-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathdiary-may-2011.htm
930 lines (927 loc) · 67 KB
/
diary-may-2011.htm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
<?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-2011 </title>
<link href=".code/preferred.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"/>
</head>
<body>
<p class='header'>
<a href="_home.htm">Home</a> | <a href="_faq.htm">FAQ</a> | <a href="_thesis.htm">Thesis</a> | <a href="_diary.htm">Diary</a> | <a href="_projects.htm">Projects</a> | <a href="resume.htm">Resume</a> | <a href="_todo.htm">Todo</a> | <a href="_index.htm">Index</a> |<p>
<p class='main'><span class="rel">Related:</span> <a href="diary.htm">diary</a><br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-19-2011:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://WorldEconomicsAssociation.org">WorldEconomicsAssociation.org</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-19-2011:</span> The collection of Taxes against <a href="land.htm">Land</a> Value<br/>
<br/>
I understand and 'believe' in the theoretical concept of taxing the<br/>
excessive holding of finite re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es such as <a href="land.htm">land</a>, water-rights,<br/>
mineral deposits, radio spectrum, etc.<br/>
<br/>
But exactly how to implement such a weight against those who intend to<br/>
harm the rest of humanity is not clear to me.<br/>
<br/>
Some Georgists/Geoists claim we only need to tax the <a href="land.htm">land</a><a href="own.htm">own</a>ers who<br/>
<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> to others.<br/>
<br/>
The piece at <a class="ext" href="http://WealthAndWant.com/HG/why_the_landowner_cannot_shift.html">http://WealthAndWant.com/HG/why_the_landowner_cannot_shift.html</a><br/>
defends this approach, and says it could only be the <a href="land.htm">land</a><a href="own.htm">own</a>er who<br/>
ultimately <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s that tax...<br/>
<br/>
But what would happen in the case where *ALL* citizens had sufficient<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ership and nobody was <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>ing from anyone else?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-19-2011:</span><br/>
Miles Fidelman wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> we certainly have enough cooperatives and municipal</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> utilities to point to, as well as various forms of</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> joint ventures, <a href="part.htm">part</a>nerships, and so forth - all of</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> which are examples of <a href="user.htm">user</a>-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed businesses.</span><br/>
<br/>
Those organizational forms do not comply with:<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> Treat <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t as reward for those investments.<br/>
<br/>
3.)</small> Treat <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> against latecomers as <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er investment.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> it is illegal for a local government</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> to go into the telecom business;</span><br/>
<br/>
Yet another reason to incorporate in a <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> way instead<br/>
of handing it over to a poorly structured city government<br/>
that will overcharge for access and never deliver what we<br/>
<a href="real.htm">real</a>ly need since it will once again be 'us' against<br/>
'them' - for we, as citizens, do not have <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership<br/>
of the cities even though we <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> taxes into slush-<a href="fund.htm">fund</a>s<br/>
that are then doled out by well intentioned tyrants of<br/>
the majority.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> competing with an entrenched monopoly is <a href="hard.htm">hard</a> and <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>ly,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> and they can afford to operate at a loss to drive you out</span><br/>
of business --- it's pretty <a href="hard.htm">hard</a> to generate a critical mass<br/>
<span class="quot">> of <a href="user.htm">user</a>s when the entrenched competition is giving away service</span><br/>
<br/>
I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> this will be a problem, but I think we can address this<br/>
issue by beginning small and growing slowly.<br/>
<br/>
Of course no business cannot operate at a loss indefinitely.<br/>
<br/>
We will have another advantage in that we will be able to operate<br/>
at "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" indefinitely - since we will not be trying to<br/>
perpetuate <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>, but will instead be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s with the<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t itself - and so will only need to collect the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of<br/>
operation instead of continually trying to charge ourselves<br/>
more than it <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s to sustain that <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> by all rights, government should be imposing anti-trust</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> restrictions as a counterbalance to these kinds of things,</span><br/>
<br/>
So you want a government corrupted by corporations to turn<br/>
against those corporations?<br/>
<br/>
How do you <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ose we do that?<br/>
<br/>
I doubt you have enough <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y to purchase such legislation,<br/>
and even if you could, it would only be a brief win in a<br/>
small skirmish that would soon be washed away by all the<br/>
other corporate pressure to <a href="work.htm">work</a> against we, the <a href="user.htm">User</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-19-2011:</span> <br/>
Miles Fidelman wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> That doesn't <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly help a lot when faced with entrenched monopolies, <a href="back.htm">back</a>ed</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> by government regulations and enforcement that help them stay entrenched.</span><br/>
<br/>
Are you saying it is impossible to <a href="start.htm">start</a> <a href="new.htm">new</a> businesses that:<br/>
<br/>
1.)</small> Are <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ed and <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed by the <a href="user.htm">User</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> Treat <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t as reward for those investments.<br/>
<br/>
3.)</small> Treat <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> against latecomers as <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er investment.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Are you saying the governments won't allow such an<br/>
organizational form?<br/>
<br/>
Maybe you are right, and we should prepare for that<br/>
resistance. I wonder what <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hinations they will try...<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-19-2011:</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Patrick Anderson wrote:</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> Colin, why does government <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently not act in our interest?</span><br/>
<br/>
Miles Fidelman wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> You're kidding, right?</span><br/>
<br/>
My hope was to have Colin answer "Because corporations control governments".<br/>
<br/>
Then the question becomes "Why do corporations not act in our interest?"<br/>
<br/>
The answer to that is "Because shareholders <small>(<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently)</small> require <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment."<br/>
<br/>
Then the question becomes "What if we could <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> shareholders with <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t instead?"<br/>
<br/>
The answer to that is "We can only treat <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t as reward if shareholders are <a href="user.htm">User</a>s, and hold exactly as much <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership as they intend to <a href="use.htm">use</a> of the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t."<br/>
<br/>
Then the question becomes "How do we <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is distributed to the <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="user.htm">User</a>s who come on board as the org grows?"<br/>
<br/>
The answer to that is "We can treat the <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> those <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="user.htm">User</a>s <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> as though it were an investment from those <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>ers."<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-19-2011:</span><br/>
Colin Hawkett wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Patrick Anderson wrote:</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> Governments cannot act in our <small>(the <a href="user.htm">User</a>s')</small> interest</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> because they are controlled by corporations.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> That is the point - our end <a href="game.htm">game</a> should be to change this.</span><br/>
<br/>
I'm just saying, if we change the corporations <small>(one corporation<br/>
at a time - by creating <a href="new.htm">new</a> corps that do the right thing)</small>, then<br/>
we don't need to separate the goals of gov from corp.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I think the <a href="key.htm">key</a> is to crowd-<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e government</span><br/>
<br/>
If we have crowd-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed corps, we will have crowd-controlled gov.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot2">>> I wish that were true, but Governments are composed of humans</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> that respond to the power consolidated into the hands of the</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the Corporations.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Again, this is the point - I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> with you it is not true - this is the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> problem <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>ement. This is what needs fixing.</span><br/>
<br/>
We can change the corporation's goal of keeping <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> by<br/>
attracting Consumers to Invest for the purpose of receiving at-<a href="cost.htm">cost</a><br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t. At that point, we will be <a href="free.htm">free</a> to redirect the special value<br/>
called <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> <small>(which is defined as <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>)</small> to be treated as<br/>
though the <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er of that special value had just made an investment<br/>
and is the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of that growth. This auto-distributes control<br/>
into the hands of those willing to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for growth and removes the<br/>
unnatural and dangerous drive toward scarcity and destruction that<br/>
treating <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as reward tends to cause.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot2">>> Capitalism is broken because we have mistaken <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as a reward</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> instead of understanding it as a measure of the <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er's dependence</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> upon those <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> I'm don't think you're describing capitalism there. Surely redefining <a href="profit.htm">profit</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> as investment changes the system to something else? Can you point me</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> to any widely accepted definition of capitalism in these terms?</span><br/>
<br/>
I'm not describing the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently operating Capitalism that is raping our<br/>
planet, I am describing why Capitalism is broken, and how it must change<br/>
if we are to continue to exist as a species.<br/>
<br/>
Yes, redefining <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er Investment changes the system dynamics,<br/>
and that is a good thing because the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent system is extremely wrong.<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-19-2011:</span><br/>
Colin Hawkett wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> with a government that we trust and acts in our interests,</span><br/>
<br/>
Colin, why does government <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently not act in our interest?<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-19-2011:</span><br/>
Colin Hawkett wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> with a government that we trust and acts in our interests,</span><br/>
<br/>
Governments cannot act in our <small>(the <a href="user.htm">User</a>s')</small> interest because they are<br/>
controlled by corporations.<br/>
<br/>
Corporations cannot act in our interest because they are controlled by<br/>
inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s that expect <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as reward.<br/>
<br/>
Treating <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as reward causes conflict with <a href="user.htm">User</a>s because <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a><br/>
only occurs when <a href="user.htm">User</a>s lack control.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is *undefined* when <a href="user.htm">User</a>s <a href="own.htm">own</a> and control the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion because the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t is not sold - since it is already in<br/>
the hands of those who need it!<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> the people are the shareholders in government,</span><br/>
<br/>
I wish that were true, but Governments are composed of humans that<br/>
respond to the power consolidated into the hands of the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the<br/>
Corporations.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> capitalism isn't actually broken</span><br/>
<br/>
Capitalism is broken because we have mistaken <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as a reward<br/>
instead of understanding it as a measure of the <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er's dependence<br/>
upon those <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
When we finally <a href="real.htm">real</a>ize what <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly is, we will treat it as an<br/>
investment from the Consumer who paid it - causing a negative feed<a href="back.htm">back</a><br/>
loop that will cause <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> to safely approach zero as each<br/>
<a href="user.htm">User</a>/Consumer slowly gains the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership they need to finally stop<br/>
<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing tribute to another.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-19-2011:</span><br/>
Miles Fidelman wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Umm... they're called:</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> ...</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> - cooperatives</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
A conusmer cooperative is very <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> from what I <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ose in a few<br/>
ways, but maybe the most important is the way the Consumer/<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span>buy* the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>ts <a href="back.htm">back</a> from the group instead of being the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers<br/>
already.<br/>
<br/>
This means the cooperative actually charges <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> <small>(<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>)</small><br/>
against those Consumer/<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers, and then tries to get rid of that<br/>
hot-potato in a variety of ways, but most usually end up causing the<br/>
cooperative to suffer from consolidation of control into the hands of<br/>
the originators who gain <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of all the growth caused by those<br/>
overpayments.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="user own.htm">User Own</a>ership <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el I <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ose is more like what would happen in<br/>
the smallest of scenarios.<br/>
<br/>
For example, <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>ine you and your neighbor run a <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> wire between<br/>
your houses. Obviously you must collectively <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of<br/>
purchasing the equipment and the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of the labor to <a href="install.htm">install</a> it, and<br/>
the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of supplying the electricity, but you would not and COULD<br/>
not <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> because you are not each buying the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t <a href="back.htm">back</a> from<br/>
the collective two of you -- that would be nonsense, though that is<br/>
exactly what we will face if we give control to a municipality, and<br/>
cooperative, an association, and probably nearly any other<br/>
organizational form <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently in existence...<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-18-2011:</span><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/items/free_games">http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/items/free_games</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-18-2011:</span> CRM, BPM, CM, Social Content Management,<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3914336_2/50-Open-Source-Apps-You-Can-Use-in-the-Cloud.htm">http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/12068_3914336_2/50-Open-Source-Apps-You-Can-Use-in-the-Cloud.htm</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://sf.net/projects/processmaker">sf.net/projects/processmaker</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://OSQA.net">OSQA.net</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Alfresco.com">http://Alfresco.com</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://sf.net/projects/dekiwiki">sf.net/projects/dekiwiki</a> <span class="quot2">>>MindTouch is an enterprise wiki and <a href="collab.htm">collab</a>orative portal</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-18-2011:</span> Diaspora, Twitter, and Social <a href="net.htm">Net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>ing Architecture<br/>
Colin Hawkett wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> From the corporate perspective, I'm not even</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> sure it is legal for them to do anything but act</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> in the interests of their shareholders.</span><br/>
<br/>
Ah, but what if the <a href="user.htm">User</a>s *were* the shareholders?<br/>
<br/>
And what if the ROI for those <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers was the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t itself?<br/>
<br/>
And, for those who are not yet <a href="part.htm">part</a> of that organization,<br/>
what if the <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> charged against them was treated as<br/>
though they were <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing a late investment?<br/>
<br/>
A corporation structured in this way would not have the<br/>
<a href="trad.htm">trad</a>itional conflict between shareholders and <a href="user.htm">user</a>s because<br/>
those two groups would be one and the same!<br/>
<br/>
We can <a href="start.htm">start</a> by organizing <a href="user.htm">User</a>s to pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for the<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t <small>(internet access in this case)</small>, but treat those<br/>
<a href="fund.htm">fund</a>s as investment and <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership in that corp.<br/>
<br/>
We, the <a href="user.htm">User</a>s, *already* <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of operation<br/>
anyway, we are just <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing them late, and are therefore<br/>
also required to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
When a corporation is <a href="user own.htm">User Own</a>ed, and the return for<br/>
those investments is the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t itself, then those<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ers do not buy the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t because they <a href="own.htm">own</a> it<br/>
already as a side-effect of their co-owing the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
Those <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers must still <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s, but cannot<br/>
<a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>, for who would they <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-14-2011:</span> Time Warner vs North Carolina municipal broadband<br/>
Aaron Huslage wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> There is a way to <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d a citizen-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed fiber</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> that reaches into homes, businesses</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> and community institutions, but I'm not able</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> to see how to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e it happen.</span><br/>
<br/>
Most of this anti-municipal legislation disallows<br/>
a <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>itional *government* <small>(usually a city)</small> from<br/>
holding <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of those Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
This might be avoided by ignoring the city itself<br/>
and just organizing the citizens as Consumers<br/>
who pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for those <a href="start.htm">start</a>up <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s, and then<br/>
continue to pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a> each month to cover the<br/>
<a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of operation.<br/>
<br/>
These Consumer/Inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s would be the <a href="real.htm">real</a> and<br/>
absolute <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers of the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es, and<br/>
their return would be <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t instead of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Any latecomers could <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> a 'normal' <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e <small>(which<br/>
would probably include some <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>)</small>, but that<br/>
special value should be treated as that <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er's<br/>
investment - so the <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> would grow according<br/>
to the willingness of people to overpay, but would<br/>
remain decentralized in <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership and control<br/>
because <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> would be reflected <a href="back.htm">back</a> to the<br/>
<a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er as a negative-feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> loop.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-12-2011:</span> <small>[Open<a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e<a href="part.htm">Part</a>y]</small> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er Investment<br/>
Devin Balkind wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> How about '<a href="part.htm">part</a>icipants?'</span><br/>
<br/>
Any term is fine as long as we keep track of<br/>
who <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> the more '<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>' you <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e, the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> more you can gift to the commons</span><br/>
<br/>
This is a bit misleading, because <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is not<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed by the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, but measures<br/>
the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er's dependence upon those <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> disappears <small>(is undefined)</small> when all <a href="user.htm">user</a>s<br/>
have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, for at that point, there<br/>
is no longer any reason to sell the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t since<br/>
it will already be the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of those who <a href="use.htm">use</a> it.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> .... I've been <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing on a 'commons-<a href="back.htm">back</a>ed'</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency plan in which the more 'excess' you</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e the more <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency you can mint. Could</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> this be consistent with your vision?</span><br/>
<br/>
Probably. I have <a href="work.htm">work</a>ed on a system myself, and<br/>
will try to post about that soon, though I wonder<br/>
if the <a href="admin.htm">admin</a>s feel such discussion is outside the<br/>
scope of this list?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot2">>> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> can be thought of as a measure of the <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er's</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> dependence upon the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers.</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>></span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> must be treated as that <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er's Investment</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> because that will incrementally increase that <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er's</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership - causing <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>, on the whole, to</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> safely and naturally approach zero, as it should.</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>></span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> So the people who give more surplus</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> control more of the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t?</span><br/>
<br/>
No, the people who have surplus do not *give*<br/>
it to anyone, they *sell* it to those who do not<br/>
yet have enough.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="pay.htm">PAY</a>ER is the one causing the collective<br/>
to grow, and is also the one who receives<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of that <a href="new.htm">new</a> growth.<br/>
<br/>
I'll give an example which might help clarify:<br/>
<br/>
Let's say Mr. A is an established member of the<br/>
collective, and has <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in a little bit more<br/>
Olive trees than he can <a href="use.htm">use</a> for himself.<br/>
<br/>
If he sells any of that fruit or even the oil, he is<br/>
required <small>(according to the Terms of Operation of<br/>
the collective)</small> to treat any <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> <small>(any<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>)</small> as <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er investment.<br/>
<br/>
Since he doesn't want to deal with trying to sell<br/>
the Olives directly, he just registers them at the<br/>
<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>ehouse, where all <a href="user.htm">user</a>s come to buy that<br/>
which they need, or to collect what is theirs<br/>
according to the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership they have.<br/>
<br/>
Now, Ms. B comes along as a visitor to the area.<br/>
<br/>
She has no <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in Olive trees, she just wants<br/>
some spaghetti that happens to include olives.<br/>
<br/>
She buys the meal from the collective and <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s<br/>
<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> <small>(<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>)</small>, a total of $5.<br/>
<br/>
She doesn't do this for charitable reasons, she does<br/>
this because this is how Capitalism always treats<br/>
here - the market always charges more than <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> -<br/>
for that is the purported *purpose* of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion!<br/>
<br/>
She is given a receipt that shows the $3 she paid<br/>
covers the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of delivering that meal, while the<br/>
extra $2 are to be treated as her investment - and<br/>
which will vest to her as <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership at some<br/>
time in the future.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> What would happened if "<a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>ers" just chose to sell...?</span><br/>
<br/>
Well, that means they would not be gaining<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the growth of the collective, and so<br/>
would remain at the mercy of <small>(dependent upon)</small> those<br/>
who *do* have <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Where do you <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>e?</span><br/>
<br/>
Utah.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="use.htm">Use</a> cases are scenarios. If I <a href="use.htm">use</a>d your system</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> to acquire milk from a cow, how would it <a href="work.htm">work</a>?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> What is each step?</span><br/>
<br/>
Roughly:<br/>
<br/>
A group of potential consumers pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for raw milk.<br/>
<br/>
Those <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>s are <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to buy the cattle and equipment<br/>
and to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the <a href="work.htm">work</a>er wages - though it is even more<br/>
effective if some of the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s are qualified and willing<br/>
to do the <a href="work.htm">work</a>, for then we do not have to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> income<br/>
taxes.<br/>
<br/>
The consumer-inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s do not buy the milk <a href="back.htm">back</a> from<br/>
the collective others, but <a href="own.htm">own</a> it already - as a result<br/>
of their <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership in the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
This means we do not have to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> sales tax, because<br/>
the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is not being sold.<br/>
<br/>
Later, as the collective grows in size and efficiency,<br/>
some of the members may have surplus milk they cannot<br/>
<a href="use.htm">use</a> for themselves. They can do anything with this milk<br/>
that they want *except*: if they sell the milk,they must<br/>
treat <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as though it were an Investment from the<br/>
<a href="user.htm">User</a> who paid it.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-12-2011:</span> Koans<br/>
Investment is <a href="user.htm">User</a> PrePayment.<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t is Inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a> Return.<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er Investment.<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-12-2011:</span> <small>[Open<a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e<a href="part.htm">Part</a>y]</small> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er Investment<br/>
Devin Balkind wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> I'm involved with FLO Farm, a 200 acre <a href="land.htm">land</a>scape in PA.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> We're looking for cooperative <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>els that</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> respect the <a href="work.htm">work</a> of everyone who <a href="part.htm">part</a>icipates. Maybe</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> you'll be able to help us.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I think 'consumers' is a problematic word. "<a href="user.htm">User</a>s?"</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, I understand. Sometimes I call them "<a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>ers" to<br/>
avoid the negative associations and to highlight the fact<br/>
that growth is coming from the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers overpaying on the<br/>
'input' side of their struggle.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot2">>> 1.)</small> The ROI is <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t itself</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Is this similar to a share where people who <a href="own.htm">own</a> shares</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> are en<a href="title.htm">title</a>d to the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion via dividend?</span><br/>
<br/>
If by 'dividend' you mean <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t, then yes.<br/>
<br/>
If by 'dividend' you mean <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>, then no.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t is the natural and original ROI.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> only occurs when the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t is sold, and the<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t will only be sold when there is surplus.<br/>
<br/>
In that case, the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t will be sold to <a href="user.htm">User</a>s who<br/>
do not yet have the sufficient <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, and<br/>
the only reason they are <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is because<br/>
they have no way to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s alone because they have<br/>
no control over the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion itself.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> can be thought of as a measure of the <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er's<br/>
dependence upon the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> must be treated as that <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er's Investment<br/>
because that will incrementally increase that <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er's<br/>
<a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership - causing <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>, on the whole, to<br/>
safely and naturally approach zero, as it should.<br/>
<br/>
In "systems theory" terms this is called a negative-<br/>
feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> loop.<br/>
<br/>
If you <small>(co-)</small><a href="own.htm">own</a> a milk cow, you will need to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all<br/>
the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion <small>(including any Wages)</small>,<br/>
but you wouldn't buy milk each week since you <a href="own.htm">own</a> that<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t *already* as a side-effect of your <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing the<br/>
<a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot2">>> 2.)</small> There is no need to ever sell the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t unless</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> any individual decides he has a surplus. In that case,</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> the individual can offer his surplus for sale, and can</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> charge <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> <small>(<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>)</small> against those late-</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> comers, but all <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> must be treated as though it</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> were an investment from the consumer who paid it.</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>></span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> So does <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> go to the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t or to the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> community as a reinvestment?</span><br/>
<br/>
This is something that is not yet perfectly clear to me.<br/>
<br/>
I think the <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> needs to be collected by the Seller<br/>
<small>(or by the community if he is leaving it in the<br/>
<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>ehouse to be sold for him...)</small>, and I think the Seller<br/>
or community needs to remain in control of that value<br/>
for some a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> of time or until some conditions are met,<br/>
but I don't <a href="know.htm">know</a> what they are.<br/>
<br/>
What I mean is: <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> must be invested in the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of<br/>
the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t from which it was derived <small>(for example, if we<br/>
were to sell a hamburger to a non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>er, the <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> would<br/>
be invested in Beef cattle, Tomato plants, Wheat fields,<br/>
Chickens <small>(for mayo)</small>, spice plants, salt mines, and all the<br/>
<a href="land.htm">land</a> and water rights needed to support that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
But I don't think we can immediately vest that <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership<br/>
to the <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er, because I am worried most <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>ers will choose<br/>
to just sell those shares and thereby relinquish control<br/>
they would otherwise gain for their future benefit...<br/>
<br/>
Then again, maybe disallowing immediate vestment is being<br/>
too invasive and "nanny-<a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e". What are your thoughts?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> What would this organization do?</span><br/>
<br/>
I want to focus on <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>amental needs such as food and<br/>
shelter, but finally be a replacement for any and all<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>ts had through the 'regular' <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy. One vision<br/>
is to <a href="start.htm">start</a> a hotel/restaurant/grocery that would look<br/>
mostly normal from the outside, but would have a strange<br/>
kind of receipt that itemized the <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er's contribution -<br/>
showing what % was <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to cover the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of that<br/>
purchase, and also showing the estimated <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> which<br/>
would appear as a tiny share of <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership in the <a href="new.htm">new</a><br/>
<a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es that will be purchased and <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>t using those<br/>
<a href="fund.htm">fund</a>s, and which will eventually vest to that <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Have you written out <a href="use.htm">use</a> cases?</span><br/>
<br/>
I think maybe I have, but could you give me an example<br/>
of what you mean so I can be sure I am answering?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Thanks,<br/>
Patrick Anderson<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com">http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-11-2011:</span> <small>[Open<a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e<a href="part.htm">Part</a>y]</small> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er Investment<br/>
Devin Balkind wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> what are the two terms you discovered?</span><br/>
<br/>
First some clarification:<br/>
<br/>
These terms would be voluntarily applied by a group<br/>
of <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers, and are not a moral call to change any<br/>
thing or any person outside of that scope.<br/>
<br/>
This can be thought of as a <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> for the physical<br/>
<a href="real.htm">real</a>m. just as Copy<a href="left.htm">left</a> is enforced through Copyright,<br/>
this is <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty<a href="left.htm">Left</a> enforced through <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty Rights.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
0.)</small> Attract Consumers to pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts, and <a href="use.htm">use</a><br/>
those <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>s to purchase and <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es<br/>
required for that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
1.)</small> The ROI is <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t itself, which is not paid from<br/>
the group to individual <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, but is the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of<br/>
those individuals already, as a side-effect of their<br/>
having <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.<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> There is no need to ever sell the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t unless<br/>
any individual decides he has a surplus. In that case,<br/>
the individual can offer his surplus for sale, and can<br/>
charge <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> <small>(<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>)</small> against those late-<br/>
comers, but all <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> must be treated as though it<br/>
were an investment from the consumer who paid it.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Do you intend to <a href="start.htm">start</a> an organization?</span><br/>
<br/>
I've been trying to understand how I would do that,<br/>
but am still too cowardly to go through with it, as I<br/>
am very much not a PR kind of person.<br/>
<br/>
I have $50k saved-up which I am willing to commit<br/>
toward such an endeavor, and want to begin as soon<br/>
as possible, but need first to be able to convey this<br/>
simple but for some very reason slippery concept.<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-11-2011:</span> <small>[Open<a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e<a href="part.htm">Part</a>y]</small>: Wiki<br/>
Devin Balkind wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> James, I think we should <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e it a point to <a href="use.htm">use</a> open <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e tools whenever</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> possible.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> MediaWiki is the 'industry standard' for open <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e projects. I think we</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> should <a href="use.htm">use</a> that.</span><br/>
<br/>
I always assumed Wikia was using <a class="ext" href="http://MediaWiki.org">http://MediaWiki.org</a> code,<br/>
but now see they have forked to <a class="ext" href="http://dev.Wikia.com">http://dev.Wikia.com</a><br/>
<br/>
Both these projects <a href="use.htm">use</a> the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a>, though the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="agpl.htm">AGPL</a> would be<br/>
a strategically better choice...<br/>
<br/>
I wish I could find a group interested in r<a href="econ.htm">econ</a>sidering how we<br/>
should *host* such software, for addressing the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>iculty in<br/>
sharing the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es is a link missing toward<br/>
our finalizing a plan for complete <a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom.<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-10-2011:</span> Thinking about <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic similarities between Co-<a href="work.htm">Work</a>ing and <a href="cloud.htm">Cloud</a> <a href="compu.htm">Compu</a>ting<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-10-2011:</span> Feeding America<br/>
Vicki Escarra, President & CEO of <a class="ext" href="http://FeedingAmerica.org">FeedingAmerica.org</a> wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> For most kids, summer vacation means going to <a href="cam.htm">cam</a>p, spending</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> time with friends and maybe even taking a trip to a theme park.</span><br/>
<br/>
Let's help these children learn about localized agriculture so they<br/>
can slowly wean themselves off the corporate food chain.<br/>
<br/>
Being active in planting, tending, harvesting and processing their<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a> food will bring joy and immediate value to those who need it<br/>
most while lowering our dependence upon industrialized food.<br/>
<br/>
Please consider watching <a class="ext" href="http://FoodIncMovie.com">http://FoodIncMovie.com</a> <small>(trailer at<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://YouTube.com/watch?v=5eKYyD14d_0">http://YouTube.com/watch?v=5eKYyD14d_0</a> )</small> for <a href="part.htm">part</a> of an<br/>
explanation about what is wrong.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> But for millions of kids, summer vacation also means three months</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> without the subsidized school lunches and breakfasts they need.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Because for too many kids, these are the only stable meals they get.</span><br/>
<br/>
We are endangering ourselves by remaining reliant upon federal<br/>
<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of corporate handouts to massive entities with the only<br/>
goal of keeping <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
We must break this cycle by planting and caring for the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es<br/>
of our food at a local level.<br/>
<br/>
We should be planting Walnut trees, Almond trees, Grape vines,<br/>
Blackberry canes, Blueberry bushes, and all the small plants that<br/>
give us spices and herbs such as Sage, Rosemary, Thyme.<br/>
<br/>
Please consider changing the course of this organization to one<br/>
of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion instead of blind consumption.<br/>
<br/>
Sincerely,<br/>
Patrick Anderson<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com">http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-05-2011:</span> <small>{CC-PMS}</small> The Importance of Structure in Open Environments<br/>
Suresh Fernando wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Can all of you simply <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e the leap of faith that</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> it might be a good <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a to talk on a regular basis</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> with the intention to figure out what to do?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Not to worry, it is not my plan to <a href="part.htm">part</a>icipate...</span><br/>
<br/>
Somehow I think this will not <a href="work.htm">work</a>.<br/>
<br/>
As much as I would like to believe we need no leader, there is a psycho/social problem without a Captain.<br/>
<br/>
I'm not saying Suresh is the one for this group, and I don't <a href="know.htm">know</a> how such a thing could be decided.<br/>
<br/>
But for some reason we, as a species, seem to need a certain a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> of Presidents, CEOs, Kings, Oligarchs as a kind of catalyst to action - and otherwise tend to remain dispersed and impotent...<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-04-2011:</span> A Transaction-Reduced Market <small>(was: <a href="art.htm">Art</a>icle : "Nuptial <a href="econ.htm">Econ</a>omics")</small><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a class="ext" href="http://www.economist.com/node/18618443">http://www.economist.com/node/18618443</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> "In February the food minister estimated that close to 15% of all grains and</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> vegetables in the country are wasted through "extravagant and luxurious</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> social functions", such as lavish wedding banquets."</span><br/>
<br/>
This is great for an <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy that treats <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as a reward for the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers because those bodies require there be a scarcity of the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t they intend to sell - for their only purpose for existence is to keep <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
This is so obvious and understood and long-standing that governments routinely *<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>* the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of agricultural <a href="land.htm">land</a> to *NOT* grow for the sole purpose of reducing the supply of that <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t. Look into the "Corn Laws" <small>[ <a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Laws">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Laws</a> ]</small> for more on this.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
When the Consumers <a href="own.htm">own</a> the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion, they have no incentive to reduce the overall supply because, since the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t is already the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of those who need it, it will not even be sold. The final transaction is eliminated in this case!<br/>
<br/>
The selling of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>ts can be thought of as a mis-allocation of <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es since, once a Consumer has sufficient <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership in the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion, he will have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in all the potential Output of those <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es as a side-effect of his <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
For example, if you <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> an Avocado tree, you must help cover all the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s <small>(including <a href="work.htm">work</a>)</small> needed to <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>e that <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e is cared for, and that the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t <small>(Avocados)</small> are harvested on time, and that they are <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>ed and/or processed to preserve their value.<br/>
<br/>
But you do not *buy* the Avocados <a href="back.htm">back</a> from the other <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers because you <a href="own.htm">own</a> your percentage already. This also means you also cannot <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>, for who would you <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
That solves the '<a href="stat.htm">stat</a>ic' case where each Consumer has exactly as much <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es as he wants <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
But I believe many such Consumers will want to <a href="own.htm">own</a> slightly more <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e than they need <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t to <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> against seasons where output is low because of weather or whatever. This is a literal <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ance.<br/>
<br/>
This surplus can be sold to other Consumers who do not yet have sufficient <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership, and we should even collect all the <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> that the market will bear during that transaction, but we must also do a very strange thing with that <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>; we must treat it as an Investment from the Consumer who paid it.<br/>
<br/>
Treating <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er Investment will allow these kinds of groups to scale in size and efficiency while avoiding the typical problem of overaccumulation and centralization of control that plagues nearly every other organizational form.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-02-2011:</span> Group Dynamics of <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> Sharing<br/>
Lucas Wimpheling wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Hosting has a <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, and someone has to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> In legal terms who can represent the crowd?</span><br/>
<br/>
Hmm... I don't understand why the crowd would need or want an external representative.<br/>
<br/>
Of course a single person can always buy and <a href="own.htm">own</a> a server without needing alternate representation.<br/>
<br/>
Two people can also buy and <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> a server for their <a href="own.htm">own</a> private reasons.<br/>
<br/>
Three people can do the same.<br/>
<br/>
I assume four people can also do such a thing.<br/>
<br/>
At what point does this not <a href="work.htm">work</a>?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I don't think any government is ready to give any</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> responsability to a headless entity such as an</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> autonomous crowd.</span><br/>
<br/>
Sorry, but I don't see what you mean here either.<br/>
<br/>
Why would we want some government giving us anything at all? I don't want government involvement in any way if I can avoid it.<br/>
<br/>
How does your concern apply to a single <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of a server? How does it apply to groups of 2, 3, 4, etc?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> How could a crowd sign a contract ? Who signs ?</span><br/>
<br/>
I assumed each <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>er would sign the contract as what I call an Inter-<a href="own.htm">Own</a>er <a href="trad.htm">Trad</a>e <a href="agree.htm">Agree</a>ment.<br/>
<br/>
But maybe I am putting too much faith in the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a that we do not need any type of leader. Open <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <small>(<a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom Software)</small> projects very often have a self- proclaimed benevolent dictator that <a href="gui.htm">gui</a>des the group and provides some sort of psychological cohesion that I would rather not admit...<br/>
<br/>
Maybe each group could just <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e-up their <a href="own.htm">own</a> approach in their <a href="own.htm">own</a> way - though it might be a good <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a to offer some suggestions about what they might want to strive for, and what to avoid.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> and in most countries, in order to have a <a href="bank.htm">bank</a> account</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> and <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the bills you need a person to be responsible.</span><br/>
<br/>
In the US, corporations have legal personhood, so maybe groups can just become tiny corporations?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> It stops <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing when there is a conflict between the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> crowd/community and the legal <a href="own.htm">own</a>er, who is</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> responsible for <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing the bills.</span><br/>
<br/>
I want the crowd/community to *BE* the legal <a href="own.htm">own</a>er so there is no conflict to consider at that level.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The legal <a href="own.htm">own</a>er has so far no legal responsibility</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> towards its community.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, that is why the community must *BE* the legal <a href="own.htm">own</a>er.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> If the legal <a href="own.htm">own</a>er was linked to its community by contract,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> the crowd would be stronger than it is today, even if the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="own.htm">own</a>er is a person and not a firm.</span><br/>
<br/>
It is not enough for a <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>tyless crowd to contract with some <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing entity.<br/>
<br/>
The crowd must <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es directly or they will forever be begging the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers to do the right thing and will never have the opportunity to just do the <a href="work.htm">work</a> themselves when they have those <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
We, the People, must <a href="own.htm">own</a> or be <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Even if you don't want it, to collectively <a href="own.htm">own</a> anything you need to</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> constitute an association, a company, a religion... but you need to take a</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> legal form otherwise you will not be recognized by courts, fiscal</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="admin.htm">admin</a>istration and may get in serious legal trouble.</span><br/>
<br/>
Ok, so we can incorporate, right?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="stat.htm">Stat</a>e and fiscal <a href="admin.htm">admin</a>istrations are not very</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> tolerant when it comes to anonymous <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> : <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership must be linked to a person.</span><br/>
<br/>
Fine, then each group should incorporate as a multi-stakeholder form of some sort <small>(though we cannot <a href="use.htm">use</a> 'co-op' as a type if we are to enact some of the requirements I have discovered)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I think the "Consumers AS the Inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>" would</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> be <a href="hard.htm">hard</a> to implement legally as the consumers</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> would be required to supply lots of IDs</span><br/>
<br/>
Only if they want to claim their <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty.<br/>
<br/>
They can remain anonymous if they choose to ignore the receipt that also acts as a share-<a href="title.htm">title</a>.<br/>
<br/>
This would be similar to "Mutual <a href="fund.htm">Fund</a>s" in the small a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a>s of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership spread across many types of investments.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Isaac Wilder wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Just because someone is there at the beginning</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> doesn't mean that they should have any more rights</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> or privileges than those that come late to the <a href="part.htm">part</a>y.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, this is why we must treat <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er investment, so latecomers will gain their <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership along with the rest of us.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> We can, and we have. Wanna be on the board?</span><br/>
<br/>
I have problems with the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a of a 'board' because of how the government of the city where I <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>e does nothing the way I want.<br/>
<br/>
I have some <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>as about how to solve this problem, but they are incomplete and need to be argued about to find out what we should <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly do...<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> but generally as long as you're not trying to turn a <a href="profit.htm">profit</a></span><br/>
<br/>
We don't need to "turn a <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>" in a <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>itional sense, but we will actually need to collect <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> <small>(for whatever the market will bear)</small> from those overpaying latecomers - for if we don't, someone will just buy everything at-<a href="cost.htm">cost</a> and then resell it for a <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> without treating it in the special manner <small>(as <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er Investment)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
Treating <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er Investment will allow each group to grow while auto-distributing the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership to those willing to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for that growth.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-02-2011:</span> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom <a href="hard.htm">Hard</a>ware -- <a class="ext" href="http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com/2011/05/freedom-hardware.html">SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com/2011/05/freedom-hardware.html</a><br/>
I wonder why we, as <a href="user.htm">user</a>s, refuse to accept the mantle of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
We don't need yet another layer; we need to collapse the role of Customer and Vendor into one, cohesive unit so the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers and <a href="user.htm">User</a>s no longer fight, but are one and the same.<br/>
<br/>
This can be done in <a href="new.htm">new</a> businesses we <a href="start.htm">start</a> by choosing potential Consumers AS the Inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s. This is similar to crowd-<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>ing or crowd-<a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ed, but is actually Crowd-<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed.<br/>
<br/>
When the Crowd <small>(the <a href="user.htm">User</a>s, Consumers, Customers)</small> choose to <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion this delimma will disappear.<br/>
<br/>
But there is one more issue: we must also <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> the late-comer who does not yet have enough <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership and is subject to the whims of those who are already established. If we do not solve this problem, then the business will move more and more toward the typical <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el of centralized control.<br/>
<br/>
The solution for the dynamic case is to write a Terms of Operation that we, as <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ing <a href="user.htm">User</a>s can choose to apply to our Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es in the same way software developers choose to apply the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> to their <a href="virt.htm">Virt</a>ual <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
This Terms of Operation will <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e that all <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> gathered from late-comers will be invested on behalf of that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er and must become that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er's co-<a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <small>(after some vesting period or after some conditions are met that are not yet clear to me)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
By doing this - by treating <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er investment - the <a href="user.htm">User</a>-<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed collective can grow in size while avoiding the usual problem of power concentration that occurs when <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is treated as the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of those who are already established <small>(the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers usually treat it as their <a href="own.htm">own</a> reward)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
G<a href="mail.htm">mail</a>, Facebook, Amazon, etc. hold our data and do things we do not want them to do, but we are mostly defenseless because - even though <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom Software exists to replace those services, there is not yet a fully <a href="real.htm">real</a>ized vision of <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom <a href="hard.htm">Hard</a>ware.<br/>
<br/>
When I say <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom <a href="hard.htm">Hard</a>ware, I am not talking about the design of <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware, but am talking about <a href="real.htm">real</a>, physical instances of material assets such as <a href="land.htm">land</a>, water, <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>dings, <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ters, wires, and all the energy needed to power any of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
We, the <a href="user.htm">User</a>s need to gather together to <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> the Material Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion <small>(the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es)</small> required to *host* the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion for which we need the outputs.<br/>
<br/>
We, the Customers can <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> the Datacenters, the Hotels, the Farms, the Factories. We already <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of those establishments anyway, and we also <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> because of our lack of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership!<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-01-2011:</span> We must reorganize our <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion to regain control of the planet -- <a class="ext" href="http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com/2011/05/we-must-reorganize-our-production-to.html">SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com/2011/05/we-must-reorganize-our-production-to.html</a><br/>
Once we <a href="real.htm">real</a>ize <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership can be <a href="use.htm">use</a>d for our <a href="own.htm">own</a> good, we can stop using it against ourselves.<br/>
<br/>
But this will also require us to r<a href="econ.htm">econ</a>sider our errant view of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> so this <a href="new.htm">new</a> form of organization can grow without yet again consolidating power into the hands of those originators.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between the <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e a Consumer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s, and all the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers paid <small>(including Wages)</small> for that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
But when the Consumers truly <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion, their reward will be the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t itself, and there will be no need to sell any commodities except in the case where late-comers do not yet have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
In that case, where surplus is sold, we should still collect <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> from those <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ers, but we must then treat that special value as a Negative-Feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> loop by investing it for that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er - with the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership finally vesting to that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er as his <a href="new.htm">new</a> assets.<br/>
<br/>
Doing this will cause late-comers to slowly grow the collective in exactly the manner in which they *prove* it needed to grow.<br/>
<br/>
For example, if someone paid $5 for a hamburger that only <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> us $2.75 <small>(including all wages)</small> to deliver, then we would invest $2.25 toward purchasing or raising more cattle, tomatoes, eggs <small>(for mayonaise)</small>, herbs, salt-mines, etc. and all the <a href="land.htm">land</a> and water-rights needed to <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>e that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion continues.<br/>
<br/>
As we grow in this way we will begin to be able to ignore the corporations that we <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently support, and in doing so we will regain political control at the most local level.<br/>
<br/>
Eventually the City, <a href="stat.htm">Stat</a>e, Nation and World governments will be reduced to their true purpose of our meeting for our collective reasoning of how to <a href="gui.htm">gui</a>de the planet.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">May-01-2011:</span> Why <a href="user.htm">User</a>s need the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion -- <a class="ext" href="http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com/2011/05/why-users-need-sources-of-production.html">SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com/2011/05/why-users-need-sources-of-production.html</a><br/>
<br/>
Many people believe if you can't program, there is no reason to have access to the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e Code because you would not be able to understand how to <a href="use.htm">use</a> it anyway.<br/>
<br/>
In an <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic sense, allowing <a href="user.htm">User</a>s access to the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es is absolutely *crucial* because of how this allows them to hire anyone with those <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s to <a href="work.htm">work</a> on, or fix or improve those <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
When <a href="user.htm">User</a>s are allowed at-<a href="cost.htm">cost</a> access to the <a href="virt.htm">Virt</a>ual <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion <small>(such as <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ter <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e code)</small>, competition between potential <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers is maximized because nobody can stop those <a href="user.htm">user</a>s from hiring anyone they like to create the solutions they want.<br/>
<br/>
This creates a strange situation where wages drop to nearly and often even completely to zero!<br/>
<br/>
This is also true of Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es <small>(such as <a href="land.htm">land</a>, manufacturing plants, <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>dings, tools, etc.)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
For example, when a group of <a href="pass.htm">pass</a>engers decide to buy and <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> a car or bus or plane or ship, they must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s, including any wages for <a href="work.htm">work</a> they don't do themselves, but when one of those <a href="pass.htm">pass</a>engers <a href="know.htm">know</a>s how to operate those <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es, he will likely do it for <a href="free.htm">free</a> if he wants to arrive at the same destination <small>(if he is scratching his <a href="own.htm">own</a> itch)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
But it is not just wages that fall. When <a href="user.htm">User</a>s <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion, again - they must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s, but since they are treating the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t itself as the return for that investment <small>(the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is not even sold)</small>, they do not and even cannot <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, for who would they <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to?<br/>
</p>
<p class='footer'>
Page generated from <a href=".text/diary-may-2011">diary-may-2011</a> by <a href=".code/etym.el">etym</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>