Comment: There has to be another way to organize

(See in situ)

There has to be another way to organize

Incorporation, as a principle of social organization - people submitting their will to a great scheme of productive effort - ought to be limited (economically) to the enterprise in particular.

That is to say, there is a demand for shirts. A group of people organize, in terms of capital and labor, to produce shirts then sell them. The demand is met, the corporation disbands. This is in a period of time T.

Now, demand can be constant. Supply can create demand, corporations can create demand and so economic productivity can result from a corporation trying to 'exist for its own sake'.

Seriously. Hostess shut down, why shouldn't McDonald's eventually, once people decide it's patently unhealthy and won't eat there. Why is it not okay for corporations to die when their enterprise has met its end?

But again, on the other hand, industrial enterprise requires infrastructure and layers of production. Acquiring, building new machines for a project, would inspire a corporation to keep that inventory of machines to extract further value out of the investment of building them.

So what if the machines, the labor (physical, intellectual, organizational), the capital, the services (marketing, HR) were all contracted out to micro-corporate entities.

A business would work like a movie. A 'producer' or CEO hires different managers, different art studios, works with a 'studio' (which owns the machines), to produce a 'run' of goods like how a movie is produced.

In the age of telecommunication, modular equipment, and so forth, this could be possible. I know it would create such a versatile market that wealth would explode, as would equality. CEOs could still demand a fortune in salary, but far less than they get now.

The question is, what is a legal foundation for this type of organization, and how does it follow organically from principles of liberty and economics?

Perhaps if our financial system was built around goods ownership and labor contract, rather than an arbitrary medium of exchange, this would happen naturally.

I mean something like traded certificates redeemable for specific goods in inventory. Labor contracts which can be traded. So an architect can sell you his man-hours for your corn even if you don't require his services, because you can trade them.

Large financial institutions would basket these certificates transparently to form currency notes of even greater utility. Similar institutions would issue the notes for, say, the architect. He couldn't himself, but if NewBank issued his notes they'd be trusted. Everyone knows NewBank thoroughly vets their clients' abilities, determines a proper issue of man-hour certificate given the professional's actual working habits and schedule.

Rating agencies could give value to certificates. An architects, engineers, and city planners' ratings office could rack, stack, rank and rate different professionals according to the quality of their work. While NewBank issues certificates based on quantitative work capability, NewBank offers to stamp said certificates with the AEC ratings office score which can increase the value of the certificate.

Assuming robotic workers and an advanced economy, actual man hours of labor for all would be few. A person could trade their potential to work for value without certificates necessarily being cashed. Imagine what this would do for emergency workers?

A corporate project would be nothing more than a massive financial transaction. See, labor itself won't be certified per se, only professional labor, or labor of a specific nature. A ditch digger can go spend 4 hours and get ditch dug certified, and that stamp will allow PeoplesBank to issue the digger digging certificates. These can then be traded. Someone who needs diggers will contract a labor organizer who trades for digging certificates and redeems them. PeoplesBank issuance of digging certificates specifies a 24 hour warning period before initial redemption. The PB notes are redeemed with PeoplesBank which then contacts the ditch digger with the contract to be completed. If the ditch digger fails to show, or falls sick, etc., his PeoplesBank recalls the certificates.

Whole agencies could keep track of voided certificates as a service. In a fully employed economy, even the lazy find work. A guy that doesn't show for a contract won't necessarily have his certificates voided, but his 'rating' will fall tremendously.

In a fully employed economy, one can imagine competition for labor, incredible projects of vast scale and flowing money. A company might find it worthwhile to pay the cost for labor certificates of people who have a 50% chance of not showing. Granted, with a bad rating, one's certificates are worth little.

In fact, under this system, there is no wage. The employer does not pay the employee, only trades for certificates and redeems them. The value of the labor is gained by the laborer upon the issuance of the credit.

Anyway, I think that's the best way to do money. Not gold and silver. This system is dynamic, fair, representative of real value, provides maximum versatility, and retains as much wealth as possible in the hands of those who created it.

Cheap labor will still be cheap labor, but the power of originating value lies with the laborer, not the capitalist. So value trickles up from the base to the top, rather than down. This is the economic equivalent of innocent until proven guilty (banker loans being guilty until innocent). But the capitalist still has the advantage!

Anyone who can organize people in such a complex system, trade well by proper analysis of the value of different goods and services, and anticipate in a visionary sense the new value created by an enterprise, would deserve the lion's share of profits.

Government's role in this business would be only to ensure transparency and persecute clear fraud. A laborer who lied about working would not receive government action, the market would punish his failure. A business that inflated its certificates or marketed their product above its actual quality - no action from government. An outright lie - trading for 50 certificates and getting 25 - trading a certificate that claims to represent a labor contract when the party providing labor never agreed to such a contract - this would be accompanied PERHAPS by action from government.

As the vast majority of wealth will be produced through this system, there will be room for informal wealth as well. The complexity of this system leaves room for traditional barter in community and small settings where the transaction costs would be too high. Babysitting, food sharing, flea markets, etc. This would necessarily foster a great spirit of cooperation because of the surplus of informal wealth and the lack of one overarching medium of exchange. If money is segmented according to use and market, there is no 'dollar' or 'gold', 'peso' or 'pound'. Without any cheap easy universal medium informal wealth would be expensive to trade other than through barter or general exchange of goodwill. Cooperation would be economical.

On the other hand, complex, industrial projects and interchanges in society are well served by this complex money system.

Okay, enough of that, chew on it people as I do. Bed time for sure!