vipm

Related: ARENA, IOTA

A Vertically Integrated Production Mosaic (VIPM) is ecologically closed-loop development platform required to reproduce our continuous biological needs.

It is the land and organisms and tools and energy required for the resilient continuation of a group of humans.

The VIPM has a minimum size and complexity based on the combined projected minimum outputs needed to meet the standard-of-living each participant desires.

==Outline
Use-Shares authorize the holder to access specific Sources and Products within the Aggregate.

Crowd Control: Funding Freedom in Closed-Loop Production Aggregates

This Production Model uses Imputed Production at it's core
with optional funding from traditional Venture Capital.

* Potential users pre-pay to fund the purchase
of land and capital to form a vertically integrated,
permaculture based system we call a Production Aggregate.

* This Aggregate is a set of carefully chosen plants, animals
and tools required to create the solutions needed by all
of those workers such as food/drugs, shelter, cloth, soap,
sanitation, health care, dental, eyes, etc.

* If a payer has skills needed by the Aggregate, they can
contract to work somewhere within the Aggregate in exchange
for the Aggregate supplying them with Products they need.

* Those workers receive co-ownership in the Aggregate in a
form we call "Use Shares" which are similar to full co-
ownership, but with some initial limitations on selling
or renting those Tools or Products.

* Use Shares are used by the holder to prove that he has the
right to use the Tools (limited by schedule) or consume some
of the Products (limited by % of holdings within that Unit)
of any restaurant, apartment, bus, hospital, etc. operating
within the Aggregate.

* The workers do not buy products from the investors, but own
those products already because of their Use Shares in the
Aggregate awarded for commitments to Work or from commitments
of Land or Capital.

* After some amount of time, or after some series of events
the Use Shares should vest more fully to the payer to
allow for selling and/or renting of those Sources or the
Products of those Sources.

* Initial stages of development might have some workers living
in mobile homes and eating food the Aggregate bought in bulk.

* Later, after the agriculture is installed and producing, the
system will become "self hosted", being able to operate
without requiring any external inputs.

* Soon afterward, the system will be producing surplus that can
be sold to outsiders to collect Profit.

* If Venture Capitalists helped fund the operation, part of the
Profit will be used as their ROI.

* We may want to distribute part of the Profit to the Workers,
since that is a popular thing to do.

* We may we to distribute part of the Profit to random charities,
since that is a popular thing to do.

* But we MUST handle some non-zero % of the Profits as though
that overpayment were an investment from the payer.

* We should charge Profit during those sales, for if we don't
collect the Profit, a middle-man will buy all that we offer
at Cost, and then resell it for a Profit anyway...

* So we will charge Profit against the Payer, but we will also
treat (at least part of) that magic value as Payer Investment.

* This causes these late-coming users to slowly gain ownership
and therefore to eventually stop buying that product too.

* Similar to how the GNU GPL enforces Copyleft through Copyright,
we propose to create a PropertyLeft document enforced through
Property Rights used to apply this requirement to the Aggregate.

* This social contract can be applied by co-owners of any
material assets to insure freedom for all users.

* Notice this is also a literal form of Insurance.

* These users must cover all the real cost of production
just as any owners do, but they do not buy the product
since they own it already - and they don't sell the
product because they need to use it directly.

* The product is not traded unless there is surplus, and
in that case the Payer must cover all the Costs of that
production so the owner of Sources can be compensated
for paying when they didn't need to...

* The Payer will usually also pay Profit, according to how
much the "market will bear".  Some % of that overpayment
must be treated as an investment from that payer so the
growth of the Aggregate is incrementally autodistributed
to all those willing to pay for that growth.

* At some point, and under certain constraints, and mostly
to resolve disputes, subgroups must finally be allowed to
fork from the rest while retaining property ownership.

Incorporating for Product - Investing for Goods

Let's make new corporations owned by the Users of those Products.

We will organize groups to co-buy the Sources needed for Production.

We will help workers contract (promise or bond) to work in the future in exchange for food and shelter now.

Shareholders as Consumers receive the Product itself as a natural Return for those investments. Each co-owner in the Sources of Production is co-owner of the Product in that same amount. If you own 15% of a milk-cow, then you own 15% of the milk (assuming you 'paid' your portion of the costs). This can be true even if you co-own a small % of a 'good' sized dairy with many other Consumers.

That leaves Profit to be treated as Payer Investment in more Sources - to become the real Property of that Consumer - causing him to incrementally gain the ownership in Sources that will allow him to finally stop buying that Product late, but instead pay the Costs early and then own the Product as a side-effect of his ownership in Sources.

We will build new corporations that outperform the Capitalists when we finally recognize Price above Cost as a measure of the Consumer's lack of Ownership - and so must be treated as though that payer had just invested in more Sources needed to grow the collective.

This auto-distributes ownership as the organization grows to those willing to pay (whether in Capital or in Work) for that growth.

These for-product corporations will treat Profit as a misallocation of property and 'govern' that steam by reflecting it back to the Payer as his new (probably not yet vested) co-ownership in that growth.

Capitalism has achieved much for humanity, but as any business scales in size it becomes clear the goals of that body conflicts with the goals of those it claims to serve.

As society becomes more aware of these troubles, corporations try to hide their goal of Profit because we understand Scarcity keeps Price above cost, and therefore striving to perpetuate Profit is the very basis of the conflict between Production and Consumption.

It may seem there could be no solution since those who traditionally Fund production demand Profit as a Return for the Risk they take. They are operating under the paradigm of "Exchange Value" which requires some amount of scarcity to keep Price above Cost.

Let's re-examine our assumptions about who should Fund and therefore Own the Means of Production.

Let's look at the most trivial case of a single person owning a fruit tree for his own benefit.

He must pay all the Costs of ownership, including Wages if he does not do the work himself.

But he cannot pay *more* than Cost, for who would he pay it to?

Profit is defined as Price above Cost but if he does not sell the product, Profit is undefined.

So he Funded that production and Owns those means for the expected return of Product instead of Profit. This was "Use Value" production instead of "Exchange Value". It does not benefit this owner when other orchards fail in the area unless he resorts to selling that which he would have eaten.

This is all very obvious and might seem unimportant, but let's push the idea a bit further and see what happens:

Imagine now, instead of a single Funder-Owner-User, we have thousands of such investors pooling Funds toward an orchard.

By attracting potential Users to pre-pay for the goods they predict they will need, we can use those Funds to buy the means necessary for that production.

The Users and Owners will then be the very same set. The product will not be sold because the ROI for the Risk is Product itself which they attain at Cost.

This solves the 'static' case where the number of Users matches exactly the output of that production.

But many of these consuming investors will want to over-own by some percentage to guarantee they have enough product at the round of each production.

We must do something with that surplus or it will rot.

We can sell those products for Price above Cost - as much as the market will bear - but to keep the organization owned by the Users of those products, we must treat the payment of Profit as an investment from the User who paid it so they also gain ownership in the Physical Sources of production.

In the attached picture "Capitalism.png" we see investors in the upper-left corner funding production and receiving Title to those Physical Sources.

All Costs, including Worker wages, are initially paid from that pool of funding.

The Consumer (in blue) begins to paying for those Costs in his (late) quest to buy Objects.

Over time, if the business is successful, the investors receive all they had initially put forward and then begin receiving the special value called Profit.

The Consumer never gains any ownership in his own Physical Sources under this arrangement.

In the attached picture "Patched-Capitalism.png" we see again see investors in the upper-left corner funding production and receiving Title to those Physical Sources, but this time the investors are *also* Consumers of the future product. They are taking risk for the purpose of receiving at-cost Product under their full control.

After each round of Production, the Objects are not sold (except in cases of surplus), because they are already the property of those who will consume them.

The heavy line indicates there is no transfer of ownership, but shows the funders are already the owners without any need to purchase since they paid all the Costs of production and are the owners as a side-effect of their owning the Physical Sources.

The bottom of the picture shows a Consumer with insufficient ownership buying Objects late and probably paying Price above Cost.

But in this case, that overpayment is treated as an investment from the Consumer who paid it - causing him to unwittingly Fund the purchase and care of even *more* Physical Sources that will eventually begin producing and therefore provide him with that which he needs.

This allows the organization to grow and yet remain distributed as all new ownership is 'reflected' back to those willing to pay for that growth.

Seeking At Cost Goods and Services finally under 'our' full control:
.) Avoid paying Economic Rent when renting Physical Sources when you have sufficient ownership in those Physical Sources*

.) Avoid paying Profit for Consumable Goods when you have sufficient ownership in those Physical Sources* used to Produce those Goods.

.) Avoid paying Interest on Money when you Issue instead of Borrow.

.) Avoid paying Wages when you do the Work yourself.
(*) This only occurs during perfect 'sufficiency'. Any Scheduling conflict might trigger an auction, and then bidding will drive Price Above Cost.
Most countries, such as the United States, only tax imputed income in certain situations, such as the calculation of domestic partner employee benefits. It is sometimes difficult to measure, and there can be political consequences to doing so. From the perspective of taxpayers, this creates a tax benefit in favor of owning over renting, and in favor of self-service over hiring. From the perspective of the economy, this distorts economic activity away from activities that are associated with the division of labor. - http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_income

NOTES* when Developers are supported through the Basic Outcome provided they will have time to apply Skill as Play so our Costs will fall even further.
Posted in Uncategorized     | Leave a comment
Mantra for a GNU Economy

If Consumers were Investors, and their Return was the Product, we could get what we need without Buying or Selling, and would Trade only Skills.

But for those not yet part of such a scheme, Profit charged against those late Consumers would be treated as *their* Investment.

This eliminates part of the need for Money, since the (co-)owner of an Avocado tree does not buy Avocados, but owns them already as a side-effect of owning the Physical Sources.

Posted in Uncategorized     | Leave a comment
Imputed Production
Posted on May 20, 2011 by AGNUcius
Imagine a crowd-funded corporation where the only shareholders were the very consumers of that product.

Their ROI for taking risk would be to avoid paying profit - since the owner of an Apple tree does not *buy* the Apples from himself, but owns those Objectives already, as a side-effect of his owning the Sources.

There would no longer be "Vendor/Customer" relations to worry about since the Vendor and Customer would be one and the same!

The product would not be sold back to each investor-consumer-owner, but it is already their property according to the amount they invested - whether they invested with money or with labor.

The owner of a milk cow does not buy the milk from himself, but owns it already as a result of his owning the cow.

A cooperative SELLS the product back to the consumer-owners - thereby collecting !profit! and coming under the scrutiny of government restrictions (for example it is illegal to sell raw milk in some part of the US).

In cases where an agent has invested more than he can use directly, he can sell that product to agents who do not yet have sufficient ownership, but under the strict condition (enforced by a Terms of Operation over that organization) that any profit collected during that sale be treated as an investment from that payer - so the organization can grow in size while avoiding the troubles of centralization and overaccumulation that plague nearly every other endeavor that even begins to succeed.

There is no reason to worry about the workers - for that is who I am protecting, but am protecting their ability to consume instead of trying to prop-up wages and avoid automation.

Wishing the machines would just stop (as John Henry) will become less and less of an option as the robots are coming to take the work away - and we can be *happy* about that if we are working on the right side of the equation!

Furthermore, even without robots, wages and profit will approach zero as the Means of Production become cheaper, since there will be no way to stop willing workers from accessing those tools and thereby providing the solutions consumers seek.

Workers can invest more than they are able to consume, but it won't do them any good when the consumers already have sufficient ownership needed to protect themselves from workers who try to stop other peers from doing that work by blocking access to the Sources of Production.

Workers cannot protect wages through ownership if other consumers already have sufficient ownership because propping wages requires the worker be able to STOP other potential workers from accessing the Sources of Production, and why would a group stop a peer from bidding to do a job - in some cases even for free (gratis).

Workers who invest and co-own more of the Apple orchard than they are able to consume will not be able to prop-up wages because the other co-owners will always have the option to do the work for themselves or to hire the lowest bidder.

When the consumers around those workers have sufficient ownership, they will not be buying the product from anyone, but will own it already as a side-effect of their owning the Sources of those Objectives.

You may be tempted to dismiss this as simply a Consumer Cooperative, but this is absolutely NOT a Consumer Cooperative.

1,) Consumer Cooperatives *sell* the product back to the co-owners and collect a profit during that transaction that a committee then doles out in a Tyranny of the Majority fashion.

1a.) Imputed Production only sells product to non-owners, and only when there is surplus, and treats that profit as an investment from that payer - causing ownership and control to be automatically distributed at the point of sale back to the actor who was willing to pay for it. This system minimizes and nearly eliminates the trading of goods since the owner of Sources does not buy the Objective, but owns it already as a result of his owning the Sources. The trading of goods will tend toward zero but does not reach stasis because of newcomers into the system (even just babies being born), and because people's interests change across time.

2.) Consumer Cooperatives are "Democratically Controlled" with one-member/one-vote.

2a.) Imputed Production is far more autarchic- where any member can 'fork' his portion of the Sources and secede from the union or sell those shares if a split is attempted that is finer than reasonable divisibility (you can't both feed a single milk-cow grain and NOT feed that cow grain, but can divide a herd).

2b.) Each member has exactly as much vote power as he has ownership. If you own 11% of a roto-tiller and your neighbor owns 22%, then you have only half as much vote power in decisions such as "how often should we change the oil".

3.) Every Consumer Cooperative I know of is only concerned with buying products that were made by Capitalists.

3a.) Imputed Production is primarily about ownership and control of the entire tree of production - recursively, and works toward a Vertically Integrated Commons where we, the people, own the farms and factories and land and water rights and all the other Sources and supporting Sources required to reproduce those things.

We don't need to transform politicians, and do not have enough money to buy such changes anyway.

All we need to do is start businesses that are funded and owned by Consumers and that treat Profit as payer investment.

Customers *already* pay all the Costs of production. We, the consumers, foot the entire bill. And we *also* pay Profit because we choose to pay late.

But if we could organize to pay early - to collectively purchase the Physical Sources of products and services we need - then, we would still need to pay all costs.

But since we would own the objective as a side-effect of our owning the Sources, we would no be 'buying' from ourselves, and so COULD NOT pay Profit, for that final transaction would not even occur!

Profit is UNDEFINED when the Customers are the Owners of the Means of Production.

And instead of taking a stance through property ownership, we beg and plead with the current owners to "please do the right thing" - even though the current owners have NO POSSIBLE CHANCE of "doing the right thing" for they owe investors who expect Price be kept above Cost.

And Price can only be kept above Cost during Scarcity.

So we see the drive for Scarcity is caused by choosing investors who expect Profit as a return.

The drive for Scarcity can be eliminated by choosing investors who expect Product as a return.

But only Customers can use Product as a return.

So the answer is to attract Customers to pre-pay for Product - while using those pre-payments as actual investments which are then property co-owned by those Customers who benefit from the use-value of that production, and never need strive for Scarcity, for the product will usually never be sold.

In the case where a Customer-Owner has too much product: the solution is to sell that product to non-owners, and even to charge Price above Cost (Profit) against those late comers *BUT* - here is the trick - the Profit received must be treated as though that Customer had just made an investment toward even more Physical Sources.

Treating Profit as that payer's investment will allow the collective to include others while simultaneously avoiding the typical problems of overaccumulation and excessive concentration of control that cause even the most well-intentioned organizations to finally fail to meet the needs of those they were initially formed to serve (the customers of course!).

This is somewhat like a "short circuit" across the typical market.

Where the consumers do not buy the finished goods, but own them already - even before they are completed - as a side-effect of their ownership in the Physical Sources of those goods.

If you own an Apple tree, you do not *buy* the apples from yourself.

If you and your neighbor co-own an Apple, you need not *buy* the apples from your collective 'self'.

If you 999 other people co-own an Apple orchard, you need not *buy* the apples from your collective 'self'.

This has other benefits such as:

1.) Since the product is not sold, there is no chance for the government to collect sales tax.

2.) Since the product is not sold, there is no chance for the government to disallow that production (buying raw milk is illegal in many parts of the US).

==Summary
Attract middle-income Consumers to pre-pay for organic products and earth-friendly services.
Optional: Attract traditional Venture Capitalists, and pay them a % of profit gathered during growth.
Optional: Attract corporations like Pepsi, Nike, etc. who fund projects for Public Relations purposes.

Use part of the funds to buy cheap agricultural land without mortgage.
Use part of the funds to buy tools, plants, animals, water rights.

Attract Workers to build and operate the infrastructure by providing a "Basic Outcome" that covers all of: housing, all utilities (electricity, gas, sewer, recycling), transportation, and even food, water, medicine, clothing, comprehensive health care, child-care, education, - eventually all the things the corporations and governments currently control instead of smaller groups.

Occupy that land with tents to begin planting and building.
Will need to qualify as non-profit to avoid property taxes.

Each Investor (Consumer or Worker) becomes a co-Owner of some Sources within the VIPM.

* Each worker receives the 'level' of Basic Outcome according to the quantity and quality of work they COMMIT to achieve in the future.

* Others COMMIT their future labor in return for accepting your COMMITments.

* If you want the studio apartment, a 5 minute shower, and very simple meals, you will not need to COMMIT very much of your future labor.

* If you want a 5-bedroom house want to shares in the clubhouse and more difficult meals, you will need to COMMIT more of your future labor in order to compensate others for the extra work and land and tools

We do not pay wages, and the worker does not buy

Products are not sold when users own sources
The VIPM does not sell (except Surplus) because all of that output the Investors' Return.

with the Product being the Return Salary" and is only sold during surplus.

==Definitions
Sources: The land and capital required for Production.

Production: Transforming Sources into Products.

Products: The goods and services we need or want.

VIPM (Vertically Integrated Production Mosaic): The Sources required to Produce what those Occupants need.

Occupant: Any Consumer/Worker/Owner that lives on-site.

==Overview
Investors become co-Owners in the VIPM according to the value they COMMIT as measured by the others in that subgroup.

All Products
The Consumers do not buy the Products from the VIPM, but instead they come by to claim what is already theirs.

For example, if you like milk and honey, then you will need co-Ownership in cattle and bees and all their inputs, (land, shelter, food, medicine), and the things needed to create those things (plants, animals, tools), recursively through the entire tree of production.

Timeline:
Consumers indicate
Each attempt is recorded on the "Interest List" (IL).

Investors attempt to cross-COMMIT Sources or Skills.

The IL has 3 columns: Sources, Skills, Products.

You

Sources are the land and capital needed for production.
To COMMIT Sources is to relinquish title of ownership over those productive assets.

Skills are human interactions with the Sources needed for production.

To cross-COMMIT Skills is to bond or contract to do the Work needed to achieve production somewhere within the VIPM in return for others cross-COMMITTING to you because of the value they perceive in you.

Production  within an ecologically and economically closed-loop system.

Without both Sources and Skills, production cannot begin.
Sources can be purchased from outside the

Vertical integration will be an incremental and nearly continuous process.

Those who have only work to offer will COMMIT future labor (our Skills) in Return for receiving co-Ownership in the VIPM.

The Worker must receive ownership in the Sources of that which he Uses, not necessarily that which he enjoys or even knows how to do.

So, if you want Dental Assurance, you need co-Ownership in the Land and Capital needed to perform Dentistry, and then you can 'hire' any Dentist to fix your teeth.

A Dentist is 'hired' into the VIPM when a group of Consumers

toward Products that we may only use a very small amount - or, in some cases, do not use at all, but are being compensated by the cross-COMMITments of any peer who signed-up to cross-COMMIT with you in that they co-Own the Sources of that Product and also accept your claim as a qualified Worker able to accomplish the tasks required for that Production.

==Startup
The initial boot-up phase of the operation will have construction workers living in tents as they build their own housing.

Productive landscaping (permascaping) will eventually provide all of the nutrition and medical needs of the co-Owners, but there is a "lead time" for all production, and for some plants and animals, it could be years before the Products are available.  This means some of the Consumer pre-payments must be used to purchase bulk food to feed the Workers until the VIPM is ecologically closed-loop.

Articles of Organization/Incorporation

Mission Statement or Statement of Purpose
Foster the mutually-assured production of food, housing, sanitation, transport, child-care and education, health-care.

Project Charter, Terms of Reference
Vision, Scope, Goal
Hotel, Restaurant

Objectives, Deliverables

Risks, Constraints

Definition

Development

Verification

Feedback for future decisions

Stakeholders, roles and responsibilities (i.e. who will take part in it)

Resource, financial and quality plans

Work breakdown structure and schedule

Investment forms:

Committing Sources relinquishes some Property to others in the group.
Examples include land, tools, buildings, plants+animals, electricity

Committing Skills is a Promise to Work for others in the group.

.) Reduce the need to pay Wages.
.) Reduce the need to buy Products.

1.) Product is Investor's Return: This is an Investment strategy that uses Product as the ROI, and so requires the Investors be the Users themselves.

2.) Profit is Payer Investment: This is a Revenue-Sharing strategy that Invests some % of Profit for the User who paid it.

3.) Investments are Commitments of Sources and Skills: This is a way to gather the Land and Capital needed (those committing Sources would relinquish ownership to others in a group targeting some specific Product) and also to insure the diverse work needed would be accomplished without need to fight the "simultaneous coincidence of wants" trouble with typical 'late' barter.

By committing Skills *before* production, we can trade Labor between ourselves, and never need to trade oranges with apples, since the co-owners of the Sources of those Products would own their % of the Product *already*, even before they are produced. I call this "Predictive Barter" - where we Swap Skills early instead of attempting to Swap Products *late*.