[P2P-F] Crowd Control: Funding Freedom in Closed-Loop Production Aggregates

[Michel Bauwens]

patrick,

can you explain 'closed loop'?

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com>wrote:

> This hybrid approach uses Imputed Production at it's core
> with optional funding from traditional Venture Capital.
>
> ----
>
> * Potential users pre-pay to fund the purchase
>  of land and capital to form a vertically integrated,
>  permaculture based system we call a Production Aggregate.
>
> * This Aggregate is a set of carefully chosen plants, animals
>  and tools required to create the solutions needed by all
>  of those workers such as food/drugs, shelter, cloth, soap,
>  sanitation, health care, dental, eyes, etc.
>
> * If a payer has skills needed by the Aggregate, they can
>  contract to work somewhere within the Aggregate in exchange
>  for the Aggregate supplying them with Products they need.
>
> * Those workers receive co-ownership in the Aggregate in a
>  form we call "Use Shares" which are similar to full co-
>  ownership, but with some initial limitations on selling
>  or renting those Tools or Products.
>
> * Use Shares are used by the holder to prove that he has the
>  right to use the Tools (limited by schedule) or consume some
>  of the Products (limited by % of holdings within that Unit)
>  of any restaurant, apartment, bus, hospital, etc. operating
>  within the Aggregate.
>
> * The workers do not buy products from the investors, but own
>  those products already because of their Use Shares in the
>  Aggregate awarded for commitments to Work or from commitments
>  of Land or Capital.
>
> * After some amount of time, or after some series of events
>  the Use Shares should vest more fully to the payer to
>  allow for selling and/or renting of those Sources or the
>  Products of those Sources.
>
> * Initial stages of development might have some workers living
>  in mobile homes and eating food the Aggregate bought in bulk.
>
> * Later, after the agriculture is installed and producing, the
>  system will become "self hosted", being able to operate
>  without requiring any external inputs.
>
> * Soon afterward, the system will be producing surplus that can
>  be sold to outsiders to collect Profit.
>
> * If Venture Capitalists helped fund the operation, part of the
>  Profit will be used as their ROI.
>
> * We may want to distribute part of the Profit to the Workers,
>  since that is a popular thing to do.
>
> * We may we to distribute part of the Profit to random charities,
>  since that is a popular thing to do.
>
> * But we MUST handle some non-zero % of the Profits as though
>  that overpayment were an investment from the payer.
>
> * We should charge Profit during those sales, for if we don't
>  collect the Profit, a middle-man will buy all that we offer
>  at Cost, and then resell it for a Profit anyway...
>
> * So we will charge Profit against the Payer, but we will also
>  treat (at least part of) that magic value as Payer Investment.
>
> * This causes these late-coming users to slowly gain ownership
>  and therefore to eventually stop buying that product too.
>
> * Similar to how the GNU GPL enforces Copyleft through Copyright,
>  we propose to create a PropertyLeft document enforced through
>  Property Rights used to apply this requirement to the Aggregate.
>
> * This social contract can be applied by co-owners of any
>  material assets to insure freedom for all users.
>
> * Notice this is also a literal form of Insurance.
>
> * These users must cover all the real cost of production
>  just as any owners do, but they do not buy the product
>  since they own it already - and they don't sell the
>  product because they need to use it directly.
>
> * The product is not traded unless there is surplus, and
>  in that case the Payer must cover all the Costs of that
>  production so the owner of Sources can be compensated
>  for paying when they didn't need to...
>
> * The Payer will usually also pay Profit, according to how
>  much the "market will bear".  Some % of that overpayment
>  must be treated as an investment from that payer so the
>  growth of the Aggregate is incrementally autodistributed
>  to all those willing to pay for that growth.
>
> * At some point, and under certain constraints, and mostly
>  to resolve disputes, subgroups must finally be allowed to
>  fork from the rest while retaining property ownership.
>
> _______________________________________________
> P2P Foundation - Mailing list
> http://www.p2pfoundation.net
> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>



-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110715/994d043a/attachment.htm