Profit as Payer Investment
Patrick Anderson
> what are the two terms you discovered?
First some clarification:
These terms would be voluntarily applied by a group
of co-owners, and are not a moral call to change any
thing or any person outside of that scope.
This can be thought of as a GNU GPL for the physical
realm. just as Copyleft is enforced through Copyright,
this is PropertyLeft enforced through Property Rights.
0.) Attract Consumers to pre-pay for products, and use
those funds to purchase and build the Physical Sources
required for that production.
1.) The ROI is product itself, which is not paid from the
group to individual owners, but is the property of those
individuals already, as a side-effect of their having
ownership in the Sources of that production.
2.) There is no need to ever sell the Product unless
any individual decides he has a surplus. In that case,
the individual can offer his surplus for sale, and can
charge Price above Cost (Profit) against those late-
comers, but all Profit must be treated as though it
were an investment from the consumer who paid it.
> Do you intend to start an organization?
I've been trying to understand how I would do that,
but am still too cowardly to go through with it, as I
am very much not a PR kind of person.
I have $50k saved-up which I am willing to commit
toward such an endeavor, and want to begin as soon
as possible, but need first to be able to convey this
simple but for some very reason slippery concept.
Ben Goertzel
But rather than starting an org to promote your idea in the abstract,
it seems to me the best way to advance this idea would be to find a
simple case in which to implement it initially.... Show a "working
prototype" of the idea, in other words --- that will get people
interested, and get you press coverage which is way better than paid
PR...
-- Ben Goertzel
--
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
CTO, Genescient Corp
Chairman, Humanity+
Adjunct Professor of Cognitive Science, Xiamen University, China
Advisor, Singularity University and Singularity Institute
b...@goertzel.org
"My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Devin Balkind
Devin Balkind wrote:
> what are the two terms you discovered?
First some clarification:
These terms would be voluntarily applied by a group
of co-owners, and are not a moral call to change any
thing or any person outside of that scope.
This can be thought of as a GNU GPL for the physical
realm. just as Copyleft is enforced through Copyright,
this is PropertyLeft enforced through Property Rights.
0.) Attract Consumers to pre-pay for products, and use
those funds to purchase and build the Physical Sources
required for that production.
I think 'consumers' is a problematic word. "Users?"
1.) The ROI is product itself, which is not paid from the
group to individual owners, but is the property of those
individuals already, as a side-effect of their having
ownership in the Sources of that production.
Is this similar to a share where people who own shares are entitled to the production via dividend?
2.) There is no need to ever sell the Product unless
any individual decides he has a surplus. In that case,
the individual can offer his surplus for sale, and can
charge Price above Cost (Profit) against those late-
comers, but all Profit must be treated as though it
were an investment from the consumer who paid it.
So does profit go to the owner of the product or to the community as a reinvestment?
> Do you intend to start an organization?
I've been trying to understand how I would do that,
but am still too cowardly to go through with it, as I
am very much not a PR kind of person.
What would this organization do?
I have $50k saved-up which I am willing to commit
toward such an endeavor, and want to begin as soon
as possible, but need first to be able to convey this
simple but for some very reason slippery concept.
Have you written out use cases?
--
Devin Balkind
@devinbalkind
vitamindwb.com
Patrick Anderson
> I'm involved with FLO Farm, a 200 acre landscape in PA.
> We're looking for cooperative ownership models that
> respect the work of everyone who participates. Maybe
> you'll be able to help us.
> I think 'consumers' is a problematic word. "Users?"
Yes, I understand. Sometimes I call them "Payers" to
avoid the negative associations and to highlight the fact
that growth is coming from the workers overpaying on the
'input' side of their struggle.
>> 1.) The ROI is product itself
> Is this similar to a share where people who own shares
> are entitled to the production via dividend?
If by 'dividend' you mean Product, then yes.
If by 'dividend' you mean Profit, then no.
Product is the natural and original ROI.
Profit only occurs when the Product is sold, and the
Product will only be sold when there is surplus.
In that case, the Product will be sold to Users who
do not yet have the sufficient Source ownership, and
the only reason they are paying Profit is because
they have no way to pay Costs alone because they have
no control over the Production itself.
Profit can be thought of as a measure of the Payer's
dependence upon the current Owners.
Profit must be treated as that Payer's Investment
because that will incrementally increase that Payer's
Source ownership - causing Profit, on the whole, to
safely and naturally approach zero, as it should.
In "systems theory" terms this is called a negative-
feedback loop.
If you (co-)own a milk cow, you will need to pay all
the Costs of that production (including any Wages),
but you wouldn't buy milk each week since you own that
Product *already* as a side-effect of your owning the
Sources of that product.
>> 2.) There is no need to ever sell the Product unless
>> any individual decides he has a surplus. In that case,
>> the individual can offer his surplus for sale, and can
>> charge Price above Cost (Profit) against those late-
>> comers, but all Profit must be treated as though it
>> were an investment from the consumer who paid it.
>>
>
> So does profit go to the owner of the product or to the
> community as a reinvestment?
This is something that is not yet perfectly clear to me.
I think the Profit needs to be collected by the Seller
(or by the community if he is leaving it in the
storehouse to be sold for him...), and I think the Seller
or community needs to remain in control of that value
for some amount of time or until some conditions are met,
but I don't know what they are.
What I mean is: Profit must be invested in the Sources of
the Product from which it was derived (for example, if we
were to sell a hamburger to a non-owner, the Profit would
be invested in Beef cattle, Tomato plants, Wheat fields,
Chickens (for mayo), spice plants, salt mines, and all the
land and water rights needed to support that production).
But I don't think we can immediately vest that ownership
to the Payer, because I am worried most Payers will choose
to just sell those shares and thereby relinquish control
they would otherwise gain for their future benefit...
Then again, maybe disallowing immediate vestment is being
too invasive and "nanny-state". What are your thoughts?
> What would this organization do?
I want to focus on fundamental needs such as food and
shelter, but finally be a replacement for any and all
Products had through the 'regular' economy. One vision
is to start a hotel/restaurant/grocery that would look
mostly normal from the outside, but would have a strange
kind of receipt that itemized the Payer's contribution -
showing what % was used to cover the Costs of that
purchase, and also showing the estimated Profit which
would appear as a tiny share of co-ownership in the new
Sources that will be purchased and built using those
funds, and which will eventually vest to that Payer.
> Have you written out use cases?
I think maybe I have, but could you give me an example
of what you mean so I can be sure I am answering?
Thanks,
Patrick Anderson
http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com
Devin Balkind
> I think 'consumers' is a problematic word. "Users?"Yes, I understand. Sometimes I call them "Payers" to
avoid the negative associations and to highlight the fact
that growth is coming from the workers overpaying on the
'input' side of their struggle.
How about 'participants?'
>> 1.) The ROI is product itself
> Is this similar to a share where people who own sharesIf by 'dividend' you mean Product, then yes.
> are entitled to the production via dividend?
If by 'dividend' you mean Profit, then no.
Product is the natural and original ROI.
Understood.
Profit only occurs when the Product is sold, and the
Product will only be sold when there is surplus.
In that case, the Product will be sold to Users who
do not yet have the sufficient Source ownership, and
the only reason they are paying Profit is because
they have no way to pay Costs alone because they have
no control over the Production itself.
This is interesting - seems to turn profit into charity. A 'user' purchases the excess because they don't have the resources to purchase a share. The more 'profit' you produce, the more you can gift to the commons.... I've been working on a 'commons-backed' currency plan in which the more 'excess' you produce the more currency you can mint. Could this be consistent with your vision? I'd love feedback.
Profit can be thought of as a measure of the Payer's
dependence upon the current Owners.
Profit must be treated as that Payer's Investment
because that will incrementally increase that Payer's
Source ownership - causing Profit, on the whole, to
safely and naturally approach zero, as it should.
So the people who give more surplus control more of the Product? I don't really get this...
In "systems theory" terms this is called a negative-
feedback loop.
If you (co-)own a milk cow, you will need to pay all
the Costs of that production (including any Wages),
but you wouldn't buy milk each week since you own that
Product *already* as a side-effect of your owning the
Sources of that product.
This is something that is not yet perfectly clear to me.
>> 2.) There is no need to ever sell the Product unless
>> any individual decides he has a surplus. In that case,
>> the individual can offer his surplus for sale, and can
>> charge Price above Cost (Profit) against those late-
>> comers, but all Profit must be treated as though it
>> were an investment from the consumer who paid it.
>>
>
> So does profit go to the owner of the product or to the
> community as a reinvestment?
I think the Profit needs to be collected by the Seller
(or by the community if he is leaving it in the
storehouse to be sold for him...), and I think the Seller
or community needs to remain in control of that value
for some amount of time or until some conditions are met,
but I don't know what they are.
I'd imagine different needs and different products would require different system configurations. Instead of thinking about the optimal configuration, it might be worth outlining what the different options are, what configurations would emerge and what the best configurations are for different scenarios/use cases.
What I mean is: Profit must be invested in the Sources of
the Product from which it was derived (for example, if we
were to sell a hamburger to a non-owner, the Profit would
be invested in Beef cattle, Tomato plants, Wheat fields,
Chickens (for mayo), spice plants, salt mines, and all the
land and water rights needed to support that production).
But I don't think we can immediately vest that ownership
to the Payer, because I am worried most Payers will choose
to just sell those shares and thereby relinquish control
they would otherwise gain for their future benefit...
What would happened if "Payers" just chose to sell...?
Then again, maybe disallowing immediate vestment is being
too invasive and "nanny-state". What are your thoughts?
I want to focus on fundamental needs such as food and
> What would this organization do?
shelter, but finally be a replacement for any and all
Products had through the 'regular' economy. One vision
is to start a hotel/restaurant/grocery that would look
mostly normal from the outside, but would have a strange
kind of receipt that itemized the Payer's contribution -
showing what % was used to cover the Costs of that
purchase, and also showing the estimated Profit which
would appear as a tiny share of co-ownership in the new
Sources that will be purchased and built using those
funds, and which will eventually vest to that Payer.
Where do you live?
I think maybe I have, but could you give me an example
> Have you written out use cases?
of what you mean so I can be sure I am answering?
Use cases are scenarios. If I used your system to acquire milk from a cow, how would it work? What is each step?
Thanks,
Patrick Anderson
http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com
Patrick Anderson
> How about 'participants?'
Any term is fine as long as we keep track of
who pays.
> the more 'profit' you produce, the
> more you can gift to the commons
This is a bit misleading, because profit is not
produced by the current owners, but measures
the payer's dependence upon those owners.
Profit disappears (is undefined) when all users
have sufficient ownership, for at that point, there
is no longer any reason to sell the product since
it will already be the property of those who use it.
> .... I've been working on a 'commons-backed'
> currency plan in which the more 'excess' you
> produce the more currency you can mint. Could
> this be consistent with your vision?
Probably. I have worked on a system myself, and
will try to post about that soon, though I wonder
if the admins feel such discussion is outside the
scope of this list?
>> Profit can be thought of as a measure of the Payer's
>> dependence upon the current Owners.
>>
>> Profit must be treated as that Payer's Investment
>> because that will incrementally increase that Payer's
>> Source ownership - causing Profit, on the whole, to
>> safely and naturally approach zero, as it should.
>>
>
> So the people who give more surplus
> control more of the Product?
No, the people who have surplus do not *give*
it to anyone, they *sell* it to those who do not
yet have enough.
The PAYER is the one causing the collective
to grow, and is also the one who receives
ownership of that new growth.
I'll give an example which might help clarify:
Let's say Mr. A is an established member of the
collective, and has ownership in a little bit more
Olive trees than he can use for himself.
If he sells any of that fruit or even the oil, he is
required (according to the Terms of Operation of
the collective) to treat any Price above Cost (any
Profit) as Payer investment.
Since he doesn't want to deal with trying to sell
the Olives directly, he just registers them at the
storehouse, where all users come to buy that
which they need, or to collect what is theirs
according to the amount of ownership they have.
Now, Ms. B comes along as a visitor to the area.
She has no ownership in Olive trees, she just wants
some spaghetti that happens to include olives.
She buys the meal from the collective and pays
Price above Cost (pays Profit), a total of $5.
She doesn't do this for charitable reasons, she does
this because this is how Capitalism always treats
here - the market always charges more than Cost -
for that is the purported *purpose* of production!
She is given a receipt that shows the $3 she paid
covers the Costs of delivering that meal, while the
extra $2 are to be treated as her investment - and
which will vest to her as real co-ownership at some
time in the future.
> What would happened if "Payers" just chose to sell...?
Well, that means they would not be gaining
ownership in the growth of the collective, and so
would remain at the mercy of (dependent upon) those
who *do* have ownership.
>
> Where do you live?
Utah.
> Use cases are scenarios. If I used your system
> to acquire milk from a cow, how would it work?
> What is each step?
Roughly:
A group of potential consumers pre-pay for raw milk.
Those funds are used to buy the cattle and equipment
and to pay the worker wages - though it is even more
effective if some of the users are qualified and willing
to do the work, for then we do not have to pay income
taxes.
The consumer-investors do not buy the milk back from
the collective others, but own it already - as a result
of their co-ownership in the Sources of that production.
This means we do not have to pay sales tax, because
the product is not being sold.
Later, as the collective grows in size and efficiency,
some of the members may have surplus milk they
cannot use for themselves. They can do anything with
this milk that they want *except*: if they sell the milk,
they must treat Profit as though it were an Investment
from the User who paid it.