-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathdiary-mar-2008.htm
560 lines (557 loc) · 82.6 KB
/
diary-mar-2008.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
<?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-mar-2008 </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="h4">====THIS <a href="file.htm">FILE</a> IS ARCHIVAL. See '<a href="diary.htm">Diary</a>' for <a href="new.htm">new</a>est entries</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-19-2008:</span> <a href="left.htm">Left</a> for California<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-18-2008:</span> Watching "From Dawn to Sunset <small>(1937)</small>" <a class="ext" href="http://Archive.org/details/FromDawn1937">Archive.org/details/FromDawn1937</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-17-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2008-March/000441.html">http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2008-March/000441.html</a><br/>
<br/>
Subject:<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t is better than <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> <small>(was Re: Capital Club)</small><br/>
<br/>
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Kevin Carson<br/>
<<a href="free.htm">free</a>.market.anticapitalist at <a class="ext" href="http://gmail.com">gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> I think it's important to distinguish between entrepreneurial <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> and return on <a href="land.htm">land</a> and capital as such. The former is a good thing,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> because 1)</small> it is the primary impetus in a market to move factors where</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> they are most needed and to maxize the ratio of output to inputs;</span><br/>
<br/>
Keeping <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> appears to be the only motivator any more, but what about <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t? Aren't the <a href="use.htm">use</a>-value of the outputs of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion important?<br/>
<br/>
They are certainly important to the consumers, and consumers never expect to be paid <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, so why not have them be the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers? I'm not pretending these consumers would be a totally separate set of humans that lay around eating all day without ever <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing. I assume they will also need to <a href="work.htm">work</a> somewhere, in many cases they can operate some of those Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion that they rely upon for that which they consume, but we also want to incent the division of labor, so it will be common for the consumer of honey to <a href="own.htm">own</a> beehives without being the beekeeper himself - he can hire someone else to do that while he goes and shovels manuer to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for that <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>ing of labor. I'm not trying to take advantage of <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers, I'm trying to stop the exploitation of the consumer while keeping in mind that EVERY <a href="work.htm">WORK</a>ER IS A CONSUMER, but may not neccessarily have the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s needed to operate the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es he needs <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in in order to have the control required for true <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom.<br/>
<br/>
What if a group of consumers chose to invest for the purpose of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t? Would that also "maxize the ration of outputs to inputs"? <small>(does that phrase mean <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion would be efficient?)</small><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> and 2)</small> it is automatically self-eliminating.</span><br/>
<br/>
If <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> were eliminated, why would those <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers continue? Wouldn't they close their doors and declare the business a failure?<br/>
<br/>
If <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> were eliminated while those that consume the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t were the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, there would only be celebration - as <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e would meet <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> and competition would be perfected. That point occurs when each <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t consumer has sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the <a href="land.htm">Land</a> and Capital needed to <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>e their future needs. Each consumer is also <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers SOMEWHERE, and in some cases even on that same <a href="land.htm">Land</a> and Capital, but <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership should be determined by those that <a href="pay.htm">PAY</a>, not by those that happen to have the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s needed to operate those <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
Why would you want an apple-<a href="pic.htm">pic</a>ker to have <a href="part.htm">part</a>ial <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in a tree that he does not <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for? If he is <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing for the tree with his labor, then he must be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing because he is a consumer - and in that case, yes, he needs <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
What if you <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed an apple tree and were <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing me <small>(say with Federal Reserve <a href="note.htm">Note</a>s)</small> to <a href="pic.htm">pic</a>k those apples? Would you want me to gain vote power over that tree? Would you want me to be able to influence how you treat that tree - such as <a href="spray.htm">spray</a>ing it with something you disapproved of? Why?<br/>
<br/>
I need <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of the things that I consume. If I happen to also eat apples, I should be investing in <a href="part.htm">part</a> of ANOTHER apple tree. If you are <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing me to <a href="pic.htm">pic</a>k your apples by giving me apples, then I should be compensated for any a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> I <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <small>(any a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> I labor)</small> above the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of the apples you <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> me with by your investing that extra a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> <small>(the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> you gathered)</small> toward the purchase of more <a href="land.htm">land</a>, water rights, trees and tools that will eventually become my <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <small>(should vest to me)</small>. But that is only if I were an apple CONSUMER.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> The normal tendency in a <a href="free.htm">free</a> market would be for inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s to move</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es as quickly as possible into venues with the highest</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> entrepreneurial returns,</span><br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is not the only "entrepreneurial return". <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t is the original and only valid return on investments.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> and for the rate of entrepreneurial <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> to</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> decline to zero as <a href="free.htm">free</a> market entry reduced <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e to <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.</span><br/>
<br/>
But if your inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are expecting a periodic <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, and do not want <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t alone <small>(because they are not consumers, or the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion far exceeds the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> they could personally consume)</small>, then they will declare the business a failure if <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e is reduced to <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s - for then <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> will be zero!<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The problem is with forms of privilege that keep this natural process</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> from occuring, and enable <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>ier classes to collect <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>s on the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificial scarcity of <a href="land.htm">land</a> and capital.</span><br/>
<br/>
I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> this exacerbates the problem, but <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> should never be treated as a reward to be won - it should be understood as a plea for growth from the consumer that paid it, and can 'balance' that <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy by being invested in more <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es for that very same consumer - to eventually become his <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty. This drives <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e toward <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> in a safe manner, since all <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers <small>(inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s)</small> would then only be expecting <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t as <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> When such privileges and such scarcities from <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificial <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> rights are eliminated, entrepreneurial <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> will be a positive</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> incentive and will reduce the anti-social behaviors you <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ect to.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> To take one small example, one of the biggest forms of government</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> intervention is the subsidies that <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e transportation and energy</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificially cheap, and <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e it <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificially <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>able to <a href="use.htm">use</a> them in</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> large quantities--thus skewing the competitive advantage toward large,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> centralized firms operating over large market areas. If such</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> subsidies were removed, and the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of energy and transportation <a href="use.htm">use</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> were fully internalized in <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e, then those who were fastest and most</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> efficient in reducing <a href="use.htm">use</a> of those factors would accrue</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> entrepreneurial <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s. And their entrepreneurial <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s would</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> signal competitors to adopt the same innovation, until those <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> fell to zero and the efficiency gains were socialized in the form of</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> lower <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es for society at large.</span><br/>
<br/>
If we want the lowest <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es; if we <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly want <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e to meet <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> and <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> to hit zero, then we had better <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e sure the consumers are the inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s and <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion, otherwise those that do happen to <a href="own.htm">own</a> them will declare the business a failure just as we are reaching our goal.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t is better than <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> because "<a href="use.htm">use</a> value" is more important than "exchange value".<br/>
<br/>
Patrick<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-13-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2008-March/000436.html">http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2008-March/000436.html</a><br/>
Subject: <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>ing Inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s With <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t Solves the Paradox of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> in Perfect Competition<br/>
<br/>
This begins <a href="part.htm">part</a> two in our study of elementary <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omics. I hope this will be a step toward resolving some of the still pending issues in the "Capital Club" <a href="thread.htm">thread</a>. If that doesn't happen, I will go <a href="back.htm">back</a> and address them directly.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="part.htm">Part</a> of the Wikipedia entry reads:<br/>
"According to the standard <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omical definition of efficiency <small>(Pareto efficiency)</small>, perfect competition would lead to a completely efficient outcome. The analysis of perfectly competitive markets provides the foundation of the theory of supply and demand. Perfect competition is a market equilibrium in which all re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es are allocated and <a href="use.htm">use</a>d efficiently, and collective social welfare is maximized." -- <a class="ext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition</a><br/>
<br/>
Since perfecting competition would cause <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e to approach <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, a strange situation occurs where normal "For <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>" businesses - who measure their success by the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> they can keep <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> - would all close their doors proclaiming failure.<br/>
<br/>
A business must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it's inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s SOMETHING, otherwise, why would they invest? So, if the inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are expecting <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, then they require the business they invested in to be able to operate in an imperfect market. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is a measure of this imperfection.<br/>
<br/>
But there is another thing that we could <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s if those inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are in a certain set. If the inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are also CONSUMERS <small>(some could incidentally be <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers too)</small> of the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t being <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed, then they would be satisfied with receiving <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t alone, and would never need the business to keep <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
When the inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion are the consumers of the output, the organization can withstand perfect competition because those that pre-paid will expect <a href="produc.htm">PRODUC</a>T instead of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
In contrast, if the all inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are all <a href="work.htm">WORK</a>ERS <small>(some could incidentally be consumers too)</small>, and the market has perfect competition, then the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers would be paid the same wages as any <a href="work.htm">work</a>er that was not an <a href="own.htm">own</a>er, yet would have the risk of holding the debt of that incorporation.<br/>
<br/>
If you say "Well, they would be consumers too, so would also be paid in <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t" then you are describing why consumers should be the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the Means Of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion and avoiding the issue of whether <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership should be limited to those that happen to have the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s to operate it.<br/>
<br/>
If you say "Well, the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers could <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> themselves a higher wage than non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers" then you are talking about how <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> would be 'hidden' in those wages since <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers can arbitrarily <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e that division. But in that case, the organization would be less efficient than "consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed" - since, when many of the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are not neccessarily <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers, then wages and <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> are cleanly and clearly separated. If a <a href="work.htm">work</a>er tried to collect too high of a wage for the quality of <a href="work.htm">work</a> he was supplying, then the collective <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers would put that <a href="job.htm">job</a> up for reverse-bid <small>(just as <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ers do today)</small> until a <a href="work.htm">work</a>er with a better quality-to-wage ratio was found.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-12-2008:</span> Do we want <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es high or low?<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://NYTimes.com/2008/03/09/business/worldbusiness/09crop.html?ref=business">NYTimes.com/2008/03/09/business/worldbusiness/09crop.html?ref=business</a> <span class="quot2">>>"For once, there’s great reason to be optimistic," Mr. Miller said.</span><br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://IRINNews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=77195">IRINNews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=77195</a> <span class="quot2">>>AFGHANISTAN: Food shortages cause grass eating, displacement</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-12-2008:</span> Writing about competition.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-12-2008:</span> Tracking the Traitors<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://ChemTrails911.com">ChemTrails911.com</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://NewYorkSkyWatch.com">NewYorkSkyWatch.com</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://homepage.mac.com/carolepellatt/wed/PhotoAlbum266.html">http://homepage.mac.com/carolepellatt/wed/PhotoAlbum266.html</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://homepage.mac.com/carolepellatt/sunday/PhotoAlbum264.html">http://homepage.mac.com/carolepellatt/sunday/PhotoAlbum264.html</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://homepage.mac.com/carolepellatt/peacepoem/PhotoAlbum271.html">http://homepage.mac.com/carolepellatt/peacepoem/PhotoAlbum271.html</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://homepage.mac.com/carolepellatt/THOUGHTSALOUD/PhotoAlbum288.html">http://homepage.mac.com/carolepellatt/THOUGHTSALOUD/PhotoAlbum288.html</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://homepage.mac.com/carolepellatt/Feb19/PhotoAlbum285.html">http://homepage.mac.com/carolepellatt/Feb19/PhotoAlbum285.html</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://homepage.mac.com/carolepellatt/Feb7/PhotoAlbum278.html">http://homepage.mac.com/carolepellatt/Feb7/PhotoAlbum278.html</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://homepage.mac.com/carolepellatt/feb13photo/PhotoAlbum282.html">http://homepage.mac.com/carolepellatt/feb13photo/PhotoAlbum282.html</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-12-2008:</span><br/>
Hey Joel,<br/>
<br/>
To keep things clear in our minds, I find it <a href="use.htm">use</a>ful to think of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e a consumer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s for a <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t and the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers paid for it's <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
So I usually replace the text "<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>" with the phrase "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" in my head while also remembering that Wages are <a href="calc.htm">calc</a>ulated as one of those <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> He says that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is an instrument of</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> expansion, and therefore good for civilization.</span><br/>
<br/>
This sounds similar to what I understand about "growth" or true material "progress".<br/>
<br/>
So let's rewrite that sentence as:<br/>
"<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> is an instrument of growth, and therefore good for civilization".<br/>
<br/>
This <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>ement is nearly <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>ntical to my contention:<br/>
"<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is a plea for growth from the consumer that paid it.".<br/>
<br/>
To clarify further we might rewrite that as<br/>
"<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> is paid when the consumer of a <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t does not yet have enough <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es <small>(<a href="land.htm">Land</a> and Capital)</small> required for that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion."<br/>
<br/>
Now let us observe following:<br/>
Q: Is it possible to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> 0 <small>(zero)</small> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>?<br/>
A: When a <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e equals <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> and <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> has no meaning.<br/>
<br/>
For example, say you <a href="own.htm">own</a> an apple tree <small>(the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e of apples)</small>. You might <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers to buy the tree, <a href="install.htm">install</a> it, tend it, harvest the apples, <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>e them, etc. and <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> those Wages as a <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion - just as the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of a regular Capitalist apple orc<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> might. So you have the same <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s as any other <a href="own.htm">own</a>er <small>(though your small scale will probably <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e your <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s slightly higher)</small>, but IF YOU ARE ALSO THE CONSUMER, then your <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e is exactly the same as those combined <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s. You couldn't <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> unless you were to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to yourself.<br/>
<br/>
But notice: IF YOU SELL an apple, you would probably sell it at a <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, and would call that <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence "<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>". That is why it seems clear to me that "<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>" should be treated as an investment from the consumer that paid it. The <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers should <small>(and I <a href="know.htm">know</a> a way to move from "should" to "must", but will save that for another time)</small> invest that tiny <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence toward the purchase of more <a href="land.htm">land</a>, water rights, tools, trees, etc. And the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of those <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es should eventaully 'vest' to the consumer who paid it.<br/>
<br/>
So why do so many non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing consumers <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> instead of just <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es so they can get "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t?<br/>
<br/>
There are many reasons:<br/>
<br/>
1. It is just too damn much <a href="work.htm">work</a> to try to INDIVIDUALLY <a href="own.htm">own</a> the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of everything you would ever need when you have to do it all by yourself <small>(even if you hire out the <a href="work.htm">work</a>)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
2. It is <a href="real.htm">real</a>istically impossible for every person to INDIVIDUALLY <a href="own.htm">own</a> the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of all the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts they each want. It would be terribly inefficient for each person on earth to <a href="own.htm">own</a> their <a href="own.htm">own</a> INDIVIDUAL milk dairy and all the <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e butter, cheese, ice cream; and recursively the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of all of those things - such as alfalfa fields and the tools to plant, harvest, <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>e it for the cattle and all the <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e those <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines, and all the <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines to extract the ore <small>(iron, aluminum, copper, etc.)</small> and petrol <small>(both fuel and lubrication)</small> for the construction and operation of them, and the list is much longer than this.<br/>
<br/>
There is a chance some people could do it in a very rudimentary way - without using any of the technology we have discovered, but most would not, and anyway, it is far, far more <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult than COLLECTIVE or JOINT <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of these things. If we could figure out JOINT <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, then we could <a href="use.htm">use</a> all the labor saving devices without suffering Usury <small>(Usury in my mind is defined as the perpetuation of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>; and <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> can only be perpetuated by <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ing the consumer never gains the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership that would give him "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" access to the things he needs)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
3. JOINT <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is very <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult because it means you have to negotiate with other people about how those <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es will be operated and cared for. But it is not impossible, in fact that is exactly the role Capitalist Corporations and Demockratic Governments already claim to be accomplishing - the management of shared re<a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> It is</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> not until an instrument becomes an institution that it</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> becomes a problem. I think that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> has become</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> institutionalized in our society.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes. While "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" simply measures how far the consumers are from <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, the 'institutionalization' of that - the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a that <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e must forever be kept above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(what I call Usury)</small>- is a dangerous thing because it motivates the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers to seek scarcity for everyone else. I like to say "Terrorists hate <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom cuz it is bad for the market".<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> for some requires poverty of others, for if everyone were to somehow gain "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" access to bread <small>(for instance)</small>, then <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> would fall to zero. But since Capitalist businesses define their success by their ability to keep <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, success for all would mean the destruction of the institutions <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently supplying us with that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
That is the very reason that our federal government <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s farmers <small>(often just movie actors and sports stars that have invested in agriculture)</small> to NOT grow on <a href="land.htm">land</a> that is otherwise prime for farming.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e of all grains is increasing quickly, but that is GOOD for those that want <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> to continue <small>(Usurists)</small>. As long as the consumer does not have <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership we are in a delicate, dangerous balancing act, but if we could ever <a href="start.htm">start</a> a business where one of the "Terms of Operation" included the destination of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> be an investment from the consumer that paid it, then <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e could meet <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> in a natural and non-destructive manner. This would also eliminate <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ment from our goals and allow us to interpret <a href="work.htm">work</a> as a hurdle we want to eliminate on our road to leisure and abundance.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-11-2008:</span> Joel sent me this link <a class="ext" href="http://www.archive.org/details.php?identifier=CarrollQuigley-TheEvolutionOfCivilizations-AnIntroductionTo">http://www.archive.org/details.php?identifier=CarrollQuigley-TheEvolutionOfCivilizations-AnIntroductionTo</a><br/>
<a href="title.htm">Title</a>: The Evolution of Civilizations - An Introduction to Hi<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>ical Analysis <small>(1979)</small><br/>
Author: Carroll Quigley<br/>
<span class="quot2">>>In this perceptive look at the factors behind the rise and fall of civilizations, Professor Quigley seeks to establish the analytical tools necessary for understanding hi<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>y. He examines the application of scientific method to the social sciences, then establishes his hi<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>ical hypotheses. He poses a division of culture into six levels, from the more abstract to the more concreteâintellectual, religious, social, political, <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic, and militaryâand he <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>ntifies seven stages of hi<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>ical change for all civilizations: mixture, ge<a href="stat.htm">stat</a>ion, expansion, conflict, universal empire, decay, and invasion. Quigley tests these hypotheses by a detailed analysis of five major civilizations: the Mesopotamian, the Canaanite, the Minoan, the classical, and the Western.</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-08-2008:</span> Why <a href="use.htm">use</a> the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> for all content?<br/>
<br/>
First of all, there is no reason to <a href="use.htm">use</a> the GFDL or the any of the CC licenses when the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> does all that they need to accomplish and avoids the problems they cause. It is unfortunate that the FSF promotes such a mess.<br/>
<br/>
S<a href="econ.htm">econ</a>d of all, there are many reasons not to <a href="use.htm">use</a> them - primarily that they conflict with the extremely important and most <a href="use.htm">use</a>d of all <a href="free.htm">Free</a> Content licenses - the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a>.<br/>
<br/>
You say "written content" is <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> from design, but I would say that line is fuzzy at best and completely absent if we push the concept to it's final extreme.<br/>
<br/>
The "written content" here are concepts, <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>as, plans that are the basis of design - whether it is for mechanical design, or <small>(in my case)</small> toward the design of an <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic system of operation. There is no reason to separate them.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="h2">== GFDL ==</span><br/>
The explanations at <a class="ext" href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals</a> give no good reasons:<br/>
<br/>
1. Why not be required to offer the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <small>(the TeX <a href="file.htm">file</a>s for instance)</small> to a manual? It would <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e it possible for an author that wanted to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e an improved version to do so with ease. What a terrible <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a that it is a burden to authors of non-executable text when the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> requires it for authors of executable text.<br/>
<br/>
2. The <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a of "the standard" version of a manual is just as valid for software because of <a href="trad.htm">Trad</a>emark. It is illegal to <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>ify the Linux kernel and then distribute it as though it were "the standard" version using the name Linux. This argument has no basis.<br/>
<br/>
3. The <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>ment ''we permit changes in the text of a manual that covers its technical topic.'' is vacuous as well, since the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> obviously also allows <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>ifications. A complete non-argument.<br/>
<br/>
4. Provision for "invariant <a href="sect.htm">sect</a>ions" for the purpose of piggy<a href="back.htm">back</a>ing "political positions" is coercion. Why not allow software developers to require political messages be displayed? The reason is that it removes a <a href="user.htm">user</a>'s <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom. The <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> GFDL is a terrible <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a, and does not preserve <a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom. I still don't understand how or why <a href="rms.htm">RMS</a> decided to create it.<br/>
<br/>
Here are some more explanations <br/>
<br/>
''Why You Shouldn't <a href="use.htm">Use</a> the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> FDL'' -- <a class="ext" href="http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html">http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html</a> <br/>
<br/>
''This document is being put together to attempt to address some concerns that members of the Debian legal team have about the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a> Documentation License. This document attempts to present the reasoning behind the conclusion that the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> FDL is not regarded as a license that can easily satisfy the Debian <a href="free.htm">Free</a> Software <a href="gui.htm">Gui</a>delines.'' -- <a class="ext" href="http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml">http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml</a><br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Criticism_of_the_GFDL">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Criticism_of_the_GFDL</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="h2">== CC-BY-SA ==</span><br/>
The 'by' <a href="part.htm">part</a> of CC-BY-SA requires attribution be attached to all copies. There is no need for this ego inflator. Furthermore, it is sometimes very <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult, and maybe even impossible to determine who the author was. At other times the text <small>(whether considered design or not)</small> may have many authors - in the case of Wikipedia the number could be in the thousands per document. This is an irresolvable tragedy that could have been avoided by sticking with a truly <a href="free.htm">free</a> license such as one of the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-06-2008:</span> Posted to P2PResearch@<a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org">ListCultures.org</a><br/>
<span class="quot">> "I hypothesize that the most effective means to efficient <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is some</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> organizational form where the consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. A</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="part.htm">part</a>icular case of this is when the consumer is able to, effortlessly,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e the goods by oneself. In order to test whether this means of</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is feasible, and optimal, we will <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d a personal fab lab,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> fueled by open <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e design, that is capable of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ing 10 items of huge</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic significance. To test the optimality, we will check the bottom</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> line, in terms of the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion."</span><br/>
<br/>
Ok, here's my version:<br/>
"I hypothesize that any <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is more efficient when the consumer<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>s the means of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
A <a href="part.htm">part</a>icular case of this is when the consumer is able to, with some<br/>
effort, <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e the goods with the help of others, hopefully with<br/>
people located physically close by to reduce transportation and<br/>
communication <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
In order to test whether this <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>e of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is feasible, and<br/>
optimal, we will buy a small farm and normal farm tools that is<br/>
capable of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ing 100s of <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> spices, fruits and nuts of huge<br/>
tastyness. To test the optimality, we will check the bottom line, in<br/>
terms of the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, and compare those <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s with<br/>
the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e consumers usually <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Since consumer <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e is equal to <a href="own.htm">own</a>er <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s when the consumers ARE<br/>
the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, the savings for the inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s in their grocery bill should<br/>
be approximately the summation of all reported <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s for all<br/>
industry needed in the chain of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion for any <a href="part.htm">part</a>icular good<br/>
<small>(such as pine-nuts from China)</small>."<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> This is phrased in the form of a <a href="real.htm">real</a>, testable, hypothesis.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Something to this effect.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> This means, you have to define your terms. Such as what 'consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership'</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> means. In practice, that could take many forms, so you need to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e clear</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> what you are talking about.</span><br/>
<br/>
Well, I was trying to concentrate on proving that consumers already<br/>
<a href="use.htm">use</a> individual <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership <small>(and rarely joint <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership)</small> to increase<br/>
efficiency, and the name of that <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence is '<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>', but I can see<br/>
it is <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult for us to concentrate on that simple goal. I will try<br/>
again later, probably in another <a href="thread.htm">thread</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> ></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> ></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> > > This will help clarify and motivate your set</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> > > of concepts, and provide a springboard for practical critique, relevant</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> to</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> > > the underpinnings of society. If what you are <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>osing cannot be</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> tested,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> > > then for the purpose of my <a href="work.htm">work</a>, it would have limited <a href="use.htm">use</a>. Please</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> expand on</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> > > your motives and scope.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> > ></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> > > Marcin</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> > ></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> ></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> > My motive is to design some kind of scheduling algorithm - analogous</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> > to what the kernel of a <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ter <a href="operating system.htm">Operating System</a> does - for the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> > cooperative sharing of physical re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es, and to begin <a href="new.htm">new</a> businesses</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> It seems you are <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding scarcity as a premise in your <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el.</span><br/>
<br/>
Is the physical world not composed of scarce <small>(finite)</small> re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es?<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> If access is</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> availlable to GENERATIVE goods, the scheduling argument is largely</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> irrelevant, or at least irrelevant in the type of a community that I would</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> like to <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d.</span><br/>
<br/>
The genetics of apples have theoretically infinite potential, but are<br/>
constrained by <a href="spac.htm">Spac</a>e, Time, Mass and Energy.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> For example, if you have a nursery, you don't have to worry</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> about how many apple trees you will have access to.</span><br/>
<br/>
I need precisely as many apple trees as I need the output of. Are you<br/>
pretending that one apple tree can feed the entire <a href="pop.htm">pop</a>ulation of the<br/>
planet?<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> If you have solar</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> collectors at negligible <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, you can <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e items that would otherwise be</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> scarce. Etc. If you have sand, you can have semiconductors. Etc.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> The bottom line constraints are those of natural limits. That in itself is</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> the bottom line of governance <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>els.</span><br/>
<br/>
I'm not completely sure what you are saying here unless I already<br/>
answered it above.<br/>
<br/>
Try to keep the rug-doctor in mind. A single <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine can be shared<br/>
among a finite number of people. As the number of consumers<br/>
attempting to utilize the <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine increases, at some point it will be<br/>
impossible to fullfill those requests with a single <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine. If the<br/>
collective <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers have the time-sharing of that <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine setup so that<br/>
anyone wanting to <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> it are bidding against each other, then more<br/>
time slots will be filled. People that want to <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> close to '<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>',<br/>
and are willing to lose some sleep will <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> at 2am, while other<br/>
people will be willing to "fight it out" for a slot at 12 noon in a<br/>
bid war. As the deuling bidders raise their <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e for that time<br/>
slot, they are *proving* that the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent number of <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines cannot<br/>
fill peak demand, and - since that "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" will be invested<br/>
for the winning bidder toward buying ANOTHER <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine, the 'system'<br/>
should be self-stablizing.<br/>
<br/>
Thanks for the questions. I hope my answers are sensible.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-06-2008:</span> Posted to P2PResearch@<a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org">ListCultures.org</a><br/>
Subject: Capital Club<br/>
<br/>
Hello fellow researchers,<br/>
<br/>
This post is a first step toward describing the very basics of <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic activity - including such topics as <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, policy, governance, growth.<br/>
<br/>
This material should be understandable by any audience, but concentrates on issues that are not so commonly discussed, so should be interesting to even the most <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ened <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omist.<br/>
<br/>
I hope you will help me shape this into a full description of how we have arrived at the dangerous centralization of power we now face at the global level.<br/>
<br/>
Please give critical feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> with logical arguments.<br/>
<br/>
This first <a href="part.htm">part</a> shows that individual consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is the most efficient arrangement when utilization/<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e is large enough, and that individual consumers already choose that path.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="part.htm">Part</a> One: The Utilization-to-<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e Ratio<br/>
<br/>
Why do most people choose to buy an automobile instead of <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>ing?<br/>
<br/>
Why do most people choose to <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> a rug-doctor instead of buying?<br/>
<br/>
When a person can <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e <a href="use.htm">use</a> of <small>(utilize)</small> a <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine to a sufficient degree, it is more efficient for them to <a href="own.htm">OWN</a> instead of <a href="rent.htm">RENT</a>.<br/>
<br/>
But wait, how could that be? The <a href="own.htm">own</a>er <small>(whoever he is)</small> must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s either way. A <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>al agency must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for the initial investment, upkeep/repair/maintenance/wear, <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ance, <a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ion/security, <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>age, taxes, and any wages to <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers needed to do any of those thing. A private <a href="own.htm">own</a>er must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> those exact same <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s, so how could it possibly be cheaper to <a href="own.htm">own</a> outright instead of <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>?<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence is called '<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>'. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is 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 <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s and the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e a consumer is willing to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>. When the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er and consumer are the same person, there is no such thing as <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>. That is the savings in <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership over <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>al.<br/>
<br/>
But what about <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines that are not "worth it" to <a href="own.htm">own</a> because that individual cannot sufficiently utilize them? It must be worth it for SOMEONE to <a href="own.htm">own</a> them, otherwise the <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>al agency wouldn't do so. The <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence here is a matter of utilization.<br/>
<br/>
How can a consumer increase utilization to the point of <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership "worth it"? One way is to buy the <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine with a group of other consumers. Organizing with your neighbors to buy a rug-doctor is cheaper if there are enough of you to keep that equipment busy, so why don't we <small>(consumers)</small> do this more often? Why do we leave that <a href="work.htm">work</a> of organizing up to a business that intends to charge us <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>?<br/>
<br/>
There is <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="work.htm">work</a> involved in the act of organization, but that <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(wages to management)</small> must be paid either way. So what is keeping us <small>(the consumers)</small> from organizing and cooperatively <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines, <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>dings, even <a href="land.htm">land</a>?<br/>
<br/>
I think <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the problem is a long-standing belief that whoever possesses the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s to operate those <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines should be the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, but doesn't the above argument show that the consumers must be the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers for optimum efficiency?<br/>
<br/>
I think another <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the problem is in figuring out how those re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es should be shared among the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers. It is a <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult, sticky situation that most people would rather just avoid altogether because of the in-fighting they perceive would occur. It seems such a group could write some 'rules' about how to schedule access and how much each individual must compensate the others for any extra wear or exclusion they cause. I see such a contract, if '<a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ly' written, would be the only thing our society needs to begin down the road of peace and abundance, but will delay that discussion for now.<br/>
<br/>
Cooperative consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is quite rare today, but there are a few cases where a group of friends wanting a private airplane <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e a "shared investment", and then <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> the plane from the collective others whenever they want to <a href="use.htm">use</a> it. None of those people need the ability to fly themselves, they can just hire a pilot and <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> that wage as a <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> while still saving <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y by not <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Another example is shared <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of a vacation house. The for-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> "Time Share" industry has grown around that desire, but I'm referring to the less common case when a private group of people buy a house that they share amongst themselves in whatever way they see fit.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-05-2008:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://UWCC.Wisc.edu/info/governance/baard.pdf">UWCC.Wisc.edu/info/governance/baard.pdf</a> I <a href="real.htm">real</a>ize "<a href="user own.htm">User Own</a>*" may not be the best term to settle on because '<a href="user.htm">User</a>' is too likely to be misinterpreted as "<a href="user.htm">User</a> of the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es" - in other words, some consider '<a href="user.htm">User</a>' to be the '<a href="work.htm">Work</a>er'!<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'USDA’s Cooperative Programs has surveyed principles over a century and a half period and developed a practical and solid set of principles <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>ements. Contemporary cooperative principles are: 1. The <a href="user.htm">User</a>-<a href="own.htm">Own</a>er Principle: Those who <a href="own.htm">own</a> and finance the cooperative are those who <a href="use.htm">use</a> the cooperative. The <a href="user.htm">User</a>-Control Principle: Those who control the cooperative are those who <a href="use.htm">use</a> the cooperative. The <a href="user.htm">User</a>-Benefits Principle: The cooperative's sole purpose is to provide and distribute benefits to its <a href="user.htm">user</a>s on the basis of their <a href="use.htm">use</a>.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-05-2008:</span> Reading <span class="quot">"'Chapter One: A Critical Survey of Orthodox Views on <a href="econ.htm">Econ</a>omy of Scale'"</span> -- <a class="ext" href="http://Members.Tripod.com/kevin_carson/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/chapter1.pdf">Members.Tripod.com/kevin_carson/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/chapter1.pdf</a> See the complete list here: <a class="ext" href="http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2008/01/chapter-outline-of-organization-theory.html">http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2008/01/chapter-outline-of-organization-theory.html</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-04-2008:</span> E<a href="mail.htm">mail</a> to Kevin Carson and Michel Bauwens <small>(slightly <a href="edit.htm">edit</a>ed)</small><br/>
Kevin and Michel,<br/>
<br/>
Thanks for your time and consideration. It is very <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult to describe why the act of <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ing should not determine who <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, but I'm sure it will eventually be proven that <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership based on <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ect <a href="use.htm">Use</a> is a far more efficient arrangement.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> No <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> from</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> hiring a self-<a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ed <a href="land.htm">land</a>scaper who <a href="own.htm">own</a>s his <a href="own.htm">own</a> equipment, but who</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> tailors his <a href="job.htm">job</a>s to your specs.</span><br/>
<br/>
I wouldn't try to stop <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers from <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing their <a href="own.htm">own</a> tools, but that scenario is less efficient for the Consumer because, if the Consumer were to get together with a bunch of neighbors to purchase those expensive lawn tools, then each Consumer could hire any qualified <a href="work.htm">work</a>er to operate them, and could even choose to do the <a href="work.htm">work</a> himself if he liked while avoiding the issue of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> altogether.<br/>
<br/>
These Consumer/<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the other <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s that the <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er/<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers incur <small>(such as wear on the equipment, <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> on the <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>age shed, interest on loans, etc. and any <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er Wages)</small>, but they couldn't <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> '<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>' - which can be defined as "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" - for who would they <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it TO?<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is not clearly divided from Wages when the <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers are the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers because the choice to label the income 'Wage' or '<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>' is arbitrary. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is hidden in the fact that not all potential <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers are allowed to reverse-bid for that <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ment. The <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er/<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers won't let just anyone <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> the tools "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" - it usually isn't even an option to <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> them at any <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
For instance, <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>ine all qualified <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers competing for that <a href="job.htm">job</a> brings the wage to $10/hr.<br/>
<br/>
Now, if some <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er/<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers such as the self-<a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ed <a href="land.htm">land</a>scaper you describe hire a non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing <a href="work.htm">work</a>er at $10/hr, they would not lower their <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e for you, the Consumer - they would keep the Consumer <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e the same and keep the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence as '<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>'. Even if they immediately made that <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er a <a href="part.htm">part</a>-<a href="own.htm">own</a>er and paid him a portion of that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, it would do the Consumer no good.<br/>
<br/>
But if some Consumer/<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers hire a <a href="work.htm">work</a>er at $10/hr, they have immediate savings, since the only other <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s they <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> are the same as the <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er/<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers, and they cannot <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> unless they are attempting to Consume more than they already <a href="own.htm">Own</a>, and in that case the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is invested for them toward more means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion - so that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> tends toward zero.<br/>
<br/>
Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership helps Wages '<a href="recover.htm">recover</a>' for two reasons:<br/>
1. By <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ing a <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er's ability to Consume their <a href="own.htm">own</a> needs "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>", <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers can "hold out" when <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers do not offer enough <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>.<br/>
2. By minimizing <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, Consumers will initially be willing to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> higher wages since the externality of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is being eliminated from their <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e.<br/>
<br/>
Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership minimizes <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> approaches zero as each Consumer gains sufficient <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership in Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es. But, since Consumers are dynamic, <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is unlikely to be perfect except for very brief periods of time, so <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> will tend toward zero as it is treated as an investment from the consumer who <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s it.<br/>
<br/>
Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership simply outperforms <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership in terms of operational efficiency.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I understand what you're calling for. I just dis<a href="agree.htm">agree</a> with the goal,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> in a considerable range of cases. Like Michel, I place a high degree</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> of importance on <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers' control of our <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>es. It's one</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> thing to attempt to meet a customer's expectations in <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ing a</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t to his specifications in filling his specific order. It's</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> another thing entirely to go to <a href="work.htm">work</a> and take orders from a boss as</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> you actually do your <a href="work.htm">work</a>.</span><br/>
<br/>
<a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers won't need to "take orders" unless they CHOOSE to <a href="work.htm">work</a> for someone else. I'm talking about <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ing the <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er's ability to Consume so he can CHOOSE to <a href="work.htm">work</a> on his <a href="own.htm">own</a> projects if he likes, and only <a href="work.htm">work</a> for others for the high wages he will be able to "hold out" for.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The <a href="work.htm">work</a>er's <a href="own.htm">own</a> consumption is his only reason for laboring. In a</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> subsistence household, the <a href="work.htm">work</a>er <a href="work.htm">work</a>s entirely under his <a href="own.htm">own</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> direction to meet his <a href="own.htm">own</a> consumption needs. As division of labor and</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> social interdependence increases, <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers <a href="use.htm">use</a> <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the labor</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t under their control to exchange with their equals, rather than</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> consuming it directly; they meet their consumption needs by equal</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> exchanges of labor.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, I also want more division of labor. We need more exchange of LABOR so we can go out to eat for every meal. But we won't actually need to exchange <a href="produc.htm">PRODUC</a>TS when the Consumers are the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the restaurant. We will exchange far more SERVICES then, but the exchange of GOODS will only occur when those goods are not already in the hands of the Consumer that needs them.<br/>
<br/>
When a Consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>s an apple tree, he is the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of the fruit even before it is <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed - so no exchange needs to take place unless there is another non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing apple eater that wants to buy some of those goods. By treating any "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" charged to that "Johnny come late" Consumer as an investment for that very same Consumer <small>(buying more <a href="land.htm">land</a>, water rights, apple trees)</small> that becomes that Consumers <a href="real.htm">REAL</a> <a href="proper.htm">PROPER</a>TY - then that <a href="new.htm">new</a> Consumer also eventually <small>(as his investments begin to <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e)</small> <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the ouput of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion without the need for exchange of goods.<br/>
<br/>
The Consumer/<a href="own.htm">Own</a>er may have done the <a href="work.htm">work</a> himself, or he may have <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>ed labor with someone else <small>(say gathering his neighbor's eggs so that neighbor would <a href="pic.htm">pic</a>k his apples)</small>, but either way, he <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t as a "side effect" of his <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Just because consumption is the end of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, isn't a good reason</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> for going to a <a href="job.htm">job</a> and <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing under a boss who represents the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> consumer. If so, that in itself is a good reason for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ing as</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> much of my <a href="own.htm">own</a> consumption needs as I possibly can in order to</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> minimize the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> of my life I have to throw away <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing under a</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> supervisor who doestn't represent me in any way.</span><br/>
<br/>
I have such trouble describing this, but a <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er will have more ability to resist such <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ment, or to "hold out" for a much higher wage if he, AS A CONSUMER, has sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion required for the goods he consumes.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Even if I haven't convinced you that it is 'better', are you convinced it is more 'efficient'?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-04-2008:</span> Reply to Oekonux <small>(slightly <a href="edit.htm">edit</a>ed)</small><br/>
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Raoul <...> wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Copy<a href="left.htm">left</a> is not at the end of peer <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion development but at the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> beginning. The end of that process will be the end of excluding <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> of all means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, "triple <a href="free.htm">free</a> peer <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion".</span><br/>
<br/>
I slightly dis<a href="agree.htm">agree</a>, but maybe only with wording.<br/>
<br/>
For collectively <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed material means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion <small>(say a tractor)</small>, each of us will need the ability to at least temporarily *exclude* others <small>(time sharing)</small>. I <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>e the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="user.htm">User</a> would <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> to the collective others for the *exclusion* of others attempting to <a href="use.htm">Use</a> during that time, and for any extra 'wear' he inflicts.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> One of the most interesting aspects of Steven <a href="web.htm">Web</a>er's book, The Success</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> of Open <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e, is the importance he attaches to <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty in the <a href="new.htm">new</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> "maturing <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>e of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion". He gives a good definition of the main</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> change: "<a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty in open <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e is configured <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>amentally around the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> right to distribute, not the right to exclude".</span><br/>
<br/>
Distribution is one of the four "<a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>doms" which define <a href="free.htm">Free</a> Software. The entire list in abbreviated form is: <a href="use.htm">Use</a><small>(0)</small>, <a href="mod.htm">Mod</a>ify<small>(1)</small>, Copy<small>(2)</small>, Share<small>(3)</small>. The "right to distribute" is of course "Share<small>(3)</small>".<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> 'repairs' the originally unassailed <a href="free.htm">free</a>doms to <a href="use.htm">Use</a><small>(0)</small> and Share<small>(3)</small> by *removing* the power of Copyright to <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificially exclude others by fiat. If there were no such thing as Copyright, these <a href="free.htm">free</a>doms would have defaulted to 'TRUE' because there would be nobody to stop you.<br/>
<br/>
The output of software <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is called "<a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ect Code" <small>(such as an executable)</small>. When that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is distributed, the <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="user.htm">user</a>'s <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom to <a href="mod.htm">Mod</a>ify<small>(1)</small>, and Copy<small>(2)</small> it are hampered unless the <a href="virt.htm">virt</a>ual Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion <small>(described as the "<a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e Code" and "Supporting <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es")</small> are also made available to the <a href="user.htm">User</a>.<br/>
<br/>
It is important that the <a href="user.htm">User</a> gain "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" access to these <a href="virt.htm">virt</a>ual <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion even if that <a href="user.htm">User</a> does not have the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s to operate them <small>(cannot be the <a href="work.htm">work</a>er)</small>, for then competition between all possible <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers is maximized - causing Wages and <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> to be cleanly separated. Otherwise, if <a href="user.htm">User</a>s are disallowed "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" access to the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion, <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers can hold their Wages <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificially high by disallowing full competition. This hidden form of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> subjugates the <a href="user.htm">User</a>, and is held in place just the same as the raw Capitalism we see today - by withholding "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" access to the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
So, to <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> every potential <a href="user.htm">User</a>'s <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom to <a href="mod.htm">Mod</a>ify<small>(1)</small> and Copy<small>(2)</small> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts, the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> *adds* a constraint - not on <a href="use.htm">Use</a><small>(0)</small>, but on Sharing<small>(3)</small>. Somewhat paradoxically, this restriction actually *requires* Copyright for enforcement. I will try to show later, by analogy, that we could <a href="use.htm">use</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty rights in a similar way for efficient Sharing of the material means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a>'s condition of distribution - a kind of "<a href="free.htm">Free</a> <small>(as in <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom)</small> <a href="trad.htm">Trad</a>e <a href="agree.htm">Agree</a>ment" can be summarized as: "If you Share the <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ects of this <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, you must also help the <a href="user.htm">User</a> gain "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" access to the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.".<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot3">>>> But who could believe that a system based on</span><br/>
<span class="quot3">>>> private <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership <small>[one should say *excluding* <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership]</small></span><br/>
<span class="quot3">>>> defended by coercion will accept to disappear - or to fade -</span><br/>
<span class="quot3">>>> without resistance.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot2">>> Well, the most soft way can only be establishing an *including* process</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> based on commons. This is yet the way <a href="free.htm">free</a> software succeeds.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The problem is how to put material means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion into the commons.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> For software and <a href="free.htm">free</a>-re<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ible means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion that is</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> relatively easier, which explains the success of <a href="free.htm">free</a> software. But</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> things are <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> with material means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.</span><br/>
<br/>
So, it appears we need an inclusive process that <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>es the <a href="user.htm">User</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts <small>(or <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ects)</small> somehow gain "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" access to the material means of those <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts <small>(I like to call them "Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es" to remind us they are analogous to the "<a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e Code" of software)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>osal I <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e is that we could <a href="start.htm">start</a> <a href="new.htm">new</a> businesses or organizations while applying a constraint on the <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>e of <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ects <small>(<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts)</small> that says "<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> should be handled as an investment from the <a href="user.htm">User</a> that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s it."<br/>
<br/>
<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers that enforce this constraint <small>(maybe through a "Terms of Operation" for that facility, or some kind of contract)</small> would cause <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ect <a href="user.htm">User</a>s to incrementally gain "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" access to the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. And, since the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the means are automaticaly the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, those <a href="user.htm">user</a>s would also eventually have "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" apples when they are the collective but divisible <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the <a href="land.htm">land</a>, water, trees and tools.<br/>
<br/>
This obviously flys in the face of the <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>itional view that the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es should be <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by those that possess the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s to operate them <small>(the <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers)</small>, but almost every small businesses is already "<a href="work.htm">Work</a>er <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed" anyway. If that was a solution, the only thing that need occur is to either keep businesses small <small>(a common tactic that is certainly not revolutionary)</small>, or somehow require all <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers in the business do 'some' <a href="work.htm">work</a>. It shouldn't take much thinking to <a href="real.htm">real</a>ize, as the business grows, some of the '<a href="work.htm">work</a>ers', especially the originators of that business will claim to be <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing in posh, extremely overpaid positions.<br/>
<br/>
All <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers are Consumers, and most Consumers are <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers. These are not <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> sets nearly as much as they are <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> activities. If the act of Consumption <small>(<a href="use.htm">Use</a>)</small> determined <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, we wouldn't have the trouble of <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er exploitation, because that <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er AS CONSUMER would be a <a href="part.htm">part</a>ial <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er in the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es required for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts he <a href="use.htm">Use</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="protect.htm">Protect</a>ing a <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er's ability to Consume eliminates "Wage Slavery" while simultaneously removing the bizarre notion that <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ment is a need in itself instead of a burden we would want to overcome. Other <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic oddities such as considering extremely low <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es <small>(dumping)</small> a problem also disappear. Abundance is good and scarcity is finally bad again when each <a href="user.htm">User</a> has sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the material means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion need to <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>e the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts they command <small>(Consumers can then command instead of 'demand', since they will be the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-02-2008:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://HistoricalDocuments.com/NationalIndustrialRecoveryAct.htm">HistoricalDocuments.com/NationalIndustrialRecoveryAct.htm</a> <span class="quot2">>>The National Industrial <a href="recover.htm">Recover</a>y Act <small>(NIRA)</small> was enacted by Congress in June 1933 and was one of the measures by which President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to assist the nation's <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic <a href="recover.htm">recover</a>y during the Great Depression. The <a href="pass.htm">pass</a>age of NIRA ushered in a unique experiment in U.S. <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic hi<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>y the NIRA sanctioned, supported, and in some cases, enforced an alliance of industries. Antitrust laws were suspended, and companies were required to write industry-wide "codes of fair competition" that effectively fixed <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es and wages, established <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion quotas, and imposed restrictions on entry of other companies into the alliances.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-01-2008:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://AmLit.com/twentyss/chap18.html">AmLit.com/twentyss/chap18.html</a> <span class="quot2">>>The Purloined Letter - Edgar Allen Poe</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-01-2008:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://ArielRubinstein.tau.ac.il/el.html">ArielRubinstein.tau.ac.il/el.html</a> <span class="quot2">>><a href="econ.htm">Econ</a>omics and Language</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Mar-01-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://Blog.P2PFoundation.net/book-of-the-week-hacking-capitalism-part-three-from-class-struggle-to-play-struggle/2008/02/29">Blog.P2PFoundation.net/book-of-the-week-hacking-capitalism-part-three-from-class-struggle-to-play-struggle/2008/02/29</a><br/>
<br/>
A ‘desktop factory’ avoids the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult issue of cooperative <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of the physical means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, but cannot be applied in all cases.<br/>
<br/>
For instance, how will we ever <a href="own.htm">own</a> a <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> or a physical community meeting place? What about *<a href="real.htm">real</a>* factories and farms that we could otherwise <a href="use.htm">use</a> <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <small>(and even ancient)</small> technology to compete against the Capitalists NOW through efficiency of scale if we could only figure out how to cooperatively <a href="own.htm">own</a> those physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion?<br/>
<br/>
Fancy, <a href="new.htm">new</a>, and in many cases still <a href="imag.htm">imag</a>inary technology will eventually allow individual <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of more of SOME types of physical means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, but if we can solve the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>iculty of <a href="fract.htm">fract</a>ional <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, we could <a href="start.htm">start</a> TODAY with just <a href="land.htm">Land</a>, Water, Seeds and Sun.<br/>
<br/>
Does anyone else see this as an issue worth considering, or am I just missing the <a href="work.htm">work</a> that others are already doing on it?<br/>
<br/>
If it IS important to others, why do we keep trying to skirt the issue by dreaming of material fabricators and desktop construction?<br/>
<br/>
Notice that <a href="use.htm">use</a>ful fungus, plants and animals have always 'fabricated' the raw materials of the best food, drugs, cloth, <a href="soap.htm">soap</a>. Many of these organisms are small enough to fit on a desktop and are solar powered. Even so, there is intense hunger in the world for a much <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> reason.<br/>
<br/>
The reason for poverty is a systemic issue based on a misunderstanding of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>. Most of those that DO <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently <a href="own.htm">own</a> the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion have the odd notion that keeping <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> is a measure of their success instead of understanding it as a plea from the consumer in need of the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t of those <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
Capitalism is the practice of keeping Capital <small>(the means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion)</small> away from the consumer to <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>e <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e does not meet <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, for when the consumers of apples are the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the trees, they may hire others and <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> them wages, but <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is zero because <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e and <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> are the same.<br/>
<br/>
The forces keeping consumers from Capital is not obvious. It is not that the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are 'bad', but that they measure their success based on keeping <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> which requires that "their" consumers not have access to the means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. The <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are not directly stopping us from organizing cooperative <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership for ourselves, but the problem comes in that we just find it easier to just buy the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts from these Capitalists while enduring the inefficiency of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
And when any group of consumers does finally get tired of being overcharged, they may <a href="start.htm">start</a> another business or organization that intends to do away with that problem, but it invariably either intends to also keep <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(is a for-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> corp)</small> - which requires the consumers not become <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers, or, even if it is a 'non-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>', it still does nothing to help the <a href="new.htm">new</a> consumer get a foothold in the organization.<br/>
<br/>
Non-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s do not do the right thing either because they are <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed and operated solely by their originators instead of that <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership <small>(and therefore control)</small> incrementally flowing to each <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="user.htm">user</a> as <a href="fract.htm">fract</a>ional and divisible <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of the whole when those <a href="part.htm">part</a>icipants <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>. Instead, the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> pads the wages of the "committee members" or is spent in ways they see fit without allowing the consuming minority to split/divide/fork the organization as they could if they had <a href="real.htm">REAL</a> and divisible <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
Older entries: <a href="diary-feb-2008.htm">diary-feb-2008</a><br/>
</p>
<p class='footer'>
Page generated from <a href=".text/diary-mar-2008">diary-mar-2008</a> by <a href=".code/etym.el">etym</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>