tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post7427830388774465014..comments2024-03-27T23:12:08.917-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Guest Thinkers Contemplate Culture War and the Hijacking of CapitalismDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-79509991963332477002011-12-20T22:34:34.013-08:002011-12-20T22:34:34.013-08:00"The irony? This is exactly what Hanauer and...<i>"The irony? This is exactly what Hanauer and other venture capitalists are doing! Indeed, I believe that what they do - (starting new companies that create new goods and services) - should be rewarded with very low capital gains taxes. It is risky and does a lot of good. And does that make me a supply-sider?"</i><br /><br />And really we (theoretically) have a system in place to do just that- if you put your money into actual capital investments like that (or, as otherwise put: business expenses) you deduct that money from your income and only pay taxes on the portion that you choose to sit on. Ideally, the top bracket tax should collect nothing at all. Not because it somehow makes revenue at that level less appealing, but because it provides a invisible hand conceptually similar to Smith's metaphor that directs people who make that much revenue to reinvest it into wages and growth to produce future revenue rather than making it a more profitable decision to take the money out and sit on it. (Sitting on it here includes using it to fund loans, because while loans serve the same short term purpose as direct investment, in the long term, the burden of paying back the loans creates far more drag than paying a dividend on profits- especially in tough times when revenue becomes tight. Imagine where we'd be if people got pay raises instead of easier access to credit cards and other loans in the 80s and up through the late 2000s)Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17795848595613466328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-35857637024979134522011-12-16T18:20:01.140-08:002011-12-16T18:20:01.140-08:00LarryHart: I think the term you're looking for...LarryHart: I think the term you're looking for in your third law is "maximize shareholder value". That's the nomenclature used in the business world for what I think you mean. Shareholders are the owners of the company, which in a publicly owned corporation would be the stockholders. "Value" is nicely ambiguous, making allowances for shareholders that expect the stock price to go up or for the company to pay dividends, or in the case of a non-profit for the corporation to succeed in its mission. Generally speaking, corporate officers have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value.Chip Overclockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11195242013008369733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32773449256630853722011-12-16T15:19:13.635-08:002011-12-16T15:19:13.635-08:00onwardonwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-75773881323446605522011-12-16T10:27:59.012-08:002011-12-16T10:27:59.012-08:00It doesn't matter what the staunch conservativ...It doesn't matter what the staunch conservative does with his vote. The people I'm after are the moderate-conservatives and the moderate-moderates who are looking at Obama and suffering from buyer's regret. And pretty much the only candidates that would be considerate toward the environment are Jon Huntsman (who unfortunately doesn't have a prayer, though considering a certain comet recently survived a plunge through the Sun's corona, we can't say a "snowball's chance in hell") and maybe (ironically enough) Newt Gingrich (who "National Review" rated poorly due to his protecting the EPA from Republicans during his tenure as Speaker).<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8688431862081466212011-12-16T10:13:03.738-08:002011-12-16T10:13:03.738-08:00Robert:
So in other words, Republicans are all fo...Robert:<br /><i><br />So in other words, Republicans are all for allowing coal companies poison our air and water with mercury which can result in spontaneous abortions, miscarriages, and mentally-retarded infants... but insist that women can't have abortions legally.<br /><br />Just saying....<br /></i><br /><br />Unfortunately, that argument won't sway the Republican voters. Their criteria for whether to support a position or not usually depends on whether it is anti-communist, whether it is pro-Christianist, or whether hippies, liberals, and atheists would hate it.<br /><br />The pro-poisoning positon is religiously neutral, and passes the other two tests.<br /><br />The anti-abortion position is business-neutral, and passes the other two tests.<br /><br />Therefore, no cognative dissonance in supporting both.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-14931579861938935752011-12-16T07:44:57.542-08:002011-12-16T07:44:57.542-08:00I was reading an article concerning impending rule...I was reading <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-epa-mercury-20111216,0,4551991.story" rel="nofollow">an article concerning impending rules from the EPA that would require coal-burning power plants to reduce mercury emissions</a> and I was struck by a sudden dichotomy that any canny Democrat would use against a Republican candidate (like, shall we say, Barack Obama against whoever he faces). Republicans claim to be pro-life. Yet they are against regulating emissions of a known neurotoxin (mercury) that results in between 6,800 to 17,000 premature deaths and causes brain damage in fetuses. <br /><br />So in other words, Republicans are all for allowing coal companies poison our air and water with mercury which can result in spontaneous abortions, miscarriages, and mentally-retarded infants... but insist that women can't have abortions legally.<br /><br />Just saying....<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3089177597630094342011-12-15T21:51:18.206-08:002011-12-15T21:51:18.206-08:00Just went through the last year's delayed read...Just went through the last year's delayed reading of Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal. Here are my favoites.<br /><br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2254#comic<br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2223#comic<br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2458#comic<br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2328#comic<br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2439#comic<br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2307#comic<br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2434#comic<br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2431#comic<br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2411#comic<br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2409#comic<br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2382#comic<br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2324#comic<br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2323#comic<br /><br />grasps the singularity!<br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2184#comic<br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2138#comic<br /><br />Mini sci fi stories:<br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2302#comic<br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2305#comic<br /><br />re METI: <br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2457#comic<br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2331#comic<br /><br />Paleo Cloning<br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2306#comic<br /><br />Unfinished story... eventually the words enter the Oxford!<br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2295#comic<br /><br />Fascinating:<br />http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2260#comic<br /><br /><br />But even better.... Buy his books!David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-66745320510837493642011-12-15T17:47:21.615-08:002011-12-15T17:47:21.615-08:00Paul451:
It's not enough to devise your three...Paul451:<br /><i><br />It's not enough to devise your three laws, the hard part is devising a business structure that forces corporations to obey the three (or five or twelve) laws. It must not be possible to function as a business without obeying the laws.<br /></i><br /><br />Well corporations only exist because they are chartered by governments. I was envisioning a legal (constitutional?) requirement that any corporate charter is subject to the Three Laws. "Unable to function as a business" would be the result of legal action.<br /><br />Of course, it would be better to construct a system in which it is physically impossible to operate as a renegade, but I'm not sure how that would be accomplished.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-958958372035480492011-12-15T17:32:51.908-08:002011-12-15T17:32:51.908-08:00Just came across this line from Kurt Vonnegut'...Just came across this line from Kurt Vonnegut's "Jailbird". The protagonist is descibing a conversation with his new wife in 1949. She's an Austrian Jew who survived a Nazi concentration camp.<br /><br /><i><br />I asked her once if she had ever sought the consolation of religion in the concentration camp.<br /><br />"No," she said. I knew God would never come near such a place. So did the Nazis. That was what made them so hilarious and unafraid. That was the strength of the Nazis," she said. "They understood God better than anyone. They knew how to make Him stay away."<br /></i><br />Not exactly where Dr Brin was going in the story "Thor Meets Captain America", but sort of along similar lines of thinking.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72550294183310452212011-12-15T17:10:18.732-08:002011-12-15T17:10:18.732-08:00Theories in Re Officer Corps and why GOPnews (a.k....Theories in Re Officer Corps and why GOPnews (a.k.a. Fox News) tends not to attack it even though it's highly educated:<br /><br />1. Our military, very appropriately, stays pretty much out of politics and so is no active threat to any political faction.<br /><br />2. Our rightwing generally claims the military is their domain (even though this is especially not the case among the officers) so, in a fine demonstration of the art of politics, generally feels no need to attack it, so long as it is no active threat to their propaganda.<br /><br />3. Officers serve at the pleasure of the Executive and so, if their sense of duty impels them to tell the Executive something contrary to the propaganda, they can be dismissed. Notable examples are General Shinseki, who warned against trying to hold Iraq with way too few troops, and the heroic JAGs who upheld our Constitution by defending Gitmo suspects. Both were neutralized by being turfed out of uniform (although Shinseki must feel some measure of satisfaction in being called back to repair the VA). In contrast, General Franks got the Presidential Medal of Freedom for leading not one but two Potempkin invasions (looked good up front and later turned to disaster).<br /> <br />4. There are places where the officer corps' practical turn of mind is producing results contrary to rightwing orthodoxy, e.g. the national security threat posed by global warming. It would be interesting to monitor how they are shoved aside although if we can take any hints from the practice of procuring useless, overpriced or dysfunctional military gear, the politicians will win easily (e.g. "Q: What is the only feature of the Osprey that fulfills its requirements? A: "Having components sourced in enough Congressional districts to prevent defunding.")rewinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14008105385364113371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-27583454131500978672011-12-15T16:12:19.631-08:002011-12-15T16:12:19.631-08:00Trying new things is experimenting. Most experime...Trying new things is experimenting. Most experiments fail. That is okay.<br /><br />Curiosity is trying something new, while hogging a huge ammount of our remaining Pu-235. If Curiosity fails, we will have gambled away a valuable scientific resource.sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-88160131316497801752011-12-15T15:56:55.041-08:002011-12-15T15:56:55.041-08:00Most bodies appear to rotate about 10 hrs.
Curios...Most bodies appear to rotate about 10 hrs.<br /><br />Curiosity is trying new things... because that's what we ought to do.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-20751509336533707192011-12-15T15:32:36.471-08:002011-12-15T15:32:36.471-08:00Considering the spin on comets and the like, you&#...Considering the spin on comets and the like, you'd need to do one of two things: attack from a pole (assuming it's not tumbling as well as spinning), or have the spear actually be a penetrator missile that pushes into the comet and then ejects the sample in a container from its rear when it is in the proper positioning for retrieval. Then the ion-powered craft would pick up the sample and head back home.<br /><br />Well, that's how I'd design it at least. And I'm not an engineer.<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-61541681360785061972011-12-15T14:52:49.313-08:002011-12-15T14:52:49.313-08:00Don't those things have any kind of spin? Bec...Don't those things have any kind of spin? Because if it does, it seems like retraction could be more of a problem than they seem to mention. (I'm imagining the asteroid spinning and wrapping the tether around itself like a belt and towing the probe in while engineers panic)<br /><br />But then, I'm the one betting that Curiosity will end in a flaming crater. "Hey, these two small projects worked well. Lets send a big project requiring a radically different landing apparatus next!"sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-50710853487300100422011-12-15T14:25:48.640-08:002011-12-15T14:25:48.640-08:00Yep
To gather material from asteroids or comets ...Yep <br /><br /><i>To gather material from asteroids or comets (re my doctoral thesis!), the agency is developing a sample-collecting space harpoon which could be projected "with surgical precision" from a spacecraft hovering above the target.</i><br /><br /> Seriously, this is what I would have done with my life, if you folks hadn’t bribed me into the arts, instead. <br /><br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16183378David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-22276338739082226892011-12-15T13:46:45.899-08:002011-12-15T13:46:45.899-08:00I acknowledge that you excepted the officer corps,...I acknowledge that you excepted the officer corps, but did not in your article. As phrased, it would give the 'uncle' an easy out.<br /><br />In other news, I was wondering if the resident comet expert / scifi author could say how well he thinks this will work?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16183378" rel="nofollow">Nasa develops space harpoon to take samples from comets</a><br /><br /><i>To study the composition of comets, NASA scientists have engineered a space harpoon that would collect rock samples and return them to Earth for study. The harpoon's tip would be fired from a craft hovering near the target comet and after penetrating the surface and collecting mineral samples, it would return to the craft. The concept of a harpoon is meant to get around landing a craft on a comet's surface, which typically has a very irregular geography as well as extremely low gravity.<br /><br />The study of comets has been instrumental in our understanding of life in the cosmos. In 2002, NASA's Stardust mission found an amino acid, glycine, which is used by living organisms to create proteins. This supported the theory that perhaps some elements essential to life were delivered to Earth from afar. Scientists also hope that by better understanding the composition of comets, we might better understand how to destroy one if Earth was in its trajectory.</i>sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-66339769451746228212011-12-15T13:27:59.194-08:002011-12-15T13:27:59.194-08:00Sociotard, the officer corps is the exception that...Sociotard, the officer corps is the exception that I first mentioned years ago.<br /><br />Though in fact the genrals and admirals hated Bush and defied him in 06, forcing Rumsfeld out.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-39148299592499941552011-12-15T13:26:19.437-08:002011-12-15T13:26:19.437-08:00I put culture war's roots in a slightly differ...I put culture war's roots in a slightly different place. In most of Red America the local High School is the center of life. Every June, the graduates hug and swear to keep in touch...<br /><br />...and the best and brightest shake off the dust and head for the Blue cities as fast as possible. It is this implicit rebuke, repeated yearly for a century, that must lie at the core of festering resentment.<br /><br />In fairness. "ayndroids" works better than "randroids" no? Slightly less directly insulting.<br /><br />Laws of corporatics... the 2nd law implies that the state... via democratic-deliberative processes ... can alter or co-specifiy some of the terms of the charter.<br /><br />I would add. "Any rights exercised by a corporation cannot exceed, in scope, influence or duration, those exercized by a living human citizen."David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-61689694071764481092011-12-15T13:11:52.210-08:002011-12-15T13:11:52.210-08:00David Brin:
(Go ahead and ask your crazy uncle to ...<i><b>David Brin:</b><br />(Go ahead and ask your crazy uncle to name ONE major center of American intellect and knowledge that isn’t under attack by Fox and co. Make it a wager!)</i><br /><br />I don't think I've heard Fox attack the US Officer Corps.sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-31011008769144594592011-12-15T11:03:16.445-08:002011-12-15T11:03:16.445-08:00Larry,
Asimov's three laws were woven into the...Larry,<br />Asimov's three laws were woven into the physical construction of the positronic brains of his robots. They physically could not break the laws(**) and even making them think too hard about it would cause irreparable damage.<br /><br />(** except when they did.)<br /><br />It's not enough to devise your three laws, the hard part is devising a business structure that <i>forces</i> corporations to obey the three (or five or twelve) laws. It must not be possible to function as a business <i>without</i> obeying the laws.<br /><br />(smaketer: Heroin advertiser.)Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84172515078451633672011-12-15T09:03:49.333-08:002011-12-15T09:03:49.333-08:00See above...I'm still playing with the wording...See above...I'm still playing with the wording of the Three Laws of Corporatics, and the Third Law especially requires some thought. I'm not happy with "maximize profitiability", but was going for something along the lines of Asimov's Third Law requiring a robot to protect its existence. Also, to make clear that corporations would continue to maximize profit, but WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS of the First and Second Laws. The point wasn't to add "maximize profit" as a new law, but to show where that law belonged in the pecking order.<br /><br />Then again, to accommodate non-profit entities and other such corporations whose shareholders aren't after profit first, perhaps the Third Law should be about "fulfilling sharholder expectations" rather than explicitly about "maximizing profit". If the two are the same, so be it, but they wouldn't be required to be.<br /><br />Thus, the revised Third Law would be...<br /><br />Third Law:A corporation must act to fulfil the expectations of its legal owners and/or shareholders to the extent that doing so does not violate the First or Second Laws.<br /><br />I like that better.<br /><br />As I say, it's still a work in progress.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71206509848976296062011-12-15T09:03:28.172-08:002011-12-15T09:03:28.172-08:00See above...I'm still playing with the wording...See above...I'm still playing with the wording of the Three Laws of Corporatics, and the Third Law especially requires some thought. I'm not happy with "maximize profitiability", but was going for something along the lines of Asimov's Third Law requiring a robot to protect its existence. Also, to make clear that corporations would continue to maximize profit, but WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS of the First and Second Laws. The point wasn't to add "maximize profit" as a new law, but to show where that law belonged in the pecking order.<br /><br />Then again, to accommodate non-profit entities and other such corporations whose shareholders aren't after profit first, perhaps the Third Law should be about "fulfilling sharholder expectations" rather than explicitly about "maximizing profit". If the two are the same, so be it, but they wouldn't be required to be.<br /><br />Thus, the revised Third Law would be...<br /><br />Third Law:A corporation must act to fulfil the expectations of its legal owners and/or shareholders to the extent that doing so does not violate the First or Second Laws.<br /><br />I like that better.<br /><br />As I say, it's still a work in progress.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-82259495687951608932011-12-15T08:51:53.035-08:002011-12-15T08:51:53.035-08:00Z:
What a wonder it would be if instead of having...Z:<br /><i><br />What a wonder it would be if instead of having sociopathic corporations muscling around the broke public sector for the resources it contains (which includes favorable regulation,) they simply paid for their negative externalities, and the positive externalities they absorb and thus exclude from others, and the citizenry got paid in the deal (especially if a sovereign wealth fund is part of the deal,) averting effective demand collapses, managing any extant or future technological unemployment, alleviating poverty, smoothing the Gini coefficient...<br /></i><br /><br />I've argued back to the Randroids who claim business owes nothing to government that in response, governments should charge businesses for the services governments provide protecting business interests. For example, charge oil companies a couple of trillion dollars for conducting a war in Iraq.<br /><br /><i><br />Of course it's not so simple. But it's a model that doesn't show up on the table too much. Governments are common-managing, externality-resolving machines- but somehow, that gets lost in the shuffle between left and right.<br /></i><br /><br />You make a good argument for governments insisting that all corprations chartered to operate within their influence be subject to the "Three Laws of Corporatics" (derived from Asimov's Laws of Robotics). I'm still tinkering with the wording, but essentially:<br /><br />First Law: A corporation may not externalize its costs of doing business onto the surrounding community or environment.<br /><br />Second Law: A corporation must act according to its chartered mission statement to the extent that doing so does not violate the First Law.<br /><br />Third Law: A corporation must maximize its profitability to the extent that doing so does not violate the First or Second Laws.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54599380715366996262011-12-15T05:23:03.728-08:002011-12-15T05:23:03.728-08:00Wanted to add a quick note in praise of Mr. Gannon...Wanted to add a quick note in praise of Mr. Gannon's observation that much of the anti-intellectualism arises out of a reaction by the general population... to the "perpetual indefinitude that is the modern world..."<br /><br />Of course the world has always been in a state of 'perpetual indefinitude'... its only our awareness of the fundamental nature of this 'criticality' that has changed.<br /><br />Highly complex systems (like weather and civilizations) are only predictable to a certain degree. There is no 'stable and perpetual' formulation... no Left or Right 'ideology' that will provide a perfect roadmap for all situations... and bring us sunny days forever.<br /><br />Our political mechanisms must embrace and encourage a 'granularity' of decision... a 'crowd' of individual thinkers rather than a 'mob' looking for emotional release.<br /><br />But this isn't what our parties seek.<br /><br />Its time for our politics to catch up to our physics.<br /><br />Time is short.Tom Crowlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04444476865484424912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78443905603061467922011-12-15T04:47:07.054-08:002011-12-15T04:47:07.054-08:00As Dr. Brin has suggested mutual accountability is...As Dr. Brin has suggested mutual accountability is the guarantor of freedom (I paraphrase, love to get your exact quote)<br /><br />Authoritarianism AROSE because of an inability to scale the bonds and feedback systems that can hold together a group of hunter-gatherers: an immediate awareness of mutual interdependence and a proximity limiting excessive concentration of wealth or influence.<br /><br />Survival was (and is) dependent on the individual and collective decisions made by the group.<br /><br />Money IS a store of 'decision rights'. <br /><br />I contend that a simple political micro-transaction and its networking is a fundamentally necessary tool for scaling representation.<br /><br />So I developed a method and have patented it... <br /><br />Here is a condensed synopsis of the business model sent to an interested VC I'll be meeting with after the New Year. (My first such meeting so I have much to learn.)<br /><br />------------<br /><br />"I'm assuming you already have understanding of the mechanism behind the Pooled-User-Determined-Account... i.e. a sort of online-based cash card making possible a simple, one-click microtransaction (and importantly not only a microtransaction)... in the political area (and not only in the political area). <br /><br />It is this capability that stands at the root of a very valuable network.<br /><br />(With your experience you may be familiar with Clay Shirky's well considered arguments re why he believes Internet micropayments haven't and won't gain traction. His arguments are good but DON'T apply in this context.)<br /><br />Its a reasonable expectation that with this capability in place as a neutral utility and for any of a number of possible motives... almost everyone... or at least a very significant percentage... will at some time decide to utilize this account and this network for those dedicated purposes.<br /><br />Bootstrapping it into existence is obviously a critical question, but from a strict business standpoint the first question must be: Is it a capability worth building at all? <br /><br />First, I believe this leads to a large and importantly a persistent user-base.<br />And because the system can handle other transactions as well I believe it can anchor the user to the system for other Internet transactions.<br /><br />This alone makes the capability a very valuable commodity... even were it only offered in a licensing situation to an existing pay system that wants to enlarge its base of users.<br /><br />But this is not the optimal configuration.<br /><br />By orienting itself in its inception as a dedicated account for political and charitable contribution... a 'donor network' can be catalyzed that will capture a significant portion of the charity and campaign services sector (especially in auditing, tax, regulatory compliance, FEC reporting, data-mining, polling and various other technical services) and that it can further dominate the corporate/charity sponsorship market.<br /><br />This network then becomes THE target for a multitude of interests that want to reach it.<br /><br />These aren't the only potential monetization sources but I believe form a strong core.<br /><br />There's another hook which I believe is important... and while it could seem a negative for an investor... I believe it's actually an advantage.<br /><br />From the beginning... and under some suitable formulation... a plan whereby the User-base essentially "owns" 50% of the enterprise with a pre-designed exit strategy for founding investors upon maturation of the network via buyout by the user-base. This may be a bit unusual but it can cement both the catalyzation of the network and help secure monetization. And, for the excessively ambitious... lead to an ability to undercut other paysystems by its ability to monetize OUTSIDE of the transaction itself... and so come to dominate the entire Internet transaction landscape. (Might as well think big!)<br /><br />P.S.It may be worthwhile to add that should the public finance of all or part of elections be considered... it's best implemented via this network.Tom Crowlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04444476865484424912noreply@blogger.com