more email excerpts to clarify Prowl/Tyaga's Trusteeship Approach

[els]

From a 2009-03-22 email:

>I agree with him that in a small community ...

I agree, and that practical constraint is being factored into my
implementation package design.


>I actually think non-profit should issue their own currency and redeem it for value delivered. This seems to be compatible with your views.

If you mean that nonprofit.org's currency brand could be redeemed for
the products of bayer.com, then yes, our views are compatible.

The trusteeship viewpoint is important in understanding my proposed
interentity trade dynamics, e.g., if a company such as bayer.com
specializes in producing medicine, then by accepting payment from a
credit recipient of nonprofit.org's currency brand, bayer would simply
fulfill its self-determined mission (resulting in the cancellation of
self-accrued debits and no direct increase in bayer.com's purchasing
power). Notice that corporations, government units, nonprofits, etc.
already independently issue mission statements, based on perceived
market demand (which should really be viewed as 'market needs' by
responsible trustees).

Farther, if nonprofit.org is not able to show due diligence in
fulfilling its entity-determined obligation to the market, then
bayer.com would have a good reason to reject nonprofit.org's currency
brand. That is why my information system plan emphasizes transparency
to promote auditability and evaluation of each entity's market
performance.


>What I haven't figured out (including in your framework) is how to deal with organizations with measurable wealth creation goals, but no tradable wealth, in particular healthcare. What kind of currency brand do they issue, what do they redeem it for?

I hope my preceding explanation helps clarify this issue. Remember the
ideal of not reinventing anything if at all possible? In a trusteeship-
based economy, a nonprofit should expect that the majority of its
revenue stream would also come from voluntary donations of independent
currency brands - just like it is today, with the difference that we
use generic currencies right now.

A nonprofit, and any other entity for that matter, will issue its own
currency brand to help build its reputation as a self-regulating
entity that yields consistent products and/or service to the general
public (aks community or market.) Tyaga's approach is mostly to give
information on who an entity should support with its service or
products - not so much how to trade with currencies.


>By the way, there are some interested links between your framework and Chris Cook's opencapital.net model. I wonder what consequence your see of the adoption of your framework in terms of corporate structure. For instance, would shareholders be paid in the currency brand of the company?

Opencapital.net tries to spread risk and rewards. Tyaga.org tries to
isolate each currency brand's reputation from affecting another. See
http://satconomy.org/2009/03/17/currency-traceability-madoff-and-aig-bailout/
as an example. To some extent, my vision is similar to how stocks
independently fluctuate in value in a healthy market. (But note that
in Tyaga's approach, the information is used to determine qualitative
and absolute 'acceptable/not acceptable currency brand', rather than a
relative quantification of exhange rates.

I do not envision significant market restructuring - again, minimal
disruption to standard practice of today. There will be sole
proprietorships, corporations, churches, school districts, nonprofits,
government units, etc., the workplace pretty much staying as is but
each entity maintaining its own independent currency brand.

A corporation could reward its executive with 500times more currency
units than the lowest paid employee if it wants to. If other entities
and market participants think that is unfair, then they could put
pressure on particular entities by not accepting certain currency
brands as payment.