REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Libertarian and Anarchist Society Part IV

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, February 14, 2008 21:54
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6241
PAGE 3 of 4

Friday, February 8, 2008 9:52 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"And if their opinion of what they need for their survival and security is greater than what you think fair?"
It's not about what I think is fair - it's what the people around them think is fair. Some people will always be more anxious and needy. Some will be greedy. Some want power, some are inhumane. If people, on interaction with others, decide that those others are acting out of fear or greed they have the option to not cooperate, and to disassociate themselves. As I said earlier, as if those people were carrying contagion.

"I'm not sure that $7,000 a year per person would be that comfortable."
In some countries where most people live on less than a dollar a day, it would be unimaginable wealth. So, one would have to adjust the annual income proportionately. But in a world where you keep the full value of your work and where your exchange with others isn't supporting their 90% profit lifestyle, even in the US it would be a comfortable living.

"Why would the current system become unattractive? If a lot of folk are happy with mere survival, A lot more stuff is available for folk who want to actually enjoy themselves."
First of all I wasn't just talking about 'mere survival' - I also mentioned security (against happenstance and age) and comfort. So, nice job with your straw-man argument.
But to answer the real question - people would prefer it because (except for the independently wealthy) they pay for their goodies with deep insecurity - what if they lose their jobs ? What if they get sick ? What if the dollar loses value ? What happens when they get old ?
It's as if they are renting their lives - squandering on goodies since anything of real value is out of reach.
A system which guarantees they will be free of that, as will their children, and their children, and so on - looks better. It's a chance to be free of the insecurity of having your survival in the hands of others.
And then of course there is the vast global majority who are desperately scrambling day-to-day to not die just yet who would really like to be free of that.

"How so? Confiscate what the government thinks you have over the prescribed survival level?"
Again, nice job with the straw man argument. Government doesn't play into it. People do. Peers do. The community does with each and every interaction.

"Hardly, but if you don't get it by now, you never will."
I do get it. You want people to think that the only way to survive is to compete for scraps. You WANT capitalism and that's the only way to keep capitalism alive. B/c it doesn't run on the success of the few, but the servitude of the many who have no choice but to work at bad jobs for low wages, or else. Without that any semblance of capitalistic production and profit go out the window.

"True, since my disabled family member died and I don't look after her any more."
I offer my condolences. And a comment that providing for a disabled family member doesn't seem to have made a dent in your humanity. Otherwise you wouldn't be so careless of ill and disabled people in your brave new world, trusting them to the tender mercies of business.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 9:54 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"(limiting children) would constitute a form of extreme restraint and should be acknowledged as that"

Back in the day when children died early and often people had as many as they could as a form of insurance. In my society there's no need for that since you will always have what you need.


True, but irrelevant if we consider that our society has more than enough people getting more than "replacement" children from reasons far from survival of the species.

Quote:

In addition, in today's real world there isn't going to be 'enough' for more people. And even in an ideal world, 'more than replacement' means you still end up with too many people for the resources. It would take longer, but it would get there. And the world once again would become a deadly competition for mere survival.


I am not disputing that! That's a fact. It's more a matter of "rating" the emotional impact.

All I am saying is that it is a sacrifice that cannot be classed in the same category as "take no more than you need" because it involves different mechanisms.

Not taking more than you need involved not doing something.

Having no more than a certain number of children involves more than that. It involves reproductive vigilance against something that is not personally unwelcome. It involves doing particular things in order to avoid something. It's not something that involves passivity but activity and in a very personal sphere.

That sort of responsibility with ressources you reasonably propagate goes against our instincts, and while I think we are capable of it, it should very very much be aknowledged that it is far from easy, because it requires constant control. It makes sense as a way of living in terms of self-preservation, but I don't think it's something that humanity is built to sustain indefinitely.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 10:07 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"That sort of responsibility with ressources you reasonably propagate goes against our instincts, and while I think we are capable of it, it should very very much be aknowledged that it is far from easy, because it requires constant control. It makes sense as a way of living in terms of self-preservation, but I don't think it's something that humanity is built to sustain indefinitely."

If you watch your children playing and they are happy and healthy, free and secure - and you know it's the result of choices you and the people around you make - why would you want anything else ?


I realize we somewhat cross-posted so to address your earlier comment abut 'human nature':

Everyone 'knew' male baboons had a nasty nature and made life in the troop "nasty, brutish, and short" for everyone - other males, females, infants and youngsters, the old and infirm - until a few aggressive males in one troop cornered and ate the really good stuff - meat thrown out by a restaurant. But that meat happened to be contaminated with TB and all the worst males died. And completely unexpectedly the troop dynamic changed. Prime males only competed against prime males and females ran the show otherwise. And in fact that dynamic has survived not just through generations but also through imports of males socialized to be aggressive in other troops. Somehow they learn - we don't do things that way around here - and they behave. So what does that say about 'baboon nature' ?

On the flip side everyone 'knew' that chimps were social, cooperative and peaceful - until Jane Goodall, in her attempt to bring them out of hiding from the jungle - accidentally set food out in a big pile in her clearing. She spent months - literally - documenting all sorts of dominant and aggressive behavior against females, infants, youngsters, the old and submissive as well as other males - typical 'baboon-like' behavior in fact - until she realized it was pathological and caused by having fruit in one easily dominated pile - and scattered the fruit around. (BTW, that accidental experiment lead to an important behavioral test for primates, which is whether they will eat from the same pile.)

Animal 'nature' - including human nature - is subject to initial conditions. And in my society the benefits are all around - security, hope, freedom. When the benefits are obvious, different choices are made than when they are theoretical. That's b/c the 'initial conditions' are different.




***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 10:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Pensions
There are about a million ways to fund pensions, Anything from taxation (like Social Security) to equities. I can think of a lot hybrid schemes: For example, a yearly contribution which equals (say) a 1% portion of each cooperative member's "share" of the book value of the cooperative. But that's complex and subject to manipulation. I would look more at some form of straight individual contributions to a pension fund which could invest in loans and bonds.

Organisation and management
The issue that keeps most cooperatives from growing beyond "mom and pop"-sized entities is the insistence that everything be decided on by everybody, and that everybody take part in every task: from restocking to cashiering. So take apart the whole notion of organization and management and think about if from the ground up. "Managment" is a real function that adds value to larger organizations (despite the bloated salaries of top-echelon executives who do everything in their power to give managment a bad name). "Managers" can be employees, just like everyone else. They get to make day-to-day decisions. I envision that different kinds of cooperatives could have different "charters" which would include (for example) a management board. But there would be certain types of decisions that should always be deferred to a direct vote: expanding, contracting, individual hiring and firing, charter changes, wage structure etc.

Financing
The problem with cooperatives (and this goes back to your issue with the disadvantages they may face vis a vis other business forms) is that banks discriminate against cooperatives when it comes to loans. They really do. I've known people in cooperatives AND people in small business, and the traditional small business owner gets a much better break on credit. My restaurant owner friend (who dissolved the business BTW because his partners moved out of the area) got an unsecured Small Business Development Loan, which was backed by a local government. Seems like similar accomodations can be made.

Assets and liabilities
What I haven't fully thought out is that nature of a cooperative's assets and liabilities. I envision some sort of hybrid scheme where the cooperative is "the owner", but each employee is a partner. I'd have to think about what a series of theoretical "charters" would look like. As I said I imagine there could be several forms, from single-person cooperatives to cooperatives with a complex management structure.


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 10:47 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If you watch your children playing and they are happy and healthy, free and secure - why would you want anything else ?


Because we are not our children? Granted, I have no small children of my own, but going on the young parents I know, including the mother of my little sister with whom I have close contact, even they want lives beside their children.

That live is/used to be struggling to get by. Or striving to get ahead. Basically, it meant being honestly busy. Children happened parallel to that and watching your children be happy and healthy has a different entertainment value when there is a Very Real chance of them not being so. When struggling and that mind-occupying busyiness of striving is removed, is watching your children play really the only mental occupation one could ask for?

That balance point where we do not have to strive (should not, in fact), we do not really have much experience with that.

Are there examples for societies the way you propose it, that are not based on furthering survival chances, expansion, wealth?

Even primates are busy, in their way, and while we share many characteristics, humans are also much more complex than that.

Basically, I'm asking what beside leaning back on one's porch swing and watching the kids play, is a focus for human energy, our mental habit to strive, in the society you propose? I'm talking about goals here, since the classics "getting by" and "getting wealthier" are removed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 10:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


BTW, this is what I think about when I can't get to sleep. Would you like to hear about my plans for a self-sustaining "monastery"? How about my plans for a unique kind of dam that allows water flow all year but regulates floods?



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 10:48 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Pensions
There are about a million ways to fund pensions, Anything from taxation (like Social Security) to equities. I can think of a lot hybrid schemes: For example, a yearly contribution which equals (say) a 1% portion of each cooperative member's "share" of the book value of the cooperative. But that's complex and subject to manipulation. I would look more at some form of straight individual contributions to a pension fund.



You miss what I'm saying. When I pay money into a 401K they don't just add my weekly contribution to my shoebox and then I get to take money out when I retire. That money is put to work, invested, and the profits from that investment allow the principle to grow.

That's how come you can put 20% of your income away for 30 years and get more than 20% of your final income to live off when you retire. If you can't invest that income how does it grow? If you charge a pension tax and you still can't invest it you build a Ponzi scheme where current workers pay for the retires, great until you get something like the Boomer bubble. The only viable alternative would be if retirees retained some stake in the business and continue to be paid by it, but we've already seen in the motor industry what happens to company pension schemes if the firm hits hard times or just has too many retirees.


Quote:


Organisation and management
The issue that keeps most cooperatives from growing beyond "mom and pop"-sized entities is the insistence that everything be decided on by everybody, and that everybody take part in every task: from restocking to cashiering. So take apart the whole notion of organization and management and think about if from the ground up. "Managment" is a real function that adds value to larger organizations (despite the bloated salaries of top-echelon exectutives who do everything in their power to give managment a bad name). "Managers" can be employees, just like everyone else. They get to make day-to-day decisions. I envision that different kinds of cooperatives could have different "charters" which would include (for example) a management board. But there would be certain types of decisions that should always be deferred to a direct vote: expanding, contracting, individual hiring and firing, charter changes, wage structure etc.



In full agreement. In fact most of the world sees managers as only another type of employee, only in the US is it seen as some kind of class issue.



Quote:


Financing
The problem with cooperatives (and this goes back to your issue with the disadvantages they may face vis a vis other business forms) is that banks discriminate against cooperatives when it comes to loans. They really do. I've known people in cooperatives AND people in small business, and the traditional small business owner gets a much better break on credit. My restaurant owner friend (who dissolved the business BTW because his partners moved out of the area) got an unsecured Small Business Development Loan, which was backed by a local government. Seems like similar accomodations can be made.



I still not sure how that would work. I mean unsecured loans go bad. Now I'm sure you probably dont mind that if the money is being lost by a bank, but in this model that money is just as likely to be your pension. If anything this will make lenders more cautious about lending money and therefore the loans harderr to get. Oh and for the record your friend did not get an unsecured loan if it was guaranteed by the government, just that the promise to pay back the loan was made by someone else and not backed by his personal assets.

What is still unclear to me is this. If I start a business in my garage can I hire regular employees? If not and I am forced to take on partners is my initial investment of time/money/goodwill/capital reflected in some way? If I buy a building and that becomes the company premises is teh coop obligated to buy it from me or have I lost that asset the moment "employee #2" steps through the door?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 11:04 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


NO, you cannot hire "regular employees". You CAN contract with another cooperative for the services that you require.

AFA loans (and bonds): A loan would be backed by (if nothing else) the "book value" (I think it's called "net assest value") of the cooperative.

AFA pensions are concerned, I added a bit after your post which said that pension funds could invest in loans and bonds.

Back to work for me!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 11:05 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Agent -

"they want lives beside their children"

You misunderstood me, and I could have said it better. I wasn't intending to imply that people should ONLY be about their children - just that when it came to the decision of how many to have, people would understand that too many would break the promise of security for all - including the security for their children.

"Basically, I'm asking what beside leaning back on one's porch swing and watching the kids play, is a focus for human energy, our mental habit to strive, in the society you propose? I'm talking about goals here, since the classics "getting by" and "getting wealthier" are removed."

But you also seem to have missed the point that these people work for their living. No one is handing them anything. The difference is they have option of deciding what they will do. They do perform that honest work, but with the option of deciding how to do it better, the result of seeing their work come to fruition and the enjoyment of the the rewards of their labor.

And also that in their interactions with others, they know they are free to associate for mutual enjoyment, to educate themselves against the ideas of others, or to go where they please and seek out new work, new places, new ideas, new experiences and new people, without fear.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 11:21 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
NO, you cannot hire "regular employees". You CAN contract with another cooperative for the services that you require.



Could you cover the "employee #2" question.


Quote:


AFA loans (and bonds): A loan would be backed by (if nothing else) the "book value" (I think it's called "net assest value") of the cooperative.



Ok, if a cooperative hits a cash flow problem and can't afford to replay a bond when it becomes due, how does the bond owner recoup his money? Can he seize assets or does he have to force something like a bankruptcy in which he will be a creditor?

Quote:


AFA pensions are concerned, I added a bit after your post which said that pension funds could invest in loans and bonds.



okies.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 11:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Could you cover the "employee #2" question.
Oh, I see your question. The answer would be "yes", it becomes the "cooperative's" assets.


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 12:27 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I had forgotten, but another example of the cooperative movement is the state of Kerala in India.

www.kerala.gov.in/dept_coop/per_co_sec.htm

The way it's implemented has its pluses and minuses but Kerala is the healthiest, longest-lived, most transparent and gender-equitable state in India, with development indices at first-world levels.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 12:34 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Could you cover the "employee #2" question.
Oh, I see your question. The answer would be "yes", it becomes the "cooperative's" assets.


---------------------------------
Always look upstream.


Then why would anyone ever create a business? I mean seriously? I work 3 years plowing every spare penny into my startup, then the first guy through my door becomes a full partner for the sake of a stamp?

Here's the deal. I can see several classes of business that are by their nature "naturally cooperative friendly" for example, rather than having a construction company you might imagine a master builder, plumber, roofer and electrician forming a cooperative to tackle larger projects. Now anything they do collectively is common property and I think most folks would see that because the co-op bought it through pooled funds.

But those assets they had going in, like tools, trucks etc would surely remain personal property even if it's used for business purposes?

How many mechanics with several thousand dollars invested in a personal tool kit would join a garage coop if the coop gets to keep his tools if he leaves? So surely the founder of a company should retain any assets belonging to him unless the company itself buys that interest out (ie he sells the stuff to the company?)

Otherwise there is no interest in doing it, why would anyone? This essentially gets to the core of why modern capitalism is the way it is, industrialization caused a requirement for capital, because building a big factory is expensive, because of the amount of money involved the people providing the capital were able to get concessions on company structures that benefited their position.

It is extremely unlikely given this system that any project involving large capital investment will take off precisely because those needed to lend the money wouldn't have a stake in the business.

Also, imagine I'm someone like the Dyson Vacuum cleaner guy --the company is based on my invention. By your system I cant retain control over my own invention the moment I hire a single employee.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 12:51 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I can be a single-person "Cooperative" and still get to keep my tools if I wish. It's a hard concept to wrap your head around.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 1:17 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I can be a single-person "Cooperative" and still get to keep my tools if I wish. It's a hard concept to wrap your head around.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.



No I got that and I even see why things are set up like they are, but the fact remains that the asymetry that exists does so for a reason and that is that in large enterprises some people do more than others. Some people build the business, invent the product or finance the production and other people show up and earn a paycheck. Now if your system decides not to equitably reflect those differences then people won't go for it.

In the case of the building co-op all the parties contribute equaly to it's setup and success but other forms that may not be the case. The hourly worker that puts vacuums together for Mr Dyson obviously contributes his labour to the enterprise, but without Dyson's invention, and him sinking his own capital into making it work that worker would be making something else. Would Dyson have gone to that trouble or invested his own money if his contribution to the company was going to be seen as no greater than the guy that sweeps the gents toilet?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 1:29 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Let's take this piece by piece...
Quote:
Some people build the business
What does this mean? See opportunities for expansion? Be good in strategic planning? Be a great salesperson? If a cooperative wants a "strategic planner" on-board and they choose to pay a large salary... or hire a strategic planner consultant, they can still get their strategic planning. Ownership not required.
Quote:
invent the product
This is a question of intellectual property and reasearch funding, not production. We can tackle this later
Quote:
or finance the production
You mean take out a loan? Or get togther some venture capitalists? Isn't it the INVESTOR who takes the risk? Well, investors wil still be around
Quote:
and other people show up and earn a paycheck
And perhaps their paycheck is less than someone who creates more value for the cooperative.

All of the "functions" are there, just not capitalism.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 1:53 PM

FLETCH2


Read my example. Dyson thinks of a way to make a different type of vacuum cleaner, he finances the R&D from his own pocket and creates a company that he then owns. Lot's of companies start this way. Apple computer starts out with Steve Jobs selling a VW to buy components so that Woz can make Apple 1 boards. Microsoft starts out with Bill Gates and a buddy writing a Basic interpreter and trying to sell it. At this point there is no business, no corporation or cooperative, just people with ideas and/or money. Often there is no venture capitalist, Gates borrowed money, Jobs and Wozniak did tech odd jobs and a few barely legal things to get started. This is not big money and big business --- yet, and it's the way that companies, especially ones going into new industries start out.


Now in the current system folks like Gates and Jobs and Dyson have a reason to do what they do and that is the prospect that the companies they found hit big and they prosper. Some do but most don't, for every Apple there is an Altair or an Apricot, for every Microsoft there is a Digital Research or Borland, but the thing that makes people sell their cars to finance companies is the expectation that they will profit from this sacrifice.

I'll say it again.... at this point there is no company/cooperative or entity, just a guy with an idea. Now in this system at least as you explain it THAT guy, the founder, the one with the idea, becomes equal with everyone else once the coop gets started. Now that's a fine concept but here's a news flash -- the coop will only exist if this guy creates it. If it's not worth his time then he wont and not only will the company not exist but the jobs it would have produced for the guy that just worksd his 8 hours and goes home go too.

So, if there is no company just a guy with an idea, why in your system would he take any risk or make any sacrifice to create a business if in doing so he loses control of it and his idea?

I realise this is not exactly the same but bare with me. Imagine that just as you were about to enter college someone told you that they were passing a law that meant that chemists had to be paid the least in any company they worked at... even the toilet cleaner gets more... would you seeing that future still have gone with the major you did? Or would you have applied those years of study to something that would ultimately be rewarding? That's what we are talking about here, coops dont just exist, people have to create a business to do that. Why would they in your system?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 2:17 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Because he wants to.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 2:42 PM

FLETCH2


That's a weak answer.

I'm Steve Wozniak, I get up in the morning have a job at HP that pays well and has good security. I make enough so I can tinker with Computers at home. Why do I leave a safe job to strike out and do something new if in the end I'm just going to have what I already have now?

Most people that start companies are smart enough to do well anyway. Most have good prospects and a reasonable income if they just show up at their day job and collect a paycheck. Why would anyone give up that security, sacrifice time/money/capital where the best they could expect to achieve, the absolute best, is exactly what they have already if they just work 9-5?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 3:40 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Fletch, just to let you know, Bill Gates wrote dick.

"Microsoft starts out with Bill Gates and a buddy ..."


Gates and Allen had neither an interpreter nor even an Altair system on which to develop and test one. However, Allen had written an Intel 8008 emulator for their previous venture, Traf-O-Data, that ran on a PDP-10 time-sharing computer. He adapted this emulator based on the Altair programmer guide, and they developed and tested the interpreter on Harvard's PDP-10. Harvard officials were not pleased when they found out, but there was no written policy that covered the use of this computer.

They hired Harvard student Monte Davidoff to write floating-point arithmetic routines for the interpreter, a feature not available in many of its competitors.

On final approach, Allen realized that they had forgotten to write a bootstrap program to read the tape into memory. Writing in 8080 machine language, Allen finished the program before the plane landed.

BASIC interpreters remained the core of Microsoft's business until the early 1980s, when it shifted to MS-DOS ...

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆


The "Microsoft Disk Operating System" or MS-DOS was based on QDOS, the "Quick and Dirty Operating System" written by Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products, for their prototype Intel 8086 based computer.

QDOS was based on Gary Kildall's CP/M, Paterson had bought a CP/M manual and used it as the basis to write his operating system in six weeks, QDOS was different enough from CP/M to be considered legal.

Microsoft bought the rights to QDOS for $50,000, keeping the IBM deal (to write on OS for IBM) a secret from Seattle Computer Products.

Gates then talked IBM into letting Microsoft retain the rights, to market MS DOS separate from the IBM PC project, Gates proceeded to make a fortune from the licensing of MS-DOS.

☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

"At this point there is no business, no corporation or cooperative, just people with ideas and/or money." Or maybe ahem family with connections ... and money ...


Mary Gates - Bill's mom - had served on the national board of United Way with one of the involved IBM senior executives - providing the validating social reference that they were working with "Mary's Gates' boy Bill".


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 3:54 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The guy who discovered relativity (Einstein. You may have heard of him.)did it to sovel a nagging problem. The person who REALLY invented the Cisco System router protocol is bitter to this day that his buddy (who now heads Cisco) stole it from him. I'll get you his name later, I don't remember it right now.

The person who wrote GNU (Richard Stallman) and Linux (Linus Torvalds) wrote because it was "cool", a challenge. The people who developed PCR did it in a research lab on Federal money. The people who sequenced the human genome (including the grad student who did ALL of the programming) did it because they thought it was important.

Most people who do something real and innovative do it with a knife between their teeth as they tackle a challenge, not to make money.

Money is a terrible motivator to do anything other than make money.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 4:33 PM

FLETCH2


I'm told by folks that have seen the MS Basic source code that there is Gate's code in it, it's easy to spot because it isnt very good.

As usual hate for "the man" makes you miss the point. Folks like Gate's and Allen, like Jobs and Wozniak could have stayed hobbists like many of the Linux people are but if they had we probably wouldnt be talking via computer right now. This is not a discussion about people being "worthy"--- that's a value judgement. This was strictly to do with motivation for people to set up businesses.

Siggy, this discussion isnt about what people will do as a hobby for free. I know about that my wife and I are crafters, most of the things we make are given away, there are folks wondering around Renfests and SciFi conventions in garb and costumes they got from us for nothing but when you go to make a hobby into a BUSINESS, which is what I thought your co-op was supposed to be, the costs and liabilities start to become an issue.

Even if you work yourself for nothing there is an opertunity cost to getting the business started --- ie money you could have made doing something else. For someone to set up a company from their hobby they must really want to do it. Most of the ones I know are cool guys and not money grubbing aholes, but none of them would view a new hire as a full partner, not after the BS they had to go through getting started.

Really... honestly... if the "pitance for Chemists" law had been passed when you were in highschool would you have chosen chemistry as your major and gone into it as a career? I'm not talking about being interested in it or making fireworks in your shed at weekends, I'm talking your day to day bread on the table livelyhood. If you knew that you would get no reward at all for 3+ years of college would you do it, or would you do something that rewarded that effort.?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 4:58 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


My hate for inaccuracies like this "Microsoft starts out with Bill Gates and a buddy writing a Basic interpreter and trying to sell it." is what prompted me to respond.

"BILL GATES: Actually, it was myself and Neil Konzen" who wrote DONKEY.BAS, a low-res game ... "The only copy of the source code for DONKEY.BAS I can find has been stripped of any credits by Gates or Konzen."

So, Bill Gates takes at least partial credit for a low-res game while proof of who actually wrote it is nowhere to be found.

As for any other programming, pardon me if I give Bill Gates no credit for actually writing OS code.



***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 5:30 PM

FLETCH2


Basic isn't an OS. It's a language. I never claimed that gate's invented it, like 90% of standard languages it was invented at a university, but Gates and Allen made what is known as a tokenised Basic so that it could fit into a small memory machine with a microprocessor.

Anyway as stated Gate's coding "skillz" are considered quite funny by the vintage computer community and it would probably come as a shock to them that the great and infallable Rue doesnt believe he ever wrote anything.

BTW

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/05/13/raiders_of_the_lost_altair/

http://web.archive.org/web/20010415072858/www.rjh.org.uk/altair/ian.ht
m


Where there is an analysis of a 1975 BASIC interpreter listing that remains at Harvard.
Quote:

That this is not the final version is evident from the line :

00340 SUBTITL VERSION 1.1 -- MORE FEATURES TO COME

The copyright reads :

00400 -------------------------------------------
00410 COPYRIGHT 1975 BY BILL GATES AND PAUL ALLEN
00420 -------------------------------------------

It also says 'written originally on the PDP-10 at Harvard from February 9 to April 27.' Remember that the spooler output (above) showed that this printout was made on 30th April 1975.

Interestingly, another comment tells us that :

00560 PAUL ALLEN WROTE THE NON-RUNTIME STUFF.
00580 BILL GATES WROTE THE RUNTIME STUFF.
00600 MONTE DAVIDOFF WROTE THE MATH PACKAGE.

This explains the 'Gates, Allen, Davidoff' reference in the record, although 'Davidoff' doesn't appear anywhere on the box or volume titles.

There is a 'THINGS TO DO' section :

SYNTAX PROBLEMS (OR)
NICE ERRORS
ALLOW ^W AND ^C IN LIST COMMAND
TAPE I/O
BUFFER I/O
USR ??
ELSE
USER-DEFINED FUNCTIONS (MULTI-ARG,MULTI-LINE,STRINGS)
MAKE STACK BOUNDARY STUFF EXACT
(FOUT 24 FIN 14)
PUNCH, DELETE;,.
INLINE CONSTANT CONVERSION -- MAKE IT WORK
SIMPLE STRINGS


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 8:50 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Siggy, this discussion isnt about what people will do as a hobby for free.
No, it isn't. So why are you taking it there> Somewhere between "building a business" and "having a hobby" is a vast middle ground.
Quote:
but when you go to make a hobby into a BUSINESS, which is what I thought your co-op was supposed to be, the costs and liabilities start to become an issue.
Of course. But I've provided for the financing elsewhere. You can make a company without investing your own money in it, or owning its assets privately. It's not necessary to OWN a company to want to bring a new technology into production, or to see it run efficiently, or to expand. People do this because it's their bent.

Let's say I have a new chip fab process. I think it'll be revolutionary, if I can get it into production. One thing about chip fabs... they ain't cheap. And you're not about to build it in your basement with a few spare parts and copious amounts of sweat and enthusiasm. You'll need investment.

Well, has it been built at bench scale? At pilot-project scale? It seems to me that you COULD get a research grant for that kind of work. Once its been built to pilot plant scale you can attract investors (through loans and bonds) to go to production scale. And there you are...
Quote:
For someone to set up a company from their hobby they must really want to do it. Most of the ones I know are cool guys and not money grubbing aholes, but none of them would view a new hire as a full partner, not after the BS they had to go through getting started.
Well, if they really really want to keep full control of their "company" they can always hire "outside" expertise.
Quote:
Really... honestly... if the "pitance for Chemists" law had been passed when you were in highschool would you have chosen chemistry as your major and gone into it as a career? I'm not talking about being interested in it or making fireworks in your shed at weekends, I'm talking your day to day bread on the table livelyhood. If you knew that you would get no reward at all for 3+ years of college would you do it, or would you do something that rewarded that effort.?
What does that have to do with anything?

I think the point that you're trying to make is that people won't put in effort if there isn't some kind of monetary reward at the end. But that's not really true. Once people are assured of the basics, more money doesn't make for greater reward. The only reason most people scramble so hard to get more more money is insecurity.

Now, I have a degree in Chemistry, but my passion is designing processes: work flow, information management, quality assurance etc. I do that as part of my job because it's FUN. Nobody is paying me any extra to be a manager, or even a project manager. You'll find anal and over-controlling people like me (I put the ANAL into analytical) everywhere. People like me "get things done" because we LIKE to. Long as I can earn a living, I'm cool with that. I don't "need" to own the agency or what-have-you. And yanno what? Most of the people I work with are the same way. Each has their own strength: One guy is great with computers, another can make a GC MS FID stand up and sing, another is really really good at QA. One of our "lowly techs" helped us make a training video for a certification class (He even used a clip from his garage band in the intro).

Most of us are self-motivated. We like to extend ourselves into new challenges, and nobody is asking for more pay. (What we'd like is more control over the direction of our agency spending and more control over our tools... exactly the kind of behavior that you'd expect to see in a cooperative.)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 8, 2008 10:23 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Siggy, this discussion isnt about what people will do as a hobby for free.
No, it isn't. So why are you taking it there> Somewhere between "building a business" and "having a hobby" is a vast middle ground.



We are talking about how businesses start. Now there are many different ways but other than creation of a subsidiary or a Soviet style planned economy very few pop into existence as fully formed industrial behemoths, most start small and have origins with people taking something they are interested in and making it into a business. The step is actually quite small we are not talking two guys writing software in a lab in Harvard and BANG next thing they are called Microsoft and own a small suburb in Seattle. We are talking 2 guys in a lab becoming 4 guys in a run down motel in New Mexico, which becomes 5 guys and a secretary in two rooms over a bank that becomes...

Most business is not big business but even the ones that are start small. For a supposedly anal guy you miss the point rather easily. Like I said, businesses start with a guy with an idea and grow from there.

Quote:





Quote:
but when you go to make a hobby into a BUSINESS, which is what I thought your co-op was supposed to be, the costs and liabilities start to become an issue.
Of course. But I've provided for the financing elsewhere. You can make a company without investing your own money in it, or owning its assets privately. It's not necessary to OWN a company to want to bring a new technology into production, or to see it run efficiently, or to expand. People do this because it's their bent.



And we have a name for those people, we call them life long employees. Company men, middle managers. Unfortunately we were talking about people that start businesses, folks that have to go through the often painful and expensive process of creating something new.


Let me spell it out for you again your friend --apparently the only business person you know-- did not get an "unsecured loan" to start his restaurant, not if the government arranged the loan. He had a guarantor because if he had proved to be a dimwitt and had lost money then I'm assuming that the government would have paid back the bank.

That was why he had none of his personal assets on the line because the lender didn't need them to secure his investment. . He was very lucky, the government was a white knight guarantor obviously willing to back the idea without collateral or too much paperwork. Great for him.

For everyone else starting into business tends to be a gradual process, you start operating out of your own money, you dedicate large amounts of your available time. Once you are making some progress, either by having a product or a service at a point where it's potential is bloody obvious you can take it to a bank or an investor who may then put in money subject to guarantees.

People don't wake up in the morning, decide they will start a business talk to the bank manager at lunch time and walk out with a check. You write business plans, sales projections and usually have to show how you plan to turn your idea into money. That product development time comes out of your time and money.


Quote:


Let's say I have a new chip fab process. I think it'll be revolutionary, if I can get it into production. One thing about chip fabs... they ain't cheap. And you're not about to build it in your basement with a few spare parts and copious amounts of sweat and enthusiasm. You'll need investment.

Well, has it been built at bench scale? At pilot-project scale? It seems to me that you COULD get a research grant for that kind of work. Once its been built to pilot plant scale you can attract investors (through loans and bonds) to go to production scale. And there you are...



1) You are thinking far far too big here. Seriously. The kind of business you are imagining happens so rarely you may as well consider it unique. Most businesses start out small, get a little bigger and a little bigger and so on. Outside of command economies people don't throw big cash at unproven ideas and off you go. Most people prove their track record and build up in small increments.

Which leads me to wonder something. One of two things is happening. You either dreamt up this idea because it's one of the few ways that a business can start without a transition from private ownership to co-operative --- it's so big the creator cannot possibly finance it himself even in the initial stages, teh extremely improbable lender takes a blue sky idea and throws cash at it with no real clue if it will work. So of course the idea man would be happy to go ahead with cooperativisation because he is only slightly invested. If that's the case then you are making a very artificial setup to try and prove a point and evading my central point completely, that anyone driven enough to create a business will be emotionally involved with it too much to just give it up.

The second more frightening idea is that you truly believe that business is done this way in which case we will end up having another pointless argument where your imagined reality fails to actually match standard reality...


So let's cut to the chase. We are not talking about delivering a business plan for a multibillion dollar enterprise. We are talking about a guy making a living who needs to add one or two extra people to cope with the extra work. Or someone with an idea they want to profit from. Normal people, not folks who don't want to own their own ideas, we'll employ them later and buy those ideas at pennies on the dollar.


Quote:



Quote:
For someone to set up a company from their hobby they must really want to do it. Most of the ones I know are cool guys and not money grubbing aholes, but none of them would view a new hire as a full partner, not after the BS they had to go through getting started.
Well, if they really really want to keep full control of their "company" they can always hire "outside" expertise.



They do they are called employees. Consider this, most contract employees would really prefer a salaried permanent position. Why? Well amongst other things it's easier to get loans if you can prove you have a regular income, they have better job security, the potential of employer paid for training, 401K's, healthcare etc.

Now to an employer contract personnel have lots of advantages, you dont have to worry about hiring and firing, you dont have to worry about training, tax accounting, healthcare etc etc. The disadvantage is that these folks could leave at any time and that might upset your projects. So over time a company might hire a few permanent to secure that expertise.

Now in your model if I own a business I can take no permanent staff because if I hire any of them they become equal partners wether I like it or not. You will note that at the moment it is barely in the employers interest to hire permanent over contract. In your world permanent staff would be a liability so nobody would do it. Instead of cooperatives with happy workers with job security and a say in the workings of their employer you would force a world where one or two people own 100% of a business and everyone else is a hired gun who lives with insecurity and a lack of benefits. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me.


Quote:


Quote:
Really... honestly... if the "pitance for Chemists" law had been passed when you were in highschool would you have chosen chemistry as your major and gone into it as a career? I'm not talking about being interested in it or making fireworks in your shed at weekends, I'm talking your day to day bread on the table livelyhood. If you knew that you would get no reward at all for 3+ years of college would you do it, or would you do something that rewarded that effort.?
What does that have to do with anything?

I think the point that you're trying to make is that people won't put in effort if there isn't some kind of monetary reward at the end. But that's not really true. Once people are assured of the basics, more money doesn't make for greater reward. The only reason most people scramble so hard to get more more money is insecurity.



No, I'm talking basic security. When a person selects a career, not an interest, not a hobby, one of the criteria he looks at is security for his family. Imagining you to have been a rational person in highschool I'm assuming that given the choice between spending 3 years and lots of money working towards a job which would reward you poorly and one that promises a more secure future for your family you would take the more secure option. In the real world starting a company like getting a degree costs considerable time and money. Now if the result of that is a job with no better security and prospects then why bother? Employees have to put in none of that effort or take any of those risks and yet have equal standing in the cooperative with the guy that struggled and sacrificed to start the company. Why would anyone found a new company in that instance?


Quote:


Now, I have a degree in Chemistry, but my passion is designing processes: work flow, information management, quality assurance etc. I do that as part of my job because it's FUN. Nobody is paying me any extra to be a manager, or even a project manager. You'll find anal and over-controlling people like me (I put the ANAL into analytical) everywhere. People like me "get things done" because we LIKE to. Long as I can earn a living, I'm cool with that. I don't "need" to own the agency or what-have-you. And yanno what? Most of the people I work with are the same way. Each has their own strength: One guy is great with computers, another can make a GC MS FID stand up and sing, another is really really good at QA. One of our "lowly techs" helped us make a training video for a certification class (He even used a clip from his garage band in the intro).

Most of us are self-motivated. We like to extend ourselves into new challenges, and nobody is asking for more pay. (What we'd like is more control over the direction of our agency spending and more control over our tools... exactly the kind of behavior that you'd expect to see in a cooperative.)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.



You're government employees, that's what government employees are, people that prefer stability to ambition and work in an environment where there is little chance of being fired. If business is the jungle you live and work in a petting zoo. Businesses need compliant employees so your lack of drive and ambition are actually a good thing but let's face it Siggy you turn up have your fun japes and collect a reliable paycheck, something that is very sensible given your situation at home.

Now imagine you are forced outside that comfort zone and had to start your own business. Imagine watching your savings, your gold, your little investments being swallowed up while you try to find your feet. Imagine that there isn't money coming in the door every 2 weeks but that it's leaving, constantly for months and maybe years until you are looking and wondering if you will be able to provide for your little girl. Now somehow you struggle through you build things up to a point where you start making money and you come to hire your first employee. Would you really want that guy to come in as your partner? To have equal say in something when they havent had to take the risks you have. If his friend is hire #3 are you ok with the fact that the two of them now outvote you? That in theory they could fire you and take what you built?

That's what I'm talking about here. Not megalomania but just the need to build your own security if someone else hasn't done it for you.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2008 12:33 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
You're government employees, that's what government employees are, people that prefer stability to ambition and work in an environment where there is little chance of being fired. If business is the jungle you live and work in a petting zoo. Businesses need compliant employees so your lack of drive and ambition are actually a good thing but let's face it Siggy you turn up have your fun japes and collect a reliable paycheck, something that is very sensible given your situation at home.

Now imagine you are forced outside that comfort zone and had to start your own business. Imagine watching your savings, your gold, your little investments being swallowed up while you try to find your feet. Imagine that there isn't money coming in the door every 2 weeks but that it's leaving, constantly for months and maybe years until you are looking and wondering if you will be able to provide for your little girl. Now somehow you struggle through you build things up to a point where you start making money and you come to hire your first employee. Would you really want that guy to come in as your partner? To have equal say in something when they havent had to take the risks you have. If his friend is hire #3 are you ok with the fact that the two of them now outvote you? That in theory they could fire you and take what you built?

That's what I'm talking about here. Not megalomania but just the need to build your own security if someone else hasn't done it for you.


Not that I'm going to be a part of this conversation at all after I've chosen to distance myself from it 2 or so threads ago, and not that I'm picking sides off of any bias cause I argue constantly with both of ya, but I think you got your work cut out for you Signy trying to argue this one.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2008 4:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
You're government employees, that's what government employees are, people that prefer stability to ambition and work in an environment where there is little chance of being fired. If business is the jungle you live and work in a petting zoo. Businesses need compliant employees so your lack of drive and ambition are actually a good thing but let's face it Siggy you turn up have your fun japes and collect a reliable paycheck, something that is very sensible given your situation at home.
First of all, how do you figure I lack drive and ambition? As a lowly supervisor I've devised whole programs that involve more than one department and over a dozen consulting labs, I just successfully concluded a $3 million contract, and I'm about to embark on an automation effort for the lab, I've interviewed hundred (literally) of people for hire, and when a business's consultant can't figure things out he comes to .... me. (Only I don't get paid $300/ hour to figure out their problems for them!)

Quote:
Now imagine you are forced outside that comfort zone and had to start your own business. Imagine watching your savings, your gold, your little investments being swallowed up while you try to find your feet. Imagine that there isn't money coming in the door every 2 weeks but that it's leaving, constantly for months and maybe years until you are looking and wondering if you will be able to provide for your little girl. Now somehow you struggle through you build things up to a point where you start making money and you come to hire your first employee.
In my experience that's not a realistic scenario. I'm in close touch with a lot of small (3-4 person) labs. I used to work for one myself. Although there is usually an owner, the successful labs have "vital" employees. Each one is equally necessary. Small businesses don't have the luxury of hiring know-nothings. (In fact, I've seen small labs driven to the ground by their owners, who contributed less than the others but didn't recognize it. Eventually, the employees looked around, said..." what the f*ck are we working HERE for?" and formed their own lab.)

My answer would be: If you're not comfortable with Employee #1 being a partner, don't hire them. And if all you're looking for is a a person to do something non-specific (place these widgets in this gizmo) hire them through a "labor cooperative" or as an "individual cooperative" and retain an arm's-length relationship.

So... What's your problem again?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2008 7:38 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I guess your point is that particular model of business formation looks particularly unattractive in a cooperative-based economy. And you're right.

But that particular model of business formation isn't the only way that businesses get off the ground, in fact it seems pretty rare to me.

Have you ever heard of "Skunk Works"? That's how I envision a startup cooperative.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2008 8:11 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
You're government employees, that's what government employees are, people that prefer stability to ambition and work in an environment where there is little chance of being fired. If business is the jungle you live and work in a petting zoo. Businesses need compliant employees so your lack of drive and ambition are actually a good thing but let's face it Siggy you turn up have your fun japes and collect a reliable paycheck, something that is very sensible given your situation at home.
First of all, how do you figure I lack drive and ambition? As a lowly supervisor I've devised whole programs that involve more than one department and over a dozen consulting labs, I just successfully concluded a $3 million contract, and I'm about to embark on an automation effort for the lab, I've interviewed hundred (literally) of people for hire, and when a business's consultant can't figure things out he comes to .... me. (Only I don't get paid $300/ hour to figure out their problems for them!)



I think you just answered your own question. You did all of that for a few bucks an hour and while you're the big guy in your lab it's not earning you any advancement and no extra pay over and above getting a good performance review. However, you are ok with that you like what you do and you tell yourself it doesn't matter as long as your coworkers appreciate the effort.

That's lack of ambition and like I said it's a good thing in an employee. You said yourself there are guys that come into your lab earning $300/hr that know less than you do and that doesn't rankle you because in your little world you are THE GUY.

But here's a news flash we have never been talking about you. Chances are in 20 years you'll get the gold watch from your lab and retire comfortably, you're successful and it's all good. What we are talking about is a guy that steps out from where you are and makes a go of it himself, who doesn't have a lab budget that doesn't come out of his own pocket, who watches his resources dwindle as he tries to make it work. You are not THAT GUY but whenever we discuss this you see the world from your viewpoint and not from his. I'm trying to get you to step outside your preconceptions and look at this as that guy would.


Quote:



Quote:
Now imagine you are forced outside that comfort zone and had to start your own business. Imagine watching your savings, your gold, your little investments being swallowed up while you try to find your feet. Imagine that there isn't money coming in the door every 2 weeks but that it's leaving, constantly for months and maybe years until you are looking and wondering if you will be able to provide for your little girl. Now somehow you struggle through you build things up to a point where you start making money and you come to hire your first employee.
In my experience that's not a realistic scenario. I'm in close touch with a lot of small (3-4 person) labs. I used to work for one myself. Although there is usually an owner, the successful labs have "vital" employees. Each one is equally necessary. Small businesses don't have the luxury of hiring know-nothings. (In fact, I've seen small labs driven to the ground by their owners, who contributed less than the others but didn't recognize it. Eventually, the employees looked around, said..." what the f*ck are we working HERE for?" and formed their own lab.)

My answer would be: If you're not comfortable with Employee #1 being a partner, don't hire them. And if all you're looking for is a a person to do something non-specific (place these widgets in this gizmo) hire them through a "labor cooperative" or as an "individual cooperative" and retain an arm's-length relationship.

So... What's your problem again?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.




I never said employee #1 was a know nothing. If you didn't need him you wouldn't have hired him. My point all along has been that the founder of a business invests time/money/capital and goodwill into it's creation, often far more than the next guy through the door does. Do you see it as being ok that he has no greater part in what he created than the next guy through the door? You said yourself about bad owners of labs that do less than anyone else and how eventually people get pissed off. Now reverse the viewpoint. You spent 2 years and most of your savings getting the place started, you are first in the door and last out at night, every night. Now hire number 1 could be the most brilliant chemist you have seen in your life, but he puts no money into the business, he just works nine to five if the place goes under he can get another job tomorrow and have lost nothing. Should he be your partner seeing as how he's minimally invested and this represents years of work and the future for your daughter?














NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2008 8:27 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I guess your point is that particular model of business formation looks particularly unattractive in a cooperative-based economy. And you're right.

But that particular model of business formation isn't the only way that businesses get off the ground, in fact it seems pretty rare to me.

Have you ever heard of "Skunk Works"? That's how I envision a startup cooperative.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.



You know that was set up by Lockheed on the back of US war contracts?

That's my problem with this whole discussion in a nutshell. You keep talking about big complex entities being formed in one go, something I would charge never actually happens outside of the space business or the Soviet system. In that case you are absolutely right, it's a big business, it has many small actors of equal importance all of whom contribute in equal measure to it's success. There is no logical reason why such concerns couldn't be cooperative ventures. You could probably co-op most existing companies, in fact as I said the ones we had in the UK had been private businesses bought out by their workforce.

What I'm trying to say is that most businesses start small with a large part of their founders life wealth and huge amounts of time and effort invested just to get started. In that situation it isn't the case that everyone contributed equal effort because those first few guys created the business in whole cloth. Now in your system beyond a certain point they will lose that investment, because people that haven't made those sacrifices will come in and have equal representation. I'm just saying that that will have a chilling effect on innovation because quite often it's the small upstart company that makes the breakthrough. The guys that found that kind of firm do so in the hope that if they become successfull they can make a few more bucks than working the 9 to 5. That's why they invest their time and expertise to make it work.

I know you think that things would work better because somehow you will have lenders that will make collateral-less loans, so in theory these guys don't need to risk their personal wealth to make it happen. Aside from wondering how that works exactly money is only a part of the equation here, knowhow and effort are also invested. My view is that you need some method to recognize that initial investment. Perhaps the coop buys out that interest as part of transitioning to cooperative governance? But the fact remains that small firms will need to transition from private to collective ownership for this plan to work, and an equitable way of doing that has to be found.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2008 8:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Okay, I'm gonna have to digest what you said 'cause I'm not getting your point.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2008 8:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
What I'm trying to say is that most businesses start small with a large part of their founders life wealth and huge amounts of time and effort invested just to get started.
And what I'm saying is- not true.

I've been having a problem with disappearing posts today! I'll have to finish this post later.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2008 9:16 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
What I'm trying to say is that most businesses start small with a large part of their founders life wealth and huge amounts of time and effort invested just to get started.
And what I'm saying is- not true.

I've been having a problem with disappearing posts today! I'll have to finish this post later.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.



Humm ok? Could you explain how you come to this conclusion? I know probably two dozen people who started small businesses in exactly this way so I'm surprised that you think it untrue?

Let's short circuit this argument. I know people that have started businesses in exactly this way. How does your system cope with that other than putting it's fingers in it's ears and saying "aint true?"





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2008 9:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I know people who started their busineses differently. The restaurateur started with partners AND a loan. Three labs started with partners, and one started as a spin-off. (Two started with one person). The sound reinforcement guy... he never wanted his business any bigger so he never hired anyone except on an as-needed basis anyway. The networking guy... same thing. (Plus he had a regular job and a wife who worked.) So while I saw that some small businesses started as single-person entities, others started differently.

And I know OF businesses- particularly businesses that required large capital investment- that started VERY differently: Genentech went looking for people to bring in $50,000 (minimum. I know one guy who got in on the groundfloor.) Bill Gates got a million-dollar loan.
My system copes with this by saying that there are many ways to start a business, and that businesses will continue to be created, just by different means.

But tell me about the businesses that you know. I'd like to hear more about them.



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2008 10:44 AM

FLETCH2


Ok, here's a few with one exception names have been changed to shield the guilty.

There's my brother the Fireman. In his spare time he does gardening work, landscaping, that kind of thing. He can do it and keep his regular job because when he's on call he lives in the stationhouse day and night for a few weeks then has a week off, which is handy because that tends to be how long it takes grass to grow and plants to do their thing. He has about ten thousand pounds worth of equipment bought out of his day job. They don't pay firemen big bucks so that's a big deal for him. In your world those assets become communal property once employee #1 comes on board.

Rob buys up used and excess stock from company auctions. The computers are refurbished and sold on, most other things are sold though small adds in a British computer paper. He's started to get into Ebay. He's currently renting premises and hoping to buy somewhere once the stupid price of real estate drops a little in the UK. He's also trying to import cheap tech from China and market it in the UK. First attempt wasn't so successful and it probably cost him around 20,000 pounds so it was an expensive mistake. Of course employee number one in your system didn't take any of that loss. He's self financed using money from a severance package though his wife still works.

Richard's dad came up with the paper system that UK doctors used to keep patient records. Since Richard was a computer science grad he set about computerizing that method back in the 1980's. Since dads business was never that great Richard financed the software development himself with bank loans taken out on his assets. After he got the company up to 7 people and about 200 systems installed he was bought out by a larger company.

Garry and a partner built up a bespoke software firm that wrote operations software for companies looking to computerise. This was a onestop "requirements to software" type business. He had about six programmers working as full time employees. He and the partner started out coding themselves, built up good will for the business and started hiring junior programmers straight out of college.

Mike is similar to Gerry, he was one of my college professors whose side line was coding embedded control systems for industry. He used to pay undergrads to help with coding projects then started his own business and hired some of the more talented graduates.

Naren worked in the Indian office of a US satellite equipment maker, selling their equipment to Indian telecoms firms. In this way he came to know their business. When the US firm pulled out of the Indian market Naren started offering services to the Telecoms directly, acting as an installation and system integration subcontractor. His business is built on personal capital, on good will, personal knowledge and his own reputation. he has about 20 employees.






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2008 10:58 AM

FLETCH2


Incorporated into a different post

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2008 11:44 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I know people who started their busineses differently. The restaurateur started with partners AND a loan.


Do you think your friend would be ok with making the busboys, waitresses and the washerup equal partners in that business for no initial outlay? Did you suggest it to him?



Quote:


Three labs started with partners, and one started as a spin-off. (Two started with one person).



Don't get fixated on the idea that I'm saying all companies start out as one man bands, when I say things like THAT GUY I'm personalizing the point, not suggesting that in every case the business is started by one singular guy. The labs that started as partners, did they consider new hires partners if they didn't buy in with capital? Did it extend to all employees, even the ones just washing glassware which your co-operatives would?



Quote:


And I know OF businesses- particularly businesses that required large capital investment- that started VERY differently: Genentech went looking for people to bring in $50,000 (minimum. I know one guy who got in on the groundfloor.)



I'm assuming from this that it's a partnership where each partner is expected to put in at least $50,000 in capital? Did the secretaries have to do the same? because in your model every employee has an equal stake in the business. Would your friend have commited $50,000 if he had no more stake than the janitor that put in nothing?

Quote:



Bill Gates got a million-dollar loan.



I'm sure he did but only after he sold Basic to MITS, Atari, Commodore and TI. If he had a million bucks in his pocket in Harvard he could have afforded to buy a MITS system and develop basic on it directly.

Banks don't just give you money when you ask for it. To get a loan for a business you usually have to have security (ie assets you could lose) a proven track record (ie proof that your idea can make money) and a business plan (saying how you plan to use THEIR money and what they get in return.) Now to get to a point where the bank is even interested you will probably have to put up money and time of your own. That's why the Sigworld idea that banks just throwing money at new businesses doesn't address all the investment a founder places in a company.


Quote:


My system copes with this by saying that there are many ways to start a business, and that businesses will continue to be created, just by different means.

.


No it doesnt. What it says is that the legal form for a business is a cooperative with equal stake holding between all employees. Despite frequent requests you have never covered how a private company transitions to a cooperative one without losing the initial private investment. What you ARE saying in effect is "oh well it doesn't matter if those kinds of businesses are not created because we can find other ways. My point is that frequently important businesses are created in just that way. The important issue isnt that someone gave Bill Gate's $1M it's that Gates saw an opportunity to start a business and did it. Something neither he nor most other people would do in your system.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2008 7:17 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Fletch

I think the word you're looking for is "entrepreneur" - One who organizes, operates, and assumes the risk in a business venture in expectation of gaining the profit.

Like Siggy, I worked for government and enjoyed solving problems and making things more efficient. I probably saved the Treasury Department several millions by improving and automating processes. However, I didn't risk anything personal to do that, since I was pretty much assured a job and a pension.

It's the folks who assume risk who move things forward. Thomas Edison - Henry Ford - the Wright Brothers - Bill Lear. And for every one of these, there's those who risked all and didn't make it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 9, 2008 10:38 PM

FLETCH2


I know the word, I'm just trying to keep it out of this discussion because i suspect in some circles it carries too much unnecessary baggage.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 10, 2008 6:26 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Been real busy putting in free time at work. (You see Fletch2, even tho I'm an 'employee' I DON'T leave at 5 PM. I leave when the job is done. And a lot of my co-workers are similarly afflicted. It's called 'professionalism')

So I'll respond in-depth when I have more time. (It may not be until next weekend)

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 10, 2008 8:00 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Been real busy putting in free time at work. (You see Fletch2, even tho I'm an 'employee' I DON'T leave at 5 PM. I leave when the job is done. And a lot of my co-workers are similarly afflicted. It's called 'professionalism')

So I'll respond in-depth when I have more time. (It may not be until next weekend)

.


And if you were starting your own business you'd be doing that all the time because there would be nobody else to do it. I have had employers that expect you to travel in your own time (so if you need to be on site on Monday and it takes 8 hours to get there on Sunday, you just gave them a "free day") I've also had employers that paid double time for that same kind of activity. How a company treats it's workforce has nothing to do with the way it is organized and everything to do with its ethics.







NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 7:55 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Fletch

Bill Gates has taken credit for a lot of things he didn't do.

A comment in code (if you've ever coded you know how easy it is to insert) doesn't 'prove' anything - other than Bill Gates made claim.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:03 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"That's lack of ambition and like I said it's a good thing in an employee."

Are you confusing ambition with greed ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 8:16 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I think there's one big objection to your idea Fletch - and that is that people who contribute nothing more than money get to own the value that others contribute through their work.

So let's turn it around - you have inventor "A" who's looking for investors. Does it matter to him if the investor is a bank, a wealthy individual or the employees of the company he wants to start/ expand ? Does it matter to you ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:02 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch

Bill Gates has taken credit for a lot of things he didn't do.

A comment in code (if you've ever coded you know how easy it is to insert) doesn't 'prove' anything - other than Bill Gates made claim.




A few posts ago you were claiming that no notes in the source code "proved" that he didn't code the game. Now I showed you the kind of proof that you were wanting and it's not good enough?

A few things of note.

1) The printout comes from a time before Micro-soft in fact before they had even made their first sale. Gates was just a kid in college coding with 2 other kids, this was a private lil project not being handed in for credit.

Why would he lie (and to clarify this is a vitage printout and not a file that can be edited later.) Why would the others let him lie? What's in it for them? This is considered the first piece of commercial software nobody had made any money from doing this stuff before, not even Gates could have imagined M$ as it is today.

2) The folks that were involved all agree that Gates programmed the parts that the printout says he programmed.

3) Like I said the vintage computer community finds Gate's coding kinda funny. There are people, no fans of Gates, that have been in the same room with him when he's been editing code to run on their hardware.

This is envy pure and simple --he's rich and you're a nobody and you hate that -- but envy is too base and nasty an emotion for the great and infallable Rue. So you've decided he's unworthy, a cheat, because you can hate a cheat for being a cheat without admiting to being envious of him. It makes you feel better about yourself.

Fact is that there is no evidence I can present that will convince you that your pre conceived bias against this guy is wrong. If I show you statements by folks that have seen Gate's coding they will be liars, or brown nosers, or just flat out wrong.

So it's pointless. Just remember next time we have an "Iraq intelligence" spat that the Bush administration are not the only ones that ignore evidence it it conflicts with their preconceived notions.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:32 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think there's one big objection to your idea Fletch - and that is that people who contribute nothing more than money get to own the value that others contribute through their work.



That's why it's called capital-ism because the owners of capital have primacy in the system. Even Siggy's cooperatives don't change that since the co-operative owns the capital.


Quote:



So let's turn it around - you have inventor "A" who's looking for investors. Does it matter to him if the investor is a bank, a wealthy individual or the employees of the company he wants to start/ expand ? Does it matter to you ?
"


No, no, no and no. Where the money comes from does not make any difference and I haven't even been arguing that case. There is no difference as long as the terms and conditions of the investment remain the same. My questions concern just one aspect of Siggy's scheme.


Siggy's idea is that the ONLY legal structure for a company should be a cooperative with a collective ownership of assets and collective decision making. I am specifically trying to discover what happens to a person's preinvested assets when he maditarily "incorporates" in the new system and his personal capital becomes communial. That is my only issue.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 9:51 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"That's lack of ambition and like I said it's a good thing in an employee."

Are you confusing ambition with greed ?



No not really I used it like any English speaker would use it, not as an ideologue trying to score points.

Quote:


am·bi·tion
–noun 1. an earnest desire for some type of achievement or distinction, as power, honor, fame, or wealth, and the willingness to strive for its attainment: Too much ambition caused him to be disliked by his colleagues.

2. the object, state, or result desired or sought after: The crown was his ambition.

3. desire for work or activity; energy: I awoke feeling tired and utterly lacking in ambition.
–verb (used with object)

4. to seek after earnestly; aspire to.



Ambition is an earnest desire and being willing to strive for something you want. Usually it means taking risks to get what you want. Like Siggy I'm risk adverse but intelligent and hard working. I make a good employee.


Of the people I've known that have started businesses the biggest attraction has been independence. I have known people who could have just gone into the family business, made a good living and ended up running the place without any risk or great effort. So if money and security was a big driver they would have taken the easier option.

Likewise I know folks that left high paying corporate jobs to strike out on their own because working for themselves lets them have the lifestyle they want. For example there is a Swedish guy that designs microchips who spends five or six months of every year sailing. The point is that to get what they want they were willing to take risks and even accept a lower level of overall security. That I believe is the crucial difference.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:30 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Fletch

You're making too many assumptions and several errors.

"A few posts ago you were claiming that no notes in the source code "proved" that he didn't code the game."

Like BDN, you read what you want to see, not the actual word. What I WROTE was this: "So, Bill Gates takes at least partial credit for a low-res game while proof of who actually wrote it is nowhere to be found." I didn't say it disproved his contribution, just that there was no proof of any kind. See the difference ?

Now, when I write I try very hard to use the words that I mean. In this case, I was successful - writing what I meant and meaning what I wrote. Anything more or less is a figment of your imagination.

1) It doesn't actually matter to me where or when the p/o came from - it doesn't make the claim in it any more or less authentic.

2) I didn't see any evidence that any of the folks 'agreed' to anything. At least not in your links.

3) The reason why I know a little about coding from back then is b/c one of my jobs was writing a LIMS from scratch for a large hospital on an 8080. The 'style' of coding seems awfully flimsy to base a claim on.

"This is envy pure and simple --he's rich and you're a nobody and you hate that -- but envy is too base and nasty an emotion for the great and infallable Rue."

No - not really. Do you see me having issues with David Filo and Jerry Yang ? How about Larry Page and Sergey Brin ? Or perhaps some more familiar names like Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard ?

What I object to are u-soft's less than sterling business practices as pursued by Bill Gates (of which the company has been found guilty on at least two continents; and something you seem to be purposefully blind to) and which form the basis of its success. I hail and applaud innovation. I loathe illegal business practices and a 'money above all' philosphy, as you SHOULD have gathered from all of my previous posts.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 10:44 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


UUhhmm,

you seem to be using 'ambition' in a more limited sense than as defined:

"an earnest desire for some type of achievement or distinction, as power, honor, fame, or wealth, ..."

An employee who is working for the honor of being considered a master of the field, for advancement in the organization, or for renown in the wider field (such as in the science arena) could be said to have 'ambition'. As such, it's quite possible SignyM has 'ambition' which you fail to recognize due to the simple fact of not being an entrepreneur.


***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sat, April 27, 2024 19:51 - 6307 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Sat, April 27, 2024 19:36 - 744 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Sat, April 27, 2024 19:28 - 1015 posts
Russian War Crimes In Ukraine
Sat, April 27, 2024 19:27 - 15 posts
"Feminism" really means more Femtacular than you at EVERYTHING.
Sat, April 27, 2024 19:25 - 66 posts
Cry Baby Trump
Sat, April 27, 2024 19:21 - 79 posts
Welcome Back
Sat, April 27, 2024 19:20 - 2 posts
Putin the boot in ass
Sat, April 27, 2024 18:53 - 85 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Sat, April 27, 2024 18:34 - 1513 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, April 27, 2024 18:28 - 3571 posts
Elections; 2024
Sat, April 27, 2024 18:10 - 2312 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sat, April 27, 2024 18:09 - 505 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL