Related: diary
Jun-30-2010: Posted to a private list
One problem I see with backing a currency by labor *time* is the incentive it creates for workers to 'milk' jobs and to generally want to 'protect' jobs from being fully solved or automated away.
What I don't understand (and a point that has been brought up by others - on the Oekonux list I think) is that the auction described (when including the weighting) is really no different from letting "the market" decide how much a Consumer should pay a Producer.
I agree it is good to organize so Consumers and Producers can 'connect', but I wonder if a sort of "bulletin board" where each person can list the goods and services they personally offer (like "I have too many tomatoes" or "I know how to fix plumbing", etc.) and also the goods and services they need (like "I need tomatoes" or "I need a plumber"). But I have not put quite enough work into the details of this...
I'm also concerned about the "Central Planning" feel of having a software program make some of these decisions, though maybe I am just misunderstanding.
Another problem for me is the idea of a "flat rate" payout of the produced goods, but I don't have time right now to fully explain my concern.
Jun-29-2010: Reading http://EconLib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph1.html
"'Which is preferable for man and for society, abundance or scarcity?
"What!" people may exclaim. "How can there be any question about it? Has anyone ever suggested, or is it possible to maintain, that scarcity is the basis of man's well-being?"
Yes, this has been suggested; yes, this has been maintained and is maintained every day, and I do not hesitate to say that the theory of scarcity is by far the most popular of all theories. It is the burden of conversations, newspaper articles, books, and political speeches; and, strange as it may seem, it is certain that political economy will not have a completed its task and performed its practical function until it has popularized and established as indisputable this very simple proposition: "Wealth consists in an abundance of commodities."
Do we not hear it said every day: "Foreigners are going to flood us with their products"? Thus, people fear abundance.
Has not M. de Saint-Cricq said: "There is overproduction"? Thus, he was afraid of abundance.
Do not the workers wreck machines? Thus, they are afraid of overproduction, or--in other words--of abundance.
Has not M. Bugeaud uttered these words: "Let bread be dear, and the farmer will be rich"? Now, bread can be dear only because it is scarce. Thus, M. Bugeaud was extolling scarcity.
Has not M. d'Argout based his argument against the sugar industry on its very productivity? Has he not said again and again: "The sugar beet has no future, and its cultivation cannot be extended, because just a few hectares of sugar beets in each department would be enough to supply all the consumers in France"? Thus, as he sees things, good consists in barrenness and scarcity; and evil, in fertility and abundance.
Do not La Presse, Le Commerce, and the majority of the daily newspapers publish one or more articles every morning to prove to the Chambers and to the government that it is sound policy to legislate higher prices for everything through manipulation of the tariff? Do not the Chambers and the government every day comply with this injunction from the press? But tariffs raise the prices of things only because they reduce their supply in the market! Thus, the newspapers, the Chambers, and the government put the theory of scarcity into practice, and I was right to say that this theory is by far the most popular of all theories.
'"
Jun-29-2010: Reading Medaille.com/distributivism-encyclopedia.pdf
Jun-29-2010: Reading UpjohnInst.org/publications/wp/02-82.pdf
"Information Technology, Organizational Form, and Transition to the Market"
"'The paper reviews theories of information technology adoption and organizational form and applies them to an empirical analysis of firm choices and characteristics in four transition economies: the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia. We argue that these economies have gone through two major structural changes -- one concerning technology and another concerning ownership and boundaries of firms -- and we consider if and how each of the two structural changes has affected the other. We test the impact of firm size, integration, and ownership on the extent of new information technology adoption (measured by growth in the fraction of employees using personal computers or computer- controlled machinery), and the impact of information technology on changes in the boundaries and the ownership structure of enterprises, drawing upon a sample survey of 330 firms.'"
Jun-29-2010: Employment or Efficiency? Struggle or Solutions?
Jun-28-2010: Posted P2PFoundation.net/List_of_approaches
* [[Buying Club]]
* [[Club Goods]]
* [[Co-Creation]]
* [[Co-production]]
* [[Common Security Clubs]]
* [[Consumers Cooperative]]
* [[Copyfarleft]]
* [[Crowdsourcing]]
* [[Distributism]]
* [[Economic Democracy]]
* [[Food Cooperative]]
* [[Give Away Economy]]
* [[Intention Economy]]
* [[Neighborhood Renting and Loan Systems]]
* [[Neocommercialization]]
* [[Open Capital]]
* [[P2P in Multi-Unit Housing]]
* [[Payer Grown]]
* [[Peer Production]]
* [[Peer Trust Network Project]]
* [[Peer-to-Peer Product-Service Systems]]
* [[Peerconomy]]
* [[Product-Service System]]
* [[Property Left]]
* [[Public Private Property]]
* [[Seikatsu Cooperatives]]
* [[United Diversity]]
* [[Use Communities]]
* [[User Owned]]
* [[Utilicontributism]]
* [[Worker Cooperative]]
* [[Worker Owned]]
Jun-28-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Ryan Lanham wrote:
> We socialized risk, but not reward.
It is true that Capitalists do not 'socialize' reward, but that does not mean it cannot be done.
It is possible to organize afresh in such a way that reward (profit) is treated differently.
The treatment of Profit is usually pre-determined to be a payment for those who have Invested.
But wait a minute, ... what if we could pay Investors directly with the Product instead?
That would only be meaningful if the Investors were simultaneously the Consumers of that very Product, and if they only Invest as much as they predict they will need.
So, for example, if a group of Milk Consumers organized to purchase a small dairy, they would prepay for the total Costs of that production, and their return for that Investment would the Product itself = Milk.
There would be no Profit unless somebody accidentally Invested too much. And in that case, the extra milk could be sold, and considering the ridiculous overpricing of raw milk, it would be easy to charge a Price above Cost.
But then what should the group do with that 'reward'? What would it mean to 'socialize' the Profit?
Well, what if they acted as though the late-comer who paid that extra value were also making an investment?
What if we treated Profit as though it were an Investment from the Consumer who paid it?
Doing so would taper Profit (and therefore growth) toward zero since a Consumer who owns the Physical Sources of the Product he uses does not pay Profit - for he owns the Product even before it is created as a side-effect of his having property in the Physical Sources.
This would cause the organization to grow according to Consumer demand (paying Profit being the source of that growth), in a 'distributed' manner since the very person willing to pay for that growth becomes the direct beneficiary because he gains real property co-ownership and therefore control over those Physical Sources.
And since a Consumer with Property in Physical Sources pays no Profit (since he does not buy the Product, but owns it already), this also causes growth to naturally taper toward zero [actually growth would follow the same curve as the demand for that Product].
> For now, all that can be done is to save and to wait.
That sounds like no strategy at all.
Jun-25-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
It is worth noting that the GNU GPL - which is currently the most
popular Free Software license - does *not* require attribution, and
yet has been instrumental in creating probably the most stable commons
for virtual materials we have yet seen.
Jun-25-2010: Posted to http://P2PFoundation.net/Talk:Business_Model
Can your business model survive Abundance?'
Jun-25-2010: Posted to P2PFoundation.net/Investor
Investors may be:
* Consumers pre-paying for some product but receiving co-ownership in the Physical Sources. For example, a group of consumers could buy a milk dairy so they can receive the milk At Cost and under their full control.
* Workers committing to perform some amount of labor or achieve some amount of results within some frame of time. In a better world this Promise to Pay can be used as a personally issued currency.
* Angels who inject resources (Money or Capital) with the plan to extract Price Above Cost from consumers who do not yet have sufficient property ownership in Physical Sources.
Jun-25-2010: Posted to http://P2PFoundation.net/Talk:Profit
If profit is the result of Worker effort, then:
* Why does it disappear when the Physical Sources are User Owned?
* Why does it decrease as Abundance increases?
* Why does it vary by where the Product is sold?
* Why does it persist after that job is Automated?
Jun-25-2010: Posted to http://P2PFoundation.net/Talk:Dumping
Dumping is a problem for Investors who expect to be paid with Profit, but is not a problem for those who invest for Product.
Jun-24-2010: Thinking again about ILand as a better name for the now abandoned EcoComics simulation. Also looking at GarlicSim.org as the basis of modeling
Jun-24-2010: "'For the want of the price of tea and a slice, the old man died...'" -- "Us and Them", Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
Jun-23-2010: Joined PublicPrivateProperty.org
Jun-22-2010: Posted to a private list
Alex Rollin wrote:
> I do see it as necessary, though, to refine the thinking upon which the idea
> draws so that others may create their own solutions, and so that those who
> look into the idea will find references and be able to draw their own
> conclusions based on publicly available documentation.
I agree. This is part of the reason I would like to see P2P wiki start using the autolink plugin.
> Do you have edit permissions for the p2p wiki?
Yes, I'm at http://P2PFoundation.net/User:Ownut
> Are you writing about the project somewhere else?
Yes, but I don't update my website very often. I need to condense and rewrite much of what I've already done...
For now, these are probably the best pages to consider:
http://patware.freeshell.org/faq.htm
http://p2pfoundation.net/User_Owned
> Have you met others who are similarly interested?
Not really. There are 2 main 'problems' with my approach:
1.) I say Consumers should organize to purchase and own the Means of Production (Physical Sources), whereas most everyone else that is considering anything other than 'regular' Capitalism are sure the Workers must do this. When Consumers own the Sources of the things they need, they no longer buy those Objectives, but own them already as a 'side-effect' of their owning the Sources. They must pay all Costs, including any Wages if they do not do all the work themselves, but they do not pay Profit because the final transaction of selling does not even occur since the outputs of that production are already in the 'proper' hands.
2.) I say Profit should be collected (we should charge Price above Cost), and yet also say we must treat that value as that Payer's investment. This is a very strange idea to most people - so they usually don't want to spend the effort of thinking through the reasoning, otherwise they would see the profound effect this causes, for when Consumers own the Sources of the things they need, then Price == Cost and Profit == 0 AND the Consumer is finally in full control of production. This also changes the entire goal of the organization from seeking Profit to seeking Product. This change in direction is massive since the desire to keep Price above Cost is what incents the Artificial Scarcity and Purposeful Destruction in Capitalist and Worker Owned orgs.
Jun-22-2010: Posted to a private list
Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
> You are based in the states ? Or on the european subcontinent ?
Utah, US
> I notice you relate yourself
> to http://www.telekommunisten.net/venture-communism ?
Well, I've been communicating with Dmytri Kleiner for quite a few
years because of his clarity in writing about fundamental concepts in
economics.
But I do not fully subscribe to the "Venture Communism" plan because
it has the same flaw that almost all 'alternative' organizational
forms seem suffer: it assumes that ownership of the Means of
Production must be limited to those who have the skills need to
operate them (the Workers), whereas my approach is to insure the Means
of Production are held by those who need the outputs (the Consumers).
> If you pass nearby Berlin in August, we could meet at the ecotopia or in
> Leipzig.
I'd love to, but must spend most of my time earning Federal Reserve
Notes to pay-back bankers (who initially created the FRNs "out of thin
air") so I have a place to sleep.
> Alex Rollin has been working on a cooperative model :
> http://alexrollin.com/content/cooperative-ecology-project
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Cooperative_Ecology_Project
Yes, I am 'watching' this wiki page.
> While I am discussing with Gael and Jan on the design of a tool enabling
> resource allocation through accreditation - but we still need to find a way
> of programming it.
Could you give me a concrete example of what you mean by "resource allocation"?
I have some ideas about how to "allocate resources" through auction,
but am not sure that is what you mean.
Here is my concrete example:
A single machine can be shared among a finite number of people. As
the number of consumers attempting to utilize the machine increases,
at some point it will be impossible to fullfill those requests with a
single machine.
If the collective owners have the time-sharing of that machine setup
so that anyone wanting to rent it are bidding against each other, then
more time slots can be filled.
People that want to rent close to 'cost', and are willing to lose some
sleep will rent at 2am, while other people may be willing to "fight it
out" for a slot at 12 noon in a bid war.
As the dueling bidders raise their own price for that time slot, they
are *proving* that the current number of machines cannot fill peak
demand, and - since that "price above cost" will be invested for the
winning bidder toward buying ANOTHER machine (because Profit is being
treated as Payer investment), the 'system' should be self-stablizing
as those extra payments will be invested toward another machine until
the number of machines is sufficient to cover the needs of that
community.
Furthermore, each sub-community that develops around each of those
machines can then secede from the whole if they decide to treat their
new machine in a different manner (say changing the oil more often).
Jun-21-2010: Noticed CartografiaCiudadana.net/index.php/Pula
Jun-21-2010: Posted to a private list
Hey Dante,
I like the http://sharewiki.org/en/Leipzig_project idea.
I've been working (on paper) on a larger-scale solution that meets the minimum requirements needed to allow us to 'pay' ourselves by utilizing our productive outputs - eventually eliminating some of the reasons we currently use money.
Here are my rough thoughts so far:
----
'Regular' money will probably be needed, especially at the start. But as we become productive, we can 'pay' ourselves from the value we create. So instead of trying to earn $10 to buy a meal, we avoid paying the $10 by using Nature and tools to create the meal.
We should charge a Price above Cost (Profit) against the uninvested, but we must treat that extra income as that Payer's investment into more Sources of the type needed to supply another instance of the purchased Objective. This will cause the newcomer to also gain a foothold as we grow so he becomes an active part of the solution as a property co-owner along with the rest of us.
----
* Ways to invest:
** Organize Customers to Pre-Pay for an Objective (say shelter), then use those funds to buy the Sources (group housing).
** Organize Customers to Pre-Pay for an Objective (say Almonds), then use those funds to buy the Sources (Northern Almond Trees).
** Attract skilled Artisans who will commit to supply the labor needed to achive our goals.
** Attract regular Venture Capitalists if necessary.
----
* Ways to benefit:
** Customers with Source Ownership get paid by receiving a product "at cost" as a side-effect of their ownership in the Sources of that product.
** Workers receive Shelter, Food, Clothing, Sanitation as an rudimentary "Standard of Living" (a Basic Outcome).
** VCs receive a % of the Profit charged against the uninvested.
----
* Space and Equipment rental: These supply a Basic Outcome for Work Investors and also attract more Customers as we continue to overgrow Capitalism.
** Private rooms that appears as a Hotel or Apartment to the uninvested.
** A group kitchen that appears as a Restaurant to the uninvested.
** Storage/Recycling/Free shop that appears as a Rental Agency and/or Storage Unit to the uninvested.
** Tools to create and repair wood and metal: initally used to fix-up our Leipzig and later used to attract more Customers (who need such work done in their own homes).
** Machines to wash, repair and create clothing and shoes appears as a Laundromat/Seamstress.
** Computers running Free Software for programming, gaming, internet, etc. appears as a "Internet Cafe" and/or Video Arcade to the uninvested.
** Video/Music equipment and dance floor appears as a 'Club' to the uninvested.
** A large shared space that appears as a Meeting Hall to the uninvested.
** Swimming pool, Sauna, weights, etc. appears as a 'GYM' to the uninvested.
----
* Permaculture: Start with gardening but concentrate on perinneals - especially trees for protein and and oils (nuts, olives, avacados).
** The output helps compensate Pre-Paying Customers and Committed Workers.
** Any surplus can be sold to non-owning Customers at a Price above Cost
** When we run out of land owned by us, we can offer contracted landscaping services (Permascaping) where the customer eventually pays no money, but instead compensates by relinquishing a % of the output of those plants and animals.
* Recurring Costs:
** Taxes might be avoided if we can qualify as a not-for-profit enterprise. Should we consider creating a religion as a supporting role? We could claim "Physical Salvation through Reverence for Nature".
Jun-17-2010: Reading http://www.metamute.org/en/content/artificial_scarcity_in_a_world_of_overproduction_an_escape_that_isn_t >>But what is the source of these profits? Since it requires ever less labour time to reproduce their commodities (the cost of R&D may be high but has no bearing on the cost of reproduction), the part of it that is unpaid, surplus value, must fall too and thus cannot explain the rise of their profits. The profit is surplus value but it comes from elsewhere: it is paid by the customers.
Jun-14-2010: Noticed LondonCreativeLabs.com >>London Creative Labs is a Social Business committed to ensuring decent work for everyone. It uses a unique and evolving combination of collaboration and business model innovation to generate new business opportunities that provide and/or enable work.
Jun-14-2010: Noticed SustainWeb.org >>Sustain: The alliance for better food and farming was launched at the UNED-UK hosted Healthy Planet Forum on 17 June 1999. It was formed by merging The National Food Alliance and the Sustainable Agriculture Food and Environment (SAFE) Alliance, both of which had been established for over 10 years.
Jun-14-2010: Reading Variant.org.uk/37texts/13RentTyranny.html
Jun-14-2010: Reading YoungFoundation.org/files/images/Promising_Ideas.pdf
Jun-14-2010: Noticed DoorsOfPerception.com/archives/2010/05/whole_whole_on.php
Jun-14-2010: Some Problems with Cooperative Principles:
NCBA.coop/ncba/about-co-ops
"'
The International Cooperative Alliance has established seven Principles that define co-ops as part of the Statement on the Co-operative Identity.
1st Principle: Voluntary and Open Membership
Co-operatives are voluntary organizations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination.
'"
"'
2nd Principle: Democratic Member Control
Co-operatives are democratic organizations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary co-operatives members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and co-operatives at other levels are also organized in a democratic manner.
'"
"'
3rd Principle: Member Economic Participation
Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their co-operative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the co-operative. Members usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing their co-operative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible; benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the co-operative; and supporting other activities approved by the membership.
'"
"'
4th Principle: Autonomy and Independence
Co-operatives are autonomous, self-help organizations controlled by their members. If they enter to agreements with other organizations, including governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their co-operative autonomy.
'"
"'
5th Principle: Education, Training and Information
Co-operatives provide education and training for their members, elected representatives, managers, and employees so they can contribute effectively to the development of their co-operatives. They inform the public - particularly young people and opinion leaders - about the nature and benefits of co-operation.
'"
"'
6th Principle: Co-operation among Co-operatives
Co-operatives serve their members most effectively and strengthen the co-operative movement by working together through local, national, regional and international structures.
'"
"'
7th Principle: Concern for Community
Co-operatives work for the sustainable development of their communities through policies approved by their members.
Bookmark and Share
'"
Tyranny of the Majority
The "one member, one vote" principle is similar to the "opt-out" problem caused when users pre-pay into a slush-fund controlled by a committee.
Jun-14-2010: Noticed Stop-Project.EU >>SToP - Stop Tampering of Products The SToP project aims at developing ambient intelligence-based and network-oriented systems for the efficient and secure authentication of products. It thereby helps to reduce the problems imposed by counterfeiting and product privacy.
"'
An important building block is the duality of existence, in the physical and the virtual world, for the secure authentication of products. The technological foundation is RFID (Radio Frequency Identification), which allows secure tagging, reliable and easy-to-use identification, and dynamic authentication. The RFID label itself serves both as a security feature and as a bridge between the physical and the virtual, i.e. digital, world.
The objective of the SToP project is to create a solution for product authentication, which satisfies a complex set of requirements. The solution must be secure, meaning that tags are protected against manipulations and they must not be cloneable. Security is further supported through the tracking capabilities provided by RFID. It must be user-friendly and cost-effective, being usable by a wide range of parties such as manufacturers, vendors, customs authorities, and consumers. This helps to detect counterfeit goods as early as possible or even prevent them from entering into the supply chain in the first place. As a network-based solution, it supports the alignment and information of stakeholders. It encourages information sharing on counterfeiting related problems and promotes closer cooperation. It improves communication with consumers, providing them with better ways of risk mitigation and education.
'"
Jun-14-2010: http://Appropedia.org/Category:Poverty
Jun-14-2010: Noticed Incredible-Edible-Todmorden.co.uk
Jun-11-2010: Not yet Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Created http://Appropedia.org/GNP_Physical_Sharing_License the text of Sepp's email for now.
As this discussion continues I will need show why we must treat Profit more carefully than just hoping it doesn't exist. But that is usually a party killer, so will wait until it is necessary.
What I'm suggesting is mostly the same idea as "Customer Owned Networks", but general enough to be used in all types of production.
Here are some references to what others have to say about this Property Model.
''According to Metcalfe's Law, the value of an internet connection rises with the number of users on the network. However, the phone companies do not get to raise their prices in return for that increase in value. This is a matter of considerable frustration to them.
The economic logic of the market suggests that capital should be invested by whoever captures the value of the investment. The telephone companies are using that argument to suggest that they should either be given monopoly pricing power over the last mile, or that they should be allowed to vertically integrate content with conduit. Either strategy would allow them to raise prices by locking out the competition, thus restoring their coercive power over the customer and helping them extract new revenues from their internet subscribers.'' -- http://Shirky.com/writings/zapmail.html
''What's the best way to ensure "net neutrality?" Tim Wu, the Columbia Law School professor and Toronto native who first coined the term, has a simple suggestion: customer ownership of internet connections. Could consumers own their internet connections?'' -- http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/12/01/tech-fibre.html
''CA * net 4 is similar to the first mini-computer: instead of being invoiced and bandwidth use, the consumer takes possession of the network, it controls totally. He can do absolutely what he wants with the network. Rather than pay each time the user "buys" the network once and for all.'' -- http://p2pfoundation.net/Talk:Customer-Controlled_Networks
More from Bill St Arnaud:
http://free-fiber-to-the-home.blogspot.com
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ARgRwniJ-qh6ZGdiZ2pyY3RfMjc3NmdmbWd4OWZr&hl=en
Some are trying to create local wireless networks owned by the users such as http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/22/18603456.php or the VillageTelco/MeshPotato guys, etc.
Google is considering helping the customer own the "last mile" of the internet connection through "Homes with Tails"
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/11/homes-with-tails.html
http://www.broadbandprime.com/2010/02/will-that-be-googles-ftth-business-model.html
http://greensboroistalking.com/2010/03/24/homes-with-tails
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/netsys/article.php/3787661/Moores-Law-for-Broadband-or-Homes-With-Tails.htm
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2008/homes_tails
Sepp Hasslberger wrote:
> There is no compelling reason to break down
> the price a user pays into cost and above cost.
These values must be separated and treated very carefully
or we will have the same growing problems of nearly all
other organizations that tend to overaccumulate control
into the hands of a few - usually the originators.
> In the context of the GNP Physical Sharing License, any payment that must be
> made for the use of the resource is calculated to pay the cost of
> maintaining that resource to keep it in good working order and, if needed,
> of expanding the commonly owned physical resource to meet the demands of all
> its users.
Yes, it is very important that we recover the real Costs operation,
since otherwise we cannot maintain even a static size.
But we will need even *more* value to grow the movement
so we can include more people.
I wonder where that should come from...
We could charge the users slightly more than it really Cost
And use that difference to increase production.
It turns out that Profit measures scarcity quite well,
So all we need to do is treat that "Price above Cost"
in the 'right' way to make the system more stable.
Let's imagine a scenario where
If resources are too low to meet peak demand
Yes, we can share the costs of a 'real' (exposed IP) server to host files such as Free Software, Video, Music, etc. and applications such as email, Social Software, etc.
We can begin immediately to compete with SourceForge, YouTube, Gmail, Facebook, etc. using the same kind of "Server Side" software instead of waiting for the P2P apps that are not quite completed yet.
Jun-10-2010: Watching http://Appropedia.org/GNP_Physical_Sharing_License
Jun-09-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Alex Rollin wrote:
> On a list like this, with thousands of members, it seems to me that
> someday we'll get together and sponsor one of these servers.
Yes, yes, I am very interested in this too. How can we share Physical Sources?...
And how can we share without accidentally becoming one of the same beasts we currently fight (facebook, Google, etc.).
We need a detailed description of what to do and what not to do at each step so we can finally create a business model that is better than *either* of Capitalism or Corporatism.
This "Code of Conduct" would be a legal document that members of any group could apply to any material assets they intend to share.
But we will need to simplify our analysis to find what we have been doing wrong and how to correct it.
So let's start with just 2 people and see what we can discover:
> We can keep the profits without ever spending them!
Hmm... If 2 people are sharing some tangible object (say a computer), is there such a thing as profit?
The 2 people must pay for the costs to purchase, install, maintain, etc. the machine.
But I don't think they pay profit - for who would they pay it to?
Also, they do not 'earn' Profit, but are instead paid in 'Product'. Their ROI is the very output of that production. In other words, they are owning and working for Use-Value alone.
Ahhh, but if a 3rd person appears that does not yet have ownership, we can charge him more than real costs and thereby extract Profit.
Now, he could have avoided paying Profit if he just had the ownership needed to protect him...
So if he could gain some property of his own - let's say we used some of that Profit he just paid toward the purchase of another computer that he and other late-comers would eventually co-own.
Treating profit as the payer's investment creates a negative-feedback loop that auto-levels resource allocation (growth only occurs during overbidding, and overbidding only occurs when growth is truly needed), distributes control to those who are willing to pay for it (in the end those who are willing to work for it), and safely drives Profit toward 0 while also creating a basis for production withou fear of automation or unemployment.
Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com
Jun-09-2010: Legislation in North Carolina will stop cities and towns from building their own high-speed Internet systems that could compete with the telecommunications companies. -- http://www.indyweek.com/triangulator/archives/2010/06/02/anti-municipal-broadband-bill-passes-senate-finance
Jun-09-2010: Reading "Homes with Tails" -- http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1306745
Jun-08-2010: Reading "Could consumers own their internet connections?" -- http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/12/01/tech-fibre.html
Jun-08-2010: Reading "'A personal perspective on the evolving Internet and Research and Education Networks'" -- http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ARgRwniJ-qh6ZGdiZ2pyY3RfMjc3NmdmbWd4OWZr&hl=en
Jun-03-2010: Not yet Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Subject: Prepaid Production -- Why and how Users should assume their own Risk.
We have been fooled into the false luxury of debt. We follow Wimpy (of Popeye) with his saying "'I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today'".
Jun-03-2010: Posted to Mailman.Thing.net/pipermail/idc and ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Subject: Why do we, the Users beg instead of co-owning for our own benefit?
So many have written:
> Why won't Facebook, Monsanto, ConAgra, Nike, Coca-Cola, Chiquita, etc.
> do what *we*, the Users, want?
Why won't *we*, the Users organize to purchase and therefore OWN the Means of Production which we finally pay for anyway?
Why won't *we*, the Users buy the Physical Sources such as Computers, Farms, Factories, etc. so we only pay for the Costs of production (including wages) and finally have complete control over how they are operated?
Why do *we*, the Users beg those who have bought these things instead of taking the risk and responsibility of ownership upon ourselves?
I wonder if we will ever mature enough to get together and co-own the Sources of the things we need...
Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com
Jun-02-2010: Posted to Vilfredo.org/viewquestion.php?q=91
The term "psychic costs" and the ideas about "Nature" may be important, but they are not what I want to talk about with this question.
I want to talk about the concept of 'Profit' as currently defined at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_%28accounting%29 says:
"'In accounting, profit is the *difference* between price and the costs of bringing to market whatever it is that is accounted as an enterprise.'" (emphasis added)
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_%28economics%29 says:
"'In neoclassical economics, economic profit, or profit, is the *difference* between a firm's total revenue and its opportunity costs.'" (emphasis added)
If we are not allowed to discuss this concept under the name 'Profit', then can we discuss it under a different name?
How about the origin of http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_income or http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_value_added or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Added_Value or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added
Jun-02-2010: Noticed ClassWarGames.net >>Comrades! Raise your glasses of champagne to mark Class Wargames' decisive victory on the cultural front: the launch of our film on Guy Debord's The Game of War. For the first time, the Situationist politics of this military simulation are carefully explained in sound and vision. After watching this movie, opponents of spectacular capitalism will understand the importance of studying The Game of War. By playfully competing against each other over its board, they are learning the strategic and tactical skills required for success in the deadly struggle against the global bourgeoisie. In our film of Debord's game, Class Wargames has divided these teachings from the battlefield into five sections: terrain, combat, cavalry, arsenals and lines of communication. Analyse their insights with great care, fellow workers. As the crisis of neo-liberalism intensifies, you will need this military knowledge to thwart the wicked schemes of bankers and bureaucrats. Remember well the lessons of socialist history: clever tactics and smart strategy are our most powerful weapons...
Jun-01-2010: The definition of a "Consumers' Cooperative" shows the consumers do not have real, final ownership and are not in full control, but have forfeited those rights to a committee that runs the organization largely the same as a for-profit corporation.
Wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumers%27_cooperative tells us: "'Every year members receive a share of the profits that they helped to create, based on the amount made in profits that year and the how much they had spent with any of its businesses.'"
But profit only occurs if the consumer is buying goods from an owner at some price above cost.
So why are these consumers buying those goods? Aren't they the owners already?
A cooperative operating by the "Rochdale Principles" removes the connection between the Consumer and the Sources of their needs. This (ignorantly or insidiously) insures exchange, and therefore Profit, is perpetuated.
Under the system of PropertyLeft, Profit tapers toward zero as property is distributed, and property is distributed each time a Consumer pays Price above Cost because that overpayment is invested *for* the payer in more Sources that finally become his own Property.
Cooperatives are operated in a 'Democratic' manner with one vote per person, no matter how that person has invested.
This is very different from how sharing works between individuals or in very small club.
Usually trading goods occurs when the consumer has insufficient ownership in the Physical Sources of that production - for when his ownership is sufficient, he does not 'buy' apples, but instead owns them already as a result of his owning the trees and pre-paying the costs of that production (with Wages being one of those costs).
A cooperative suffers the "Tyranny of the Majority" compliance because fees/taxes collected into a slush-fund and then doled out by a committee-administered entity
* A CCC is not an administrative entity and has no defined committee, but is merely an observation that many independent co-owners using the CCCC may choose to work together for the benefits it brings. We define a CCC only for the purpose of easily talking about such groups of co-owners, but that cooperation is neither mandatory nor centrally managed. The CCCC may even need a clause to help keep otherwise independent groups from being coerced into participating in governance or being drawn into clustering policies which some personalities will likely want to inflict during later stages of development.
It is now clear to me how misleading it is to utilize the term 'cooperative' since that word is traditionally envisioned as an overarching entity of control instead of the loosely connected independent groups of co-owners which the CCCC would foster.
==Ownership of the outputs
* A CC entity owns the outputs of production and sells those goods back to each individual consumer/owner - causing price above cost even if consumer/owner had sufficient ownership to have been the owner of those goods already.
* When using the CCCC, the individual owners of each individual Physical Source is the owner of the ouputs of that production, so goods are not sold unless the owner decides he has an 'excess' and chooses to do so - but in that case profit must be treated as an investment from the payer.
* A CC may have arbitrary conditions of ownership applied homogenously to all Physical Sources across the entire cooperative such as "'Membership is open to everyone as long as they share the Group's values and principles.'" [ Wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Co-operative_Group ]
* The CCCC has only one condition of ownership: If the owners of an object under the CCCC choose to sell, give, rent, trade, share, propagate or convey that object - any price above cost must be retained by the payer as a receipt of investment in more productive sources. This investment is currently known as a Product Future.
== Treatment of profit
* A CC treats profit as a reward for the current owners: "'Every year members receive a share of the profits that they helped to create, based on the amount made in profits that year and the how much they had spent with any of its businesses.'" But profit only occurs when a consumer must buy the good, and that only occurs when he has insufficient ownership in the Physical Sources - for when his ownership is sufficient, he should not need to 'buy' apples, but would instead own them already as a result of his owning the Physical Sources and paying the costs of production.
* The CCCC is a Trade Agreement that requires price above cost be treated as an investment from the payer so that latecomers gain property in new Physical Sources at the rate they are willing and able to pay.
* A CC is supposedly 'democratic' in that each member has one vote over the operation of the *entire* cooperative no matter the amount they have invested. This has Tyranny of the Majority problems, gives newcomers too much weight compared to more established members and will probably lead to 'representative' governance.
* The CCCC creates extremely localized governance because it is applied solely by the co-owners of each indivisible Physical Source. The only mandatory laws are embodied within the CCCC and enforced by the private-property laws of the 'containing' city, state and nation. Owners using the CCCC might enforce extra restrictions upon the use, modification, copying and sharing of their physical property instances as long as those restrictions do not violate the CCCC.
Jun-01-2010: P2PFoundation.net/Cooperatives_-_Discussion says ownership must be separated from voting rights to keep the coop from turning into a for-profit enterprise.
This attempts to solve problems caused by the misapplication of Profit through a reduction in divisibility.