I've already emailed him personally and all of his agents 😆 He is SO GOOD at articulating the problem I really want to get him onto the solution, especially as the UK already has a very successful Employee Ownership Trust program he could really popularize! No word yet, but still hoping...
I hadn't heard of it, but his model is certainly interesting. I've just added both of his books to my notes for further research. Thanks for the recommendation!
As to timeline and deliverables: I will be releasing work live, I'm currently working on several stories that will publish in May and June. I'll be adding them to the index for the project as I do. You can find that here: https://www.elysian.press/p/we-should-own-the-economy-index
My guess is that the book will take me two to three years, with a potential 2028 release date for the book. I'm aiming for that timeline while acknowledging that that I may have to cut myself off at some point. I think it will wind up being a living book after that, like Plurality, where new chapters are still added to the online version regularly!
I don’t understand everything he writes about, but he has a wonderful mind, is totally honest about what he says, arrives at conclusions using facts. I think he is pretty amazing.
It would be great to include more in your finance section on community investment funds - a category of place-based investment funds that allow for a multi-stakeholder approach, providing an avenue for community wealth-building as well as the ability to leverage different kinds of capital (e.g. investment capital, philanthropic funding, individual investors who can be accredited investors and/or non-accedited investors). These funds can have a range of different ownership and governance models, different ways that community participation shows up, an investment thesis that takes impact and social benefit into account, and sharing the profits with the community investors. There's a lot there. Happy to help.
Oh this is a very helpful pointer. I've seen a bunch of things like this but hadn't put a name to it. Glad it's already an existing category I can explore. Are there any in particular you know of that might be interesting to study?
Well, the core idea, frankly, seems a little naive, socialist-y and utopian. (The core idea of the theme of the book, that everybody can be equal financial partners.) But you are clearly very smart and obviously very driven. You've done your research, and it looks like a well-thought-through game plan. I like that you're exploring different ways to approach this. You've mapped it all out. That's pretty cool. Also very impressive. I would never have the patience for something like this. I dig the transparency.
Everyone can't be *equal* financial partners and that's not the goal (nor is it the goal of the book), but they can still be part owners in the parts of the economy they are stakeholders in. Think of a traditional company with an Employee Stock Purchase Plan—the founder of the company gets more equity than the lowest paid employee, but they all still own equity in the company. And that's better than a company in which the founder has equity, and everyone else only has a static salary. Or think about owning a house, right now you can either own the whole thing and thus you have equity, or you pay rent to the person/company who owns it. Whoever has equity in the building has wealth that rises, the rest are paying to use it and thus losing money.
The goal isn't for everyone to become equal owners, just to become owners, and there are already working case studies that do that. Like employee-owned companies and cooperatively owned housing. People don't own these assets equally—higher paid workers have more equity than lower paid workers and people in the penthouse apartment own a larger percent than the person with the studio. But they all still own, rather than rent or work from someone that does, and that changes the wealth equation from "only the owners have wealth that increases" to "we are all owners and so all of us have wealth that increases."
All of this sounds very interesting, but I think you're leaving a very important discussion on the table. First, I'd like to know where you'te getting your numbers from.
The important discussion cocnerns the Fed and the managed economy. You have to talk about the Fed because to do what you're talking about would require diminishing its economic power through distributed wealth transfers. You'll have a hard time convincing the current power brokers to give up control.
Secondly, the battle over the economy has traditionally been over Keynsian economics vs. laissez faire. To do what you want to do will require thinking differently about a managed economy. Keynsians are centralists while those in favor of lasseiz faire economics tend toward plutocracy and the private assimilation of capital. Public ownership of the economy flies in the face of both extremes. How do plan to handle that balance?
I'm not talking about distributed wealth transfers, and I'm not talking about public ownership of the economy. I'm talking about private ownership of the economy by private individuals, but more of them. I'm talking about workers being owners of the companies they work for because they have equity in them, just like the founders do. I'm not talking about redistribution here, I'm talking about distribution. And we don't need to change anything about the fed to do this, these structures already exist. We only need to incentivize them to be the more mainstream option.
Currently, no one owns the economy, which is nothing more than the combined economic value generated by all the players involved. These systems already exist independently, so what is your proposed change? How will incentivization occur, and who will be the incentivizing party? What will be the reward for those who are incentivized?
What you're describing sounds a lot like Hive.blog. Are you talking about pulling all these systems together somehow?
People do own the economy. They own stocks in public companies and shares in private companies. The people who own the shares—the shareholders—get rich when those companies get richer. Unfortunately, the only people who can afford those shares are founders, executives, and investors who are rich enough to own that capital in the first place. When the economy does well, their wealth expands exponentially.
Those who are merely earning a salary do not see their wealth go up. It remains static, and thus they are unable to purchase capital in the first place, or else own very little of it. Their wealth barely expands and they can't keep up with inflation, while the shareholders at the same company see their wealth expand. They can use it to buy up even more capital (in the form of companies and real estate and other investments).
An employee owned company, however, makes every employee a shareholder. So their wealth expands when the company does, just like the founders and executives and shareholders. Companies like this already exist all around the world, we just need to expand and incentivize and fund the model. (As well as look into other ones, like many of the other items mentioned in my outline!)
I do every day. You are welcome to enlighten me if you feel there is something I'm missing.
You are right that the economy is "the combined economic value generated by all the players involved" but that combined economic value is also owned by a combination of all of the shareholders involved. We need better players, and more shareholders.
Here are some working case studies of how that works right now and how it could be better:
I'm not saying any of the ideas you are discussing here are bad ideas. They're all good ideas. ESOPs, B corps, decentralization ... none of it is new. Microsoft, a public company, has made thousands of millionaires.
When you say "ownership of the economy," that implies that you are talking about the macroeconomy, which you are not talking about. You are talking about various microeconomies. Specifically, what you are talking about is the distribution of shareholder equity. But most of the economy isn't based on shareholder equity. Most of it is individuals like you and me buying potatoes at the supermarket, having our cars serviced at Pop's Automotive, and shopping at the local thrift store. Most businesses are still small, independently owned, and not based on shareholder equity.
I absolutely love seeing your evolution from serializing on Substack to crowdfunding incredible research projects. Very inspiring. I'm on board of course, will see about whether investing makes sense for my budget! I miss having more physical books on the shelves.
This is really well thought out. I've been thinking of doing something similar with a film or limited series, but through Substack tiers instead of Wefunder. Also, I've been sharing your Wefunder page. I got some negative feedback such as “It’s a new version of Marxism, with a pyramid scheme of investment into her book underneath it” and “…the use of current capitalistic practices to support the message feels incongruent.” I don't see the pyramid scheme at all, but I do think there is some incongruence. Do you think you’ll change any approaches as you move along?
I definitely explored a lot of avenues and may explore others in the future, but I ultimately wanted to fund it in the way that was most aligned with the topic of my book: creating more owners.
If I went the traditional publishing route there would be one owner, the publishing house. If I crowdfunded using Kickstarter, I might fund my book advance from readers but I would remain the sole owner. Crowdfunding ownership of the work seemed the best way to allow readers to become stakeholders and owners of the book.
If you know of other options for shared ownership I would love to know about them, but this is the best option I've seen through my own research!
I'm not sure what the incongruence would be though?
I'm not against the book or fundraising effort, but this idea is exactly the core of Marxism - not a bad thing in my opinion but like, that's what it is. Even the point about using capitalism to advance an anti-capitalist cause fits into Marxism. I understand not wanting to label it that way, though.
It's interesting because there is a big split, especially in the employee-ownership space, between those who consider this model capitalist and those who consider it anti-capitalist. The reality is this model can serve both agendas! It exists within the traditional capitalist system but benefits more people because there are more owners.
Personally, I'm not altogether concerned with whether that's capitalist, anti-capitalist, Marxist or non-Marxist. People got into a huge debate in the comments section of my Mondragon piece on whether the company should be considered capitalist or socialist. The fact that both sides claim it is only an advantage to me, and I think we should be appealing to both groups.
I love the angle you’re taking with this book—it’s the same line of thought motivating me to launch a mechanism I designed that democratizes access to ownership of private property. More local owners mean a tougher, healthier, more vibrant local economy.
My project, Treasury, turns rent into a wealth-building tool for tenants in 2-6 unit multifamilies, cutting out rent-seeking middlemen like landlords and mortgage companies. It’s built on a distributed ledger (likely built on Radix), using 2 flavors of tokens that allow tenants to accumulate and store wealth right in their own neighborhood.
Treasury's mechanism aims to create a robust network of tenant-owned properties that constitute a "sticking point" for wealth at the very bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. Execution will require an innovative method of governance and really excellent UI/UX design, and I'm hoping to entice a local University into helping with academic analysis and modeling once I have a finalized greenpaper to share.
When folks slap “Marxism” or “socialism” on my mechanism or your book, they’re dead wrong—and usually haven’t done their homework. We’re pushing for more private property, the opposite of marxist/socialist urges. Your book describes capitalism leveled up, not torn down. Your book’s vision of broader capital ownership feels like the perfect foundation for mechanisms like mine—an economic update that’s overdue and unapologetically capitalist.
Excited to see where your research goes—especially on crowdfunded ownership and blockchain. It’s spot-on for Treasury’s goals. Subscribed!
Nothing published yet, but stumbling across your research proposal sent me a signal to get something formally written and published before April hits.
I've taken a ground up approach to building this. I have already acquired a 2-unit pilot property that is in the middle of renovation. Over 2 years, I've soaked up a ton of knowledge regarding the realities of landlordship, property maintenance and renovation, the financial side of property management. I've refined my "back of napkin" economic model and I have a finalized roadmap written down with crystal clear deliverables.
I will ping you as soon as the first writeup is published.
For sure. Labelling that way would turn off some potential investors. There's a lot to think about with Elle’s pitch. If you were to do something similar, what would you zoom in on and what would you eliminate or change, Chad?
I don't think I would change much, since the pitch is a research project, not a policy platform - I think it's fair to study and assess each of the avenues Elle's laid out here. Some questions or avenues for exploration I might have are 1. how would companies that adopt an employee ownership/coop structure using these experimental avenues survive in a legal environment that promotes short-sighted growth at all costs (existing co-ops struggle for this reason). 2. how would a new system of ownership handle commons dilemmas, assuming returns / growth is still the goal? Commons dilemmas occur even under democratic systems. I guess my main point is that legal / structural change is also required, not just on the level of individual companies / actors. Nothing groundbreaking, I know.
I know I commented it before, but I didn't see it in the list above and didn't want it to fall through the cracks. Lots of cool things happening; hard to keep up.
I have a MUCH longer list that I didn't publish! (An earlier mentor said my outline was too long!) But I'm subscribed to their newsletter now and I already reached out for an interview!
You mentioned municipalities. The city of Wilson down east was grandfathered past a state law pushed through by the telecom companies, which says that cities can't compete with private companies, an effort they started specifically because their market was 'unprofitable' for those same companies.
Whoa, this is crazy!!!!! Cities should definitely be able to compete with private companies!!!! Just added both of these to my research list. Thank you so much!
Love this! For the topic of companies serving our long-term societal interests, I recommend looking at The Natural Step as a source.
It’s a partially open-source research-project and a non-profit from Sweden which developed a framework that sets out the system conditions for the sustainability of human activities on Earth.
The framework includes 3 principles for ecological sustainability and 5 principles for societal sustainability. They use those principles to advise organizations on working towards socioecological sustainability—and they are much more ambitious and foundational than just “reducing emissions”.
I can connect you with representatives of The Natural Step and share sources if you decide to look into it.
Oh this is great, thank you. I just subscribed to their feed. Do you know of a good place to start in their research? If not, I can dig around in there but if you know of something in particular that might be interesting to study definitely let me know!
The Natural Step Germany has created a free course called the "FutureFitness Foundation Course (FF101)" which I feel provides a much better introduction to the framework, you can access it here: https://www.go-reconcile.net/
This is beautiful and love how well you've framed your problem solving. Planning to dive a little deeper in and likely invest to support and follow along.
I would add that an equally important part of this book is *who* has opposed these efforts, *how* using what arguments that are top of mind for people. From what little I know there have been many attempts to have this kind of regulatory system but they are usually opposed. The perfect story example is the Green Bay Packers (only distributed ownership of a team and the NFL then banned more from being created).
It's not harder to have the world you're describing. In many ways it'd be easier. But it's explicitly not designed that way and attempts to create it have been opposed. I'd be curious who's doing the opposition and how they get away with it. Cheers!
I was just speaking with some mentors this week about this very thing. For example: One of the major hurdles to worker-owned (and stakeholder-owned, for that matter) businesses, is that traditional funding mechanisms are now allowed or able to fund those kinds of businesses. It's a huge policy flaw that is keeping more of those businesses from being funded and established! But there are people working on it and I will cover their efforts in-depth. You're so right, we need to figure out what those hurdles are and undo them!
I love it and will be interested in seeing updates here! I’ve heard the same from friends all across the spectrum.
While I’m more of a crypto novice lurker this is one of the main benefits of DAOs is creating a structure for what society refused to (decentralized ownership and payments). It almost feels like the whole DeFi movement is a rebellion against institutions who tried to prevent those kind of organizations from existing.
TOTALLY. Do you know of any DAO's that have been successful in their model? A lot of the ideology in this space seemed to start on the blockchain, but then wound up being created off it in order to be successful. For example, collective ownership of art was an on-chain idea, but Masterworks became more successful with it off-chain. If you know of any successful case studies let me know!
Honestly! Not really but any time I look at it I get lost in crypto language. Cabin DAO has been interesting in terms of rebuilding communities and self ownership. There's a bunch that have successfully self-organized and paid for on chain projects (selling shovels not digging gold). But I can only look at them so long before getting lost in language I have yet to take the time to understand, so I'm sure I'm missing some worth discussing.
Ah, I so feel this frustration. Like there is this shiny exciting idea, but then the execution is impossible to understand. Or else doesn't seem to work the way that they say it does in practice? I'll definitely be keeping an eye on the space though and will be looking out for case studies!
Curious if you’re going in the same direction as me: https://medium.com/@kairos.social/can-capitalism-be-moral-67aa73c96b00
Read ‘And Forgive Them Their Debts’ by Michael Hudson
You're the second person to recommend it! On my list!
You should get in touch with Gary Stevenson in the UK (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5Ghe5TBQGYIOANuiNW4hDQ). You both have very similar ideas. I'm sure it would be a great collaboration.
I've already emailed him personally and all of his agents 😆 He is SO GOOD at articulating the problem I really want to get him onto the solution, especially as the UK already has a very successful Employee Ownership Trust program he could really popularize! No word yet, but still hoping...
I assume you will be addressing Michael Hudson‘s long-term analysis of pre-capitalist credit and debt? Is there a timeline and deliverables?
I hadn't heard of it, but his model is certainly interesting. I've just added both of his books to my notes for further research. Thanks for the recommendation!
As to timeline and deliverables: I will be releasing work live, I'm currently working on several stories that will publish in May and June. I'll be adding them to the index for the project as I do. You can find that here: https://www.elysian.press/p/we-should-own-the-economy-index
My guess is that the book will take me two to three years, with a potential 2028 release date for the book. I'm aiming for that timeline while acknowledging that that I may have to cut myself off at some point. I think it will wind up being a living book after that, like Plurality, where new chapters are still added to the online version regularly!
I don’t understand everything he writes about, but he has a wonderful mind, is totally honest about what he says, arrives at conclusions using facts. I think he is pretty amazing.
Oh good to know, thank you!
It would be great to include more in your finance section on community investment funds - a category of place-based investment funds that allow for a multi-stakeholder approach, providing an avenue for community wealth-building as well as the ability to leverage different kinds of capital (e.g. investment capital, philanthropic funding, individual investors who can be accredited investors and/or non-accedited investors). These funds can have a range of different ownership and governance models, different ways that community participation shows up, an investment thesis that takes impact and social benefit into account, and sharing the profits with the community investors. There's a lot there. Happy to help.
Oh this is a very helpful pointer. I've seen a bunch of things like this but hadn't put a name to it. Glad it's already an existing category I can explore. Are there any in particular you know of that might be interesting to study?
Well, the core idea, frankly, seems a little naive, socialist-y and utopian. (The core idea of the theme of the book, that everybody can be equal financial partners.) But you are clearly very smart and obviously very driven. You've done your research, and it looks like a well-thought-through game plan. I like that you're exploring different ways to approach this. You've mapped it all out. That's pretty cool. Also very impressive. I would never have the patience for something like this. I dig the transparency.
Everyone can't be *equal* financial partners and that's not the goal (nor is it the goal of the book), but they can still be part owners in the parts of the economy they are stakeholders in. Think of a traditional company with an Employee Stock Purchase Plan—the founder of the company gets more equity than the lowest paid employee, but they all still own equity in the company. And that's better than a company in which the founder has equity, and everyone else only has a static salary. Or think about owning a house, right now you can either own the whole thing and thus you have equity, or you pay rent to the person/company who owns it. Whoever has equity in the building has wealth that rises, the rest are paying to use it and thus losing money.
The goal isn't for everyone to become equal owners, just to become owners, and there are already working case studies that do that. Like employee-owned companies and cooperatively owned housing. People don't own these assets equally—higher paid workers have more equity than lower paid workers and people in the penthouse apartment own a larger percent than the person with the studio. But they all still own, rather than rent or work from someone that does, and that changes the wealth equation from "only the owners have wealth that increases" to "we are all owners and so all of us have wealth that increases."
This sounds so intriguing! Briefly, what are your thoughts on Thomas Sowell?
I don't know his work, do you recommend it?
Can
All of this sounds very interesting, but I think you're leaving a very important discussion on the table. First, I'd like to know where you'te getting your numbers from.
The important discussion cocnerns the Fed and the managed economy. You have to talk about the Fed because to do what you're talking about would require diminishing its economic power through distributed wealth transfers. You'll have a hard time convincing the current power brokers to give up control.
Secondly, the battle over the economy has traditionally been over Keynsian economics vs. laissez faire. To do what you want to do will require thinking differently about a managed economy. Keynsians are centralists while those in favor of lasseiz faire economics tend toward plutocracy and the private assimilation of capital. Public ownership of the economy flies in the face of both extremes. How do plan to handle that balance?
I'm not talking about distributed wealth transfers, and I'm not talking about public ownership of the economy. I'm talking about private ownership of the economy by private individuals, but more of them. I'm talking about workers being owners of the companies they work for because they have equity in them, just like the founders do. I'm not talking about redistribution here, I'm talking about distribution. And we don't need to change anything about the fed to do this, these structures already exist. We only need to incentivize them to be the more mainstream option.
Thanks for the clarification.
Currently, no one owns the economy, which is nothing more than the combined economic value generated by all the players involved. These systems already exist independently, so what is your proposed change? How will incentivization occur, and who will be the incentivizing party? What will be the reward for those who are incentivized?
What you're describing sounds a lot like Hive.blog. Are you talking about pulling all these systems together somehow?
People do own the economy. They own stocks in public companies and shares in private companies. The people who own the shares—the shareholders—get rich when those companies get richer. Unfortunately, the only people who can afford those shares are founders, executives, and investors who are rich enough to own that capital in the first place. When the economy does well, their wealth expands exponentially.
Those who are merely earning a salary do not see their wealth go up. It remains static, and thus they are unable to purchase capital in the first place, or else own very little of it. Their wealth barely expands and they can't keep up with inflation, while the shareholders at the same company see their wealth expand. They can use it to buy up even more capital (in the form of companies and real estate and other investments).
An employee owned company, however, makes every employee a shareholder. So their wealth expands when the company does, just like the founders and executives and shareholders. Companies like this already exist all around the world, we just need to expand and incentivize and fund the model. (As well as look into other ones, like many of the other items mentioned in my outline!)
You need to deepen your understanding of economics.
I do every day. You are welcome to enlighten me if you feel there is something I'm missing.
You are right that the economy is "the combined economic value generated by all the players involved" but that combined economic value is also owned by a combination of all of the shareholders involved. We need better players, and more shareholders.
Here are some working case studies of how that works right now and how it could be better:
https://www.elysian.press/p/employee-ownership
https://www.elysian.press/p/founders-can-make-millions-selling-to-workers
I'm not saying any of the ideas you are discussing here are bad ideas. They're all good ideas. ESOPs, B corps, decentralization ... none of it is new. Microsoft, a public company, has made thousands of millionaires.
https://earnyourleisure.com/news/business/since-its-ipo-microsoft-has-created-8-billionaires-and-an-estimated-12000-millionaire-employees/
Other publicly-traded companies have also created millionaires.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-magnificent-stocks-created-many-141500051.html
https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/06/20/3-magnificent-stocks-that-have-created-many-millio/
When you say "ownership of the economy," that implies that you are talking about the macroeconomy, which you are not talking about. You are talking about various microeconomies. Specifically, what you are talking about is the distribution of shareholder equity. But most of the economy isn't based on shareholder equity. Most of it is individuals like you and me buying potatoes at the supermarket, having our cars serviced at Pop's Automotive, and shopping at the local thrift store. Most businesses are still small, independently owned, and not based on shareholder equity.
I absolutely love seeing your evolution from serializing on Substack to crowdfunding incredible research projects. Very inspiring. I'm on board of course, will see about whether investing makes sense for my budget! I miss having more physical books on the shelves.
Thank you so much!!!!! It's always an evolution ☺️
I think someone hacked your account? leaving spammy telegram link comments. might be a good idea to change your info!
Sheesh! I saw one comment to that effect but it seems to be gone now, hopefully it was resolved?
Hopefully so!
This is really well thought out. I've been thinking of doing something similar with a film or limited series, but through Substack tiers instead of Wefunder. Also, I've been sharing your Wefunder page. I got some negative feedback such as “It’s a new version of Marxism, with a pyramid scheme of investment into her book underneath it” and “…the use of current capitalistic practices to support the message feels incongruent.” I don't see the pyramid scheme at all, but I do think there is some incongruence. Do you think you’ll change any approaches as you move along?
I definitely explored a lot of avenues and may explore others in the future, but I ultimately wanted to fund it in the way that was most aligned with the topic of my book: creating more owners.
If I went the traditional publishing route there would be one owner, the publishing house. If I crowdfunded using Kickstarter, I might fund my book advance from readers but I would remain the sole owner. Crowdfunding ownership of the work seemed the best way to allow readers to become stakeholders and owners of the book.
If you know of other options for shared ownership I would love to know about them, but this is the best option I've seen through my own research!
I'm not sure what the incongruence would be though?
I'm not against the book or fundraising effort, but this idea is exactly the core of Marxism - not a bad thing in my opinion but like, that's what it is. Even the point about using capitalism to advance an anti-capitalist cause fits into Marxism. I understand not wanting to label it that way, though.
It's interesting because there is a big split, especially in the employee-ownership space, between those who consider this model capitalist and those who consider it anti-capitalist. The reality is this model can serve both agendas! It exists within the traditional capitalist system but benefits more people because there are more owners.
Personally, I'm not altogether concerned with whether that's capitalist, anti-capitalist, Marxist or non-Marxist. People got into a huge debate in the comments section of my Mondragon piece on whether the company should be considered capitalist or socialist. The fact that both sides claim it is only an advantage to me, and I think we should be appealing to both groups.
I love the angle you’re taking with this book—it’s the same line of thought motivating me to launch a mechanism I designed that democratizes access to ownership of private property. More local owners mean a tougher, healthier, more vibrant local economy.
My project, Treasury, turns rent into a wealth-building tool for tenants in 2-6 unit multifamilies, cutting out rent-seeking middlemen like landlords and mortgage companies. It’s built on a distributed ledger (likely built on Radix), using 2 flavors of tokens that allow tenants to accumulate and store wealth right in their own neighborhood.
Treasury's mechanism aims to create a robust network of tenant-owned properties that constitute a "sticking point" for wealth at the very bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. Execution will require an innovative method of governance and really excellent UI/UX design, and I'm hoping to entice a local University into helping with academic analysis and modeling once I have a finalized greenpaper to share.
When folks slap “Marxism” or “socialism” on my mechanism or your book, they’re dead wrong—and usually haven’t done their homework. We’re pushing for more private property, the opposite of marxist/socialist urges. Your book describes capitalism leveled up, not torn down. Your book’s vision of broader capital ownership feels like the perfect foundation for mechanisms like mine—an economic update that’s overdue and unapologetically capitalist.
Excited to see where your research goes—especially on crowdfunded ownership and blockchain. It’s spot-on for Treasury’s goals. Subscribed!
Exactly, well said! Do you have a link to your project or a place I can learn more?
Nothing published yet, but stumbling across your research proposal sent me a signal to get something formally written and published before April hits.
I've taken a ground up approach to building this. I have already acquired a 2-unit pilot property that is in the middle of renovation. Over 2 years, I've soaked up a ton of knowledge regarding the realities of landlordship, property maintenance and renovation, the financial side of property management. I've refined my "back of napkin" economic model and I have a finalized roadmap written down with crystal clear deliverables.
I will ping you as soon as the first writeup is published.
Amazing, thank you so much!
For sure. Labelling that way would turn off some potential investors. There's a lot to think about with Elle’s pitch. If you were to do something similar, what would you zoom in on and what would you eliminate or change, Chad?
I don't think I would change much, since the pitch is a research project, not a policy platform - I think it's fair to study and assess each of the avenues Elle's laid out here. Some questions or avenues for exploration I might have are 1. how would companies that adopt an employee ownership/coop structure using these experimental avenues survive in a legal environment that promotes short-sighted growth at all costs (existing co-ops struggle for this reason). 2. how would a new system of ownership handle commons dilemmas, assuming returns / growth is still the goal? Commons dilemmas occur even under democratic systems. I guess my main point is that legal / structural change is also required, not just on the level of individual companies / actors. Nothing groundbreaking, I know.
And this, on the other side of the state.
"The mission of The Industrial Commons is to rebuild a diverse working class in Western North Carolina, based on locally-rooted wealth."
https://www.theindustrialcommons.org/
I'm a follower, very excited to read more about their work. Thank you so much for sharing them with me!
I know I commented it before, but I didn't see it in the list above and didn't want it to fall through the cracks. Lots of cool things happening; hard to keep up.
I have a MUCH longer list that I didn't publish! (An earlier mentor said my outline was too long!) But I'm subscribed to their newsletter now and I already reached out for an interview!
You mentioned municipalities. The city of Wilson down east was grandfathered past a state law pushed through by the telecom companies, which says that cities can't compete with private companies, an effort they started specifically because their market was 'unprofitable' for those same companies.
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/875548059/why-wilson-n-c-became-its-own-internet-provider
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/29/865908114/small-america-vs-big-internet
Whoa, this is crazy!!!!! Cities should definitely be able to compete with private companies!!!! Just added both of these to my research list. Thank you so much!
Love this! For the topic of companies serving our long-term societal interests, I recommend looking at The Natural Step as a source.
It’s a partially open-source research-project and a non-profit from Sweden which developed a framework that sets out the system conditions for the sustainability of human activities on Earth.
The framework includes 3 principles for ecological sustainability and 5 principles for societal sustainability. They use those principles to advise organizations on working towards socioecological sustainability—and they are much more ambitious and foundational than just “reducing emissions”.
I can connect you with representatives of The Natural Step and share sources if you decide to look into it.
Oh this is great, thank you. I just subscribed to their feed. Do you know of a good place to start in their research? If not, I can dig around in there but if you know of something in particular that might be interesting to study definitely let me know!
This 2017 study gives a pretty comprehensive overview of their sustainability framework – although it's arguably a bit tough to dig through: https://ingenjorerformiljon.se/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/FSSDreviewarticle.pdf
The Natural Step Germany has created a free course called the "FutureFitness Foundation Course (FF101)" which I feel provides a much better introduction to the framework, you can access it here: https://www.go-reconcile.net/
Or if you prefer to read, the content of the course is pretty much identical to this Springer Nature book chapter (it's paywalled though): https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-06014-5_17
Amazing, thank you so much for these notes. That is so helpful!
This is beautiful and love how well you've framed your problem solving. Planning to dive a little deeper in and likely invest to support and follow along.
I would add that an equally important part of this book is *who* has opposed these efforts, *how* using what arguments that are top of mind for people. From what little I know there have been many attempts to have this kind of regulatory system but they are usually opposed. The perfect story example is the Green Bay Packers (only distributed ownership of a team and the NFL then banned more from being created).
It's not harder to have the world you're describing. In many ways it'd be easier. But it's explicitly not designed that way and attempts to create it have been opposed. I'd be curious who's doing the opposition and how they get away with it. Cheers!
I was just speaking with some mentors this week about this very thing. For example: One of the major hurdles to worker-owned (and stakeholder-owned, for that matter) businesses, is that traditional funding mechanisms are now allowed or able to fund those kinds of businesses. It's a huge policy flaw that is keeping more of those businesses from being funded and established! But there are people working on it and I will cover their efforts in-depth. You're so right, we need to figure out what those hurdles are and undo them!
I love it and will be interested in seeing updates here! I’ve heard the same from friends all across the spectrum.
While I’m more of a crypto novice lurker this is one of the main benefits of DAOs is creating a structure for what society refused to (decentralized ownership and payments). It almost feels like the whole DeFi movement is a rebellion against institutions who tried to prevent those kind of organizations from existing.
I’ll be following though, love the work Elle!
TOTALLY. Do you know of any DAO's that have been successful in their model? A lot of the ideology in this space seemed to start on the blockchain, but then wound up being created off it in order to be successful. For example, collective ownership of art was an on-chain idea, but Masterworks became more successful with it off-chain. If you know of any successful case studies let me know!
Honestly! Not really but any time I look at it I get lost in crypto language. Cabin DAO has been interesting in terms of rebuilding communities and self ownership. There's a bunch that have successfully self-organized and paid for on chain projects (selling shovels not digging gold). But I can only look at them so long before getting lost in language I have yet to take the time to understand, so I'm sure I'm missing some worth discussing.
Ah, I so feel this frustration. Like there is this shiny exciting idea, but then the execution is impossible to understand. Or else doesn't seem to work the way that they say it does in practice? I'll definitely be keeping an eye on the space though and will be looking out for case studies!