Related: diary
Nov-28-2010: [p2p-research] Article - Tim Berners Lee - "Long Live the Web: A Call for Continued Open Standards and Neutrality"
> Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> The Web is critical not merely to the digital revolution but to our
> continued prosperity---and even our liberty.
> Like democracy itself, it needs defending
Owners RULE.
Own or Be Owned!
We can continue to beg those who own the physical infrastructure, or
we can begin to co-own for our collective benefit.
Why are we so terrified to take this responsibility upon ourselves?
We, the Users, pay for *all* the Costs of ownership already and pay
Profit as well because we have left the risk-taking to those who
intend to dominate us.
Is it really that difficult to see why they will not listen, when the
artificially scarcity and constructed barriers they create INCREASE
their profits?
Straight to Hell with the begging and pleading!
We, the Users, must organize and co-own so we can then simply ignore
those who would have us pay tribute.
Nov-28-2010: [p2p-research] Non digital commons a lot more complicated than Free Software
j.martin.pedersen wrote:
> When enough eyes see the materiality of the virtual,
> the hack might emerge. We are far from that.
Yes, why is the "materiality of the virtual" so vehemently denied?
Why do so many claim the costs of storing and delivering Software,
Video, Music, etc. are 'marginal' - as though they should be ignored?
The Physical Sources required to host these Virtual Sources are
*massive* for corporations such as Google, Facebook, etc.
This problem is *NO DIFFERENT* from the ancient problem of Land
ownership for the purpose of basic subsistence.
We must learn to work together. We cannot overgrow the Capitalists in
solitary confinement.
But instead of facing the problem of co-owing Physical Sources, we are
told by Eben Moglen, Richard Stallman and many others that each of us
must own these things in *absolute isolation* to retain Freedom.
The Open Manufacturers are also in denial; they focus solely upon
design and *individual* ownership of manufacturing plants (RepRap,
etc.),
even though the original manufacturing plants (organisms that create
food, medicine, soaps, etc.) have been forever available for
individual ownership (gardening)
Individual, isolated ownership *DOES NOT WORK* because we are then
each forced to have the extreme skills needed to operate and deal with
the outputs of those Servers, Robots or Organisms which is far more
time and labor intensive as compared to the efficiency of scale the
Capitalists enjoy.
Furthermore, some Physical Sources are *meaningless* when owned in isolation.
For example, We, the Users, will need collectively purchase and/or
build and then co-own the material infrastructure that our ISPs and
Cell-Phone providers hold against us before we can finally have any
real say in how those networks are governed.
Once we see that Property Ownership can be used as a force for good,
we can then begin to co-buy our way out of subjection.
But such an organization will be very unstable unless we are able to
admit the true origin and purpose of Profit, for otherwise the
originators of such a facility will surely treat that Price above Cost
as a reward for themselves - which will concentrate power and
eventually cause the group to be no different from any other
Capitalist endeavor.
Nov-20-2010: [Open Manufacturing] Co-Ownership for Success in Open Manufacturing
Thomas Fledrich wrote:
> Might add that I see it as one of the most important goals of open
> manufacturing now for everyone to have costless access to a set of
> goods that are enough to cover basic necessities of life,
I wonder what you mean by 'costless'.
Of course everything has a cost, even if just the space it consumes.
Maybe you mean "at cost"?
> so one will be able to work on projects without the need of an
> external investment (profit), to cover these costs in the first place.
We've been fooled into believing our investments must return Profit
which we will then use to purchase all the Products (such as Food and
Shelter) that we need.
How strange that we have forgotten the value of investing for Product
*directly*.
We *can* have a "Basic Outcome" by co-owing the Means of Production
needed for those solutions instead of holding those solutions against
our collective selves in the bizarre pursuit of keeping Price above
Cost...
Imagine how cheap housing would be if we *actually* co-owned the land
instead of being in debt to bankers.
Imagine how cheap food would be if we co-owned the farms together and
received the food itself as the ROI for the risk we take.
Grouping together can be valuable even if not purchasing the final Sources.
For example, imagine a neighborhood of say 1000 people rent a
Business-Class internet connection from an ISP in the area.
Let's say the Price the ISP charges is $500/month.
Suddenly all these co-payers have high-speed internet in the US for
just $2/month!
We can do this with any and all industry. Imagine a Consumer Owned
cell-phone network.
We would only charge ourselves *exactly* what it Costs to send a txt
message or a photograph, etc.
Why do we not do this?
This is important for Open Manufacturing, because many Machines are
still too expensive to be owned by just one person at a time.
We need to learn how to co-own for our OWN benefit.
Nov-20-2010: [Open Manufacturing] S510 May Mean 10 Years in Prison for Farmers for saving seeds
Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
> This is a rant on laws about preventing people from saving seeds.
But increasing Scarcity increases Profit, and we cannot live without
Profit ... right?
By the way, I wrote about this here:
http://patware.freeshell.org/gpl%20is%20bad.htm
"'3. Organism genetics are being locked closed by Monsanto and many
other economy minded corporations to increase dependence, lower
security, and guarantee profits. The Iraq COALITION PROVISIONAL
AUTHORITY ORDER NUMBER 81 ensures "patent, industrial design,
undisclosed information, integrated circuits and plant variety" are
LOCKED CLOSED to ensure our domination of this people we have starved
and bombed for nearly 20 years through the UN enforced sanctions
continues.'"
I also read there was a "seed bank" in the Abu Ghraib that was looted
during our invasion of that country - leaving the people there without
much of a choice in whether to accept the User Subjugating varieties.
Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
> The issue here is really "rent".
Maybe closer to "Economic Rent" [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent ].
But even more generally can be understood as Price above Cost.
Monsanto and others keep Price above Cost by denying access to Sources.
Sources are the preconditions required to create or express another Instance.
Sources are all of the Virutal and Physical Means of Production needed to Copy.
Wheat seeds copy themselves if itself if given access to their
supporting Sources.
Monsanto stops copying through laws enforced through legal means,
but also enforces them physically through Terminator(TM) technolgy.
Most ignorantly believe the entire *goal* of Production is to keep
Price above Cost.
Product is the forgotten goal. And it can be the payment when
Investors are Consumers.
There is a special case of Property Ownership that causes Price to be Cost.
When Physical Sources are Owned by the Consumer, and the Virtual Locked Open,
Then the Price we pay for Needs is exactly the Cost of completing that
Production.
In this strange realm, employment is no longer a goal, but a thing to
be minimized.
There is no buying or selling of goods, for those who need Olives
co-own those trees.
When Consumers own Sources, Profit is undefined because the Product is not Sold.
> individual wealth can grow to the point
> where it becomes the government and
> pass laws favorable to itself
Wealth is based in Property.
Property is gained during Growth.
Who, ideally, should Own that new Growth?
Tell me why it should not be the Payer.
If it is the current Owners, then Wealth will concentrate.
> Anyway, I continue to think that "rent seeking" is a better way to talk about this sort of stuff than "profit".
ok
> Artificial scarcity is, now that I think about it,
> essentially perhaps synonymous with rent seeking?
Seeking Economic Rent promotes the creation of Artificial Scarcity
because Artificial Scarcity increases Economic Rent.
Nov-20-2010: Holdings and Improvements
Alex Rollin wrote:
> What do you mean by "weight against *holdings*
> instead of weighing against improvements"?
This is a rephrasing of the concept of "Land Tax" or "Single Tax" or
"Community Rent" as proposed by Henry George and many other economic
thinkers.
The primary problem with the way most cities handle "Property Tax" is
that they allow the very rich to hold land idle in *speculation* of
returns - causing prices to rise and forms the basis of sprawl.
So "Property Tax", as it is now, is a terrible model for us to
emulate, as it would have us punish those that improve their lots,
while allowing (and I would say even *promoting*) the 'hoarding' of
land and resources by those who live by the sword of Artificial
Scarcity.
> address the concepts of mutuality
> (equal holding rights on some level,
> with 1 penny being the entry point)
Are you talking about some sort of "bare minimum" standard-of-living,
or is it more about how some votes should not depend upon holdings?
> look at how asymmetric contribution is handled.
I think this is almost as easy as "% of holdings within each ownership group".
For example, if I co-buy a roto-tiller with some other guys, and
supplied 21% of the funds, then I have 21% of the 'say' when we decide
things like "How often should we change the oil?".
> I must not be thinking about this correctly, though.
The question is more simple than I explained. It is more like:
"What is the optimum* way to Tax* the Citizens*?"
(*Optimum) meaning: Highest standard of living at the lowest overall
costs (including all ecological and long-term externalities).
(*Tax) meaning: Covering the Costs of co-owned property and production.
(*Citizens) meaning: Us, the co-owners.
----
Imagine you, me, and 98 other people buy 100 acres, each with 1% ownership.
The Rules of our co-owned Land are analogous to the Laws of a City.
Many of us will want a places where we can gather together.
Places where we can share space and tools and results.
So, instead of 100 perfect squares of isolated ownership, we will want
other arrangements, some of which we do not even yet know the shape.
Many of us will want to co-fund projects such as roads, internet
access, wireless telephones, and most other "Public Works" and
Industries.
This is the same as the original or 'needed' part in Club Dues, Union
Fees, HOA Bills, Road Tolls, Church Tithes, etc...
1.) How do we cover our Costs?
2.) How much should each co-owner pay for continuous and recurring costs?
3.) How much should each co-owner pay for *extra* costs they inflict
against the other co-owners?
4.) There is more to this.
> Every person who has 1 penny in equity ought to have a say, somehow.
I think I agree, but this is a section we must explore greatly to find
what really needs to be done here.
> You guys buy the rototiller, everyone can use it
> but you have first priority.
I would say he selection of 'Priority' in allocation and Scheduling is
*the* most important goal of Social Hypervision.
> You decide, since you own 98%,
> to pump another 80,000 into it.
No co-owner should ever be *required* to sell any of his portion.
So I cannot 'pump' another co-owner out of his holdings,
though they might be willing to sell.
> This puts everyone else at .000001%.
> You decide to use it all the time.
I don't see this as a problem because I don't want to outlaw singular-ownership.
If I think I can utilize the tiller to make it worth it to myself,
then I should be allowed to buy one without any other co-owners.
This is obvious, but maybe just an artifact of the 'pump' error covered above.
> Your taxes go up because you have fewer
> user partners on a greater holding.
I hadn't thought about it quite like that.
It reminds us that "Utilization increases Efficiency".
Each of us wants to keep the Land and Tools BUSY with other co-users,
because that decreases the % of Costs we each pay.
I might be able to co-own a tiller with 364 other guys with almost no
Scheduling conflicts - assuming we have a better sign-up system that
will help us pre-allocate timeslots.
Each of us are entitled to 24 Hours of time as a result of our % of
co-ownership (and dependent upon our paying yearly 'dues' for the real
and recurring Costs).
But whenever there is conflict (if 2 or more of us want the same
timeslot), then we simply Bid against each other in an Auction.
The fact there was a conflict *proves* there were insufficient
resouces to meet peak Demand.
The winning bidder will pay a Price above Cost (Profit) to the Group.
The fact that the are willing and able to pay Profit *proves* they
need more co-ownership.
But if nobody in the current Group is selling any shares, then the
Profit is used toward purchasing yet *another* tiller.
Let's say the winning bidder paid so much that he funded 1% of a new tiller!
Who should be the owner of that 1%? Who should control that new tiller?
It seems clear to me the the new owner should be he who Paid.
==Product Futures
It seems the Groups could issue a sort of "Use Ticket" or
"Pre-Production Bond" I've been thinking of as a "Product Future".
The idea is to print (though eventually electronic) booklets
containing representations of the Products expected from this
investment.
For example, in the case of a tiller, the Tickets might say "Good for
1 Hour Rental".
In the scenario above, where there are 365 equal co-owners, each
co-owner would receive a booklet of 24 such Tickets.
These tickets can also be used during Auction.
Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
> I feel I go in a similar direction.
> I just want to avoid endless discussions,
> by defining "patterns" / objects, which can be re-used within transaction
> contracts,
> so that we can choose what type of transaction contracts our projects and
> economic networks support...
> When each pattern / object has a precise definition, I feel it becomes
> easier.
> Further more, it can then be "used" and experimented with.
A Transaction Contract sounds like a "Trade Agreement", right?
I have a list of subjects I think are important, which I could post.
What are some of the important Terms you would like to cover?
This is the same goal as Alex's "Ontology Editor" Wave, right?
> So yes, I hope to be able to make some kind of triple's, leading to semantic web graphs,
> involving vocabularies for , yes, "agreements" / trade, but also convergence of resources for "production", "consumption", etc - which also include the agents ( various legal statuses available ) - actually, potentially also the relations between each of these.
> Using such "vocabulary" in triples to define the relations between each of these ( production, investment for production, logistics, property, conditions related to access to this or that / or unconditional gift based, etc )
> I wrote some brainstormings on this - will try to find them and send them to you.
> I like the "architectures" you proposed so far, and I would like to be able to "define them" with such "modules" / standard patterns / combination of various patterns - defining what each transaction, and each interdependencies in these transactions, are like.
> Define them before the transactions, conclude, and then be able to track any publicly available histories of transactions ( as some kind of reputation - for further choice making )
Nov-19-2010: Modeling Transfer of Ownership
Alex Rollin wrote:
> Have you done any modeling with regard to
> the transfer (to consumers) of ownership?
> Multiple "Owners" with differing proportional shares
> "Investment" of capital in mid-process -
> how this effects equity (doesn't)
> and payments (does, at least in that a higher payment may be needed to secure the same "growth rate" in equity for a user)
> Some of the things that have come up so far as issues are:
> Modeling "cost of money" into the equation
> Choices of methods for "forcing investment" on behalf of users at "the right rate"
> Role of caretaker or custodian that "inhibits" capitalist owners from re-purchasing the whole system and screwing everyone
> Here's a quick one:
> 10 investors have equal investment totaling $100,000
> They want to "sell" the house to a new user
> They must negotiate a price for the purchase with a renter
> What does the renter need to know? Facts, figures, computations, contracts?
> What information is needed in order to design a "pay down" scheme for the user?
> How should the investors "charge" for financing the pay down process over time?
> *Try the latter half of this page for some examples of Islamic style no-compound-interest methods - http://www.islamic-finance.com/item122_f.htm
> How is the arrangement changed or altered if one user leaves and another enters?
Nov-19-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
j.martin.pedersen wrote:
> Michel Bauwens wrote:
>> it may be just a case of inadequate regulation,
>
> Yes, they forgot to reconfigure property relations
Ah, yes, the *They*.
The 'They' will never reconfigure property relations except for their
own benefit.
That work is up to *us* - it is up to We the People.
==Repurposing Property Ownership
WE must be the change we seek, and we can do it through -
hold onto your hat ... we can do it through Property Ownership!
"What!?" you say, "How can you possibly use something as vicious and
terrible as Private Property in a 'good' manner?".
The secret lies in how the GNU GPL uses Copyright against itself as Copyleft.
We can use the same pattern in the physical realm as, well, as "Property Left".
"Property Left" will be a legally-binding document enforcing Social
Standards we seek.
We then organize to co-purchase Land and Tools that we will place
under this compact.
==Origin and Purpose of Growth
By doing this we give ourselves the opportunity to "do the right
thing" with ownership.
But before we can write such a Private Law we will need to understand how groups
gain property (how they grow), and *WHO* should control that new ownership.
Growth occurs when Price is kept above Cost.
So Profit is a very important source of Growth.
But what is Profit? Where does it come from?
==Origin and Purpose of Profit
Profit indicates a Payer's lack of property ownership in Sources.
When he who eats the fruit is the Owner of the tree, then only Costs are paid.
There is no Profit because there is no Purchase, for the eater owns it already.
This collapses the complexity of exchange down to trading only skills.
Customers pre-pay for Goods and Services to become Source Owners.
Those with Skill can pay with Work if what they offer is wanted in the network.
While any Profit occurring naturally is treated as Payer Investment in
more Sources.
So growth and clustering is possible, but occurs in an auto-distributed manner.
Those *new* property holdings are then under the co-command of he who paid.
==Implementation
Owners Rule. They can add any arbitrary laws (rules) to their property.
We can use this to our advantage similar to how the GNU GPL protects
our 'virtual' property.
So let us buy together and co-own the Sources of Production needed for
our sovereignty.
And then apply a Terms Of Operation as a legally binding Social
Compact that defines the negative-feedback loops needed by any
Hypervisor when dividing computing resources among otherwise
destructively greedy Operating Systems.
We will design a system of interaction that describes constraints on Exchange.
It can be thought of a Free as in Freedom Trade Agreement (FaiFTA).
Through this binding agent we can enforce a bare-minimum set of
requirements for Allocation and Scheduling of resources we hold in
'common'.
It will be a sort of 'Simulated Commons' in that we are explicitly
using Property Ownership to partition the earth into small chunks that
we collectively purchase for our own benefit.
====Example
1.) A large group co-buys (crowd-funds) a parcel of land.
2.) The land is held in perpetuity by a Trust or non-profit
corporation, or whatever (I don't know all the different instruments
that can be chosen from).
3.) The Trust *must* either qualify as a non-profit entity or move
outside of city-limits to escape city property taxes that will
otherwise punish all improvements.
4.) Doing this will 'virtualize' access to the Land - allowing
individuals and corporations to Lease parts of the whole, but never
able to sell any part.
5.) The most important point of this is the structure of those Leases
- which can be thought-of as a sort of internal property tax - and how
they must weigh against *holdings* instead of weighing against
improvements.
The concept of "Profit is Payer Investment" still applies, and means
"Whenever the amount of a Lease is more than needed to cover Costs,
that overpayment becomes the Payer's co-ownership in the Trust.
6.) I'm still uncertain if this is sufficient. I've always imagined
whatever Social Compact we design must also apply to movable co-owned
Capital (tools and such), but am trying to get away from that
approach, mostly because it is so hard to 'police' and 'enforce'.
7.) This is still incomplete.
==Deposits instead of Debts
The banks have fooled us out of the Trust between ourselves.
Any Skilled Artisan can issue his own currency as a Promise to Work.
The "other half" of the currency is the Physical Sources (Land and Tools).
These two parts complete the backing of an Insuring, Deposit Based Money.
What is Medical Insurance?
It is Ownership in the Land, Buildings and Tools
And the 'support' Skilled Aritsans needed for that Work.
So we, as groups of groups, can avoid using debt-based currency within
that network through *commitments* to each other.
For example, I could *commit* to shovel manure and then use that
*commitment* to pay for breakfast.
The time it takes for me carry-out that *commitment* increases the
'Interest' against me...
I'm not sure what 'Interest' is in this scenario...
Related idea: Groups of Workers will reconnect Credibility with Credit
in ... Accreditation Unions.
Nov-17-2010:
Most scarcity is constructed because we misunderstand the meaning and purpose of
Price above Cost, and so are driven to scarcify in the name of RETURN.
For example, imagine we both Invest in Agriculture in the 'normal',
Capitalistic manner.
We call-up some sort of "Funds Agent" of some sort (I actually don't
know how that part works), and he then sells us some "Mutual Funds" in
the Industrialized Farming and High-Density Animal Feed-Lots.
The RETURN we have been programmed to expect requires the finished
Products be sold at a Price above Cost.
But as the amount of Agricultural Products nears /sufficiency/, Price
approaches Cost, endangering our Investments!
So we can easily see that treating Price above Cost as a RETURN
creates the homicidal incentive to construct **Artificial Scarcity**.
The flaw in our economic system is our misunderstanding and
mistreatment of the late-comer who is in a bind and has no property.
One approach to solve this is:
0.) Attract large numbers of potential Customers to Invest and Own the
Sources of Production.
1.) Reward those Investors with Products. Their RETURN is the
finished Good or Service.
2.) Whenever there is more Products than the current Owners can use
for themselves, Sell the Surplus to non-Owners for a Price above Cost.
3.) Treat any collected Price above Cost as an Investment from that Payer.
Nov-12-2010: Posted to http://ShareWiki.org/en/User:AGNUcius
==What are We Doing Wrong?
Why is the proverbial We unable to share?
What is stopping us from Getting Together and ignoring the Capitalists?
The Capitalists share. Many Angel Investors will clan together to buy large holdings.
They also sell us Mutual Funds as pretend way to Insuring our Needs.
So many of us are already Sharing, but we are doing it with the Capitalists!
....
Stumbling around the net I notice Riverton Community Housing which tells us:
"'We give our residents the opportunity to live in a stimulating cooperative environment based on cooperative principles, which means members have the opportunity to get involved with the decision making process for their co-op. Our residents gain experience through participation on the cooperative boards and committees that assist in managing the co-ops.'"
The phrases "We give our" and "our residents" expose the assumed parental mentality and division of classes.
There is a clear differentiation between those with Ownership, and those who are without.
1.) That difference must be maintained for the purposes of privacy and continuity for those who have already invested time and energy into that Property.
2.) That difference must be resolved for the purposes of privacy and continuity for those who have just begun to invest time and energy into more Property.
The more in case #2 occurs when the newcomer pays Price above Cost (Profit) to the current owners.
There are better patterns we could use, and deviations from those is generally what stops us from overgrowing the current system.
Nov-06-2010:
I am working on an idea for Civilization Modeling (such as those
covered by "Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation"
[JASSS.SOC.Surrey.ac.uk]).
In the simulated environment I envision, users could interact with
the system in 2 possible ways:
1.) As 'Agents' in the simulation (there would be no artificial
Agents). This would initially be about the same as a free-form 3D
Chat system, but one where your Agent must eat, drink, sleep, excrete,
etc., and via for Land and Capital to accomplish those goals.
2.) Users can submit a sort of "Constitution" or "Laws" or "Terms of
Operation" that they propose other Agents apply to their co-owned
property. If these documents are written in a very high-level
language (VHLL), we could eventually understand enough to apply them
to simple artificial Agents and then be able to watch how different
proposals shape the way we organize.
Nov-05-2010: Minimizing the Trade of Objects through Predictive Scheduling of Physical Sources
Nov-05-2010:
Suresh Fernando wrote:
> The challenge is to bring all of us together;
> to align our collective intentions.
This cannot be a one-time tactic limited to the initial participants, but must be a legally binding "Terms of Operation" to which that group will commit.
Our growth strategy must addresses the disadvantage of the late-comer (the customer) while protecting those who have already paid their dues. This is partially a matter of defining borders.
This will allow us to grow while avoiding the otherwise inevitible demise of most all orgs = overaccumulation and from that, a centralization of power.
> There needs to be a shift in the risk/reward profile
> There needs to be a shift in what people perceive as value.
> There needs to be a shift in the way that existing financiers see their
> role.
Let us consider a shift away from seeing Profit as a "reward to be won" toward understanding Profit is a measure of that late-comer's "dependency" upon the current owners.
If we attract Consumers as micro-Investors who pre-pay for products they need, then we can pay them in Product instead.
Then, whenever a late-comer does not have sufficient ownership, we will allow him to pay Price above Cost, but then treat that overpayment as that Payer's Investment.
In this way the group can grow (buying more Land and Capital) using those Profits, but the real Ownership of those new assets accrues to the original payer instead of being fattening the wallets or control of those who already have sufficient Ownership.
Nov-04-2010: Profit: The Value in Sharing and the how to Scale
Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
> So, a few big wind turbines (think, skyscraper tall) in some
> big fields somewhere are going to make a lot more sense
> than lots of little windmills attached to homes.
Sharing can be valuable, but we cannot share in a sustainable manner unless we cover all of our operational Costs. Maybe we could devise a type of collective co-ownership that addresses this issue.
For example, co-owing MakerBots and RepRaps would allow us to increase utilization nearer to maximum. This would aleviate some of the environmental issues RealCleverName mentions.
If 1 person owns such a machine, he can only use it as much as he can remain awake each day. There is a *guaranteed* amount of down-time where the machine is sitting idle because he must at least sleep. This is inefficient.
If 2 people were to co-own a machine, they could each use it 12 hrs per day, and so utilization could be maximized.
But probably most people are not interested in using such a machine 12 hours every day in perpetuity. So many groups could be much larger.
So increasing the number of co-owners lower the Costs for each co-owner until utilization reaches maximum - for then the extra co-owners become a scheduling burden for the group.
A major problem with sharing is that it doesn't seem to 'scale' to any appreciable degree.
A group co-owning a single MakerBot might decide to "open it up" to others who want that experience.
But they can't just let people use it for free, for how will the group fix the extra wear and damage?
So the group must charge some amount of 'rent' to cover those costs or they must inflict such limits as to make the claim of openness seem false.
Surprisingly, the new users who are not part of the co-ownership group are likely willing to pay even more than real Costs.
So it is a common case that groups can 'earn' the special value called 'Profit' which is generally treated as some sort of reward for the group which they can use to grow the organization (they could by even more MakerBots) or whatever they want, but the payer recieves none of that.
It is this misunderstanding of the origin and purpose of Profit that causes almost every organization (every group) to fail when they attempt to scale, for they suddenly realize all the value has been concentrated into the hands of the few (usually the originators), and so begins to operate as all other 'regular' businesses.
Profit is actually a somewhat good thing in that it is the basis of growth.
Profit is a "Growth Vector" with both size and direction.
1.) The size is determined by the payer's 'dependency' on the current owners (or you might say "because of the payer's lack of co-ownership").
2.) The direction is determined by the current owners which makes it easy to see why they point it at themselves.
The solution is to point that value back at the Payer... But not just handing it back to him as price-break, but by investing it *for* him, with his receiving ownership in a sort of 'delayed' manner to stop him from immediately selling it and thereby comprimising his future (this is sort of brute-force, there is probably a better way of solving this issue).
Treating Profit as Payer Investment creates a "negative feedback loop" which stablizes the system since Profit is UNDEFINED when the Source Owner is the Objective Consumer - for the owner of an Apple tree does not buy the fruit from himself, but owns it already as a side-effect of his owning the Sources.
Imagine an 'auction' setting where non-owning users bid to rent the machine at different time slots.
In the case where only one person wants the time slot, the machine is rented "at cost".
When more than one user wants a specific time slot, the auction begins. The winning bidder will have paid Profit (Price above Cost), which proves the current amount of hardware is insufficient to meet peak demand and also proves the payer is willing to make that investment.
So when a non-owning user rents the MakerBot for a Price above Cost, the group should allow that payment, but should then queue that money toward being invested in yet *another* MakerBot instance that the Payer will eventually co-own with other non-owners who also pay Price above Cost.
This creates a sort of 'conduit' structure where the original Group can safely rent their equipment to others because they charge enough to cover costs, while any further Profit collected during auction is used to grow yet *another* Group that, when finally formed, can safely 'fork' from the other Group and make their own choices about how to treat *their* new equipment.
Nov-04-2010: A Basic Outcome -- Protecting the Worker's Ability to Consume
We are trying to push the horse with the cart.
Increasing Wages is a well meaning but wrong-headed approach.
We can safely decrease Price to Cost if our Investors are also Consumers - for we will pay them with Product instead.
Imagine groups of Consumers collectively purchase some Land and Capital to begin production for themselves.
Instead of keeping Price above Cost, each person wanting Olive Oil (for instance) would strive to own sufficient Olive Oil Sources (the tree, space, water, tools, etc. needed to host that production).
They need not necessarily be a Worker in that field, but only to 'pay' all the Costs of that production - with Wages being one of those Costs.
When the Consumer is the Source Owner, he owns the Objective already, even before it has been produced.
This means the Consumer receives the product at Cost - but even more fundamentally, it changes the game from one of perpetuating work to one of eliminating such tedium.