Latest Posts

ComComism is a peaceful way

Own With Us

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:53:59 +0000

Please see our First step
this rest is an old page kept only as archiving

This page is very old, it is kept for history only! please try the 6 points here

——

new IsWith-Platform pdf.

Please also see ComCom Social project with our arguments for the ComComism and the GovComCom solution which can be your solution for the massive intervention of all governments in our world.

<—			\|X\|	Next—>	1) ComComists' Home	\|X\|	2) common company in 6 points	3) GovComCom
4) comcom how it goes				5) comcom news links etc	6) common company in 6	7) see also	8) iswith doc

Join here for becoming one of the first 5500 ComComists initiating worldwide the comcomism (see here how we do it and here see why)

In 3 pictures, all what you need for finding yourself in ComCom: (see also what-to-do-with-ComCom and here see why).

In this page you can learn how do we ComComize a company:

We, the shareholders of the business, make a line cutting all the shares of the business into two portions and then agree upon this rule (determining the business as a ComCom):
- Each shareholder holding shares in one of the portions holds equal number of shares (aka $n<=1$), unlike the shareholders holding shares in the other portion, where
  - A) any shareholder in the business can not hold shares in both portions and the ratio (aka $$0<d<=1$$ ) between the portions is fixed for all the lifetime of the business once it became a ComCom;
  - B) each of the shareholders having equal number of shares is a c-holder being either a person or other ComCom and of the shareholders holding shares in the other portion is a p-holder being either a person or any other business, where the number of all c-holders is $$c>=1$$ and of all issued shares is $$i>=1$$ , such that always $$i*d=c*n$$ and
  - C) any shareholder holding shares in the ComCom is disallowed to sell such shares to any one which does not agree with this rule.

notes: B) when it is desired that the $$d$$ would be changeable (and in the price of reduction of transparency), one ComCom of which d=1 can hold some portion of other non-comcom company of which d=0.
C) we must assume 2 authorities for diluting shares, namely the on for all the ComCom and the one for only common portion for the ComCom.

ComCom (a Common Company) is a practical-solution-for and not only an utopia-about any kind of business! (Please check here if you agree with the arguments for this claim) After being ComComized the business add a new layer of relationship/s to interact with, the layer of equal ownership. This in itself opens a new horizon for making businesses: The one upon being equal added to, and not substituted for, the one we already know, which is upon being different. We also assume that In such interaction, a new type of power would take effect, namely the power of those who are equal when is well organised , or the power in being equal - one with another, the one power in which the quality of an argument given by a talker is always prior to her/his position and the one power which is mostly neglected by the few when governing the most by dividing the most for having the most in the control assumed by the few. Try to imagine the ComCom-community as part of the open-source/free-software ones. ComComizing is an inclusive solution, integrating both powers, in being equal and in being different, into one unit.

Business transformed to ComCom (i.e. when is ComComized) can reward its preferred clients by letting them become its c-holders.

This can be for gaining investment and/or for having its close ring clients be more likely loyal bringing friends and active, at least in providing information about their needs/desires.

So then, after being transformed ,the original business, in its new form/structure, is to become a p-holder as its privileged clients are to be also its c-holders. Such privileged are to be offered to buy c-holder`s shares. (Think for a moment what could be the engineering of the identity of a customer of x if the customer is also c-holder of x, when x is coca-cola , facebook, gm, aig, citigroup etc)

It is important here to understand that¹ all the c-holder, or at least the majority of them, must agree with each entry of another such c-holder and that with such entry the number of shares per each c-holder is reduced to $$n*(c/(c+1))$$ , where $$n$$ is the original number of shares and $$c$$ is the original number of c-holders.

Hence, if $$v=s*n$$ , where $$s$$ is price of one share and $$v$$ is the value held by each c-holder, then the price of a share must be increased to $$s* (c+m)/c$$ for reaching the condition of $$v(c)<=v(c+m)$$ , whenever $$m$$ is the maximum of new c-holder which is agreed in the policy adapted by the current c-holders and where this policy may be readjusted per each transaction of entry/exit of c-holders until reaching the $$m$$ in the condition desired by the c-holders. By using such method and in each transaction the ComCom can inspect and learn or quantify the quality of who and how-many are to be/become its privileged clients.

This way lets the growth of ComCom be organic and specific to its clients and not only to its product or service and specific to its competitors (meaning designed as infinite without competitors ) and is to be consider for privileged clients which in them activity with the business add value to the business. What shell be the $$m$$ is depended on the current $$c$$ .

In the event of becoming ComCom, $$c$$ is depended on the $$d=(n*c)/i$$ , where $$i$$ is the number of all initiated shares of the business and $$d$$ is the portion of the portion held by all c-holders and initial value of the business before becoming ComCom.

One way of doing it is distribution by selling $$n$$ shares to $$c$$ new shareholders, still as non comcom business, and then if each such shareholder has only $$n$$ shares and all shareholders agree with the 6 points, then being transformed to ComCom and defining the $$m$$ with the specific methods for re-adjustment ( for more about these methods see more about representation of c-holder by razing issues attaching representative and possible contra representative for the issue as part of the iswith platform for any ComCom. This is for the power of being equal be realised if and when is well orgenzied).

If the market is still bigger than that which $$m$$ allows, the solution for this ComCom is to join other such ComCom as a c-holder or a p-holder in new bigger business being private or ComCom (of which d might be equal to 1), or in short to from cooperation .

]

Helping People To Have Their Saving In Order, How?

Next-->

Do Not miss our latest-comments!!!

How to do ComCom:

for more see these 6 points
Is ComCom structuring of a business a Ponzi/Pyramid scheme?
Elevator pitch: It is a tool for raising capital, but also activity, loyalty and the friend bring friend as in networking. It is also a very nice brand nowadays linking trust with ownership, correlating with the raise of obama and the mistrust in the capitalism doctrine. Finally it is specially good for start-ups and for the huge temporal intervention of the government for those in need, when the government is p-holder in GovComCom, of which c-holders are those who are in need, hence when finally the intervention withdraw, still those who are in need would hold it as its c-holder.

Formula: $$i*d=n*c$$ , where
$$i$$ is the number of shares of the company, $$d$$ between $$0$$ and $$1$$ is the ratio of the portion of share belonging only to c-holders, of which number is $$c$$ , and of which each holds exactly $$n$$ number of shares, where $$d$$ is unchanged in the lifetime of the ComCom, of which $$d>0$$ .

There are 2 type of shareholders in any ComCom: the c-holders and the p-holders. Each p-holder may hold any number of shares but only from the portion which is not defined for all the c-holders. Any of the shareholders is either a p-holder or a c-holder, never both. Each p-holder is one person or company and each c-holder is one person or ComCom.

Virtual Facebook Example:
Here we are as facebook users getting all which we get, but not owning facebook. Also, facebook has its businesses dealing with adds and also taking some of our privacy. So, what if the users of face book are c-holder in facebook? Let's say that the $$d$$ in this case is $$d=0.5$$ , it means that all the users together have $$50%$$ of facebook and that we could make profit from and take decision about facebook as shareholder in facebook. In this case would we make more of and more for facebook? Also in this case, no one could takeover facebook from us, so we could really invest more in it.

Now imagine that facebook also has its competitor, say google my space etc, wouldn't facebook be better home for its user, attracting more users (also since we the c-holder users) , while we are calling the others (just because we are owner of facebook) ?

What to do with ComCom:

The interaction around the GovComCom This is urgent, it is politcal in its nature, but it is global issue - the issue of the intervention of governments for the rescue of the needy, as an strategy of which the exit is to privatised the failure businesses after eating the tax payer money. The question is this: Why the needy would not be the c-holder in the exit strategy of the gov? It is unguent NOW for you to find the ways to let your leader to know about GovComCom!!! obama would like to know it, would you be the one, the first one, to tell it to obama or your leader out of usa (we are all in this are we not)?

In House Out Sourced
Get Organized For A Cause
Open source developers can own the ComCom business having the openness they desire in their development

web123-and-the-comcom

about Govcomcom

Thu, 03 Jan 2013 18:04:44 +0000

Next-->

Solve what is emerged from this by govcomcomizing the intervention of governments (more in the manual).

Stop fed feeding banks and other forms of bailouts by GovComComizing!
It is time to fight the bailouts of the failures later to be privatized/sold!!! They (huge banks) must be held by peer owners if and when are to be bailout - help to resonate it - here is the GovComCom petition

GovComCom is a ComCom of which p-holder is our government and of which c-holders are the needy becoming the excuse or reason for the government to bailout big cooperation.

Those bailouts are (to be) payed on the account of the tax payer and so that bigger inflation, greater debt and.or low interest pushing toward new bubbles is the outcome. GovComCom is always better deal than any bailout. see it here from the business' point of view.

About the expressions: ComCom, c-holder and p-holder try here. Also see our arguments for ComComism and then Our 55 Structure which is How we make the Framework for all ComCom to evolve and finally join us here and/or in our mailing list govcomcom@googlegroups.com .

Let Central Banks know about ComComism, when they are seeking for instruments allowing better management of their risk of having too big players in their economy, because now they can reach their goal by pushing for govcomcom instead of privation or bailout and by pushing for reduction or elimination of tax request from any comcom of which d =1. We Ask Any Government and especially the Obama administration to

declare a Tax Release for ComCom of which $$d=1$$ , as they do for association.
construct their exit strategy from their current intervening, so that the needy who become the reason for the intervention would, in the exit event, become the c-holder in the GovComCom being ComCom of which the Government being the p-holder would sell its share to the private hands.
declare its position in regard to comcom, since we believe comcomizing is a good thing for the economy.

Now You Can Bring Your Government To Do What It Must Do After The Massive Bailout All Over the World and before the new ones to come!!! We believe it must be in from of GovComCom. We, the citizens from all over the world, are now seeking for any GovComCom solutions. And here is why: Any of the bailouts was unjustified unless by saying something like this: well, if we would not do that, then many would suffer much more, and so if this is the only reason, then those many becoming the excuse or reason for the government to bailout could be c-holders, since they are the only justified needy. These needy to become c-holders shall be then be in the new structuring of many big cooperation supported by our governments, such as banks etc.

The only real way to fight the lobbies is by ComComizing the market!!!

For that the Gov can help in 2 ways:
1) GovComCom as a tool for its intervention and
2) letting ComCom of which d=1 be as associations are, meaning, taxed-free.

Without you, Obama alone CAN NOT move the necessary public opinion for creating GovComCom, for such movement requires an active weight pulling to that direction. This means that Obama can not govcomcomise unless you push him to it. Please use the contact to the President above and then use the-comcomists mailing list to coordinate with us all for making this active weight.
thanks

For making long be short: Now, after the heavy emission of the gov, now, as it is the time of absorption by gov as its means for both: fighting inflation and executing its exit strategy from it bailouts, the restructuring (of the financial system) must be for the benefit of the public (after such heavy absorption/emission). For achieving this the gov must consider in its exits strategy the structure of GovComCom and any one of us can help the gov to consider it. as a starting point for the structure of GovComCom please see this: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/erezelul/gGGMmR

(this was a comment censored from http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/2009/06/05/dont-discount-inflation-just-yet/ )

+ Comcomized unit versus cooperative (and in larger scale, states and democracy of the masses)

IsWith - Common companies (ComCom and GovComCom)

Thu, 24 May 2007 22:28:17 +0000

Ask namZeZaM

Common Company (ComCom) in 6 points . You can now join the new comcomized.com platform. Why?
Either I am represented in my democratic state and hence what it does is in my responsibility, or I become peer owner in the texture of entities constituting my state.

The problem: The bigger the group of equal individuals is the weaker is the power of each individual.
The solution: Each individual owns equal part of the group's assets and evaluates it as a whole when leaving the group. Hence, when such small groups equally own bigger ones, the movement of the individual does not harm the bigger, making the solution scalable.
more..
See also http://yes-i-am-angry.wikidot.com

A "leadership crisis"? A "failed system"? Here is an alternative - A stock market regulation aligned with the following six points to benefit customers, which are "peer owners" over parts of the sellers, which are companies in that market.

+ comcom formation how?

+ When Co-Ownership is the better choice?

+ The peer coin and object coin as means for trading and evaluating ownership and goods, sometime even without money and hence as non taxable means.

The peer coin and object coin as means for trading and evaluating ownership and goods, sometime even without money and hence as non taxable means.

Non taxable ,Why? As long as migration is legal, paying tax is only a choice backing the actions of the taxing authority and its ascendancy! For instance For instance, making the german tax payer to back exporting weapon (and in large scale as being the 3rd largest), exploitation of over sea lands, people and/or corrupt governments and to back the strategy of "too big to fall" discriminating cyprus in the case of luxembourg.
The peer-coin or the object-coin is an accumulative and exchangeable medium, suspending its exchange while holding the trust that it is exchangeable for tangible things in a space governed by agreements between those exchanging the coins and having the trust in the exchange. Sometimes, when the coin is exchangeable only for moderated property, such coin has on itself both symbols, one representing its value and other representing the value's expiration date. Both, the peers-coin and the objects-coin are to be used, when a holding comcom is, or represents, a department in the held comcom, being the governing space of the exchange, as the "departments" are trading across the held comcom (see this picture):

A) the peers-coin is used for evaluating ownership in the exit/entry of holders of comcom/department and
B) the objects-coin is used as a fiat money of the held comcom for evaluating (temporal) responsibility/ownership over objects, such as products, services and/or holdings, in the transfer of the objects between holding departments/comcoms.

How to calculate the ratio between object-coin and peer-coin, x-peers-coin and y-objects-coin, x-peers-coin and y-peers-coin or x-objects-coin and y-objects-coin?

peer-coin evaluates in a one comcom the ownership of one peer owner, where one peer-coin=v=(t/c)*d and t is the total holding value of all the comcom, c is the number of the peers and d is the ratio of the portion held by all the peers.
object-coin evaluates periodical use of object being products, services and/or holdings, for being use by a caretaker (and not a renter) supplying service of/on/by the object being held directly or indirectly by one "held comcom", where the object is attributed to the caretaker being peer owner of the "held comcom" and a department in the "held comcom".
practically the peers-coin and objects-coin could be implemented like bitcoin but without mining or with last descendant comcom holding the bitcoin pooled mining and with uid.

When debt money system is a perfect expropriation device, have a tax free option of 2 coin types: 1 of peers & 1 of objects and use them between small & equal common companies holding one bigger, while being its departments.

+ How to guarantee no multiplication of identities of holder in and across common companies?

+ Do you agree that clever, honest and authentic politicians should have push for...

+ Tradability is important, Why?

+ Very Generally speaking...

+ Some links

@A@The Personal Agreement Of Ownership Establishing Comcom .	@W@4 levels low cost Workshops And Trainings for Comcomism	@M@Comcomized Mailing Services- the basic Internet platform for comcomism, renting services for mailing list of which members are its owners, implementing real time and active ownership.
@DOInvest As A Peer-owner Instead Of Donate	@IS The 55-structuring	@OM ComCom-Community
@GO Govcomcom demand your government to list those who are to be reword by its privatization or its bailout and then take those in the list to become peer owners in a comcom of which your government took share or should have been taking shares.	@SB Comcomism For Small Businesses	@CS Comcom Social - Social Networking with more of ownership of ts members - less of donation and in a constant start-up's mood
*Secure data storage by the SDP*
*interview (5) on youtube*	cycle-it
@O@ Comcomism - the organizations (comcomism Org) for establishing Scomcom of (d=1, 20<=c<=100) becoming holders in ComComIsm LTD !	@I@Invest in one of the N Comcom Organizations which are P-Holders In the Comcomism Ltd	@C@the Comcomism Ltd
*peer-owners The Book*
Do something	*Earn from it!*
Low Cost Workshops

+ What forming the contract should include?

+ On youtube

See some more images here

+ Play it

An Important note:

The Following is an old and historical documentation on the issue and should be considered obsolete in any contradiction in relation with the above.

Next-->	1) latest comments	2) short descriptions	3) ComCom in wider context	4) definition	5) comparison	5) distribution of powers	7) using this doc		8) unique factors
Join here for becoming one of the first 5500 ComComists initiating worldwide the comcomism (see here how we do it and here see why)

Here you can learn the Why and the For-what but please also try the Howto and the What and do not miss our latest-comments.

Now, decentralising human systems is in your hands, also in the commercial world and in parallel to the political change we already observe. You don't need to fight, flatter and/or be ranked against the Huge ones even as they gain their power by lobbies, when you can simply neutralize them.

So, how can you still own what you (must for your own profit) share we are to answer in this page also in respect to the free-software/open-source movements, which do solve the knowledge aspect of distribution but never the over-centralised (capitalistic and/or governmental) power attached with such knowledge. (and now just think of the trend of social networking involving developed applications in their platform)

Please do not forget to go to this page to see the exact price for such privilege and/or for learn how to become a Common shareholder in IsWith LTD: The first to promote and become a ComCom.

Here we begin with a strong belief that it is a good thing for any one to interface with ComCom (and that this is the main choice to make for any one at least as client if not also as an artist developer and/or a researcher - aka power producers).

Introduction (ComCom Social why),
Geting Into IsWith - the HowTo (This is how we do it),
ComCom - Common Company and Common Companies
The IsWith: The company in London, its business and its networking,
ComCom Social Networking in general and in practice (recommend almost anyone - to be its founder, to initiate it and/or to share, to own and use it)
- the Problem is that Social-Networkings' platform do not match their Financial structure
- ComCom is the next step in the social networking market ! (node/41)
The News, Links, Forum, RSS, Todo etc
This site & the HowTo use this page
unfold-all

gtgl (Good Time Good Luck) from namzezam

+ Comcomized unit versus cooperative (and in larger scale, states and democracy of the masses)

The 6 points defining what a Common Company is (where td=vc or id=nc)

Sat, 03 Nov 2007 19:55:44 +0000

Ask namZeZaM

The problem: The bigger the group of equal individuals is the weaker is the power of each individual.
The solution: Each individual owns equal part of the group's assets and evaluates it as a whole when leaving the group. Hence, when such small groups equally own bigger ones, the movement of the individual does not harm the bigger, making the solution scalable.
more..
See also http://yes-i-am-angry.wikidot.com

A "leadership crisis"? A "failed system"? Here is an alternative - A stock market regulation aligned with the following six points to benefit customers, which are "peer owners" over parts of the sellers, which are companies in that market.

+ comcom formation how?

+ When Co-Ownership is the better choice?

+ The peer coin and object coin as means for trading and evaluating ownership and goods, sometime even without money and hence as non taxable means.

The peer coin and object coin as means for trading and evaluating ownership and goods, sometime even without money and hence as non taxable means.

A) the peers-coin is used for evaluating ownership in the exit/entry of holders of comcom/department and
B) the objects-coin is used as a fiat money of the held comcom for evaluating (temporal) responsibility/ownership over objects, such as products, services and/or holdings, in the transfer of the objects between holding departments/comcoms.

How to calculate the ratio between object-coin and peer-coin, x-peers-coin and y-objects-coin, x-peers-coin and y-peers-coin or x-objects-coin and y-objects-coin?

peer-coin evaluates in a one comcom the ownership of one peer owner, where one peer-coin=v=(t/c)*d and t is the total holding value of all the comcom, c is the number of the peers and d is the ratio of the portion held by all the peers.
object-coin evaluates periodical use of object being products, services and/or holdings, for being use by a caretaker (and not a renter) supplying service of/on/by the object being held directly or indirectly by one "held comcom", where the object is attributed to the caretaker being peer owner of the "held comcom" and a department in the "held comcom".
practically the peers-coin and objects-coin could be implemented like bitcoin but without mining or with last descendant comcom holding the bitcoin pooled mining and with uid.

When debt money system is a perfect expropriation device, have a tax free option of 2 coin types: 1 of peers & 1 of objects and use them between small & equal common companies holding one bigger, while being its departments.

+ How to guarantee no multiplication of identities of holder in and across common companies?

+ Do you agree that clever, honest and authentic politicians should have push for...

+ Tradability is important, Why?

+ Very Generally speaking...

+ Some links

@A@The Personal Agreement Of Ownership Establishing Comcom .	@W@4 levels low cost Workshops And Trainings for Comcomism	@M@Comcomized Mailing Services- the basic Internet platform for comcomism, renting services for mailing list of which members are its owners, implementing real time and active ownership.
@DOInvest As A Peer-owner Instead Of Donate	@IS The 55-structuring	@OM ComCom-Community
@GO Govcomcom demand your government to list those who are to be reword by its privatization or its bailout and then take those in the list to become peer owners in a comcom of which your government took share or should have been taking shares.	@SB Comcomism For Small Businesses	@CS Comcom Social - Social Networking with more of ownership of ts members - less of donation and in a constant start-up's mood
*Secure data storage by the SDP*
*interview (5) on youtube*	cycle-it
@O@ Comcomism - the organizations (comcomism Org) for establishing Scomcom of (d=1, 20<=c<=100) becoming holders in ComComIsm LTD !	@I@Invest in one of the N Comcom Organizations which are P-Holders In the Comcomism Ltd	@C@the Comcomism Ltd
*peer-owners The Book*
Do something	*Earn from it!*
Low Cost Workshops

+ What forming the contract should include?

+ On youtube

See some more images here

+ Play it

An Important note:

The Following is an old and historical documentation on the issue and should be considered obsolete in any contradiction in relation with the above.

common-company-in-6-points-ger

|X|

Next-->

common-company-in-6-points-fr

definition

Is-ComCom-structuring-of-a-business-a-Ponzi-Pyramid-scheme

(Defined by the formula

$t*d=v*c$

, see point 5):
(The translation of this page to French and German are now in process.)
See also The Personal Agreement Of Ownership Establishing Comcom , our Faq and ComCom's arguments and when you wish Contact and have more

Here are the 6 points together defining each ComCom ( being a Common Company):

Point 1: It is a commercial company having 2 divisions of shares, namely: the Common and the Private;

Point 2: The ratio of shares in its Common division out of its whole is its Decentralizing property (the $$d$$ ), which is defined such that the value of all the Common division equals $t*d$,
- where $$t$$ is the total market value of all the company,
- where $$d$$ is nonzero smaller or equal one ( $$0 < d <= 1$$ ),
- and where $d$ may be set only once in the lifetime of the common company, either in its formation or when it becomes common one from being private one i.e. when $d$ is reset from zero.
  - That is to say: $$d$$ is static, it can't be changed if the company is a common one (but if the company is a private one as its d already equals zero, then this company may become a common one by only once changing its d to a nonzero).
- When $$d$$ is zero or d is reset more than once, then the company is a Private and not a Common one.
- Hence the d alone defines any company as either Private or Common one and is static in all the lifetime of a common company;

Point 3: Each of its shareholders is either a Common shareholder or a Private shareholder, respectively to the division of shares the one holds.
- Hence a shareholder can never be a Private and a Common shareholder.
- Both: the Private and the Common shareholders have their rights respectively to their shares and in both considerations:
  - the one of liquidation and the one of any voting,
- so that the distinction between Common or private shareholders is not to be confused with that of the preferred or the common shareholders appearing in classification of Stocks, such that the Common shareholders in such classification are both: the Private and the Common shareholders in ComCom and regardless of any of the "preferred ones";

Point 4: Each of its common shareholders has equal number of shares and is either a person or a Common Company.
- Hence a private company can never be a common shareholder in a Common company, but the other way around is possible. This establishes the asymmetric property of the Common companies versus the Private ones in general, for protecting the motion of the notion of decentralizing in the market as a whole;

Point 5: Its total projected value (the t), being the value of all the shares in the company, is always calculated such that $$t * d = v * c$$ , where
- $$$ t * d$$ is the value of the common division of the company, which is equal to the value of all the Common Shareholders in the company;
- Only when this equation is evaluated true, then the distribution of shares in the company may be considered as such which reflects the t as the projected value of the company, hence all the 4 following equations must also evaluate true:
  - $$t * d = v * c$$
  - $$t = i * s$$
  - $$i * d = n * c$$
  - $$v = n * s$$
- and where
  - $$i$$ is the number of ALL issued shares of the company;
  - $$t$$ is the Total projected value of the company, which is the value of ALL its shares;
  - $$s$$ is the price of one Share in the company, it is an offer for sell, which affects directly the projected t and hence all other reflected values in the company;
  - $$d$$ , as $$0 > d >= 1$$ , is the proration of shares in the Common division of the company, which defines the ratio of the Decentralizing property of the company, where this ratio is static when the company is a Common one;
  - $$c$$ is the number of ALL Common shareholders in the company;
  - $$v$$ is the projected value held by EACH Common shareholder;
  - $$n$$ is the number of shares held by EACH Common shareholder;

and Point 6: It is established by an agreement, prior to any other agreement between any of its shareholders, including any other potential such shareholders,
- where the agreement between the shareholders must include these 6 points defining ComCom and must disallow the signed upon it to sell any share of the ComCom to any one which does not agree to the agreement
- and where each of the shareholders agree
  - that the number of shares owned by EACH Common Shareholder always equals $n$,
    - where $$n=(i*d)/c$$ ;
  - that with each entry of a new common shareholder:
    - first $$n$$ is recalculated and set equal to $$i*d/(c+1)$$ and then $$c$$ is recalculated and set equal to $$c+1$$ ;
  - and that with each exit of a current common shareholder:
    - first $$n$$ is recalculated and set equal to $$i*d/(c-1)$$ and then $$c$$ is recalculated and set equal to $$c-1$$ .

Hence always the number of shares owned by each of the Common Shareholders is $$n=(i*d)/c$$ , which together as one share pack cost $$v=s*n$$ , where the total projected value of the ComCom is $$s*i=t=(v*c)/d$$ .

Terminology:

We call a share pack
- the collection of $$n$$ shares together costing $$v$$ and being held by each common shareholder.
we use C-holder
- as a shorthand for Common holder being a shorthand for Common shareholder
and we use P-holder
- as a shorthand for Private holder being a shorthand for Private shareholder.

in the event of:	and in relation to $$n$$ being the number of shares held by each c-holder
Always:	$$n=(i*d)/c$$
One new c-holder enters and exactly before $$c+=1$$ :	$$n$$ is recalculated and set equal to $$n*(c/(c+1))$$
One c-holder exits and exactly before $$c-=1$$ :	$$n$$ is recalculated and set equal to $$n*(c/(c-1))$$
Conclusions:	1) $$c/(c+1)$$ or $$c/(c-1)$$ , which is used as a multiplier for $$n$$ , is the proportion of each change in $$n$$ . As bigger is $$c$$ , the multiplier fast curves toward $$1$$ (where if the $$multiplier=1$$ then $$n$$ is unchanged), hence $$s$$ , $$t$$ or $$v$$ should be realized when $$c$$ is up from a specific threshold. 2) For keeping $$v$$ be unchanged, $$(c+1)/c$$ must be the proportion of increase in $$s$$ with each entry of a new c-holder and $$c/(c-1)$$ must be the proportion of decrease in $$s$$ with each exit of an existing c-holder. 3) The higher is the threshold the smaller are these changes and $$v$$ is stabilized. 4) The steadiness of $$v$$ reflects the current structure of the company¹ if its C-holders are part of its business activity as the C-holders are its clients, employees and/or contractors. And accordingly, when $$v$$ is unchanged, then $$t+=v/d$$ , $$s=(c+1)/c$$ and $$v=1=(c/(c+1))((c+1)/c)$$ , with each entry of new c-holder. 5) The steadiness of $$v$$ is convenient in planing the business for both; the ComCom and those with whom it maintains its relationship, but additionally/alternatively it should be adjusted or adapted to the current and actual business activity of the C-holders as well as of the other market forces. And so, for calculating the projected price being planned to be offered to new C-holders, we can use $$a$$ as a multiplier for each of the values affecting the steadiness, as the default without such adaption is where $$a=1$$ , hereby $$t+=av/d$$ , $$s=a(c+1)/c$$ and $$v*=a$$ . 6) It is important to add that if $$v$$ is too big, we could reduce it by letting dividend to the shareholders.

See also these bedoni's documents
- - Easy_ComCom_en.pdf
  - Easy_ComCom_de.pdf

The ComCom's virtual business plan:

Here are some tables illustrating a virtual business plan yet without knowing its resources, business activity or market², but still aiming in many rounds adding new P-holders and C-holders in its transformation to become a ComCom from being an existing normal or private company We assume

$a=1$

being the default case, where

$a$

is an Adjustment multiplier value for calculating

$s$

expectation
$$t+=av/d$$ or $$t=a*(c+1)/c$$	is the expected increase of $$t$$ in rounds with each entry of new c-holder
$$s=a(c+1)/c$$	is the expected increase of share's price in rounds with each entry of new c-holder
$$v*=a$$	is the expected increase of $$n$$ share's price or $$v$$ in rounds with each entry of new c-holder
$ $$0.5$$	³ $$v+=start_v*dif_d/start_d$$ is the expected increase of $$v$$ between rounds

round	$$r$$	$$s$$	$$t$$	$$d$$	$$n$$	$$v$$	$$c$$
in	$$+=0$$	$$=a(c+1)/c$$	$$=a(c+1)/c$$	$$+=0$$	$$=(c(c+1))$$ ⁴	$$*=a$$	$$+=1$$
between	$$+=1$$	$$+=0$$	$$+=0$$	$$+=dif_d$$	$$+=n*dif_d/d$$	$$+=v*dif_d/d$$	$$+=0$$

Footnotes

variable where $$a=1$$	eg. of its value	its description
$$i$$	$$10000000$$ or 10M	number of all Issued shares
$$s$$	$ $$0.01$$	price for each Share
$$c$$	?	number of c-holders in the ComCom
$$v=s*n$$	?	Value of one pack or of $$n$$ shares being all the shares held by each c-holder
$$d=n*c/i$$	?	ratio out of the ComCom (its Decentralization property) of the common portion held only by all c-holders, where $$si=t=vc/d$$ and $$v/s=n=i*d/c$$
$$dif_d$$	$$0.001$$ ( $$0.1$$ %)	ratio as a bounce taken in each round from the private and added to the common destined portions
$$dif_c$$	$$10$$	size of each round defining the increase of $$c$$ between rounds
$$start_d$$	$$0.02$$ ( $$2$$ %)	only when $$start_d<=d$$ , shares are offered to c-holders
$$start_v$$	$ $$10$$	$$start_v=v$$ when $$start_d=d$$
$$start_c=(start_d/dif_d )*dif_c$$	$$200$$	$$start_c=c$$ when $$start_d=d$$
$$start_t=start_v*start_c/start_d$$	$ $$100000$$	$$start_t=t$$ when $$start_d=d$$
$$private_d$$	$$0.02$$ ( $$2$$ %)	only when $$private_d<=d$$ , $$private_d$$ is the whole ratio destined to other p-holder/s
$$dif_p=(private_d)/((max_d-start_d)/dif_d)$$	$$0.02/480$$	where $$dif_p*i=416$$ is the number of shares destined per round to other p-holder/s
$$max_d$$	$$0.5$$ ( $$50$$ %)	when $$max_d= d$$ , then phase_1 ends and phase_2 starts, hereby from phase_2 and farther on and upon agreement approved by its shareholders the company becomes ComCom
$$r$$	?	a counter of rounds, where $$start_d/dif_d =min_r=20<=r<=500=max_r=max_d/dif_d$$

Here you can see how such Common Companies (ComCom) may be integrated, considering the functions of the common shareholders in those companies,

this way can be constructed in many layers for producing a complex bottom-top net of ComComs:

FAQ

Have fun, because now by ComComzing you can: Decentralizing Human Systems is now in your hand, also in the commercial world.

Here are some Frequently Asked Questions related to the concept of ComCom:

Here you can find some more questions already asked in the ComComzing project

1) Why ComComizing (making COMmon COMpanies) is a good thing for the economy (e.g. of USA) and/or as business model?

2) What is the hardest thing to overcome before reaching a massive ComComizing ?

3) How exactly ComComizing can be used to solve the mortgage crisis ?

4) How to quantify the quality of any distribution and especially the one of wealth?

5) How ComCom and the constitution of its citizens are related?

6) What make a person be a ComComist?

7) Should some more chill responses be considered for ComComizing, and if so what are those?

8) Does the stock market and privatization, being the main factors establishing the globalization as we know it today, contribute in their design to worsening the distribution of wealth, and if so how?

9) How about a Credit Union - could this be considered a type of ComCom?

10) After the end the communist regime the Privatization in Czech Republic was made by offering equal shares to all the citizens, but then some of which citizens could and did buy the right of the others and so the distribution just gut be much worsen, how ComComizing could differ or could prevent such a case from happening?

1) Why ComComizing (making COMmon COMpanies) is a good thing for the economy (e.g. of USA) and/or as business model?

When considering only the pattern of any company having its clients to which it is to provide service/product for a financial return, any ComCom can generate an advantage over any private company, where both, regardless their d, are similar, by letting the preferred clients of the ComCom be also its Common Shareholders, since such Common-Shareholders-clients are likely to become more loyal, more bringing friends and more active (at least in informing their preferences to the company).

ComComizing is a good thing for the economy because, while each ComCom still leaves a fixed room for the old class of its owners (such as private companies, investors and entrepreneurial founders) it guarantees a higher quality of distribution of wealth, by offering ownership for a new massive class being its Common Shareholders, each of which owns an equal number of shares and all of which shares are unable to be owned otherwise, hence are protected from unequal ownership. This new class may include its customers and employees aside with or along with its power producers (even when are so unbound as contractors). Such power producers are artists, developers and/or researchers. Hence, by elevating this new class of owners and by having the class be protected from takeover by unequal ownership of some private hands, ComComizing strengthens the middle class being the most essential for any long run health of the economy.

Here is an example illustrating the bottom-top structure of some such ComCom, where the Common Shareholders in all these ComCom belong to the new class of owners. This structure can be imitated to many others, where all such structures are based upon the primeval pattern of company having its clients to which it is to provide service/product for a financial return and where the Common Shareholders of the last ComCom (ComCom-E in the eg.) are Common-Shareholders-clients and the Private Shareholders of the first ComCom (ComCom-A in the eg.) are all the shareholders of a normal private company before it is to become a ComCom:
- ComCom-A, providing some consulting for internet platforms, is such of which private shareholders are some investors and entrepreneurial founders and of which common shareholders are researchers.
- ComCom-B, providing some internet platforms, is such of which private shareholders is ComCom-A and of which common shareholders are programmers.
- ComCom-C providing some internet platform dedicated for unique content is such of which private shareholders is ComCom-B and of which common shareholders are artist.
- ComCom-D providing some internet platform acting as a gallery is such of which private shareholders is ComCom-C and of which common shareholders are public relations (PR) contractors.
- ComCom-E providing some internet platform selling unique content is such of which private shareholders is ComCom-D and of which common shareholders are buyer of the content provided by the artist.

As you can see ComComizing, as any other companies modules, allows structuring also through the ownership itself. This adds to the known modules some other factors and it is for this structuring that ComComizing can be used for communities like the open-source, free-software, creative-common or generally content related or web 2.0 business. So first let's look into the ownership types involved in any ComCom.

ComCom is an independent unity gathering (just like in a family) both types of ownership, the collective and individual ones, each demands responsibility from the owner for some benefits rewarded, where the collective ownership requires and encourages the sharing, whereas the individual ownership the competition. Both aspects together, the sharing and the competition, are essential for any sustained success and hence both types of ownership must take place, if we are to accept that for the benefit of the whole (company, economy or society) the individuals must also think bigger than just for themselves.

You may find the collective ownership a bit contradicting to your concept of (individual) ownership, if you would expect your ownership be not dependent on the others with whom you share. Thereby , in any ComCom the Private Shareholders have their number (as opposed to the value) of shares exclusively depended on themselves and independently than any entry or exit of other such Shareholder, unlike the Common Chareholders, for whom the number of shares is changed considering each entry or exit of other such Common Shareholder, where this dependency together with the amount of change in the number of shares is exponentially reduced with having more such Common Shareholders in the ComCom.

2) What is the hardest thing to overcome before reaching a massive ComComizing ?

The fact that many people, as they have to meet the failures in the system in which they act, are still afraid to become owners, and still find it easier to blame others than taking for themselves responsibility, which is (in their minds) reserved for the owners. Another disadvantage for investors in ComComizing is their inability to takeover a ComCom for handing it over to the richer ones, ie. less of the common exit strategies.

3) One of the most urgent issues waiting to be solved by any current/next US president is the mortgage crisis in the USA and particularly all which is involve with the case of Fanny May and Freddy Mac. These two giants owing or being the owners of at least half of the mortgage market, even now after their complete collapse and after the shift from (so called) implicit to (so made) explicit guaranty provided by the federal powers until finally taking over them in a price of more than doubling the American national debt, are to remain in the spotlight, so in this light:
- How exactly ComComizing can be used to solve the mortgage crisis ?

(For more about this problem rooted in the economy of US and being established since the great depressions in 1938 under the name of "the new deal", please see this: Federal_National_Mortgage_Association).

Passing through all the layers, the Problem was of over trust, that much that even the specialists did not understood the (financial) instruments they used, while relaying the most only on the identity of the sellers assumed to be well enough respected!!! This is always caused by over centralization!!!! The solution therefore must care for better distribution of wealth and for cooperative ownership.

First let's introduce the concept of GovComCom: These are ComCom of which initial private shareholders are government agency/ies and of which common shareholders are included in some target groups to be helped by some governmental activities for satisfying some social, of community and/or financial requirements of the union or the state, the city, the community etc. eg. for such such fields are education (universities), health-insurance, social/community activities organizations/groups etc. It is part of the concept that the GovComCom may become latter ComCom by having the government agency/ies exchanging hands with the private sector and still as such it is unalike the privatization as we know it today, since the new ComCom would be still held also by their common shareholders.

By the government creating some ComComs acting like commercial banks, where the Private Shareholders (under some guidelines/regulations) of the ComCom are agents of the federal powers and its Common Shareholders are borrowers who personally guaranty loans transformed directly, or (mostly) indirectly to be the mortgage owned by Fanny May and/or Freddy Mac, where each of the borrowers in their loan also pay for the one's right (given as a bounce) to sell or become a common shareholder in the ComCom, but only after the debt to the ComCom is paid off and where some parts of the private portion of such a ComCom could later on be sold by the government to some private hands.

This type of ComCom may be formed with specific limitations, such as of number of Common Shareholders, value of to their total debt and/or its quality of distribution, and even (because of the nature of collective responsibility bind with benefit of the Common Shareholders) such that within each GovComCom the Common Shareholders are not competitors of each other, (e.g. if the borrowers are players acting in the same field then they shall be located not in the same region or be Common Shareholders in other such GoveComCom).

These GovComComs, then, are to be additional players in the stock market attempting to own shares in Fanny May and Freddy Mac, or becoming Common Shareholders in one and/or both of them, if they would become ComComs themselves.

If this is the case, then, even when the federal powers have to intervene by injecting (tax) money and/or by providing some sort of guarantees, still the burden of excusing such an action will be lighter, since now such intervention is done to directly support those who are desired by the federal powers (due the tax payers and in the name of the voters), and only via them the stock market, but not directly the unknown stock market players and only via them the desired ones.

Of course all this should be urgently considered since things already became too ugly, meaning both companies are held from being corrected by the market, just because they are too big to fall.

4) How to quantify the quality of any distribution and especially the one of wealth (and distinguished from how to map such distribution between some groups) ?

Let X, out of the whole population in question,
be equals the percentage of the owners arranged from the richest to poorest,
such that the position of the richest on the X is in the range tending to X=0
and that of the poorest is in the range tending to X=100;

Let G, representing the grid upon X, be a counter of all the X points evaluated in question,
each of which is in equal distance of 100/G from its nearer X point/s.

Let Y, out of the whole property owned by the whole population in question,
be equals the percentage of the property owned by
all the owners specified from the current X to X = 0,
such that the percentage of the property is ADDED
per each X from the current to the zero for accomplishing calculating each Y;

Let Q, representing the Quality of the distribution,
be equals -5000 + the sum of all Y,
where 0 <= Q <= 5000 and the bigger is Q the worse is the distribution,
hence Q/50 is the percentage of the quality of the distribution in question
out of the worst possible distribution,
where Q is comparable across some such distributions
only if the G in question is equal across all the distributions.

Some notes:
- It is hard to get the data, we get only portions, please help to get the data. here is the last such protion: ""The top 1% of all households owned 35% of the world's wealth last year. Meanwhile, the top 0.001% (1%/1000), ultra-rich households holding at least $5 million in assets, commanded $21 trillion — a fifth (20%) of the world's wealth". From making the Q of it we would approximately get 0.000001% (1%/1000000) of the World population owning 10% of the property on earth, that is 6.7 billion/100,000,000=67 peoples which we do not have the list of their name. Could you help on getting good data?

1.The diagonal on the plane (where x=y )
represents the best distribution of the wealth,
and the worsen the distribution
the bigger is the belly of the produced graph above that diagonal,
where the worst distribution, corresponding to each 100%*100% square,
accounts to 5000 and the best to zero.

2. This graph vs the diagonal represents,
while the capacity demarcated between the graph and the diagonal quantifies,
the quality of the distribution of wealth,
such that the bigger the capacity the worsen is the quality
and hence, as it quantifies the group,
it provides a kind of zoom with an insight into one group in question,
but it is valid only within the group and not across some such groups,
although is valid for all such groups if are collectively regarded as one group.

3. If we do want to compare the quality of distribution in groups
(and distinguished from comparing the distribution between those groups),
then we also must have D, as such diagonal, per each such group.

We can do so by
first arranging the groups from the richest to the poorest,
then setting the natural number m >= 1 as an identifier per each such group,

then setting per each group the n(m)
as the percentage of wealth of the group m out of the richest group
(so that n(1) =100 on m=1 and n(m) <=100 on m>1 )
and then recalculating per each such m:
y(m) = y * n(m) / 100 ,
x(m) = x + 100 * m
and D(m) being a direct line between
point_1=((m-1)*100,0) and point_2=(m*100,n(m)).

4. We can set in question any kind of population (X) in relation to its property (Y),
e.g. all the people vs all their property,
or all the people in USA vs their property,
or all people watching TV for more than 5 hours a day vs
their property etc.

5. We can always add new dimension z,
representing the changing in the quality of the distribution along the time,
where z = some time notation e.g. year, or day etc.

5) How ComCom and the constitution of its citizens are related?

The constitution of its citizens is based on the natural right of each of its citizens to own equal share of all the resources belonging to the union/state, hence the constitution establishes arrangement treating the state/union as a ComCom of which d=1.

6) What make a person be a ComComist?

Attempting to ComComize and generally to interface with ComCom rather than with private Companies of which d=0.

7) Should some more chill responses be considered for ComComizing, and if so what are those?

Yes, here are some:

It is time to admit that our well trusted specialists in economy were so deadly wrong to measure the health of any economy heavily/mainly by its growth and regardless the quality of distribution of wealth in it!

That was like measuring stability of a system by the increase of the energy it contains and regardless where the energy is located and how well it is concentrated in its locations. Shortly they measured excitement of a system and confused it with its health, such doctors are only drug pushers, no more, and the drug in this context is the increase of consumption due to the increase of debt cynically and cyclically guaranteed.

(The analogy of wealth being held (i.e. money) to energy, is base upon the ability to generate changes by both.)

In short, ownership matters! Do not give it a way, while you can own but still share equally the ownership for to act similarly as in the public domain, but in the domain being your ComCom. Sometime you may not want to share with all the people for all their reasons if you strongly oppose some of them.

As for the overpowering open-source initiative's clauses 5 and 6 instructing "No Discrimination Against Persons, Groups or Fields of Endeavor" (initiated, declared and described at opensource.org/docs/definition.php) and in relation to the question of For whom is the knowledge making profit, here are some responses for to consider both clauses unfair toward the individuals in the communities the initiative claims to protect and to reconsider some kind of, but not overpowering, discrimination:
- You may consider your work valuable that much that your competitor such as those who do not always only provide and respect the open-source motion even when form time to time are very supportive to massively suck your source (such as google, microsoft, oracle, ibm etc) would NOT benefit from learning your work for latter taking their advantage against all your community, you or some values you believe in.
- Your business model without generating some advantage against your competitors is weaker, making you less capable for your claimed needs (see the case of mozila firefox vs the chrome of google, aiming blocking the block add features provided in firefox), where advantages against your competitors are gained by dominating discrimination, such is even between the group of registered members vs the others.
- You may be working in a closed company and be well payed by it and just because you know well to orient in the open community and you may additionally even contribute to that community, in which case you would be in contrition/counterproductive/contradiction (schizophrenic) mode, when asking yourself just how much of my work would I give to the community and how much to the company paying me so well. This usual case of being in contradiction weakens each, any and all of the community.
- You may consider some values, such as no discrimination against minorities or gender, be valuable so much so that you should not let your work be used by who ever act against your values.
- As for the Rationale behind clauses 5 and 6: You may find that you do not necessarily want to get "the maximum benefit from the process", what ever (since they defined it) that "process" may be and assuming that "the process" is somehow related to generally advancing the huge thing we call technology, since such technology may be developed (by others) to kill or to contribute to discrimination, addiction, confusion disorientation or global warming etc.

8) Does the stock market and privatization, being the main factors establishing the globalization as we know it today, contribute in their design to worsening the distribution of wealth, and if so how?

Yes, and here is the how it is just so "happening": Privatization takes out from the all being equal voters any possible power of decision and the stock market is determined only by players seeking for their best exit strategy, which is no more than first takeover then hand it over to in the height price to the richer ones, which if are not more foolish than you, would make the same for getting richer.

9) How about a Credit Union - could this be considered a type of ComCom?

No, since ComCom is only where the common shareholders have Equal number of shares, since only, by such equality we could cause both: better distribution of wealth and cooperative ownership.

10) After the end the communist regime the Privatization in Czech Republic was made by offering equal shares to all the citizens, but then some of which citizens could and did buy the right of the others and so the distribution just gut be much worsen, how ComComizing could differ or could prevent such a case from happening?

Such case, could not happened and still be leagl, since it is agreed by all shareholders of any ComCom that in a ComCom one common shareholder could never have right of more than one common shareholder and that all shares owned by all common shareholders are unable to be owned by any other than common shareholders and that the proportion of those shares out of the total market value of the ComCom must always be d .

@bring back@italic text

For Whom Is The Knowledge Making Profit

Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:01:10 +0000

Rational: Sometimes cooperating by licensing is simply too weak in comparison to ownership in partnership between peers, particularly when seeking for "openness" between themselves, the peers can form their own "ring".

E.g. When such peer ownership is over resources, which are required for having platform for open development of their ideas and from these ideas all the way until the products/services and farther on to the clients, as each ring, has its own openness and policy for messaging and history.
- Only now such openness can be used for gaining more power for the "rings" of the peers and for each such peer, as such peers as developers, researchers or clients, can now even be forcing within it ring and hence radiating outside, some common values, such as of human rights -
  - e.g. when using product/services never doing so in torturing.

NEW: The guideline for any person-to-person-agreement (for non profit or profit organization) establishing the organization as a comcomized one.

Next-->

open-close

The argument of The Cathedral and the Bazaar made by esr (upon which the open source "movement" was established) is true, but not only for knowledge making but also for decisions made upon it, which is done only where the owners sit.¹

When the Approach is	As the knowledge is	Where the use (of the knowledge) by others is made	The profit is made
of closing knowledge	exclusive property	centralized, as the use is restricted by the owners and/or separated from the products of the knowledge	centralized
of opening knowledge	contributed property	decentralized, as the use of the knowledge is allowed under standards such as gpl, open-source and common-creative, within the umbrella named Web2.0	centralized and/or decentralized
of common companies	exclusive and/or contributed property	centralized and/or decentralized	decentralized, as more as the factor d is bigger

The knowledge, even when is shared, does not necessarily contribute to the decentralization of the profit made from it.

E.G. Google inc, the biggest monopoly on earth, uses the technology build in the open source community but used only in its closed servers and only such that no one knows what is the algorithm it uses, and where its partners are those who are named evil such as doubleclick, meaning those who use the practise of monitoring us without our knowledge and delivering that knowledge to unknown parties. see here what more can we do by using the piletech thing (you can also see it here, this time as a personal story, if so would you like).

Mozilla VS Google

“We’re a tiny company. We’re 250 people and we’re competing with Apple, Microsoft, [and] Google.” - John Lilly, CEO of Mozilla

Hence mozzilla must be ComComized for surviving and we could use ComCom Social for the sake of the open source community in its struggling in front of the codes closed in servers owned by big cooperations.

The problem is not just financial; it is also ideological.

Why YouTube HTML5 Videos Don’t Work in Firefox and Opera and What is that <video> tag of the h.264 ?

"www.pallab.net/2010/01/26/youtube-html5-videos-firefox-opera-h264-ogg-theora/ " news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10440430-264.html

The action therefor should be so that Mozilla could create a better than youtube service.

This, i believe, could be done by comcomizing such project, such that the goal is to build that-thing-bigger-than-youtube, as one which belongs to the users of the thing.

Conclusion: the closing-knowledge or opening-knowledge approaches oppose each other on the same dimension as the common companies approach open up a new additional dimension.

See also the latest Faq and specifically the the chill responses to be considered for ComComizing

please consider also this personal thread

Only 15% of all the linux code is made by individuals and not by the big-cooperations.
- This is done for having for free the code (15%) of new ideas be imported and regulated (85%) not only into the linux platform but also into the closed platforms of the big-cooperations.
- This is due the evil and 5th (out of the 10) clause claimed by the open-source to comply for being qualified as open-source (see opensource.org/docs/osd).
- The clause claims No Discrimination when comparing person (such a poor one) with cooperation such as Microsoft or Google (which is based only on open source in its close servers).
  - see this pdf as for who writes the linux code (the cooperations)
  - see this pdf as for the foot news release july 2009 it labortends

@bring back@

Discussion@Left Liberals@su Is ComComism the new 3rd way?

Quick Comcom Social Networking - more of ownership - less of donation and in a constant start-up's mood

Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:37:43 +0000

NEW: the ComCom-socail-1 is finally working and you can join us now.

<--	Next->	1) comcom is the next	2) the problem it solves	3) developers can own it	4) web123 and it	5) an open letter to cc list	6) comcom howto	7) Get Organized For A Cause	8) your saving	9) In House Out Sourced
Join here for becoming one of the first 5500 ComComists initiating worldwide the comcomism (see here how we do it and here see why)

The ComCom Social (or the Social Networking for individuals and their ComComs of which provider is in itself a ComCom) lets its members be organized more on a base of common ownership and responsibility and less on a base of donation or looking for sponsor/investor but still while being in a constant start-up's mood, because any where you could ask for donation, for rewarding your preferred clients and/or for cooperation of various kind, you could also be asking for investment of c-holders in the assets¹ of that project/business/campaign/cause. ComCom-Social is for you

if you are one who makes a change in our reality, but which also care for being protected from hostile taking over her/his work, hence if you are
- Activist;
- Artist;
- Developer;
- Researcher;
or if you are
- Investor wishing to contribute and benefit but not to overtake;
- Entrepreneur wishing to minimise risk and cost;
- Politician wishing to promote the GovComCom;
or simply One caring for decentralizing the wealth (i.e. strengthening the middle class) as means for overcoming human crisis in general.

In other words:
- If you care for protection against being taken over,
- if you look for minimizing spending,
- if you think to make your (social) networking, such that it would work for you because you are a shareholder of its provider
and/or
- if you (like obama) wish to stop big-cooperations from being able to become too big to fall , because as such they are too risky to the economy and because they are still growing while sucking the tax payer money and doing that not only in USA but all over the globe and because such cooperation can/could grow only by one building block, which is the pattern of first takeover for handing it over to the richer ones, while packing it together with other alike,
then try ComCom social (because the inability to takeover ComCom).

We are also active as group in Linkedin, freindfeed , facebook or Organizing_For_America.

(as facebook nowadays only earn $2 per YEAR per each of its users) What if facebook is ComComized and its users are its c-holders?
(Is something not clear? Try this terms and detentions and the ComComIsm with our arguments.)
see also http://iswith.info/i/admin/-c-/page/comcom-social and http://iswith.wikidot.com/own-me

ComCom Social is the next big thing in the social networking market, why?

Because it lets its members producing unique content, such members as the activists, artists, developers and/or researchers, together named here the power producers, be also the power owners (i.e. the shareholders) of the company owning the networking channeling their works (think of it like this: How many of us are members using social networkings and how many of us own it? Since only the owners could benefit from its increasing worth due to the increase of such use!)

and so, ComCom Social lets You (still) own what You share in it;

Because it lets such businesses (as ComCom Social) to grow from their members naturally sharing its ownership, while still being attractive for investors, rather than still being exhausted from attempting to attract ads, which their member and/or their guests might somewhat suffer (and/or even be annoyed from the spying and spamming attached with such ads).

ComCom are Community like companies, but still able to attract investors and without giving away control;

Because its structure fits to close-source, open-source, the Web2.0 AND the social-networkings strategies while providing an answer for making money from your contribution in the long tail, if you are an artist, a developer, a researcher, an activist and/or a social/spiritual warrior.

All what it takes is some friends-in-your-networking sharing small amount of resources for opening and initiating your-and-their company to be used for your common needs and one formula: The $$t*d=v*c$$ , which determines the structure of such company allowing the new type of owners being the Common shareholders.

thanks to the topic "I read it again and I don't quite get it, so…" taken from Make More For Better Distribution of Wealth By Means of ComCom and GovComCom

1st_You wroteon December 6, 2008 at 1:38am
Please let others know and ask about ComCom, by simply asking under this topic, so that also the others would know about it. Here we would try to explain the "what and why" for that thing named comcom, so that "all laymen and laywomen can understand it without having to own lots of knowledge of economics".

This was staring as a comment on my wall-to-wall:

3rd_You at 11:03am December 5
1st_You, I am not ignoring you It;s just I don't have a comment. I read what you have said about it & I read it again and I don't quite get it so I don't have a comment hun, sorry but I should have said so and for that I am sorry. I apologize to you for not explaining to you :o. Sorry 1st_You. xo

1st_You at 9:18pm December 5
3rd_You thanks.
thanks for reading it, please just put the link for that it.

Here It is 3 points, please let me know for each point if you understand /agree-with it:

1. ComCom is normal company, except of the fact it has in itself a fixed portion for equal ownership for many as desired with the other other portion for non equal ownership.

2. Any… Read More company which is ComCom in its activity and in interaction with it makes better distribution of wealth, just because it has the fixed portion for equal ownership.

3. The problems we face are because of the gap between the rich and the poor, that is the bad distribution of wealth, which can be solved by having more ComCom in the market, since such rich could never takeover the whole of any such ComCom.

Then in private emailing it continued like this:
1st_You December 5 at 9:34pm

please look for the comment of 3rd_you in my wall about my cause, i hope to convince better for my cause

2nd_You December 5 at 10:54pm

I'll do that… :)
Dear 1st_You, I had a bit the same feeling as 3rd_you. I didn't quite understand how ComCom really works and what is its meaning. In what respect it deviates from socialist, communist and cooperative ideologies and organizations? You tell that the point is not collective but individually shared ownership (did I understand it right?). It all is very complicated to me. I remember there has been several years ago here in Finland efforts to build new kind of banks working on similar basis as your ideal ComCom system is supposed to work. But they had drained out.

I suggest that you formulate your theses more clearly and simply so that all laymen and laywomen can understand them without having to own lots of knowledge of economics. I am a humanist who knows nothing of economical stuff (I can pay my bills fortunately). But your idea sounds good and worth develop more to get more attention from folks.

All the best my dear friend! I hope you got more power from my critiques. I have no meaning to depress you!!! Never, you are a lovable young man!!!
Created with Gift Packs
Share

1st_You Today at 12:03am

Dear 2nd_You thanks,

I wish to just cut and past this email to my wall and make wall to wall comment on my wall please let's do it that way.

You are right i do need to make it simpler and clearer.
The way to do it is by such reaction as we now make.
I want to make this reaction open so it can become clear also for others and also for that they would see the reaction and ask for more.
For such open reaction i made the group and cause in facebook .

Now, let me try to make it simple.
Here we are in facebook users which get all which we get but not own facebook. Also facebook has its businesses dealing with adds and also taking some of our privacy.
So, what if the users of face book are c-holder in facebook?
let's say that the d in this case is d=0.5, it means that all the users together have 50% of facebook and that we could make profit from and take decision about facebook as shareholder in facebook.

Iin this case would we make more of and more for facebook?
also in this case, no one could takeover facebook, so we could really invest more in it.

Now imagine that facebook also has its competitor, say google my space etc, wouldn't facebook be better home for its user attracting more users (also since we from here -the c-holder users) are calling them (just because we are owner of facebook) if it is comcom of which d=0.5?

ok, just let me know how you would want this conversation to be public in facebook.

All the best
Be and Have
Good Time Good Luck

2nd_You Today at 12:24am

OK, I got it now. I am afraid however that there will be inner competition between the FB holders - we humans are just like that. Or what would you say all the applications where we are asked to put OUR FRIENDS IN ORDER from less best to the super best, from hot to the hottest etc. What if we are going to evaluate each other according to how much we each are doing for the hypothetical FB? I have never worked in a group which is wholly and totally democratic, in which all members do exactly the same share of the whole pot.

You see I am a little skeptical. - You may make my comments public if you think so. And remember, I do support you. There is a very good point in the general idea and ideology. (I personally don't want to get profit from something I'm doing for fun - like being in Facebook. LOL)

Have a wonderful evening dear friend!

1st_You Today at 12:45am

Thanks again,
i am posting it for letting the others to enjoy it as i do.

As for the fear from power of the mass, well, i could not help that, but i can say democracy is based on equal decision and in comcom you also get out by selling your share if you can sell it in the price u asked for, and that is not as in any state.

As for inner competition between the c-holders "unlike the private owners , the c-holders can not benefit one from the failure of the other, hence between common owners a kind of brotherhood is formed so that I can only be "My Brother’s/Sister’s Keeper".
(from http://iswith.wikidot.com/)

As for any practical problem to solve including fbi or naughty and so all those yes or no and yes and no, well :) funny you touch me in my sensitive point. You see i devlopet techonlogy which i do not want fbi to use and i came to comcomize any thing because i believe that mass of owners could do much better in protecting their property, e.g. also by their political power.

ok, i am now putting all this in the wall
Thanks, really really thanks
Be and Have Good Time Good Luck

2nd_You Today at 1:08am

Oh yes, I forgot the slogan I can only be my brother's or sister's keeper. That's a great idea. I think you might stress it more.

I see you are a great idealist and that is wonderful. People become so easy cynical and skeptical in front of the big problems we all have. We need people like you, strong and convinced but warm hearted and loving men and women. Heehoo!!!!!

Post #2
2nd_You wroteon December 6, 2008 at 2:02am
And now I'm going to join ComCom. Bye!!!

Post #3
You wroteon December 6, 2008 at 3:47am
just one thing, this comcom thing is not about me, it is, as you heard before, about you, ok you and me, it is about we, but, well even that is not enough it is also about them, we need to let them know, you know, do not we :) ?

@bring back@

Contact

Thu, 24 May 2007 00:51:57 +0000

For whom is the knowledge making profit ? in 1 table (node/18)

Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:05:00 +0000

Sorry this page has moved to For whom is the knowledge making profit ? in 1 table (node/18)