Thanks Chris. Obviously, I have to study this a few more times to make certain I have the concept correctly.

Generally though, this goes to the 'why' of an entity, whether corporate or LLsomething.

Primary is limited liability, which all of these imply. This means there is some type of corporate veil that protects the members personally should something (non-fraud) screw-up that makes the 'group' liable for something.

Second is financial quid pro quo with the state. The state is lending some credibility and rights that a person would not have; including but not limited to the ability to tax exempt or defer certain expenses and investments more easily than a person could, as well as allowing mundane things such as bank accounts, as well as the use of terms such as 'including but not limited to' in a contract.

Your point of different terms and meanings in the States vs. England brings up that there are really different LLC, LLP, etc., laws for each of the 50 states. I transferred a corporate entity from California to Wyoming recently. Now I will have to examine the LLC or P in Wyoming as well. (I picked WY as they don't have a state tax and they aren't Nevada. (Noting against Nevada, except that it is a red flag for California corps which transfer there since some people do it as a dodge. Which wasn't my situation.))

One thing, as I read through your comments above. There are sometimes when I want to have money (profits) stay in a company, growing year to year; to fund R&D that takes extended time, to tide one over when it is obvious that the future won't be as good as the past, or just to delay profit allocations to a year when the profits (and taxes) won't be so high. This would be a downside to a LLwhatever, no?

These have been important to me in the past, but I was paying employees. It may not be as important as your theoretical non-profit, but the ability to sit on a gold mine that allows freedom to make a 'different' decision, without having to distribute it at the end of the year might still apply.


Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

There is a danger of perceiving the ThinkLab as an "organisation" with laws and by laws to be imposed, when in fact it is no more than a consensual "framework" and possibly a "protective coating" (the limited liability bit, which is as problematic ethically for an LLP as it is for a "Plc" or an "Inc") within which we may "self organise".

It would not really be much more than a "Forum" or a "Space" within which stakeholders interact and transact bilaterally and multilaterally they see fit.

In terms of training it would be for the people seeking expertise to find on ET people they judge may not only have the necessary expertise, but also the capability of impoarting it.

Oh no! Don't take everything I say at face value.

I wrote that I need an archivist because poemless is a librarian for a living.

We may indeed need a professional archivist if and when we get an archive, but that was just an inside joke. On the other hand, if you've taken it upon yourseld to keep track of all the projects and skills people are throwing around in this "Bootstrapping" brainstorm, that will be really useful. Thanks!

poemless:

Oh great.   Now I'm going to have to spend the rest of my life explaining that I wrote for ET before it became a shadowy institution devoted to finding intellectual-type bankers employment after the worldwide financial collapse and to promoting anarcho-monarchist propaganda, often suspiciously placed in the LTE sections of high-profile European newspapers...

Migeru:

We could probably use an archivist.

poemless:

I could probably use $20/hour and a laptop ...

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

I misunderstood this

My next contribution to the subject will be an attempt to synthesize some of the components of the thread into an outline of draft bylaws

from your recent (as yet unanswered!) email...

The best I can do re the protocol is assist with an outline of the architecture and the bullet points to be covered - I hate detail, and I ain't particularly good at it.

I did not see this idea as a way of changing ET, I imagined that an additional structure will be built up and that this blog would continue as usual. Obviously there'd be some changes in terms of the posts you'll see if some of the contributors go there. But the blog as it is doesn't need to be changed. But maybe I misunderstood?

I also think that the main motivation is not pecuniary, at least how migeru set it out in terms of a 'research university'. It's about providing a structure that will give people independence in developing their own projects/research/whatever in a way that follows their interests.

Beautifully put, poemless.

And bearing in mind our collective experiences of the existing social and economic system I don't blame you for a minute in suspecting and dreading the worst.

Now I can't speak for anyone else, just myself, and my Agenda is quite simple.

It's to assist as best I can our current cancerous and inherently evil politico economic system in reinventing itself into something better.

That's it. Period.

I gravitated here and was attracted by the standard, breadth and depth of discussion. I've since actually met a few ET'ers, and feel that I know many more from reading the reports, feedback and discussions which pepper the site.

I actually believe - mad though it sounds - that there is a new - a genuinely, once in a thousand years, new - way of doing things now evolving that involves:

• Common Purpose, rather than Individual Agendas;

• mutual creation and exchange of Value in ALL in its forms, whether "money's worth" or purely spiritual or emotional;

• an end to "Profit" and to "Loss";

• an end to "Jobs" and working "for" rather than "with" others;

• and so on... you've seen it all before...

I despise "consulting" or "lobbying" and self appointed "experts" as much as you clearly do.

I left the City years ago because I had had my bellyful, and I'm happy to live in semi-genteel poverty in Scotland with someone I love, working together to a common purpose.

It's not about "using" ET to obtain "lucrative" work. But if ET'ers can come together in mutually creative and stimulating "intellectually lucrative" (I like that) ways to solve problems, AND cover their costs in doing it then I see nothing wrong in that.

Neither Solveig nor I has the luxury of a "job" and changing the world for the better doesn't pay too well.

ET is a Peer Group the likes of which I have never come across. Sometimes - but rarely - I get the sensation of axes being ground, but the grinders don't tend to stay around that long.

I have not even seen any consensus that it is approved of by any majority of members here

IMHO ET isn't a democracy and it isn't a dictatorship: it's a "space". Those who wish to work together will work together collaboratively and in a networked fashion. They already do, and this will continue as formally or informally as the individuals involved wish.

There have been discussions for as long as I have been participating as to how the ET load may be shared more equitably, since there is a limit to how much generosity with money or time people actually can spare.

I just feel like there are a limited number of people

I guess there will always be fewer active ET members than passive.

an insular select group of individuals

You surprise me by saying "insular" because my personal experience is that I have never come across a less insular group once I began to participate.

Right now the people who talk the loudest are being heard.

Heard, maybe, but are we being listened to? Probably not, in my case.

There has to be a better way of doing things. As far as I can tell, that is why Jerome and others were instrumental in creating ET.

I'll work with anyone,through ET or otherwise to further that "Agenda" and I make no apology for it.

It just saddens me that you take such a pessimistic view of the motives of others, particularly when I know you are not alone in that view.

We all need trust transplants, I think...

It is fine to express your view, of course, and it is an important one. The point though is (in addition to what Nanne. Migeru and Chris have said) that ET is quite diverse. And that diversity is important for cross fertilization.

You'd probably find that 'those talking the loudest' on this are mostly self-employed entreneurs who get overexcited about visionary projects ;-) because we get excited about all projects. I believe that for most of us SEE's the boundaries between work, play and learning hardly exist. But I can understand people who like to have things more compartmentalized.

ET as a structure is not going to be the place where this project happens. It needs different software, if it ever happens. But meanwhile this is one more subject for discussion at ET, and as far as the vocalists are concerned the ONLY place available for such discussion. And open discussion.

You can't be me, I'm taken

This is as good a place as any.

My thoughts on this are as follows:

• a reasonable goal would be to have our ideas influence public discourse more, and see ET (or ET-inspired ideas) quoted more often. While that may sound a lot like let's-make-Jerome-a-pundit, and it will be hard for the outside world not to focus on one or a few persons, there is real value in the collective debate, and it is the debate itself that I'd like to promote;

• one way to do this would be to send links for ET content around - posting on blogs, emailing it to journalists, writing to institutions and pundits and the like. This is done on a small scale by some members already; it could be extended, or made more systematic. Having someone with the time to build up the database of contacts, and identify the places where it's worthwhile to post about ET would be a requisite, I think.

• another, more ambitious, would be to take the time to make summaries of some of our discussions, and distribute these around as finished products. That requires (i) the time and ability to prepare summaries (ii) some process for ETers that participated in the discussion to veto or not the summary (iii) the infrastructure to send these around.

• another option would be to push our collective LTE and Op-Ed drafting output. This has worked well in the past, and it can still work, provided that more of us do it. This need not be initiated by me or a FPer, as it has majoritarily been the case so far.

Now, the money angle is relevant insofar as we might want to get someone's time committed more explicitly to doing one of these things or others, and that requires that someone to be compensated for. Should we go that route, and create a structure that actually employs someone, that money may come from various sources - member contributions (unlikely to be enough), grants (need to be found, conditions to be understood), or sale of some kind of services (I'm skeptical so far - apart from writing output that would meet some kind of consensus to be stamped ET, or would be donated by the authors, an option I may be able to put on the table in concrete ways in the near future).

I'm wary of bringing money in anyway in ET. I still think that with a few more committed volunteers, some basic organisation and task sharing, and, quite simply, more members, we can do a lot more of what we do right now, without compromising the quality of debate nor the motivation of participants. In the past few weeks, we've seen an increase in readership, diary writing, and active participants, and debate quality is as good as ever (including some lighter threads). I think we need to build on this.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

Our main asset: cooperative thinking

We could define ET as a think-coop

"Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char