windmill Last week I outlined a scenario for a post-capitalist, post-consumer economy , and suggested that the engine for this economy would be New Collaborative Enterprises (NCEs), which writer-philosopher Daniel Quinn first envisaged and called New Tribal Ventures. The purpose of this post is to lay out a blueprint for creating such enterprises. It’s very rough. This is very much a work in process, a first inarticulate attempt to spec out something potentially very important. Please write me and tell me how to make it better.


Are You Ready?
First, a checklist of readiness. If you answer ‘no‘ to most or all of these questions, you are probably ready to walk away from the consumer-capitalist economy and help establish a new economy that puts well-being ahead of wealth. Or perhaps you already have.

  1. Does your standard of accomplishment and your measure of self-worth depend substantially on your material wealth and/or your level of income?
  2. Do you (when you travel or go on vacation), and would you (when you retire), find it difficult to give up the personal physical possessions that root you in one place, in return for the freedom that comes from being comfortable anywhere?
  3. Do you (or would you) get an important sense of security from having a large ‘nest-egg’ and knowing that you have enough assets to last a long time if your income suddenly stopped?
  4. Does the idea of running your own business terrify you?
  5. Are you genuinely happy doing what you do every day to make a living?

If you are retired, you should put these questions in the past tense and answer them in respect of the final few years of your ‘working’ life. If your answers would have been ‘no’ then, you’re probably ready to help others establish NCEs. The under-utilized talents of retired citizens will play a critical role in building this new economy.

Even if you answer ‘yes’ to most of the first four questions and ‘no’ to the fifth, you may be ready to at least start thinking about establishing an NCE, and knowing more about them might ultimately change your answers to the earlier questions.


What is a New Collaborative Enterprise?
In simple terms, an NCE is a self-selected, self-managed group of people (members) making a living together following a set of agreed-upon principles. It differs from traditional commercial enterprises in several important ways:

  • Where traditional commercial enterprises are hierarchical and their relationship to their ’employees’ is limited and contractual, NCEs are completely flat, equal networks of peers who accept full responsibility for the well-being of all of their members. 
  • Where traditional commercial enterprises have HR departments that hire and fire employees based on competencies and performance, members of NCEs must agree unanimously to accept or expel members based on whether they provide skills critical to the enterprise.
  • Where traditional commercial enterprises strive to grow and maximize profit for shareholders, NCEs have no shares and operate at the size that optimizes members’ well-being (as the members define well-being).

Practically speaking, an NCE is limited in size by the necessity to involve all members in most decision-making, and by the need for that decision-making to be consensual, agreed to by all members without the need for voting. How is an NCE different from other types of collaborative enterprise?

  • Unlike a family business, all members of an NCE have an equal say in decisions, and there are no ‘mere’ employees or absentee ‘shareholders’. You’re either a member or you’re not.
  • Unlike a commune, members of an NCE don`t necessarily live together, or even in the same country.
  • Unlike a cooperative, an NCE is not ancillary to the main ‘business’ of the members, and does more than just purchase goods for resale to its members at cost.
  • Unlike a collective, the work-product of the NCE is developed and owned by the members working together, rather than by the individual members under a loose cost-sharing ‘umbrella’.

The ‘agreed-upon’ principles by which NCEs operate are more like a code of conduct than a corporate charter. Although every NCE will have its own principles, the following common principles will probably be necessary both to differentiate the NCE from a commercial business enterprise (and hence attract disenchanted people away from those enterprises), and for the survival of NCEs collectively:

  • Every member has an equal say in all aspects of the operations of the NCE, and all decisions, including decisions on acceptance of new members and expulsion of members, are made by consensus. [This is radically different from how most businesses are now run. Women are generally better at building consensus than men, and at achieving compromise. The consequence of failure to achieve consensus — that one or more members will leave the NCE — will necessarily encourage NCEs to become very good at building consensus, or to stay small if they can’t.]
  • When the NCE becomes unwieldy it will, by mutual consent, split into two or more logical, networked NCEs.
  • The NCE will as much as possible attempt to do business with other NCEs in preference to profit-motivated enterprises. 
  • The NCE will define success as the achievement of  well-being for its members, which may include any of: financial security, health, happiness, fun, feeling of belonging, feeling of making a difference, feeling of giving back to society and the world, love for others, time for other pursuits, intellectual challenge, emotional fulfilment etc. 
  • The NCE will maintain high social standards, including respect for others’ rights, freedoms and opinions, contribution to the welfare of the society beyond just the NCE’s members, etc. 
  • The NCE will maintain high environmental standards, including minimization of waste, pollution, and use of non-renewable resources, keeping a small ecological footprint etc. 
  • The NCE recognizes that there is more to life than work, and will strive to allow members as much time to pursue other activities as possible without critically compromising the NCE’s ability to achieve well-being for its members.

I am sure that many readers will see the above principles as naive and unworkable, perhaps even contrary to human nature. Families in fact operate on similar principles, and our record at keeping them together and functioning well without coercion is unimpressive. However, I believe that once several NCEs show the way, and prove that this model of making a living works well, with much happier members than the employees of traditional commercial enterprises, the tipping point at which this model begins to supplant the old economic model could be reached quite quickly.

This model is instinctively more human, more satisfying, and more sustainable than the commercial model that underpins our current economy. If a large number of people, as a matter of principle, only bought goods made domestically, this would radically refocus the economy on local job-generating production. Likewise, if a large number of people only bought goods and services from NCEs, the exploitative, acquisitive, destructive consumer-capitalist economy would quickly go the way of past ‘obsolesced’ economies. The old economy would be simply and painlessly replaced.


How to Create a New Collaborative Enterprise
This is actually the easy part. First you need to decide how you want to make a living (i.e. what you want your role to be, what you want to do, not what industry you want to be part of). Then you need to find others that have complementary skills to yours, people you would like to make a living with. Remember, this isn’t a commune, you don’t have to want to live with these people, or even share their politics or worldview, you just need to mutually agree (a) that your and their skills are necessary, complementary and collectively sufficient for a viable enterprise (b) that you can accept each other’s definition of well-being (everyone’s is different) and agree to work collaboratively to achieve all members’ well-being, and (c) that you can agree on a set of operating principles like the one above. The Internet is a great place to start looking, and social software promises to make it much easier to find people you’d like to make a living with.

That’s it. From here on, it’s just like setting up and running any other unincorporated enterprise. With the right talent, energy, and stewardship, it’s hard to go wrong. Here are the basic steps to get started, Entrepreneurialism 101 :

  1. Plan: Put together an enterprise plan. Explain what your enterprise will do, and who (members and customers) it will do it for. Describe how it will do it uniquely to their satisfaction. Identify what resources (skills, time, tools, space, materials, cash) it will need to get started, and once it gets going. Determine where those resources will come from (contributed by members, contributed by customers, acquired outside). Reconsider whether you have the right members.
  2. Research: Verify the answers to each point in your plan: Make sure your customers really want what you plan to offer, and that you really know who the customers are. Make sure you can get the resources you need. Allow for contingencies and unexpected change.
  3. Test: Start small, try things out, fail quickly and inexpensively, and learn.
  4. Set Goals, Roles & Processes: Agree with your members on what you’re trying to achieve (leading to their definition of well-being), what everyone’s role will be, how you will operate (principles + procedures), and who will do what by when (schedule).
  5. Manage your Resources. Make sure you have enough but not too much. If you don’t, agree on what needs to be done.
  6. Promote Your Enterprise. Make sure the people that want what you offer know you exist.
  7. Use Your Networks: Build networks of customers, suppliers, potential members, and people whose opinion or expertise you trust. Give and take from each.
  8. Adapt to Change. When your customers’ needs change, or the economy changes, or your resource needs change, or resource availability changes, get your members to agree how you need to adapt.

It is not inconceivable that the line between your members and your customers will blur or even disappear, especially if the enterprise is large and your offering is a basic need like food. Self-sufficiency, as people who live on islands know, is a good thing.

There will be failures. We’ve been conditioned to compete with those we work with, to take out more than we put in (if we can get away with it), to work at what we think we’re good at rather than what we really want to do, and to allow decisions to be made without consensus. These are hard things to unlearn. Just as there are failed marriages, it will take some time and experience to figure out exactly who we each want to make a living with, and most of us won’t get it entirely right the first time. But such failures are critical lessons and have a very low cost — you just change the membership and keep going. There are no shares, no corporations to wind up, no bankruptcies, no lawyers or accountants or bankers to have to deal with, no property to divide up.

This is very early thinking on this subject, and much more thinking needs to be done, and many lessons learned, before the launching of New Collaborative Enterprises can become an art, much less a science. As with all human ventures, we’ll figure out how to do this by trial and error, and the pioneers will pave the way. We need people to build on these ideas, to spread the word, to talk about it and tinker with the model I’ve outlined above, probably until it is unrecognizable, and until it isn’t my idea, but ours.

Next installment: What readers and others have to say, and who’s actually doing it.

This entry was posted in Preparing for Civilization's End. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Michael says:

    Dave,I’m still reading this post, but just noticed that your permalink is broken. (I was trying to e-mail that link to some friends.)

  2. Dave Pollard says:

    Thanks for letting me know. Salon’s screwed up both the item and day permalinks, and the category postings today. I’ve notified them. I’ll try and repost it to fix it this evening. In the meantime please use the general URL and ask those you send it to to scroll down to June 11.

  3. Rob Paterson says:

    Hi DaveI think that you are onto something. I am ceratin that somethin g along these lines is emerging as a new way of working. Without the internet it could never have happened.I do have a “but” though.I have tried this a few times with other consultants. Each time we have stepped back becuase I think that one of the things that we all like is not working directly with others – it was the roles and responsibilities part and the group decision making that put us off. We did not want to run any organization. We loved our freedom too much.What is working for me and a few friends now is a MUCH LOOSER arrangment. What has emerged for me is a handful of friends who find that our work complements each other.I am mainly an social “architect” and have the fortune to have strong relationships here on PEI at the top of the local system. My friends have very deep skills in say the “engineering” aspects such as HR, marketing and IT. In an other world we would have a practice but we don’t. We all have non overlapping skill sets but a good knowledge of how the other parts fit. I will often find design work here which then drives the need for engineering work. I bring them in and they get paid directly. In return, they help me in their world where they have stronger client relationships. My clients like it becuase I do not take a cut – I am offereing them access to great resources. My clients are hiring me for as much who I know as what I know. So I get added value without all the hassle.It’s early days but it feels good. We don’t make group decisions but they all have a veto to take the work or not. They price as they price. They get paid directlyI get a lot of emotional support from my colleagues as well as creative support as we talks a great deal about the work.There is nothing in writing and we have nver sat down to write a constitution – but a practice is emerging and it looks a lot like your vision

  4. doug powell says:

    This helps a great deal with a creative collaboration enterprise I am working towards as we speak. Thank you. I’m looking forward to the next post to see where you go next. Please take a look at what we have now and give us any suggestions that you think might help. This invitation is open to any readers & are currently some great comments from mrG pointing out some motivational issues that need resolution. I would really appreciate hearing your opinion on the matters discussed. I see no reason why this type of organization can’t reach a tipping point. I would like to make this post and the open source definition by Bruce Perens the guiding principles underlying our development. I look forward to seeing the final version, although I feel it already captures the essence of the venture.

  5. Dave Pollard says:

    Rob: I’m delighted you weighed in here. Your ‘but’ is the one I worry most about, and I think it will take time for us to figure out just what is the right amount of personal give-and-take in a NCE. Too much or too little give and it becomes too much like another employment contract, and will lack the cohesion necessary to make it work. Just as we learn how to make a marriage work, and when it just won’t, we’ll learn who the right members of our NCE are, and aren’t. Maybe fifty years from now this will be something you’ll learn in ‘business’ school.

  6. Dave Pollard says:

    Doug: I’ll need to study it more, and ask you some questions, but the ‘open source’ concept certainly looks like one way to establish a NCE, at least until there are more substantial networking mechanisms available to do so. Ryze and Linkedin, which I know Gary (mrG) is looking at (I’m in touch with him on this as well BTW), may also work to this end. Your post announcing this reminds me of an invitation to run away and join the circus, which Daniel Quinn in Beyond Civilization describes as the best current analogue to an NCE (the old circuses, not the new mega-corporate ones). Another example he cites of effective NCEs (he calls them New Tribal Ventures) is the groups of the homeless that look after each other. A bit of a grim example, to be sure, but we can still learn from it. If those with nothing can make NCEs work, just imagine what we can do. I’ll e-mail you soon with some more comments, and thank you for yours.

  7. Dave Pollard says:

    Trader Mike: I think the permalink is now fixed.

  8. ed nixon says:

    Dave, I was interested in your comment to me on yesterday’s “In search of corporate values” post ( on VOT. Thanks.You wrote with strong feelings about this and I was going to avoid coming back to your comment immediately because I have other things I think need saying on this theme in aid of context & foundation; I was hoping another comment or two might magically materialize to stir things up a bit; and further, I think that, in a certain sense, I agree with what you’ve said. But it’s a complex and subtle set of issues. I think you’d agree that recognizing and working through the complexities and subtleties of issues is a “good thing” and seemingly increasingly rare in today’s pop-tart management culture.Suffice to say, the notions underlying collaborative enterprises seem to me to be far from value-neutral, if for no other reason than their explicit positioning in opposition to the status quo. The draft recipe you’ve put together and the comments I’ve read so far emphasize skills portfolios as an (admittedly) practical point of start-up leverage. In my experience, however, value compatibility among the collaborators may be the critical success factor. [No, I don’t know what “value compatibility” means.] Formal organizations (to use March & Simon’s term), for better or worse, use coercive pressures founded on the legal act of incorporation to try to maintain their structural integrity. It seems to me that you are suggesting “shared values” as the replacement glue. If I’m right, you/we should spend time working through identifying some sort of process for defining and then maintaining a “value portfolio”. It’s likely that the “live and let live” orientation needs to be projected onto this area too. In any event, the key feature of such a “value process” seems to be a clear recognition of the importance of words like ‘explicit’, ‘subtle’, ‘complex’, ‘flexible’ and ‘adaptable’ as attributes. In addition, I think that values will play an important role in marketing, networking, client relationships, sevice offerings and, by extension, the ongoing viability of the enterprise. Best to have a good handle on how these things work, me thinks. …edN

  9. Rob Paterson says:

    A good circus has the skills but it survives on how well the parts work together in the common work such as tent erection etc.It is my experience that a shared set of values is the base for the new and for the very old model. The skills are important but the values are what makes it work. EG When Burbage and Shakespeare and the Chamberlain’s men created their Company – they had no rules but practices emerged. The group ran a very complex business – including the Globe theatre for a generation. It fell apart as the next generation and widows wanted to grab parts. It kept going because the men started by liking each other al lot. You joined a club. They became closer as they went through some trying times as a group. The Globe was first built on the North side of the river on leased land and the guys had to dismantle it in the night and take it south. They had endless trouble with the censors and of course the Globe burnt down and had to be rebuilt. They got through all of this. Thye learnt that they could rely on each other.Conversely other theatre groups had elaborate constitutions and rules. None of them lasted 3 years.No doubt that Burbage was the actor/manager of his time and that Bill was the Andrew Llloyd Webber. They had the skills but it was not the skills that made it work but the level of trust. I suspect that a lot of what has sunk KM is the application of the old model to the idea of competency. In the new science and in the universe it is relationships that are central.Trust ( a product of a good relationship) was built up socially as well as at work. The apprentice boys grew up in the actors homes. The line between work and play was very blurred. I think that work/play is a key issue in the new model. The Cartesian model separates the two. I think that we need the two together to bond. This is not about efficiency but conversation and trust. You need to play as much as work. Play is being squeezed out. Skill assembly sounds too much like work to me.Lastly there is the canoe issue. In a real hunter gatherer tribe – we all die or live together. In my youth I worked for Wood Gundy when it was a real partnership. I tell you nothing foucused the mind so much as the knowledge that I could sink the whole thing. Corporate life insulates one from this sense of shared danger and oportunity. In a canoe we all sense the changing conditions. We have to be smart to get though. We are dependent on each other to get there. The world is a powerful place and we have no illusion that we can use power to make us safe.So lastly I think that there is a need for a certain fragility in the structure so that no illusions of omnipotence can seep into the thinking of those in the canoe.

  10. Dave, Your writing on NCE’s really got my attention as a better way of doing business. My wife and I started a business out of our home about 19 years ago that has since grown to a little over $1 million in annual sales employing 9 people in an 8000 sq foot facility. I’ve always had the belief that there most be a better way of running a business other than the employer/employee relationship. However for the better part of our time in business it’s been a challange just to grow the business and to find people who could “play nice” together. However, now that we seemed to have accomplished that, I have found myself thinking more about transitioning to “better” style of business. Your description of NCE’s is the closest thing I’ve seen to what I had in mind. I vague objective that I’ve had for the last few years would be to use my company to develope a path to a NCE type business so that other existing businesses could follow and new businesses could be created following the path. I would be interrested in learning of any businesses that have already made a transition. I will also be looking forward to your future writingds on the subject.Thomas

  11. Vivion says:

    Hi — I realize that you said that an NCE is not a commune. Yet, you and others have brought up shared values as an essential glue. And it makes me think that what holds a community together, like a kibbutz, say, or some other intentional community, is, indeed, a strong set of shared purpose, mission or values that trumps the personal and the indivudual. People have to be committed on some transcendant level before they make the sacrifices required for the good of the group. On the other hand, it doesn’t sound as though you are ruling out contracts altogether — or are you? How do you avoid the tyranny of a particularly strong personality — one person who takes advantage of consensus to push through his / her agenda? This is (as usual) a fascinating idea…Sorry I missed a number of your recent posts — will you be having examples of people who have done this in a business context?

  12. Dave Pollard says:

    Ed: You may be right about the importance of value congruity among members of an NCE. I’m still thinking it through so I defaulted to Quinn’s view (in Beyond Civilization) that it’s not nearly as important as skill complementarity. I have some enormous respect for some people whose values I don’t share (they’re different, not radically opposed), and all things considered I think I would enjoy making a living with some of these people. For example, a good friend of mine has five children but is a staunch conservationist. As a matter of principle and personal values I have never had children (though I have two extraordinary stepchildren), but I would still enjoy making a living with this friend, if we could hit upon an enterprise that would lend itself to both our skill sets.

  13. Dave Pollard says:

    Rob: I like your choice of the word ‘trust’. To me that is more important than shared values, and not synonymous with it either. If I trust someone and we agree on a set of operating principles, I thing the issue of whether we share values is moot.On the issue of play, perhaps I was unclear in focusing on complementary skills. An NCE must have complementary skills to succeed, I think, but the assemblage of appropriate skills is not what it’s about. It’s about each member doing what he/she really wants to do. Most of us will have fun either doing that, or if we’re type-A’s we’ll have fun on-the-side (since almost by definition an NCE allows for lots more leisure time). Some people really don’t aspire to have fun, and I respect that too.I’ll have to think further on the canoe issue. I acknowledge that sharing danger can be a great bonder of people, but I also think it is a bit coercive. I’ll get back to you…;-)

  14. Dave Pollard says:

    Thomas: Thanks for your kind words. I hope to be able to describe several examples of successful NCEs in the coming weeks and months.

  15. Dave Pollard says:

    Vivion: I think my responses to others above answer most of your questions. I can’t answer the question of contracts and dealing with strong personalities. I think it depends on the preferences and personalities involved. In marriages some people want their partner to make all the key decisions, and I guess it’s conceivable that some NCEs might operate likewise, though that wouldn’t appeal to me. And some marriages have contracts as well, so I guess I can’t rule that out for NCEs either, though again, it seems to me that they shouldn’t be necessary — since NCEs should operate on a consensus basis, not accumulate significant assets (and the assets contributed to the venture remain those of the contributor), and allot their proceeds in accordance with the self-stated well-being needs of the members, there should be nothing to ‘contract’. I’m not a fan of litigation (I think its an execrable way of solving differences, and unknown in tribal communities), and without the remedy of litigation I’m not sure that value a contract would have. But I’m still working my way through this…

  16. Ray Jefferd says:

    Dave,I have been working on a model for a collaborative enterprise for some time. My thinking to date in no particular order is:1) There must be a big strong vision/mission and goal to attract members. The endevour must be of a scope which all members know is beyond their individual capacity to accomplish on their own, otherwise why bother. Going back to basic human drives, early man hunted in groups out of pragmatic necessity. I think this is a necessary requirement to get started though once working the simple enjoyment of association may be enough to keep the group going. (Your term “Members”, is the correct one in my opinion. It is the one I use.)2) Unanamous approval for admittance of new members to the club. (This avoids the problem later on when problems between members arise, of one saying I never wanted him as a member from the beginning).3. Commitment, what is needed is committed members. Members who are beyond the need to be motivated by external forces. (Victor Frankl describes this sense of commitment to a purpose greater than oneself.)4. For me having a challenge that stretches my ability slightly beyond my current skill level, ie going outside but not too far outside my comfort zone is how I earn my “Psychic Income” from my work. Too big a challenge causes me to quit due to anxiety or some variation/rationalization thereof. Too small a challenge has the same result caused by boredom.5. I suggest that the “Club” be understood as the respository or home of the “Intellectual Capital” of the enterprise. This view may be problematic for other commercial ventures to contract with as it is somewhat of an intangible as nothing is forcing members to stay and contribute. My view is that by contributing their intellectual capital to the club it is likely to enriched by the association with the other members doing the same in a quid pro quo manner. The enrichment is personal, added to the member, and can’t be taken away, increasing the value of the memberto other members, thereby reinforcing and strengthening the bond between members to everyones mutual benefit, though this may be hard to quantify to outside parties.6. The trick, I suggest, is in the connecting of the intellectual capital to the real commercial world that deals with assets and securities of a more tangible and contractually bind way. One that materially rewards performance and materially punishes failure. (Market Discipline) This inevitably brings the issue to the fore of who signs on the dotted line and assumes D&O liability and guarantees indebtedness. I suggest this is where differences between the commitment level of members will be tested. This is where an equal member becomes somewhat more or somewhat less equal than the others, and this I further suggest is where real problems of the collaborate enterprize model will occur and in many instances cause them to founder. I am struggling with a finding a workable solution to this concern and would welcome your thoughts. 7. Without having a workable solution to this issue NCE’s will likely remain the domain of loosely linked groups of minor social significance a notion not capable of influencing the behaviour of the big dogs.

  17. Rob Paterson says:

    What a great series of posts this is becoming!

  18. Dave Pollard says:

    Ray: I’m with you through your point #4. Regarding #5, I have stated elsewhere that I think intellectual capital largely resides forever with, or very close to, the individual, rather than being ‘owned’ by the collective. Person X’s IC is the surrogate or proxy for Person X him/herself when he/she is temporarily unavailable. There is some value in Person Y reviewing and learning from Person X’s IC, but less than the value that Person Y would receive from conversation with Person X directly. That’s a cynical view of intellectual capital (i.e. that the important knowledge is know-who not know-how or know-what), but from my experience that is how it works. That’s not to suggest that the deep, strong, trusting links between Person X and Y, because they’re part of the same NCE, aren’t still immensely valuable and don’t add to the sustainability of the NCE as well.

  19. I’ve only read this essay once and taken a quick run through the comments. Having been considering business structures along these lines for some months I find this discussion fascinating. This is one of the very few blog posts I have seen that actually could benefit from a formal discussion thread.And Dave is one of the few people to articulate this in such an inspiring way. I wish I could add to this but I’m afraid I’ll have to spend more time digesting what’s here before I can bring much value to the converstion. Great work, Dave. Really excellent.

  20. Colin says:

    I love this post. It moves my thinking on considerably. I like the list at the beginning ‘Are you ready?’. I am … not quite.People in the UK are organising this way using Companies Limited by Guarantee – see I have at least one example for you if you would like details.

  21. Marty says:

    great blog – I’ve been implementing a collaborative business model for almost five years at Currently, we have about 1500 global community members collaborating to build custom software applications for businesses. I look forward to reading more great content. regards,

  22. Joe Kelley says:

    Dave,I just finished the NCE proposal. This amounts to an IPO or Initial Public Offering in the new Open Source Economy. The label chosen (New Collaborative Enterprise) begins to redefine business terminology as our species progresses. The terms will evolve as commerce adapts. Language will become current as terms gain currency; as people find reason to embrace a favorite language. Progress will become popular so long as progress continues.What may be missing from your IPO is new glue that can replace the current old glue. Glue is the commonality the people find reason to share. Unfortunately the old glue is founded upon falsehood, dependence, fear, reaction, greed, and hopelessness. Fortunately the emerging glue is founded upon science, independence, opportunity, pro-action, equity, and hope. The old glue is founded primarily upon oil, centralized control, exploitation, and funny money. The emerging glue can become energy from the sun, hydrogen, mutual profit, and accurate money. The glue is language. Money is energy language. If the new IPO does not offer a means to create more energy, then, the new IPO will fail to attract a popular following. The NCE needs a means to inspire the creation of energy. I suggest that potential members may find inspiration in reading: PayPal Wars by Eric M. Jackson. PayPal began as a small independent IPO and quickly generated popular acceptance. The Enterprise created energy out of thin air. People began using PayPal to conduct commerce. Commerce accelerated. The new language found in the Enterprise called PayPal is binary code. PayPal created a new form of money; a new language to glue free traders together. The glue became a common trust. That new energy erupted into being as a result of a new accurate language. People found reason to trust the new language. They found reason to trust each other; they gained inspiration to expend new human energy. PayPal has limitations. That enterprise continues to be held back by the current language. That public offering reached a plateau; within the constraints of an oil energy economy.NCE can cut a new path based upon a new language, a new energy source, and the sky is literally the limit. If my verbose communication appears to be somewhat confusing and utopian, then, let the facts speak for themselves.Energy is one capital good that reduces the cost of all other goods. Overproduction of renewable clean energy is as close to an attainable utopia as our current human species can possibly aim towards. This is a rather bold statement. It begs to be refuted. Work it out for yourselves. Pick up the concept and turn it around from every possible angle and find fault. Good Luck! I am eager to see where the calculations fail.

Comments are closed.