Related: diary
Aug-31-2011:
Property is position or potential
Production is velocity or stasis
Profit is acceleration or growth
Governments are driven by corporations.
Corporations are driven by investors.
Investors are driven by profit.
Profit is driven by scarcity.
Product for needs or Profit for greeds?
Aug-31-2011: [P2P] 2 strategies to undermine free software's progress
Felix Stalder wrote:
> move to software-as-service, where the GPL has no teeth
The GNU AGPL addresses this directly by requiring Sources be offered to anyone interacting with the program "over a network" but is incomplete because:
.) This does not apply to any hardware not owned by users.
For example, a business could offer access to computers running Free Software but would not be required to provide Source Code to those users.
.) It does not help us share the hardware costs of *hosting* that software.
We might do this through a Property Left legally binding social contract.
> Android type approach, where the software is linked to hardware
The GNU GPLv3 addresses this directly by requiring all information needed "to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product" and disallowing "any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures" but is incomplete because:
.) This does not apply to any hardware not owned by users.
From the license: "A ``User Product'' is either (1) a ``consumer product'', which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular product received by a particular user, ``normally used'' refers to a typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product."
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/02/tivoization-and-the-gpl.html
Aug-30-2011: Solid-State Econ
Within a steady state, production must continue so we can meet our recurring physical needs of food, shelter, etc.
Capitalism requires Consumer_Price be kept above Owner_Costs so the investors can be paid that difference.
But Profit is not the only value to consider. We have forgotten about Product. How can we pay investors with Product?
Imagine the owners of the Means of Production are the end-users of those goods and services.
We organize users to pre-pay for the things they know they will need so they become the real co-owners for those Means of Production. For example, people who like milk would co-purchase a dairy.
In this strange scenario, the product (milk for example) is not bought or sold because it is already the property of the person who intends to use it.
When you own a dairy cow, you must pay all the costs of production, but you do not buy the milk from yourself - for you already own it!
The same is true if you CO-own a dairy with 999 other people. You must pay all the costs for your % of the dairy, but instead of BUYing the product from the other co-owners, you simply collect what is already yours.
This is true Use-Value production.
This organizational form requires neither growth nor profit, but can operate indefinitely "at cost" since the investors are paid with Product instead of Profit.
Aug-25-2011: Investigating EToys, Scratch and other environments to teach programming.
Control-Tech-Sama.BlogSpot.com, TonyForster.BlogSpot.com/search/label/TurtleArt
Aug-24-2011: Rewarding Risk with Product Eliminates Exchange -- ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com/2011/08/rewarding-risk-with-product-eliminates.html
Alan Avans wrote:
> Can you clarify what you mean by "exchange" in your
> concept as it presently stands?
By "exchange" I mean "change ownership".
We do not need to "change ownership" of a product if it is already owned by the person who will consume it.
That may seem an impossible scenario, but it is actully very common for SINGULAR ownership.
For example, the owner of a milk-cow does not buy the milk from himself after it is produced - he owns it already!
We can do the same thing with MULTIPLE ownership.
For example, the co-owners of a milk-cow do not buy the milk from themselve after it is produced - they own it already!
The (co-)owner(s) of a dairy do not buy milk because they own those Objects ALREADY as a side-effect of their owning the Sources of those Objects.
This eliminates one of the reasons we claim to need money.
> I'm assuming that in your model there may be a number
> of different firms undertaking production of goods
> and services.
I envision many productive sub-units within the Aggregate that are each co-owned by the people that intend to use the products thereof.
For example, if you want a community swimming-pool, then you can commit Sources or Skills to create and maintain such a facility. If you do not care, then you do not need to be a co-owner of that sub-unit.
> These goods and services are ultimately aggregated at
> the point of retail or "absolute exchange", either in
> intermediated fashion, or in a peer-to-peer
> arrangement between producers and consumers.
> It is here that people exchange what they have
> produced with one another through the transactions
> that take place during absolute exchange operations.
That is how Capitalism works, but is not what I describe.
People who commit skills (for example: milking cows) would make those commitments in exchange for others within the Aggregate making commitments toward producing things which that worker needs but does not have Skills.
The Sources of those products (such as milk-cows) are not owned by those that happen to have the Skills needed to 'operate' those Sources.
The Sources are instead owned by the people who need the outputs of that production. The end-users (milk-drinkers) are the owners of the Sources (cattle) AND the owners of the Objects (milk).
> People are compensated for their efforts in producing
> those goods and services with claims that may take the
> effective form of tickets or tokens.
Thanks for the careful reading.
I see what you mean here, and have called those claims "scheduling tickets" and "allocation tokens" in some of my other writings.
But I would like to move away from that characterization toward the drastically more simplified scenario where changing ownership does not occur (there is no sale), and so governments cannot interfere or collect taxes.
This 'short-circuit' of the market is explained at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent
You may also be interested in:
http://ImputedProduction.Blog.com/2011/05/20/longer-explanation
Aug-22-2011:
Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
> if we can get a discount by bulk buying 200kg of rice,
> we need pledges/promises of purchase,
> This approach can lead to avoiding the middleman/shop,
> and reduce organic food prices by 30 percent.
> At first, I realize it may be better not to set up any legal
> framework, and not retain any profit,
Hi Dante,
This is part of the same approach I talk about, but I'm
confused when you say "not retain any profit".
If the people pre-pay to buy in bulk, then they do not
buy the product again, after it arrives, do they?
And if they don't pay again, then how would there
even be any Profit at all?
Do you plan to overcharge when collecting money
for the initial bulk-purchase?
Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
> consumers to bulk purchase together, and reduce prices, or
> set conditions for the product, potentially before its production.
Yes, and the extension of that idea is for those consumers
to buy and co-own the Sources of those products, because
then they never need to buy that product again (though
they still must continue to cover all the Costs of production).
> owned by consumers / pro-sumers
I have recently been developing a much more holistic
approach to local production and worker rights which
uses two forms of 'Commitment' to replace most of the
reasons we pass tokens.
I call it the "Vertically Integrated Production Aggregate",
as a fully self-sustained, permaculture-based habitat for
human/ecology reintegration that supplies all the people
working there with all the food, housing, health care, etc.
that they need for a comfortable standard of living.
The people are not paid with money, but instead commit
to work in some number of arenas where they must qualify
- as in they must prove they can operate the equipment -
though we want to make it easy to watch videos of the pros
so newbies can start milking the cow sooner than later. ;)
> maximum profit on operations - which in the way
> I perceive it can be totally re-invested in the cause
Yes, this is my view as well, otherwise middle-men will
buy all the product below market price and resell above.
> The reason for setting up a specific legal structure which could take 10
> percent ( yet still enable 20 percent reduction in costs ) could be to cover
> certain operating costs.
Whenever I use the word Profit, I use it in the strict accounting sense of:
Owner_Profit = Consumer_Price - Owner_Costs
Consumer_Price = Owner_Costs + Owner_Profit
Owner_Costs = Consumer_Price - Owner_Profit
Aug-17-2011: Mapping the GNU GPL into the Physical Realm
Hello all,
I've been trying to understand how the GNU GPL might apply to the
material world and am happily surprised with the results.
In the virtual world of software:
1.) An Object is the result of {compiling} some type of Sources.
2.) Sources are the inputs such as {source-code, makefiles,
shell-scripts, installer scripts, etc.} required to change a future
instance of that Object type.
In the physical world of hardware:
1.) An Object is the result of {work* across time} to some type of Sources.
2.) Sources are the inputs such as {land and water and seeds and
animals and tools} required to change a future instance of that Object
type.
* Note: some Objects are occasionally created by the 'work' of nature
with no human intervention.
So we can say physical Objects have physical Sources.
For example, the Sources of a bottle of beer include land, water,
barley, hops, yeast, heated water, containers, glass (for the bottle),
kiln (to melt the glass), etc. - and even recursively all the sources
required to initially create the tools that created the tools, etc...
The GNU GPL instructs us to help every user incrementally gain at-cost
access the Sources of all the Objects they use.
I think I've found a way to do this!
The trick is to start a business that can treat some % of Profit
(Price above Cost) as an INVESTMENT FROM THE PAYER.
Treating Profit as Payer Investment causes each user to slowly gain
co-ownership in the *growth* of that organization.
Imagine you buy a $5 hamburger from such a place, but it only cost the
current owners $3 to deliver that surplus (the owners would only be
selling surplus, since the *primary* reason for their investments
would be to receive at-cost objects such as hamburgers).
The cashier would give you a receipt showing you now have (within a
future vesting window) $2 invested in more land, water rights, calves,
and also toward paying wages, etc.
As you continue to gain ownership (and as you also continue to pay
recurring costs on what you already own), you will eventually go to
the new restaurant your overpayments help to create, and you will show
your ownership credentials to prove you already own a prepared
hamburger as a result of your ownership in the entire tree of it's
production.
When the investors will accept the objects themselves (say beer) as
compensation for the risk they took, there is no sale because the end
user already paid all the costs of production, and owns the objects as
a side-effect of those commitments.
And since there is no sale, Profit doesn't even have a chance to enter
the picture.
And without a sale there is no attack-point for external governments -
and so no sales tax.
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent is a subset or simplified
version of this.
Sincerely,
Patrick Anderson
http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com
We can also eliminate wages by committing to swap of skills within a
"closed-loop, user-owned production aggregate" *before* production
begins. I call it pre-barter.
Aug-16-2011: Cool idea: Communal broadband" - via GigaOm
Charles N Wyble wrote:
> Patrick Anderson wrote:
>> we, as customers, finally pool our monthly fees and invest in buying
>> and building our OWN networks.
>
> Oh? Why?
1.) So we can use the network without artificial limitations.
2.) So we can pay only the Costs of operation instead of paying
tribute to others.
> The large carriers are under immense pressure and very
> close to collapse.
That is because they must kepep Price above Cost (must collect Profit
to pay their investors). This is an unnatural arrangement that must
be held in place through artificial scarcities of various kinds, and
is the reason Capitalist seek continuous Growth.
A network owned by the Users doesn't need to keep Price above Cost
because we will only be using Profit as Growth - investing it for the
latecoming User toward growing the network with that ownership finally
vesting to that payer - so the control of that growth is
auto-distributed to those willing to pay for it.
At all other times, during normal operation, the only fees we pay will
be the real Costs of operation, while are ROI for being the owners
will be the product itself (network connectivity in this case).
Charles N Wyble wrote:
> Also if you think that just pooling monthly fees = network operation
> costs , I'd love to see some business models. Spreadsheets my man!
No, I said the network fees are NOT = to costs.
I said the network fees cover all costs and also include Profit.
I'm saying we, the consumers, pay MORE than it really costs to run the
network because we do not co-own the network.
If we co-owned the network, then we would still have to pay all the
costs, but we wouldn't pay Profit because we wouldn't even sell the
Product*, and so, by definition, we would be paying exactly cost.
*We can sell any surplus Product to non-owners, and should even charge
Profit against them (otherwise middle-men will scalp the Profits out
anyway), but must treat that overpayment as that users investment to
grow the network - with the ownership of that growth becoming the real
property of that payer.
Douglas Rushkoff wrote:
> I think he is saying that these big businesses have great challenges meeting
> the needs of consumers.
> AT&T can't reach all of its subscribers in my area. And Optimum is having a
> hard time giving me good VoIP when everyone is spending bandwidth streaming
> Netflix movies during work hours.
They struggle because, not only must they collect the *costs* from
you, they must also collect *profit* to pay their investors.
But if those investors were the users themselves - if you could
pre-pay for internet access and become a co-owner in the network -
then the only amount the corporation would need to collect would be
the real costs of operation since your ROI would be the Product itself
for which you already paid all the costs.
Charles N Wyble wrote:
> Please answer why the ISPs and cell-phone providers
> will perform similar activities and sue us.
Capitalism abhors competition because it reduces profit.
Reducing profit is a good thing if product is your goal,
but we do not yet invest for product.
They will sue us because user-owned eliminates profit,
leaving a wake of ownership which cannot be outperformed.
Since any Capitalist entry would require price above cost,
and yet we will comfortably run at cost when not growing.
Profit is undefined,
when Product is ROI.
Chris Cook wrote:
> if we use an associative agreement like a partnership
> framework, then there is no profit and no loss
Yes, this is also what I propose: a legally-binding social contract.
At http://www.slideshare.net/ChrisJCook/economic-systems-thinking230710
Chris Cook wrote:
> Sellers give buyers interest-free credit -
> or "time to pay"
We are seeing parts of the same solution.
At http://opencapital.net/unitisation.htm Chris Cook wrote:
> I propose a new co-ownership framework for direct investment
> - unitization - in a new type of real estate investment trust
Would you say unitization "short circuits" the economy as described
here: http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent - or is it something
else?
Aug-14-2011: Cool idea: Communal broadband" - via GigaOm
Jon Lebkowsky wrote:
> Cable providers try to prevent competitiion by government entitites by
> getting laws passed, but I'm not thinking they have grounds to sue private
> ISPs.
It reminds me of this case against free distribution:
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_v._International_Business_Machines_Corp._et_al.
Where Wallace "filed suit against the FSF in Indiana, stating that the
GPL, by requiring copies of computer software licensed under it to be
made available freely (without legal restriction), and possibly even
at no cost, is tantamount to price fixing".
I'm sure we'll see such attempts by ISPs and cell-phone providers when
we, as customers, finally pool our monthly fees and invest in buying
and building our OWN networks.
Later, as we more fully awaken, we will put all for-profit producers
in ALL industries out of business as we, the people buy the farms,
factories, railroads, bus lines, taxies, restaurants, fish farms, oil
refineries, oil wells, mines, etc.
We already pay all the costs anyway.
And we pay profit because we are to cowardly or disorganized to own
for our mutual, direct benefit.
Aug-11-2011: Freedom Databases
Is there any chance we could co-own some of these 'FreedomBases'
as small groups while retaining our Freedom?
Is it possible to share hardware for the benefit of that group
without taking Freedoms from others?
If so, then we should discover and define what those groups must
do if they are to avoid going the way of all Corporations...
Once we have this understood, we should be able to fund and co-own
Internet Service Providers (ISPs), cloud datacenters, etc.
Notice we, the users ALREADY pay all the initial costs of building
that infrastructure, and we CONTINUE to pay all the operating costs.
So it's not like we can't afford it. Hell we pay *more* than costs
(we pay Profit) only because we have not taken the responsibility
of ownership upon our collective selves, but instead continually
beg the current owners to do the 'right' thing.
The current owners *cannot* do the right thing because their
investors expect to be paid Profit, and Profit requires scarcity.
We can overcome this by paying our users-as-micro-investors
with the Product itself (in this case 'connectivity') and will never
even need to sell the Product (since the users are the owners
already), causing Profit to be undefined and Price to equal Cost.
Aug-11-2011: One system to rule them all
Rasmus Wikman wrote:
> Because once you have in your head both the understanding
> and financial means to do so; would you start a corporation
> for the common good or for the benefit of yourself?
We can create corporate-owned commons that benefit all the
users by helping each of them gain ownership in the growth
of that entity whenever they pay price above cost.
This causes every user to incrementally gain real property
ownership in the Means of Production for all the goods and
services they need.
When the network is owned by the users of the network,
the ROI for that risk they all took is the Product itself -
in this case, network connectivity.
We can seek Product instead of Profit by attracting
users who will pre-pay for an ISP, then use that money
to buy and/or build an ISP that is really owned by the
people who use and need it.
> Few people would turn to the former. Greed is a natural,
> basic and required human function as far as I can tell.
> It's a question of survival.
Defending property you need to use for yourself is not
the same as denying others access so you can charge a
price above cost because of their lack of preparation.
Profit comes from the users' dependence upon the current
owners, and is safely eliminated when those users gain
the co-ownership they need to be able to captain their
own portion of those productive resources.
Wages can also be eliminated by committing to do the
kind of work for which you have skills and which is
wanted by the collective others in return for them
committing their own skills toward creating the goods
and services you need.
The fear that allocation without money is an unsolvable problem mainly
stems from a confusion between production for profit and production for
usage, or benefit. I can *sell* a practically unlimited amount of edibles,
but I can only *eat* so many of them before I'm full. The same is true for
all other goods: every desire to actually use them is limited. The only
thing that's potentially infinite is the possibility to turn them into
money (as long as there are buyers). But that possibility vanishes in a
world where production is benefit-, rather than profit-driven, and where
nobody is forced to buy and sell anymore.
Aug-11-2011: [Open Manufacturing] Engineers with sympathy?
davidc wrote:
> Is there anyone here who wants to see
> a mutual aid, non-exchange economy
I'm sure we will all enjoy the result.
But how can we share the costs of production
without passing tokens?
... Is it an "order of operations" problem?
Notice when those who need the food
are the co-owners of the field, then they
do not *buy* the product, because, of
course, they already own it.
Notice when those who can work in the
field will commit to work in the future in
return for being allowed to live in the
Aggregate, then they do not receive a
*wage*, because they already have
their reward (for as long as they uphold
that commitment to work).
When a crowd owns a dairy, part of
them will apply skill there, and the others
will apply skills somewhere else in the
Aggregate to compensate
So Wages are eliminated by having workers
commit early to solve problems within the
aggregate in return for a Basic Outcome
supplied as a result of all the other workers
upholding their commitments to supply
their own skillset when needed by others.
Imagine a non-profit corporation purchases land, tools and raw
materials to build a closed-loop permaculture 'commons'.
By closed-loop I mean the entire operation has a required minimum
complexity because it must supply all workers with all food, shelter,
health care, transport, etc.
We attract people who are willing to work for nothing more than a
nice, free house and all the organic food they can eat.
If we can a doctor and a dentist, then we have health and dental insurance.
The trade and barter are optional when commit Sources and Skills *early*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent talks about how the
transaction is "short-circuited".
Aug-06-2011: Imputed Income as a partial solution
If we own the cattle together,
with the milk being the ROI,
then there will be no sale,
so nothing for cops to attack.
This organizational form is called "Imputed Income"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_income
When consumers co-own the Means of Production (such as a milk dairy),
they own the milk even before it comes out of the cows, and so don't
buy it from anyone, but simply claim what is already theirs.
Some other interesting features:
Since there is no sale, there is no tax.
Since there is no sale, there is no profit.
Since there is no sale, there is one less reason for money.
Aug-08-2011:
Richard Sanders wrote:
> One thing that I have become convinced won't work is a system where individuals seek to live in the world by acquiring money as the means of obtaining the necessities of life where that money is acquired by investment.
>
> By investment I mean economic activities where one grows ones money - turning an amount of money into more money and living on the profit.
>
> My reasoning is as follows. Money is not wealth but a claim on wealth and wealth is the material stuff needed to sustain us - food, shelter, infrastructure, ecological life support, etc. All wealth is ultimately sourced from low entropy natural capital.
>
Aug-05-2011:
Hey Dave,
Nate Bushman mentioned he saw you.
I've been studying economics in my spare time
off and on for about 10 years now.
I've discovered something that I think is very
important but overlooked, so want to involve all
good thinkers to tackle these issues.
I have developed an alternate economic system
that allows for even more specialization than
we currently enjoy and yet does not require
require passing tokens (money) and where Profit
becomes *undefined*.
Here is a small riddle to help begin thinking
in this new way:
----
Imagine 1000 milk drinkers decide to buy a dairy.
They each invest as much as they predict they will
need, and receive the Product as the ROI.
The Product is not sold because the people who
will use the milk are *already* the owners.
Because of this short-circuit, there is also
no taxes to report and no Profit to be considered.
The riddle then, is: What is the origin of Profit?
Aug-04-2011:
Douglas Rushkoff wrote:
> implementation of the mechanical weaving loom
> by Victorian England in India. It reduces the
> role and expertise of labor, and is value
> extractive rather than allowing people on the
> periphery to create value.
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Overproduction
Overproduction is a problem for Capitalism
because it reduces both profits and wages.
Capitalism is production for the sole purpose
of *exchanging* the end product *after* it is
created for a price above cost (profit).
http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_(economics)
But we, the people, want abundance and would
rather not even worry about profit and wages.
We want production for the purpose of using
that product directly: for *use-value* and
really don't even need to exchange the product
after it is created if the owners of the
sources are the very users of that product.
We can do this by attracting users to pre-pay
for an ISP connection and then use those funds
to purchase the physical layer needed to begin.
Since the users are the real owners, they must
pay all the costs of operation, including work,
but do not pay profit, for the product is not sold.
Imagine a theoretical situation where automated
weaving looms were made available to everyone at
the real costs of that access.
This would cause a situation analogous to what
now occurs with Free Software - where users can
get workers to create and fix things for free
partly because it is just fun to do...
The danger is toward those who are still working
in proprietary loom/code shops, since all those
free products causes proprietary solutions to
become less relevant and finally ignored.
> The function is to centralize the capital
The way to auto-distribute (decentralize) capital
is to treat overpayment (profit) as an investment
from that payer.
The reason this stops the payment of tribute is
because of how that user's property ownership
will allow him to receive that objective at the
real costs of production once he has sufficient
co-ownership in the Sources of that objective.
For example: the owner of a CAT5 cable and a
router must pay to purchase, install, configure,
maintain, power that network - but he doesn't
*buy* that connectivity from himself because
he owns it already.
The same is true when a loom shop owned by the
people who will finally use the outputs of those
Sources, then automation becomes a goal.
But this does not help us understand how to share,
and that is what we need to do if we are ever
to stand on our own feet on our own land for our
own purposes instead of for the usual purpose of
subjugating others through overpriced objectives
and no possibility of access to Physical Sources.
We will never be free until we learn to share the
Physical Sources needed for the production of all
our objectives, including network connectivity.
Aug-04-2011:
Samuel Rose wrote:
> worker-owned cooperative probably would not make
> the decision to replace people with machines.
Aug-04-2011:
Devin Balkind wrote:
> If technology is open,
> everyone can benefit from it's advances.
That is only true if we are able to *instantiate*
those designs, and of course that requires access
to the material substrate required to host any and
all production: land, water, buildings, tools, etc.
I'm glad we now have open washing machine designs,
but it doesn't really help me because I am not
allowed access to the Physical Sources (the factories)
required to create an instance of that technology.
It is important that those end users gain at-cost
access to the Sources of production even when they
have no skill or inclination to operate or maintian
those Sources directly.
When the humans in need of goods and services are allowed
at-cost access to the Physical Sources of those Objectives,
they will be able to work together, swapping skills to
achieve all of their goals without worrying about the
dangers of automation.
Aug-01-2011:
Rasmus Wikman wrote:
> To get it up to speed, I do hope that governments, educational institutions
> and non-profit organisations will offer the service for free since they are
> already co-owned by the people.
You must be joking.
Of course the corporations that captain our governments
will not allow such profit-destroying tactics.
If we could get what we need out of the governments, we wouldn't
need any separate corporations.
But since governments are controlled by corporations,
And since corporations are controlled by investors,
And since the only investors we will consider are
those that require a return based on profit,
And since profit requires scarcity,
And since scarcity is what we (the ignorant users)
thought was being addressed by the fact that someone
is organizing production,
We are left with a bunch of scarcity-loving thugs
who keep us just satisfied that we will not organize
for our own benefit while continuously attempting
to perpetuate profit by withholding features and
otherwise generally causing us trouble because our
ignorant choice of investors has led us down a path
of short-sighted geocide that we cannot seem to
escape, or hardly even understand the trouble...
> I believe that there are many people who will start non-profit
> production companies when they realise how simple it is.
In what way will it be easier to start a non-profit
if compared to yesterday?
> Hard to say, but I do think we'll see the Open-movement
> moving onto the physical world quite soon.
We cannot fully address our 'sacred' (immaterial) needs
without freeing their 'profane' (material) containers.
The physical world will be free as in freedom when the
users begin to organize and co-own the Sources of
production for their mutual, use-value benefit.
It is easy to prove we, the users, can afford to do
so - since we know that the users (in the end) pay
all the costs of production AND they pay profit.
When users are the owners and product is the payment,
profit is undefined because there is no sale!
Aug-01-2011:
Rasmus Wikman wrote:
> With an open equivalent, at least the users
Hi Rasmus, do you have any ideas about how
we might aquire the hardware we will need?
Do you envision the users coming together
to buy and co-own those physical assets?
Do you envision current governments taking
ownership from the current corporations?
Do you envision current corporations changing
in some way where they begin giving ownership
to the users on an incremental basis?
Or maybe some other approach...
Thanks,
Patrick Anderson
Aug-01-2011:
This can be done by changing how we reward investors.
We can attract regular users of that product to invest
small amounts for real co-ownership in the corporation.
Those user-owners receive *product* instead of *profit*
for the risk they took.
We do not even sell the product in that case, for it is
already the property of the people who will use it.
This moves us away from seeking scarcity toward an
economy driven by use-value instead of exchange-value.
Aug-01-2011: [P2P-F] Open System
Rasmus Wikman wrote:
>
> we need a new technological foundation for society
> that gives everyone equal opportunities and is owned
> by noone.
That might be throwing too much out with the bathwater.
Property ownership is a very dangerous tool that we can
bridle and temper through a legally binding document
that we strategically design and apply to property that
we buy 'collectively' for the purpose of stopping any of
the originators or the later co-owners from causing the
usual kinds of trouble.
I have been studying this as a system and have 3 points
that must be enforced if we are to move toward society
that does not require passing tokens:
1.) Users commit Sources or Skills toward future production.
2.) Property co-ownership is the result of those investments.
3.) The product is not sold, for it is already the property of
the people who will use - for the users are the owners.