too much pain.

No matter where I go or how I phrase it, the message seems to invoke only anger and boredom.

I guess you are right. Probably nobody will listen until after I have made it obvious through a working example. Hopefully the world can wait that long.

Jun-04-2008: Posted to www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A861

Lucas,

To your 'Resources' list I would add land (as in surface area), tools and Sun.

When these physical (re)sources ("Means of Production") are owned by the same people that will eat those products, then there is no profit. Maybe you will say this is not a problem, but aren't we told that profit the only reason for production?

On a small scale the reason for production is product, but as that organization increases in size, all of the consumers involved do not gain ownership in their own "Means of Production", so the goals turn from product toward profit.

You say "Food" is a strange problem. People die for lack of it, and it's not yet "solved" or rather it looks like it's being more "unsolved" everyday." which I agree with completely, but again, if the problem of food (or the product of any industry) were 'solved' (when people have "at cost" access), then profits drop to zero and all producers would stop production UNLESS the Means of Production for that industry is owned by the consumers of that product.

Profits are highest when problems are most "unsolved".

The article Sepp quotes from below says "Last year, they earned the state more than $1.9bn". But if the land, tools, seeds, water, and dirt were owned by the consumers of those almonds, then "the state" would have 'earned' nothing, since profit is zero in that case.

How can we ever expect to 'solve' such issues while treating profit as a reward?

Solutions destroy profit and treating profit as reward incents the destruction of solutions. Profit is zero when consumers own the Means of Production because profit is a measure of consumer dependence.

Size itself is not the problem with agribusiness or with any other enterprise. The trouble is that growth concentrates ownership of the Means of Production into the hands of the originators as they treat it as a reward instead of understanding it to be a plea for ownership from the consumer who paid it.

Why can nobody hear me? If profit is the only incentive for production, then why did Mahaha Mphou's family begin production? Was it not for product?

Profit is not a reward, it is a measure of monopoly of ownership over the Means of Production.

We can quickly solve hunger (and most all other problems) if we could ever understand the true meaning of profit and start businesses that treat it as an investment in more physical sources for the consumer who paid it.

Until then we will continue to work against each other and hope that newcomers never get "set up" with their own Means of Production - for whenever consumers have ownership in the sources of that which they consume, the 'market' for that product is 'ruined'.

Jun-01-2008: Unsent post to http://P2PFoundation.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008:BlogPost:4761

These are useful questions.

question: how to interest enough people who are regulars of a certain restaurant?

A Consumer Owned Enterprise has far more potential for variety than its Capitalist counterpart. Think of your own kitchen. The menu is not set in stone because you can always change your mind about what ingredients to buy and how to prepare them.

A Consumer Owned restaurant really is (y)our kitchen (both yours, and ours). If you like salmon and buffalo, you will stock part of the freezer(*) with those meats. When you want something different, you will begin buying that ingredient instead. The restaurant can offer the dishes of any other restaurant, so will never become boring. As much as you can find cooks that know how to prepare the dishes you like, you can have African, American, Brazilian, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, Italian, ...

But any restaurant can't survive only on the habitual customers.
I think you are saying a restaurant can't grow with only habitual customers. That is true, but growth is not required (will level off) as all the potential customers in the area have access to such a restaurant.

What do those occasional clients get out of their visit to the restaurant? It could only be a lower price for their meal. I see no sense in making these customers owners.
A client without any ownership will notice little difference between this restaurant and a 'normal' capitalist restaurant except they will receive a strange receipt that is also a bond issued in the amount they paid above cost. They can throw the receipt away if they like, and in that case nothing will be different. But the bond is valuable (it becomes a deed to real property when it matures), so if they understand what it is, they could also sell it to someone wishing to invest in the business (I call this a pre-production-bond). There is much more to say about this part.

Each customer that doesn't yet have sufficient ownership in the kind of thing they want will be buying product, but consumers that have already stocked up on things they want will just be retrieving their own property from the pantry or fridge or whatever. Think of it as a kind of shared kitchen. In some cases we may need lockers, but not always. It is common for college students to share a house with a shared kitchen. Sometimes food gets stolen. The problem with security will probably increase with the number of owners.

In either case the consumer might pay a cook to prepare the food for them or they can sign-up (bid) for a time-slot where they can rent equipment such as a grill. Usually you will just pay a cook who has already rented the grill, but sometimes (especially during odd hours) you might also cook for yourself.

Renting the grill (or anything else) is "at cost" when there is no rivalry (say at 4 in the morning). You would only be paying for the gas and any sort of wear you might inflict. But

Still, getting a meal at close to cost would be a possible way to attract customers, a thing any restaurant has to do to stay in business.
A Consumer Owned organizations may offer product at a price above cost if they want to attract more consumer-owners, but it is not a requirement of operation; they can safely hold price "at cost" indefinitely. A capitalist business cannot do this because the investors expect to receive profit instead of product.

How would the late comers be required (would they at all?) to make up for that first investment of the original owners?

(*) Part of the costs of operation is the expense of purchasing and running a freezer. Your payments to the collective others will include rent for any space you occupy there. Just as any other part of the business, if availability is running low, the space (or time-slots) will be auctioned off to potential users. This will cause the winner of the auction to pay more than cost. That price above cost will be invested toward a new freezer, and the amount that winning bidder paid will 'vest' to him as his property.

Jun-01-2008: Posted to http://P2PFoundation.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008:BlogPost:4761
Thanks for the pointer Sepp.  I love beer, especially Free (as in Freedom) beer. ;)

Unfortunately BeerBankroll is not truly Consumer Owned for two reasons:

1. The initial investors are being persuaded to invest for profit instead of product.  If they would pay me in "at cost" beer, I would invest today!

2. Many of the consumers are not owners and do not automatically gain ownership according to the amount they pay above cost.  Because of this, the organization is not self-balancing, and will continue to move further and further from being Consumer Owned as it grows.

The quick way to check if any corp/org is Consumer Owned is to find out where the profits are going.  If "price above cost" is being reinvested into the enterprise, AND if each of those reinvestments eventually 'vest' back to the consumer who paid it, then the Consumers will always be the Owners.  But if that difference is treated as a reward for the current owners, or is reinvested but without regard to the original payer (the consumer), or if it is thrown away toward some random charity, then the chance for Consumers to remain Owners during growth is slowly eroded until you end up with another typical Capitalist situation.

Since it is impossible for a consumer to pay profit when they have sufficient *real* ownership (being paid with product, not just typical corporate shares that payout profit) in the sources of that production, the only people that will be paying profit are the late-comers.  If we pretend they are not Consumers, and therefore do not 'deserve' ownership, then we can pretend BeerBankroll is Consumer Owned, but the truth is that BeerBankroll is Originator Owned, and intends to keep price above cost, just as almost every other business in the world.

On the front page at http://BeerBankroll.com Step 3 reads "Sell tons of beer and make a tidy profit".  This proves that the they are not Consumer Owned, and do not intend to to be since profits safely approach zero in a Consumer Owned corporation.  Allowing price to meet costs is not a problem for a Consumer Owned business - it is one of the main goals!

Thanks again for bringing this up.  I don't mean to sound so negative.  I'm only trying to be accurate.

I am trying to figure out how to write the next part of this that shows how to protect the worker's ability to consume and intend to also make it a response to Vinay's request at http://GlobalSwadeshi.net to map out how a Consumer Owned restaurant would function.

[Previous: diary-may-2008]