-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathdiary-apr-2010.htm
695 lines (692 loc) · 68.8 KB
/
diary-apr-2010.htm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>diary-apr-2010 </title>
<link href=".code/preferred.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"/>
</head>
<body>
<p class='header'>
<a href="_home.htm">Home</a> | <a href="_faq.htm">FAQ</a> | <a href="_thesis.htm">Thesis</a> | <a href="_diary.htm">Diary</a> | <a href="_projects.htm">Projects</a> | <a href="resume.htm">Resume</a> | <a href="_todo.htm">Todo</a> | <a href="_index.htm">Index</a> |<p>
<p class='main'><span class="rel">Related:</span> <a href="diary.htm">diary</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-29-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures</a><br/>
<br/>
Similar to how the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> <a href="use.htm">use</a>s Copyright to solve the problems of Copyright, we can <a href="use.htm">use</a> <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty rights to solve the problems of <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty rights.<br/>
<br/>
Copy<a href="left.htm">left</a> seems hypocritical because it *requires* Copyright to enforce it's solution to power concentration within the <a href="virt.htm">virt</a>ual <small>(sacred or spiritual)</small> world.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty<a href="left.htm">Left</a> is a analogous approach that will <a href="use.htm">use</a> <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty rights to enforce a solution to power in the physical <small>(profane or bodily)</small> <a href="real.htm">real</a>m.<br/>
<br/>
So the first step is to allow ourselves the notion that we can <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es such as Farms and Factories in a 'moral' or 'righteous' manner.<br/>
<br/>
Then we must write the contract that we will choose to apply to such <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty for the purpose of ensuring <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom for all of it's <a href="user.htm">User</a>s <small>(Consumers)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers of "Intellectual <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty" *choose* to tie their <a href="own.htm">own</a> hands - and the hands of anyone else <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding upon those re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es - when the *choose* to apply the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> to their '<a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty'.<br/>
<br/>
We, as <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers of <a href="real.htm">real</a>, meat<a href="spac.htm">spac</a>e <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty can also *choose* to tie our hands - and the hands of anyone <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding upon that <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty - through a "Terms of Operation" that treats <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> as a <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er's investment.<br/>
<br/>
This will allow us to grow while keeping us from 'accidentally' overaccumulating wealth and power into the hands of the few that begin the operation.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-29-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures</a><br/>
Edward Miller wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> mutuals and cooperatives</span><br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>..<br/>
<span class="quot">> fall short and only <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e up a tiny share of the overall market.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Why is this the case?</span><br/>
<br/>
The most <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>amental problem with these entities is that they do not <a href="use.htm">use</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty rights to eliminate the exchange of goods.<br/>
<br/>
What I mean is easier to understand using an extremely simplified example:<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of a nut tree must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, including any Wages if he doesn't do all of the <a href="work.htm">work</a> himself.<br/>
<br/>
But he cannot <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> because he does not 'buy' the nuts at the end of the season - they are *already* his <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty.<br/>
<br/>
When this <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el is scaled through <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership - when a group of Consumers purchase a grove of nut trees with the understanding that they *<a href="own.htm">own</a>* the output of those trees in an a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> directly related to the % of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership they have in the orc<a href="hard.htm">hard</a>, then <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e == <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> and <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> == 0.<br/>
<br/>
But one more detail that must be addressed is the case where the Consumer accidentally <a href="own.htm">own</a>s more of the orc<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> <small>(Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es)</small> than they need to satisfy their <a href="own.htm">own</a> needs.<br/>
<br/>
In that case we <small>(the group of <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ing consumers)</small> should <a href="use.htm">use</a> "the market" to sell that excess to other consumers that do not yet have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the orc<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> <small>(for if they did, they would not need to buy nuts)</small> but under a strict condition that any a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> we charge over the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> in<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ed for that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion must be treated as an Investment from the consumer who paid it. This perpetuates the elimination of exchange.<br/>
<br/>
This arrangement will outperform the "<a href="free.htm">Free</a> Market" because the inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are the consumers and expect only <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t in return, and so these organizations can saely allow <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e to reach <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> and are also not threatened by automation or robotics or abundance in general.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-28-2010:</span> <a href="user.htm">User</a>s <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es creates a "Zero Copy" environment where goods are no longer exchanged because they are already the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of those who will consume them.<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-28-2010:</span> Windows 7 warns me: <span class="quot">"'You may be a victim of software counterfeiting.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://EtymOnline.com">EtymOnline.com</a> says: <span class="quot">"'late 13c., from <a class="ext" href="http://O.Fr.">O.Fr.</a> contrefait "imitated," pp. of contrefaire "imitate," from contre- "against" + faire "to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e, to do" <small>(from L. facere; see factitious)</small>. M.L. contrafactio meant "setting in opposition or contrast." The verb is from late 13c.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
And about 'forge': <span class="quot">"'late 13c., from <a class="ext" href="http://O.Fr.">O.Fr.</a> forge, earlier faverge, from L. fabrica "<a href="work.htm">work</a>shop," from faber <small>(gen. fabri)</small> "<a href="work.htm">work</a>man in <a href="hard.htm">hard</a> materials, smith." Sense of "to counterfeit" is in Anglo-Fr. verb forger "falsify," from <a class="ext" href="http://O.Fr.">O.Fr.</a> forgier, from L. fabricari "to frame, construct, <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d." Related: Forged; forger; forging.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-27-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://Groups.Google.com/group/cloud-computing-use-cases">Groups.Google.com/group/cloud-computing-use-cases</a><br/>
When a group of <a href="user.htm">user</a>s organize and purchase the physical <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware needed to host a <a href="cloud.htm">Cloud</a>, they receive that service "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>". The <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e they <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> is exactly the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of operation.<br/>
<br/>
But when that <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is held by any other group, the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers will try to keep <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e *above* <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, for that is the very definition of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'Why <a href="cloud.htm">Cloud</a> <a href="compu.htm">Compu</a>ting Will Never Be <a href="free.htm">Free</a>'"</span> <a class="ext" href="http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2010/5/87259-why-cloud-computing-will-never-be-free/fulltext">http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2010/5/87259-why-cloud-computing-will-never-be-free/fulltext</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-27-2010:</span> Not yet Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org</a><br/>
Chris Watkins wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I'd like to dig deeper here. When this happens, I'm not sure what the actual motivation is. Is it:</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> * A conscious decision to restrict supply to raise <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es? I still find it <a href="hard.htm">hard</a> to see how my throwing away my milk will improve my <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="net.htm">net</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>. Or</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> * A response to critically low <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es, where it would <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> more to take the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t to market than it would return in income? In this case, throwing it away, or finding a <a href="use.htm">use</a> with a better <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>off, <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es more sense. I suspect that's what actually happening in most of these cases, but I'm not sure. If someone had a biogas digester capable of handling large a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a>s of milk, for example, this might be a more <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>-effective <a href="use.htm">use</a> <small>(even if it only turns a loss into a break-even)</small>.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> There's nothing in the <a href="free.htm">free</a> market that means <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ers must manipulate the market to keep <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>. If <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e drops below <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, it simply means that they have overestimated demand and <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed too much, and need to adjust either the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion <small>(e.g. less milk, more cropping)</small>; or the demand <small>(advertising, or finding <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="use.htm">use</a>s for the raw <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t)</small>.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Somehow supply and demand must balance. The <a href="free.htm">free</a> market is a natural mechanism for that - based on <a href="free.htm">free</a> agents <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing their <a href="own.htm">own</a> decisions about what they want and what they'll <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for it. There are weaknesses <small>(e.g. externalities)</small> but regulations have been able to rein in some of these problems, where the political will exists. If someone wants to suggest an alternative that <a href="work.htm">work</a>s better than the <a href="free.htm">free</a> market, they have their <a href="work.htm">work</a> cut out, both in proving that it <a href="work.htm">work</a>s better, and in convincing me to give up my <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Kevin Carson<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Possibly--if all other variables were held constant. But what are</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> some of those variables?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Are there, for example, market entry barriers <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing it <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificially</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult for just anyone to <a href="start.htm">start</a> raising cattle and selling milk,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> without some sort of government certification, or some sort of</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> expensive government inspection or licensing fees that limit the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> number of people competing in the market?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Might some of the problem be over<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion for large, anonymous</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> commodity markets in which <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is divorced from demand and</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> organized on a supply-push <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el, instead of being geared to local</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> demand? Might some of it be, as Chris suggested, the market power of</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> middlemen who drive down the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e primary <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ers can receive for</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> their commodities, to the point where they can only be sold at a loss?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> > We are <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>amentally confused about the purpose of business.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> ></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> > We should be <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ing for *<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t* <small>(<a href="use.htm">use</a> value)</small>, but are instead</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> > <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ing for *<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>* <small>(exchange value)</small> which cannot abide abundance.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> I don't think there's any confusion about the fact that people in</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> business *want* to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y. What they want to do and how they want</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> to do it, and what they're *able* to do, though, are two <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> things. I think there may be some <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>amental confusion here about</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> what <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es them able to do it. Destroying <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t in order to reduce</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> supply and drive up the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e is just great--if you can stop anyone</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> from entering the market and selling for closer to <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> and</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> undercutting you. If there's no restriction on access to the dairy</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> market or on permission to <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e milk, pouring milk down the sewer</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> would be a pretty stupid thing to do.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> On the other hand, we may be <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>amentally confused on what being a</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> consumer is all about. Wal-Mart is flooded with customers seeking the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> lowest possible dirt-cheap <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e on everything, even if it's <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> by Chinese slave labor <small>(and lots of people who shop for nannies and</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> gardeners from foreign countries who will <a href="work.htm">work</a> without FICA <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ments)</small>.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> How would that change if customers <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed the sweatshops?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> If there's a conflict of interest between <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers and consumers, why</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> won't it <a href="work.htm">work</a> both ways? Isn't it just as much in the interest of</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> consumers to get <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers to <a href="work.htm">work</a> for as little as possible? Most</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> people are both wage-<a href="work.htm">work</a>ers and consumers, so it's <a href="hard.htm">hard</a> to <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>ine</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> them going from being total utility-maximizing, <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e-gouging</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> shitheels as <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ers, and then transforming into Gandhi or Mother</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Theresa as consumer-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> I repeat, consumer sovereignty is great for the portion of the day</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> that you're a consumer. But for the portion of your life that you</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> punch a time-clock and become a serf, it's not so great. The greatest</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e of misery in many people's <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>es is the hours they're <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> under the orders and direction of someone else.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Kevin Carson wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I actually think consumer cooperation might play a significant role in</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> the larger alternative <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy movement, and as a <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding block in</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> the post-capitalist <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy. I just don't see the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>er-consumer</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> distinction as that central. For me, the important thing is the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="lib.htm">lib</a>eratory effects of imploding capital <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s for physical <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> imploding transaction <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s resulting from <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> culture, increased</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic independence of households and individuals, and the closer</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> gearing of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion to consumption in relocalized <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omies. And</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> the style of organization <small>(the organizational style of Paul Goodman</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> and Colin Ward, vs. that of the Ministry of Central Services in</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Brazil)</small> is far more important than who formally <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the organization.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> I suspect the milk-dumping incident Patrick points to has more to do</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> with market structure, <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion scale and organizational style than</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> anything else.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Ryan Lanham wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> To me, this is a crucial theme. To flip a few questions on their heads, we need to ask a set of basic questions:</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> 1. Is there some reason why, given a plurality of nations and cultures, that a "correct" <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic system has not arisen?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> By way of <a href="part.htm">part</a>ial answer to my <a href="own.htm">own</a> question, I have serious doubts that there is anything <a href="new.htm">new</a> under the sun without significant technology changes. That is, I am will to declare the end of political <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omics as a separate field from technology futurism. There is no "post-capitalism" absent technology change or cataclysm beyond anything any sane person might wish for.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> 2. If P2P is <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly a technology and not a political movement, isn't there a much broader umbrella for <a href="part.htm">part</a>icipation and hope?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> 3. If the issue is technology, and not purely commons, what sorts of technologies are sea change/<a href="game.htm">game</a> change impactors that will move things in some positive direction?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> 4. What are we not willing to give up? I think this is <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly the dividing question where politics are concerned.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> A. <a href="lib.htm">Lib</a>erty to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e a <a href="profit.htm">profit</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> B. <a href="lib.htm">Lib</a>erty to hire wage <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> C. <a href="lib.htm">Lib</a>erty to accept <a href="work.htm">work</a> as a wage earner</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> D. <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom from collective takings of <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> E. The right to <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> F. The right to personal sovereignty <small>(and definitions of what that means)</small></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> G. The right to form nations/<a href="stat.htm">stat</a>es and the right to establish certain rules and orders in those <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>es</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> H. The right to have co-operative or corporate entities</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> I. The right to form and share commons</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> J. <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom of movement</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> K. <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom of expression</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> L. <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom to transfer wealth from one <a href="part.htm">part</a>y to another</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> M. <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom from...?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="part.htm">Part</a>ial Answer: For me, P2P hints at a refinement of existing co-operative elements combined with the hope that technologies will allow low <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> sharing in manners that eliminate the market value of most intellectual <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty--not through unlawful takings, but through the obvious capacity of people to <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d alternative mechanisms to those created at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> by inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s and to redistribute those alternatives at <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es that <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e capital investment <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> less likely if not impossible. That is, technology is causing a movement to <a href="free.htm">free</a> and a movement to "here comes everybody."</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> If this <a href="part.htm">part</a>ial answer is true...P2P ought to search out the following:</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> 1. How to enable and expand co-ops</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> 2. How to redistribute the intellectual <a href="know.htm">know</a>-how of society in fair and ap<a href="prop.htm">prop</a>riate means so as to exp<a href="edit.htm">edit</a>e an expanding <a href="free.htm">free</a> universe.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> 3. How to discuss and predict outcomes as older social systems predicated on cr<a href="edit.htm">edit</a>/investment/<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> frame<a href="work.htm">work</a>s <a href="start.htm">start</a> to become infeasible.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> 4. How to interject value <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ositions concerned externalities <small>(e.g. the environment)</small> that are often overlooked in conventional political <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic and social discourses.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-27-2010:</span> Posted to OpenManufacturing<br/>
<br/>
Steve Richfield wrote<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> 1. Who <a href="own.htm">own</a>s those city blocks?</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I presently see no socially conscionable choice but government <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of these plants.</span><br/>
<br/>
Are we now allowed to discuss <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership?<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'We don't care about <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership because <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is totally<br/>
bullshit. Haven't we gone over this before? Paul has written many<br/>
hundreds of pages of text on this topic to you alone by now.'"</span> -- <a class="ext" href="http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/browse_thread/thread/9e43867449ce5472/de7a9f2e8d9bf66f?lnk=gst&q=bullshit#de7a9f2e8d9bf66f">http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/browse_thread/thread/9e43867449ce5472/de7a9f2e8d9bf66f?lnk=gst&q=bullshit#de7a9f2e8d9bf66f</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> bigger and bigger manufacturing plants will emerge to out-compete</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> with smaller plants, etc., thereby dooming communes <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>t around</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> such plants, just as communities <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>t around steel mills were doomed to fail.</span><br/>
<br/>
Progress is failure?<br/>
<br/>
This is only true because we are fooled into believing <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is for *<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>*, while somehow forgetting the <a href="real.htm">real</a> purpose of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is *<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t*.<br/>
<br/>
This is enhanced by our faulty conclusion that the *<a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers* should be the <a href="own.htm">OWN</a>ers of the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
But if *Consumers* of such <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts were to organize to buy or <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d and therefore <a href="own.htm">OWN</a> such a plant, they would be 'safe' from progress and automation since they do not need to keep <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>, nor do they need to pretend <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ment is a need instead of seeing it as a hurdle on our road to success.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Sincerely,<br/>
Patrick Anderson<br/>
<a href="social sufficiency coalition.htm">Social Sufficiency Coalition</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com">http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-27-2010:</span> Not yet Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org</a><br/>
<br/>
Edward Miller wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> I was wondering what examples of mutuals and cooperatives there are which</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> are <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently serving the mainstream US consumer market. I can think of a</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> few <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ance mutuals and cr<a href="edit.htm">edit</a> unions, community supported agriculture,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> and igo carsharing which are all close to the mutualist <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>al, but all of</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> them fall short</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Here are the problems that keep it from maximum<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>)</small> Most commonly the Consumers are not the actual <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers. For example, the Farms of every CSA I <a href="know.htm">know</a> of is <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed by the <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers who are in deep debt to<br/>
<br/>
1.)</small> The Outputs of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion should be the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of those Consumer-<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers as a *side effect* of their <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, but these Cooperatives do not see the benefit in eliminating that phase of exchange, and so<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
in exact <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ortion to the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> they<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
The collective Consumer/<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion to buy the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t<br/>
<br/>
Consider the most simple case - where two people <a href="own.htm">own</a> an Olive tree, but only one of them is capable of doing that type of <a href="work.htm">work</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> becomes the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of the *<a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent* <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers instead of being the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of the Consumer who paid it. This causes overaccumulation and concentration of power until the organization can barely be <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>iated from any other of the broken <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>els we <a href="use.htm">use</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
is an <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificial disconnect between the<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> P<a href="resume.htm">resume</a>d Abundance that is trying to apply a <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>-it-forward <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el to angel</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> investing.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a class="ext" href="http://www.presumedabundance.com/">http://www.presumedabundance.com/</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> I think this could <a href="work.htm">work</a> even better for gift <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omies.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a> it forward <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>sharing</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a> it forward reprapping</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a> it forward <a href="free.htm">free</a>cycling</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a> it forward couch surfing</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a> it forward carsharing</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a> it forward seed saving</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> There is already a lot of <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>-it-forward stuff happening in these</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> communities, but it isn't formalized let alone institutionalized with</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> reputation systems or contracts.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Perhaps where it gets more interesting is when <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y is changing hands and</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> contracts are being signed. Cooperatives and mutuals could adopt a</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>-it-forward philosophy that is set in stone into the contracts.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> If you are a mutual that is <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ing tools, you could stipulate in the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> contract that the tools be placed into a tool <a href="lib.htm">lib</a>rary for at least some</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> minimum a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> of time per year.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> If you are a mutual that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>es cars, you could stipulate that the cars be</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> lent to the Center for Neighborhood Technology for a certain minimum a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> of time.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> If you are a cooperative that <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ds houses, you could stipulate that the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> residents lend out their sofas for some minimum a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> of time per year.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Then the s<a href="econ.htm">econ</a>d level would be the people who borrow the tools or the cars</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> or the sofas would then have to do the same for others. <small>(there is no <a href="profit.htm">profit</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> that needs to be reinvested as with the P<a href="resume.htm">resume</a>d Abundance example)</small></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Pretty sweet.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-24-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://Listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org">Listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org</a> and <a class="ext" href="http://Oekonux.org">Oekonux.org</a><br/>
Supporters of the so-called "<a href="free.htm">Free</a> Market" claim all our troubles would be over if we could just stop the governments from handing favors to big business.<br/>
<br/>
But <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ers choose to limit <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion and destroy reserves *on their <a href="own.htm">own</a>* because they want to keep <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
The examples of this are many, but here is a video of hundreds of Belgian farmers dumping milk in an attempt to reduce the supply: <a class="ext" href="http://YouTube.com/watch?v=pDAjMcDWDZ0">http://YouTube.com/watch?v=pDAjMcDWDZ0</a><br/>
<br/>
If the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers were the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, the results would be the same.<br/>
<br/>
We are <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>amentally confused about the purpose of business.<br/>
<br/>
We should be <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ing for *<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t* <small>(<a href="use.htm">use</a> value)</small>, but are instead <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ing for *<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>* <small>(exchange value)</small> which cannot abide abundance.<br/>
<br/>
What will we ever do to solve this paradox?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Sincerely,<br/>
Patrick Anderson<br/>
<a href="social sufficiency coalition.htm">Social Sufficiency Coalition</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com">http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-23-2010:</span> Trying to read the 2008 Farm Bill at <a class="ext" href="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6124eh.txt">http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6124eh.txt</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-23-2010:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://WastedFood.com">WastedFood.com</a> <span class="quot2">>>Americans waste more than 40 percent of the food we <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e for consumption. That comes at an annual <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> of more than $100 billion. At the same time, food <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es and the number of Americans without enough to eat continues to rise.</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-23-2010:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://HealthPromoting.com/Articles/articles/PleasureTrap.htm">HealthPromoting.com/Articles/articles/PleasureTrap.htm</a> <span class="quot2">>>Learn how to escape the dietary pleasure trap!</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-23-2010:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://SoilAndHealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020127shelton.III/020127.toc.htm">SoilAndHealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020127shelton.III/020127.toc.htm</a><br/>
<span class="quot">"'The<br/>
HYGIENIC SYSTEM<br/>
<br/>
By HERBERT M. SHELTON<br/>
D.P., N.D., D.C., D.N.T., D.N. Sc., D.N. Ph., D.N. Litt., Ph. D., D. Orthp.<br/>
<br/>
Author of<br/>
<br/>
HUMAN LIFE, ITS PHILOSOPHY AND LAWS<br/>
NATURAL DIET OF MAN<br/>
HYGIENIC CARE OF CHILDREN<br/>
NATURAL CURE OF SYPHILIS<br/>
NATURAL CURE OF CANCER<br/>
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL HYGIENE<br/>
ETC., ETC.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">><</span><br/>
<br/>
Vol. III<br/>
FASTING and SUN BATHING<br/>
'"</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-19-2010:</span> Noticed <a class="ext" href="http://SwapASkill.com">SwapASkill.com</a> <span class="quot2">>>Swap what you can give or can do for what you need Get what you want - do something you're good at, or give something you don't need.</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-19-2010:</span> SaaS: Sharing any and all <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es -- Whither the <a href="compu.htm">Compu</a>ting Commons?<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://GNU.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">GNU.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.net/Personal_Server">P2PFoundation.net/Personal_Server</a> and <a class="ext" href="http://Groups.FSF.org/wiki/LibrePlanet2009/Personal_Servers">Groups.FSF.org/wiki/LibrePlanet2009/Personal_Servers</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://SoftwareFreedom.org/events/2010/bkuhn-libreplanet-2010">SoftwareFreedom.org/events/2010/bkuhn-libreplanet-2010</a> <span class="quot2">>>Software <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom In <a href="net.htm">Net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> Services</span><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://SoftwareFreedom.org/events/2010/texas-linux-fest-2010">SoftwareFreedom.org/events/2010/texas-linux-fest-2010</a> <span class="quot2">>>With Software as a Service, Is Only the <a href="net.htm">Net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> Luddite <a href="free.htm">Free</a>?</span><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://SoftwareFreedom.org/events/2010/isoc-ny/FreedomInTheCloud-transcript.html">SoftwareFreedom.org/events/2010/isoc-ny/FreedomInTheCloud-transcript.html</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-19-2010:</span> Noticed <a class="ext" href="http://Rentalic.org">Rentalic.org</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-19-2010:</span> Noticed <a class="ext" href="http://RelayRides.com">RelayRides.com</a> <span class="quot2">>>Have a car? Need a car? Either way, we can help! Have a car? Earn cash by <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>ing it out when you're not using it. Our technology and <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ance <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e the <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>al safe and convenient! Need a car? Get convenient, affordable access to one by the hour or the day. Gas and <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ance are included!</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-19-2010:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://SoftwareFreedom.org/events/2010/isoc-ny/FreedomInTheCloud-transcript.html">SoftwareFreedom.org/events/2010/isoc-ny/FreedomInTheCloud-transcript.html</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-16-2010:</span> Noticed <a class="ext" href="http://Shareable.net">Shareable.net</a> <span class="quot2">>>Design for a sharable world</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-16-2010:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org">ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org</a><br/>
<br/>
Mamading Ceesay wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> The caveat, attended a session at the summit on Social Business where</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> there was a discussion regarding <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.</span><br/>
<br/>
I'm glad you bring up the issue of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>. The connection to <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is not clear.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> can be thought of as the inverse to Consumer <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty.<br/>
<br/>
When a Consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion <small>(say an Olive Tree)</small>, he then receives the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t <small>(Olives in this case)</small> exactly "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>". He can't <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>, for who would he <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to?<br/>
<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion is kindof "short-circuited" under the special condition of <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e-<a href="own.htm">Own</a>er == <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ect-Consumer.<br/>
<br/>
When the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er of the Olive Tree eats a fruit for himself, he didn't avoid <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing any <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s, but what he does avoid <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing is <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
He can't <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>, because that occurs at the point-of-sale, but since he already <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t <small>(Olives)</small> as a side-effect of his <a href="own.htm">OWN</a>ing the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es <small>(Olive Trees)</small>, the last transaction <small>(buying Olives)</small> doesn't ever occur.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The problem with <a href="profit.htm">profit</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> seems to be twofold, firstly where it is maximised at the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> of the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> customers, society and the environment. S<a href="econ.htm">econ</a>dly where the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> are distributed almost solely to the shareholders and executives.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes. My solution to the 2nd problem is to write a "Terms of Operation" which we can <a href="use.htm">use</a> to begin <a href="new.htm">new</a>, special organizations that choose to abide and enforce <small>(over their <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty)</small> the rule that "<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is to be treated as an Investment from the Consumer who Paid it.".<br/>
<br/>
By doing this, the community is still able to grow <small>(using that <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e and <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>)</small>, but the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership of that growth is automatically distributed to the person who was willing to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for it.<br/>
<br/>
The solution to the first problem is implicitly contained within the implementation of the rule, since any corporation choosing to <a href="use.htm">use</a> these "Terms of Operation" will have no reason to maximize <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>s other than to speed the growth of that local community.<br/>
<br/>
Furthermore, with regards to problem #1, <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>s will naturally taper toward zero since a side-effect of Consumers gaining <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is that they no longer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> - it becomes undefined.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> To have a viable self-sustaining business, you absolutely have to have</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> full <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <a href="recover.htm">recover</a>y.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> If you have <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> on top of that, you can afford</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> to invest in the training and development of your people. You can</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> afford to invest in equipment and other <a href="use.htm">use</a>ful re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es. You can</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> improve the compensation of your people. You can afford to <a href="employ.htm">employ</a> more</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> people. You can cross-subsidise the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts and services so</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> as to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e them affordable and accessible to those who would not</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> otherwise be able to <a href="use.htm">use</a> them.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, this is true and somewhat good in that we, as Com<a href="mone.htm">mone</a>rs, will need to "grow" our holdings to replace the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent system. It's not that we need more total <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion on the Earth nearly as much as the <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of those Means must be 'corrected' so they are held by the very humans for which that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is supposedly occuring <small>(the Consumers)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
But treating <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as we do now causes growth to be concentrated into the hands of the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers instead of becoming the <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty of those who paid for it.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-16-2010:</span><br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_%28accounting%29">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_%28accounting%29</a> says:<br/>
<span class="quot">"'In accounting, <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is the *<a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence* between <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e and the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of bringing to market whatever it is that is accounted as an enterprise <small>(whether by harvest, extraction, manufacture, or purchase)</small> in terms of the component <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of delivered goods and/or services and any operating or other expenses.'"</span> <small>(emphasis added)</small><br/>
<br/>
And <a class="ext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_%28economics%29">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_%28economics%29</a> says:<br/>
<span class="quot">"'In neoclassical <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omics, <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, or <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, is the *<a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence* between a firm's total revenue and its opportunity <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s.'"</span> <small>(emphasis added)</small><br/>
<br/>
So "<a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> = Consumer_<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e - <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s"<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>, in itself, is neither good nor bad, but is simply an 'indicator' or a 'measure' of dependence. It can be <a href="use.htm">use</a>d for good by helping those who paid it to gain their <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom, or it can be <a href="use.htm">use</a>d for bad <small>(as the Capitalist ignorantly do)</small> to reward those who already have too much.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-14-2010:</span> Not yet Posted to OpenKollab<br/>
<br/>
Fabio Barone wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> In <a href="part.htm">part</a>icular I'd like to point out once more Chris Cook's approach</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> on unitisation, which basically <small>(at least in my <a href="own.htm">own</a>, still evolving</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> understanding)</small></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> does exactly what you describe: Inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s, <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers, managers, etc. join</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> a project in a open <a href="part.htm">part</a>nership. The <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e gets 'unitized'</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <small>(e.g. kWh, food, etc.)</small>, and the involved get 'paid' via <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed units.</span><br/>
<br/>
I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> there seems to be similarities, but so much of the jargon and complexities of high-finance and regulations are beyond my understanding so I'm still not fully sure how his plan <a href="work.htm">work</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
But one thing I did notice a videos or <a href="art.htm">art</a>icle of his <small>(can't seem to find which it was now)</small> was the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a that early <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ments should become equity.<br/>
<br/>
This appears to be close to my observation that <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> <small>(which can be thought of as a sort of "early <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment")</small> should be <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to purchase Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion for that <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er - so he gains 'equity'.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Alex Rollin wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> In most examples of this case the consumers do not <a href="own.htm">own</a> the farm.</span><br/>
<br/>
Alex, I am happy you see the subtle <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence here.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Fabio Barone wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> The growing <a href="pop.htm">pop</a>ularity of Community Supported Agriculture <small>(CSA)</small> <a href="work.htm">work</a>s</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> on this base: Farmer<small>(s)</small> get together with consumers, which invest</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> in the farmer's business upfront, sharing their risk. They then get</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e from the farmer's <a href="work.htm">work</a> on harvest.</span><br/>
<br/>
Fabio, thanks for the kind words and for trying to merge this with your <a href="own.htm">own</a> understandings.<br/>
<br/>
But notice you write "... which invest in the *farmer's* business ...".<br/>
<br/>
It is <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult to <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>ine Consumers having <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership without mentioning the <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
There is a large psychological hurdle constructed by a long hi<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>y of thinking those who have the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s needed to operate the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion must be the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
It seems to conjure <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>es of a class of NON-<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ing_<a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers fending for themselves while the class of <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ing_Consumers roll around, pushing buttons from a couch.<br/>
<br/>
This is an unfortunate and inaccurate depiction of what I <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ose. We *all* are Consumers of at least *some* things. It is impossible for any human to continue <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>ing unless he consumes the output of a certain subset of <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>ing organisms.<br/>
<br/>
We actually *do* want <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> the <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er, but instead of <a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ing his supposed 'need' to <a href="work.htm">work</a>, we must <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> his <a href="real.htm">real</a> need to Consume.<br/>
<br/>
This allows us to _safely_ drive <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s <small>(even Wages)</small> as low as possible, and to _safely_ automate and even eliminate <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ment when possible without crisis.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>itional approach of increasing <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er Wages is like pushing a rope.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-14-2010:</span> Not yet Posted to OpenKollab<br/>
<br/>
Wael Al Saad wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> So how do you consider the case that there will be external consumer and</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> external consuming need "<a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y", and how the enterprise should cover</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> internal individual investments/needs?</span><br/>
<br/>
Consumers with 'sufficient' <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion <small>(for example, <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing a % of a milk-cow)</small> do not <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> - in fact they don't even buy the milk, for they already <a href="own.htm">own</a> the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t as a sort of 'side-effect' of their <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means <small>{by the way, I <a href="use.htm">use</a> the word '<a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es' and 'Means' interchangeably}</small>.<br/>
<br/>
Consumers with 'insufficient' <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership are 'vulnerable' to those <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers, and so will likely <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> <small>{by the way, I <a href="use.htm">use</a> the word '<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>' and the phrase "<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>" interchangeably}</small>.<br/>
<br/>
Observe that, even <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers do not need any more <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership, the "external consumer" is still going to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> more than it <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> to supply the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t <small>(milk for example)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
So we might be tempted to avoid charging <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>. We might think charging a <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e that is exactly and only the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of that *PREVIOUS* round of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion would be the "right thing" to do.<br/>
<br/>
But if we do that, then the "external consumer" who paid<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-13-2010:</span> Posted to ESA-Discuss@<a class="ext" href="http://GoogleGroups.com">GoogleGroups.com</a> and OpenKollab<br/>
<span class="quot">> Hi Gang: I am looking for a neat example for principles'</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> students that neatly shows the short run/long run</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> distinction for <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s in a perfectly competitive</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> market.</span><br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> only occurs when Consumers do not <a href="own.htm">own</a> the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
When groups of Consumers organize to purchase and therefore <a href="own.htm">OWN</a> farms and factories, then <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> can safely reach zero, since the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment those Consumers expect is the *<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t* itself.<br/>
<br/>
So <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is an inverse measure of competition. Or another way is to say <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> measures Consumer dependence upon the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
We should not be trying to perpetuate <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> by <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ping-up <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>es, but should instead treat that overpayment as an Investment from the Consumer who Paid it.<br/>
<br/>
Treating <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er Investment is a "negative feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> loop" that allows growth while simultaneously 'distributing' that growth to those that are willing to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for it.<br/>
<br/>
Notice this is also an auto-leveling system that avoids the now systemic problem of over-accumulation that Capitalism suffers.<br/>
<br/>
Within such an investment plan, growth "tapers off" as demand is filled <small>(as Consumers gain <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion)</small> and does not promote overconsumption caused when we strive to perpetuate <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
'Normal' investment techniques cannot withstand perfect competition because typical inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are expecting to be paid the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e and <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> which requires Consumers NOT have <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion, for under conditions of Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership, <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e == <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> and <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> == 0!<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-13-2010:</span> E<a href="mail.htm">mail</a>ed to a friend:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Please refer to chapter 2 of George's book for the definitions of <a href="land.htm">land</a>, <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>, labor, wage, capital, interest, wealth, and <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>. I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> with his book and his theory and he has already defined these terms. I was under the impression that you vead and understood his book.</span><br/>
<br/>
Sorry, but his analysis is imperfect.<br/>
<br/>
Specifically with regards to <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> he quotes: "as Adam Smith shows, the high <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s of retail <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>ekeepers are in large <a href="part.htm">part</a> wages, being the recompense of their labor and not of their capital"<br/>
<br/>
But this is incorrect. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> does NOT come from the exertion of <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers, but from Consumer dependence brought about by the Consumers' lack of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es <small>(including lack of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in <a href="land.htm">Land</a>)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
This is a deep misunderstanding that almost all <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omists have fallen for.<br/>
<br/>
I will prove it is incorrect, and prove that my explanation is true in a future e<a href="mail.htm">mail</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> We do not need to purchase <a href="land.htm">land</a> under George's <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>osal.</span><br/>
<br/>
I <a href="know.htm">know</a> many people despise the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, but <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty *does* have some good qualities - we only need to discover how to "cut out" the bad <a href="part.htm">part</a>s and prohibit them through a contract or "Terms of Operation" that we can apply to the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <small>(including <a href="land.htm">Land</a>)</small> that we purchase toward our righteous goals.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Nobody can <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="land.htm">land</a>, only <a href="use.htm">use</a> it.</span><br/>
<br/>
Why claim something so obviously incorrect?<br/>
<br/>
You may *wish* that <a href="land.htm">Land</a> could not be <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed, but certainly there are <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of <a href="land.htm">Land</a> already.<br/>
<br/>
These <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are doing the wrong thing with that <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty, but that doesn't mean we must do the wrong things.<br/>
<br/>
We *can* purchase and <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="land.htm">Land</a> - and at that point we can finally have a say in how it is treated.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> brainwashing that <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es us believe we can purchase and <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="land.htm">land</a>.</span><br/>
<br/>
First you say purchasing <a href="land.htm">land</a> is impossible...<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> This is the problem with the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent system. Private <a href="land.htm">land</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.</span><br/>
<br/>
Then you say purchasing <a href="land.htm">land</a> is the only problem...<br/>
<br/>
Which is it?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> If we base a <a href="new.htm">new</a> system off of private <a href="land.htm">land</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, we get nowhere.</span><br/>
<br/>
That is only true if were not going to add certain constraints <small>(private-<a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty holders can always add arbitrary conditions to the <a href="use.htm">use</a> of that <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty)</small> to inhibit bad behavior.<br/>
<br/>
The most important of these constraints is that <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> must be treated as an Investment from the Consumer who Paid it. By doing this, we create a system that allows everyone who <a href="part.htm">part</a>icipates to eventually gain the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership they need to also have "fair access" just as you hope for though maybe in a way that for now seems too perverted to consider.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> To receive fair and just compensation for labor, weather this comes in the form of wage or wealth, we need fair and just access to <a href="land.htm">land</a>.</span><br/>
<br/>
The Capitalist are *already* using <a href="land.htm">Land</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership against us, so let's HACK THE SYSTEM by utilizing that same technique <small>(<a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in <a href="land.htm">Land</a>)</small> *against* the Capitalists in a Jujitsu sort of manner.<br/>
<br/>
If we don't have <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in <a href="land.htm">Land</a>, we will never have any voice whatsoever, even while the scum that run our planet are using <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in <a href="land.htm">Land</a> to suppress <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom and abundance in the name of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> through scarcity.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-09-2010:</span> E<a href="mail.htm">mail</a>ed to a friend:<br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="land.htm">Land</a> requires <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>.</span><br/>
<br/>
Sometimes, yes. But that is only true when the occupier is not the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er.<br/>
<br/>
When a person is the actual <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of the area they occupy, then <a href="rent.htm">Rent</a> == 0.<br/>
<br/>
When you <a href="own.htm">own</a> a parcel of <a href="land.htm">land</a> and a house on it, you <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> only '<a href="real.htm">real</a>' <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of: Initial purchase, maintenance <small>(wear <a href="part.htm">part</a>s, oil, etc.)</small>, and operation <small>(labor, fuel, etc.)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
If this is not true, then tell me who would receive the <a href="rent.htm">Rent</a> under that condition.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Labor requires wage.</span><br/>
I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Capital requires interest.</span><br/>
<br/>
Sometimes, yes. But that is only true when the operator is not the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er.<br/>
<br/>
When a person is the actual <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of the <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine they operate, then interest on that <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine == 0.<br/>
<br/>
When you <a href="own.htm">own</a> a tiller, you <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> only '<a href="real.htm">real</a>' <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of: Initial purchase, maintenance <small>(wear <a href="part.htm">part</a>s, oil, etc.)</small>, and operation <small>(labor, fuel, etc.)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
If this isn't true, then tell me who would receive the Interest under that condition.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Wealth - <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> - wage - interest = <a href="profit.htm">profit</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> After wealth has paid <a href="back.htm">back</a> the <a href="land.htm">land</a>, labor and capital the excess is what is termed "<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>", or progress.</span><br/>
<br/>
The definition of '<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>' you are using may be <a href="pop.htm">pop</a>ular, but it is not what I am talking about.<br/>
<br/>
I'm talking about the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s an *<a href="own.htm">OWN</a>ER* of the "Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion" must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, and the final <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e a *CONSUMER* must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> to receive that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Let's consider the case of a simple business selling lemonade.<br/>
<br/>
The way I frame the situation is:<br/>
<br/>
Before <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion has even begun, the business <a href="own.htm">OWN</a>ER will <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s to begin.<br/>
<br/>
<small>[Structured in the <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>/wage/interest form you are accustomed]</small>:<br/>
<a href="cost.htm">COST</a>#1: He will buy or <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> or go into debt for some <a href="land.htm">Land</a>.<br/>
<a href="cost.htm">COST</a>#2: He will <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> wages to a <a href="work.htm">work</a>er or spend his <a href="own.htm">own</a> time doing that labor.<br/>
<a href="cost.htm">COST</a>#3: He will buy or <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> or go into debt for some Tools.<br/>
<br/>
Once <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is underway, the <a href="own.htm">OWN</a>ER may begin selling some <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
When he sells the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t, he will try to get Consumers to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> more for the finished <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t than it *<a href="real.htm">real</a>ly* <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e that <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
I am not saying this is 'good' or 'bad', I am just <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>ing the way I understand things, and asking if this sounds reasonable, and whether it seems valuable for discussion.<br/>
<br/>
So my equation looks like:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> = Consumer_<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e - <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
I am confused about the equation <small>{Wealth - <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> - wage - interest = <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>}</small> because I don't understand where Consumer_<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e fits.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-06-2010:</span> Noticed <a class="ext" href="http://UrbanResilience.WordPress.com">UrbanResilience.WordPress.com</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-06-2010:</span> Noticed <a class="ext" href="http://MakeMarketsBeMarkets.org">MakeMarketsBeMarkets.org</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-06-2010:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://GNU.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">GNU.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Apr-01-2010:</span> Posted to OpenKollab<br/>
<br/>
Hello All,<br/>
<br/>
Suresh Fernando wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> the problem lies with the capital allocation <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el</span><br/>
<br/>
This thinking can also be <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to r<a href="econ.htm">econ</a>sider how <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> effects 'allocation', and who should benefit from that growth.<br/>
<br/>
Organizations grow when they can sell a good or service for a <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e more than it <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> to <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e. That is <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>, of course.<br/>
<br/>
So <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is important for growth, but the *allocation* of that growth <small>(who, in the end, should <small>(<a href="ide.htm">ide</a>ally)</small> be the *<a href="own.htm">own</a>er* of any investments made with that <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>)</small> is severely lopsided toward rewarding those that are already invested, while leaving the late-arriving <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er without any allocation at all.<br/>
<br/>
This causes power centralization through <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty over-accumulation.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
We have somehow forgotten or disregard the importance of the Consumer who *paid* for that growth <small>(each time they <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
1.)</small> Treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as a 'reward' for the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers is a "Positive Feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> Loop" <a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback</a> that destabilizes Capitalistic organizations as they grow because those who already have some 'allocation' <small>(the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers)</small> tend to see no reason to avoid keeping control of that grow for themselves - and so over-allocate even more to themselves.<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> Treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as an investment from the Consumer who paid it is a "Negative Feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> Loop" <a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback</a> that continuously spreads Capital allocation to those who are willing to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <small>(<a href="work.htm">work</a>)</small> for it and so spreads control over any such entity in a self-leveling manner.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
We should keep these extremes in mind as we attempt to restructure <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Thanks,<br/>
Patrick Anderson,<br/>
<a href="social sufficiency coalition.htm">Social Sufficiency Coalition</a><br/>
</p>
<p class='footer'>
Page generated from <a href=".text/diary-apr-2010">diary-apr-2010</a> by <a href=".code/etym.el">etym</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>