-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathdiary-may-2008.htm
983 lines (980 loc) · 147 KB
/
diary-may-2008.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
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
<?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-may-2008 </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/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-31-2008:</span><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://OpenCapitalist.org">OpenCapitalist.org</a> <span class="quot2">>>The goal of Open Capitalist is to provide a frame<a href="work.htm">work</a> for the creation of socially responsible companies. Furthermore, we want to provide a place where individuals can contribute to projects they believe in and earn a <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> doing what they enjoy.</span><br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Doug.PBWiki.com/GardenWorld">Doug.PBWiki.com/GardenWorld</a> <span class="quot2">>>We have discovered our interdependence on nature, but don’t have a view of what to do with it. GardenWold replaces that vacuum with a <a href="promis.htm">promis</a>e. Whether the world falls a<a href="part.htm">part</a>, or hangs together, GardenWorld would be helpful. It is, as the futurists say, robust across scenarios. We need an <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>e of what we are trying to accomplish and how we want to <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>e. Welfare choices are easier in the garden world context. If a person is facing a deteriorating social and physical environment their choices will not be the ones that are trying to align personal well being with the environment. In GardenWorld, because alignment is possible and people are more or less the same a convergence of desires and actions is more likely.</span><br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://LocalGovernance.org">LocalGovernance.org</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-31-2008:</span> Listening to <a class="ext" href="http://www.archive.org/details/AgroinnovationsPodcastOpenFarmTechWithMarciJakubowski">http://www.archive.org/details/AgroinnovationsPodcastOpenFarmTechWithMarciJakubowski</a> <span class="quot2">>>In this interview with Marcin Jakubowski of <a class="ext" href="http://www.openfarmtech.org">www.openfarmtech.org</a>, we revisit the issue of Open <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e Ap<a href="prop.htm">prop</a>riate Technology. Like many of the OSAT visionaries, Marcin has a technological vision that will shatter the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent order and bring us greater <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom, autonomy and independence. Have a listen to learn more about what he is doing to bring this about.</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-30-2008:</span> E<a href="mail.htm">mail</a> reply<br/>
I probably shouldn't have dredged all this 911 muck up. It seems so old and boring anymore. I reacted emotionally to the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a that "we are on the right track and for the right reasons."<br/>
<br/>
Epistemology is a fancy word for "<a href="know.htm">know</a>ledge study". It is about the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erences between truth and belief. It involves asking questions such as "does that chair exist" and then trying to determine how such a claim can be proven.<br/>
<br/>
It may seem to be a frivolous, academic exercise to ponder such things, but it is <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly at the core of the discussion here.<br/>
<br/>
How do any of us <a href="know.htm">know</a> what happened that day? I have seen text, <a href="pic.htm">pic</a>tures and video that appear to be showing:<br/>
1. A missle leaving one of the planes at the last s<a href="econ.htm">econ</a>d before it hit WTC 1 or 2 <small>(I don't remember which)</small>.<br/>
2. An interview with firefighters talking about a series of detonations "BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM" as 1 and 2 fell.<br/>
3. An interview with firefighters describing so much molten steel running that it "looked like a foundry".<br/>
4. Many clips showing all three <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>dings falling in perfect semmetry toward the earth at <a href="free.htm">free</a>-fall speed.<br/>
5. <a href="pic.htm">Pic</a>tures of a small hole in the ground in Pennsylvania where one of the planes supposedly crashed, but with the debris spread over miles.<br/>
6. A lack of films from the security <a href="cam.htm">cam</a>eras of businesses near the pentagon that were seized by the FBI.<br/>
7. Written accounts of several of the Suadi Arabians that were supposedly on those planes, but are still alive.<br/>
8. <a href="pic.htm">Pic</a>tures of the construction of WTC 1 and 2 showing the central 'spire' of steel that comprises the internals of those towers with "I" and "box" beams having wall thicknesses of 5".<br/>
<br/>
But I don't <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly have any way to <a href="know.htm">know</a> if any of this is true. I did not observe any of this directly with my <a href="own.htm">own</a> senses. I am relying upon information that was allowed to flow to me. All of it may have been doctored or fabricated for purposes I may never <a href="know.htm">know</a>.<br/>
<br/>
So now all we have is belief.<br/>
<br/>
We can fight among ourselves about what each of us believe, but that will only separate us.<br/>
<br/>
When beliefs do not coincide, the offender is labeled "wrong". Atheists and adhe<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>s both consider all religions are "wrong" except their <a href="own.htm">own</a>. The only <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence is that atheists don't happen to have one of their <a href="own.htm">own</a>.<br/>
<br/>
This information <small>(whether true or false)</small> will probably be made <a href="pop.htm">pop</a>ular by the off-shore <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of this nation when they decide we should be convinced our leaders need to be replaced by UN troops and foreign control.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
PS: A "steel <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding" contains no structural concrete. It is not the same as a concrete bridge reinforced with cable or rebar. I couldn't find any <a href="pic.htm">pic</a>tures of that bridge, but will guess it was composed of pre-stressed slabs containing cables near the bottom side. When those cables were heated, they stretched <small>(didn't melt)</small>, causing the <a href="sect.htm">sect</a>ions to lose their tensile strength and the structure to bow downward. The melting described in the <a href="art.htm">art</a>icle was the burning *asphalt* which will melt even just from the heat of the SUN on very hot days.<br/>
<br/>
PSS: Obviously someone conspired <small>(met in secret)</small>, the question is "who was involved?".<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-29-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A541">GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A541</a><br/>
<i><span class="itlc">detailed from the outset, broken down to explain how equipment is acquired, how staff are paid, how <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es are set, how food is acquired to be cooked, and how any <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y <a href="left.htm">left</a> over at the end of the year is handled.</span></i><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-28-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A541">GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A541</a><br/>
Vinay,<br/>
<br/>
Yes, some "open design" <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware is being manufactured, but what I'm am talking about is creating a situation where the physical <b><span class="bold">manufacturing</span></b> of that design is also 'open'.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="land.htm">land</a> and capital needed to 'express' a design can be collectively <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed in a analogously 'open' manner.<br/>
<br/>
It is not enough for a design to be open. The people in need of <a href="hex.htm">Hex</a>ayurt housing can only <a href="use.htm">use</a> the blueprints if they have access to the tools and materials needed to manufacture one.<br/>
<br/>
I'm trying to describe a <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> <a href="mod.htm">Mod</a>e of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion where the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t consumers are also the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the "physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es" or 'Means' of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion even if they do not have the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s required to operate those <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines.<br/>
<br/>
It may seem to have no application in the case of a <a href="hex.htm">Hex</a>ayurt - where the consumers being stranded after a disaster are likely to have no <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty at all - but there is a way to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e a <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion facility that is a true "public utility". We can <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers better than ever while keeping the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e lower than ever and while giving the consumer advanced control over that manufacturing.<br/>
<br/>
Do you understand the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence I am trying to clarify?<br/>
<br/>
I am talking about "open manufacturing" - where factories and farms are <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by the consumers intending to <a href="use.htm">use</a> those <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts EVEN when those specific consumers don't have the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s to operate those physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
Does this seem like a worthy goal, or would you say there is no point, or am I still not <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing sense? ;)</small><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-28-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A541">GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A541</a><br/>
The design of a <a href="free.htm">Free</a> as in <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom thing is important, but what about creating/expressing/manufacturing <b><span class="bold">instances</span></b> of such a thing?<br/>
<br/>
Whenever people talk about <a href="free.htm">Free</a> <a href="hard.htm">Hard</a>ware they seem to only be interested in the '<a href="virt.htm">virt</a>ual' portion of it. But what about the 'physical' <a href="part.htm">part</a>?<br/>
<br/>
I would like to talk about how we can <a href="free.htm">free</a> the <b><span class="bold">instantiation</span></b> of such designs, but hear so little talk of it, I wonder if nobody else cares.<br/>
<br/>
Am I misunderstanding something? <a href="free.htm">Free</a> Software <small>(Open <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e)</small> and <a href="free.htm">Free</a> <a href="hard.htm">Hard</a>ware are both about <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing the '<a href="virt.htm">virt</a>ual' portion of something <a href="free.htm">free</a>, but why is there so little <small>(if any)</small> talk about how we will <a href="free.htm">free</a> the '<i><span class="itlc">physical</span></i>' <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es needed for the manufacturing of such <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts?<br/>
<br/>
Would there be interest here at <a class="ext" href="http://GlobalSwadeshi.net">GlobalSwadeshi.net</a> for a discussion of how a group can get together to purchase, <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>e, operate, maintain, <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>e, etc. the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es needed to manufacture something such as a car in a manner akin to what public utilies should have been?<br/>
<br/>
Maybe we could sell "pre-<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion bonds" to pontential customers to <a href="fund.htm">fund</a> the operation. They would each be buying a vehicle that was not yet manufactured in that they would become the collective <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the capital needed for that construction. We would want to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e the manufacturing facility as multi-purpose as possible so that other, similar <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts could be created there <small>(similar to Marcin's notion of <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>ular connectivity for his farm implements)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
Since those consumers would be investing for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t instead of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, we would have leeway in where any <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> might go when we begin selling to non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing customers <small>(during the 2nd or 3rd round of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion)</small>. <br/>
<br/>
If we treat all <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as an investment from and for the consumer who paid it <small>(the consumer might be a <a href="work.htm">work</a>er who paid with labor)</small>, all <a href="part.htm">part</a>icipants would become <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers in the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion the need for Swaraj in a Swadeshi Society.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-26-2008:</span> Fresh Farm <a href="new.htm">New</a>s<br/>
<br/>
Looking for a way to harvest some of the wild grain from my <small>(the <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>'s)</small> 3 acres I found <a class="ext" href="http://ScytheConnection.com">http://ScytheConnection.com</a> and a demonstration video at <a class="ext" href="http://YouTube.com/watch?v=ugSO54WKm8I">http://YouTube.com/watch?v=ugSO54WKm8I</a><br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>...<br/>
<br/>
Trying to begin comprehension of the <a href="new.htm">new</a>est Farm Bill H.R.2419 "To provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes." at <a class="ext" href="http://Thomas.LOC.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02419:">http://Thomas.LOC.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02419:</a><br/>
<br/>
And "Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008" at <a class="ext" href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:6:./temp/~c110wiaLnn::">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:6:./temp/~c110wiaLnn::</a><br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Agriculture.House.gov/inside/2007FarmBill.html">http://Agriculture.House.gov/inside/2007FarmBill.html</a><br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-hunger21mar21,0,3937956.story">http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-hunger21mar21,0,3937956.story</a> <span class="quot2">>>As the very poor struggle just to eat, the farm bill before Congress boosts corporate welfare.</span><br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://WashingtonPost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/20/AR2008052001581.html">http://WashingtonPost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/20/AR2008052001581.html</a> <span class="quot2">>>A major <a href="new.htm">new</a> program in the recently enacted farm bill could increase taxpayer-financed <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ments to farmers by billions of dollars if high commodity <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es decline to more typical levels</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>...<br/>
<br/>
Reading <a class="ext" href="http://FEE.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=85">http://FEE.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=85</a> "<a href="free.htm">Free</a>-Market Farming" 1956 By W. M. Curtiss <span class="quot2">>>The <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent farm problem is said to be a matter of surpluses—some seven billion dollars worth of farm commodities which the government either <a href="own.htm">own</a>s or holds under loan. As a result of the careless <a href="use.htm">use</a> of the term "surplus," we are expected to believe that the farm problem exists because there are "too many farmers" or "farmers <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e more than we need."</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>...<br/>
<br/>
Reading <a class="ext" href="http://Books.Google.com/books?id=oWNMAAAAIAAJ">http://Books.Google.com/books?id=oWNMAAAAIAAJ</a> "The Third Power: Farmers to the Front" 1907 By James Andrew Everitt <span class="quot2">>><a href="note.htm">Note</a> — Any attempt to control <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es through a large <a href="fund.htm">fund</a> as recently <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>osed by several companies will fail because it will encourage <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ers to increase <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion and to hold their crops, which will result in an unwieldy surplus. If the <a href="fund.htm">fund</a> is actually <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to buy and hold the crops, it will certainly result like the Leiter deal — in an inability to find buyers, who will take them at a still higher <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e, when they must be disposed of. Neither individual, corporate, nor national aid along this line can be effective, unless the surplus that is bound to result will be destroyed.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>...<br/>
<br/>
Watching <a class="ext" href="http://Video.Google.com/videoplay?docid=2084570389918679725">http://Video.Google.com/videoplay?docid=2084570389918679725</a> <span class="quot2">>><a class="ext" href="http://GlobalSwadeshi.net">GlobalSwadeshi.net</a> Global Swadeshi dialogue between Marcin Jakubowski of Open <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <a href="ecol.htm">Ecol</a>ogy <small>(<a class="ext" href="http://OpenFarmTech.org">OpenFarmTech.org</a>)</small> and Vinay Gupta of the <a href="hex.htm">Hex</a>ayurt Project <small>(<a class="ext" href="http://HexaYurt.com">HexaYurt.com</a>)</small> discussing Marcin's <a href="work.htm">work</a> on developing autonomous farming, <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding and power systems.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>...<br/>
<br/>
Reading about the upcoming AnimalID <small>(NAIS)</small> law: <a class="ext" href="http://NoNAIS.org,">http://NoNAIS.org,</a> <a class="ext" href="http://StopAnimalID.org,">http://StopAnimalID.org,</a> <a class="ext" href="http://NoAnimalID.com,">http://NoAnimalID.com,</a> <a class="ext" href="http://NICFA.org,">http://NICFA.org,</a> <a class="ext" href="http://FarmToConsumerFoundation.org">http://FarmToConsumerFoundation.org</a><br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>...<br/>
<br/>
Some of my recent 'theoretical' <a href="work.htm">work</a> with agricultural slant:<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A301">http://www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A301</a> "Will a Swadeshi Society <a href="use.htm">Use</a> Scarcity to <a href="protect.htm">Protect</a> <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e?"<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.Ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008%3ABlogPost%3A4357">http://P2PFoundation.Ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008%3ABlogPost%3A4357</a><br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>...<br/>
<br/>
Not farm related but fascinating: <a class="ext" href="http://Books.Google.com/books?id=wqCxE4CN3GsC">http://Books.Google.com/books?id=wqCxE4CN3GsC</a> "The Secret Societies of All Ages and Countries" 1875 Charles William Heckethorn<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-25-2008:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://Mises.org/books/failureofneweconomics.pdf">Mises.org/books/failureofneweconomics.pdf</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-25-2008:</span> Pondering:<br/>
<br/>
All effort is spent reporting the trouble<br/>
We do not act; solutions seem impossible<br/>
<br/>
We must <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers from the consuming side<br/>
Labor needs "<a href="use.htm">use</a> value", not continuous <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>e<br/>
<br/>
Our goals should not be <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> and <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ment<br/>
Let us invest for selfish, local enjoyment<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-24-2008:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://PoliceStatePlanning.com/id19.htm">PoliceStatePlanning.com/id19.htm</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-23-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org/blog/zuneral">DefectiveByDesign.org/blog/zuneral</a><br/>
Why not organize and begin <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding <small>(not just designing)</small> our <a href="own.htm">OWN</a> electronics.<br/>
<br/>
Sure it is expensive, but obviously it is not impossible. Apple and Microsoft are already doing it, and we <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for it in the end anyway - while also <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing the externality of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
If we <small>(the people, the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s)</small> could believe enough in ourselves to invest in the means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion for the sole purpose of "<a href="use.htm">use</a> value" instead of creating <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificial barriers for "exchange value", then we would not need to beg those that hold us at bay.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="rms.htm">RMS</a> did not beg the software industry to do the <a href="left.htm">left</a> thing. He did not buy <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>rietary software and then bury it in concrete.<br/>
<br/>
He began investing in <a href="free.htm">Free</a> <small>(as in <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom)</small> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, not frivolous destruction.<br/>
<br/>
Can the 'we' do this for the physical <a href="real.htm">real</a>m as well? Can we cover the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s? We already <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> those <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s! We <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s AND we <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> AND we are on a leash held by those that create this <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>rietary <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware.<br/>
<br/>
Let us organize and begin an evolution of physical <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom!<br/>
<br/>
Sincerely,<br/>
Patrick Anderson<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-23-2008:</span><br/>
Solitary humans invest <small>(<a href="pay.htm">pay</a> or <a href="work.htm">work</a>)</small> for "<a href="use.htm">use</a> value" alone.<br/>
Let "exchange value" be the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er's <small>(or <a href="work.htm">work</a>er's)</small> investment.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-22-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://OpenFarmTech.org/weblog/?p=221">OpenFarmTech.org/weblog/?p=221</a><br/>
Congratulations in your agricultural success which has more "<a href="use.htm">use</a> value" potential than results from the $300-billion Farm Bill I've been reading about.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'If we were all trained as such, wouldn’t the general public, let alone professionals, notice if something wasn’t right in the airport or subway?'"</span><br/>
<br/>
In my opinion the "general public" would be more attentive and reactive if they had <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the facilities they visit.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership is so often derided, and certainly there are big problems that associated with the CONCENTRATION of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, but if or when that <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership could be somehow distributed <small>(not as a handout, but as a result of a <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> approach to organization)</small>, I believe the individuals comprising that organization would be far more physically and spiritually aware out of there <a href="own.htm">own</a> self-interests.<br/>
<br/>
But as it is, we walk through so-called 'public' areas without any <a href="real.htm">real</a> say or control of what is around us. We are foreigners in all places except our <a href="own.htm">own</a> private, personal areas because we refuse to organize and cooperate for our <a href="own.htm">own</a> "<a href="use.htm">use</a> value" purposes, but instead wait for those that will organize for the purpose of "exchange value" - and "exchange value" requires the consumers/<a href="user.htm">user</a>s NOT have <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership - for that would give them access to "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
Sorry to sound so preachy; I was trying to ask your opinion about my claim. Any thoughts?<br/>
<br/>
Patrick<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-22-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://Smari.Yaxic.org/blag/2008/05/18/will-a-swadeshi-society-use-scarcity-to-protect-price">Smari.Yaxic.org/blag/2008/05/18/will-a-swadeshi-society-use-scarcity-to-protect-price</a><br/>
It is common to claim there would be no incentive for investment and <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion if <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e can’t be held above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, but what about the lone is<a href="land.htm">land</a>er?<br/>
<br/>
If you are stranded on an is<a href="land.htm">land</a> isn’t there incentive for you to invest some of your labor and capital <small>(planting some of your wheat seeds instead of grinding them)</small>?<br/>
<br/>
Would that incentive be lost if I were to arrive on the is<a href="land.htm">land</a> with you?<br/>
<br/>
When or where do our goals switch from <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t to <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-22-2008:</span> If <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> is the only incentive for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, then why does the lone is<a href="land.htm">land</a>er <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e? Why does he invest <small>(<a href="work.htm">work</a>)</small>?<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-20-2008:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://Books.Google.com/books?id=wqCxE4CN3GsC">Books.Google.com/books?id=wqCxE4CN3GsC</a> "The Secret Societies of All Ages and Countries" 1875 Charles William Heckethorn<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-20-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A301">GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A301</a><br/>
Thanks for these good points, Birita. Let me <a href="know.htm">know</a> if I am not understanding them correctly.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'If you strive for a consumer-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed society, it will be <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult to maintain services to the standard at which they are today.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
I both <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> and I think it doesn't matter. While wanting any <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion or service to scale to whatever size is most ap<a href="prop.htm">prop</a>riate, I find it helpful to keep in mind the very small cases of just a few people.<br/>
<br/>
For instance, a group of people <small>(say a group of college students)</small> might buy and <a href="own.htm">own</a> a bus together. They are then a "travel company" for themselves with standards which they set as they please. There is no reason to answer to anyone else about those standards which may be very high, or very low depending upon what they choose.<br/>
<br/>
Every person in that group must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the collective others for the re<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ing <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing the vehicle - including things like initial <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e <small>(and interest if there was a loan)</small>, <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ance, maintenance, <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>age, etc., and all wages needed to accomplish those goals. This is <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the '<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>' or 'tax' that is required to <a href="recover.htm">recover</a> the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
Furthermore, each person that wants to <a href="use.htm">use</a> the bus for some time-slot must also <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for the extra wear he inflicts, including gasoline, oil changes, tire wear, engine longevity, etc. We will call this, along with the re<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ing <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s already mentioned, the "<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>-floor".<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>-floor is sufficient to <a href="recover.htm">recover</a> all operational <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s, but when one or more other <a href="user.htm">user</a>s are vying for the same time-slot, they can bid against each other until there is a winner. The winner will <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> a "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>", and that extra <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment will be <a href="use.htm">use</a>d as HIS investment in more <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es. This shows the balancing effect of treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as investment - as <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing more than <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> has proven that the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent pool of physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es <small>(the single bus)</small> is insufficient to meet peak demand, and the overpayment will be <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to <a href="fund.htm">fund</a> the purchase of another bus.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'If a person runs a travel company, he <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>es no actual <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, and the service is <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult to quantify in exchange for apples or steak.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
I don't understand what you mean by "the service is <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult to quantify". Any group offering the <a href="use.htm">use</a> of a bus, train, airplane, etc. will be able to determine the total operational <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s and the <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>-floor for each consumer - won't they? Businesses do it now, and report the excess as '<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>', so I assume it is possible.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'exchange for apples or steak.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
I'm not <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>osing barter. I assume people will <a href="use.htm">use</a> the problematic central-<a href="bank.htm">bank</a> issued <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>tary system of whatever country you are in until we can create a community <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency to replace it. I have some <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>as about such a <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency, but will delay them for now to avoid the extra complexity.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'In a community where everyone is an at-<a href="cost.htm">cost</a> consumer, won't services suddenly become much <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>er to regulate?'"</span><br/>
<br/>
What do you mean by "regulate"? I envision a society where there is no '<a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e' beyond private 'e<a href="stat.htm">stat</a>es'. Any group of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers may offer services <small>(such as a bus ride)</small> at any quality they like, and spend as much or as little on operational <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s to achieve that quality as they like. If the quality is high, you may be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> more, if the quality is low you may <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> less, but it is not guaranteed. Some people <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e poor decisions and spend <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y carelessly, while others are very clever and thrifty. I don't want some overarching mother-government quality control committee to constrain those choices. The consumers will choose what they like, and ignore what they don't.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'No one is the sole <a href="user.htm">user</a> of a service unless that service is intended only for himself. If the service is intended only for himself it is inefficient and the solution is not desirable. Do you have a solution for this dilemma?'"</span><br/>
<br/>
I'm not sure I understand, but will try to answer anyway.<br/>
<br/>
The sole <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of a service - say a car, is of course, very common, and is mostly not an important case for our study except as a "base case" to compare our findings against.<br/>
<br/>
So <small>{group, joint, collective, cooperative, corporate, public, shared, together}</small> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult case that a contract for a consumer-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed business must address.<br/>
<br/>
I don't think I answered your question. Would you please ask it again, in a <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> way?<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'<a href="part.htm">Part</a> of the reason why scarcity is un<a href="real.htm">real</a> today is because we've all become more efficient at what we do. If specialization were to drop, we lose the main benefit of <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>e which is the ability to minimize circumstantial <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
I consider specialization extremely important, and one of the primary reasons to even consider group <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership. I am talking about the consumers have <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty rights over the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion neccessary for the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts they need while not neccessarily being the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers that operate or care for those <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers that operate and maintain those <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es also need <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, but they need <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership only in the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of that which THEY consume. That is a <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult thing to for me to write clearly. If you understand me, could you please re<a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e it in your <a href="own.htm">own</a> terms?<br/>
<br/>
Thanks,<br/>
Patrick<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-20-2008:</span> Some <a href="econ.htm">econ</a> terms:<br/>
supply-side, trickle-down, Reaganomics, Laffer Curve, Mellonomics<br/>
<a href="key.htm">Key</a>nesian<br/>
NeoLiberal, <a href="free.htm">Free</a> Market, <a href="free.htm">free</a> <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>e, <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom, laissez-faire, "let do", <a href="lib.htm">lib</a>ertarian, Austrian<br/>
perfect competition<br/>
monopoly<br/>
command <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy<br/>
supply and demand<br/>
spontaneous order, invisible hand<br/>
"intends only his <a href="own.htm">own</a> gain is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no <a href="part.htm">part</a> of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no <a href="part.htm">part</a> of it. By pursuing his <a href="own.htm">own</a> interest <small>[an individual]</small> frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly intends to promote it. I have never <a href="know.htm">know</a>n much good done by those who affected to <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>e for the <small>[common]</small> good." <small>(Wealth of Nations)</small><br/>
<br/>
externality<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-20-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A301">GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A301</a><br/>
The original post alludes to a solution for this dilemma with:<br/>
<span class="quot">"'Notice if those inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s had been the consumers themselves, they could be paid with <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t instead.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
This is only one of the surprising effects that occur when <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t consumers <a href="own.htm">own</a> the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t. Another is "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t. Consumer-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is a special <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic case that we have somehow overlooked.<br/>
<br/>
The most simple example occurs when a <b><span class="bold">single</span></b> <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es is the full consumer of all that is <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed. For instance, the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of a small apple tree that <a href="use.htm">use</a>s all of the apples from that tree doesn't care if an external entity <small>(nation)</small> were to 'dump' apples on his shore at a low <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e <small>(or even <a href="free.htm">free</a>)</small> because he is not intending to sell the apples. He has no reason to keep his neighbors from cheap apples. It would actually be better for him if they received 'dumped' apples, since they then won't be trying to steal his.<br/>
<br/>
He also <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s exactly "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" for those apples, even if he hired someone to care for the tree, harvest and <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>e the fruit, etc. because 'wages' are considered a <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. He couldn't have paid "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> unless he were to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to himself. You might also think of any <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> for this season's <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion as his investment toward future <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
If the tree-<a href="own.htm">own</a>er ever has 'extra' apples, there is a good chance he could sell them for a "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" to his neighbors if they do not already have "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" access to apples. If he keeps that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as a reward, it becomes an incentive for him to vote for scarcity creating laws as were already mentioned.<br/>
<br/>
But treating that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as an investment from the consumer who paid it causes that <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy to "self balance" since that consumer slowly gains the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership he needs to also have "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t <small>(apples)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
A lengthy discussion about this is ongoing at:<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.Ning.com/xn/detail/2003008:BlogPost:4357">http://P2PFoundation.Ning.com/xn/detail/2003008:BlogPost:4357</a><br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.Ning.com/xn/detail/2003008:BlogPost:4761">http://P2PFoundation.Ning.com/xn/detail/2003008:BlogPost:4761</a><br/>
<br/>
I'm surprised Sepp doesn't see it as a solution to this problem.<br/>
<br/>
A consumer-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed enterprise solves the conundrum of destruction by <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ing each consumer gains <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty as he <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" until he finally has sufficient to also be an "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" consumer.<br/>
<br/>
A consumer-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed society doesn't need scarcity. <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t dumping cannot hurt them because they strive only for "<a href="use.htm">use</a> value" while treating "exchange value" as an imbalance in <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership to be corrected by investing that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> for the consumer who paid it until we all win.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-19-2008:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://BelieveNothing.tv">BelieveNothing.tv</a> <a class="ext" href="http://AmericanDeception.com">AmericanDeception.com</a> <a class="ext" href="http://FarmToConsumerFoundation.org">FarmToConsumerFoundation.org</a> <a class="ext" href="http://NoNAIS.org">NoNAIS.org</a>, <a class="ext" href="http://StopAnimalID.org">StopAnimalID.org</a>, <a class="ext" href="http://NoAnimalID.com">NoAnimalID.com</a><br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://NICFA.org">NICFA.org</a> <span class="quot2">>>National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association is a coalition of Independent Consumer and Farmer groups united in a common mission and purpose : •To promote and preserve unregulated direct farmer-to-consumer <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>e that fosters availability of locally grown or home-<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed food <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts. •To oppose any government <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ed or managed National Animal <a href="ide.htm">Ide</a>ntification System. NICFA is Pro-Consumer ~ Pro-Farmer ~ Pro-<a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom ~ Anti-NAIS.</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-19-2008:</span> E<a href="mail.htm">mail</a> response<br/>
If thermtie and small nuclear devices were <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to bring down Boaz and Jachin, then why did we attack Afghanistan? Maybe to help the CIA increase opium <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion to the highest it has ever been?<br/>
<br/>
If not, were the massive steel cores of these towers melted into the ground by furniture fires? If the fires were so hot, how was this person <small>[ <a class="ext" href="http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/edna/liberty.htm">http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/edna/liberty.htm</a> ]</small> able to withstand the heat? If the towers fell in a "pancake effect", then again, what about the enormous steel cores? Where did they go? Where did all the heat come from? <a class="ext" href="http://WhatReallyHappened.com/thermite.html">http://WhatReallyHappened.com/thermite.html</a><br/>
<br/>
Where was Cheney? Stopping NORAD from scrambling jets? How were the bumbling hijackers able to fly around for almost 2 hours without interception?<br/>
<br/>
Where was Bush? Reading a book?<br/>
<br/>
Even if we pretend the <a href="remot.htm">remot</a>e-controlled planes were occupied by the Saudi Arabian hijackers <small>(though many of them are alive and well)</small>, why not attack Saudi Arabia?<br/>
<br/>
But EVEN then, why must the people of a country be bombed for the actions of a few or for the actions of the leaders? If another country didn't like what the Florida judge appointed Bush was doing, should they warn him in advance and then <a href="start.htm">start</a> bombing NYC and LA?<br/>
<br/>
Why murder the citizens by pummeling the cities, water purification facilities, chicken farms, electric <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, etc.? Maybe the military industrial complex needed to spend some of what had been <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding up - for that would give reason for even more <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ing? The cleanup is also an <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic win for the corporations that puppeteer our pitiful government.<br/>
<br/>
It is of no consequence what anyone may "wish for", the only way to change the course of government is with Federal Reserve <a href="note.htm">Note</a>s which we first buy and then <a href="rent.htm">rent</a><small>(*)</small> from a clan of international <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>sters that are at the root of almost every war or "pig action" that has oc<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ed over the last 200 years.<br/>
<br/>
<small>(*)</small> These usurists buy bonds <a href="back.htm">back</a>ed largely by our national forests with FRNs they issue out of thin air - thereby gaining <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of our country. But even after exchanging our <a href="land.htm">land</a> for something we could have issued ourselves, we still don't <a href="own.htm">own</a> the bills, for we also <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> for every <a href="note.htm">note</a> in circulation.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Sincerely,<br/>
Lord <small>(<a href="own.htm">own</a>er and bread guard)</small> <a href="agnu.htm">AGNU</a>cius<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-19-2008:</span><br/>
<span class="quot">"'If you don't like to call the reward for the success of an entrepreneur a <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, call it a bonus, but the fact remains that it is intimately connected with the performance <small>(and perhaps even with a bit of good luck)</small> of the enterprising individual.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
I don't care about the name; I'm concerned WHERE the value comes from - or in other words, HOW that pool is increased.<br/>
<br/>
I'm willing to accept your analysis if it '<a href="work.htm">work</a>s' for the construction of an alternate <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy, but I am not sure it will always <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e sense.<br/>
<br/>
For instance you say:<br/>
<span class="quot">"'But whether you call it a wage, a bonus or a <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, the <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y has to come out of a "pool", which is <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y that isn't eaten up by <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s. So a <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>ing "above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" will be necessary to create the pool of <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y the entrepreneur can take his/her bonus from. There is <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly no way around this.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
But the way I envision a consumer-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed company, there are points in time where each consumer has "just enough" <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership that no selling of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t ever need occur. In those fleeting <small>(since consumer choices change and the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tivity of <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es change)</small> instances, there will be no "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" because the consumers would have already paid for all of the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion before <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion oc<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ed, and the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t itself is not sold - as it is already the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of those intending to consume it.<br/>
<br/>
So when a group of honey eaters have "just enough" <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in beehives to supply them with the honey they desire, and one of them is an entrepreneur that deserves bonuses, then why would it be a problem to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> that bonus as a <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> - a sort of extended wage? There would be no "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" to draw from because when the consumers are the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers in sufficient a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a>, there is no selling of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t <small>(honey)</small>...<br/>
<br/>
Ah, but maybe you want to draw the bonus <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ments from "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" because you are saying the entrepreneur deserves the bonus ONLY when he is able to <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e more than the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers paid for the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> they intended to consume for themselves. In that case the extra <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t could be sold to non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing consumers at "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" ... <small>(actually, if the honey was <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly 'extra', and the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers had already paid all <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s, then ANY <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e would be above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> since this 'extra' <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t would itself be 'bonus')</small> ...<br/>
<br/>
I'll have to think more about this. I always assumed the "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" meant the consumer was pleading for growth, and so should be treated as his investment <small>(he paid it)</small> in more <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es. But I do see that it might also <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e sense to reward an entrepreneur/manager's efficiency by causing <a href="part.htm">part</a> of that consumer's <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment to be treated as a bonus. But what about the manual-laborers? Shouldn't we also 'bonus' them?<br/>
<br/>
Hmm... Thanks for the interaction, I think we are <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing progress and even beginning to address the resistance I always receive about <a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ing <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers even though there is another way consumer-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ership <a href="protect.htm">protect</a>s <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers that is much more powerful based on the fact that every <a href="work.htm">work</a>er is also a consumer <small>(of something)</small>, so must have <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of THAT <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion to be safe.<br/>
<br/>
Anyway, I am still trying to find a way to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e that presentation.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-18-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.Ning./profiles/blog/show?id=2003008:BlogPost:4357&page=2#comment-2003008:Comment:4863">http://P2PFoundation.Ning./profiles/blog/show?id=2003008:BlogPost:4357&page=2#comment-2003008:Comment:4863</a><br/>
<br/>
HB311 <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es me so angry I am seething.<br/>
<br/>
Why are the lowly "we" allowed to <a href="own.htm">own</a> any capital whatsoever?<br/>
<br/>
Why don't the feudalists disallow apple trees? How can they possibly let us raise vegetables? Why are chickens not long since ill-eagle?<br/>
<br/>
These pigish, putrid, immoral, usurist parasites will only tighten their grip as long as we continue to <a href="fund.htm">fund</a> ConAgra, Monsanto, Nestle, etc. when we buy their <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts and <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> that they then <a href="use.htm">use</a> to purchase yet more legislation to subjugate we the consuming and <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing people.<br/>
<br/>
Consumers are <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers and <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers are consumers. We are being taken advantage of, and boxes are being <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>t around us with the intention of <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing us more literal slaves.<br/>
<br/>
Here is a film showing Monsanto's attempt to patent DNA sequences that appear naturally. Notice in the last clip the farmer talking about GMO corn causing his cattle to become sterile. Sterility will increase the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> of those that caused it by enabling them to sell <a href="new.htm">new</a>borns each year. This is along the same lines as Monsanto's terminator technology and some of the other tampering with wheat and rice genetics for the purpose of increasing <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> through dependence.<br/>
<br/>
Patently Piggish:<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://YouTube.com/watch?v=4-ouf_gmA5o">http://YouTube.com/watch?v=4-ouf_gmA5o</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://YouTube.com/watch?v=MtkKLcpxTWc">http://YouTube.com/watch?v=MtkKLcpxTWc</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://YouTube.com/watch?v=TZBWVJZ9YWM">http://YouTube.com/watch?v=TZBWVJZ9YWM</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://YouTube.com/watch?v=1WNMWcj_-4U">http://YouTube.com/watch?v=1WNMWcj_-4U</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://YouTube.com/watch?v=iJg6TlC1kNo">http://YouTube.com/watch?v=iJg6TlC1kNo</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-18-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.Ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008%3ABlogPost%3A4357">P2PFoundation.Ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008%3ABlogPost%3A4357</a><br/>
This is fantastic. When the consumers are the literal <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion <small>(cows)</small>, then they are the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the outputs <small>(milk)</small> even before it is <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed, so there is no 'sale' because the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is already the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of the person who will consume it.<br/>
<br/>
I've wondered if we could <a href="use.htm">use</a> this same tactic to avoid the Codex Alimentarius and that <a href="new.htm">new</a> Canadian legislation that <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es many healthy things illegal.<br/>
<br/>
Unfortunately the "they" are already ahead of us here in Utah and have explicitly made cow sharing illegal.<br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://le.utah.gov/~2007/bills/hbillint/hb0311.htm">http://le.utah.gov/~2007/bills/hbillint/hb0311.htm</a> reads in <a href="part.htm">part</a>:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'<br/>
prohibits cow-share programs<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>..<br/>
"Cow-share program" means a program in which a person acquires undivided interest in a milk <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ing hoofed mammal through an <a href="agree.htm">agree</a>ment with a <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>er that includes:<br/>
<small>(a)</small> a bill of sale for an interest in the mammal;<br/>
<small>(b)</small> a boarding arrangement under which the person boards the mammal with the<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>er for the care and milking of the mammal; and<br/>
<small>(c)</small> an arrangement under which the person receives raw milk for personal consumption.<br/>
'"</span><br/>
<br/>
See also <a class="ext" href="http://senatesite.com/blog/2007/02/raw-milk-regulations.html">http://senatesite.com/blog/2007/02/raw-milk-regulations.html</a><br/>
<br/>
Terrorists <small>(usurists)</small> hate <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom because it is bad for their market.<br/>
<br/>
I wonder if it is illegal for me to <a href="own.htm">own</a> an entire cow for myself. If I cannot share the output - not even with my children, and cannot divide a cow into shares, then I would need an individual cow for each child - but that is just far too much milk. Usurists hate sharing.<br/>
<br/>
Can anyone in the universe explain the reasoning for this restriction beyond the obvious benefit to the dairy board in keeping us <b><span class="bold">dependent</span></b> upon them?<br/>
<br/>
<a href="own.htm">Own</a>er <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> requires consumer dependence. Perpetuated <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is usury.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-18-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.Ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008%3ABlogPost%3A4357">P2PFoundation.Ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008%3ABlogPost%3A4357</a><br/>
I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> it is important to compensate anyone for <a href="work.htm">work</a> - even if 'just' the mental <a href="work.htm">work</a> of <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>as. But <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment for <a href="work.htm">work</a> is called <b><span class="bold">wages</span></b>, not <b><span class="bold"><a href="profit.htm">profit</a></span></b>.<br/>
<br/>
I have developed a very unconventional interpretation for the meaning of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, and do not have any formal training in <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omics, so maybe I am missing something.<br/>
<br/>
Would it be just as well if the group of investing consumers were to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the entrepreneur a <b><span class="bold">wage</span></b> <small>(with some or all of those wages possibly being '<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t')</small> in the same a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> you suspect he should be receiving from the pool called <b><span class="bold"><a href="profit.htm">profit</a></span></b>, or do you see a logistical reason for drawing some of his <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> from <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>?<br/>
<br/>
You probably understand the following better than I, but I would like to try to write it out attempting to communicate my reasoning about what I think '<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>' <small>(<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>)</small> <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly is.<br/>
<br/>
When a business is <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by just one person, that <a href="own.htm">own</a>er's wages are "mixed with", and therefore arbitrarily divided from <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>. In such a small situation the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between wages and <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is a matter of bookkeeping. The <a href="own.htm">own</a>er might say he is <small>(1)</small> collecting all wage and no <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, <small>(2)</small> no wage and all <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, or <small>(3)</small> somewhere in between.<br/>
<br/>
If that single-<a href="own.htm">own</a>er entrepreneur hires a <a href="work.htm">work</a>er, the wages paid to that <a href="work.htm">work</a>er are a pure <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, and are not at all 'mixed' with <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>. But the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er still has the ability to label any a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> of his <a href="own.htm">own</a> income as either wage or <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
But when the entrepreneur has other inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s with "vote weight" ... or in other words, if the business has multiple joint <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, then any wages paid to any of those <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers <small>(assuming some <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing or claiming to <a href="work.htm">work</a>)</small> become more and more clearly divided from <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as the other collective <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers will require all wages be 'competitive'. When any one <a href="work.htm">work</a>er/<a href="own.htm">own</a>er attempts to claim too much wage for the <a href="work.htm">work</a> he performs, the others will say something like "I <a href="know.htm">know</a> someone that can do that <a href="job.htm">job</a> better, and at a lower wage".<br/>
<br/>
So it appears that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> becomes more clearly divided from wages as the number of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers increases because those <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers will demand all wages paid for each position of <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ment to be 'competitive'.<br/>
<br/>
Now, when <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers are being compensated through wages alone, and wages are strictly a "<a href="cost.htm">cost</a> of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion", we can see concept of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is actually the same as "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>".<br/>
<br/>
So why would a consumer ever choose to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>"? Why are we not able to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> just the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s <small>(including any wages)</small> of something like a meal at a restaurant or the repairs to a car? Even after <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of wages to "<a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a people", managers, supervisors, accountants, and all other forms of labor, the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of business report something called '<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>'. The <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are able to collect more from the consumers than the actual <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion EVEN when those <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s include the wages for entrepreneurial, managerial, etc. <a href="work.htm">work</a>.<br/>
<br/>
It appears to me that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is actually a measure of a consumer's dependence upon the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> decreases as consumers gain access to the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, yet wages are not effected <small>(though I would argue consumer/<a href="own.htm">own</a>ers would likely increase wages since they were already accustomed to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing the externality called <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
For instance, <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>ine a large group of consumers collectively purchase a restaurant or a car repair shop. They would have to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of a normal business, including "<a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a people" and managers, but they wouldn't <small>(even couldn't)</small> <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> - for who would they <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to? On the other hand, if a non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing consumer wanted a meal or a car repair, the collective <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers COULD charge "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" against him - as he has no alternative.<br/>
<br/>
Sorry for the rambling, I must go and didn't have time to shorten this.<br/>
<br/>
I'll just repeat my question here:<br/>
<br/>
Would it be just as well if the group of investing consumers were to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the entrepreneur a <b><span class="bold">wage</span></b> <small>(with some or all of those wages possibly being '<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t')</small> in the same a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> you suspect he should be receiving from the pool called <b><span class="bold"><a href="profit.htm">profit</a></span></b>, or do you see a logistical reason for drawing some of his <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> from <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-17-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A301">www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A301</a> "Will a Swadeshi Society <a href="use.htm">Use</a> Scarcity to <a href="protect.htm">Protect</a> <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e?"<br/>
Reading <a class="ext" href="http://Books.Google.com/books?id=oWNMAAAAIAAJ">Books.Google.com/books?id=oWNMAAAAIAAJ</a> "The Third Power: Farmers to the Front" 1907 By James Andrew Everitt<br/>
<br/>
Near the very end of the book, on page 244 we read <span class="quot">"'Neither individual, corporate, nor national aid along this line can be effective, unless the surplus that is bound to result will be <b><span class="bold">destroyed</span></b>.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
What a sad path to consider with so much hunger in the world, and yet it is all too common when the purpose of business becomes <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> instead of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t. I remember as a kid on my dad's farm how he talked about some of the neighbors being paid to hold <a href="land.htm">land</a> out of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. They were being paid to NOT grow. This is still true and was reiterated in the 2007 farm bill. It's no wonder there is a grain shortage when it is 'dangerous' toward <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> for us to ever have enough. Plenty destroys <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>. But <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is not a societal requirement. <a href="work.htm">Work</a> is paid as wages and is <a href="calc.htm">calc</a>ulated as a '<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>' of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, so if <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> were to somehow be eliminated it wouldn't hurt the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers or the consumers, it would only hurt those that had invested with the intention of collecting "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>". Notice if those inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s had been the consumers themselves, they could be paid with <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t instead. Their return on investment would be bread instead of 'bread'.<br/>
<br/>
Some of my extended family and I intend to begin a sort of 'commune' for ourselves as the <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy seems more and more bleak. Since we will be <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ing for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t alone, over<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion can never be a 'problem' for us. We could give it away to our neighbors if nothing else.<br/>
<br/>
But an agriculture system intending to keep <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> cannot do this - as it would ruin the market to 'dump' <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t in such a way. This is so blatant that 'dumping' is one of the main subjects within international <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>e <a href="agree.htm">agree</a>ments <small>(*FTAs for instance)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
Can we avoid the need for destruction and <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificial scarcity in a society striving for Swadeshi, or will keeping consumers on the edge of poverty always be a necessary element of any successful <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion?<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-17-2008:</span> Prod<a href="user.htm">user</a> <a href="protect.htm">Protect</a>ion<br/>
<br/>
There are "<a href="work.htm">Work</a>er Unions" and there are "Consumer Unions", but there are no "<a href="own.htm">Own</a>er Unions" because <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are already in control.<br/>
<br/>
Once we see that <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership can be <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to secure our goals, we must only decide what those goals are.<br/>
<br/>
Some will say the primary goal of business is to <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es from meeting <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s; for if <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> reaches zero, what is the purpose of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-17-2008:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://Books.Google.com/books?id=oWNMAAAAIAAJ">Books.Google.com/books?id=oWNMAAAAIAAJ</a> "The Third Power: Farmers to the Front" 1907 By James Andrew Everitt<br/>
Page 244: <span class="quot">"'<br/>
THE RESULTS OF FARMERS' COOPERATION BRIEFLY <a href="stat.htm">STAT</a>ED.<br/>
It will increase the value of all farms from 25 to 100 per cent. It will <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e of the farmer a spender of much more <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y for improvements on the farm, for necessaries, luxuries and education. It means enormous benefits to all people engaged in agricultural pursuits, also to merchants, millers, grain dealers, manufacturers, professional men, etc. It means unprecedented and uninterrupted prosperity for America and the civilized world. Uncertainties about <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es, over-<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion or un<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>able <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es in any great enterprise like farming are constant menaces to the prosperity of a nation.<br/>
The success of this plan means steady, uninterrupted prosperity for farmers. It means that they can <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e many improvements that otherwise they can not. It means substantial <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>dings, with many comforts for the farmers' families and <a href="stock.htm">stock</a> that may never be enjoyed under the old order of things. Having a certain <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> from their <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts, they will spend it <a href="free.htm">free</a>ly, and every industry in the country will be benefited, thus benefiting every man, woman and child. There can be no mistake about this prediction.<br/>
The success of this plan also means the control of the markets of the world by the farmers ; and they can be trusted to feed the world at fair <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es. But should the fair <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es be refused they can starve the world by withholding their <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e.<br/>
More than this: Remove the uncertainties surrounding any business and you <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e better citizens of those people. They will be better morally, mentally and physically. Remove the uncertainties of <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es for agricultural <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts and you will lessen sickness, poverty, crime and taxation. Our schools and colleges will fill up and our poorhouses, asylums, jails and penitentiaries will have fewer inmates. Give us equity and you will give us happiness. The success of this plan will cause the farmer to love his business, to care for his farm, to raise better crops and larger crops. He will be encouraged to irrigate and to do a thousand things that now he can not do.<br/>
The success of this plan, where equity rules, will obliterate that feeling, "Do him or he will do me." On the contrary, when you get your just reward, you can love your neighbor as yourself. The churches will be filled because humanity will have much to be thankful for, and the saloon will be empty because of no sorrows to drown. Uncertainty of <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e does not stimulate demand and consumption. Remove the uncertainty of <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es of farm <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts, give the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>er a fair <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> and the middleman a fair margin and there will be a constant stream flowing to the consumer, causing greater consumption and benefiting every person.<br/>
The plan is simplicity itself, as already explained. Give us a fair <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ortion of the farmers willing to ask a fair <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e, based on <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion and consumption and the result will be accomplished. Give us unity in cooperation among the farmers, if that is possible, in the carrying out of this plan, and no trust ever dreamed of would represent such a power of capital as would be behind the American Society of Equity.<br/>
The farmers are strong enough and rich enough now to take this important step. Prompt action will prevent <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es from slipping down to an un<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>able basis, with all the <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ships attendant on a condition of poverty and <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>ruptcy that large crops and un<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>able <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es will bring sooner or later. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>able <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es for good crops is what we must have, then the benefits will be evenly and generally distributed, and permanent national prosperity guaranteed.<br/>
<a href="note.htm">Note</a> — Any attempt to control <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es through a large <a href="fund.htm">fund</a> as recently <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>osed by several companies will fail because it will encourage <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ers to increase <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion and to hold their crops, which will result in an unwieldy surplus. If the <a href="fund.htm">fund</a> is actually <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to buy and hold the crops, it will certainly result like the Leiter deal — in an inability to find buyers, who will take them at a still higher <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e, when they must be disposed of. Neither individual, corporate, nor national aid along this line can be effective, unless the surplus that is bound to result will be destroyed.<br/>
'"</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-13-2008:</span> A scramble of thoughts from some past e<a href="mail.htm">mail</a>s<br/>
<br/>
<small>{<small>{<br/>
Pre <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion Bonds with maturity dates as Community <a href="curr.htm">Curr</a>ency<br/>
<br/>
Claim: Consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es is the most efficient arrangement when utilization/<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e is large enough.<br/>
<br/>
When a person can <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e <a href="use.htm">use</a> of <small>(utilize)</small> a <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine to a sufficient degree, it is more efficient to <a href="own.htm">OWN</a> instead of <a href="rent.htm">RENT</a>.<br/>
<br/>
But how could that be when the same <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s must be paid either way?<br/>
<br/>
A <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>al agency must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for wages to management, the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> of the initial investments, the risks of those investments, upkeep/repair/maintenance/wear, <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ance, <a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ion/security, <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>age, taxes, and wages to all other <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers needed to do any of those thing. A private <a href="own.htm">own</a>er must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> those same <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s or must assume the role of those <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers, so how could it possibly be cheaper to <a href="own.htm">own</a> outright instead of <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>ing?<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence is called '<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>'. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s an <a href="own.htm">own</a>er <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s and the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e a consumer is willing to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>. When the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er and consumer are the same person, there is no such thing as <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>. That is the savings in <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership over <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>al.<br/>
<br/>
But what about <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines that are not "worth it" to <a href="own.htm">own</a> because that individual cannot sufficiently utilize them? It must be worth it for SOMEONE to <a href="own.htm">own</a> them, otherwise the <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>al agency wouldn't do so. The <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence here is a matter of utilization.<br/>
<br/>
How can a consumer increase utilization to the point of <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership "worth it"? One way is to buy the <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine with a group of other consumers. Organizing with your neighbors to buy a rug-doctor is cheaper if there are enough of you to keep that equipment busy, so why don't we <small>(consumers)</small> do this more often? Why do we leave that <a href="work.htm">work</a> of organizing up to a business that intends to charge us <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>?<br/>
<br/>
There is <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="work.htm">work</a> involved in the act of organization, but that <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(wages to management)</small> must be paid either way. So what is keeping us <small>(the consumers)</small> from organizing and cooperatively <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines, <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>dings, even <a href="land.htm">land</a>?<br/>
<br/>
I think <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the problem is a long-standing belief that whoever possesses the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s to operate those <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines should be the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, but doesn't the above argument show that the consumers must be the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers for optimum efficiency?<br/>
<br/>
I think another <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the problem is in figuring out how those re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es should be shared among the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers. It is a <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult, sticky situation that most people would rather just avoid altogether because of the in-fighting they perceive would occur. It seems such a group could write some 'rules' about how to schedule access and how much each individual must compensate the others for any extra wear or exclusion they cause. I see such a contract, if '<a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ly' written, would be the only thing our society needs to begin down the road of peace and abundance, but will delay that discussion for now.<br/>
<br/>
Cooperative consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is quite rare today, but there are a few cases where a group of friends wanting a private airplane <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e a "shared investment", and then <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> the plane from the collective others whenever they want to <a href="use.htm">use</a> it. None of those people need the ability to fly themselves, they can just hire a pilot and <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> that wage as a <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> while still saving <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y by not <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Another example is shared <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of a vacation house. The for-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> "Time Share" industry has grown around that desire, but I'm referring to the less common case when a private group of people buy a house that they share amongst themselves in whatever way they see fit.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Begin an enterprise using scheduling and allocatoin algorithms similar to what the kernel of a <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ter <a href="operating system.htm">Operating System</a> does for the cooperative sharing of physical re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
A contract or "terms of operation" that groups of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers can choose to apply to any physical re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es they wish, in a manner similar to how the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> is applied to '<a href="virt.htm">virt</a>ual' re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
A single <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine can be shared among a finite number of people. As the number of consumers attempting to utilize the <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine increases, at some point it will be impossible to fullfill those requests with a single <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine. If the collective <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers have the time-sharing of that <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine setup so that anyone wanting to <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> it are bidding against each other, then more time slots will be filled. People that want to <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> close to '<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>', and are willing to lose some sleep will <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> at 2am, while other people will be willing to "fight it out" for a slot at 12 noon in a bid war. As the deuling bidders raise their <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e for that time slot, they are *proving* that the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent number of <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines cannot fill peak demand, and - since that "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" will be invested for the winning bidder toward buying ANOTHER <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine, the 'system' should be self-stablizing.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>: manage, <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>e, maintain,<br/>
<br/>
A <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>al-agency <a href="own.htm">own</a>er hires someone to fix things, and supplies the tools for that <a href="work.htm">work</a> to avoid the overcharging a tool-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing mechaninc would impose.<br/>
<br/>
We need to be able to *<a href="work.htm">work</a>* in our community center; <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>ing labor there should be one of the main purposes.<br/>
<br/>
Access to <a href="spac.htm">spac</a>e <small>(<a href="land.htm">land</a>)</small> and tools <small>(capital)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
Whenever one of us decides to organize we have a pr<a href="econ.htm">econ</a>ceived notion that control must be kept away from the consumers so that <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e can be held above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a><br/>
<br/>
When a sub-group of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers wants to do something that conflicts with the rest of the group, the sub-group should be able to "divide off" or "seced" or "fork" if the physical re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es in question are <a href="real.htm">real</a>istically divisible.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
A small farm or business cannot take advantage of things a larger business can - such as <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing the entire chain of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion for the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts. For instance, a larger operation could grow the alfalfa to feed the cattle, and could <a href="own.htm">own</a> a <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>terized milking <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine to milk the cows, and could <a href="own.htm">own</a> equipment to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e cheese, butter, ice-cream, <a href="soap.htm">soap</a>, etc.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Reinventing and then <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ing - by hand - every link, recursively for the entire chain <small>(actually tree)</small> of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is something we should shoot for, but to <a href="start.htm">start</a> from that postition<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Consumers who <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" are incrementally <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ing the growth of the enterprise. Consumers only <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> when they do not yet have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es, so treating that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment as their investment balances the system.<br/>
<br/>
This is a continuous stream of "unwitting inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s" - for as long as we can draw <a href="new.htm">new</a> consumers to grow the business. The business stops growing naturally when there are no longer any dependent consumers in need of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Wages and <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> separate in two cases:<br/>
1. When <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers are hired: In this case those wages are clearly a <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
2. When physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es are in jointly <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed: In this case the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers will want the positions of <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ment be made available to the lowest reverse-bidder on the open market.<br/>
<br/>
When the number of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers is very small, <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> can be 'hidden' in excessive Wages that those <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers will choose to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> themselves with so as to claim that "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" is being met.<br/>
<br/>
When <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t consumers, they are satisfied with "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t instead of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
The concept of selling <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t does not apply to the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t that is already in the hands of the consumer who intends to consume it. The reason those inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s will already <a href="own.htm">own</a> the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is because they chose to pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for all the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion - including wages.<br/>
<br/>
This is <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> from a typical business where all the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t <small>(apples)</small> is destined for sale, and the inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s don't receive <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t directly, but instead receive only a portion of the "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" that was collected after the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t was sold to somebody else.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
When <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is determined by those who consume the outputs of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, and who <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for the purchase or construction of the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, then Wages are a <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> to be minimized, and <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> becomes a measure of the need for <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership. Any consumer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> when they do not yet have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es needed for that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. This can be balanced by treating that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment as an investment from the consumer who paid it - to eventually vest to him as his <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty so that he will eventually <small>(when he finally has enough <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es)</small> <a href="own.htm">own</a> all the outputs of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion he needs even before they are <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed.<br/>
<br/>
To explain that last sentence, just <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>ine the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of an apple tree. He <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the apples even before they are <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed, and can only <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> pure <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s, since it would be impossible to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> unless he were to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to himself. To scale this all the way down, we can see that an individual actually might choose to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" to himself in a manner - in that he might be investing in future <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion by buying more trees or better tools or more <a href="land.htm">land</a> etc. This seems to prove that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> should be understood as a consumer's investment.<br/>
<br/>
For instance, let's say I am in a large cruise ship that crashes, killing all but 7 people - including me - shipwrecked on an uncharted is<a href="land.htm">land</a>. As I look around I notice the plants and animals seem oddly familiar. It suddenly dawns on me these are the same ornamental organisms that the people of 1st world countries have chosen to have running on the soil around their homes and througout all of their cities. There is green and flowering everywhere, but it is all a waste<a href="land.htm">land</a> of worthless, and in some cases even poisonous fabricators. None of the mushrooms are <a href="use.htm">use</a>ful for medicine or food. No chicken, cattle, turkey or geese - only dogs, cats and songbirds. No nut trees. No grape vines. No bees.<br/>
<br/>
Luckily some sealed rations wash ashore, including some steel cans of wheat and few whole spices that we are able to sprout and begin growing.<br/>
<br/>
We <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d simple bellows and construct a crude forge to melt the steel and aluminum scraps that also wash ashore. We also <a href="use.htm">use</a> the forge to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e glass from some of the more pure beach sand.<br/>
<br/>
After a couple years, you crash-<a href="land.htm">land</a> onto the same is<a href="land.htm">land</a> in a much smaller boat. You have no food, no tools, no seed, and not even any <a href="land.htm">land</a> to stand on.<br/>
<br/>
Let's say the 7 original is<a href="land.htm">land</a>ers are not happy about your arrival, and treat you similarly to how "M. Fioretti" mentioned in his response to this <a href="thread.htm">thread</a>:<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Even if we 'let' you <a href="work.htm">work</a> for us, we could <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e the food we sell to you so high, and the <a href="land.htm">land</a> and tools so high that it may take you years to be able afford some <a href="land.htm">land</a> and fully <a href="own.htm">own</a> a house, in fact we could delay it forever - just as almost nobody in the US actually <a href="own.htm">own</a>s their house, they all OWE their house. You'd "owe your soul to the company <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>e".<br/>
<br/>
Wouldn't you <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> there are barriers to entry even without a large <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e? I would say it is because the e<a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e IS the <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e. When you <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> a <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e higher than the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(including wages)</small> that it <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly took to grow the wheat and bake the slice of bread you ate, wouldn't it be nice if that 'extra' you paid <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> became your investment in more fields, ovens, etc. even if you don't have any of those exact <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s - so that you slowly become "set up" as you <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>"? Those are good reasons too. But are you also claiming it is possible for the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of an apple tree to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> for the procurement of those apples? In other words, is consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is more operationally efficient than having the trees <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed only by those that happen to possess the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s needed to plant, tend, harvest, etc.? Won't the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers overpay themselves if they are the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers?<br/>
<br/>
If it is most efficient for the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers to <a href="own.htm">own</a>, and many small businesses are <a href="work.htm">work</a>er-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed, and if the concepts of efficiency in scale are overrated, then why is there a problem? Oh yes, you will say it is the privilege handed out by the <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e. I wholeheartedly <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> that almost every government on earth is directly puppeteered by corporations that sometimes even write the very legislation that gives them even more privilege. Much of this is fully above-board <small>(technically legal)</small>, again because the rules of interaction were and are written by those very same corporations. So enormously important policy decisions - such as whether or not to invade the nearly defenseless countries of Afghanistan and Iraq are influenced by the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s those policy <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ers receive because of their investments in offense contractors.<br/>
<br/>
Sorry for that sidetrack. I am going to have to <a href="work.htm">work</a> on how to separate these issues before I can give a better analysis. That may be a good point. It is <a href="hard.htm">hard</a> to envision how things will be when all industry is <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by the consumers that need that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, and have paid for that <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership when they paid "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>".<br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://ATCoop.org.uk">ATCoop.org.uk</a> is a "<a href="work.htm">work</a>ers cooperative", NOT consumer-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed.<br/>
<br/>
Are you saying we all already <a href="know.htm">know</a> how to understand <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omics and how to treat <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>? Maybe you should look at <a class="ext" href="http://NextBillion.net">http://NextBillion.net</a> and tell me if they understand.<br/>
<br/>
Or consider the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e of grains is increasing to the point of already causing food riots in some <a href="part.htm">part</a>s of the world. I'm saying consumer *<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e*, not <a href="own.htm">own</a>er *<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s*.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy of every nation is structured after the faulty <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a that <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e must be kept above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> to <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>e businesses have a reason to continue <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. Can you tell me the special case when that is not true?<br/>
<br/>
Businesses celebrate their ability to keep <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> and to collect that <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence called <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> - calling it 'earnings' even though <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> has nothing to do with <a href="work.htm">work</a>. <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>ment for <a href="work.htm">Work</a> is called Wages and is <a href="calc.htm">calc</a>ulated as a <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
When the consumers are the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> <small>(from <a href="new.htm">new</a>, non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing <a href="user.htm">user</a>s)</small> and Wages are clearly separated. But when <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers are the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers, there is not a clean separation because those <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers will choose to inflate their <a href="own.htm">own</a> Wages while pretending there is no <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>. Beliefs are unimportant. The only thing that matters is truth.<br/>
<br/>
I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> a person may contribute with either <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y or <a href="work.htm">work</a> or maybe in other ways depending on what the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of that organization allow. But that the <a href="work.htm">work</a>er <a href="pay.htm">PAY</a>ING the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
My <small>(not careful enough)</small> <a href="use.htm">use</a> of the term "<a href="work.htm">Work</a>er" has described a <a href="work.htm">work</a>er being PAID by the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
I have found it very <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult to communicate this, so will try to be more careful right now:<br/>
<br/>
I have been using the term "<a href="work.htm">Work</a>er" to indicate someone <small>(whether an <a href="own.htm">own</a>er or not)</small> that is BEING PAID by an <a href="own.htm">own</a>er, but is not a consumer of that exact <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
Another valid <a href="use.htm">use</a> of the term "<a href="work.htm">Work</a>er" is a consumer who is <a href="pay.htm">PAY</a>ING his <a href="part.htm">part</a> of '<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>' or 'tax' to the other collective <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers for one of the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion that he owes to that group.<br/>
<br/>
The collecitve <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of a tractor must collect <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ments from each of the individual <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers for the <a href="real.htm">real</a>, re<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ing <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of that <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership. One of those <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s is, for instance, changing the oil and filters. If one of the individual <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers <a href="pay.htm">PAY</a>S that <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> by performing that <a href="work.htm">Work</a>, then it is true that you might call him a "<a href="work.htm">Work</a>er", but more importantly he is a Consumer of the outputs of that Capital.<br/>
<br/>
Would you want someone who is being PAID to <a href="work.htm">work</a> on the tractor <small>(whether the person is already one of the collective <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers or not)</small> to gain <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership over that tractor?<br/>
<br/>
What if you PAID someone to fix your plumbing, should they gain <a href="part.htm">part</a>ial <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of your house? Should a mechanic gain <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of your car? Should your dentist gain <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of your mouth? <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed cooperatives are essentially the same arrangement as any small business. They don't outperform Capitalism because they don't have enough efficiency of scale and miss out on most of the governmental handouts that Kevin Carson mentions.<br/>
<br/>
A true consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed cooperative, where every <a href="new.htm">new</a> consumer incrementally gains Capital <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership according to the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> they <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> is EXTREMELY rare - almost non-existent. A consumer coop can easily outperform small businesses <small>(including <a href="work.htm">work</a>er cooperatives)</small>, and even has a good chance against mega-corp Capitalism because it is not required to keep <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(which may be charged to <a href="new.htm">new</a>, non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing consumers)</small> since the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers expect to be paid only in <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, never in proft. Low <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s just mean low growth, and would occur when all consumers already have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
Furthermore, <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e actually EQUALS <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> for all consumers that have gained sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership since they <a href="own.htm">own</a> the outputs of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion for their percentage of Capital the <a href="own.htm">own</a> even before that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is complete. I am happy that something approaching consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership exists.<br/>
<br/>
I want to give another comparison of the two meanings of "<a href="work.htm">Work</a>er" for this example, and ask if you can see the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence.<br/>
<br/>
If a resident is <a href="pay.htm">PAY</a>ING the collective <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers for some of his <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> through <a href="work.htm">Work</a> <small>(say <a href="paint.htm">paint</a>ing the <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding)</small>, then we might call him a <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er. But it is because he is a Consumer <small>(because of his occupancy)</small> that he should have <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, not because he incidentally made his <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ments in that manner.<br/>
<br/>
But when a person <small>(maybe even a resident)</small> is PAID by the collective <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers to <a href="paint.htm">paint</a> the <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding, do you think he should receive <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership and therefore vote weight over that <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding? If yes, then why? If no, then I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a>.<br/>
<br/>
That's nice I suppose, but it <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es me think of my lack of control in city government. What if a resident didn't want their portion of that <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y to go to the "Carbon 60 project"? Do they have *DIVISIBLE* control? Since <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y is trivially divisible, shouldn't each of the residents be allowed to decide where the <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y goes? Maybe it is best the minority not be able to fork in that way? Thanks for the effort.<br/>
<br/>
Your mention of 'linear' <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es me think of "<a href="econ.htm">Econ</a>omics and Language" by <a class="ext" href="http://ArielRubinstein.tau.ac.il/el.html">http://ArielRubinstein.tau.ac.il/el.html</a> I noticed a week or so ago where one of the questions he asks is "Why do we tend to arrange things on a line and not in a circle?"<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
I have long ago given up on ever changing any <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent government.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="part.htm">Part</a> of what I'm trying to explain is that collective private <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership can fulfill any function a government has ever ever claimed to be fulfilling. The e<a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e becomes the <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e.<br/>
<br/>
It is important, because it allows us to write our <a href="own.htm">own</a> constitution <small>(adding private 'laws' for access to that <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty)</small>. We can't <a href="delet.htm">delet</a>e laws from the 'containing' government, but we will hopefully be able to overgrow them and <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e them unimportant. I think you misunderstood me. I am very much on your side. I wouldn't want to force anyone to do anything.<br/>
<br/>
When I said "<a href="trad.htm">trad</a>ing labor" I was saying there will probably be alot more specialization when the consumers have "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" access to the means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
To clarify further, keep the simplest case <small>(the dumb rug-doctor for instance)</small> in mind. If you and some neighbors purchased such a thing, none of those people would have the ability to force you to operate it for them.<br/>
<br/>
I am only talking about collective <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership. There is no coercion. If the doctor had <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the rug-doctor, he could <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of maintenace in whatever way the other collective <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers would accept. He might even be able to convince them to waive <a href="part.htm">part</a> or all of his re<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ing fees as a kind of medical <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ance for them <small>(within his <a href="skill.htm">skill</a> limits of course)</small>. Most likely he would just <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> that '<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>' with the standard <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency of the nation they find themselves in, or later, hopefully with some sort community <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency. No, no. No force. You can hire anyone advertising their <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s for that <a href="work.htm">work</a>. But notice you would only need to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> their wages and whatever other <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s for your extra wear or consumption on the collective equipment.<br/>
<br/>
For example, <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>ine going to the car shop to find a mechanic. The mechanics would be strangely independent while having "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" access to whatever expensive tools the collective consumers had purchased.<br/>
<br/>
It should be easy to attract local mechanics <small>(they wouldn't neccessarily need to be <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers)</small> because you could <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> them higher wages than the local Capitalist shop while still <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing less than you would have if you had gone to the Capitalist shop.<br/>
<br/>
If you had some of the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s, or just wanted to learn, you also always have the option of using the tools yourself if the other collective <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> that you 'qualify'.<br/>
<br/>
I'm not trying to write any policy here, I'm just talking about how things already are for very small groups who choose to <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> some Capital.<br/>
<br/>
Again, it is not <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> from what I am <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>osing. I am mostly only talking about what very small groups of <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers *already* do.<br/>
<br/>
For instance, if two people buy a house together, they will have fights about all kinds of things, but each of them always has choice about how the chores should be accomplished, and whether they want to interact, etc. It is THEIR business. No external body should be interfering to force anything upon them <small>(even though the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent, containing '<a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e' will continue to interfere until we can overgrow them...)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
}</small>}</small><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-12-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.Ning.com/group/hostingp2pinitiatives/forum/topic/show?id=2003008%3ATopic%3A3043">http://P2PFoundation.Ning.com/group/hostingp2pinitiatives/forum/topic/show?id=2003008%3ATopic%3A3043</a><br/>
I also wanted to mention some of the strange <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic effects of this "self-hosting".<br/>
<br/>
In a 'normal' business the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing against the consumers in that they are attempting to keep the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e of the goods above the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. In other words, they are trying to "<a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>".<br/>
<br/>
Keep in mind that wages paid for <a href="work.htm">work</a> are <a href="calc.htm">calc</a>ulated as a <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> and are on the opposite side of the equation from <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
But when the consumers of a <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t are the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of those <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts <small>(in just the right a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a>*)</small> - in other words, when the business is "consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed" - there is no desire and indeed no possibility of keeping <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
In this bizarro <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is 'undefined'. The <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is available "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" and is not even 'sold' in the <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>itional sense because those that intend to <a href="use.htm">use</a> the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t <a href="own.htm">own</a> it even before it is <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed.<br/>
<br/>
As an example, <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>ine a small group of nut-lovers <a href="own.htm">own</a> an almond tree. If they hire someone to care for the tree and to harvest and <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>e the nuts they would <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> those wages as a <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, but they can't <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> unless they were to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to themselves. So they get the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" and they <a href="own.htm">own</a> it even before it is <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<small>(*)</small> A consumer has "Just the right a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a>" of <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership when it is sufficient to <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e exactly the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t he desires before the next round of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-12-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.Ning.com/group/hostingp2pinitiatives/forum/topic/show?id=2003008%3ATopic%3A3043">http://P2PFoundation.Ning.com/group/hostingp2pinitiatives/forum/topic/show?id=2003008%3ATopic%3A3043</a><br/>
Hi Maria,<br/>
<br/>
I wish I could say I see more of this - especially in the agriculture <a href="sect.htm">sect</a>or considering the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent world food crisis.<br/>
<br/>
What I see instead is massive agribusiness <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers consolidating ever more control while small farmers continue to struggle and finally succumb to the debt they attempt to hold by themselves.<br/>
<br/>
If bunches of consumers <small>(say about 1000 per bunch)</small> could "get together" to buy small, organically diverse farms with the expected return being <b><span class="bold"><a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t</span></b> instead of <b><span class="bold"><a href="profit.htm">profit</a></span></b> <small>(notice only consumers would settle for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t instead of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small>, then those consumers would collectively hold that debt - and would have a very good chance of <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing it off. In some cases they might just be able to <a href="fund.htm">fund</a> it directly without even taking out a loan.<br/>
<br/>
In doing this, the consumers would be their <a href="own.htm">own</a> 'hosts'. The people <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing on the farm would likely also be consumers from it, and could <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> their <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s as direct labor while also receiving a very good wage.<br/>
<br/>
I would like to write more but am feeling scatterbrained right now. Let me <a href="know.htm">know</a> if what I am saying <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es any sense to you, and steer me <a href="back.htm">back</a> to your discussion if it doesn't.<br/>
<br/>
Thanks,<br/>
Patrick<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-12-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.Ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008%3ABlogPost%3A4357">P2PFoundation.Ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008%3ABlogPost%3A4357</a><br/>
<span class="quot">"'What are the <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>ined situations we would wish a <small>(<a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el)</small> contract to regulate?'"</span><br/>
<br/>
My vision is for the contract to be applicable to <b><span class="bold">*any*</span></b> physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es that any <a href="user.htm">user</a>s choose to share. This universality is important for the higher goal of eventually using the coupons/<a href="title.htm">title</a>s as a form of <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency across disciplines.<br/>
<br/>
All <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion requires physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es. Anytime someone <a href="use.htm">use</a>s a term such as "immaterial <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion" there is a chance someone <small>(maybe even the author)</small> is accidentally thinking physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es are not needed or are a "marginal" in <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> that needs no consideration. That thinking is faulty.<br/>
<br/>
Here are some example applications and associated physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es the contract could cover:<br/>
<br/>
<b><span class="bold">A Social <a href="net.htm">Net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>ing <a href="web.htm">Web</a>site</span></b>: The initial and re<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ing <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of the <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ter <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware, electricity, <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> or <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> plus tax of the <a href="land.htm">land</a> and <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding house the <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ters, cooling...<br/>
<br/>
<b><span class="bold">A Restaurant</span></b>: The <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> or <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> plus taxes for the <a href="land.htm">land</a> and <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding, electricity, gas, water, ingredients for the recipes...<br/>
<br/>
<b><span class="bold">A Farm</span></b>: The <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> or <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> plus taxes for the <a href="land.htm">land</a> and <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>dings, <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> of implements such as tractors and tools, fuel, seed, eggs, spores, housing for some of the animals & plants & mushrooms...<br/>
<br/>
<b><span class="bold">A Clothing <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion</span></b>: <a href="land.htm">Land</a> and <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>dings, tools such as a loom, spinning wheels, heavier sewing <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines...<br/>
<br/>
There is no situation needing <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership that is exempt. If you can think of one, let's talk about it and <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e sure.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'I woudn't go into <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s or shares for overpayment at all.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
That might be ok to keep things simple for the initial brain<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>ming of what the contract should contain, but treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as <a href="user.htm">user</a> investment is absolutely essential to <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ing the enterprise continues to remain in the hands of the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s. If we do not specify the destination of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is the same as "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>")</small>, the originators will retain control even as the number of <a href="user.htm">user</a>s increases to slowly become well-meaning dictators. Democracy will cease to be direct and <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t will no longer be approaching "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" for all <a href="user.htm">user</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
If you are thinking of writing up one of these examples, choose the Restaurant - as Vinay Gupta is calling for that example over at <a class="ext" href="http://GlobalSwadeshi.net">GlobalSwadeshi.net</a><br/>
<br/>
Thanks for continuing with this. Hopefully we can distill some of this and <a href="start.htm">start</a> another post that is not so long <small>(I think most people coming to read this page will not have the patience to read so much)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-11-2008:</span> Studying the "Clean Water <a href="restor.htm">Restor</a>ation Act of 2007" <a class="ext" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1870">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1870</a> <a class="ext" href="http://urbanwatersheds.typepad.com/urban_watersheds_perspect/2007/12/hr-2421---the-c.html">http://urbanwatersheds.typepad.com/urban_watersheds_perspect/2007/12/hr-2421---the-c.html</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-11-2008:</span> E<a href="mail.htm">mail</a> to Family Farm group<br/>
<br/>
If it were only up to Cindy and I there would be no deliberation at all.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="buil.htm">Buil</a>ding an alternate <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy requires cooperation and a diversity of <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s from many people.<br/>
<br/>
Whether the lack of community in our <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent society is accidental or if has somehow been constructed, that division helps those that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> against us because it <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>es we remain dependent upon them.<br/>
<br/>
I <a href="know.htm">know</a> most of you find my mumbo-jumbo about <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> being a consumer's investment tiresome and feel it is irrelevant to our goals, but I am <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing on a better way of describing it so we can <a href="use.htm">use</a> it as a tool of growth to stand against those that are organizing against our very existence.<br/>
<br/>
If we are careful with the treatment of <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> when selling <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts to 'outsiders' we will be able to grow a community of cooperation around ourselves that will enrich our <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>es with even more diversity of <a href="skill.htm">skill</a> those people bring, and will also become a buffer - even a thick border and defense between us and those that continue to worship the dangerous and <a href="back.htm">back</a>ward goals of usury through scarcity and destruction.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-10-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.Ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008%3ABlogPost%3A4357">P2PFoundation.Ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008%3ABlogPost%3A4357</a><br/>
Sepp,<br/>
<br/>
I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> a contract will need to be written. I've <a href="start.htm">start</a>ed writing one based on the "<a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="general public license.htm">General Public License</a>" I call the "<a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="general public law.htm">General Public Law</a>", but it is confusing and incomplete.<br/>
<br/>
About the "constancy of intent" and the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a that someone "wants the <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y <a href="back.htm">back</a>": 'regular' corporations don't have this problem, so maybe it won't be an issue if the each group always 'incorporates' ... but I'd rather not require incorporation, so I think you are right, the contract should probably outline how shares can be sold.<br/>
<br/>
I'm not sure I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> that the collective others must 'approve' of the <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="part.htm">part</a>ial <a href="own.htm">own</a>er, but I see your point. Maybe the rule should be that the collective others must always have some kind of "priority to purchase" - so the selling shareholder puts his portion up for bid on the "open market" <small>(anyone in the world can attempt to buy it)</small>, but all of the collective others must be informed of the intent to sell and have the option of <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing the winning a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> instead? Or maybe they just need to be informed and allowed to bid?<br/>
<br/>
You say the 'vesting' would need to occur in a <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ter for efficiency. I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> it would help, but have also envisioned <small>(and I think this is important for visualization and our early debugging)</small> a system based on "time limited coupons/receipts".<br/>
<br/>
Here is a rough <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a of what I was thinking: Let's say a group of 1000 people get together to buy a small dairy so they have control of how the animals are treated and so they can have "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" milk, butter, cheese, ice cream, etc.<br/>
<br/>
Now, if each person guesses just right, and invests just enough, they will each receive exactly as much <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t as they expected they would need. In this case, there would be no selling of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t at all, since each consumer would already <a href="own.htm">own</a> the results of that which they had <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ed. They would only need to come to the dairy <small>(or <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>ehouse)</small> each day to <a href="pic.htm">pic</a>kup their <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
But since predictions are usually imperfect, and since people change their minds, some <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers will be selling some things, while others will be buying a few things. It is during those transactions that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> must be <a href="calc.htm">calc</a>ulated.<br/>
<br/>
What I think we could do is: <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e sure the buyer receives a receipt that displays the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e paid, and the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence as <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>. This receipt/coupon is actually also a <a href="title.htm">title</a> of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership for the very small <a href="fract.htm">fract</a>ion of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership the buyer has gained as a result of their overpayment.<br/>
<br/>
So, if the buyer paid $6 for a gallon of milk but it only <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> $4 to <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e, then the <a href="title.htm">title</a> would indicate that he now <a href="own.htm">own</a>s <small>(or will <a href="own.htm">own</a>)</small> $2 worth of shares in the dairy at some future date.<br/>
<br/>
Something like that. Damn. There is so much to write, and I'm running out of time.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a is very simple on the surface but teeming with complexity underneath.<br/>
<br/>
I hope anyone with questions or suggestions will post them here - or maybe we should <a href="start.htm">start</a> another entry for some of these details?<br/>
<br/>
Patrick<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-10-2008:</span> E<a href="mail.htm">mail</a> reply to "Mike & Terri"<br/>
<span class="quot">> Aloha Patrick,</span><br/>
<br/>
Ahola Mike.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I am married to Max's Aunt Terri, my name is Mike. This <a href="mail.htm">mail</a> was forwarded</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> to me.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> completely with this e<a href="mail.htm">mail</a> although I am not sure of the possibility</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> this <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a would <a href="work.htm">work</a> in totality.</span><br/>
<br/>
I'm glad you took the time to consider this <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a. I've been <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing on variations of it since late 1999, and have only recently been able to communicate it clearly.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The greedy, aggressive and strong will</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> slowly take control for their <a href="own.htm">own</a> desires and ego.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, I think I understand this issue, and intend to address it through contract law. I've tried to write a legal document that the joint <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of <a href="land.htm">Land</a> and Capital can choose to apply to <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty they intend to treat in this special manner. The <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>amental issue addressed in the contract is that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> must be treated as an investment from the consumer who paid it, but there are many details that need to be covered, and some of them are not yet written out.<br/>
<br/>
I call the contract "The <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="general public law.htm">General Public Law</a>" and can be found through my homepage at <a class="ext" href="http://EcoComics.org">http://EcoComics.org</a> you should also read the 'Thesis' and 'FAQ' there to better understand this approach.<br/>
<br/>
I've been writing about this the last few days at: <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.Ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008%3ABlogPost%3A4357">http://P2PFoundation.Ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008%3ABlogPost%3A4357</a><br/>
<br/>
The member there named 'Sepp' has reservations similar to yours. I give a pretty good overview and cover things I haven't mentioned here.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> It is true and even a law that corporations are responsible only to their</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> "share holders" and their "share holders" are themselves.</span><br/>
<br/>
If you are saying the "share holders" are the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers then I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> mostly, though the destination of the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t for a typical business is <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>amentally <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> from a group of consumers choosing to jointly <a href="own.htm">own</a> some capital for their <a href="own.htm">own</a> benefit.<br/>
<br/>
As a small example, think of the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing shares in a "for <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>" orc<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> and <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing a single apple tree with a few other guys. In the latter case, at the end of the season you receive the actual apples as your return for your investment. <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t has replaced <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as the motivation for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
I will write about this in my reply to Sepp and copy you by e<a href="mail.htm">mail</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Patrick<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-09-2008:</span><br/>
<br/>
I don't understand why people receive so much pleasure from complaining about something, and so little pleasure from attempting to solve it.<br/>
<br/>
Maybe endorphins are released as responsibility is disclaimed with the notion "whadya gonna do?"<br/>
<br/>
Similar to religions that allow us to blame <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>inary beings instead of shouldering the responsibility ourselves.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>..<br/>
<br/>
A conspiracy is when people "Conspire".<br/>
<br/>
The etymology of "Conspire" is c.1300, from <a class="ext" href="http://O.Fr.">O.Fr.</a> conspirer, from L. conspirare "to <a href="agree.htm">agree</a>, unite, plot," lit. "to breathe together," from com- "together" + spirare "to breathe".<br/>
<br/>
Corporations conspire against us because it increases <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s. They breathe together in secret to keep us subjugated - for if the consumers can ever organize, <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s will drop to zero as they should.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> has nothing to do with <a href="work.htm">work</a>. It is on the opposite side of the equation!<br/>
<br/>
Wages are paid for <a href="work.htm">work</a>. I will expect some sort of wage in a 'communal' or 'compound' setting - even just in the form of <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>ing labor with someone.<br/>
<br/>
But we don't need <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> in a 'commons'. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is an inverse measure of a consumer's access to the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of that which they consume. If you <a href="own.htm">own</a> an apple tree, you might <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> someone to tend and harvest from it, but you cannot <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> - it is undefined!<br/>
<br/>
Will the communal kitchen charge <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> when I eat there? I assume I will need to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s - including wages to <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers, but I won't be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> will I?<br/>
<br/>
If we can operate a kitchen "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" within a family setting, then why can we not begin a restaurant that <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly serves the patrons instead of <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing against them?<br/>
<br/>
If we do not answer that question, we will continue to feed the beast and always wonder why our efforts have been turned against us in the form of immoral taxes and needless national debt through puppettered politicians.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-08-2008:</span> Sharing <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty<br/>
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Joel Pierre wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Here's a number for you. 6 Billion people on this planet getting fucked by a few thousand who</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> "<a href="own.htm">own</a>" the whole thing.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is the <a href="key.htm">key</a>.<br/>
<br/>
That <a href="key.htm">key</a> can turn two ways, but almost every <a href="own.htm">own</a>er, even of the smallest organization tends to choose the direction of scarcity and destruction - for these increase <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
How can we turn the <a href="key.htm">key</a> toward peace and abundance when our sights are set on the filthy goal of perpetual <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> <small>(usury)</small>?<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> requires scarcity and therefore poverty, yet <a href="lib.htm">lib</a>ertarians such as Ron Paul pretend or believe the <a href="free.htm">Free</a> Market solves everything, and that perpetual <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> <small>(usury)</small> is an important incentive. They want Nestle and Bechtel to <a href="own.htm">own</a> your water, because they think it is in your best interest.<br/>
<br/>
In the Trailer of the film: "H2O up for sale" at <a class="ext" href="http://YouTube.com/watch?v=kWWRCZePFkc">http://YouTube.com/watch?v=kWWRCZePFkc</a> someone says "These corporations aren't accountable to the communities they serve, they're accountable to their shareholders.".<br/>
<br/>
What we have somehow missed is that this can be solved by founding a corporation that privatizes water <small>(or any physical thing)</small> while <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ing the shareholders are the very community that will consume the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts of that corporation. We need to <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d "<a href="user own.htm">user own</a>ed" corporations, not "<a href="work.htm">work</a>er <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed" as Marx claimed.<br/>
<br/>
But for some reason we cannot organize for the purpose of cooperating. Maybe it <a href="start.htm">start</a>s in our schools when we are told so early that helping each other is cheating. Aren't we in this together?<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Cannabis is God's gift to man. <a href="start.htm">Start</a> using it!</span><br/>
<br/>
That plant solves far too many problems is far too easy to grow for the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>eers that puppeteer the governments to allow us to have access without collecting their cut and filling the "for <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>" prisons with those that <a href="part.htm">part</a>ake. It is also a benefit to Big Pharma who sell the dangerous replacements in the void that it creates <small>(scarcity==<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
All such issues of abundance being eliminated <small>(the list is endless, but for example, GM removing the streetcars in SanFran)</small> cannot be addressed until we begin addressing the issue of usury by organizing in a cooperative manner.<br/>
<br/>
"We the people" need to <a href="own.htm">own</a> the factories and farms. Whenever you think or say "they", replace it with "we" and see if the outcome might be <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Patrick<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-08-2008:</span> We must learn how to share physical <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-08-2008:</span> At <a class="ext" href="http://TED.com/talks/view/id/247">TED.com/talks/view/id/247</a> <span class="quot">"'Yochai Benkler: Open-<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omics'"</span> Donald Mitchell – April 19 2008 writes <span class="quot2">>>Collective action by a motely crew of amateurs is a romantic appealing notion -- especially when we are talking about replacing _someone else's_ <a href="job.htm">job</a> with it.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-08-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008%3ABlogPost%3A4357">P2PFoundation.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008%3ABlogPost%3A4357</a><br/>
Sepp,<br/>
<br/>
Thanks for the feed<a href="back.htm">back</a>.<br/>
<br/>
It is easy to lose track of things as an organization scales in size. I'm <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing on a way to describe this graphically, but am not yet done with it.<br/>
<br/>
For instance, you say a train <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> is too large, but what if we scaled the situation down to a group in need of a single bus? Or what about an even smaller group purchasing a car together?<br/>
<br/>
Is it ever ok to <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> capital? At what point does the situation become a 'problem'?<br/>
<br/>
If you see the trouble occuring somewhere between a car and a bus, then try to <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>ine something between those - such as a large van.<br/>
<br/>
Is it the number of people, or is it the initial expense of the capital, or maybe it has to do with '<a href="real.htm">real</a>' <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ment for those operating and maintaining the capital - as opposed to 'assumed' <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ment and maintenance?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'for my <a href="part.htm">part</a>, I see a problem with large organizations such as a train <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>... you'd still need a very similar distribution of <a href="job.htm">job</a>s'"</span><br/>
<br/>
Are you saying the problem you see is a <span class="quot">"'distribution of <a href="job.htm">job</a>s'"</span>?<br/>
<br/>
Would you say <b><span class="bold">specialization</span></b> in general is dangerous or bad?<br/>
<br/>
What would happen if a group <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing a van were to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> someone to drive it? Would the driver need to be one of that group? What if none of the others had the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s to drive? This may sound weird, but is similar to groups that <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> light aircraft and hire a pilot because of the savings and control they gain.<br/>
<br/>
Let's say everyone in the group could drive the van, and they took turns. Would that be ok?<br/>
<br/>
What if two of the members secretly decided to <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>e something <small>(say a cooked meal)</small> in exchange for the other person taking their place at the wheel? Is <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>ing labor a problem?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'In <a href="real.htm">real</a>ity, there would not be a great <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence...'"</span><br/>
<br/>
I see two big <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erences:<br/>
<br/>
1. The consumers have full control, and by treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as an investment from the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er, that control remains in the correct hands. If the trouble John <a href="note.htm">note</a>d of a <span class="quot">"'sardine-<a href="pack.htm">pack</a>ed train'"</span> were something a majority of the <a href="pass.htm">pass</a>engers with <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership disliked, they could easily fix it by limiting the maximum occupancy <b><span class="bold">without pleading to an absentee <a href="land.htm">land</a>lord</span></b>.<br/>
<br/>
I think it is also important to let the minority secede whenever <a href="real.htm">real</a>istic. For instance, if 75% of the vote-weight <small>(remember votes are not 1-per-person, but are determined by the percentage of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership each person holds)</small> was toward a reduction in maximum occupancy, and there was sufficient divisibility <small>(say 4 separate train-cars)</small>, then the minority <small>(the remaining 25%)</small> should have the option of continuing to treat 1 of those cars as high-occupancy, while the other 3 are reduced by the chosen a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a>.<br/>
<br/>
2. The <a href="user.htm">user</a>s have "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>"<small>(*)</small> access to the <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ectives of that capital since <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> would tend toward zero. The <b><span class="bold">floor</span></b> <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e of a ticket would simply be a summation of all the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s needed to maintain the operation. <a href="user.htm">User</a>s would only <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> more than <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> during times of growth, and since those <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ments would be treated as investment from the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er, <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership would be continuously distributed as those investments 'vested' to the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er. I'm still unsure about when or what conditions should cause the vesting to occur.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<small>(*)</small> Consumer <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e would always be approaching <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, but would usually only stablize temporarily since the demands of the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent consumers is always changing, and the set of <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent consumers is also in flux because of births, deaths, migration, etc.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-06-2008:</span> Can't figure out how to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e the <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>rietary fglrx drivers <a href="work.htm">work</a> on <a href="hard.htm">Hard</a>y Heron for my ATI Express 200 integrated video card. Now I'm stuck at 1280x768 which stretches everything vertically besides having slow and broken software rendering.<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-04-2008:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://IHT.com/articles/2008/04/16/opinion/edpfaff.php">IHT.com/articles/2008/04/16/opinion/edpfaff.php</a> <span class="quot2">>>Speculators and soaring food <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es</span><br/>
<span class="quot">"'The food crisis is a <a href="real.htm">real</a> one, with rice - basic to the diet in much of Asia - rising in <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e by 75 percent in two months, and the rise in wheat, equally important to most Western countries, rising by 120 percent over the year. This risks famine in vulnerable countries.<br/>
<br/>
Already, 100 million additional people are considered by the World <a href="bank.htm">Bank</a> to have been forced into extreme poverty, and there have been food riots in Egypt, Haiti and elsewhere. Hence, the urgency in <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>osals for <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>s to support food aid programs.<br/>
<br/>
The conventional explanations for the flare in <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es are <a href="pop.htm">pop</a>ulation growth, diversion of corn and soybeans to biofuel <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, rising Asian and Middle Eastern demand for high-value foods, higher transport <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s and crop failures. Oddly little has been said about the role of speculation in the rise in commodity <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es generally and specifically in food.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>..<br/>
<br/>
Speculative purchases have no other purpose than to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y for the speculators, who hold their contracts to drive up <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es with the intention not of selling the commodities on the <a href="real.htm">real</a> future market, but of unloading their holdings onto an <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificially inflated market, at the expense of the ultimate consumer. Even the general public can now play the speculative <a href="game.htm">game</a>; most <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>s offer investment <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>s specializing in metals, oil and, more recently, food <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-04-2008:</span> <a href="ide.htm">Ide</a>as for <span class="quot">"'Prod<a href="user.htm">user</a>s Invest For <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t, Not <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>'"</span> or <span class="quot">"'Prod<a href="user.htm">user</a> <a href="fund.htm">Fund</a>ed <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion'"</span><br/>
<br/>
<a href="use.htm">Use</a> Value is sufficient return on investment when the <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ing is provided by the potential <a href="user.htm">user</a>s. <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t is the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>off. Output is the <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ective.<br/>
<a href="work.htm">Work</a> is one type of investment.<br/>
<a href="curr.htm">Curr</a>ency could be a <a href="promis.htm">promis</a>e or bond toward future goods or services. <a href="mone.htm">Mone</a>y would be a contract against future <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
icon = upturned pyramid/peace-sign <small>(a tree)</small><br/>
Socialize<br/>
Innovate to Instantiate<br/>
Share<br/>
<a href="free.htm">Free</a><br/>
<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a><br/>
<a href="rent.htm">Rent</a>/tax<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-03-2008:</span> <span class="quot">"'<a href="protect.htm">Protect</a>ing The <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er's Ability to Consume'"</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-03-2008:</span> Watching <a class="ext" href="http://YouTube.com/watch?v=0H5g9VS0ENM">YouTube.com/watch?v=0H5g9VS0ENM</a> <span class="quot2">>>Phun 2D physics sandbox</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-03-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008%3ABlogPost%3A4357">P2PFoundation.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008%3ABlogPost%3A4357</a><br/>
Hello John,<br/>
<br/>
I wonder if you might consider a hypothetical situation to frame your question - one that I think has a chance of solving the problem, but I need some feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> in case I've missed something in my thinking:<br/>
<br/>
What would happen to the quality of experience if the very community intending to utilize the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t/service/institution could somehow get together and <a href="fund.htm">fund</a> it for themselves?<br/>
<br/>
For instance, what would happen if all the potential <a href="pass.htm">pass</a>engers of a train were organized enough to invest toward <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding the tracks and purchasing the train, and were therefore collective legal <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of that entire transportation system - with nobody else to answer to?<br/>
<br/>
Any <a href="pass.htm">pass</a>engers that had paid more would have more "vote weight", and those that cared less about control had paid less, but all the initial <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s had been 100% <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ed by potential consumers/customers.<br/>
<br/>
The 're<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ing' operational <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s could be gathered as ticket fees similar to what occurs now with one <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence: whenever a <a href="pass.htm">pass</a>enger <small>(whether he is <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently a <a href="part.htm">part</a>ial <a href="own.htm">own</a>er or not)</small> paid a <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> for a ticket <small>(such as when in a bidding war against other potential <a href="pass.htm">pass</a>engers)</small>, then that a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> <small>(what is generally called '<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>')</small> would be treated as an investment from and for that very same <a href="pass.htm">pass</a>enger. Every little bit of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> becomes a sort of incremental <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ing that eventually 'vests' to the very same <a href="user.htm">user</a> that paid it.<br/>
<br/>
This has an interesting effect that seems to self-balance the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> of capital the community needs: when a <a href="pop.htm">pop</a>ular time slot is 'saturated' with simultaneous requests, the ticket <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e increases to push those not willing to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the higher <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e into another slot and the extra <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ments made by those that won the bid becomes their collective investment toward *another* train since their overpayment has "proven" that the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> of capital is insufficient to meet peak demand.<br/>
<br/>
I've written much more about this, but that's the kernel of it. What do you think? Would such an approach address the issue of low quality? What troubles do you see?<br/>
<br/>
Thanks,<br/>
Patrick<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-03-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://Blog.P2PFoundation.net/video-infrastructure-communities-and-corporations-is-there-a-middle-way-between-open-and-closed-at-e-comm-2008/2008/04/30">Blog.P2PFoundation.net/video-infrastructure-communities-and-corporations-is-there-a-middle-way-between-open-and-closed-at-e-comm-2008/2008/04/30</a><br/>
<br/>
Michel says there is a <span class="quot">"'crisis of value'"</span> because "<a href="use.htm">use</a> value" is being created, but cannot be "captured" by the original inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
But this analysis misses one case where the community itself can be organized to <a href="fund.htm">fund</a> that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. In that case, the only expected return for that investment is <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t. Keeping <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> through scarcity <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> is then not a requirement, and in fact only has meaning for <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="user.htm">user</a>s that are not yet <a href="part.htm">part</a>-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ers in the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of that venture.<br/>
<br/>
This explains the one of the reasons <a href="free.htm">Free</a> Software developers choose to do <a href="work.htm">work</a> <small>(a form of investment)</small> without appa<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>. These prod<a href="user.htm">user</a>s are being paid. They are being paid in <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t. They do it for "<a href="use.htm">use</a> value" alone. This has been called "scratching their <a href="own.htm">own</a> itch" by others <small>(I think Eric Raymond said this once for instance)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
So there is no crisis, we don’t need to keep <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion <a href="part.htm">part</a>ially closed, and scarcity can be fully eliminated if the community of <a href="user.htm">user</a>s are the inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s and <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the means of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
Now, <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing a small community that <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the capital is possible, but as that community grows by allowing <a href="new.htm">new</a> non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing <a href="user.htm">user</a>s to <a href="part.htm">part</a>icipate, there is a possibility for this special case to be disrupted if the originating <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers do not somehow distribute the <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty that is purchased during that growth. If the originators choose to retain <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of that which was purchased as a result of the need for growth as indicated by <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="user.htm">user</a>s attempting access, then they become standard capitalists who will seek <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> through scarcity.<br/>
<br/>
But it is possible for such a community to scale to any size <small>(and to split whenever there is internal strife)</small> by treating any a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> a <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="user.htm">user</a> <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> as an investment from and for the very <a href="user.htm">user</a> that paid it. By doing this, the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is self-balancing while both <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> and the drive for scarcity approach zero.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-02-2008:</span> How to <a href="sync.htm">sync</a>retize the various electronic communication tools. Here are some of the <a href="pop.htm">pop</a>ular ones sorted by immediacy:<br/>
* phone:<br/>
* chat: XMPP, IRC, SILC, IBC<br/>
* <a href="mail.htm">mail</a>: <a href="imap.htm">IMAP</a>, E<a href="smtp.htm">SMTP</a>, ODMR<br/>
* wiki:<br/>
* RSS:<br/>
* bugs: issue tracking, feature requests, <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ing<br/>
* VC <small>(version control)</small>:<br/>
* blog: <a href="html.htm">HTML</a>/<a href="http.htm">HTTP</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-01-2008:</span> Consumers <a href="fund.htm">fund</a> for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, not <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Older entries: <a href="diary-apr-2008.htm">diary-apr-2008</a><br/>
</p>
<p class='footer'>
Page generated from <a href=".text/diary-may-2008">diary-may-2008</a> by <a href=".code/etym.el">etym</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>