Related: diary
Apr-29-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Similar to how the GNU GPL uses Copyright to solve the problems of Copyright, we can use Property rights to solve the problems of Property rights.
Copyleft seems hypocritical because it *requires* Copyright to enforce it's solution to power concentration within the virtual (sacred or spiritual) world.
PropertyLeft is a analogous approach that will use Property rights to enforce a solution to power in the physical (profane or bodily) realm.
So the first step is to allow ourselves the notion that we can co-own Physical Sources such as Farms and Factories in a 'moral' or 'righteous' manner.
Then we must write the contract that we will choose to apply to such property for the purpose of ensuring Freedom for all of it's Users (Consumers).
Owners of "Intellectual Property" *choose* to tie their own hands - and the hands of anyone else building upon those resources - when the *choose* to apply the GNU GPL to their 'property'.
We, as co-owners of real, meatspace property can also *choose* to tie our hands - and the hands of anyone building upon that property - through a "Terms of Operation" that treats Price above Cost as a Payer's investment.
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.
Apr-29-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures
Edward Miller wrote:
> mutuals and cooperatives
...
> fall short and only make up a tiny share of the overall market.
> Why is this the case?
The most fundamental problem with these entities is that they do not use property rights to eliminate the exchange of goods.
What I mean is easier to understand using an extremely simplified example:
The owner of a nut tree must pay all the Costs of production, including any Wages if he doesn't do all of the work himself.
But he cannot pay Profit because he does not 'buy' the nuts at the end of the season - they are *already* his property.
When this model is scaled through co-ownership - when a group of Consumers purchase a grove of nut trees with the understanding that they *own* the output of those trees in an amount directly related to the % of ownership they have in the orchard, then Price == Cost and Profit == 0.
But one more detail that must be addressed is the case where the Consumer accidentally owns more of the orchard (Physical Sources) than they need to satisfy their own needs.
In that case we (the group of co-owning consumers) should use "the market" to sell that excess to other consumers that do not yet have sufficient ownership in the orchard (for if they did, they would not need to buy nuts) but under a strict condition that any amount we charge over the real Cost incurred for that production must be treated as an Investment from the consumer who paid it. This perpetuates the elimination of exchange.
This arrangement will outperform the "Free Market" because the investors are the consumers and expect only Product in return, and so these organizations can saely allow Price to reach Cost and are also not threatened by automation or robotics or abundance in general.
Apr-28-2010: Users owning Physical Sources creates a "Zero Copy" environment where goods are no longer exchanged because they are already the property of those who will consume them.
Apr-28-2010: Windows 7 warns me: "'You may be a victim of software counterfeiting.'"
EtymOnline.com says: "'late 13c., from O.Fr. contrefait "imitated," pp. of contrefaire "imitate," from contre- "against" + faire "to make, to do" (from L. facere; see factitious). M.L. contrafactio meant "setting in opposition or contrast." The verb is from late 13c.'"
And about 'forge': "'late 13c., from O.Fr. forge, earlier faverge, from L. fabrica "workshop," from faber (gen. fabri) "workman in hard materials, smith." Sense of "to counterfeit" is in Anglo-Fr. verb forger "falsify," from O.Fr. forgier, from L. fabricari "to frame, construct, build." Related: Forged; forger; forging.'"
Apr-27-2010: Posted to Groups.Google.com/group/cloud-computing-use-cases
When a group of users organize and purchase the physical hardware needed to host a Cloud, they receive that service "at cost". The price they pay is exactly the costs of operation.
But when that ownership is held by any other group, the owners will try to keep price *above* cost, for that is the very definition of profit.
"'Why Cloud Computing Will Never Be Free'" http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2010/5/87259-why-cloud-computing-will-never-be-free/fulltext
Apr-27-2010: Not yet Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
Chris Watkins wrote:
> I'd like to dig deeper here. When this happens, I'm not sure what the actual motivation is. Is it:
>
> * A conscious decision to restrict supply to raise prices? I still find it hard to see how my throwing away my milk will improve my own net profit. Or
> * A response to critically low prices, where it would cost more to take the product to market than it would return in income? In this case, throwing it away, or finding a use with a better payoff, makes 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 amounts of milk, for example, this might be a more cost-effective use (even if it only turns a loss into a break-even).
>
> There's nothing in the free market that means producers must manipulate the market to keep price above cost. If price drops below cost, it simply means that they have overestimated demand and produced too much, and need to adjust either the production (e.g. less milk, more cropping); or the demand (advertising, or finding new uses for the raw product).
>
> Somehow supply and demand must balance. The free market is a natural mechanism for that - based on free agents making their own decisions about what they want and what they'll pay for it. There are weaknesses (e.g. externalities) 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 works better than the free market, they have their work cut out, both in proving that it works better, and in convincing me to give up my freedom.
>
Kevin Carson
> Possibly--if all other variables were held constant. But what are
> some of those variables?
>
> Are there, for example, market entry barriers making it artificially
> difficult for just anyone to start raising cattle and selling milk,
> without some sort of government certification, or some sort of
> expensive government inspection or licensing fees that limit the
> number of people competing in the market?
>
> Might some of the problem be overproduction for large, anonymous
> commodity markets in which production is divorced from demand and
> organized on a supply-push model, instead of being geared to local
> demand? Might some of it be, as Chris suggested, the market power of
> middlemen who drive down the price primary producers can receive for
> their commodities, to the point where they can only be sold at a loss?
>
> > We are fundamentally confused about the purpose of business.
> >
> > We should be producing for *product* (use value), but are instead
> > producing for *profit* (exchange value) which cannot abide abundance.
>
> I don't think there's any confusion about the fact that people in
> business *want* to make money. What they want to do and how they want
> to do it, and what they're *able* to do, though, are two different
> things. I think there may be some fundamental confusion here about
> what makes them able to do it. Destroying product in order to reduce
> supply and drive up the price is just great--if you can stop anyone
> from entering the market and selling for closer to production cost and
> undercutting you. If there's no restriction on access to the dairy
> market or on permission to produce milk, pouring milk down the sewer
> would be a pretty stupid thing to do.
>
> On the other hand, we may be fundamentally confused on what being a
> consumer is all about. Wal-Mart is flooded with customers seeking the
> lowest possible dirt-cheap price on everything, even if it's produced
> by Chinese slave labor (and lots of people who shop for nannies and
> gardeners from foreign countries who will work without FICA payments).
> How would that change if customers owned the sweatshops?
>
> If there's a conflict of interest between workers and consumers, why
> won't it work both ways? Isn't it just as much in the interest of
> consumers to get workers to work for as little as possible? Most
> people are both wage-workers and consumers, so it's hard to imagine
> them going from being total utility-maximizing, price-gouging
> shitheels as producers, and then transforming into Gandhi or Mother
> Theresa as consumer-owners.
>
> I repeat, consumer sovereignty is great for the portion of the day
> that you're a consumer. But for the portion of your life that you
> punch a time-clock and become a serf, it's not so great. The greatest
> source of misery in many people's lives is the hours they're working
> under the orders and direction of someone else.
Kevin Carson wrote:
> I actually think consumer cooperation might play a significant role in
> the larger alternative economy movement, and as a building block in
> the post-capitalist economy. I just don't see the producer-consumer
> distinction as that central. For me, the important thing is the
> liberatory effects of imploding capital costs for physical production,
> imploding transaction costs resulting from network culture, increased
> economic independence of households and individuals, and the closer
> gearing of production to consumption in relocalized economies. And
> the style of organization (the organizational style of Paul Goodman
> and Colin Ward, vs. that of the Ministry of Central Services in
> Brazil) is far more important than who formally owns the organization.
> I suspect the milk-dumping incident Patrick points to has more to do
> with market structure, production scale and organizational style than
> anything else.
Ryan Lanham wrote:
> To me, this is a crucial theme. To flip a few questions on their heads, we need to ask a set of basic questions:
>
> 1. Is there some reason why, given a plurality of nations and cultures, that a "correct" economic system has not arisen?
>
> By way of partial answer to my own question, I have serious doubts that there is anything new under the sun without significant technology changes. That is, I am will to declare the end of political economics 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.
>
> 2. If P2P is really a technology and not a political movement, isn't there a much broader umbrella for participation and hope?
>
> 3. If the issue is technology, and not purely commons, what sorts of technologies are sea change/game change impactors that will move things in some positive direction?
>
> 4. What are we not willing to give up? I think this is really the dividing question where politics are concerned.
>
> A. Liberty to make a profit
> B. Liberty to hire wage workers
> C. Liberty to accept work as a wage earner
> D. Freedom from collective takings of property
> E. The right to property
> F. The right to personal sovereignty (and definitions of what that means)
> G. The right to form nations/states and the right to establish certain rules and orders in those states
> H. The right to have co-operative or corporate entities
> I. The right to form and share commons
> J. Freedom of movement
> K. Freedom of expression
> L. Freedom to transfer wealth from one party to another
> M. Freedom from...?
>
> Partial Answer: For me, P2P hints at a refinement of existing co-operative elements combined with the hope that technologies will allow low cost sharing in manners that eliminate the market value of most intellectual property--not through unlawful takings, but through the obvious capacity of people to build alternative mechanisms to those created at cost by investors and to redistribute those alternatives at prices that make capital investment profit less likely if not impossible. That is, technology is causing a movement to free and a movement to "here comes everybody."
>
> If this partial answer is true...P2P ought to search out the following:
>
> 1. How to enable and expand co-ops
> 2. How to redistribute the intellectual know-how of society in fair and appropriate means so as to expedite an expanding free universe.
> 3. How to discuss and predict outcomes as older social systems predicated on credit/investment/profit frameworks start to become infeasible.
> 4. How to interject value propositions concerned externalities (e.g. the environment) that are often overlooked in conventional political economic and social discourses.
>
Apr-27-2010: Posted to OpenManufacturing
Steve Richfield wrote
> 1. Who owns those city blocks?
> I presently see no socially conscionable choice but government ownership of these plants.
Are we now allowed to discuss property ownership?
"'We don't care about co-ownership because ownership is totally
bullshit. Haven't we gone over this before? Paul has written many
hundreds of pages of text on this topic to you alone by now.'" -- http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/browse_thread/thread/9e43867449ce5472/de7a9f2e8d9bf66f?lnk=gst&q=bullshit#de7a9f2e8d9bf66f
> bigger and bigger manufacturing plants will emerge to out-compete
> with smaller plants, etc., thereby dooming communes built around
> such plants, just as communities built around steel mills were doomed to fail.
Progress is failure?
This is only true because we are fooled into believing production is for *Profit*, while somehow forgetting the real purpose of production is *Product*.
This is enhanced by our faulty conclusion that the *Workers* should be the OWNers of the Means of Production.
But if *Consumers* of such products were to organize to buy or build and therefore OWN such a plant, they would be 'safe' from progress and automation since they do not need to keep Price above Cost, nor do they need to pretend employment is a need instead of seeing it as a hurdle on our road to success.
Sincerely,
Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com
Apr-27-2010: Not yet Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
Edward Miller wrote:
> I was wondering what examples of mutuals and cooperatives there are which
> are currently serving the mainstream US consumer market. I can think of a
> few insurance mutuals and credit unions, community supported agriculture,
> and igo carsharing which are all close to the mutualist ideal, but all of
> them fall short
Here are the problems that keep it from maximum
.) Most commonly the Consumers are not the actual Owners. For example, the Farms of every CSA I know of is Owned by the Workers who are in deep debt to
1.) The Outputs of that production should be the property of those Consumer-Owners as a *side effect* of their ownership in the Sources of that production, but these Cooperatives do not see the benefit in eliminating that phase of exchange, and so
in exact proportion to the amount they
The collective Consumer/Owners must pay all the Costs of Production to buy the Product
Consider the most simple case - where two people own an Olive tree, but only one of them is capable of doing that type of work.
2.) Profit becomes the property of the *current* owners instead of being the property of the Consumer who paid it. This causes overaccumulation and concentration of power until the organization can barely be differentiated from any other of the broken models we use.
is an artificial disconnect between the
> Presumed Abundance that is trying to apply a pay-it-forward model to angel
> investing.
> http://www.presumedabundance.com/
> I think this could work even better for gift economies.
> Pay it forward skillsharing
> Pay it forward reprapping
> Pay it forward freecycling
> Pay it forward couch surfing
> Pay it forward carsharing
> Pay it forward seed saving
> There is already a lot of pay-it-forward stuff happening in these
> communities, but it isn't formalized let alone institutionalized with
> reputation systems or contracts.
> Perhaps where it gets more interesting is when money is changing hands and
> contracts are being signed. Cooperatives and mutuals could adopt a
> pay-it-forward philosophy that is set in stone into the contracts.
> If you are a mutual that is producing tools, you could stipulate in the
> contract that the tools be placed into a tool library for at least some
> minimum amount of time per year.
> If you are a mutual that produces cars, you could stipulate that the cars be
> lent to the Center for Neighborhood Technology for a certain minimum amount
> of time.
> If you are a cooperative that builds houses, you could stipulate that the
> residents lend out their sofas for some minimum amount of time per year.
> Then the second level would be the people who borrow the tools or the cars
> or the sofas would then have to do the same for others. (there is no profit
> that needs to be reinvested as with the Presumed Abundance example)
> Pretty sweet.
Apr-24-2010: Posted to Listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org and Oekonux.org
Supporters of the so-called "Free Market" claim all our troubles would be over if we could just stop the governments from handing favors to big business.
But producers choose to limit production and destroy reserves *on their own* because they want to keep price above cost.
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: http://YouTube.com/watch?v=pDAjMcDWDZ0
If the workers were the owners, the results would be the same.
We are fundamentally confused about the purpose of business.
We should be producing for *product* (use value), but are instead producing for *profit* (exchange value) which cannot abide abundance.
What will we ever do to solve this paradox?
Sincerely,
Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com
Apr-23-2010: Trying to read the 2008 Farm Bill at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6124eh.txt
Apr-23-2010: WastedFood.com >>Americans waste more than 40 percent of the food we produce for consumption. That comes at an annual cost of more than $100 billion. At the same time, food prices and the number of Americans without enough to eat continues to rise.
Apr-23-2010: Reading HealthPromoting.com/Articles/articles/PleasureTrap.htm >>Learn how to escape the dietary pleasure trap!
Apr-23-2010: Reading SoilAndHealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020127shelton.III/020127.toc.htm
"'The
HYGIENIC SYSTEM
By HERBERT M. SHELTON
D.P., N.D., D.C., D.N.T., D.N. Sc., D.N. Ph., D.N. Litt., Ph. D., D. Orthp.
Author of
HUMAN LIFE, ITS PHILOSOPHY AND LAWS
NATURAL DIET OF MAN
HYGIENIC CARE OF CHILDREN
NATURAL CURE OF SYPHILIS
NATURAL CURE OF CANCER
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL HYGIENE
ETC., ETC.
><
Vol. III
FASTING and SUN BATHING
'"
Apr-19-2010: Noticed SwapASkill.com >>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.
Apr-19-2010: SaaS: Sharing any and all Sources -- Whither the Computing Commons?
GNU.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html
P2PFoundation.net/Personal_Server and Groups.FSF.org/wiki/LibrePlanet2009/Personal_Servers
SoftwareFreedom.org/events/2010/bkuhn-libreplanet-2010 >>Software Freedom In Network Services
SoftwareFreedom.org/events/2010/texas-linux-fest-2010 >>With Software as a Service, Is Only the Network Luddite Free?
SoftwareFreedom.org/events/2010/isoc-ny/FreedomInTheCloud-transcript.html
Apr-19-2010: Noticed Rentalic.org
Apr-19-2010: Noticed RelayRides.com >>Have a car? Need a car? Either way, we can help! Have a car? Earn cash by renting it out when you're not using it. Our technology and insurance make the rental safe and convenient! Need a car? Get convenient, affordable access to one by the hour or the day. Gas and insurance are included!
Apr-19-2010: Reading SoftwareFreedom.org/events/2010/isoc-ny/FreedomInTheCloud-transcript.html
Apr-16-2010: Noticed Shareable.net >>Design for a sharable world
Apr-16-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
Mamading Ceesay wrote:
> The caveat, attended a session at the summit on Social Business where
> there was a discussion regarding profit.
I'm glad you bring up the issue of Profit. The connection to Property ownership is not clear.
Profit can be thought of as the inverse to Consumer Property.
When a Consumer owns the Means of Production (say an Olive Tree), he then receives the Product (Olives in this case) exactly "at cost". He can't pay Profit, for who would he pay it to?
Production is kindof "short-circuited" under the special condition of Source-Owner == Object-Consumer.
When the Owner of the Olive Tree eats a fruit for himself, he didn't avoid paying any Costs, but what he does avoid paying is Profit.
He can't pay Profit, because that occurs at the point-of-sale, but since he already owns the Product (Olives) as a side-effect of his OWNing the Sources (Olive Trees), the last transaction (buying Olives) doesn't ever occur.
> The problem with profit
> seems to be twofold, firstly where it is maximised at the cost of the
> customers, society and the environment. Secondly where the profits
> are distributed almost solely to the shareholders and executives.
Yes. My solution to the 2nd problem is to write a "Terms of Operation" which we can use to begin new, special organizations that choose to abide and enforce (over their own Property) the rule that "Profit is to be treated as an Investment from the Consumer who Paid it.".
By doing this, the community is still able to grow (using that difference between Price and Cost), but the Ownership of that growth is automatically distributed to the person who was willing to pay for it.
The solution to the first problem is implicitly contained within the implementation of the rule, since any corporation choosing to use these "Terms of Operation" will have no reason to maximize Profits other than to speed the growth of that local community.
Furthermore, with regards to problem #1, Profits will naturally taper toward zero since a side-effect of Consumers gaining Property ownership is that they no longer pay Profit - it becomes undefined.
> To have a viable self-sustaining business, you absolutely have to have
> full cost recovery.
Yes, I agree.
> If you have profit on top of that, you can afford
> to invest in the training and development of your people. You can
> afford to invest in equipment and other useful resources. You can
> improve the compensation of your people. You can afford to employ more
> people. You can cross-subsidise the cost of products and services so
> as to make them affordable and accessible to those who would not
> otherwise be able to use them.
Yes, this is true and somewhat good in that we, as Commoners, will need to "grow" our holdings to replace the current system. It's not that we need more total production on the Earth nearly as much as the Property ownership of those Means must be 'corrected' so they are held by the very humans for which that production is supposedly occuring (the Consumers).
But treating Profit as we do now causes growth to be concentrated into the hands of the current owners instead of becoming the Property of those who paid for it.
Apr-16-2010:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_%28accounting%29 says:
"'In accounting, profit is the *difference* between price and the costs of bringing to market whatever it is that is accounted as an enterprise (whether by harvest, extraction, manufacture, or purchase) in terms of the component costs of delivered goods and/or services and any operating or other expenses.'" (emphasis added)
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_%28economics%29 says:
"'In neoclassical economics, economic profit, or profit, is the *difference* between a firm's total revenue and its opportunity costs.'" (emphasis added)
So "Owner_Profit = Consumer_Price - Owner_Costs"
Profit, in itself, is neither good nor bad, but is simply an 'indicator' or a 'measure' of dependence. It can be used for good by helping those who paid it to gain their own freedom, or it can be used for bad (as the Capitalist ignorantly do) to reward those who already have too much.
Apr-14-2010: Not yet Posted to OpenKollab
Fabio Barone wrote:
> In particular I'd like to point out once more Chris Cook's approach
> on unitisation, which basically (at least in my own, still evolving
> understanding)
> does exactly what you describe: Investors, workers, managers, etc. join
> a project in a open partnership. The produce gets 'unitized'
> (e.g. kWh, food, etc.), and the involved get 'paid' via produced units.
I agree 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 works.
But one thing I did notice a videos or article of his (can't seem to find which it was now) was the idea that early payments should become equity.
This appears to be close to my observation that Profit (which can be thought of as a sort of "early payment") should be used to purchase Means of Production for that Payer - so he gains 'equity'.
Alex Rollin wrote:
> In most examples of this case the consumers do not own the farm.
Alex, I am happy you see the subtle difference here.
Fabio Barone wrote:
> The growing popularity of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) works
> on this base: Farmer(s) get together with consumers, which invest
> in the farmer's business upfront, sharing their risk. They then get
> produce from the farmer's work on harvest.
Fabio, thanks for the kind words and for trying to merge this with your own understandings.
But notice you write "... which invest in the *farmer's* business ...".
It is difficult to imagine Consumers having real Ownership without mentioning the Workers.
There is a large psychological hurdle constructed by a long history of thinking those who have the skills needed to operate the Means of Production must be the Owners.
It seems to conjure images of a class of NON-Owning_Workers fending for themselves while the class of Owning_Consumers roll around, pushing buttons from a couch.
This is an unfortunate and inaccurate depiction of what I propose. We *all* are Consumers of at least *some* things. It is impossible for any human to continue living unless he consumes the output of a certain subset of living organisms.
We actually *do* want protect the Worker, but instead of protecting his supposed 'need' to work, we must protect his real need to Consume.
This allows us to _safely_ drive Costs (even Wages) as low as possible, and to _safely_ automate and even eliminate employment when possible without crisis.
The traditional approach of increasing Worker Wages is like pushing a rope.
Apr-14-2010: Not yet Posted to OpenKollab
Wael Al Saad wrote:
> So how do you consider the case that there will be external consumer and
> external consuming need "money", and how the enterprise should cover
> internal individual investments/needs?
Consumers with 'sufficient' Ownership in the Means of Production (for example, owning a % of a milk-cow) do not pay Profit - in fact they don't even buy the milk, for they already own the Product as a sort of 'side-effect' of their ownership in the Means {by the way, I use the word 'Sources' and 'Means' interchangeably}.
Consumers with 'insufficient' Source Ownership are 'vulnerable' to those current Owners, and so will likely agree to pay Profit {by the way, I use the word 'Profit' and the phrase "Price above Cost" interchangeably}.
Observe that, even current owners do not need any more Source Ownership, the "external consumer" is still going to pay more than it really Cost to supply the Product (milk for example).
So we might be tempted to avoid charging Profit. We might think charging a Price that is exactly and only the Costs of that *PREVIOUS* round of production would be the "right thing" to do.
But if we do that, then the "external consumer" who paid
Apr-13-2010: Posted to ESA-Discuss@GoogleGroups.com and OpenKollab
> Hi Gang: I am looking for a neat example for principles'
> students that neatly shows the short run/long run
> distinction for economic profits in a perfectly competitive
> market.
Profit only occurs when Consumers do not own the Means of Production.
When groups of Consumers organize to purchase and therefore OWN farms and factories, then Profit can safely reach zero, since the payment those Consumers expect is the *Product* itself.
So Profit is an inverse measure of competition. Or another way is to say Profit measures Consumer dependence upon the current Owners.
We should not be trying to perpetuate Profit by propping-up Prices, but should instead treat that overpayment as an Investment from the Consumer who Paid it.
Treating Profit as Payer Investment is a "negative feedback loop" that allows growth while simultaneously 'distributing' that growth to those that are willing to pay for it.
Notice this is also an auto-leveling system that avoids the now systemic problem of over-accumulation that Capitalism suffers.
Within such an investment plan, growth "tapers off" as demand is filled (as Consumers gain ownership in the Means of Production) and does not promote overconsumption caused when we strive to perpetuate Profit.
'Normal' investment techniques cannot withstand perfect competition because typical investors are expecting to be paid the difference between Price and Cost which requires Consumers NOT have ownership in the Means of Production, for under conditions of Consumer Ownership, Price == Cost and Profit == 0!
Apr-13-2010: Emailed to a friend:
> Please refer to chapter 2 of George's book for the definitions of land, rent, labor, wage, capital, interest, wealth, and profit. I agree 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.
Sorry, but his analysis is imperfect.
Specifically with regards to profit he quotes: "as Adam Smith shows, the high profits of retail storekeepers are in large part wages, being the recompense of their labor and not of their capital"
But this is incorrect. Profit does NOT come from the exertion of Workers, but from Consumer dependence brought about by the Consumers' lack of ownership in Physical Sources (including lack of ownership in Land).
This is a deep misunderstanding that almost all economists have fallen for.
I will prove it is incorrect, and prove that my explanation is true in a future email.
> We do not need to purchase land under George's proposal.
I know many people despise the idea of ownership, but property *does* have some good qualities - we only need to discover how to "cut out" the bad parts and prohibit them through a contract or "Terms of Operation" that we can apply to the property (including Land) that we purchase toward our righteous goals.
> Nobody can own land, only use it.
Why claim something so obviously incorrect?
You may *wish* that Land could not be owned, but certainly there are owners of Land already.
These current owners are doing the wrong thing with that property, but that doesn't mean we must do the wrong things.
We *can* purchase and own Land - and at that point we can finally have a say in how it is treated.
> brainwashing that makes us believe we can purchase and own land.
First you say purchasing land is impossible...
> This is the problem with the current system. Private land ownership.
Then you say purchasing land is the only problem...
Which is it?
> If we base a new system off of private land ownership, we get nowhere.
That is only true if were not going to add certain constraints (private-property holders can always add arbitrary conditions to the use of that property) to inhibit bad behavior.
The most important of these constraints is that Profit must be treated as an Investment from the Consumer who Paid it. By doing this, we create a system that allows everyone who participates to eventually gain the ownership 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.
> 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 land.
The Capitalist are *already* using Land ownership against us, so let's HACK THE SYSTEM by utilizing that same technique (property ownership in Land) *against* the Capitalists in a Jujitsu sort of manner.
If we don't have property ownership in Land, we will never have any voice whatsoever, even while the scum that run our planet are using property ownership in Land to suppress freedom and abundance in the name of profit through scarcity.
Apr-09-2010: Emailed to a friend:
> Land requires rent.
Sometimes, yes. But that is only true when the occupier is not the owner.
When a person is the actual owner of the area they occupy, then Rent == 0.
When you own a parcel of land and a house on it, you pay only 'real' costs of: Initial purchase, maintenance (wear parts, oil, etc.), and operation (labor, fuel, etc.).
If this is not true, then tell me who would receive the Rent under that condition.
> Labor requires wage.
I agree.
> Capital requires interest.
Sometimes, yes. But that is only true when the operator is not the owner.
When a person is the actual owner of the machine they operate, then interest on that machine == 0.
When you own a tiller, you pay only 'real' costs of: Initial purchase, maintenance (wear parts, oil, etc.), and operation (labor, fuel, etc.).
If this isn't true, then tell me who would receive the Interest under that condition.
> Wealth - rent - wage - interest = profit
> After wealth has paid back the land, labor and capital the excess is what is termed "profit", or progress.
The definition of 'Profit' you are using may be popular, but it is not what I am talking about.
I'm talking about the difference between the Costs an *OWNER* of the "Means of Production" must pay for production, and the final Price a *CONSUMER* must pay to receive that product.
Let's consider the case of a simple business selling lemonade.
The way I frame the situation is:
Before production has even begun, the business OWNER will pay the Costs to begin.
[Structured in the rent/wage/interest form you are accustomed]:
COST#1: He will buy or rent or go into debt for some Land.
COST#2: He will pay wages to a worker or spend his own time doing that labor.
COST#3: He will buy or rent or go into debt for some Tools.
Once production is underway, the OWNER may begin selling some Product.
When he sells the Product, he will try to get Consumers to pay more for the finished Product than it *really* Cost to make that Product.
I am not saying this is 'good' or 'bad', I am just stating the way I understand things, and asking if this sounds reasonable, and whether it seems valuable for discussion.
So my equation looks like:
Profit = Consumer_Price - Owner_Costs
I am confused about the equation {Wealth - rent - wage - interest = profit} because I don't understand where Consumer_Price fits.
Apr-06-2010: Noticed UrbanResilience.WordPress.com
Apr-06-2010: Noticed MakeMarketsBeMarkets.org
Apr-06-2010: Reading GNU.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html
Apr-01-2010: Posted to OpenKollab
Hello All,
Suresh Fernando wrote:
> the problem lies with the capital allocation model
This thinking can also be used to reconsider how Profit effects 'allocation', and who should benefit from that growth.
Organizations grow when they can sell a good or service for a Price more than it really Cost to produce. That is Profit, of course.
So Profit is important for growth, but the *allocation* of that growth (who, in the end, should (ideally) be the *owner* of any investments made with that Profit) is severely lopsided toward rewarding those that are already invested, while leaving the late-arriving payer without any allocation at all.
This causes power centralization through property over-accumulation.
We have somehow forgotten or disregard the importance of the Consumer who *paid* for that growth (each time they Price above Cost).
1.) Treating profit as a 'reward' for the current owners is a "Positive Feedback Loop" http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback that destabilizes Capitalistic organizations as they grow because those who already have some 'allocation' (the current owners) tend to see no reason to avoid keeping control of that grow for themselves - and so over-allocate even more to themselves.
2.) Treating profit as an investment from the Consumer who paid it is a "Negative Feedback Loop" http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback that continuously spreads Capital allocation to those who are willing to pay (work) for it and so spreads control over any such entity in a self-leveling manner.
We should keep these extremes in mind as we attempt to restructure production.
Thanks,
Patrick Anderson,
Social Sufficiency Coalition