Related: diary
Jan-30-2010: Posted to P2PResearch@ListCultures.org
Subject: User Freedom and the Purpose of Profit
Alex Rollin wrote:
> At some point I might "break even" as a vested partner, which might mean I
> could purchase burgers at the $3.75 rate
Ownership has a surprising effect on profit.
When the consumer of an object owns the physical sources of that
product, then he must pay for the costs of that operation.
For example, if you own a backhoe, then you must pay the costs to
operate and maintain and store the machine. You must grease it, add
oil and diesel, check the water, etc.
If you hire people to do those jobs, then you will need to pay those
wages (as a cost).
You must pay all of the same costs as any other owner, but the one
thing you don't pay is profit - for who would you pay it to?
So profit = 0 when the owner of sources is the consumer of those
objectives because there is nobody else to pay.
> I'm not sure that I understand the overall utility of ever 'lowering' the
> price to 3.75 since this points at some kind of 'stable' system,
A strange feature of object users being source owners is that price
approaches cost on it's own!
I'm not suggesting we lower prices artificially. We should charge
just a little less than the "going rate" in the area.
But we won't be able to stop profit from approaching zero for any user
gaining ownership in sources - because the owner of sources is also
the owner of objects even before they are even produced!
For example: One objective of a backhoe is to create big holes in the
ground. When you, as source-owner, pay for that backhoe to be
operated, you pay only the costs. Nobody is lowering the price for
that objective; price==cost as a *side effect* of your ownership in
the sources.
If you own a cow, then you don't buy the milk from yourself, you only
pay the costs of production.
If you co-own some cows, you don't buy the milk from yourselves, you
only pay the costs of production.
If you own a dairy with 999 other people, then you must each pay your
portion of the costs, but you wouldn't need to buy the milk from your
collective 'self', but would each already own the same % of milk as
you own cattle.
You could also eventually also have ownership in equipment to make
butter, ice cream, cheese, etc. - and would then own those objectives
"at cost" as well.
> To go further, which sources, how deep into the supply chain, and for how
> long (1 year or perpeuity) are the sources secured?
You, as the payer of profit, should ultimately gain co-ownership in
*all* of the means of production for as deep as those chains run.
You, as the owner of sources, should have the option to sell
immediately or to keep ownership for any length of time.
Under the Terms of Operation outlined, if you sell or trade any
objectives produced by those co-owned sources, then you would be
required to treat all price above cost charged against that purchaser
as their investment in more sources.
A significant side-effect of treating profit in this manner is that
participants will tend to pay for only about as much as they need for
themselves and so there will not be much of a problem with
overaccumulation.
Jan-29-2010: Posted to P2PResearch@ListCultures.org
Subject:Repurposing Profit for User Freedom
Ryan Lanham wrote:
> Patrick Anderson wrote:
>>
>> Co-Ownership is one way to hold physical sources.
>>
> There are already large numbers of ways to do this.
> Foundations, co-ops, governments, trusts, etc.
>
I'm afraid they are all wrong in their own ways.
More from ignorance than maliciousness, ALL of our attempts to
organize have failed to provide even our *basic* necessities.
How could so many people be homeless and hungry when there is far, far
more than enough land and water needed to do so?
If our planet was much smaller (or think of an island), and if there
proportionally fewer humans, would more than half of the inhabitants
be without clean water, food and shelter?
Would we, as islanders, also construct famine (as the US Farm Bill
does) by paying each other to NOT grow food - so that prices are kept
above cost?
We are *terrible* at organization.
Once a person or group decides to organize, they immediately take a
stance against all the people who will pay for the growth of that
entity in the future.
Those who organize don't understand what profit measures, and so treat
it as some sort of reward - as though they should celebrate the
depravity and dependence that is the basis and only reason a consumer
would pay profit.
We, as a species, should be 'setup' by now.
Sure there is still work to do, but why are most of us working almost
non-stop for just the absolute bare essentials?
Why do we work our entire lives and *still* not even own a house?
We must organize for the benefit of those willing to pay for the real
costs of production and for those who pay for the expansion of that
entity. That is the consumer in both cases.
>
> If the argument is against profit as reward, you will lose.
I'm not petitioning a government. I don't have enough Federal Reserve
Notes to purchase such legislation.
We don't need to beg the actors in the theatre called 'government'.
They won't and even *can't* help us because for-profit corporations
are the only ones currently getting anything done!
We can solve this by organizing for ourselves. We could do this as a
Corporation, but that isn't strictly necessary.
That organization must be operated under a special Terms of Operation
that designates the proper treatment of profit as a payer's
investment. That organization will then grow and cause Capitalist to
become unimportant.
Such an organization is certain to outcompete all others since it will
not be required to keep price above cost (investors as consumers are
paid in product, not profit).
We should probably allow prices to float close to what the "market
will bear", but only for the purpose of helping those latecoming
payers to gain co-ownership in the physical sources needed for that
production.
As prices approach costs, our organization will not fail or even be
concerned, since that only indicates that those participants are
gaining sufficient ownership in the sources of production as they
should.
We can easily endure a lack of profit. Profit should be used for
growth, and when that growth is owned by those who need the outputs
thereof, then profit is naturally reduced.
When profit reaches zero, it will be time for celebration, not for
tears, for it is one of our goals that prices should meet costs so
that everyone can enjoy the things they need without paying tribute to
other owners.
> What is needed is more technology
> evolving faster and faster.
> Ownership then becomes moot.
Yes I know many people dream of the day when robots will do all of the work.
But most people will not be able to afford those new technologies anyway.
We need a better Operating System, not more hardware.
Jan-28-2010: Posted to P2PResearch@ListCultures.org
Richard Stallman wrote:
> I would like to be able to buy one apple of a certain variety,
> to see if I like it, without having to buy into the farm.
>
Prices are not set artificially within this system, they are set by "the market" just the same as in Capitalism.
There are some very good reasons to do this:
1.) Growth can only occur if more value is collected that the current costs of operation. If we do not collect profit, then we will never have any extra funds needed to include more people under our protection.
2.) Profit will be collected by *someone*, so it may as well be *us*, for then we can treat it 'correctly'. If we do not collect profit (if we sell all products "at cost"), then some customers will buy-up all of that product (say apples), and then re-sell them closer to the current market price.
So when you buy such an apple, you will most likely pay profit, just as you do when you buy from a grocery store.
You will receive a paper or electronic receipt at the point-of-sale that shows the amount you overpaid.
This is also a legal title to your portion of that co-owned property. It may be more accurate to call it a bond, since the current owners have not yet even purchased that property.
You could leave the receipt on the table, but since you already paid profit, you have already bought into the farm.
These receipts can be traded, and so are valuable even if you decide you don't like object you bought.
More completely, each of these receipts can also act one-half of an 'insuring' currency. The other half of the currency is filled when workers promise to perform future labor within some window of time against those physical sources.
When both halves of such a note are 'filled' - when you have sufficient ownership in apple trees, all supporting physical sources, and have commitments from workers skilled in taking care of those trees, harvesting the fruit, and preserving and storing, etc. - then you are literally insured (imperfectly) against going without that specific objective.
Jan-28-2010: Posted to P2PResearch@ListCultures.org
Subject: User Freedom and the Purpose of Profit
Richard Stallman wrote:
> I am not sure what "the physical sources" means, concretely.
> Suppose the product is wheat.
> Does this mean that the users become part owners of the farm?
Within such a system, pre-payment - whether as initial funding or as profit paid - would be invested in *more* physical sources that are not yet operational.
For example: Let's say you pay $5 for a hamburger from such an institution, but it only cost the current owners $3.75 (including all wages) to deliver it to you (and clean up after you, etc.).
The difference between price you paid and the costs of production was $1.25.
That $1.25 is pooled with the payments of profit by the many other customers.
When there is enough funds to act, the current owners purchase *more* physical sources with that revenue.
But the ownership of each of those investments is retained by the original payer.
Your overpayment becomes your automatic investment in beef cattle, fields of alfalfa, tomatoes, potatoes, corn, chickens, etc. and all the land and water rights and tools and any other supporting sources.
The payer becomes part owner in farms and factories, but would only become part owner in some of the *current* physical sources if there happen to be some up for sale, and that group of owners were accepting you as co-owner.
Otherwise, and more often, your investment would be used to grow the size of the organization by purchasing even more physical sources.
He who pays profit slowly becomes owner,
He who owns enough no longer pays profit.
Profit is invested by the current owners, but the payer would retain full ownership of those 'shares'.
These investments then 'vest' as their literal productiveness comes online.
There seems to be a need for the current owners to have some control over that investment, but that control must taper toward 0... or actually it should taper toward their % of ownership in any co-owned source. A crude solution might be a time period where the payer is inhibited from immediately "cashing out".
> Does this mean a new customer has to pay more than old customers, in
> order to buy from them a share of the farm?
The difference is not between 'old' and 'new', but between 'owning' and 'non-owning'.
As a new, non-owning payer, you have little choice but to pay the $5.
But as you pay your percentage into the system (as you pay profit), you accrue real, tangible, material, productive, generative assets that are under your full dominion (within limitations of realistic divisibility with other possible restrictions ...).
When you own an apple tree, you must pay all the costs of labor, tools, water, etc. but you do not pay profit, for you own the objects already.
When you co-own an apple tree orchard with some other people, then you must pay the same things, and you own the objects already, but it is easier to do with others helping.
> I think it is easier to make this work for small production
> activities, which might have thousands of different customers, than
> for large ones with millions of customers.
Yes, small is better for some things, such as agriculture and many types of simple manufacturing. It also brings pollution costs local, which I think is a good feedback.
But we could also pre-pay into a phone and internet system that could deliver service *at cost* to billions.
We could send audio, video, even terabytes of data from our wrist-phone while only paying for the *real* costs.
How much do you pay to operate the network within your home?
When a user owns the sources he only pays the costs of initial investment, real wear and tear, the energy and space consumed and any needed labor.
> Perhaps the biggest problem with investment today is when it goes into
> large companies. Perhaps if we could arrange a way to discourage
> large companies, it would eliminate the problems of investment today
> with a smaller restructuring of society.
Yes, corporations are homicidal megaliths because treating profit as owner reward is a positive-feedback loop incenting even more profit.
But since profit measures consumer dependence, and since scarcity increases consumer dependence, Corporations tend to withhold, restrict, disable, destroy.
...
Treating profit as payer investment is a negative-feedback loop that allows growth to occur, but tapers off (profits approach zero) as consumers gains sufficient ownership in all the physical sources of that production.
We can form new corporations under a special Terms of Operation that enforce this constraint, and any other rules we find may be needed to ensure freedom.
Here is my shot at this:
http://patware.freeshell.org/general%20public%20law.htm
Here is an earlier attempt that is more complete in some ways:
http://patware.freeshell.org/gplv4%20draft%201.htm
These should also help understand the idea:
http://p2pfoundation.net/User_Owned
http://patware.freeshell.org/thesis.htm
Jan-26-2010: Reading LibCom.org/library/Simultaneous-valuation-exploitation-theory-marxist-humanism
Jan-26-2010: Posted to P2PResearch@ListCultures.org
Richard Stallman wrote:
> Patrick Anderson wrote:
>> We can organize users this way to "pre pay" for the goods and services
>> they need, but in this case they, the users become full property owners
>> of the physical sources of that production.
>
> I am not sure what "the physical sources" means, concretely.
> Suppose the product is wheat. Does this mean that the users become
> part owners of the farm? There might be a way to make that work,
> but it will take thought.
>
> Or do you mean some other thing?
>
> Patrick Anderson wrote:
>> But any new user that does not yet have sufficient ownership will
>> be left to the mercy of those current owners... we must treat
>> that overpayment (profit) as though that new user were making an
>> investment.
>
> Does this mean a new customer has to pay more than old customers, in
> order to buy from them a share of the farm?
>
> Perhaps the biggest problem with investment today is when it goes into
> large companies. Perhaps if we could arrange a way to discourage
> large companies, it would eliminate the problems of investment today
> with a smaller restructuring of society.
>
> Kevin Carson wrote:
>> Entrepreneurial profit is
>> entirely healthy, because it's a strong motivator to be first to
>> market with useful innovations; but it's entirely healthy, because
>> there are no artificial property rights or other artificial sources of
>> scarcity to prevent the free diffusion of the innovation or to prevent
>> the market from driving price down to cost as fast as competitors
>> adopt the innovation.
>
> I am not convinced of this, because I pose the question: how do we
> prevent successful companies from influencing politicians to give them
> advantages and "protection" so that they remain on top? Perhaps only
> by preventing large companies from existing can we prevent them from
> undermining the system through their large political influence.
>
> Could society produce more or less what it produces now without any
> large companies? I am not sure, but I think it would be good to try.
Jan-25-2010: Posted to P2PResearch@ListCultures.org
Richard Stallman wrote:
> It is not necessarily a good thing for people to invest. The first
> question is, what sort of investments make the world better, and which
> make it worse?
>
Traditional investors are paid the difference between what the end-user pays, and the real costs of that production.
Treating profit in this way incents the extremely dangerous behavior we see corporations exhibit as they try to destroy all competitors and even limit the functionality of their own devices to increase scarcity - for profit *requires* scarcity, and cannot withstand abundance.
A better kind of investor is paid in product when he, as a future end-user, invests for the purpose of "at cost" product.
We can organize users this way to "pre pay" for the goods and services they need, but in this case they, the users become full property owners of the physical sources of that production.
One strange side-effect of users being the full property owners of the physical sources required for the production they need is that they no longer pay profit!
But any new user that does not yet have sufficient ownership will be left to the mercy of those current owners.
So, in order to perpetuate the freedom that comes from ownership the physical sources your body requires, we must treat that overpayment (profit) as though that new user were making an investment.
We will handle price above cost as the plea for growth that it is - and so invest it *for* the one who paid it, the user.
By doing so, we turn profit against excessive accumulation for the few, and toward sufficient accumulation for the each.
Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com
Jan-25-2010: Posted to OpenKollab@GoogleGroups.com
Jim Benson wrote:
> HARTZOG'S LAW, BABY!
>
>
> As a complex systems scholar I maintain that social systems will
> always evolve to the edge of chaos that their technological
> infrastructure will support. - Paul B Hartzog
>
You seem to imply a "supported chaos" would be most productive or best.
I like the idea. It reminds me of "Carnival as Resistance".
So maybe we can increase Freedom by increasing entropy in some controlled manner?
This makes alot of sense to me.
My image of a better "we" would allow anyone who 'qualifies' (one form of constraint to contain the chaos) would have the option of running the machine for themselves or even hiring that work (hopefully play) out to someone else.
I envision the controls being enforced through a sort of fractional ownership contract or "Terms of Operation" applied to co-owned material assets.
A part of this extended discussion would be addressing our need to schedule and allocate access to the physical space and those physical tools we hold in common.
Patrick
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com
Jan-19-2010: Unsent post to OpenManufacturing@GoogleGroups.com
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Christian Siefkes <christian@siefkes.net> wrote:
> How does this translate to free hardware
> where there is no "buying" at all?
Are you sure "free hardware" must be free-as-in-beer (0 cost to end-user)?
That is not even true for "Free Software".
Everything has a cost, including apt-get.
It may be hidden from us, but somebody is paying (Shuttleworth), and that doesn't even consider the ecologic impact caused by the creation, operation and disposal of those computers [ http://BAN.org ].
If we are to bring User Freedom to the physical world, we can no longer ignore the difficulty of recovering costs.
Allowing users to pay for physical sources they consume
Will give us the value we need to begin and continue.
If nobody pays (whether with work or with play)
Then how will be organize in this other way?
Our money has many problems, so I see why it is shunned,
But I'm talking more access, scheduling and allocation.
How will we share a tiller if there is no fee collected?
How will we repair it and what about the oil and gases?
It seems to me there should be a fee
to be paid by those who cause excluding.
For I cannot use the tiller when you are already are.
We can share it across time but the rivalry is real.
Jan-19-2010: Posted to P2PResearch@ListCultures.org
Subject: Repurposing Profit for User Freedom
Samuel Rose wrote:
> One problem in the real world is that of trust. How do project
> participants know they are not pre-purchasing "vaporware"?
Yes, this is a problem for any small organization...
We *should* control the sources of our needs -
the land, water, organisms, tools and storage.
But we leave it up to Capitalists who hold it against us.
They keep Price above Cost and Sources locked shut.
One way to control is to co-own it ourselves.
We can invest for ourselves by buying the sources.
Once we own sources, even without those skills,
we will have full control and pay much lower bills.
You don't pay profit for fruit when you own the tree.
You must pay all the costs, but own the objects already.
We can add new conditions to any property we co-own.
We can prevent Objects being separated from Sources.
One way to lock-open the sources we need in our plight.
is to use property rights as the GNU GPL uses Copyright.
We'll become property owners, but then tie our own hands.
By treating profit as a payer's own funding mechanism.
....
Personal ownership is important.
We each need some privacy.
But Co-Ownership is important too.
Let's share fields and factories.
Co-Ownership is one way to hold physical sources.
Access to these is required to control our objectives.
Co-Ownership is complicated but it's not impossible.
It is what the Capitalists are doing against us already!
But they do it wrong when they treat profit as reward.
Because this incents scarcity, destruction, even war.
....
The owner of sources owns the objects too.
He is in control in a way that is good.
But that goodness turns sour when he uses that control
to stop new users from gaining freedom of their own.
It is not clear he stops freedom when our usual stance,
is that profit is reward for those who were there first.
But profit measures consumer dependence and scarcity.
It is the inverse of competition, it measures monopoly.
Monopoly is not perfect, but neither is competition,
until each consumer's source ownership is sufficient.
Current owners have an upper-hand because they organized.
This is good to a degree, but they take it too far.
It important each person have sufficient property -
both private and public - to fulfill basic needs.
....
So organizing can be good, because we can then share skills.
But it is also dangerous because we do not know how to scale.
As Capitalism grows, control is concentrated.
Consumers pay for growth, but are not compensated.
Paying price above cost is a plea for control.
We can use that payment to increase our girth.
The payers of profit will fund our expansion
As he accepts co-ownership under our demands.
These demands are a Terms of Operation
Meant to keep Users free of subjugation.
By treating profit paid as investment made,
Each and every user is incrementally freed.
Profit is a sort of coerced pre-payment.
Made by those with insufficient source ownership.
....
Profit is needed to fund grow.
But we must remember who pays.
A payer becomes investor when he pays more than cost.
But that profit is used to reward those already in charge.
So the payer gains nothing, even though he in need.
While the current owners accumulates more through ignorant greed.
The payer of profit in Capitalism doesn't become the owner of those new Physical Sources he funded, but is instead left in the cold as though his contribution meant nothing!
In a better society, you will slowly gain ownership
in real Physical Sources whenever you overpay.
We will each co-own enough surface area, water rights, grain seed,
kitchen (restaurant), grinders, mixers, kneaders, ovens, knives,
Until you will eventually not buy bread,
for, as Source Owner, you own it already!
Samuel Rose wrote:
> In the case of what I am talking about, if all of these people pool
> and pre-purchase materials, while sharing the IP, there is really
> nothing for them to "own" (there is no company or entity which they
> are buying into).
I am talking exclusively about material assets - what I call Physical Sources such as land, buildings, water-rights, computers, plants, animals, tools, etc.
>> treat that overpayment as though the consumer were
>> making a tiny investment - so he slowly gains ownership in the Means
>> of Production for the purpose of solidifying his ability to receive
>> product "at cost" while also helping him gain the control he needs to
>> finally be able to claim "User Freedom" in the physical realm.
> I suppose that in your model, the material suppliers would have to
> agree to sell partial ownership in their companies with every purchase
> by open manufacturing project participants, etc.
No, they would only sell what they might want to get rid of.
The profit paid by consumers wouldn't buy-up the *current* assets (unless for sale), but would be used to make *new* investments - such as opening another restaurant or buying another roto-tiller or another computer, etc.
> But since those
> supplier companies likely won't do it, and there may be no other
> useful supplier, I don't see how to fully exercise your model in the
> real world in the context of open manufacturing. Maybe you can help me
> understand?
No, the supplier is not required to sell any part of their own business.
But they may be ignored as we "go around" them seeking User Freedom.
For example:
Let's say we begin the "User Freedom Cafe".
Let's also say we were able to organize enough pre-paying customers
that the entire corporation is user-owned.
Now, when a potential customer arrives that has insufficient ownership,
we will sell him a meal too, but will charge a price above cost (profit).
We *do* collect profit from him, but use that overpayment to invest *for*
him. So if he paid $5 for a hamburger that only cost us $3.75 to deliver,
Then we would be investing that $1.25 by purchasing wheat fields (for
the bun), tomato fields (tomatoes and ketchup), spice fields, beef cattle,
etc. and all the tools and wages needed to turn those sources into future
products - so he incrementally gains ownership to such a degree that he
finally co-owns enough of the entire tree of production for that product
that he has maximized control and minimumized price (price will reach cost).
Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com
Jan-19-2010: Posted to OpenKollab.GoogleGroups.com
Subject: Our Kitchen (was: Local Foods Ecosystem: membership restaurants?)
Alex Linsker wrote:
> My signature: "I will pay $12-15 per meal or subscribe
> at $15-25/day or around $600/month.
> My goal is to get 1,000 signatures, and then commit our buying power
> to someone who starts a restaurant.
Here is another model causing a much different outcome:
Get 1,000 potential customers to commit $100 each
(or 100 people at $1,000 - or allow any size investment).
Then use that $100,000, to open a NEW restaurant owned by THOSE payers.
It would not be "one member == one vote", but each co-owner would have exactly as much vote as he has real ownership
So, instead of hoping a random business owner will do as we please,
maybe *WE* (a group of pre-paying consumers) could co-own the sources of the things we need?
Then we could hire a manager and some cooks and custodian, etc.
We would pay all the costs of operation - just as a normal restaurant.
There would be three primary differences:
1. We, (the owning customers), would have full control of everything, including the menu and operating hours.
2. We, (the owning customers), would never pay the extra expense of
profit, so would receive everything "at cost".
3. To address the issue of "non-owning" customers we simply charge them "what the market will bear" (so we would collect profit from them), but then treat their overpayment as though they were also investing - so that as the kitchen/restaurant grows - as we open a new location, etc., the ownership of those new investments will be retained by the original payer - so that eventually EVERYONE would be invested in their own local co-owned kitchen so that every user has the freedom that comes from control which can be gained through regular property ownership.
----
In light of the goals of OpenKollab:
A more realistic variation would have some percentage of the initial investors be regular (or "social leaning" VC), while the rest would be future customers. That would cause non-owning consumers to receive less than full ownership of the investments made from the profit they pay, but would still move us the right direction - just more slowly.
Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com
Jan-14-2010: Unsent post meant for ListCultures.org/pipermail/P2PResearch_listcultures.org, CC: RMS@GNU.org
Subject: Physical Sources for Free Hardware (was: User Freedom and the Purpose of Profit)
Sam Rose wrote:
> Example: if you look at projects like http://makerbeam.com which used
> "kickstarter" to raise funds so that they would make and release
> technology, this is one step away from "pre-purchase".
But those consumers are paying for completed *Objects* instead of paying for _real_ ownership in the Physical *Sources* required for that production.
Without ownership in the Physical Sources of production, the consumers are at the mercy of those who DO own the Physical Sources.
But we don't want to use violence or theft to take those factories and farms from the current owners.
We will *buy* the Physical Sources.
Those consumers do not have full control (Freedom) because they are inhibited by those who *are* the owners.
Now, I understand we don't want a bunch of unskilled consumers trying to run a factory.
I'm not talking about trying to convince any Capitalist to give-up
treating the profit he collects in the manner he sees fit. That
is his (unfortunately unsocial) business.
I'm talking about creating GNU enterprises that treat
profit as an investment from the consumer who paid it.
The people who begin these special organizations will need to
have a larger vision of 'why', but it is possible. So-called
Non-Profits do far less than this and yet are quite popular.
I'm talking about getting consumers to co-buy the Physical Sources
of production [such as a milk dairy] so they have full control
while also receiving those Objectives "at cost".
They don't necessarily need to work there, but must somehow
cover the costs of production, including the wages for those who do.
> One problem in the real world is that of trust. How do project
> participants know they are not pre-purchasing "vaporware"? This factor
> could sometimes sink some efforts that cannot convince people to
> pre-purchase.
Yes, but that is always true. Production is never guaranteed.
Once we create Free Hardware corporations that reach a
> In the case of what I am talking about, if all of these people pool
> and pre-purchase materials, while sharing the IP, there is really
> nothing for them to "own" (there is no company or entity which they
> are buying into).
> I suppose that in your model, the material suppliers would have to
> agree to sell partial ownership in their companies with every purchase
> by open manufacturing project participants, etc.
> But since those supplier companies likely won't do it,
> and there may be no other useful supplier,
> I don't see how to fully exercise your model in the
> real world in the context of open manufacturing.
> Maybe you can help me understand?
Jan-14-2010: Posted to ListCultures.org/pipermail/P2PResearch_listcultures.org
Ryan Lanham wrote:
> > I am not against profits. But I am against profits for the sake of
> > profits. We simply don't understand the world yet where they don't exist in
> > a dominant way. It is coming fairly quickly, however.
I hope this is true, but if so, then why would anyone invest?
My answer to that is: Let's get the end-user (or consumer) to invest
for "at cost" product (think of it as a pre-payment plan) since he
would then receive those outputs without paying profit while also
gaining the control he has for so long been without.
On a related note: What would you say is the 'origin' of profit? Why
does the consumer consent to paying a price above cost, and what is
the 'correct' treatment of that value in the better system?
My answer is to treat that overpayment as though the consumer were
making a tiny investment - so he slowly gains ownership in the Means
of Production for the purpose of solidifying his ability to receive
product "at cost" while also helping him gain the control he needs to
finally be able to claim "User Freedom" in the physical realm.
Treating profit as a payer's investment allows growth to occur, but
causes the ownership in that growth is 'distributed' to those who are
willing to pay for it.
Thanks,
Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com
http://patware.FreeShell.org
Jan-11-2010: Reading keimform.de/2010/01/11/commons-in-a-taxonomy-of-goods
Jan-06-2010:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson <dante.monson@gmail.com> wrote:
> " Is barter taxable? "
> " are gifts taxable ? "
> " is leeching taxable ? "
The layers of government we endure will tax anything *they* see fit - for as long as *they* are able to strong-arm us into paying.
On the one hand, groups will choose to tax themselves
should be collected to achieve
is the desire for "public works"
Have you ever asked yourself why income-tax and sales-tax
to punish improvements?
Jan-05-2010: Once again the Payer is disregarded while the developer takes front-seat at JASecon.org >>JASecon is an informal grouping of folks active in the social justice and worker co-op communities.