Framework: Collaborative Economy Honeycomb Above: Version 1.1 of the Collaborative Economy Honeycomb Added new Airbnb logo Understand the Collaborative Economy market in one, single image. Please share widely, with attribution, non-commercially: Click image to see JPG version 3,600 X 2,250 The Collaborative Economy enables people to efficiently get what they need from each other. Similarly, in nature, honeycombs are resilient structures that efficiently enable many individuals to access, share, and grow resources within a common group. In this visual representation, the sharing economy is organized into six discrete families of goods, services, space, food, transportation and money. The companies listed in this graphic are just a small representation. Notable Industry Stats: One of the inspirations for this graphic was the work of friend and former colleague, Brian Solisdid, on the first phase of sharing, which originally catalogued social media as the Conversation Prism. The crowd is becoming like a company.
Distributism - Wikipedia Doctrine in opposition to both socialism and capitalism Distributism is an economic theory asserting that the world's productive assets should be widely owned rather than concentrated.[1] It was developed in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries based upon the principles of Catholic social teaching, especially the teachings of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum novarum (1891) and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno (1931).[2][3][4] It views both capitalism and socialism as equally flawed and exploitative, and it favors economic mechanisms such as small-scale cooperatives and family businesses, and large-scale antitrust regulations. Some Christian Democratic political parties have advocated distributism in their economic policies. Overview[edit] Background[edit] The mid-to-late 19th century witnessed an increase in popularity of political Catholicism across Europe.[19] According to historian Michael A. Position within the political spectrum[edit] Economic theory[edit] Banks[edit]
What A Detroit Supper Club Teaches Us About Co-Creativity A social movement is underway in downtown Detroit. Each month, 100 or so individuals pay $5 for admission to a loft, where they eat a dinner of organic soup (and other foods) prepared by volunteers. Diners share ideas and connections, hear presentations from artists who are working on projects aimed at improving the city, and then vote on which project will receive proceeds from the evening's dinner. In recent years, crowdsourcing has become a trendy tactic for soliciting input and engaging consumers, but in reality this approach is nothing more than an open call for submissions. Yesterday, businesses succeeded through industrial or technological expertise, with little need to converse with consumers. Marketers are beginning to understand that it's no longer viable to work in a vacuum, and that seeking consumer input by casting a wide net into an anonymous pool won't suffice. Sounds simple enough, right? Authenticity, authenticity, authenticity. [Image: Detroit SOUP]
Cooperative In short, a coop can be defined as "a jointly owned enterprise engaging in the production or distribution of goods or the supplying of services, operated by its members for their mutual benefit, typically organized by consumers or farmers."[4] Cooperative businesses are typically more economically resilient than many other forms of enterprise, with twice the number of co-operatives (80%) surviving their first five years compared with other business ownership models (41%).[5] Cooperatives frequently have social goals which they aim to accomplish by investing a proportion of trading profits back into their communities. As an example of this, in 2013, retail co-operatives in the UK invested 6.9% of their pre-tax profits in the communities in which they trade as compared with 2.4% for other rival supermarkets.[6] The International Co-operative Alliance was the first international association formed by the cooperative movement. Origins[edit] Social economy[edit] Meaning[edit] Identity[edit]
Railroad Bonds website watertownhistory.org ebook History of Watertown, Wisconsin Railroad Bonds One of the most dramatic incidents in the history of Watertown is the story of the railway bond issues. In times ago there was a group of industrious individuals who had the fascinating habit of investing other people’s money. Encouraged by their previous success in Watertown the corporators of the Milwaukee and Watertown Road made an effort to get a second issue of bonds from this source. The bond question played a prominent part in the city’s politics for many years. During the following years, Watertown was literally without a government. One can find the legal history of this case in every law textbook in the land. The long tedious struggle resulted in a victory for the city, and a joyous celebration was held at which many of the bonds were burned in public. It retarded Watertown’s growth, once one of the largest and most promising communities in the state. Our Railroad Bonds Have Ruined Us Messrs. J. Index
Escrow - Wikipedia Arrangement for holding funds by a 3rd party Types[edit] Escrow generally refers to money held by a third party on behalf of transacting parties. It is mostly used regarding the purchase of shares of a company. It is best known in the United States in the context of the real estate industry (specifically in mortgages where the mortgage company establishes an escrow account to pay property tax and insurance during the term of the mortgage).[3] Escrow is an account separate from the mortgage account where deposit of funds occurs for payment of certain conditions that apply to the mortgage[clarification needed], usually property taxes and insurance. An unrelated type of escrow is when a purchaser of a complex system, such as bespoke process control software or a large industrial installation, may require the supplier to place the design into source code escrow, so that the purchaser remains in a position to maintain and modify the system in case of the demise of the supplier. Banking[edit]
The Harlem Project Back in 1990, Geoffrey Canada was just your average do-gooder. That year, he became the president of a nonprofit charitable organization based in Harlem called the Rheedlen Centers for Children and Families, and he set out trying to improve the world, one poor child at a time. It was a bad moment to be poor in New York City. Harlem, especially, was suffering under the simultaneous plagues of crack cocaine, cheap guns and rampant homelessness, and Canada's main goal at Rheedlen, in those years, was to keep the children in his programs alive. The organization had an annual budget of $3 million, which it spent on a predictable array of services in Upper Manhattan: after-school programs, truancy prevention, anti-violence training for teenagers. The programs seemed to do a lot of good for the children who were enrolled in them, at least in part because of Canada's own level of devotion. Canada knew there were success stories out there.
Resources | Community Shares The Community Shares Unit will develop a number of valuable resources to support communities, investors and other organsiations exploring the possibilities of community shares. For now, there are a number of useful resources which were produced as part of the Community Shares Action Learning Project 2009-2011: The Practitioners' Guide to Community Shares was launched at a Community Shares event on 7th July 2011. For your copy of this latest and most comprehensive guide on how to undertake a share issue and meet best practice guidelines Download here To order printed copies of The Practitioners' Guide to Community Shares @ £15 each see the order form below (bottom of page word document) Community Shares: Practitioner’s Guide to Governance and Offer Documents July 2010 This publication provides guidance on two topics: the legal and governance formats for organisations offering community shares; and community shares offer documents, inviting the public to invest in community shares.
Mars Direct to 1,000 person Mars Town Threshold pledge system - Wikipedia When the threshold is reached, the pledges are called in (or transferred from the escrow fund) and a contract is formed so that the collective good is supplied; a variant is that the money is collected when the good is actually delivered. If the threshold is not reached by a certain date (or perhaps if no contract is ever signed, etc.), the pledges are either never collected or, if held in escrow, are simply returned to the pledgers. In economics, this type of model is known as an assurance contract. This system is most often applied to creative works, both for financing new productions and for buying out existing works; in the latter cases, it is sometimes known as ransom publishing model[1] or Street Performer Protocol (SPP).[2] Street Performer Protocol[edit] If the artist releases the work on time, the artist receives payment from the escrow fund. Ransom model in software[edit] History[edit] However, there are a number of differences between this traditional model and the SPP.