-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
diary-aug-2011.htm
943 lines (940 loc) · 62.2 KB
/
diary-aug-2011.htm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>diary-aug-2011 </title>
<link href=".code/preferred.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"/>
</head>
<body>
<p class='header'>
<a href="_home.htm">Home</a> | <a href="_faq.htm">FAQ</a> | <a href="_thesis.htm">Thesis</a> | <a href="_diary.htm">Diary</a> | <a href="_projects.htm">Projects</a> | <a href="resume.htm">Resume</a> | <a href="_todo.htm">Todo</a> | <a href="_index.htm">Index</a> |<p>
<p class='main'><span class="rel">Related:</span> <a href="diary.htm">diary</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-31-2011:</span> <br/>
<a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty is position or potential<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion is velocity or stasis<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is acceleration or growth<br/>
<br/>
Governments are driven by corporations.<br/>
Corporations are driven by inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s.<br/>
Inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are driven by <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is driven by scarcity.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t for needs or <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> for greeds?<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-31-2011:</span> <small>[P2P]</small> 2 strategies to undermine <a href="free.htm">free</a> software's progress<br/>
Felix Stalder wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> move to software-as-service, where the <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> has no teeth</span><br/>
<br/>
The <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="agpl.htm">AGPL</a> addresses this directly by requiring <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es be offered to anyone interacting with the program "over a <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>" but is incomplete because:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>)</small> This does not apply to any <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware not <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by <a href="user.htm">user</a>s.<br/>
For example, a business could offer access to <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ters running <a href="free.htm">Free</a> Software but would not be required to provide <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e Code to those <a href="user.htm">user</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>)</small> It does not help us share the <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of *hosting* that software.<br/>
We might do this through a <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty <a href="left.htm">Left</a> legally binding social contract.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Android type approach, where the software is linked to <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware</span><br/>
<br/>
The <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gplv3.htm">GPLv3</a> addresses this directly by requiring all information needed "to <a href="install.htm">install</a> and execute <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>ified versions of a covered <a href="work.htm">work</a> in that <a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t" and disallowing "any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures" but is incomplete because:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>)</small> This does not apply to any <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware not <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by <a href="user.htm">user</a>s.<br/>
From the license: "A ``<a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t'' is either <small>(1)</small> a ``consumer <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t'', which means any tangible personal <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty which is normally <a href="use.htm">use</a>d for personal, family, or household purposes, or <small>(2)</small> anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. In determining whether a <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is a consumer <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a <a href="part.htm">part</a>icular <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t received by a <a href="part.htm">part</a>icular <a href="user.htm">user</a>, ``normally <a href="use.htm">use</a>d'' refers to a typical or common <a href="use.htm">use</a> of that class of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, regardless of the <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>us of the <a href="part.htm">part</a>icular <a href="user.htm">user</a> or of the way in which the <a href="part.htm">part</a>icular <a href="user.htm">user</a> actually <a href="use.htm">use</a>s, or expects or is expected to <a href="use.htm">use</a>, the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t. A <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is a consumer <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t regardless of whether the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer <a href="use.htm">use</a>s, unless such <a href="use.htm">use</a>s represent the only significant <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>e of <a href="use.htm">use</a> of the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t."<br/>
<br/>
---<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/02/tivoization-and-the-gpl.html">http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/02/tivoization-and-the-gpl.html</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-30-2011:</span> Solid-<a href="stat.htm">Stat</a>e <a href="econ.htm">Econ</a><br/>
<br/>
Within a steady <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e, <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion must continue so we can meet our re<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ing physical needs of food, shelter, etc.<br/>
<br/>
Capitalism requires Consumer_<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e be kept above <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s so the inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s can be paid that <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence.<br/>
<br/>
But <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is not the only value to consider. We have forgotten about <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t. How can we <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s with <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t?<br/>
<br/>
<a href="imag.htm">Imag</a>ine the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion are the end-<a href="user.htm">user</a>s of those goods and services.<br/>
<br/>
We organize <a href="user.htm">user</a>s to pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for the things they <a href="know.htm">know</a> they will need so they become the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers for those Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion. For example, people who like milk would co-purchase a dairy.<br/>
<br/>
In this strange scenario, the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t <small>(milk for example)</small> is not bought or sold because it is already the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of the person who intends to <a href="use.htm">use</a> it.<br/>
<br/>
When you <a href="own.htm">own</a> a dairy cow, you must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, but you do not buy the milk from yourself - for you already <a href="own.htm">own</a> it!<br/>
<br/>
The same is true if you <a href="co-own.htm">CO-own</a> a dairy with 999 other people. You must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s for your % of the dairy, but instead of BUYing the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t from the other <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers, you simply collect what is already yours.<br/>
<br/>
This is true <a href="use.htm">Use</a>-Value <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
This organizational form requires neither growth nor <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, but can operate indefinitely "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" since the inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are paid with <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t instead of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-25-2011:</span> Investigating EToys, Scratch and other environments to teach programming.<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Control-Tech-Sama.BlogSpot.com">Control-Tech-Sama.BlogSpot.com</a>, <a class="ext" href="http://TonyForster.BlogSpot.com/search/label/TurtleArt">TonyForster.BlogSpot.com/search/label/TurtleArt</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-24-2011:</span> Rewarding Risk with <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t Eliminates Exchange -- <a class="ext" href="http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com/2011/08/rewarding-risk-with-product-eliminates.html">ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com/2011/08/rewarding-risk-with-product-eliminates.html</a><br/>
<br/>
Alan Avans wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Can you clarify what you mean by "exchange" in your</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> concept as it presently stands?</span><br/>
<br/>
By "exchange" I mean "change <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership".<br/>
<br/>
We do not need to "change <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership" of a <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t if it is already <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by the person who will consume it.<br/>
<br/>
That may seem an impossible scenario, but it is actully very common for SINGULAR <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
For example, the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of a milk-cow does not buy the milk from himself after it is <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed - he <a href="own.htm">own</a>s it already!<br/>
<br/>
We can do the same thing with MULTIPLE <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
For example, the <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers of a milk-cow do not buy the milk from themselve after it is <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed - they <a href="own.htm">own</a> it already!<br/>
<br/>
The <small>(co-)</small><a href="own.htm">own</a>er<small>(s)</small> of a dairy do not buy milk because they <a href="own.htm">own</a> those <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ects ALREADY as a side-effect of their <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of those <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ects.<br/>
<br/>
This eliminates one of the reasons we claim to need <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I'm assuming that in your <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el there may be a number</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> of <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> firms undertaking <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion of goods</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> and services.</span><br/>
<br/>
I envision many <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive sub-units within the Aggregate that are each <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ed by the people that intend to <a href="use.htm">use</a> the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts thereof.<br/>
<br/>
For example, if you want a community swimming-pool, then you can commit <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es or <a href="skill.htm">Skill</a>s to create and maintain such a facility. If you do not care, then you do not need to be a <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>er of that sub-unit.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> These goods and services are ultimately aggregated at</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> the point of retail or "absolute exchange", either in</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> intermediated fashion, or in a peer-to-peer</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> arrangement between <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ers and consumers.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> It is here that people exchange what they have</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed with one another through the transactions</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> that take place during absolute exchange operations.</span><br/>
<br/>
That is how Capitalism <a href="work.htm">work</a>s, but is not what I describe.<br/>
<br/>
People who commit <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s <small>(for example: milking cows)</small> would <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e those commitments in exchange for others within the Aggregate <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing commitments toward <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ing things which that <a href="work.htm">work</a>er needs but does not have <a href="skill.htm">Skill</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of those <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts <small>(such as milk-cows)</small> are not <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by those that happen to have the <a href="skill.htm">Skill</a>s needed to 'operate' those <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es are instead <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by the people who need the outputs of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. The end-<a href="user.htm">user</a>s <small>(milk-drinkers)</small> are the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es <small>(cattle)</small> AND the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ects <small>(milk)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> People are compensated for their efforts in <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ing</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> those goods and services with claims that may take the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> effective form of tickets or tokens.</span><br/>
<br/>
Thanks for the careful reading.<br/>
<br/>
I see what you mean here, and have called those claims "scheduling tickets" and "allocation tokens" in some of my other writings.<br/>
<br/>
But I would like to move away from that characterization toward the drastically more simplified scenario where changing <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership does not occur <small>(there is no sale)</small>, and so governments cannot interfere or collect taxes.<br/>
<br/>
This 'short-circuit' of the market is explained at:<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent</a><br/>
<br/>
You may also be interested in:<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://ImputedProduction.Blog.com/2011/05/20/longer-explanation">http://ImputedProduction.Blog.com/2011/05/20/longer-explanation</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-22-2011:</span><br/>
Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> if we can get a discount by bulk buying 200kg of rice,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> we need pledges/<a href="promis.htm">promis</a>es of purchase,</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> This approach can lead to avoiding the middleman/shop,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> and reduce organic food <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es by 30 percent.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> At first, I <a href="real.htm">real</a>ize it may be better not to set up any legal</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> frame<a href="work.htm">work</a>, and not retain any <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>,</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Hi Dante,<br/>
<br/>
This is <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the same approach I talk about, but I'm<br/>
confused when you say "not retain any <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>".<br/>
<br/>
If the people pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a> to buy in bulk, then they do not<br/>
buy the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t again, after it arrives, do they?<br/>
<br/>
And if they don't <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> again, then how would there<br/>
even be any <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> at all?<br/>
<br/>
Do you plan to overcharge when collecting <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y<br/>
for the initial bulk-purchase?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> consumers to bulk purchase together, and reduce <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es, or</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> set conditions for the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, potentially before its <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, and the extension of that <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a is for those consumers<br/>
to buy and <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of those <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts, because<br/>
then they never need to buy that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t again <small>(though<br/>
they still must continue to cover all the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by consumers / pro-sumers</span><br/>
<br/>
I have recently been developing a much more holistic<br/>
approach to local <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion and <a href="work.htm">work</a>er rights which<br/>
<a href="use.htm">use</a>s two forms of 'Commitment' to replace most of the<br/>
reasons we <a href="pass.htm">pass</a> tokens.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
I call it the "Vertically Integrated <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion Aggregate",<br/>
as a fully self-sustained, permaculture-based habitat for<br/>
human/<a href="ecol.htm">ecol</a>ogy reintegration that supplies all the people<br/>
<a href="work.htm">work</a>ing there with all the food, housing, health care, etc.<br/>
that they need for a comfortable standard of <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>ing.<br/>
<br/>
The people are not paid with <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y, but instead commit<br/>
to <a href="work.htm">work</a> in some number of <a href="arena.htm">arena</a>s where they must qualify<br/>
- as in they must prove they can operate the equipment -<br/>
though we want to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e it easy to watch videos of the pros<br/>
so <a href="new.htm">new</a>bies can <a href="start.htm">start</a> milking the cow sooner than later. ;)</small><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> maximum <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> on operations - which in the way</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> I perceive it can be totally re-invested in the cause</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, this is my view as well, otherwise middle-men will<br/>
buy all the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t below market <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e and resell above.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The reason for setting up a specific legal structure which could take 10</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> percent <small>( yet still enable 20 percent reduction in <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s )</small> could be to cover</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> certain operating <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s.</span><br/>
<br/>
Whenever I <a href="use.htm">use</a> the word <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>, I <a href="use.htm">use</a> it in the strict accounting sense of:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> = Consumer_<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e - <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s<br/>
<br/>
Consumer_<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e = <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s + <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a><br/>
<br/>
<a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s = Consumer_<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e - <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-17-2011:</span> <a href="map.htm">Map</a>ping the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> into the Physical <a href="real.htm">Real</a>m<br/>
Hello all,<br/>
<br/>
I've been trying to understand how the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> might apply to the<br/>
material world and am happily surprised with the results.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
In the <a href="virt.htm">virt</a>ual world of software:<br/>
1.)</small> An <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ect is the result of <small>{compiling}</small> some type of <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
2.)</small> <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es are the inputs such as <small>{<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e-code, <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e<a href="file.htm">file</a>s,<br/>
<a href="shell.htm">shell</a>-scripts, <a href="install.htm">install</a>er scripts, etc.}</small> required to change a future<br/>
instance of that <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ect type.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
In the physical world of <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware:<br/>
1.)</small> An <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ect is the result of <small>{<a href="work.htm">work</a>* across time}</small> to some type of <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
2.)</small> <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es are the inputs such as <small>{<a href="land.htm">land</a> and water and seeds and<br/>
animals and tools}</small> required to change a future instance of that <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ect<br/>
type.<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span> <a href="note.htm">Note</a>: some <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ects are occasionally created by the '<a href="work.htm">work</a>' of nature<br/>
with no human intervention.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
So we can say physical <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ects have physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
For example, the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of a bottle of beer include <a href="land.htm">land</a>, water,<br/>
barley, hops, yeast, heated water, containers, glass <small>(for the bottle)</small>,<br/>
kiln <small>(to melt the glass)</small>, etc. - and even recursively all the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es<br/>
required to initially create the tools that created the tools, etc...<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> instructs us to help every <a href="user.htm">user</a> incrementally gain at-<a href="cost.htm">cost</a><br/>
access the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of all the <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ects they <a href="use.htm">use</a>.<br/>
<br/>
I think I've found a way to do this!<br/>
<br/>
The trick is to <a href="start.htm">start</a> a business that can treat some % of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a><br/>
<small>(<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>)</small> as an INVESTMENT FROM THE <a href="pay.htm">PAY</a>ER.<br/>
<br/>
Treating <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er Investment causes each <a href="user.htm">user</a> to slowly gain<br/>
<a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership in the *growth* of that organization.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="imag.htm">Imag</a>ine you buy a $5 hamburger from such a place, but it only <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> the<br/>
<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers $3 to deliver that surplus <small>(the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers would only be<br/>
selling surplus, since the *primary* reason for their investments<br/>
would be to receive at-<a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ects such as hamburgers)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
The cashier would give you a receipt showing you now have <small>(within a<br/>
future vesting window)</small> $2 invested in more <a href="land.htm">land</a>, water rights, calves,<br/>
and also toward <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing wages, etc.<br/>
<br/>
As you continue to gain <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership <small>(and as you also continue to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a><br/>
re<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ing <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s on what you already <a href="own.htm">own</a>)</small>, you will eventually go to<br/>
the <a href="new.htm">new</a> restaurant your overpayments help to create, and you will show<br/>
your <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership credentials to prove you already <a href="own.htm">own</a> a prepared<br/>
hamburger as a result of your <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the entire tree of it's<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
When the inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s will accept the <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ects themselves <small>(say beer)</small> as<br/>
compensation for the risk they took, there is no sale because the end<br/>
<a href="user.htm">user</a> already paid all the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, and <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ects as<br/>
a side-effect of those commitments.<br/>
<br/>
And since there is no sale, <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> doesn't even have a chance to enter<br/>
the <a href="pic.htm">pic</a>ture.<br/>
And without a sale there is no attack-point for external governments -<br/>
and so no sales tax.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent</a> is a subset or simplified<br/>
version of this.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Sincerely,<br/>
Patrick Anderson<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com">http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
We can also eliminate wages by committing to swap of <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s within a<br/>
"closed-loop, <a href="user.htm">user</a>-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion aggregate" *before* <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion<br/>
begins. I call it pre-barter.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-16-2011:</span> Cool <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a: Communal broadband" - via GigaOm<br/>
Charles N Wyble wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Patrick Anderson wrote:</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> we, as customers, finally pool our monthly fees and invest in buying</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> and <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding our <a href="own.htm">OWN</a> <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>s.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Oh? Why?</span><br/>
<br/>
1.)</small> So we can <a href="use.htm">use</a> the <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> without <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificial limitations.<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> So we can <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> only the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of operation instead of <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing<br/>
tribute to others.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The large carriers are under immense pressure and very</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> close to collapse.</span><br/>
<br/>
That is because they must kepep <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> <small>(must collect <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a><br/>
to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> their inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s)</small>. This is an unnatural arrangement that must<br/>
be held in place through <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificial scarcities of various kinds, and<br/>
is the reason Capitalist seek continuous Growth.<br/>
<br/>
A <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by the <a href="user.htm">User</a>s doesn't need to keep <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a><br/>
because we will only be using <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as Growth - investing it for the<br/>
latecoming <a href="user.htm">User</a> toward growing the <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> with that <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership finally<br/>
vesting to that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er - so the control of that growth is<br/>
auto-distributed to those willing to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for it.<br/>
<br/>
At all other times, during normal operation, the only fees we <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> will<br/>
be the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of operation, while are ROI for being the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers<br/>
will be the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t itself <small>(<a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> connectivity in this case)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Charles N Wyble wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Also if you think that just pooling monthly fees = <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> operation</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s , I'd love to see some business <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>els. Spreadsheets my man!</span><br/>
<br/>
No, I said the <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> fees are NOT = to <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
I said the <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> fees cover all <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s and also include <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
I'm saying we, the consumers, <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> MORE than it <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s to run the<br/>
<a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> because we do not <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> the <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>.<br/>
<br/>
If we <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ed the <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>, then we would still have to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the<br/>
<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s, but we wouldn't <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> because we wouldn't even sell the<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t*, and so, by definition, we would be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing exactly <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span>We can sell any surplus <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t to non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, and should even charge<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> against them <small>(otherwise middle-men will scalp the <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>s out<br/>
anyway)</small>, but must treat that overpayment as that <a href="user.htm">user</a>s investment to<br/>
grow the <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> - with the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of that growth becoming the <a href="real.htm">real</a><br/>
<a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Douglas Rushkoff wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> I think he is saying that these big businesses have great challenges meeting</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> the needs of consumers.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> AT&T can't reach all of its subscribers in my area. And Optimum is having a</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="hard.htm">hard</a> time giving me good VoIP when everyone is spending bandwidth streaming</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="net.htm">Net</a>flix movies during <a href="work.htm">work</a> hours.</span><br/>
<br/>
They struggle because, not only must they collect the *<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s* from<br/>
you, they must also collect *<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>* to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> their inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
But if those inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s were the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s themselves - if you could<br/>
pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for internet access and become a <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>er in the <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> -<br/>
then the only a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> the corporation would need to collect would be<br/>
the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of operation since your ROI would be the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t itself<br/>
for which you already paid all the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Charles N Wyble wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Please answer why the ISPs and cell-phone providers</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> will perform similar activities and sue us.</span><br/>
<br/>
Capitalism abhors competition because it reduces <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Reducing <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is a good thing if <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is your goal,<br/>
but we do not yet invest for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
They will sue us because <a href="user.htm">user</a>-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed eliminates <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>,<br/>
leaving a wake of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership which cannot be outperformed.<br/>
<br/>
Since any Capitalist entry would require <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>,<br/>
and yet we will comfortably run at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> when not growing.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is undefined,<br/>
when <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t is ROI.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Chris Cook wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> if we <a href="use.htm">use</a> an associative <a href="agree.htm">agree</a>ment like a <a href="part.htm">part</a>nership</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> frame<a href="work.htm">work</a>, then there is no <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> and no loss</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, this is also what I <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ose: a legally-binding social contract.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
At <a class="ext" href="http://www.slideshare.net/ChrisJCook/economic-systems-thinking230710">http://www.slideshare.net/ChrisJCook/economic-systems-thinking230710</a><br/>
Chris Cook wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Sellers give buyers interest-<a href="free.htm">free</a> cr<a href="edit.htm">edit</a> -</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> or "time to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>"</span><br/>
<br/>
We are seeing <a href="part.htm">part</a>s of the same solution.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
At <a class="ext" href="http://opencapital.net/unitisation.htm">http://opencapital.net/unitisation.htm</a> Chris Cook wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> I <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ose a <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership frame<a href="work.htm">work</a> for direct investment</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> - unitization - in a <a href="new.htm">new</a> type of <a href="real.htm">real</a> e<a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e investment trust</span><br/>
<br/>
Would you say unitization "short circuits" the <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy as described<br/>
here: <a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent</a> - or is it something<br/>
else?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-14-2011:</span> Cool <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a: Communal broadband" - via GigaOm<br/>
Jon Lebkowsky wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Cable providers try to prevent competitiion by government entitites by</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> getting laws <a href="pass.htm">pass</a>ed, but I'm not thinking they have grounds to sue private</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> ISPs.</span><br/>
<br/>
It reminds me of this case against <a href="free.htm">free</a> distribution:<br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_v._International_Business_Machines_Corp._et_al.">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_v._International_Business_Machines_Corp._et_al.</a><br/>
<br/>
Where Wallace "<a href="file.htm">file</a>d suit against the FSF in Indiana, <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>ing that the<br/>
<a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a>, by requiring copies of <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ter software licensed under it to be<br/>
made available <a href="free.htm">free</a>ly <small>(without legal restriction)</small>, and possibly even<br/>
at no <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, is tanta<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> to <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e fixing".<br/>
<br/>
I'm sure we'll see such attempts by ISPs and cell-phone providers when<br/>
we, as customers, finally pool our monthly fees and invest in buying<br/>
and <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding our <a href="own.htm">OWN</a> <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
Later, as we more fully awaken, we will put all for-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ers<br/>
in ALL industries out of business as we, the people buy the farms,<br/>
factories, railroads, bus lines, taxies, restaurants, fish farms, oil<br/>
refineries, oil wells, mines, etc.<br/>
<br/>
We already <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s anyway.<br/>
<br/>
And we <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> because we are to cowardly or disorganized to <a href="own.htm">own</a><br/>
for our mutual, direct benefit.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-11-2011:</span> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom Databases<br/>
Is there any chance we could <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> some of these '<a href="free.htm">Free</a>domBases'<br/>
as small groups while retaining our <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom?<br/>
<br/>
Is it possible to share <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware for the benefit of that group<br/>
without taking <a href="free.htm">Free</a>doms from others?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
If so, then we should discover and define what those groups must<br/>
do if they are to avoid going the way of all Corporations...<br/>
<br/>
Once we have this understood, we should be able to <a href="fund.htm">fund</a> and <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a><br/>
Internet Service Providers <small>(ISPs)</small>, <a href="cloud.htm">cloud</a> datacenters, etc.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Notice we, the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s ALREADY <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the initial <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding<br/>
that infrastructure, and we CONTINUE to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the operating <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
So it's not like we can't afford it. Hell we <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> *more* than <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s<br/>
<small>(we <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>)</small> only because we have not taken the responsibility<br/>
of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership upon our collective selves, but instead continually<br/>
beg the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers to do the 'right' thing.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers *cannot* do the right thing because their<br/>
inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s expect to be paid <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>, and <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> requires scarcity.<br/>
<br/>
We can overcome this by <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing our <a href="user.htm">user</a>s-as-micro-inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s<br/>
with the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t itself <small>(in this case 'connectivity')</small> and will never<br/>
even need to sell the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t <small>(since the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s are the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers<br/>
already)</small>, causing <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> to be undefined and <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e to equal <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-11-2011:</span> One system to rule them all<br/>
Rasmus Wikman wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Because once you have in your head both the understanding</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> and financial means to do so; would you <a href="start.htm">start</a> a corporation</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> for the common good or for the benefit of yourself?</span><br/>
<br/>
We can create corporate-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed commons that benefit all the<br/>
<a href="user.htm">user</a>s by helping each of them gain <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the growth<br/>
of that entity whenever they <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
This causes every <a href="user.htm">user</a> to incrementally gain <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion for all the goods and<br/>
services they need.<br/>
<br/>
When the <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> is <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s of the <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>,<br/>
the ROI for that risk they all took is the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t itself -<br/>
in this case, <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> connectivity.<br/>
<br/>
We can seek <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t instead of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> by attracting<br/>
<a href="user.htm">user</a>s who will pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for an ISP, then <a href="use.htm">use</a> that <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y<br/>
to buy and/or <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d an ISP that is <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by the<br/>
people who <a href="use.htm">use</a> and need it.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Few people would turn to the former. Greed is a natural,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> basic and required human function as far as I can tell.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> It's a question of survival.</span><br/>
<br/>
Defending <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty you need to <a href="use.htm">use</a> for yourself is not<br/>
the same as denying others access so you can charge a<br/>
<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> because of their lack of preparation.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> comes from the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s' dependence upon the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, and is safely eliminated when those <a href="user.htm">user</a>s gain<br/>
the <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership they need to be able to captain their<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a> portion of those <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
Wages can also be eliminated by committing to do the<br/>
kind of <a href="work.htm">work</a> for which you have <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s and which is<br/>
wanted by the collective others in return for them<br/>
committing their <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s toward creating the goods<br/>
and services you need.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
The fear that allocation without <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y is an unsolvable problem mainly<br/>
stems from a confusion between <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion for <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> and <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion for<br/>
usage, or benefit. I can *sell* a practically unlimited a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> of edibles,<br/>
but I can only *eat* so many of them before I'm full. The same is true for<br/>
all other goods: every desire to actually <a href="use.htm">use</a> them is limited. The only<br/>
thing that's potentially infinite is the possibility to turn them into<br/>
<a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y <small>(as long as there are buyers)</small>. But that possibility vanishes in a<br/>
world where <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is benefit-, rather than <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>-driven, and where<br/>
nobody is forced to buy and sell anymore.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-11-2011:</span> <small>[Open Manufacturing]</small> Engineers with sympathy?<br/>
davidc wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Is there anyone here who wants to see</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> a mutual aid, non-exchange <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy</span><br/>
<br/>
I'm sure we will all enjoy the result.<br/>
<br/>
But how can we share the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion<br/>
without <a href="pass.htm">pass</a>ing tokens?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>.. Is it an "order of operations" problem?<br/>
<br/>
Notice when those who need the food<br/>
are the <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers of the field, then they<br/>
do not *buy* the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, because, of<br/>
course, they already <a href="own.htm">own</a> it.<br/>
<br/>
Notice when those who can <a href="work.htm">work</a> in the<br/>
field will commit to <a href="work.htm">work</a> in the future in<br/>
return for being allowed to <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>e in the<br/>
Aggregate, then they do not receive a<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span>wage*, because they already have<br/>
their reward <small>(for as long as they uphold<br/>
that commitment to <a href="work.htm">work</a>)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
When a crowd <a href="own.htm">own</a>s a dairy, <a href="part.htm">part</a> of<br/>
them will apply <a href="skill.htm">skill</a> there, and the others<br/>
will apply <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s somewhere else in the<br/>
Aggregate to compensate<br/>
<br/>
So Wages are eliminated by having <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers<br/>
commit early to solve problems within the<br/>
aggregate in return for a Basic Outcome<br/>
supplied as a result of all the other <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers<br/>
upholding their commitments to supply<br/>
their <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>set when needed by others.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<a href="imag.htm">Imag</a>ine a non-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> corporation purchases <a href="land.htm">land</a>, tools and raw<br/>
materials to <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d a closed-loop permaculture 'commons'.<br/>
<br/>
By closed-loop I mean the entire operation has a required minimum<br/>
complexity because it must supply all <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers with all food, shelter,<br/>
health care, transport, etc.<br/>
<br/>
We attract people who are willing to <a href="work.htm">work</a> for nothing more than a<br/>
nice, <a href="free.htm">free</a> house and all the organic food they can eat.<br/>
<br/>
If we can a doctor and a dentist, then we have health and dental <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ance.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>e and barter are optional when commit <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es and <a href="skill.htm">Skill</a>s *early*.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent</a> talks about how the<br/>
transaction is "short-circuited".<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-06-2011:</span> <a href="imput.htm">Imput</a>ed Income as a <a href="part.htm">part</a>ial solution<br/>
If we <a href="own.htm">own</a> the cattle together,<br/>
with the milk being the ROI,<br/>
then there will be no sale,<br/>
so nothing for cops to attack.<br/>
<br/>
This organizational form is called "<a href="imput.htm">Imput</a>ed Income"<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_income">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_income</a><br/>
<br/>
When consumers <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion <small>(such as a milk dairy)</small>,<br/>
they <a href="own.htm">own</a> the milk even before it comes out of the cows, and so don't<br/>
buy it from anyone, but simply claim what is already theirs.<br/>
<br/>
Some other interesting features:<br/>
Since there is no sale, there is no tax.<br/>
Since there is no sale, there is no <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
Since there is no sale, there is one less reason for <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-08-2011:</span><br/>
<br/>
Ric<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> Sanders wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> One thing that I have become convinced won't <a href="work.htm">work</a> is a system where individuals seek to <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>e in the world by acquiring <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y as the means of obtaining the necessities of life where that <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y is acquired by investment.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> By investment I mean <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic activities where one grows ones <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y - turning an a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> of <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y into more <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y and <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>ing on the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> My reasoning is as follows. <a href="mone.htm">Mone</a>y is not wealth but a claim on wealth and wealth is the material stuff needed to sustain us - food, shelter, infrastructure, <a href="ecol.htm">ecol</a>ogical life support, etc. All wealth is ultimately <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>ed from low entropy natural capital.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-05-2011:</span><br/>
Hey Dave,<br/>
<br/>
Nate Bushman mentioned he saw you.<br/>
<br/>
I've been studying <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omics in my spare time<br/>
off and on for about 10 years now.<br/>
<br/>
I've discovered something that I think is very<br/>
important but overlooked, so want to involve all<br/>
good thinkers to tackle these issues.<br/>
<br/>
I have developed an alternate <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic system<br/>
that allows for even more specialization than<br/>
we <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently enjoy and yet does not require<br/>
require <a href="pass.htm">pass</a>ing tokens <small>(<a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y)</small> and where <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a><br/>
becomes *undefined*.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Here is a small riddle to help begin thinking<br/>
in this <a href="new.htm">new</a> way:<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
----<br/>
<a href="imag.htm">Imag</a>ine 1000 milk drinkers decide to buy a dairy.<br/>
<br/>
They each invest as much as they predict they will<br/>
need, and receive the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t as the ROI.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t is not sold because the people who<br/>
will <a href="use.htm">use</a> the milk are *already* the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
Because of this short-circuit, there is also<br/>
no taxes to report and no <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> to be considered.<br/>
<br/>
The riddle then, is: What is the origin of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-04-2011:</span><br/>
<br/>
Douglas Rushkoff wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> implementation of the mechanical weaving loom</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> by Victorian Eng<a href="land.htm">land</a> in India. It reduces the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> role and expertise of labor, and is value</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> extractive rather than allowing people on the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> periphery to create value.</span><br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Overproduction">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Overproduction</a><br/>
Over<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is a problem for Capitalism<br/>
because it reduces both <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s and wages.<br/>
<br/>
Capitalism is <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion for the sole purpose<br/>
of *exchanging* the end <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t *after* it is<br/>
created for a <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_(economics)">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_(economics)</a><br/>
But we, the people, want abundance and would<br/>
rather not even worry about <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> and wages.<br/>
<br/>
We want <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion for the purpose of using<br/>
that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t directly: for *<a href="use.htm">use</a>-value* and<br/>
<a href="real.htm">real</a>ly don't even need to exchange the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t<br/>
after it is created if the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the<br/>
<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es are the very <a href="user.htm">user</a>s of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
We can do this by attracting <a href="user.htm">user</a>s to pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a><br/>
for an ISP connection and then <a href="use.htm">use</a> those <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>s<br/>
to purchase the physical layer needed to begin.<br/>
<br/>
Since the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s are the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, they must<br/>
<a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of operation, including <a href="work.htm">work</a>,<br/>
but do not <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, for the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is not sold.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<a href="imag.htm">Imag</a>ine a theoretical situation where automated<br/>
weaving looms were made available to everyone at<br/>
the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of that access.<br/>
<br/>
This would cause a situation analogous to what<br/>
now occurs with <a href="free.htm">Free</a> Software - where <a href="user.htm">user</a>s can<br/>
get <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers to create and fix things for <a href="free.htm">free</a><br/>
<a href="part.htm">part</a>ly because it is just fun to do...<br/>
<br/>
The danger is toward those who are still <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing<br/>
in <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>rietary loom/code shops, since all those<br/>
<a href="free.htm">free</a> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts causes <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>rietary solutions to<br/>
become less relevant and finally ignored.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The function is to centralize the capital</span><br/>
<br/>
The way to auto-distribute <small>(decentralize)</small> capital<br/>
is to treat overpayment <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> as an investment<br/>
from that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er.<br/>
<br/>
The reason this stops the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment of tribute is<br/>
because of how that <a href="user.htm">user</a>'s <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership<br/>
will allow him to receive that <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ective at the<br/>
<a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion once he has sufficient<br/>
<a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership in the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of that <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ective.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
For example: the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of a CAT5 cable and a<br/>
router must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> to purchase, <a href="install.htm">install</a>, configure,<br/>
maintain, power that <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> - but he doesn't<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span>buy* that connectivity from himself because<br/>
he <a href="own.htm">own</a>s it already.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
The same is true when a loom shop <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by the<br/>
people who will finally <a href="use.htm">use</a> the outputs of those<br/>
<a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es, then automation becomes a goal.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
But this does not help us understand how to share,<br/>
and that is what we need to do if we are ever<br/>
to stand on our <a href="own.htm">own</a> feet on our <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="land.htm">land</a> for our<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a> purposes instead of for the usual purpose of<br/>
subjugating others through over<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>ed <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ectives<br/>
and no possibility of access to Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
We will never be <a href="free.htm">free</a> until we learn to share the<br/>
Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es needed for the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion of all<br/>
our <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ectives, including <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> connectivity.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-04-2011:</span><br/>
<br/>
Samuel Rose wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="work.htm">work</a>er-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed cooperative probably would not <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> the decision to replace people with <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-04-2011:</span><br/>
<br/>
Devin Balkind wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> If technology is open,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> everyone can benefit from it's advances.</span><br/>
<br/>
That is only true if we are able to *instantiate*<br/>
those designs, and of course that requires access<br/>
to the material substrate required to host any and<br/>
all <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion: <a href="land.htm">land</a>, water, <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>dings, tools, etc.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
I'm glad we now have open washing <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine designs,<br/>
but it doesn't <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly help me because I am not<br/>
allowed access to the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es <small>(the factories)</small><br/>
required to create an instance of that technology.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
It is important that those end <a href="user.htm">user</a>s gain at-<a href="cost.htm">cost</a><br/>
access to the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion even when they<br/>
have no <a href="skill.htm">skill</a> or inclination to operate or maintian<br/>
those <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es directly.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
When the humans in need of goods and services are allowed<br/>
at-<a href="cost.htm">cost</a> access to the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of those <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ectives,<br/>
they will be able to <a href="work.htm">work</a> together, swapping <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s to<br/>
achieve all of their goals without worrying about the<br/>
dangers of automation.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-01-2011:</span><br/>
Rasmus Wikman wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> To get it up to speed, I do hope that governments, educational institutions</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> and non-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> organisations will offer the service for <a href="free.htm">free</a> since they are</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> already <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ed by the people.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
You must be joking.<br/>
<br/>
Of course the corporations that captain our governments<br/>
will not allow such <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>-destroying tactics.<br/>
<br/>
If we could get what we need out of the governments, we wouldn't<br/>
need any separate corporations.<br/>
<br/>
But since governments are controlled by corporations,<br/>
<br/>
And since corporations are controlled by inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s,<br/>
<br/>
And since the only inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s we will consider are<br/>
those that require a return based on <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>,<br/>
<br/>
And since <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> requires scarcity,<br/>
<br/>
And since scarcity is what we <small>(the ignorant <a href="user.htm">user</a>s)</small><br/>
thought was being addressed by the fact that someone<br/>
is organizing <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion,<br/>
<br/>
We are <a href="left.htm">left</a> with a bunch of scarcity-loving thugs<br/>
who keep us just satisfied that we will not organize<br/>
for our <a href="own.htm">own</a> benefit while continuously attempting<br/>
to perpetuate <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> by withholding features and<br/>
otherwise generally causing us trouble because our<br/>
ignorant choice of inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s has led us down a path<br/>
of short-sighted geocide that we cannot seem to<br/>
escape, or <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ly even understand the trouble...<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I believe that there are many people who will <a href="start.htm">start</a> non-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion companies when they <a href="real.htm">real</a>ise how simple it is.</span><br/>
<br/>
In what way will it be easier to <a href="start.htm">start</a> a non-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a><br/>
if compared to yesterday?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="hard.htm">Hard</a> to say, but I do think we'll see the Open-movement</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> moving onto the physical world quite soon.</span><br/>
<br/>
We cannot fully address our 'sacred' <small>(immaterial)</small> needs<br/>
without <a href="free.htm">free</a>ing their 'profane' <small>(material)</small> containers.<br/>
<br/>
The physical world will be <a href="free.htm">free</a> as in <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom when the<br/>
<a href="user.htm">user</a>s begin to organize and <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion for their mutual, <a href="use.htm">use</a>-value benefit.<br/>
<br/>
It is easy to prove we, the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s, can afford to do<br/>
so - since we <a href="know.htm">know</a> that the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s <small>(in the end)</small> <a href="pay.htm">pay</a><br/>
all the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion AND they <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
When <a href="user.htm">user</a>s are the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers and <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment,<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is undefined because there is no sale!<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-01-2011:</span><br/>
Rasmus Wikman wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> With an open equivalent, at least the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s</span><br/>
<br/>
Hi Rasmus, do you have any <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>as about how<br/>
we might aquire the <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware we will need?<br/>
<br/>
Do you envision the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s coming together<br/>
to buy and <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> those physical assets?<br/>
<br/>
Do you envision <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent governments taking<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ership from the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent corporations?<br/>
<br/>
Do you envision <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent corporations changing<br/>
in some way where they begin giving <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership<br/>
to the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s on an incremental basis?<br/>
<br/>
Or maybe some other approach...<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Thanks,<br/>
Patrick Anderson<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-01-2011:</span><br/>
This can be done by changing how we reward inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
We can attract regular <a href="user.htm">user</a>s of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t to invest<br/>
small a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a>s for <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership in the corporation.<br/>
<br/>
Those <a href="user.htm">user</a>-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ers receive *<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t* instead of *<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>*<br/>
for the risk they took.<br/>
<br/>
We do not even sell the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t in that case, for it is<br/>
already the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of the people who will <a href="use.htm">use</a> it.<br/>
<br/>
This moves us away from seeking scarcity toward an<br/>
<a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy driven by <a href="use.htm">use</a>-value instead of exchange-value.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Aug-01-2011:</span> <small>[P2P-F]</small> Open System<br/>
Rasmus Wikman wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> we need a <a href="new.htm">new</a> technological foundation for society</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> that gives everyone equal opportunities and is <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> by noone.</span><br/>
<br/>
That might be throwing too much out with the bathwater.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is a very dangerous tool that we can<br/>
bridle and temper through a legally binding document<br/>
that we strategically design and apply to <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty that<br/>
we buy 'collectively' for the purpose of stopping any of<br/>
the originators or the later <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers from causing the<br/>
usual kinds of trouble.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
I have been studying this as a system and have 3 points<br/>
that must be enforced if we are to move toward society<br/>
that does not require <a href="pass.htm">pass</a>ing tokens:<br/>
<br/>
1.)</small> <a href="user.htm">User</a>s commit <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es or <a href="skill.htm">Skill</a>s toward future <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership is the result of those investments.<br/>
<br/>
3.)</small> The <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is not sold, for it is already the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of<br/>
the people who will <a href="use.htm">use</a> - for the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s are the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
</p>
<p class='footer'>
Page generated from <a href=".text/diary-aug-2011">diary-aug-2011</a> by <a href=".code/etym.el">etym</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>