Related: diary
Mar-18-2013:
Hi Sven,
I do not know of anyone using this approach.
An existing service could move this direction by changing their operations to:
1. Treat some (ideally all) profit as an investment from the payer.
2. Treat some (ideally all) investors as real co-owners that are compensated 'naturally' as a side-effect of their co-ownership (it is crucial that co-owners are not buying the product back from the collective others).
3. Treat commitments of future labor as another form of investment so that workers become real co-owners and the traditional payment of wages is avoided.
4. Allow subgroups to secede from the whole for any arbitrary reason. This is an attempt to solve the "Tyranny of the Majority" problem.
Mar-17-2013:
Of course you don't buy that which you already own...
Traditional business uses property to sell product.
But property can be used to *avoid buying* product.
The owner of a car does not need to buy access to that vehicle because he owns it already as a side-effect of his owning the car.
The co-owners of a car pool do not need to buy access to those vehicles because they own it already as a side-effect of their co-owning the cars.
A follow-up article might be titled "Sharing for Product - We're Not Buying it Anymore" since we, the consumers, do not need to buy the product when we own the means of production ... we own it already!
This is the first step toward eliminating the use money while retaining specialization and efficiency-of-scale.
The next step is to accept promises to work in the future as another form of investment so that workers that cross-commit their skills become co-owners in the means of production for which they need goods and services (not necessarily the means of production which they happen to apply those skills).
This requires a "Production Arena" with enough vertical integration and horizontal diversity to allow workers to be 'paid' by receiving the products they need as a side-effect of their ownership and paying costs by adding work somewhere within that arena that is accepted by others in return for their providing their skills toward the production of the goods and services he needs.
Mar-16-2013:
Much of this confusion is caused by our misunderstanding the true origin of profit.
Profit measures the consumers lack of ownership in the means of production.
From the consumer's perspective, you might say profit is the inverse of property. We could write that as profit == 1/property.
And so profit is eliminated (does not occur) when the consumers own a car-sharing service and accept the product (car usage) as their return on investment.
This must be *real* property ownership that allows the consumer to receive the product without purchasing it back from the collective others.
For example, imagine a car-sharing service that is fully owned by all the people who have need of that service.
Each investor is a future consumer that is funding the operation for the sole purpose of receiving the product at the real cost and under their full control.
Each consumer/owner receives the same % of the product (car usage in this case) as the amount of co-ownership they have paid for.
Each consumer/owner must pay their portion of all the initial and recurring costs of operation, just as any corporation must, but they cannot pay profit because they do not *buy* the product - they receive it as their ROI.
This is a generalization of the concept described at http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent which explains that governments cannot even collect taxes because the transaction has been short-circuited and simply does not exist.
This solves the 'static' case where each consumer co-owns exactly the right amount needed to supply them with the product they predict they will need.
The 'dynamic' case must address imperfect predictions (you suddenly need a car when you did not expect it) and where non-owners are being allowed to rent the cars.
I have a good answer to this, but it takes some time to explain, so will save it for a follow-up post.
Mar-16-2013: Posted somewhere on Fakebook:
Imagine a bike-sharing club that is fully owned by the people who will use those bikes.
Each user/owner pays their portion of the costs of operation and receives that proportional amount of access.
Some users, who intend to use the bikes more often, might buy more 'shares', while those who intend to use will buy less.
The ROI (return on investment) for these investors is the Product itself (access to a pool of shared bikes).
If the amount each invested is exactly the amount needed to cover the costs (where 'exclusion' is also a cost) they finally inflict, then there is no profit possible since the price they pay as users is exactly the costs they paid as co-owners.
That is the 'static' case, where every potential user can predict the amount of product they want and that amount does not change.
The 'dynamic' case adds some complexity, but is really quite reasonable:
In the case where there is surplus Product (bikes available for use that have not been scheduled), we should *rent* those bikes to those with insufficient ownership needed to cover the costs they inflict and should charge whatever the "market will bear" - which means we will likely *profit* AAaaahh!
But wait... We are going to do something tricky here.
We will charge profit against the latecomer and then immediately invest that overpayment in more 'Sources' (bikes in this case) - with the ownership of that growth finally vesting to that very same payer.
This will cause the club to grow in size while automatically distributing the ownership of that growth to those who pay for it.
What I am describing is necessarily not a cooperative.
A consumer-owned cooperative always *sells* the product back to the supposed co-owners, collecting profit during that transaction, and then uses a well-intended committee/council to attempt doling out those overcharges.
What I describe completely eliminates that transaction and so governments are not even able to collect taxes because there is no sale and no purchase by those who are real co-owners. See http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent for a portion of the idea.
Imputed rent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org
Imputed rent is the economic theory of imputation applied to real estate: that t...
Part of the way I solve the concern you have about "financially-driven power dynamic" is to use a "Terms of Operation" that requires the club treat profit as payer investment so there is never incentive to own more than you have need.
The other way is to always allow 'forking' or 'secession' so that any subgroup that wants to do things their own way can always take their portion of the property (some bikes for example) and do their own thing without approval of the majority.
Mar-10-2013:
Investors cross-commit either Sources or Skills for production they need.
Investors receive commitments of Sources and Skills from others in return.
Investors become property owners in the Sources of the Products they seek.
Investors become "promise holders" of the Skills applied to those Sources.
Commitments of Sources and Skills are claims against future Production.
Products are pre-allocated to those who will finally consume them.
External products are required during the 'bootup' stage of growth.
Vertical integration and horizontal diversity reduces this dependence.
Surplus is sold to outsiders for their commitments of Sources or Skills.
Commitments above cost are reflected to each payer as their investment.
Subgroups may always secede or sell their portion of Sources they co-own.
Mar-04-2013: Responding to Charley Quinton:
Thanks for continuing with me Charley. I hope we can figure this out together.
http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com and http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com are my main writing outlets, but I have not added much lately.
Here's another attempt to explain this strange system that eliminates most of the need to use money (except for buying more land and tools that cannot yet be made within the system) by using Property and Promises to create an actual insurance for each good and service.
1. Consumers become real co-owners when the micro-invest just enough to gain the property needed to produce what they predict they will need. This is a bit like crowd funding, but the investors become real property owners in the Production Arena. Strangely, this means the product does not need to be sold because it is already in the hands of those who need it and so the Price they pay as consumers is simply the Costs they paid as owners and so Profit is 0 (actually it is undefined because the transaction is missing). This means external governments cannot collect sales tax on the missing transaction. See athttp://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent for a partial explanation.
2. Workers also receive co-ownership in the land and tools used to produce that which they need (not necessarily that which they have skill and desire to 'operate') when they commit promises to work in the future. This is a sort of "work bond" that eliminates traditional wages and puts workers on equal footing with other investors. This means external governments cannot collect income tax because there is no transaction to tax. See http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_income
3. Each co-owner may do whatever they like with their own surplus, but if they just leave it in one of our storehouses, it will be sold to those with insufficient ownership for a profit. We will then treat that overpayment as an investment from that payer so that each consumer incrementally gains the co-ownership needed to supply them with the products they need in the future. This also means the growth of that business is autodistributed to those willing to pay for that growth.
4. Any subgroup must be able to secede from the group for any reason while retaining their portion of the property. When the property is not realistically divisible, the subgroup must be able to sell their portion without extra penalties. This is an attempt to solve the Tyranny of the Majority problem.