Related: diary
Nov-21-2012: Crowd Control
In the future, crowds will fund the production of their own basic needs.
They will cross-commit property land and tools
They will cross-commit promises of future labor
They will share sources to allocate the finished goods to thos
Each will become the co-owner in the Sources of that for which they need the outputs.
They will buy and co-own the land, water-rights, flora/fauna/fungi, tools, energy required to create all of their own food, housing, transport, health-care, transportation, etc. they know they will need.
Workers, when acting as consumers, pay all the costs of production when they buy finished goods and services.
So they might as well invest and become owners with real control of those results.
Workers, acting as consumers, will buy the Physical Sources of the goods and services they need by promising to work in the future for others who are committing work of another ind or are committing money or property.
I wonder why we are so scared and feeble that we will not accept the risks of co-ownership even though we pay for all those risks in the end anyway, and we pay all other costs *and* we pay profit because we refuse to organize for our own mutual benefit.
We cannot do this alone in gardens. Most people do not have those skills, and this pretends we do not need specialization to compete against the many-headed beast of corporatism.
Monsanto is just doing what every other profit-seeking entity must do: destroy all alternatives so wealth is concentrated into the hands of the shareholders.
Nov-18-2012:
Quiliro Ordóñez wrote:
> Invite people to the time bank
> Ask them what they needed
> Find who could provide that
> Ask the provider what s/he wanted
> Ask who could provide what s/he wanted
> Ask the provider what s/he wanted
Website to exchange in 3 ways:
Artisans advertise goods and services they would provide if they could access the tools for free.
> Find who could provide that
> Ask the provider what s/he wanted
> Ask who could provide what s/he wanted
> Ask the provider what s/he wanted
> and so on until all debts were paid.
>
> Time banks work as normal coinage banks. Every transaction is either a
> deposit or a withdrawal:
>
> When giving something, it is accounted as a deposit of its value in hours.
> When receiving something, it is accounted as a withdrawal of its value in
> hours.
>
> When there is not enough balance in the bank to pay for something, you can
> get a loan at no interest. The time bank will charge a percentage of the
> transaction to pay for the process of getting buyers and sellers in contact
> and keeping track of transactions.
Nov-12-2012:
> Your proposal transfers the cost of production
> directly to users proportionately. No users get
> physical products if they do not contribute. And
> the more they contribute, the more they get.
Yes, and also understanding that a "promise to work"
is just as much of a contribution as land or tools.
> I have developed a method by which trade can be
> done at the start.
Yes! This is so important! Most of what money is
about has to do with "time delay" in production.
As you say, trading work early eliminates the
usual need to pay wages.
While sharing Sources* early eliminates the need to
buy those products because they are "pre-allocated"
to each consumer already - in the same % as their
ownership in the Sources of those products.
(*) I sometimes use the word Sources as another
phrase for "Means of Production", mostly because
the inspiration for this model is the GNU GPL.
> the rich might be able to purchase large amounts of
> goods and become enormous investors. In this way
> they would still be able to maintain power and
> control. This would be possible because it would
> still let them trade outside. Maybe you could
> include this question (maybe by rephrasing it) on
> theP2PFoundation wiki User_Owned FAQs. (I am not a
> native English speaker so the phrasing might be
> awkward.)
This is supposedly solved by the Terms of Operation
that require profit be treated as payer investment.
So over-investing will not be valuable beyond being
a sort of insurance against underproduction caused
by natural disaster, accidents, etc.
Does that make sense? I wonder if I am explaining
it in a way people can digest...
> Possibly it is possible to reverse in the
> implementation of your proposal.
I don't understand what you mean here.
Nov-09-2012:
Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> the current area of research and
> experimentation needs to be how
> to we fund free game developers.
Let's develop a new Crowd Funding
platform for Free Software where
customers vote for *future* bug-
fixes and features by committing
a "promise-to-fund" that charges
their account only if the target
is met.
The target is set by developers
who reverse-bid for that job.
This allows Users to guide the
direction of that fork, while
also letting subgroups fork when
large enough to attract developer.
This Crowd Funding platform can
come in the form of a patch or
plugin or alternate client for
Ubuntu Software Center,
Google Play Store for Android,
Apple App Store and iTunes,
RedHat, SUSE, Oracle, HP, Dell,
Microsoft, etc.
It could also be used to fund
Free Software Hosting to allow
users to safely rent instances
of software or VMs or storage
or game servers, email, etc.
The potential for exploitation
and misuse increases as this
approach succeeds, and so we
also need a legally-binding
Social Contract that stops us
from turning sour as we grow.
I have some very careful ideas
about what should be included
in the Social Contract.
Sincerely,
Patrick Anderson
http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com
Nov-09-2012:
Henry George says tax (rent) must weigh against speculation, not production.
For example, who should should we tax more in this scenario?:
1.) A real-estate group holding 1 acre of idle land very near the city.
2.) A permaculture group working 1 acres of land very near the city.
Current taxation would give #1 a nearly free-ride for squandering land,
while #2 is punished severely for growing food and accomplishing goals.
How do we become so confused that we want to punish abundance?
It is only because we refuse to reconsider the purpose of production.
We do not see how Product can be a Direct Return on Investment (DROI).
We do not see that Consumers can be the Owners, and so do not see that
Product can be pre-allocated to those who need it and in this way
Price == Cost and Profit is safely eliminated.
We ignorantly strive to keep Price above Cost, and so we strive for
scarcity and worry about others 'dumping' goods at a low Price.
Abundance is seen as dangerous because the goals of our investors
conflicts with the goals of the consumers.
This conflict will be resolved when we finally see that consumers can
be the investors (they already pay all the costs anyway), and the
Product will be the natural ROI for those stakeholders without the
need to ever sell the Product at all (except surplus).
Under these conditions, government and business can safely merge, and
so tax will be collected by each group in the form of 'dues' to cover
Costs, and in the form of Profit when charging non-owners who buy
surplus Product.
Nov-09-2012:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-01/the-post-apocalypse-survival-machine-nerd-farm