|Subject:||Re: Vertically Integrated Permaculture Mosaic|
|Date:||Mon, 25 Jun 2012 22:05:59 +0100|
On Jun 25, 2012 9:26 PM, "Patrick Anderson" <address@hidden> wrote:
> Ramana Kumar wrote:
> > what happens when someone wants to
> > eat all the fruit on the tree he co-owns?
> The allocation is not arbitrary, it is clearly
> determined by the amount of co-ownership
> each co-owner has - combined with the
> question as to whether he has 'paid' his
> portion of the recurring costs.
> In the end, after Vertical Integration is
> complete, the only costs will be labor.
> The other co-owners will not allow this
> because he would be stealing from them.
> For example:
> Imagine 3 people co-own a tree.
> Co-owner #1 has bought and pays the
> recurring costs for 20% of the tree.
> Co-owner #2 has bought and pays the
> recurring costs for 30% of the tree.
> Co-owner #1 has bought and pays the
> recurring costs for 50% of the tree.
> Each co-owner is the individual owner
> of his % of the product according to
> the amount he has co-ownership in the
> Means of Production and if he pays
> his portion of the recurring costs.
> So #1 receives 20% of the fruit,
> #2 receives 30%, and #3 gets 50%.
OK that seems good apart from transaction costs. I'll try to explain further below.
> > How is your answer better than the method
> > where individuals buy and sell the fruit
> > (perhaps where picking from the tree entails
> > buying as an individual from the group of
> > which one is a member) and how is it worse?
> I have already given two reasons:
> 1.) Since there is no purchase, the Price the
> consumer pays is exactly the Costs he paid.
> 2.) Since there is no purchase, there is no
> chance for external governments to tax or
> harass you for selling things they think you
> should not be selling.
> Another reason is:
> 3.) Since you own your portion *already*, even
> before it is produced (assuming you 'pay'
> your portion of the recurring Costs), that
> co-ownership becomes a real insurance
> for that particular Product.
Sounds great. We just need property rights to be protected.
> There are other reasons that are more difficult
> to explain, but are very powerful.
> For example,
> Imagine you co-own a Dentist office with 1,000
> other people that will likely need dental services
> in the future.
> Now, if you and the other patients agree to commit
> some of your future labor in return for a Dentist
> agreeing to service your teeth in the future, then
> you will have *real* dental insurance.
Those commitments are presumably contracts. Let's hear more about the details of implementation, because I imagine it could get very involved for the dentist to know which shops and services he can use for free and which are expired.
Actually it might be better to have the details worked out by a realisation of this idea in response to their actual needs and ingenuity. So let's hear of examples of actual VIPMs or a proposal to start one as a test. What would be a good type of product to try it with? Filehosting? Strawberries? Language-learning resources? Wireless networks?
> One of the subtle advantages to this approach is
> how it changes the Dentist's outlook on the health
> of that group's teeth.
> Since he will receive the benefits of those patients
> working on his behalf in the orchards and the cafes
> and the dairies and the factories, etc. in return for
> simply maintaining their teeth, he wants their teeth
> to always be perfectly healthy so he can do the
> minimum work possible.
> This is in stark contrast to the usual Dentist who
> (secretly) wants you to have problems with your
> teeth so he has a reason to work on them - for it
> is only when you suffer that he is paid.
> I wish I could write that more clearly. Let me know
> if you understand or not.
I do understand the appeal of this way of structuring incentives. It is deeply satisfying. I worry I'm failing to see some reason why it can't work, which makes me more eager to try it out on a small scale.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|