Related: diary
Jan-28-2009:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 10:17 AM, marc fawzi wrote:
> For example, a product that is priced using the existing currency may cost
> $1.00 (US Dollar) to produce but may be sold by its producer for $0.50 with
> the purpose of killing off competition, i.e. dumping below cost.
Dumping is only a problem for owners who intend to keep price above cost. This is the traditional approach to Capitalistic production. But Capitalism is not the only way we might organize.
Profit seems to be necessary because that is what we traditionally promise as a 'return' for initial investments.
But there is another way, where the product is NOT sold after production, but is instead already owned by those intending to use it.
There is a special case of ownership where price above cost is not only unsought, but is strangely undefined!
When the initial investors (and therefore owners) of production are ALSO the very consumers of the output of that production (the product), then production is "at cost" as a sort of side-effect of that ownership.
I see that you have a plan to set the price of each product that comes from any organization choosing to operate in your special manner, and maybe there is some merit to that.
But I want to stress that you may be overlooking the self-balancing solution I describe as "treat price above cost as an investment from (he paid it) and for (he will be the owner of those new assets) the very consumer who made that overpayment toward more Physical Sources of Production".
> The only way for producers to make a profit, under the model
Profit is not a prerequisite to Production when the collective Consumers are the investors and full Owners of those Means of Production.
This is not to imply that each Consumer must necessarily Work in all those industries he would have Ownership in.
== For example:
If you and I and 998 other people decide we want organic, whole, raw milk, we could get together and buy a dairy.
We would each make an initial investment based upon how much we each intend (what we each forecast) that we will consume.
We would pool some of those initial investments to buy some land, water rights, living cattle, feed, tools, etc.
We would also need to pay some skilled workers to tend and milk those animals, and there are some recurring costs that we would each need to pay periodically.
That sounds like alot of paying, but it's easy to prove that a business organized in this way is cheaper for the Consumer when we consider a Capitalist dairy farmer must pay those exact same costs.
All costs must necessarily be "passed on" to the Consumer (the Consumer finally pays for all costs of production) for that farmer to remain in business, but what we somehow overlook is that the farmer is also intending to charge a price ABOVE that cost - so he can 'profit' from his "exchange value" based venture.
When the Product Consumers are the Physical Source Owners, then there is no reason to sell the product after it is made, for it is already in the hands of those intending to use it.
Each Consuming Owner would not 'buy' the milk after it was made, they would simply go to the storehouse and pickup what they already OWN. They each own the amount of product they need when they each own "just the right amount" of Physical Sources required for that production, and when they are willing to continue to pay the recurring costs of that production.
Sincerely,
Patrick
Jan-21-2009:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Michael Johnson wrote:
> So a group of people decided to speak and work for the rest to solve a
> problem. Sounds like the dawn of a governing body to me. Who gave them the
> power to act for the rest? The people? Fine, and now they will very likely
> be given the power by the people to take care of other problems that face
> the group, or act on their own making the assumption they already have the
> will of the people as their 'permission' to act.
>
> Max Huss <maximhuss@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Patrick Anderson <agnucius@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Are you saying a group of people (every person on this email list for
>>> instance) could
>>> live together in harmony with NO rules of conduct for
>>> the scheduling and allocation of shared physical resources?"
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>>> For example: If we were on an island together (we already are on a
>>> very large island by the way), how would you make certain that some
>>> individual or group didn't use all the fresh water for themselves -
>>> leaving nothing for the rest of us? This is what water privatization
>>> is currently about.
>>
>> I don't know why someone on an island would need to do this, unless there
>> wasn't enough to go around.
>> But if someone kept me or others from being able to survive, we could tie
>> them up in their sleep and let the sharks deal with them. Undesireable
>> person removed; less mouths to feed. Both problems solved.
I approve of THAT murdering. I'm not unwilling to fight.
We have been misled as to who the terrorists really are.
Terrorists hate freedom 'cause it's bad for the market.
The real terrorists are those that *play* Capitalism the best: the personhoods called Corporations: http://BlueGold-WorldWaterWars.com
Jan-21-2009: