Home | Diary | Todo | Index | About |


2015-10-31:
In the near future we will recognize Crowd Owning as a far superior version of Crowd Funding that returns Consumers to the helm, creating a Pull Economy instead of our current Push Economy.

These Consumers will own for the sole purpose of receiving the Product at the real Cost of production, and under their absolute dominion.

But to keep such an operation stable, we will need a negative-feedback-loop to keep Property distributed Properly.

We can choose early to disallow some of our otherwise self-destructive behavior - similar to how the GNU GPL uses Copyright to enforce Copyleft constraints, we can use Property Rights to enforce PropertyLeft constraints.

These 'rules' are approximately:
1. Product is the Owner's natural ROI.
2. Profit is the Payer's Investment.
3. Promises are a Worker's Investment.



2015-10-29: Posted to https://www.facebook.com/groups/1593184107563955

Copyright can be a problem for sharing in the Virtual realm but the GNU GPL creates Copyleft which *utilizes* copyright to guarantee the sharing of bits.

Property rights can be a problem for sharing in the Physical realm but we will write a "Terms of Operation" to create PropertyLeft that utilizes Property Rights to guarantee the sharing of atoms.

We cannot use a Copyright license to protect atoms, but we can use the same implementation strategy by buying Property in groups and voluntarily applying a "Terms of Operation" for that Property that enforces similar constraints to hopefully achieve similar results:

1: Consumers own the Means of Production and accept the Product as ROI.

Saint IGNUcius (Richard Stallman) preaches we must protect *Users*, not *Developers*.

"'With free software, the users are in control. Most of the time, users want interoperability, and when the software is free, they get what they want. With non-free software, the developer controls the users. The developer permits interoperability when that suits the developer; what the users want is beside the point.'" -- "Three Minutes with Richard Stallman" http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,137098-c,freeware/article.html

So in this model, the Consumers own the Sources (Land, Tools, etc.) needed for the Objectives (Goods and Services) they need.

We will also co-own the ISPs, the cell-phone towers, the farms, the factories, the wells, the mines, the forges, the refineries... We pay for it all anyway (and more than costs when we pay profit), so it is easy to see we can afford to be the owners.

When the Users own the Physical Sources and accept the Product itself as the return on investment, work is no longer considered a goal in itself, but returns to it's natural position as a hurdle to be minimized.

Crowd-Funding will become Crowd-Owning when groups of consumers buy and *own* the Physical Sources needed to house, bathe, feed, clothe and care for their bodies.

2: Treat some Profit as the Consumer's investment so they receive access to the Sources of the Objects they use.

The GNU GPL says any User that receives 'Object Code' must receive access to the Sources.

So when a Consumer receives a Good or Service, they should also receive access to the Means of Production for that Good or Service.

For example, when someone buys a beer, they need to receive ownership in the *Sources* of that beer, such as a brewery, bottling plant, trucks and so forth.

As we become more and more vertically-integrated, we will own the barley fields, hops fields, equipment to store and propogate yeast, etc.

If the Consumer pays more than cost (in other words, if they pay Profit), we can use some of that to grow the size of the production, but crucially, some of that ownership must accrue to the Consumer that received the Object (Good or Service).

Treating profit as an investment from the payer causes the property ownership of the organization to be automatically distributed to those who paid for that growth and need the results.

3: A Promise to Work is another investment, though contingent on completing those goals

You may commit to Work in the future in return for *conditional* Property (like rent-to-own I suppose) so you can get room-and-board for now, and also gain real Ownership as those shares vest incrementally as the original commitment is being fulfilled (though this may need to be adjusted on a case-by-case basis if, for example, the job may be a complete failure if it is not completed fully, and in that case the Worker perhaps should get no Property?).
 

This insures Workers receive property ownership in the Sources of the Goods and Services they need (this is actually most crucial when they do not 'operate' those Sources).
Every Worker is also a Consumer. We must protect the Worker as a Consumer.

Trading work promises before production begins allows us to specialize without passing tokens while also solving the "simultaneous coincidence of wants" problem that faces typical barter.

Swapping Skills early also allows re-aligns the Worker's goals with those of the Consumer.

For example, imagine a Dentist who Promises to fix your teeth when needed in exchange for you Promising to make sure his milk is delivered or his car is fixed or his plumbing works, or whatever.

When the Promises are made early, nobody wishes for work. The Dentist doesn't want to see you, he wants your teeth to be perfect without him. This is extremely important! 8^D

The group never pays Profit or Wages since all investors are compensated when they receive the Outputs of the Property and Promises they have secured.

If Consumers are the shareholders and accept the Product itself as their return on investment, the product is not sold, so the Price they each pay as a Consumer is exactly the Costs they paid as a co-Owner and Profit does not even exist!

For example, if 1,000 people buy and co-own a dairy simply because they want milk, then they will get that Product at cost, and also have no desire (or hardly any ability) to keep the system 'closed'.

This is very different from a Consumer Cooperative, since in that case the Product is sold back to the so-called owners, a Profit is taken, and so seeking Profit continues in a Consumer Cooperative.

Nothing is perfect, and predictions are difficult, so sometimes there will be Surplus Product.

When selling the Surplus, we can align ourselves with the Open Source (Free Software) way.

Using the language of the GNU GPL, imagine the Milk is the "Object Code" (or Program) and the Dairy as "Sources", then we see every consumer of milk must have 'access' to the Dairy.

We solve this by charging Profit against newbies as usual, but then treat some of that Profit as that Consumer's investment.

Let's say we sell a milkshake for $5, but it really only cost $3 to deliver.

We charge the $5, keep $3 to cover costs, and invest $2 toward buying more land and water-rights and cattle and alfalfa fields, etc required to make *future* milk.

That $2 investment eventually (seems there should be a vesting period) becomes the real property of the Consumer who paid that Profit.

Treating Profit as the Consumer's investment causes growth to flow to those who pay more than costs, thereby reducing the trouble of wealth over-accumulation.


----
We might keep part of the $2 and treat it as usual, but treating Profit as a reward for the current Owners is very dangerous, as it incents artificial scarcity and closed-systems and just generally pits the current Owners against Users that have insufficient ownership.



2015-10-29:


2015-10-27:


2015-10-27: Watching 'Jeremy Rifkin: "The Zero Marginal Cost Society"' -- youtube.com/watch?v=5-iDUcETjvo


2015-10-27:
If Consumers are the shareholders and accept the Product itself as their return on investment, the product is not sold, so the Price they each pay as a Consumer is exactly the Costs they paid as a co-Owner and Profit does not even exist!

For example, if 1,000 people buy and co-own a dairy simply because they want milk, then they will get that Product at cost, and also have no desire (or hardly any ability) to keep the system 'closed'.

---
By the way, this is actually very different from a Consumer Cooperative, since in that case the Product is sold back to the so-called owners, a Profit is taken, and so seeking Profit continues in a Consumer Cooperative.


(*) Nothing is perfect, and predictions are difficult, so sometimes there will be Surplus Product.


When selling the Surplus, we want to align ourselves with the Open Source way.

Using the language of the GNU GPL, imagine the Milk is the "Object Code" (or Program) and the Dairy as "Sources", then we see every consumer of milk must have 'access' to the Dairy.

We can solve this by charging Profit against newbies as usual, but then treat some of that Profit as that Consumer's investment.

Let's say we sell a milkshake for $5, but it really only cost $3 to deliver.

We charge the $5, keep $3 to cover costs, and invest $2 toward buying more land and water-rights and cattle and alfalfa fields, etc required to make *future* milk.

That $2 investment eventually (seems there should be a vesting period) becomes the real property of the Consumer who paid that Profit.

Treating Profit as the Consumer's investment causes growth to flow to those who pay more than costs, thereby reducing the trouble of wealth over-accumulation.

----
We could keep part of the $2 and treat it as usual, but treating Profit as a reward for the current Owners is very dangerous, as it incents artificial scarcity and closed-systems and just generally pits the current Owners against Users that have insufficient ownership.



2015-10-26: WorkShape.io


2015-10-26: RealEconomyLab.org, SocioEco.org, CASBS.org


2015-10-26: EcoGood.org, Fractical.org, Evonomics.com, ValuesAndFrames.org


2015-10-24: OpenSaltLake.org


2015-10-20: OSCEdays.org, P2PLab.gr, CRPBayArea.org


2015-10-14: youtube.com/watch?v=il9mPHyiZXQ




Apr-11-2013: Modified from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-community-io/2013Apr/0011.html

.) Who are the investors and owners?
    Workers   become co-owners when they cross-commit Promises towork future production.
    Consumers become co-owners when they cross-commit Property toward future production.
    Consumers become co-owners when they ignorantly pay Profit toward future production.

.) How are investor-owners compensated?
    Investor-owners are entitled to Products based on their commitments of Promises, Sources and Profit.

.) How is Profit used when surplus is sold?
    Profit is treated as the payer's investment so they gain co-ownership just as every other investor.

.) How do we vote within such a system?
    By treating the payment of costs as a vote, and the absence of such payment as a vote against so each person votes for or against building and maintaining "public works" by simply paying for those things or ignoring them.

.) How do we solve the Tyranny of the Majority when decisions are not unanimous and cannot be resolved through payment-based-votes?
    By allowing any "realistically divisible" subgroup to secede from the rest for any reason while retaining their portion of co-ownership. When the means of production cannot be divided realistically, the minority can probably sell their shares to the outsiders who are paying more than cost for surplus as explained in #2.


Apr-08-2013:
# Prepayments replace money as a system of time-delayed accounting.
# Workers prepay when they commit to work for future production.
# Consumers prepay when they commit money for future production.
# Consumers prepay when they pay profit when buying surplus product.

Apr-05-2013: To read: "productivity paradox", Producism.org, MauriceCotterell.com

Apr-03-2013: Some open source game engines Ogre3D.org, PolyCode.org, Raydium.org, PixelLight.sf.net, Delta3D.org, CubeEngine.com, Panda3D.org, Maratis3D.org, CrystalSpace3D.org, GameKit.GoogleCode.com, github.com/FrictionalGames

Apr-03-2013: To read: http://unreasonable.is/opinion/why-crowdfunding-changes-everything-part-1

Coincidence of wants

Mar-29-2013: Title idea: Vertically Integrated Life Assurance

Rethinking how to present these findings as a game system, I wondered about implementing a 'callback' interface.
Different organizational form are defined by how they implement the callbacks.

Here is a rough sketch of the idea:

//What is the minimum size and complexity of a functional group?
MASS SizeAndComplexity()
{
    //Enough for some efficency of scale for all "basic needs" products
    //such as water, food, shelter, clothing, sanitation, transportation
    //We need vertical integration for
    //We must have horizontal divers
    //This complexity is needed so workers can cross-commit promises.
    return "A couple dozen acres of agricultural land and 50-150 people."
}



//Who makes the high-level 'steering' decisions?
//Common answers: "An elected committee"
GROUP Controller()
{
    //INVESTORS become Source owners with VOTE power based on % of ownership.
    //Subgroups may secede by splitting the cell or selling their portion.
    return "Unanimous groups of OWNERS."
}



//How are Investors compensated for their risk?
//They become real owners and accept the product
//as a natural side-effect of that ownership.
VALUE OwnerCompensation()
{
    //Co-owners receive product as a side-effect of their
    //owning the commitments of  sources and promises
    //needed for that production.

    //Source owners are product owners in the same amount
    return "PRODUCT as a natural result of PROPERTY + PROMISES."
}



//How are investors compensated for their risk?
//Common answers: "PROFIT"
VALUE InvestorCompensation()
{
    //Investors become OWNERS when they commit PROPERTY toward future PRODUCT.
    return OwnerCompensation().
}



//How are workers compensated for their time?
//Common answers: "WAGES"
VALUE WorkerCompensation()
{
    //Workers become OWNERS when they cross-commit PROMISES toward future PRODUCT.
    //When we say "cross-commit" we mean the worker receives ownership in the
    //PROPERTY and PROMISES used to create the PRODUCTS he needs.
    return OwnerCompensation().
}



//How are initial and continuing costs collected?
//Common answers: "Community Rent", "Club Dues", "Internal Taxation"
VALUE CostRecovery()
{
    //Each OWNERS pays their portion of PROPERTY and PROMISES for any PRODUCT they want.
    //This is simultaneously used as their VOTE to support or not support that PRODUCT.
    return "Each OWNER's portion of the PROPERTY and PROMISES needed for that specific PRODUCT."
}



//Who receives Profit when selling surplus?
//Common answers: "INVESTORS", "OWNERS"
PERSON ProfitSharing()
{
    //Profit is the Payer's Investment.
    return "The person who paid PROFIT when buying surplus."
}