Re: OWNERSHIP: Alaska dividend model for Iraq but with "dynamic ownership"

[Shann Turnbull <sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu>]

I fully endorse the need identified by Michael Bindner for "dynamic
ownership" to avoid wealth either being transferred to the rich as
described by Dan Bell in a subsequent posting or being retained by the
rich as pointed out in the subsequent posting by John 
Floretine.

Dynamic ownership is an intrinsic core feature of Ownership Transfer
Corporations (OTCs) that provide a way to replace the current static,
monopoly perpetual corporate property rights with dynamic, inclusive,
time limited corporate property rights.  OTCs provide a way to
democratise the wealth of nations and keep wealth democratised without
the complications of changing the operations of central banks or even the
tax system.  

Indeed, the general adoption of OTCs and Cooperative Land Banks (CLBs)
that are also based on dynamic property rights avoid the need for
changing the central banking system to provide interest free loans or
even the need for tax incentives in developing countries.  Dynamic
property rights for realty means that if you do not use property then you
loose it to those who do as commonly occurs in squatter
settlements.  The transfer rate in industrial economies would be at
the depreciation rate so as to not discourage new investment in rental
properties whose maintenance cost would be significantly reduced by
tenants becoming deferred owners or in the jargon of economists deferred
"residual claimants".  

The rich get richer by being residual claimants to property and dynamic
tenure changes the plumbing or architecture of a capitalist society to
make it much more equitable and efficient.  The need to change the
banking system then becomes a separate issue.

Some of my numerous articles on OTCs and CLBs are in the COG virtual
library and these concepts provide the basis of my book
Democratising the Wealth of Nations that can be downloaded
from the library at 
<http://cog.kent.edu/lib/TurnbullBook/TurnbullBook.htm>.

Regards

Shann


At 04:56 AM 2/5/2003, you wrote:
> That is exactly the situation which
> happened in Russia.  When shares were distributed they were traded
> for Vodka.  What is needed is not one time share ownership, but
> dynamic share ownership, so that
> workers or citizens get shares periodically, not just once.  Do this
> and they will get voting control.  It is also helpful if selling
> them is prohibited until some future date, age or level of ownership is
> reached.
>
> Michael Bindner
>
> In a message dated 5/2/2003 1:18:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> JS@florentin.freeserve.co.uk writes:
>
> > The problem with privatising the Iraqi National Oil Company and then
> giving the shares out equally to all Iraqi citizens is that the poorer
> ones will frequently be hard up and will find it tempting to sell their
> shares. The better off will be able to hang on to their existing shares
> or even by more shares from those selling them.
> > In the end, as usual, the rich will end up owning everything. The
> only scheme that might work in the long run is for the oil business to be
> owned by some, hopefully, independent 
> > mutual type body owned equally by every Iraqi citizen.
> >  
> > John Florentin
> To subscribe to this or another of COG's discussion groups register
> at:
> http://cog.kent.edu/register.html
> To unsubscribe from this group send a message to
> majordomo@cog.kent.edu
> with a single line in the body of the message that says:
> unsubscribe ownership

Shann Turnbull PhD

Principal, International Institute for Self-governance

P.O. Box 266 Woollahra, Sydney, Australia, 1350

Ph: +612 9328 7466 office; Fax:+612 9327 1497

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~sturnbull/index.html

Papers:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=26239