This is the company I'm aware of that actually guarantees sellers performance in auctions. They are not affiliated with ebay, paypal, or any payment scheme. There is no cost to the buyer. Each transaction is INDIVIDUALLY legally bonded to guarantee the sellers performance, with no deductible or seller caps. The bonds are underwritten by The Hartford insurance company (www.theHartford.com), so the guarantee has a strong financial backing.
So what's the catch? As a buyer if you see the auction is bonded with buysafe there is none. Some items buysafe will not bond (real estate for one). Sellers must go through a much more rigorous screening process then paypal or SquareTrade (which basically just check if you have a bank account). After all, buysafe/the Hartford is taking the credit risk for the seller. Sellers have to pay 1% of each auction for the bond, which is how buysafe is compensated. And, the seller probably actually benefits because buyers will be willing to pay more for an item if they know the item/seller is legitimate.
Buysafe is only a few months old, and thus does not have the name recognition of PayPal/SquareTrade. Thus it will not be on as many auctions (search ebay auction descriptions for BuySafe). However, this alternative eliminates virtually all risk for the buyer, at no cost to them, and I think that buyers would be demanding once it is more established in the market.
You have the right to set up your business in any manner that you see fit. You can set up as a non-profit, partnership, corporation, etc.
A company constantly voting with their masses of employees on strategic issues would not be able to react quickly, discretely, consistently or at times intelligently. Of course employees are intelligent. However employees 1) don't have the time or expertise to govern on a regular basis, and 2) are not necessarily the owners, and thus their interests are not always aligned. The shareholders are the owners of the firm, and elect the governing officers to protect their interests, which seems fair considering they took the financial risk of starting the business.
Now I'm sure someone can cite a few companies with other governance schemes that work for that company, fine. As stated, there is nothing stopping anyone from creating a purely democratic governing model. So if you want to, go ahead.
However, the larger companies in the world would seem to be run as shareholder-owned corporations. And despite the claim that the "vast majority" are controlled by individuals or small cartels, this is likely not true of the vast majority of sizeable (i.e., exchange traded) ones, which would be likely the ones with any meaningful influence anyway (after all, there are many single person "companies"). This is a function that companies need money to expand, every time they get money they are diluted, the ownership grows and becomes more diverse when sold to the public, and thus more democratic.
I have a good idea for company run as a democracy. I will create something called "shares" and distribute them equally with all of the employees. This "share" would enable everyone to vote in important matters of the democracy, such as the election of the officers to run the company. If the elected officers fail to perform their duties, one of the shareholders could call a "shareholders meeting" to take appropriate actions and remove them. Profits of the company could then be distributed according to these "shares", in a sort of "dividend".
Over time, employees that were particularly good could perhaps receive additional shares as a result of their help in increasing the value of the firm and as a valid motivational and performance tool. Similarly, there may be some new employees that join, and they certainly should not be entitled to the same number of shares as those who had put in much hard work, as that would hardly be "fair".
Thus, this would allow varying the number of shares of each of the participats in this venture, while still preserving the "democratic" aspect. However, what to do when somebody wants to leave the company? It would be unfair to have him/her simply give up their ownership involuntarily, conversely it would not make sense for him/her to be forced to hold said "shares" when they no longer are a willing participant in the venture. One solution would be a "market" which would allow people in the company to exchange their "shares" for another store of value, such as "cash".
Now while it might make sense to restrict this "market" to employees, this might not ensure that the price for shares received was fair, as a smaller market might not be as transparant or efficient. Additionally, if the venture needed money for new products, marketing, etc, it might be hard to keep asking the employees to put in more. It would seem opening this "market" to other non-employee participants could address this.
What do you think of this idea? I will also create something called a "patent" so you don't steal it.
Internet Providers: 3 (2000) Internet Users: 45.8 million (2002)
Now I know these are dated, but c'mon ya'll, someone open up some ISPs there!! Do you think it's the government stifling competitior, or just that AOL can't afford to mail out 1.3 billion CDs there...
The statistics in the survey are pretty useless without more context. While it may be true that people (more specifically 18-34 year old males) are abandoning TV for online gaming this article says nothing. Is there anything that shows that [increased video game usage] is related to [decline in TV viewing by 18-34 year olds]
1. Peak online usage from 5-11, which includes TV prime time. This should hardly be shocking because there has to be a peak period, and because TV prime time would tend to correspond to viewer's free time. 2. 65% of online users between 8-11 pm are men 18-34. Says nothing about what percentage of PS2 owners are between 18-34, whether that percentage is dramatically different than other periods, or what the reason is. Perhaps proportionately more 10-18 year old PS2 owners are watching Idol... or that they have real friends that come over to play live 3. TV viewership in 18-34 year old demographic is down 8-12%. Fine, could be for any reason, but of course this data is from another source (Nielsen). Sony's survey (or what was quoted in the article) did not demonstrate any increase in gaming activity from year to year, nor any statistics to show it was drawing from anything else.
This is why their conclusion basically says nothing - "increased video game play could be among the many factors leading to the decline in TV viewership by young men". Why stop there? I think we could also generalize that [increased video game usage] must also be related to [lower CD sales] since I heard that CD sales were lower too.
Why do people continue to rely on Ebay/ Paypal/ Square Trade for auction security? These seem to offer very little protection for specific auctions.
The only "true" auction-specific insurance seems to be buysafe.com. Auctions with buysafe protection have NO deductible but more importantly are actually bonded for the full amount by an insurance company (theHartford.com). Each transaction is independently bonded, not per seller (read SquareTrade agreement, $5,000 limit per seller than you get pro-rated).
These guys are not tied to ebay nor a payment service and make their money by a small percentage paid by the seller (1% I think). They also seem to have a much more rigorous approval process for sellers than the others.
While buysafe is just starting, it is worth seeing if buyers pay attention to this considering the deductions, limitations, and seller limits in the "protections" provided by ebay/paypal/squaretrade. Sellers of course don't like any additional charges diluting their profits but they will adopt it if demanded by buyers.
Slashdot Mirror
www.buysafe.com
This is the company I'm aware of that actually guarantees sellers performance in auctions. They are not affiliated with ebay, paypal, or any payment scheme. There is no cost to the buyer. Each transaction is INDIVIDUALLY legally bonded to guarantee the sellers performance, with no deductible or seller caps. The bonds are underwritten by The Hartford insurance company (www.theHartford.com), so the guarantee has a strong financial backing.
So what's the catch? As a buyer if you see the auction is bonded with buysafe there is none. Some items buysafe will not bond (real estate for one). Sellers must go through a much more rigorous screening process then paypal or SquareTrade (which basically just check if you have a bank account). After all, buysafe/the Hartford is taking the credit risk for the seller. Sellers have to pay 1% of each auction for the bond, which is how buysafe is compensated. And, the seller probably actually benefits because buyers will be willing to pay more for an item if they know the item/seller is legitimate.
Buysafe is only a few months old, and thus does not have the name recognition of PayPal/SquareTrade. Thus it will not be on as many auctions (search ebay auction descriptions for BuySafe). However, this alternative eliminates virtually all risk for the buyer, at no cost to them, and I think that buyers would be demanding once it is more established in the market.
You have the right to set up your business in any manner that you see fit. You can set up as a non-profit, partnership, corporation, etc.
A company constantly voting with their masses of employees on strategic issues would not be able to react quickly, discretely, consistently or at times intelligently. Of course employees are intelligent. However employees 1) don't have the time or expertise to govern on a regular basis, and 2) are not necessarily the owners, and thus their interests are not always aligned. The shareholders are the owners of the firm, and elect the governing officers to protect their interests, which seems fair considering they took the financial risk of starting the business.
Now I'm sure someone can cite a few companies with other governance schemes that work for that company, fine. As stated, there is nothing stopping anyone from creating a purely democratic governing model. So if you want to, go ahead.
However, the larger companies in the world would seem to be run as shareholder-owned corporations. And despite the claim that the "vast majority" are controlled by individuals or small cartels, this is likely not true of the vast majority of sizeable (i.e., exchange traded) ones, which would be likely the ones with any meaningful influence anyway (after all, there are many single person "companies"). This is a function that companies need money to expand, every time they get money they are diluted, the ownership grows and becomes more diverse when sold to the public, and thus more democratic.
I have a good idea for company run as a democracy. I will create something called "shares" and distribute them equally with all of the employees. This "share" would enable everyone to vote in important matters of the democracy, such as the election of the officers to run the company. If the elected officers fail to perform their duties, one of the shareholders could call a "shareholders meeting" to take appropriate actions and remove them. Profits of the company could then be distributed according to these "shares", in a sort of "dividend".
Over time, employees that were particularly good could perhaps receive additional shares as a result of their help in increasing the value of the firm and as a valid motivational and performance tool. Similarly, there may be some new employees that join, and they certainly should not be entitled to the same number of shares as those who had put in much hard work, as that would hardly be "fair".
Thus, this would allow varying the number of shares of each of the participats in this venture, while still preserving the "democratic" aspect. However, what to do when somebody wants to leave the company? It would be unfair to have him/her simply give up their ownership involuntarily, conversely it would not make sense for him/her to be forced to hold said "shares" when they no longer are a willing participant in the venture. One solution would be a "market" which would allow people in the company to exchange their "shares" for another store of value, such as "cash".
Now while it might make sense to restrict this "market" to employees, this might not ensure that the price for shares received was fair, as a smaller market might not be as transparant or efficient. Additionally, if the venture needed money for new products, marketing, etc, it might be hard to keep asking the employees to put in more. It would seem opening this "market" to other non-employee participants could address this.
What do you think of this idea? I will also create something called a "patent" so you don't steal it.
From CIA World Factbook on China:
Internet Providers: 3 (2000)
Internet Users: 45.8 million (2002)
Now I know these are dated, but c'mon ya'll, someone open up some ISPs there!! Do you think it's the government stifling competitior, or just that AOL can't afford to mail out 1.3 billion CDs there...
The statistics in the survey are pretty useless without more context. While it may be true that people (more specifically 18-34 year old males) are abandoning TV for online gaming this article says nothing. Is there anything that shows that [increased video game usage] is related to [decline in TV viewing by 18-34 year olds]
1. Peak online usage from 5-11, which includes TV prime time. This should hardly be shocking because there has to be a peak period, and because TV prime time would tend to correspond to viewer's free time.
2. 65% of online users between 8-11 pm are men 18-34. Says nothing about what percentage of PS2 owners are between 18-34, whether that percentage is dramatically different than other periods, or what the reason is. Perhaps proportionately more 10-18 year old PS2 owners are watching Idol... or that they have real friends that come over to play live
3. TV viewership in 18-34 year old demographic is down 8-12%. Fine, could be for any reason, but of course this data is from another source (Nielsen). Sony's survey (or what was quoted in the article) did not demonstrate any increase in gaming activity from year to year, nor any statistics to show it was drawing from anything else.
This is why their conclusion basically says nothing - "increased video game play could be among the many factors leading to the decline in TV viewership by young men". Why stop there? I think we could also generalize that [increased video game usage] must also be related to [lower CD sales] since I heard that CD sales were lower too.
Why do people continue to rely on Ebay/ Paypal/ Square Trade for auction security? These seem to offer very little protection for specific auctions.
The only "true" auction-specific insurance seems to be buysafe.com. Auctions with buysafe protection have NO deductible but more importantly are actually bonded for the full amount by an insurance company (theHartford.com). Each transaction is independently bonded, not per seller (read SquareTrade agreement, $5,000 limit per seller than you get pro-rated).
These guys are not tied to ebay nor a payment service and make their money by a small percentage paid by the seller (1% I think). They also seem to have a much more rigorous approval process for sellers than the others.
While buysafe is just starting, it is worth seeing if buyers pay attention to this considering the deductions, limitations, and seller limits in the "protections" provided by ebay/paypal/squaretrade. Sellers of course don't like any additional charges diluting their profits but they will adopt it if demanded by buyers.