-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
diary-feb-2009.htm
404 lines (401 loc) · 28.6 KB
/
diary-feb-2009.htm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>diary-feb-2009 </title>
<link href=".code/preferred.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"/>
</head>
<body>
<p class='header'>
<a href="_home.htm">Home</a> | <a href="_faq.htm">FAQ</a> | <a href="_thesis.htm">Thesis</a> | <a href="_diary.htm">Diary</a> | <a href="_projects.htm">Projects</a> | <a href="resume.htm">Resume</a> | <a href="_todo.htm">Todo</a> | <a href="_index.htm">Index</a> |<p>
<p class='main'><span class="rel">Related:</span> <a href="diary.htm">diary</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-18-2009:</span> <span class="quot">"'Stadial growth'"</span> posted to <a class="ext" href="http://Groups.Google.com/group/postscarcity/browse_thread/thread/a2f6200e8064057b/d65c8425b46f3533">Groups.Google.com/group/postscarcity/browse_thread/thread/a2f6200e8064057b/d65c8425b46f3533</a><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Laibman wrote:</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> Capitalism is a system which cannot structurally</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> solve the problems of nature and equity.</span><br/>
<br/>
Raoul Victor wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> in the sense that capitalism is a</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> system whose goal is <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, and only <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.</span><br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> occurs when a Consumer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s an <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er<br/>
more than <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> for a good or service delivered.<br/>
<br/>
Except when the Consumer<br/>
has enough <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership himself.<br/>
<br/>
When you <a href="own.htm">own</a> a nut tree or a chainsaw or a boat,<br/>
you then receive that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t or <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ective at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
We must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s; from that we'll never escape.<br/>
But <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is zero when the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er is the <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ect <a href="user.htm">User</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="user.htm">User</a>s could gain <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom and community could grow<br/>
if we could ever figure out how to cooperatively <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Accumulation could be <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>usion<br/>
if we could just learn how share.<br/>
<br/>
We could <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e a <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="mod.htm">Mod</a>e of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion<br/>
whose goal is <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t and only <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> When the rate of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> falls too much, when the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="new.htm">new</a> markets become insufficient, capitalist growth</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> declines and becomes negative, independently of</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> any subjective factor.</span><br/>
<br/>
"Capitalist growth" is the perpetuation of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Let's <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e a <a href="new.htm">new</a> business based on equity.<br/>
We'll treat <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as a measure of scarcity.<br/>
<br/>
The next step is <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing out and writing down<br/>
the rules of operation for this <a href="use.htm">Use</a> Value venture.<br/>
<br/>
Then, when that's ready we can begin to <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a><br/>
<a href="web.htm">web</a> servers for <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>age and searching and all that.<br/>
<br/>
We will <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> the equipment for <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing beer.<br/>
We will <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> all the tools to fix and <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d and do.<br/>
<br/>
We can <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of all <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ects we need.<br/>
After we write the "Rules of Conduct" to evade usury.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Patrick<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-17-2009:</span> posted to <a class="ext" href="http://groups.google.com/group/postscarcity/browse_thread/thread/c4292128bc4e288a/87279dfe7673cf21">http://groups.google.com/group/postscarcity/browse_thread/thread/c4292128bc4e288a/87279dfe7673cf21</a><br/>
<br/>
<span class="h2">==The Utilization/<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e Ratio for SINGULAR <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership:</span><br/>
<br/>
Why do people choose to BUY some tools,<br/>
while they choose to <a href="rent.htm">RENT</a> others?<br/>
<br/>
When a person can <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e <a href="use.htm">use</a> of <small>(utilize)</small> a <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine<br/>
to a sufficient degree, it is more efficient for them to<br/>
<a href="own.htm">OWN</a> instead of <a href="rent.htm">RENT</a>.<br/>
<br/>
But wait, how could that be? The <a href="own.htm">own</a>er <small>(whoever he is)</small> must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all<br/>
<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s either way.<br/>
<br/>
A <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>al agency must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for the initial<br/>
investment, upkeep/repair/maintenance/wear,<br/>
<a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ance, <a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ion/security, <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>age, taxes,<br/>
and any wages to any <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers needed to do any<br/>
of those things.<br/>
<br/>
A private <a href="own.htm">own</a>er must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> those exact same <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s,<br/>
so how could it possibly be cheaper to <a href="own.htm">own</a> outright<br/>
instead of <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>ing?<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence is called '<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>'.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s an <a href="own.htm">own</a>er <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s<br/>
and the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e a consumer is willing to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>.<br/>
<br/>
When the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er and consumer are the same person,<br/>
there is no such thing as <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
That is the savings in <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership over <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>al.<br/>
<br/>
----<br/>
<br/>
But what about <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines that are not "worth it" to<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a> because that individual <a href="own.htm">own</a>er cannot sufficiently<br/>
utilize them?<br/>
<br/>
It must be worth it for SOMEONE to <a href="own.htm">own</a> them,<br/>
otherwise the <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>al agency wouldn't do so.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence here is a matter of utilization.<br/>
<br/>
So how can a consumer increase the utilization<br/>
of a tool to the point of <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership "worth it"?<br/>
<br/>
<span class="h2">==The Utilization/<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e Ratio for <a href="co-own.htm">CO-own</a>ership:</span><br/>
One way is to buy the <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine with a group of<br/>
other consumers.<br/>
<br/>
Organizing with your neighbors to <a href="own.htm">OWN</a> a roto-tiller<br/>
instead of continuing to <a href="rent.htm">RENT</a> is cheaper if that<br/>
equipment can be kept sufficiently 'busy'.<br/>
<br/>
These savings are often overlooked as being the result<br/>
of not <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing Wages to <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers, but that <a href="work.htm">work</a> must<br/>
be done either way, and we <a href="know.htm">know</a> the <a href="rent.htm">Rent</a>al agency<br/>
or the Capitalist <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>er enjoys <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> while<br/>
<a href="calc.htm">calc</a>ulating Wages as a <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>, so where is the confusion?<br/>
<br/>
For example: Let's say a for-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> business has hired<br/>
<a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ees to go door-to-door offering to roto-till a<br/>
garden patch.<br/>
<br/>
The business <a href="own.htm">own</a>er offers the service for some fee -<br/>
say $1 per square meter while <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing the <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ee<br/>
operating the tiller say $10 per hour.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="own.htm">own</a>er has other <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s such as management, initial investment,<br/>
gasoline, oil, replacing <a href="part.htm">part</a>s, <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>age, <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ance, and maybe many<br/>
others.<br/>
<br/>
But we <a href="know.htm">know</a> he is charging more that these <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s if he<br/>
is reporting a <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> - for that is the definition of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> =<br/>
"<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>".<br/>
<br/>
Now let's look at what happens when the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the<br/>
<a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <small>(the tiller)</small> are also the consumers of the outputs<br/>
<small>(the tilled ground)</small>: They must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the same <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s as<br/>
the Capitalist, including Wages to the operator and<br/>
mechanics, but they wouldn't be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing the extra a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a><br/>
called <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> - for who could they possibly <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to?<br/>
<br/>
When the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es are Consumer-<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed, they could probably <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the<br/>
<a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers slightly more <small>(say $12 per hour)</small> and *still* <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> less since<br/>
they wouldn't be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing the unnecessary burden of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
There is <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="work.htm">work</a> involved in the act of organization,<br/>
but that <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(wages to management)</small> must be paid<br/>
either way.<br/>
<br/>
So what is keeping us from organizing and cooperatively<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines, <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>dings, even <a href="land.htm">land</a>?<br/>
<br/>
I think <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the problem is a long-standing belief that<br/>
whoever possesses the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s to operate those <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines<br/>
should be the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
But doesn't the above argument show that efficiency<br/>
<small>(as in the lowest <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e)</small> comes when <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is in<br/>
the hands of those that consume the final output?<br/>
<br/>
Another <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the problem is in figuring out how those<br/>
re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es should be shared among the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
It is a <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult, sticky situation that most people would<br/>
rather just avoid altogether because of the forecasted<br/>
in-fighting they perceive would occur.<br/>
<br/>
It seems such a group could write some 'rules' about<br/>
how to schedule access, and how much each individual<br/>
must compensate the others for any extra wear or exclusion<br/>
they cause.<br/>
<br/>
I see such a contract, if '<a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ly' written, would be the only<br/>
thing our society needs to begin down the road of<br/>
peace and abundance.<br/>
<br/>
A single <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine can be shared among a finite number<br/>
of people. As the number of consumers attempting to<br/>
utilize the <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine increases, at some point it will be<br/>
impossible to fullfill those requests with a single <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine.<br/>
<br/>
If the collective <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers have the time-sharing of that<br/>
<a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine setup so that anyone wanting to <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> it are<br/>
bidding against each other, then more time slots will be filled.<br/>
<br/>
People that want to <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> close to '<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>', and are willing to lose some<br/>
sleep will <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> at 2am, while other people will be willing to "fight<br/>
it out" for a slot at 12 noon in a bid war.<br/>
<br/>
As the dueling bidders raise their <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e for that time<br/>
slot, they are *proving* that the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent number of <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines cannot<br/>
fill peak demand, and - since that "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" will be invested<br/>
for the winning bidder toward buying ANOTHER <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine, the 'system'<br/>
should be self-stablizing as those extra <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ments will be invested<br/>
toward another <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine until the number of <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines is sufficient to<br/>
cover the needs of that community.<br/>
<br/>
Furthermore, each sub-community that develops around each of those<br/>
<a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines can then secede from the whole if they decide to treat their<br/>
<a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine in a <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> manner <small>(say changing the oil more often)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
Cooperative consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is quite rare today, but there are a<br/>
few cases where a group of friends wanting a private airplane <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e a<br/>
"shared investment", and then <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> the plane from the collective<br/>
others whenever they want to <a href="use.htm">use</a> it. None of those people need the<br/>
ability to fly themselves, they can just hire a pilot and <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> that<br/>
wage as a <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> while still saving <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y by not <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Another example is shared <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of a vacation house. The<br/>
for-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> "Time Share" industry has grown around that desire, but I'm<br/>
referring to the less common case when a private group of people buy a<br/>
house that they share amongst themselves in whatever way they see fit.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-17-2009:</span> <span class="quot">"'<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> requires an imperfect market'"</span> posted to <a class="ext" href="http://Groups.Google.com/group/postscarcity/browse_thread/thread/b423dad382da81a5/0e7a37f5a59550f0">Groups.Google.com/group/postscarcity/browse_thread/thread/b423dad382da81a5/0e7a37f5a59550f0</a> <br/>
<br/>
<a href="part.htm">Part</a> of <a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition</a> reads:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'... it is impossible for a firm in perfect competition to earn<br/>
<a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> in the long run, which is to say that a firm cannot<br/>
<a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e any more <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y than is necessary to cover its <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
But, since normal, for-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> business measure success by the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a><br/>
they can keep <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, truly perfect competition brought<br/>
about by Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed enterprises would <a href="spell.htm">spell</a> certain disaster - for<br/>
all Capitalist would then close their doors proclaiming failure!<br/>
<br/>
A business must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it's inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s SOMETHING, otherwise, why would<br/>
they invest? So, if the inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are expecting <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, then they<br/>
require the business they invested in to be able to operate in an<br/>
imperfect market. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is a measure of this imperfection.<br/>
<br/>
But there is another thing that we could <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s if those<br/>
inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are in a certain set.<br/>
<br/>
If the inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are also CONSUMERS <small>(some could incidentally be<br/>
<a href="work.htm">work</a>ers too)</small> of the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t being <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed, then they would be<br/>
satisfied with receiving <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t alone, and would never need the<br/>
business to keep <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
When the inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion are the consumers of the output, the<br/>
organization can withstand perfect competition because those that<br/>
pre-paid will expect <a href="produc.htm">PRODUC</a>T instead of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
In contrast, if the all inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are all <a href="work.htm">WORK</a>ERS <small>(some could<br/>
incidentally be consumers too)</small>, and the market has perfect<br/>
competition, then the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers would be paid the same wages as any<br/>
<a href="work.htm">work</a>er that was not an <a href="own.htm">own</a>er, yet would have the risk of holding the<br/>
debt of that incorporation.<br/>
<br/>
If you say "Well, they would be consumers too, so would also be paid<br/>
in <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t" then you are describing why consumers should be the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers<br/>
of the Means Of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion and avoiding the issue of whether <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership<br/>
should be limited to those that happen to have the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s to operate<br/>
it.<br/>
<br/>
If you say "Well, the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers could <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> themselves a higher wage than<br/>
non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ing <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers" then you are talking about how <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> would be<br/>
'hidden' in those wages since <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers can arbitrarily <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e that<br/>
division. But in that case, the organization would be less efficient<br/>
than "consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed" - since, when many of the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are not<br/>
neccessarily <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers, then wages and <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> are cleanly and clearly<br/>
separated. If a <a href="work.htm">work</a>er tried to collect too high of a wage for the<br/>
quality of <a href="work.htm">work</a> he was supplying, then the collective <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers would put<br/>
that <a href="job.htm">job</a> up for reverse-bid <small>(just as <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ers do today)</small> until a<br/>
<a href="work.htm">work</a>er with a better quality-to-wage ratio was found.<br/>
<br/>
Sincerely,<br/>
Patrick<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-13-2009:</span> posted to <a class="ext" href="http://groups.google.com/group/postscarcity/browse_thread/thread/c4292128bc4e288a/9405002c0d450888">http://groups.google.com/group/postscarcity/browse_thread/thread/c4292128bc4e288a/9405002c0d450888</a><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Now, I personally am very confused by all this.</span><br/>
<br/>
I <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to be very confused about <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omics until I went <a href="back.htm">back</a> and<br/>
r<a href="econ.htm">econ</a>sidered our base assumption about the supposed 'need' to<br/>
perpetuate <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Since <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> *requires* scarcity, there is no possible way we can have<br/>
both <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> AND abundance. They are mutually exclusive.<br/>
<br/>
It may seem that any <a href="own.htm">own</a>er must keep <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> for it to be<br/>
'worth' the investment, but there is actually one case where the<br/>
inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a> can be paid in *<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t* instead - leaving us to find a <a href="new.htm">new</a><br/>
purpose and destination for that surplus value.<br/>
<br/>
Furthermore, this special <a href="mod.htm">Mod</a>e of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion I allude to also solves<br/>
the supposed 'need' to perpetuate <a href="work.htm">work</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Edward, are you willing to r<a href="econ.htm">econ</a>sider the treatment of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> for <a href="new.htm">new</a><br/>
businesses we create, or would you say there is no room for movement<br/>
there?<br/>
<br/>
Sincerely,<br/>
Patrick<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-11-2009:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://Gutenberg.org/etext/16106">Gutenberg.org/etext/16106</a> <span class="quot2">>>What Is <a href="free.htm">Free</a> <a href="trad.htm">Trad</a>e? by Frederic Bastiat</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-11-2009:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://Kvond.WordPress.com/2008/05/22/tools-of-labor-what-it-means-to-produce">Kvond.WordPress.com/2008/05/22/tools-of-labor-what-it-means-to-produce</a> <span class="quot2">>><a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>ing <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>ers: Interlocking of Oppression Interlocking Divisions of Labor and What it Means to <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>e: <a href="note.htm">Note</a>s on Patricia Collins' "Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought"</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-09-2009:</span> The Labor Theory of Value<small>(LTV)</small> disincents automation<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-09-2009:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://Praxeology.net/FB-PJP-DOI.htm">Praxeology.net/FB-PJP-DOI.htm</a> <span class="quot2">>>The Bastiat-Proudhon Debate on Interest <small>(1849-1850)</small> Translations by Benjamin R. Tucker, Roderick T. Long, and Anonymous</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-04-2009:</span> E<a href="mail.htm">mail</a> to P2PResearch and Matt Cooperrider<br/>
Matt,<br/>
<br/>
Since communities are dynamic* across time, <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ing members remain<br/>
the "actual and only <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers" of the Material Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion needs<br/>
a non-<a href="stat.htm">stat</a>ic solution.<br/>
<br/>
This temporal complexity requires we consider factors that are<br/>
<a href="trad.htm">trad</a>itionally outside the scope of limitations for simple <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ership. While regular <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership can be a stepping-stone<br/>
toward such an organization, there is also a 'bad' side to <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership<br/>
that we must guard against lest we arrive in the typical centralized<br/>
configuration...<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
I have <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>ntified the primary factor in need of adjustment, and cr<a href="edit.htm">edit</a><br/>
most of that 'generalizing' the concepts of <a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom as outlined<br/>
by Ric<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> <a href="stallman.htm">Stallman</a>, and specifically the requirement that <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ect<br/>
<a href="user.htm">User</a>s <small>(<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t Consumers)</small> gain "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" access to the <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es<br/>
<small>(Material Means)</small> of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t even when they do NOT <a href="know.htm">know</a> how to<br/>
'operate' those <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
Observe that '<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>' <small>(literally "Consumer <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e" - "<a href="own.htm">Own</a>er <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s")</small><br/>
arises only when the Consumer does not yet have enough <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership. For<br/>
example: when you <a href="own.htm">own</a> an apple tree, you might <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers to tend it,<br/>
but those wages are but a <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> that any <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>. But every<br/>
<a href="own.htm">Own</a>er is able to 'escape' the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> - for who would they<br/>
<a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to?<br/>
<br/>
So, when a <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er/Member sells something to someone else that<br/>
has insufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, that <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er has the 'opportunity' to charge<br/>
a <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(to <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small>. <small>[<small>[remember, Wages are not <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>,<br/>
Wages are a <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion]</small>]</small>.<br/>
<br/>
But if such a community allows <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> to be treated as a 'reward' for<br/>
that <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>er <small>(as Capitalism does)</small>, then that <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>er will<br/>
aquire even *more* <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty as he invests that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> into more<br/>
Material Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion, while the Consumer who made that<br/>
overpayment will be <a href="left.htm">left</a> with nothing but the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t he overpaid for.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> can be thought of as a "plea for growth" from the Consumer who<br/>
paid it. It is the Consumer's dependence upon the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
He is saying "look, I'll <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> you more than it <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s<br/>
include wages)</small> to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e this beer because I don't <a href="own.htm">own</a> the equipment,<br/>
and am not organized enough to hire those with the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s - otherwise<br/>
I could get it "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>"".<br/>
<br/>
I'm not saying we shouldn't charge <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> <small>(for to do so would stop<br/>
growth altogether)</small>, but only that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> should be understood as a<br/>
measure of consumer dependence that needs to be 'balanced' if we are<br/>
to remain "Member Managed" - for otherwise only the originators will<br/>
<a href="own.htm">Own</a> <small>(and therefore manage)</small>, while the latecomers will be a dependent<br/>
group that can only beg for recognition.<br/>
<br/>
In conclusion: While <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership appears to be a direct<br/>
solution to "Member Managed" problem, it is incomplete unless "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e<br/>
above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> is treated as an investment from the Consumer who<br/>
paid it.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
----<br/>
<small>(*)</small> Some of the dynamism we must consider:<br/>
1.)</small> The total number of members grows and shrinks as members join or leave.<br/>
<br/>
2.)</small> Members desire <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> *types* of "goods and services" which may<br/>
require the purchase of <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> <small>(more)</small> Material Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
3.)</small> Members desire <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> quantities of "goods and services" which<br/>
requires their <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership rise and fall to match their consumption.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-02-2009:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://Groups.Google.com/group/post-scarcity-agalmics-journal-launch">Groups.Google.com/group/post-scarcity-agalmics-journal-launch</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-02-2009:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://RVerzola.Files.WordPress.com/2008/11/studying-abundance-1.pdf">RVerzola.Files.WordPress.com/2008/11/studying-abundance-1.pdf</a><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-02-2009:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://Bandillero.com/peerweb">Bandillero.com/peerweb</a> <span class="quot2">>>Social <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion of Social <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion</span><br/>
</p>
<p class='footer'>
Page generated from <a href=".text/diary-feb-2009">diary-feb-2009</a> by <a href=".code/etym.el">etym</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>