Re: I considered presenting

Interesting. A rating system is mentioned here.

https://payswarm.com/minutes/2012-09-04/

"
Manu Sporny: the other thing that you could do is that, if the working
group has a way of tracking, saying "here's some money we expect you to
spend on X, Y, Z", then if they don't show up with the money/goods then you
know not to trust them (sort of a prebuy type of trust test system)
Manu Sporny: the working group could deposit funds into members' accounts
Manu Sporny: another way is to have members show up with the physical good
and then do the transfer when they are present with it
Manu Sporny: there are many different ways to do the reimbursement model,
we just need to discuss how
Nick Person: having a really easy way to generate the meta data so if
there's a problem we can look at it and connect it with other semantic web
communities, etc. is useful
Nick Person: a public rating system could also be used
Nick Person: Yes, we've been thinking of a public rating system as well.
Manu Sporny: using the identities you could keep track of positive/negative
transactions and link them to identities
Manu Sporny: and keep track of "karma" (etc) to help people decide who they
want to do business with
Manu Sporny: we were thinking of having a publically accessible database to
keep track of this to help payswarm authorities use a public rating system
to help figure out who to trust, etc."


On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Brent Shambaugh
<brent.shambaugh@gmail.com>wrote:

> In reponse to:
>
> "Hi Mr Shambaugh,
>
> I am also working on a new approach to production.
>
> Reading your articles I see your focus is very different from mine, so I
> hope we can learn from each other...
>
>
> I have some delicate (sometimes considered offensive) questions:
>
>
> 0.) How will investors be compensated? I say investors should be consumers
> who are compensated with Product instead of Profit.
>
>
> 1.) Who should be owners of the means of production? I say the consumers
> should be the owners - so they do not need to buy the product because, as
> co-owners, they own their % already.
>
>
> 2.) What should be done with Profit when we sell surplus Product to
> outsiders? I say Profit should be treated as an investment from the
> consumer who paid it - so that all consumers slowly gain the co-ownership
> needed to secure their future needs.
>
>
> 3.) How should workers be compensated? I say by accepting their promises
> of future work as yet another form of investment - so they each become
> co-owners in the means of production for which they need the products (not
> necessarily the means of production for which they know and want to
> operate) within the production network.
>
>
> 4.) How do we vote within such a system? I say by treating the payment of
> costs as a vote, and the absence of such payment as a vote against - so
> each person votes to build and maintain the "public works" they want by
> simply paying for those things.
>
>
> 5.) How do we solve the Tyranny of the Majority when decisions are not
> unanimous and cannot be resolved through payment-based-votes? I say by
> allowing any "realistically divisible" subgroup to secede from the rest for
> any reason while retaining their portion of co-ownership. When the means of
> production cannot be divided realistically, the minority can probably sell
> their shares to the outsiders who are paying more than cost for surplus as
> explained in #2.
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Sincerely,
> Patrick Anderson
> http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com"
>
> Okay, I'll give it my best shot based on what I know.
>
> 0.) How will investors be compensated? I say investors should be consumers
> who are compensated with Product instead of Profit.
>
> See the big paragraph below. I believe it is largely up to the concerned
> party.
>
> 1.) Who should be owners of the means of production? I say the consumers
> should be the owners - so they do not need to buy the product because, as
> co-owners, they own their % already.
>
> Investors could come together like a co-op, or someone could own it. I
> believe it is largely up to them. Computers might be able to help keep
> track of things depending on computer power, network speed, the ability to
> model and query data, and perhaps other things. I imagine people working
> with a firm in a collaborative fashion, or drawing a loose boundry around a
> project which represents a firm.
>
> 2.) What should be done with Profit when we sell surplus Product to
> outsiders? I say Profit should be treated as an investment from the
> consumer who paid it - so that all consumers slowly gain the co-ownership
> needed to secure their future needs.
>
> Largely, I believe this should be up to whoever is producing.
>
> 3.) How should workers be compensated? I say by accepting their promises
> of future work as yet another form of investment - so they each become
> co-owners in the means of production for which they need the products (not
> necessarily the means of production for which they know and want to
> operate) within the production network.
>
> Sure, I think this could be possible. Again, I believe that it largely up
> to the firm and the workers.
>
> 4.) How do we vote within such a system? I say by treating the payment of
> costs as a vote, and the absence of such payment as a vote against - so
> each person votes to build and maintain the "public works" they want by
> simply paying for those things.
>
> Unfortunately, this ties the ability to pay with the ability to vote. This
> bothers me. I should study U.S. History. There were many who thought about
> voting and they ended up with a republic, not a democracy.
>
> Type "America is not a democracy" into Youtube. I'm sure you'll quickly
> find that it is a Republic and not a democracy.
>
> Aaron Russo explains America is NOT a Democracy
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RewUP-Fdhqk
>
> Glenn Beck "America Is Not A Democracy, It's A Republic"
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHmseYh44vA
>
>
> Why America is a Republic, not a Democracy
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=fvwp&v=ygEEL57AcZs
> (Argues that it is good that we are a Republic and not a Democracy,
> because if
> we were a democracy "majority rule" our rights would not be protected, and
> eventually we would end up with an oligarchy.")
>
> Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
>
> On Wikipedia:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life%2C_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness
>
> John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property - Jim Powell
>
> http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/john-locke-natural-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property/#axzz2OmeNfngB
>
>
> 5.) How do we solve the Tyranny of the Majority when decisions are not
> unanimous and cannot be resolved through payment-based-votes? I say by
> allowing any "realistically divisible" subgroup to secede from the rest for
> any reason while retaining their portion of co-ownership. When the means of
> production cannot be divided realistically, the minority can probably sell
> their shares to the outsiders who are paying more than cost for surplus as
> explained in #2.
>
> I'm not sure, maybe U.S. history has something to say.
>
>
> At first I thought distributed funding (
> http://adistributedeconomy.blogspot.com/2012/03/distributed-funding.html)
> was the way to do it. It's just nodes and edges, with the nodes
> representing people, projects, or whatever and the edges the "paths" where
> the obligation flows. The edges could be a record of debts or intentions in
> the case of pay later or donate later. The edges could also be conduits
> that direct payment in the case of pay now and donate now. The flow could
> be from any node to another node, or any node and any number of other
> nodes. The amount from one node to another node could be some percentage of
> the total amount to all neighboring nodes. That is, the unit whole that
> someone gives is divided amongst all of the other nodes.
>
> I could place various conditions. For example, I might want to not pay out
> until I make a profit. Also say that I wish to have a convention such that
> 50% of what I make represents the unit whole that is divided amongst all of
> the other nodes. I'd say this would represent donate later, or pay later if
> there was some sort of obligation like investors. Another model for pay
> later could be a convention such that whatever I owe people is what I owe,
> and whatever this adds up to would be the unit whole for all of the
> neighboring nodes. Pay now would be a little different. Say I want to buy
> something, but I want to give to each of the contributors. Than the
> contribution would be calculated somehow, maybe in labor content as Paul
> Cockshott and Allin Cottrell suggest in A New Socialism, or maybe by the
> crowd by voting like in Better Means [2]. The main difference would be that
> labor content could be predetermined by some entity (I'm going to have to
> go back to the book) in Towards a New Socialism, and democratically by the
> group involved in Better Means. (Thanks Pavlik Elf!) Donate now doesn't
> have to be based on anything, but I may want to follow the payment scheme
> put out by pay now. I could also independently decide what I wish to donate
> to each neighboring node.
>
> Goods and services could also be used in place of money. Food for thought.
> I ran accross a startup called Producia that uses a time based currency
> called fini for college students (http://checkthis.com/producism).
>
> In practice this could be a bit different. Ripple [3] is worth checking
> out. They found an ingenious way of routing around money in a distributed
> way.
> Also, I'm not sure at this point why linked data could be helpful for
> payments. I'd like to find this out. Payswarm is one such example. It is
> supposed to keep track of things,
> so that things can be paid for. It's been bothering me that Ripple and
> Payswarm use JSON [5], [6]. On the other hand this could be a good thing.
>
> Thanks Patrick for your insightful questions! You motivated me to answer
> them.
>
> [1] Towards a New Socialism:
> http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/
> [2] Bettermeans Introduction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAlnMWlvw9g
> [3] Ripple: https://ripple.com/
> [4] Payswarm: https://payswarm.com/
> [5] (Ripple) JSON API: https://ripple.com/wiki/JSON_API
> [6] JSON-LD: http://json-ld.org/
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> > As far as interest
>>
>> Sorry to be dumb, but what do you mean by 'interest'?
>>
>> There is no monetary interest in the system I described.
>>
>> Where would the interest be coming from that you refer to?
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Brent Shambaugh
>
> I've worked with polymers, I teach chemistry, I'm currently researching
> how to build better economies.
> Website: http://adistributedeconomy.blogspot.com
>



-- 
Brent Shambaugh

I've worked with polymers, I teach chemistry, I'm currently researching how
to build better economies.
Website: http://adistributedeconomy.blogspot.com