Re: I considered presenting

I'm sorry if I was in any way rude. Thanks.


On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Brent Shambaugh
<brent.shambaugh@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
Brent Shambaugh

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