Related: diary
Jun-30-2012: The NetNote Compact
Become co-owner when you invest work, land or capital.
Product is the natural return from those investments.
Become co-owner if you pay profit when buying surplus.
You must pay recurring costs to insure that production.
Investments become insurance; debt is never necessary.
Vertical Integration, Horizontal Diversity.
Subgroups secede when threatened by majority tyranny.
Jun-26-2012:
wayne, steve wrote:
> Do you suggest that with a vertically integrated
> permaculture mosaic we do not need money, or that
> the only time money is used is when interfacing with
> the external economy?
Yes, the need for money within the VIPM is reduced in
two ways:
1.) Products are not bought or sold (except surplus)
because they are already the property of the people
who will use them.
2.) Wages are not paid in the traditional sense
because we barter skills before production begins.
But people will need plain-old-money for as long as
the Products they want are not yet fully Vertically
Integrated within the VIPM.
I think the most common transition will be for
subgroups to initially purchase off-site Products in
bulk to "tide them over" while also slowly investing
in the MoP for that Product.
For example, if you like hamburgers, then you will
group-up with others to buy beef-calves and alfalfa
seed and salt-licks and even finally salt mines; but
until those things can be aquired and fully
productive, you might also want to buy cases of frozen
hamburgers from some off-site farmer or even just a
regular grocery store or wherever.
> You mentioned building our own ISP... we need some
> entry point into that network which is likely to be
> a utility service provided by the extant capitalist
> system. But where does the money for interfacing in
> these ways come from?
In nearly every case, for nearly every Product, The
money will mostly come from middle-income consumers
who can pre-pay for that Product in bulk and also
toward buying the MoP to wean ourselves off of the
Capitalist providers.
In the example of an ISP, we organize neighborhoods of
consumers to pre-pay for the equipment needed to
connect their houses to each other, and then subscribe
to the ISP through a "business grade" connection that
is split among them.
> What about other vital services and products? Such
> as those related to personal transportation;
> What about healthcare? It is fine to
> suggest that someone with a degree in medicine
> -should- provide those services for the promise of
> future repayment from patients, yet this kind of
> promise does not provide any financial liability
> buffer against legal action involved in malpractice
> disputes.
> Even IF you manage to construct an
> effective legal barrier against such actions, what
> recourse is there for those who feel they have been
> wronged by those providing healthcare? Does the
> legal barrier allow any person claiming to have
> medical knowledge or experience practice without
> qualification? Don't get me wrong; I am all about
> owning the means of production. I am currently
> involved in an ongoing discussion with the owner of
> the company I work for, trying to convince him to
> turn the company into a democratic, worker-owned
> cooperative. I also donate time and money
> volunteering at my local independent media center:
> by the end of the summer, we hope to be hosting our
> own Diaspora server and community wiki.
Jun-23-2012:
Rohan Dixit wrote:
> What's the first (smallest) step
> we can take in that direction?
Here are my rough thoughts:
0. Pre-Boot Stage:
Determine minimum size and complexity needed for basic
food and shelter of occupants.
Identify symbiotic plant, animal and fungus species
needed for raw materials of food, soap, paper, cloth,
fuel, etc.
Find affordable farmland, hopefully with naturally
sufficient water or humidity.
Research how to register as a non-profit entity.
Crowd-Fund the money needed to buy the land,
water-rights, flora/fauna/fungi, tools, pipes,
etc. needed to begin production.
Also Crowd-Fund the money needed to buy tents or
trailers, bulk food, paper, used clothes, etc. needed
to sustain the workers during the Growth Stage.
Crowd-Funders receive real co-ownership in the VIPM
with the natural ROI being a % of the outputs of that
production.
Workers also receive real co-ownership in the VIPM
with the natural ROI being a % of the outputs of that
production.
Workers are paid initially with a "Basic Outcome"
consisting of bare essentials such as tent or trailer
housing and cafeteria-style meals.
1. Boot Stage:
Purchase the assets needed to begin.
'Hire' the Workers by having them sign contracts to
work a certain number of hours per week or (better),
to achieve certain goals within some time-frame.
Workers receive more or less co-ownership depending
upon how much they commit to achieve as measured by
others within the VIPM that need those services.
All investors (whether Crowd-Funders living offsite or
Workers living onsite) must continue to pay the
recurring costs of production or slowly lose ownership
as their portion of the VIPM is sold to cover those
costs.
Workers usually pay recurring costs with labor.
Crowd-Funders usually pay recurring costs with money
used to buy assets that we are not yet able to
generate onsite (because we are not yet fully
Vertically Integrated).
2. Growth Stage:
As the agriculture begins to produce, most of the
output is not sold, but is already the property of
each investor according to the amount the did commit.
Most investors will eventually have surplus
(especially after a few years of growth and natural
regeneration of species).
Each investor can choose to do whatever they like with
their own surplus except for one specific constraint:
"Profit must be treated as Payer Investment".
For example, say you have 100 extra lbs of Olives.
You can turn these into oil and try to burn them in a
diesel engine, or you can offer them as a sacrifice to
your God, or you can sell them to your neighbor *but*
if you sell them, you must treat any amount above
Costs as though the buyer had made an investment in
the VIPM.
Separating Profit from Wages is a bit complicated, so
I will try talk-out how that works:
If you do the work of selling the Olives, then you can
claim that everything the buyer paid beyond any other
Costs you may have incurred is your Wages for doing
that work.
That is completely fine, even if it seems you are
overpaying yourself.
But if you hire someone to sell the Olives, or (and
this next case will be the most common) if you just
let the VIPM storehouse sell any of your surplus for
you, then those workers will be paid wages that are
easily separated from Profits, and so all you will
receive are all Costs needed to cover that
overproduction - so you will "break even" with regards
to any surplus.
This will cause most people to own only approximately
as much in each part of the VIPM as they need the
outputs - though most people will likely want to own
just a little bit more as a sort of 'insurance'
against the possibility lean years of production
caused by drought or pestilence, etc.
Jun-23-2012:
We, the people, pay for all production in the end, but we pay *late*, and so do not own the Means of that production, and so must continually beg those owners to do what we wish - even though they cannot comply because they seek to keep price above cost which requires we be subjugated.
Why will we not organize for our mutual benefit?
We already pay all the initial and recurring costs *and* we even pay more when we pay Profit, and yet we still have no control.
If we, as consumers, would pre-pay for products and use that money to buy and co-own farms and factories and networks for the purpose of accepting the Product as the return on investment, then we would finally have the control we seek, and Profit would be undefined (since the Product is not sold when it is already owned by those who will consume it).
Come on, let's stop begging the current owners and group together to co-own the land and water and plants and animals we need to live without paying tribute to the billionaire feudalists.
Mark Holmquist wrote:
>
> Digital freedom has to do with the freedom to use
> your own tools, things you own, any way you'd like.
Yes, we tend to focus on individual User Freedom and
seem to assume that is all we can do.
But the next stage in User Freedom will be to organize
*groups* of Users to buy and co-own the Means of every
product we use.
For example, we do not co-own the ISPs and cell-phone
networks we use, and so must accept the current owners
arbitrarily shutting ports and sniffing packets and
overcharging and generally dominating us because we
do not co-own those physical assets.
> What you're discussing here isn't about individual
> freedoms
You are right.
I am talking about *group* freedoms, which are much
more complicated, but worth the extra complexity
because of the control and effeciency they offer.
> it's about changing the economic system
Well, it is about creating GNU corporations that are
structured in this way, not about begging politicians
to do anything differently.
> We would technically own the MOP, but we wouldn't
> then be free to go in and tinker
We will tinker in *groups*.
> going in and accidentally breaking the
> dairy machines would be suboptimal.
Yes, but each group could make that choice.
If a group wanted to tinker with the machines they
own, they could do so.
Individuals within such a group might disagree, and so
should voice their opinion (vote). This is a
complicated matter, but is no different from any
corporation that is co-owned by many individuals.
> There would almost certainly be laws, or at least
> rules, to prevent such things.
Yes, each group would have their own specific rules
that they decide upon as a group.
> I mean, there might be some merit to these ideas,
> but it's not something that the FSF necessarily
> wants to promote. As far as I can tell, the FSF
> tries to reach out to companies, saying that free
> software is compatible with viable business models
> that work in a capitalist society.
Organizing Users to co-own the MOP in groups will
solve most of the problems that the FSF complains
about with regards to harware, such as "Defective By
Design", complaints about the iPhone, Tivoization,
etc. because we, as groups, will then co-own factories
where we can manufacture hardware that respects our
freedom.
> And in general, as free software advocates, it's a
> lot harder for us to fight for individual freedoms
> *and* massive social change at the same time
We can no longer stay in our caves while hoping the
corporations will start playing nicely of their own
volition.
Regular corporations *cannot* do what the Users
expect, because to do so would remove the barriers
that keep price above cost; and since the investors in
regular corporations expect that difference (called
Profit) as the return for their investments, regular
corporations are forever pitted against the users they
pretend to want to serve.
But when the Users invest to co-own corporations with
Product as their ROI, then there is no conflict
between Users and Owners - since they are one in the
same, and there is no Profit (except when selling
surplus), and so price and cost are identical since
the Product is not even sold when it is already in the
hands of those who need it.
Sincerely,
Patrick Anderson
http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com
Jun-22-2012:
We must expand our sense of responsibility beyond our
personal skillset to include co-ownership in all the
Means of Production required for all of our physical
needs.
We will buy land and tools and plants and animals and
water rights to begin a Vertically Integrated
Permaculture Mosaic.
We will attract middle-income consumers to pre-pay for
organic food (both groceries and restaurant) and many
other products, such as ISP services that we will
create within the VIPM. This is similar to
crowd-funding.
Those consumers will become real co-owners of the
VIPM, and so will pay all the Costs of production
(only for the specific products they want), but since
they will not buy the product from us (they each own
their % already), they will not be able to pay Profit
or sales-Tax on that missing transaction.
We will attract workers to commit to labor in the
future (promise to pay with work) in return for their
receiving co-ownership in the VIPM in the MoP for
which they want the outputs (not necessarily for the
MoP for which they have skills).
Those workers are also consumers, and will become real
co-owners of the VIPM, and so will pay all the Costs
of production (only for the specific products they
want), but since they will not buy the product from us
(they each own their % already), they will not be able
to pay Profit or sales-Tax on that missing
transaction.
We will not pay the consumers or the workers with money.
We will not pay the consumers or the workers with product.
These investors receive product as a "side-effect" of
their co-owning the Means of Production.
For example, the owner of a milk-cow does not *buy*
the milk from himself, he owns it already.
Similarly, the co-owners of a milk dairy do not *buy*
the milk from themselves, they each own their % already.
We can accomplish this without begging politicians.
We can organized in small groups that buy and co-own
the Means of Production very much like any business or
organization, but with the following Terms of
Operation as self-enforced constraints:
1.) Product is the Investor's Return. This means
Consumers will micro-invest by pre-paying for results,
become co-owners of that business and receive the
Product itself as a side-effect of that ownership
2.) Profit is the Payer's Investment. This means
late-coming Consumers will overpay for Product as
usual, but we will treat (at least some % of) that
value as though they had invested as described in #1.
3.) Investments are commitments of Future Labor and
Physical Sources. This means we will issue a
deposit-based, insuring currency backed by both the
land and tools and other inputs, plus the work needed
to transform those assets into a Product.
These adjustments allow us to move away from excessive
token-passing and toward productivity that can safely
reach stasis - eliminating the perceived need for
infinite growth.
Please ask questions and help me fix what is wrong
with the idea.
Sincerely, Patrick Anderson
http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com
Jun-21-2012: Working on: IOTA, VIPM, Arena, Imput, _Thesis, GNUrho, _FAQ, AGNU, profit
Jun-20-2012: Trying to get video-capture going for the webcam on my Acer One
$ sudo adduser user video
$ mplayer tv:// -tv driver=v4l2:device=/dev/video0
cinellera
kino
dvgrab
vlc
jahshaka
Jun-15-2012: Looking for ideas for an Imputed Production icon that highlights the worker as consumer. I must avoid the sickle/hammer symbology (☭) which is often interpreted as Soviet (Council) operated.
Jun-13-2012:
Horizontally Diverse enough to house and feed the Workers, and Vertically Integrated enough to avoid external funding.
1.) Middle-income consumers pre-pay for organic goods. That money to buy some land and tools and plants and animals.
Workers are also investors when they commit to work in the future.
Both types of investors receive co-ownership in the Production Arena for the purpose of receiving the product at cost.
The IOTA (Intra-Owner Trade Agreement) is a way to track the 2 commitment types (whether Capital or Labor), so we can account for who has picked-up their milk (for example), so they cannot cheat.
The IOTA is more like a Title of Insurance, but can also be used as a currency.
Jun-08-2012: Permaculture Production Arena
Mark Janssen-Rosenbluth wrote:
> happy gift economy
I am not talking about gifts.
What I outline accounts for all property and all work.
Nobody can be a freeloader in the system I describe.
If you do not continuously pay the recurring costs with Land, Capital
or Labor (and in the end only Labor will be needed, as we will have
purchased all the Land and Capital away from the current system), then
you will not receive the goods and services you need, and so you will
likely die.
I do not believe a gift economy can scale to overgrow the current system.
Jun-08-2012: Permaculture Production Arena
Mark Roest wrote:
> community cooperatives, labor unions
In both cases, the product must be sold and the workers are paid with
Federal Reserve Notes.
Products are not sold (except surplus*) when the consumers co-own the
Means of Production, because the product is already in the hands of
those who will consume it - even before it is produced.
When workers commit to swap skills before production begins, then
there is no need to use external tokens (such as Federal Reserve
Notes) or internal tokens (such as some community currency) to pay the
workers.
Combining both of these means both of those transactions
(buying/selling goods and paying/receiving wages) are eliminated, and
so taxes and profit are also eliminated.
(*) We should sell surplus to those with insufficient ownership, and
should even charge profit against them (let the market set price), but
must treat those overpayments as an investment from that consumer in
the growth of the arena, so that everyone incrementally becomes
co-owners in the Means of Production for the products they need, and
so can also have the real insurance that property provides as future
product.
Jun-08-2012: Permaculture Production Arena
Devin Balkind wrote:
> One opportunity where we could collaborate is through Occupy Farms
I am very happy http://OccupyFarms.nycga.net has begun, but see it will have difficulty scaling in it's current form.
I wish I could just say "Fantastic! Let's go!", but the application I read gives me little hope of insuring my family's wellbeing.
I want to just signup and move there right now, but can see it is a very fragile situation that will likely have trouble scaling to any significant degree, and even if it were to scale, there does not seem to be a written strategy (unless there is a document I did not find) for insuring power is not concentrated into the hands of the originators, leaving the workers with nothing.
> What do you want to do?
I want to build an alternate situation that can grow to cover the entire Earth.
I want to work with people like you to do almost the same as what you are doing, but before I can put my hands in the dirt (and that is really where I want them), I must have a comprehensive plan to assure the workers gain the security that only real co-ownership can offer.
Every worker (and all of that person's "dependents") needs food and housing and basic health-care and clothing and basic utilities, etc.
Of course we don't want to pay workers with Federal Reserve Notes, but paying them with goods and services is not quite right either.
The workers must become *real* co-owners in the Means of Production for each of the products they need (this is consumer-owned, not worker-owned), and must also commit to trade labor with others within the "Production Arena" if they intend to benefit from specialization.
This means we must have a minimum amount of "Horizontal Diversity" to meet all the variety of (at least basic) needs for every worker.
For example, we need to build a dentist office and buy/build the tools for simple dental procedures. We must attract or train someone that can operate those tools, and who is willing to commit to do that work for the 'pay' of gaining co-ownership in the Means of Production for his housing, food, clothing, transportation, sanitation, etc. combined with commitments of others to operate those MoP for his benefit in return for his fixing their teeth.
We must also work toward "Vertical Integration" to move away from the need to use external tokens.
For example, we might buy chicken-feed at first, but must grow those plants to avoid the need to buy.
Vertical Integration is a very long-term goal, and we won't co-own mines or factories right away, but will just buy shovels from China at first.
Part of the initial startup costs can be collected from middle-income consumers who are willing to pre-pay for organic goods.
Each person would invest just enough (either Land, Capital or Labor) to cover the predicted costs of production for the amount of Product they each intend to use.
Each of these investors would still need to pay their % of the costs as usual, but since they would accept the Product itself as the return for that risk, there would be sale, and so Profit would not exist at all.
Here is the rough business model:
----
1.) Product is the Investor's Return. This means Consumers will micro-invest by pre-paying for results, become co-owners of that business and receive the Product itself as a side-effect of that ownership.
2.) Profit is the Payer's Investment. This means late-coming Consumers will overpay for Product as usual, but we will treat (at least some % of) that value as though they had invested as described in #1.
3.) Investments are commitments of Future Labor and Physical Sources. This means we will issue a deposit-based, *insuring* currency backed by both the land and tools and other inputs, plus the work needed to transform those assets into a Product.
I am cleaning-up the "insuring currency" document mentioned in #3, and will post that later.
Sincerely,
Patrick Anderson
http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com
Jun-07-2012: Posted to Fakebook:
The robots are coming, The robots are coming!
The state of Nevada began issuing licenses for driverless vehicles last month.
Fully robotic dairies have been operational for a few years now.
Robots are picking nuts and berries and some other produce.
Foxconn (makers of iPad, etc.) will be replacing many workers with 1 Million robots in a few years.
Most of the work in these simple industries can already be accomplished without human interaction.
So back to the question of *WHO* should own the Means of Production...
If Willie Nelson (and Karl Marx, and anyone wishing for a Worker-Owned society) is right, then what in the world will we do when it takes only a few people to supply 1 million loaves of bread?
Are we sure the consumers must not have any ownership?
If the consumers were to co-own the farms and factories, and if they were to accept the Product as the ROI, then there would be no sale, and so Price and Cost would be the same, and Profit would be *undefined*.
Why are we so frightened of co-ownership for our mutual benefit?
As consumers, we already pay all the costs of production anyway ... AND we pay Profit. So clearly we could afford to be the owners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car
Jun-07-2012: AngelicOrganics.org
Jun-07-2012: YoungFarmers.org/farm-hack
Jun-07-2012: Working on: Imput, _Thesis, GNUrho, _FAQ, AGNU, profit