Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6966Re: Generalizing Peer Production into the Physical World

Expand Messages
  • cjenscook
    Nov 5, 2007
      The conventional view remains that the choice is EITHER:

      (a) Public = State owned; OR

      (b) Private = "owned by a "Joint Stock Limited Liability Company"
      aka "Corporation".

      and EITHER

      (a) "Equity" in a Corporation; or

      (b) Debt in the form of credit created by a credit intermediary, aka
      a Bank.

      Well, it just ain't so: here in Scotland we don't just have "Guilty"
      and "Not Guilty" we also have "Not Proven" and the new enterprise
      models now emerging lie in that "uncertain" space.

      ie there are new legal mechanisms/ protocols which may be used
      instead of "the Corporation" to create new - and possibly optimal -
      financing solutions.

      For instance, in Canada, Trust law has been used to create an entire
      new asset class - "Income Trusts" - allowing listed Companies to sell
      off "units" in their GROSS revenues.

      Pension funds love these because they get their hands on revenues
      before the management does, and shareholders love them because they
      get their hands on money now without the fixed overhead costs and
      risks of debt.

      Trust law is essentially judge-made and is complex and costly (which
      is why lawyers love it) with tax issues for other professionals also
      to make money out of, plus management conflicts.

      It was Michael Bauer, I think, who came up with the phrase "Open
      Corporate" here a few years ago in the context of "Common Source".

      I believe that the use of consensual partnership-based protocols,
      like the US LLC and the UK LLP - a true "Open" Corporate now also
      available in Dubai, Qatar, Japan, and shortly, India - allow simple
      new mechanisms with cross-border application - a form of legal XML if
      you like.

      By putting property into "trust" with a custodian, and then creating
      simple revenue-sharing agreements between the providers
      of "financial" and "intellectual" capital it is possible to develop
      property of all types in a simple and straightforward way.

      I wrote this


      almost six years ago in the context of global markets, where I
      continute to be engaged in developing new - peer-to-peer - market

      For those interested in conspiracy theories, the "Iran Oil Bourse" -
      about which so much nonsense was all over the Net - was my idea, and
      is in fact still quietly ticking over...

      Best Regards

      Chris Cook

      --- In decentralization@yahoogroups.com, Julian Bond
      <julian_bond@...> wrote:
      > Scott Feamster <sf@...> Sun, 4 Nov 2007 14:57:16
      > >However, history has already proven that market/capitalist
      economies are
      > >better than peer/communist economies, except for communist party
      > >Were communist gulags fun?
      > >
      > >Additionally, market economies allow for voluntary peer economies
      > >them. Communist economies are command and control.
      > This really isn't the forum but I couldn't let that pass without a
      > comment. IMHO mixed Capitalist/Socialist/Peer economies provide the
      > highest quality of life for the greatest number. But even these
      > from excessive centralised control. Wherever command and control is
      > de-centralised it seems to improve things, but there is constant
      > pressure in all the tribes to aggregate power into the centre.
      > And of course, centralised-decentralised, and controlling-anarchic
      > both orthogonal to capitalist-communist.
      > ps. Anarcho-Capitalist or Anarcho-Syndicalist, that's the real
      > --
      > Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907
      > Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412
      > Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?
      > *** Just Say No To DRM ***
    • Show all 28 messages in this topic