-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
diary-jun-2008.htm
796 lines (793 loc) · 102 KB
/
diary-jun-2008.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
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
<?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-jun-2008 </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">Jun-30-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://Oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04644.html">Oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04644.html</a><br/>
Stefan,<br/>
<br/>
I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> the <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y we <a href="use.htm">use</a> right now is terrible.<br/>
<br/>
The debt-based, fiat <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>encies that almost every nation <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>s from the international <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>ers <small>(such as the US Federal Reserve <a href="note.htm">Note</a>)</small> have massive problems, but does that <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly mean all forms of <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y we could ever devise are certain to be bad?<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="mone.htm">Mone</a>y is a structural force <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to force your will onto others.</span><br/>
<br/>
Within the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent situation we find ourselves, I see <a href="part.htm">part</a> of what you mean here, but could a <a href="new.htm">new</a> kind of <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y ever be created that remained 'fair' and allowed peers to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> each other to perform specialized tasks?<br/>
<br/>
Similarly, are you saying that P2P must not include barter?<br/>
<br/>
Must a P2P society not allow specialization? Must we each do all <a href="work.htm">work</a> of every type for ourselves? If so, then what is the point of getting together in the first place?<br/>
<br/>
I'm not saying that is what you claim, I am just trying to understand what you mean.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> * Scarcity vs. ampleness</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="mone.htm">Mone</a>y is based on scarcity. In fact in a way it encodes scarcity as</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> a societal concept to a so-called <a href="real.htm">real</a> abstraction. In fact <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> which is not scarce in some way simply <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es no sense. If I am</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> allowed to create arbitrary a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a>s of <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y at every time why</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> should I require the <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y of others at all?</span><br/>
<br/>
That is <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently true for the international <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>ers who issue <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency whenever they please, but that problem could be fixed when designing a <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency by <a href="back.htm">back</a>ing it <small>(issuing it against)</small> something <a href="real.htm">real</a> such as Capital or Labor.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> * Force needed to keep vs. <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>t-in sustainability</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> I said that <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y encodes scarcity as a general principle of</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> society. However, <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y being an abstraction is not scarce by itself</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> - everybody can print more dollars. Thus scarcity must be enforced</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> by some external means. Typically this is done by the <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e. In</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> effect each <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y system needs a forceful super-structure to keep it</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> running.</span><br/>
<br/>
That appears to be true as we examine the system we <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently struggle within, but I have some <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>as <small>(and I <a href="know.htm">know</a> others do)</small> about how to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e a <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency meaningful between peers without relying upon an enforcing <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> * Abstract vs. concrete</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> One of the central features of <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y is that it is abstract. <a href="mone.htm">Mone</a>y</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> is not related to any concrete thing - which you easily understand</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> when you look at the global flow of <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y compared to the global</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> flow of goods.</span><br/>
<br/>
That is <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently true of the debt-based fiat <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>encies, but again, could design a <a href="new.htm">new</a> type of <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y without such a problem?<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="mone.htm">Mone</a>y based <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is based on a orientation on exchange value:</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> You <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e because you want to exchange your <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t for <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y. The</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t itself does not matter to you and it is totally sufficient</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> to <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e relative quality and relative <a href="use.htm">use</a>.</span><br/>
<br/>
That is true for the exchange of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, but what about the exchange of LABOR? In other words, is specialization an important <a href="part.htm">part</a> of Peer <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion, and will it be ok to compensate each other for <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>ing <a href="job.htm">job</a>s <small>(you bake bread while I thresh the wheat)</small>? Or must we each <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>e a solitary existence with no exchange whatsoever? I'm not saying that is your claim, I am asking if it is.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> In peer <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion projects on the other hand the very reason of a</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> project is <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ing <a href="use.htm">use</a> value. Why should a peer <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion exist</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> at all otherwise?</span><br/>
<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>ing for <a href="use.htm">use</a> value is, in my opinion, the primary driving force behind Peer <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion. I think independent <a href="free.htm">Free</a> Software developers are <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing because they are the initial CONSUMER of what they <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e, NOT because they wish to donate their time and effort to others.<br/>
<br/>
They are applying their <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s to scratch their <a href="own.htm">own</a> itch. Allowing others to copy that solution is a minor factor, and is also somewhat selfish <small>(in a good way)</small> in that it is probably mostly to gain some friends and fame.<br/>
<br/>
Sincerely,<br/>
Patrick<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-26-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://Blog.P2PFoundation.net/a-reply-to-ideas-about-the-loss-of-credibilty-and-viability-of-the-movement/2008/06/25">Blog.P2PFoundation.net/a-reply-to-ideas-about-the-loss-of-credibilty-and-viability-of-the-movement/2008/06/25</a><br/>
Two open-ended questions to all peers:<br/>
<br/>
Does the notion of <i><span class="itlc">give them ready and <a href="free.htm">free</a>, unfettered <a href="spac.htm">spac</a>e, time, tools, infrastructure</span></i> mean those things must be available at absolutely <b><span class="bold">ZERO</span></b> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, or will it be ok <small>(as far as <i><span class="itlc">sustaining</span></i> the 'movement')</small> to charge enough for <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <a href="recover.htm">recover</a>y?<br/>
<br/>
Raoul Victor at <a class="ext" href="http://Oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04638.html">http://Oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04638.html</a> says <i><span class="itlc">"Open raw material", "universal availability", "no exchange", "commons and possession, not <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty" require <a href="free.htm">free</a>/gratis access to material means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion and consumption. "Voluntary <a href="free.htm">free</a> aggregation" and "<a href="free.htm">free</a> cooperation" require <small>(if universalized)</small> <a href="free.htm">free</a>/gratis access to material means of consumption.</span></i><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
If it is ok to charge '<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>', then is it also ok <small>(as far as <i><span class="itlc">growing</span></i> the 'movement')</small> to charge <b><span class="bold">more</span></b> than <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> during times of true rivalry? Or in other words, does <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> have a meaningful place in P2P? If so, what is the purpose <small>(goal, destination)</small> of charging <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>? Who should receive that surplus, or how should it be distributed?<br/>
<br/>
Franz Nahrada at <a class="ext" href="http://Oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04615.html">http://Oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04615.html</a> says <i><span class="itlc">Do you think the world is truly better if <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e equals <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>? I just can say for the moment: I dont.</span></i><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-25-2008:</span> Watching <a class="ext" href="http://DavidHarvey.org">DavidHarvey.org</a> <span class="quot2">>>A close reading of the text of Marx’s Capital, Volume I.</span><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://DavidHarvey.org/media/Capital_Class_01.mov">DavidHarvey.org/media/Capital_Class_01.mov</a> <span class="quot2">>>Introduction</span><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://DavidHarvey.org/media/Capital_Class_02.mov">DavidHarvey.org/media/Capital_Class_02.mov</a> <span class="quot2">>>Chapters 1 & 2</span><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://DavidHarvey.org/media/Capital_Class_03.mov">DavidHarvey.org/media/Capital_Class_03.mov</a> <span class="quot2">>>Chapter 3</span><br/>
More to follow.<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-21-2008:</span> Fresh Farm <a href="new.htm">New</a>s issue 5<br/>
Merry Midsummer. Today is shorter than yesterday.<br/>
<br/>
For the Litha ritual chant to our SUN: "Osiris, Adonis, Cernunnos, Pan, Dionysis, Shiva, Demmuzi".<br/>
<br/>
It is not too late. Many seeds should not be planted until now.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
I watched the following video a few years ago when I was especially interested in using mycoremediation <small>(using mushrooms and other fungus for symbiotic solutions)</small>. My study was for nut trees which I have read will do poorly and <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ly <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e without their associated mycorrhizoial <a href="part.htm">part</a>ner.<br/>
<br/>
This video and <a href="art.htm">art</a>icle shows the importance of using enormous a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a>s of rough mulch <small>(grass clippings, bark, leaves, twigs, etc.)</small> to retain water, and the surprising value of mushrooms in solving the high-saline trouble they faced.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'<a href="use.htm">Use</a> of permaculture under salinity and drought conditions'"</span><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://YouTube.com/watch?v=sohI6vnWZmk">http://YouTube.com/watch?v=sohI6vnWZmk</a><br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://PermaCulture.org.au/?p=258">http://PermaCulture.org.au/?p=258</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-11-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A981&page=3&commentId=2097821%3AComment%3A1323&x=1#2097821Comment1323">www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A981&page=3&commentId=2097821%3AComment%3A1323&x=1#2097821Comment1323</a><br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">"all the folks in my community co-equally <a href="own.htm">own</a> my yarn and knitting needles," and all co-equally share in any gain I get from my hats.</span></i><br/>
<br/>
This is definitely not what I am talking about.<br/>
<br/>
I am talking about UNequal or 'weighted' <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ership accomplished through regular <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty rights in groups of minimum size. There is no communism, it is just standard, private <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty shared among small groups willing to invest for those <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts. The only <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence is the contract that those <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers have chosen to apply to that <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty. Applying the contract is a choice in just the same way that the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="general public license.htm">General Public License</a> is a choice made by the copyright holders. There is no coercion, and there is no communistic <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e.<br/>
<br/>
Investing consumers that are <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>ed in that area can invest with <a href="work.htm">work</a>, while those un<a href="skill.htm">skill</a>ed in that <a href="part.htm">part</a>icular area will invest with <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y that they received <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing in the <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>e they are <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>ed in. This a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a>s to <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>ing labor while avoiding the exploitation of external <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
In other words, what I <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ose is that groups of people buy some Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion <small>(say the tools to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e hats)</small> in the normal way, right inside of Capitalism. There is no magic or wishful thinking. It is straight, regular <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
Then, when that group has purchased those tools, hopefully a few of them have the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s to operate them, but not everyone is <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>ed at <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing hats right? Even if nobody in that group happens to have those <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s, it is beneficial for the consumers AND for the <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>ed <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers for the consumers to be the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers <small>(as compared to a random group being the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers)</small>, since the consumers had usually been <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing a <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e that included both wages AND <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, whereas now they will only be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing wages <small>(and all the other <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s that they always <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ectives or output of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion are certainly not "communally <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed" either. This is all just regular <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership with a single rule enforced by the contract that they CHOOSE to apply:<br/>
<br/>
|All <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> gained against a consumer must be treated as an investment from the person who paid it, whether that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment was with <a href="work.htm">work</a> or with <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y.|<br/>
<br/>
Since the only reward you can receive for investing in such a for-<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t corporation is aquiring <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t for your <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="use.htm">use</a>, only consumers will ever invest. I'm not trying to exclude non-consuming <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers from <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing. They can invest if they like, but why would they?<br/>
<br/>
There are a few <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> cases to consider in determining who <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, and I don't think I have this completely understood.<br/>
<br/>
Maybe this is <a href="part.htm">part</a> of why Sepp says it is "hugely complicated and rather inefficient". But I think it is only because there is more <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom, and that <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom allows more choices. In a way it is more complex in potential, but each group can always disregard or even disallow any cases they feel are too strange, or that cause them too much management headache.<br/>
<br/>
<small>(We need better <a href="title.htm">title</a>s or classifications for these)</small><br/>
<br/>
1. For <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es where the "inputs to be <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>ified" are not clearly defined: Let's say a large almond tree is <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by 3 people with personA <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing 70%, personB <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing 20%, and personC <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing 10% <small>(that <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership would be based on the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> they invested because of the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> they intend to consume)</small>. The <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of sustaining that tree and harvesting the almonds are split among those <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers in the same <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ortion to their <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership. PersonA <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s 70%, PersonB <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s 20% and PersonC <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s 10%. They each also receive as much <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t as they they have <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership - 70%, 20%, and 10%. There is no forced co-equal redistribution with some larger community. It is <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly quite intimate and private.<br/>
<br/>
2. For <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es where the "inputs to be <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>ified" are clear:<br/>
<br/>
2a. When the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is wanted repeatedly in fairly predictable a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a>s: Let's say 1000 people have invested in the <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding and tools for a restaurant. Since food is something you want every day, and in about the same quantity, it would probably be most efficient <small>(easiest)</small> for those <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers to hire one or more full-time cooks for 'regular' timeslots. This would look mostly the same as a regular restaurant except the consumers would be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing a lower <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e, so could easily <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the cook a higher wage. For 'irregular' timeslots <small>(say 1am-5am)</small>, when few customers want to eat, each customer could <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> the grill from the collective others <small>(the other 999 <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers)</small> as described in 2b below.<br/>
<br/>
2b. When the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is wanted rarely or in unpredictable a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a>s: Let's say 100 people have invested in the tools to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e hats. Since a <a href="new.htm">new</a> hat is something you need only occasionally or suddenly, it would probably <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e sense for the collective others <small>(the other 99 <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers)</small> to charge <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> to anyone wanting to <a href="use.htm">use</a> those tools. The <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> would cover extra wear they inflict.<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">That said, <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the problem in this debate may stem from the fact that 'we' post-<a href="mod.htm">mod</a> Westerns have not been <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing in a paradigm where things are <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed locally from discrete <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es; it may be <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult for Swadeshi to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e sense in a world where the polyesther was made in Candada, spun into fibre in China, marketed and distributed from <a href="new.htm">New</a> York, and sold to me by my local Wal-Mart in Clovis, <a href="new.htm">New</a> Mexico.</span></i><br/>
<br/>
Yes, this is a big problem. What I <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ose attempts to address this by incrementally purchasing the *<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es* of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion whenever a consumer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> so that we slowly gain control of the entire chain of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion in a local setting.<br/>
<br/>
For instance, when a consumer with insufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership buys a hamburger <small>(a consumer with sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership would not buy the hamburger, as he would already have <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the case of frozen burgers he had previously purchased, and other condiments, and gas to run the grill, etc.)</small> - so when a consumer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small>, the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> he paid would be treated as HIS investment in more <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of that type: beef cattle; seeds to plant mustard, lettuce, tomatoes, wheat <small>(for the bun)</small>, sesame plants; chickens for the mayonaise; and the <a href="land.htm">land</a> and water rights needed to 'host' those plants and animals.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-09-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://Oekonux.org/list-en">Oekonux.org/list-en</a><br/>
Michel,<br/>
<br/>
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> - you write: " it becomes more and more clear that the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are in control</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> even if the <a href="virt.htm">virt</a>ual <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es being <a href="use.htm">use</a>d are <a href="free.htm">free</a>."</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> MB: Take the case of <a href="free.htm">free</a> software: can you <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly say, with the universal</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> availability <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ed by the <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a> itself, and the relative control on the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive process by the <a href="free.htm">free</a> software developers, that the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware carrying that software are in control. Surely we have a complex</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> equilibrium here.</span><br/>
<br/>
Maybe I should have said "the <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are in control of that INSTANCE even if the <a href="virt.htm">virt</a>ual <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es being <a href="use.htm">use</a>d are <a href="free.htm">free</a>." The <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware for each instance of that software are in control of that <a href="part.htm">part</a>icular copy.<br/>
<br/>
Consider Software as a Service <small>(SaaS)</small>. Google or My<a href="spac.htm">Spac</a>e or Flickr <small>(there are probably better examples)</small> are in control because they <a href="own.htm">own</a> the <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware hosting that software. I understand much of that software may not be <a href="free.htm">Free</a>, but even if it is/were, the only way for the consumers to "get around" them is to organize and buy more <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware to host yet another instance. That is too <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>icult and expensive for a single consumer, and <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ly <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es sense considering the 'sociality'<br/>
<br/>
By the way, even if SaaS software is under the <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a>, the <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers do not have to allow "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" access to the <a href="virt.htm">virt</a>ual <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es because they are not actually 'distributing' the software. That is what the <a href="agpl.htm">AGPL</a> attempts to solve because those <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are stopping others from organizing to run their <a href="own.htm">own</a> instance.<br/>
<br/>
For example, while all copies of the WikiMedia software are <a href="free.htm">Free</a>, the INSTANCE running at <a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org">http://Wikipedia.org</a> is controlled by the people that <a href="own.htm">own</a> that <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware. So when you <a href="edit.htm">edit</a> Wikipedia, you are at the mercy of those <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing the <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware that host that instance.<br/>
<br/>
This is also trivially true for unshared hosting. The copy of Firefox running on my <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware, here at my house, is controlled by me, the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of the <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> - you write: "The kernel of my <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a is to write a contract that causes any</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e paid above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(what would usually be called <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> to become an</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> investment in more physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es"</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> MB: why would an existing <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of physical means do that, who could</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> 'oblige' him/her to do this? So, is it correct to assume that such a system</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> would only <a href="work.htm">work</a> for <a href="new.htm">new</a> initiatives, iniated by <a href="user.htm">user</a>s themselves</span><br/>
<br/>
This will mostly only <a href="work.htm">work</a> by <a href="start.htm">start</a>ing <a href="new.htm">new</a> organizations <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ed by consumers who "pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>" for the <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ectives of that organization.<br/>
<br/>
But notice this is not too <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> from how most <a href="free.htm">Free</a> Software is <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ed. Most <a href="free.htm">Free</a> Software developers 'invest' their <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s and labor because they are "scratching their <a href="own.htm">own</a> itch" - they are consumers that can "pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>" with <a href="work.htm">work</a> because they are also <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ers. They are prod<a href="user.htm">user</a>s, prosumers, conducers.<br/>
<br/>
I don't think this is so undoable for Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es. Would you "pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>" $100 to be a voting shareholder in a for-<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t cell-phone system that is guaranteed to be lower in <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e, with that <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e continuing to fall over time?<br/>
<br/>
If we can sell 1 million such accounts, we will have $100million in <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ing to begin a phone system that is <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed and controlled by the consumers that utilize it. Wouldn't it be nice to have "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" communication? Would you, personally, pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for that?<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> - you write: "The contract would then be <a href="use.htm">use</a>d by any group of consumers that</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> buy physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es for the purpose of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t instead of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>."</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> MB: presently in <a href="free.htm">free</a> software, the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s are potentially limitless, because</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> of the obligation of <a href="free.htm">free</a> availability; would that <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership be also</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> limitless. If that is the case, beyond <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, how do you manage the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> process? Who is deciding for the others the many details of a <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> process?</span><br/>
<br/>
If the consumers can't or don't want to manage it themselves <small>(and I assume this will be common, especially as the organization grows)</small>, then they will hire others to do it for them. I <a href="know.htm">know</a> this causes concern, and sounds like the system will be exploiting those <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers, but it won't because those same <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers are also consumers of their <a href="own.htm">own</a> needs, and will be gaining <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of THOSE <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts. All <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers are consumers, and except for dependents, all consumers are <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers. I'm trying to <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> the <a href="work.htm">work</a>er, but from the consuming side instead of from the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion side.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> And here I come to my more <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>amental 'spiritual' <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ection to your scheme.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> The voluntary self-aggregation of human energy and effort is one of the <a href="key.htm">key</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> characteristics of peer <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, as is the naturally flowing</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="part.htm">part</a>icipatory nature of the actual process of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. This is a great</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> social achievement, that it is the developers themselves, the actual</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> "do-ers" who are autonomous; mere <a href="user.htm">user</a>s can join to the degree they become</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive <a href="part.htm">part</a>icipants themselves, it is already an open process in that</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> sense.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> My concern is the following: if the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s, instead of the actual</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="part.htm">part</a>icipants, become the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, do they then also become the 'masters' of</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> the process, and have we then not replaced one tyranny by an other?</span><br/>
<br/>
But why would anyone <a href="part.htm">part</a>icipate unless they were a consumer of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t? If it is for the wage they will be paid, then are you saying we should not have specialization? Wage <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers will need to be <a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ed by having <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e of what they consume. We can <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> them from exploitation by <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ing they can consume their needs "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>".<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Every other argument of yours thereby becomes a technical detail, if I find</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> that core argument <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ectionable.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Therefore, my sense is that for physical <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, it becomes a matter at</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> best of multiple stakeholders; and at the most, an <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>al scheme would</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> associate both the actual <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ers/<a href="work.htm">work</a>ers, and the actual consumers/<a href="user.htm">user</a>s,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> in the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.</span><br/>
<br/>
I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> in that many <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers would also be consumers, and that is why they would be <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing - it would be their investment. In the case of consumers that don't happen to have those exact <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>s, the investment would be accomplished by <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>ing labor, or in other words, by <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers a wage with <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y the consumer had earned doing that which he is more <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>ed in.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Below is a concrete <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>osition going in that sense.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> However, it suffers from the same utopian problem, as it requires one</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> project to <a href="start.htm">start</a>, and to slowly evolve.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> So, here is another argument. As I see things, actual <a href="free.htm">free</a> software/peer</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is hyper<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive and outcompetes private intellectual <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> as a format, which is why it is growing so strong. But in physical</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, I have not yet seen such a format which outcompetes a</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>itional market player.</span><br/>
<br/>
I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a>, I have not found anyone interested in the "<a href="user.htm">user</a> <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom" <small>(Ric<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> <a href="stallman.htm">Stallman</a>'s term)</small> in the physical <a href="real.htm">real</a>m.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> However, if the social awareness of the <a href="free.htm">free</a> software communities changes</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <small>(or 'rises' you may say)</small>,then perhaps they will slowly develop preferences</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> for those <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>es of physical <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, that are more equitable, and <a href="start.htm">start</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> choosing to gear their development efforts towards those more equitable</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="user.htm">user</a>s/<a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of physical means.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> This then, would give an evolutionary incitement for more <a href="part.htm">part</a>icipatory</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> forms of business <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, which would compplement the natural evolution</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> of peer <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion in the physical sphere.</span><br/>
<br/>
I'm not quite understanding you here. How does "social awareness" rise? What do you mean by "evolutionary incitement"?<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Here is the reference I wanted to mention above:</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Pour un communisme <a href="lib.htm">lib</a>éral par Dominique Pelbois / Dominique Pelbois <small>(12</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> avril 1947 - 16 août 2003)</small>, a fait aboutir en 1999 sous la forme</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> universitaire d'une thèse de Doctorat <small>(sous la direction d'Alain Gouhier</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> puis, par intérim, d'Etienne Balibar)</small> un travail de recherche mené à titre</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> personnel en pensée économique et politique qu'il avait commencé bien des</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> années auparavant, en 1975, hors de tout <a href="cad.htm">cad</a>re universitaire, et auquel il</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> n'a envisagé que très tard de donner une forme académique....</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a class="ext" href="http://www.eleves.ens.fr/home/pelbois/Pelbois/communismeliberal.html">http://www.eleves.ens.fr/home/pelbois/Pelbois/communismeliberal.html</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<br/>
I'd like to read this, and have repeatedly tried <small>(you've sent me this link, or the link to the <a href="pdf.htm">pdf</a> a few other times)</small>, but have never been able to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e it <a href="work.htm">work</a>. This time the links are all dead. Do you have a copy on you <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine that you could send to me as an attachment?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-09-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://Oekonux.org/list-en">Oekonux.org/list-en</a><br/>
<br/>
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Samuel Rose wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> <small>[Converted from multi<a href="part.htm">part</a>/alternative]</small></span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <small>[1 text/plain]</small></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Patrick,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> I could just as easily dismiss everything you talk about as "Puer <a href="econ.htm">Econ</a>omic</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="mod.htm">Mod</a>els".</span><br/>
<br/>
Sam,<br/>
<br/>
I should have been more careful and complete with my labeling.<br/>
<br/>
I <a href="know.htm">know</a> VIA Technologies and Marcin are both accomplishing more than design.<br/>
<br/>
The *Pure Design* label was showing that only the designs <small>(<a href="virt.htm">Virt</a>ual <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es)</small> are being made 'Open' or '<a href="free.htm">Free</a><small>(dom)</small>', whereas I want to talk about the strange case of <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es of those things 'Open' or '<a href="free.htm">Free</a><small>(dom)</small>'.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I don't think that you have hit on some kind of seminal, irreducible "core"</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> of human systems problem solving with your <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>osed <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>as.</span><br/>
<br/>
This isn't an ego trip for me. I'm only reporting what I observe.<br/>
<br/>
I am severely concerned about the welfare of our planet and the unnecessary starvation-levels in food <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion caused by treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as a reward - which has caused agribusiness to drive the US government to <a href="pass.htm">pass</a> legislation that has brought us toward the brink of disaster all in the name of keeping <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="econ.htm">Econ</a>omic <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>as are only <a href="use.htm">use</a>ful if people will <a href="use.htm">use</a> them.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, and many people are surprised that software developers are willing to invest <small>(mostly labor)</small> into <a href="free.htm">Free</a> Software for which they only receive <a href="use.htm">use</a>-value. Those developers are investing <small>(doing that <a href="work.htm">work</a>)</small> because they are also consumers of that software wanting more control and a lower <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I think your concepts are sound, as I've said before. But, I'd challenge you</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> to find even 10 people who are willing to adopt what you suggest in</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> practice. Who are willing to *invest* in your <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a, by adopting and</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ing it.</span><br/>
<br/>
I think almost any consumer would want to invest toward getting a better <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t at a lower <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e. The problem is a matter of organization, and I'm no businessman.<br/>
<br/>
We should go after high-need + high-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> businesses first. Organic food <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is number one on my list.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I think in time, maybe 3 years, maybe 5 years, maybe more, that more people</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> will emerge who's thinking is aligned with yours. But, at this time, it's</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> too radically <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> from the way that most people are solving their</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> problems of existence.</span><br/>
<br/>
Are you saying I should just be quiet and wait?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> This is why I concentrate on ways of solving problems of existence that</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> don't demand or insist that everyone must stop solving problems in <a href="part.htm">part</a> by</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ing capitalistic systems. because, everyone won't. I want to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> systems that can *interface* with existing systems, and even <a href="employ.htm">employ</a> them. I</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> don't accept that just because you have found a better <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el that</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> it is unethical and immoral, or irrelevant that I do not immediately adopt</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> it.</span><br/>
<br/>
I do not care about ethics or morals since they are arbitrarily defined.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> For instance, an even better <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el than the one that you are</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>osing would be for me, and everyone else to just give everything to each</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> other for <a href="free.htm">free</a>, and completely trust that every person would supply every</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> other person with something. This is even more theoretically efficient than</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="user.htm">User</a><a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed. Not only is there no "<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>", there is NO <a href="pric.htm">PRIC</a>E AT</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> ALL! In my <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el, not just "<a href="user.htm">user</a>s" or consumers <a href="own.htm">own</a> the means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> EVERYONE <a href="own.htm">own</a>s them! So, I don't understand why you don't adopt my</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> "everything is <a href="free.htm">free</a>" <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el over "<a href="user own.htm">User Own</a>er"? My <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el is obviously the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> most ethical, moral choice that there could ever be in an <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> period.</span><br/>
<br/>
I just look at it as transactions between processes vying for <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware. I'm assuming everyone <small>(every process)</small> will try to "get away with" as much as they can.<br/>
<br/>
If everyone would just "do the right thing", we wouldn't already be in this mess.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> But seriously, I believe that to have the highest likelihood for success in</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> actually seeing change, that the conditions for helping change happen must</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> emerge first.</span><br/>
<br/>
Should I just wait silently?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> It is my belief that everything that you are dismissing as "*pure design*"</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> is in fact helping to create the conditions of change that people who are</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> *locked* into <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent paradigms need. It's clear to me, at least, that a</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> huge swath of people are not anywhere near giving up their <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent solutions</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <small>(ie exchanging <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y for goods)</small>.</span><br/>
<br/>
I don't want to stop using <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency, though we do need to wean ourselves off of the terrible Federal Reserve <a href="note.htm">Note</a> that we purchase and then <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> from private, off-shore <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I think a possible pathway is for people to</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> find ways to eliminate the need to depend on the entities that help bolster</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> and support <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.</span><br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is extremely dangerous because it incents <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificial scarcity, destruction, and finally war.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Then, when these people have some breathing</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> room, and some of the long standing <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic pressure is removed, they can</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="start.htm">start</a> <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d the cultural infrastructure, and personal literacies that WILL</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> be needed for a solution like the one that you <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ose.</span><br/>
<br/>
It's <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly only a matter of <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing sure your inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are consumers. You can then <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> them in <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t instead of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> You'd be surprised at how many people don't <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly <a href="know.htm">know</a> how to <a href="collab.htm">collab</a>orate,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> how to be involved in civic ways, how to <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d and sustain good</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> relationships, all of which would be needed for people to succeed in the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>el you describe.</span><br/>
<br/>
I don't see why. I'm not saying the consumers would be required to do that specific <a href="work.htm">work</a>. We need division of labor for an efficient society, and I assume the consumer would often be retreiving the income to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> those <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers by doing his <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="work.htm">work</a> in some other field. A consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed business could operate quite the same internally.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> We are getting closer, though. The paradigm of a "commons", and the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> accompanying emerging ways that people are learning to co-manage them is</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> leading towards groups of people who will be able to sustain "<a href="user own.htm">user own</a>ed"</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> systems.</span><br/>
<br/>
Why or in what way would a manager need to respond <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>ly to for-<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t shareholders than he would to for-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> shareholders?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-08-2008:</span> Fresh Farm <a href="new.htm">New</a>s issue 4<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'The U.S. Has No Remaining Grain Reserves'"</span> <a class="ext" href="http://www.tristateobserver.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=10121">http://www.tristateobserver.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=10121</a> and <a class="ext" href="http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/wid2a.pdf">http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/wid2a.pdf</a><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'Governor Schwarzenegger Proclaims Drought and Orders Immediate Action to Address Situation'"</span> <a class="ext" href="http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/9796/">http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/9796/</a><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'Rock dust grows extra-big vegetables'"</span> <a class="ext" href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/rock-dust-grows-extrabig-vegetables-and-might-save-us-from-global-warming-529332.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/rock-dust-grows-extrabig-vegetables-and-might-save-us-from-global-warming-529332.html</a><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'The urban farmer: One man's crusade to plough up the inner city'"</span> <a class="ext" href="http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/features/the-urban-farmer-one-mans-crusade-to-plough-up-the-inner-city-836358.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/features/the-urban-farmer-one-mans-crusade-to-plough-up-the-inner-city-836358.html</a><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'Refrigeration without electricity'"</span> <a class="ext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icy_Ball">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icy_Ball</a><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">"'Farm Fresh <a href="ide.htm">Ide</a>as - for sustainable, regenerative, and transformative development - through open <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e <a href="collab.htm">collab</a>oration.'"</span> <a class="ext" href="http://OpenFarmTech.org/weblog/?p=242">http://OpenFarmTech.org/weblog/?p=242</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">:</span>.:.:.<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-08-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://www.oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04600.html">http://www.oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04600.html</a><br/>
Michel,<br/>
<br/>
I didn't find any references to Graham's <a href="work.htm">work</a> here.<br/>
<br/>
I've gone through each post and <a href="note.htm">note</a>d the deficiencies in each.<br/>
<br/>
"How Open is VIA’s OpenBook Design?"<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span>Pure Design*<br/>
<br/>
"What are the specific challenges for open <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware?"<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span>Pure Design*<br/>
<br/>
"Kevin Carson on peer <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion as a crisis of capitalism"<br/>
Kevin is <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing on sharing physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es among DEVELOPERS, not among CONSUMERS, so has an end-goal of ensuring <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> even though <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> can be safely eliminated when physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es are <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ed by the consumers.<br/>
<br/>
"<a href="buil.htm">Buil</a>ding a post-scarcity society in a patent-and-copyright-encumbered intellectual climate"<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span>Pure Design*<br/>
<br/>
"Peernet: Constructing the Open Mesh"<br/>
At least Sepp is talking about physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es here, but it sounds like all of it will be individually <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed. There is no sharing as far as I can tell.<br/>
<br/>
"Marcin Jakubowski comments on Stan Rhodes’ Peer Trust <a href="net.htm">Net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a> <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>osal"<br/>
This is as close as we get. Stan is <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing on the <a href="real.htm">real</a> issue: sharing physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
His approach is <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> from mine, and it sounds like he has decided sharing physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es will require more technology?!<br/>
<br/>
"Such a <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive infrastructure may consist of digital and flexible <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion Fab Labs fueled by open design. This way, an entire, robust <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy may be created to provide the wealth generation required by prospective entrants into a <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty trust. I believe simply that without such robust, low-<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, replicable <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion capacity, it is too expensive or complicated to generate a <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy necessary for inviting people into a commons."<br/>
<br/>
My approach can happen right now with the most ancient of technologies.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
"Marcin Jakubowski: an appeal for global <a href="collab.htm">collab</a>oration on open <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t development."<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span>Pure Design*<br/>
<br/>
"Steve Bosserman on <a href="econ.htm">Econ</a>omic Sustainability in a world of Open Design"<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span>Pure Design*<br/>
<br/>
"Marcin Jakubowski: A call for open engineering and a commons coalition for P2P Energy"<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span>Pure Design*<br/>
<br/>
"<a href="prop.htm">Prop</a>osed OSE specifications aim to guarantee truly open physical peer <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion"<br/>
<span class="bullet">*</span>Pure Design*<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-08-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://www.oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04599.html">http://www.oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04599.html</a><br/>
This is just another "Open Design" project. There is no intention of<br/>
<a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing the factory available "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" to the consumers or to<br/>
potential consumers.<br/>
<br/>
The act of creating INSTANCES of the car is completely ignored. We<br/>
need "<a href="free.htm">Free</a> as in <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom" physical <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, not just plans.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 <a class="ext" href="http://gmail.com">gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<small>[Converted from multi<a href="part.htm">part</a>/alternative]</small><br/>
<br/>
<small>[1 text/plain]</small><br/>
Graham,<br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net/C%2Cmm%2Cn">http://www.p2pfoundation.net/C%2Cmm%2Cn</a><br/>
<br/>
I remember hearing once that the dutch open <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e car project C,mm,n could<br/>
be manufactured as early as 2011<br/>
<br/>
But in the <a href="art.htm">art</a>icle, Bruce Perens says it is decades away.<br/>
<br/>
Any commentary, both concretely on the common car, but more generally a<br/>
timeline of open <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ware on a more general scale, would be of great<br/>
interest,<br/>
<br/>
Michel<br/>
<br/>
On 6/6/08, graham <graham <a class="ext" href="http://theseamans.net">theseamans.net</a>> wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://technocrat.net/d/2008/6/5/42592">http://technocrat.net/d/2008/6/5/42592</a><br/>
<br/>
discussion on several <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> oekonux related themes..<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Graham<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-06-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A981">www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A981</a><br/>
<i><span class="itlc">That's why I want to see you <a href="work.htm">work</a> out your <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a in the form of an operations manual for a restaurant.</span></i><br/>
<br/>
I failed to find such a manual on the internet. I wish I knew what the template was so I could better understand what you are looking for.<br/>
<br/>
I will try to answer questions you included:<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">Where's the food come from?</span></i><br/>
A group of consumers <a href="start.htm">start</a>ing a restaurant <small>(think of it as a shared kitchen)</small> could just buy large lots "in bulk" at first - to get going, but will <a href="use.htm">use</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s to invest in the "chain of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion" for each <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t. For instance, a group could buy cases of hamburger patties to get going, but if they are collecting <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> from non-members, then those <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>s would go toward purchasing cattle, <a href="land.htm">land</a>, water rights, etc.<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">Where's the <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y spent?</span></i><br/>
The collective <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers can spend any of their <a href="own.htm">own</a> wages in any way they like, but all <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> should be invested in more "physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es" so the facility incrementally <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the entire "chain of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion" for all that they consume.<br/>
<br/>
As for how <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s are decided, such as how much is spent on preventative maintenance or <a href="insur.htm">insur</a>ance or just generally the 'quality' of the operation is in the hands of those specific <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers. They may choose to spend alot or little depending upon their <a href="own.htm">own</a> tastes. I don't think there is any reason to legislate this.<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">How are the wages set?</span></i><br/>
It appears to me that wages are set just as they are today in regular Capitalism. The person offering the best performance for the least <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> will likely be <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ed.<br/>
<br/>
A related <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence is how <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>ment generally will not need to be '<a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ed' as the <a href="work.htm">work</a>er's ability to consume is more and more <a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ed. Does this <a href="part.htm">part</a> <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e sense? <br/>
<br/>
A society where each person has sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion required for the things he consumes can 'withstand' fully automated <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="employ.htm">Employ</a>ment is not a 'need' in itself when the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion are in the hands of the consumers.<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">"how does this help me, personally, do it?"</span></i><br/>
Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership means we are <a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ing the <a href="work.htm">work</a>er's ability to consume. It also means those <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers have "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" access to the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion <small>(except when <a href="real.htm">real</a> scarcity drives the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e higher through auction)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
A Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed restaurant <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly is <small>(y)</small>our kitchen <small>(both yours, and ours)</small>. If you like salmon and buffalo, you will <a href="stock.htm">stock</a> <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the <a href="free.htm">free</a>zer<small>(*)</small> with those meats. When you want something <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>, you will begin buying that ingredient instead. The restaurant can offer the dishes of any other restaurant, so will never become boring. As much as you can find cooks that <a href="know.htm">know</a> how to prepare the dishes you like, you can have African, American, Brazilian, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, Italian, ...<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Here are some answers to questions Sepp asked at <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.Ning.com">P2PFoundation.Ning.com</a> that may be what you are looking for:<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">But any restaurant can't survive only on the habitual customers.</span></i><br/>
I think you are saying a restaurant can't <b><span class="bold">grow</span></b> with only habitual customers. That is true, but growth is not required <small>(will level off)</small> as all the potential customers in the area have access to such a restaurant.<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">What do those occasional clients get out of their visit to the restaurant? It could only be a lower <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e for their meal. I see no sense in <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing these customers <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.</span></i><br/>
A client without any <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership will notice little <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between this restaurant and a 'normal' capitalist restaurant except they will receive a strange receipt that is also a bond issued in the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> they paid above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>. They can throw the receipt away if they like, and in that case nothing will be <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>. But the bond is valuable <small>(it becomes a deed to <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty when it matures)</small>, so if they understand what it is, they could also sell it to someone wishing to invest in the business <small>(I call this a pre-<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion-bond)</small>. There is much more to say about this <a href="part.htm">part</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Each customer that doesn't yet have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the kind of thing they want will be buying <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, but consumers that have already <a href="stock.htm">stock</a>ed up on things they want will just be retrieving their <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty from the pantry or fridge or whatever. Think of it as a kind of shared kitchen. In some cases we may need lockers, but not always. It is common for college students to share a house with a shared kitchen. Sometimes food gets stolen. The problem with security will probably increase with the number of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
In either case the consumer might <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> a cook to prepare the food for them or they can sign-up <small>(bid)</small> for a time-slot where they can <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> equipment such as a grill. Usually you will just <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> a cook who has already <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>ed the grill, but sometimes <small>(especially during odd hours)</small> you might also cook for yourself.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="rent.htm">Rent</a>ing the grill <small>(or anything else)</small> is "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" when there is no rivalry <small>(say at 4 in the morning)</small>. You would only be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing for the gas and any sort of wear you might inflict. But <br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">Still, getting a meal at close to <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> would be a possible way to attract customers, a thing any restaurant has to do to stay in business.</span></i><br/>
A Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed organizations may offer <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t at a <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> if they want to attract more consumer-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, but it is not a requirement of operation; they can safely hold <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" indefinitely. A capitalist business cannot do this because the inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s expect to receive <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> instead of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">How would the late comers be required <small>(would they at all?)</small> to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e up for that first investment of the original <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers?</span></i><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<small>(*)</small> <a href="part.htm">Part</a> of the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of operation is the expense of purchasing and running a <a href="free.htm">free</a>zer. Your <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ments to the collective others will include <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> for any <a href="spac.htm">spac</a>e you occupy there. Just as any other <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the business, if availability is running low, the <a href="spac.htm">spac</a>e <small>(or time-slots)</small> will be auctioned off to potential <a href="user.htm">user</a>s. This will cause the winner of the auction to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> more than <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>. That <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> will be invested toward a <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="free.htm">free</a>zer, and the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> that winning bidder paid will 'vest' to him as his <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-06-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A981">www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A981</a><br/>
If you are <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing <small>(even as a manager or just generally organizing the business)</small>, you should receive a wage. Since it sounds like you are the only <a href="own.htm">own</a>er, you can arbitrarily label your income as '<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>' or as 'wage'. The more important case is when there are multiple <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers. Those multiple <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers would not allow a managing-<a href="own.htm">own</a>er to overpay himself, they would put that <a href="job.htm">job</a> up for others to reverse-bid upon.<br/>
<br/>
If you <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly are <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing <small>(and not just an absentee <a href="own.htm">own</a>er)</small>, then you would need to be receiving a wage for your labor.<br/>
<br/>
I'm not talking about lowering <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es directly, I'm talking about them being lowered as a result of how <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is treated.<br/>
<br/>
Let's say you sell the table for 150.<br/>
You <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> each of your <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers AND yourself 40 apiece.<br/>
You have 20 in <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s for material, electricity, <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hine wear etc.<br/>
You have 10 <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
You will likely keep that 10 as a 'reward' for yourself. You might even reinvest it <a href="back.htm">back</a> into the table-shop.<br/>
<br/>
If you reinvest it for yourself, we see the shop will experience growth, but the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of the shop will be further concentrated into your hands.<br/>
<br/>
Since you are being rewarded for keeping <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, you will want other table-<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ers to fail, and would vote for any political measures that keep table <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificially high <small>(such as import tariffs or government subsidies paid to NOT <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e tables <small>(this <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly does happen, especially in agriculture)</small>)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
If that overpayment <small>(10 <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> were treated as an investment from the consumer that paid it, then that consumer would move closer to being able to receive his next table "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>". He wouldn't be required to <a href="work.htm">work</a> at the shop, he could hire someone to do that <a href="skill.htm">skill</a>ed <a href="work.htm">work</a>, but running the equipment himself would also become an option if he could show the other <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ers that he could do so safely <small>(without harming the equipment or others)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
If you are not <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing, why should you be paid? Because you were "there first"?<br/>
<br/>
You should also be compensated for your investments in the tools and for all the <a href="work.htm">work</a> it takes to form such an organization. Those <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ments should be labeled <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s, not <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Thanks for asking these questions. I hope it helps others see what is wrong with "the <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy".<br/>
<br/>
It is my opinion the only reason Swadeshi hasn't already succeeded over Capitalism because <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is being mistreated.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-06-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A981">www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A981</a><br/>
<i><span class="itlc">If there is no <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> because the consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e, then how can you <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers?</span></i><br/>
<br/>
<a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers are paid <b><span class="bold">Wages</span></b> that are <a href="calc.htm">calc</a>ulated as a <b><span class="bold"><a href="cost.htm">Cost</a></span></b>. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>". Wages are on the other side of the equation.<br/>
<br/>
Treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as a reward is dangerous because <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> increases in direct <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ortion to scarcity, so the perpetuation of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> requires the perpetuation of scarcity - often through destruction.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> would not exist in a society where everyone could get what they wanted "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" because <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> can also be thought of as a measure of inefficiency. Efficiency destroys <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is a valuable tool to those that desire to be paid for reasons other than <a href="work.htm">work</a>. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> only arises when the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion are not fully distributed. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is a tool of subjugation and slavery when it is not treated as that consumer's investment because it causes the laborer <small>(as a consumer)</small> to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> more than the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion without allowing them a foothold to climb out of their predicament.<br/>
<br/>
How strange that people think <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is 'OK' until it reaches some arbitrary and undefined size. I think it is because we have been trained since childhood that we will try to "get ahead" to the point where we can collect "residual income" from those that continue to <a href="work.htm">work</a>. It's a sort of Ponzi scheme.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-04-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A981">www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A981</a><br/>
<br/>
Scaling Swadeshi: <a href="part.htm">Part</a> One - The Meaning and Purpose of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a><br/>
<br/>
This post is the first in a series of investigations into why Swadeshi has not yet succeeded, what must be changed for that success, and how that change can be implemented.<br/>
<br/>
This first <a href="part.htm">part</a> is meant to be purely observational research attempting to avoid any pre-conceived conclusions.<br/>
<br/>
I hope questions and responses here will help simplify and codify these results into a concise problem <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>ement and an associated course of action.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
1. What is <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>?<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit</a> says <span class="quot">"'Accounting <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e and the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of bringing to market whatever it is that is accounted as an enterprise <small>(whether by harvest, extraction, manufacture, or purchase)</small> in terms of the component <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of delivered goods and/or services and any operating or other expenses.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
So, for the purposes of this discussion, <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> will be described as the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between Consumer <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e and <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s or in short form "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>".<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
2. Why does a consumer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>"?<br/>
I have an answer for this, but don't <a href="know.htm">know</a> how to 'prove' it is true.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Another way to look at this is to ask:<br/>
2a. When does a consumer NOT <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>?<br/>
A <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t consumer does not, and in fact cannot <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> when he <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es <small>(Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion)</small> for that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
As an example, if you <a href="own.htm">own</a> a chicken, you must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the same <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion as a large poultry farm, including wages to any <a href="work.htm">work</a> you hire out, but those are all <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>ing <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es no sense when the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t consumer is also the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a>er unless he were to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> himself.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
3. When a consumer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>", what should be the destination of those <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>s?<br/>
The <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> that consumers <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> causes the organization to grow, so my answer to this is that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> should be understood to be a consumer's "plea for growth".<br/>
<br/>
If the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers were to treat it as an investment from the consumer who paid it, then the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of that enterprise would be continuously distributed to those that are <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing for that growth.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-04-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A861">www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A861</a><br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc"><b><span class="bold">"<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is not a reward, it is a measure of monopoly of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership over the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion."</span></b></span></i><br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">- a "reward" for what?</span></i><br/>
I am saying that most <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion act as though <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> <small>(<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>)</small> is something they 'deserve' as <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment from consumers, but consumers ONLY <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> when they do not yet have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
As an example, let's say you <a href="own.htm">own</a> an apple tree. It is your <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in that tree that '<a href="protect.htm">protect</a>s' you from <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> for the apples thereof. You must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> the <a href="cost.htm">COST</a>S of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ing those apples, including wages for any <a href="work.htm">work</a> you don't do yourself, but whether or not you <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> someone else to do the <a href="work.htm">work</a> of dealing with that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is not the issue. If you <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> someone to plant, water, prune the tree and to harvest, <a href="pack.htm">pack</a> and <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>e the apples, then you will be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing the same <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s any corporation would <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for such <a href="work.htm">work</a>. Those <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ments are called 'wage', and are <a href="calc.htm">calc</a>ulated as a '<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>' of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. You can't <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> <small>(<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>)</small> when you are the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion, for who would you <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to?<br/>
<br/>
But if you sell some of those apples to a consumer that doesn't have <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion <small>(does not <a href="own.htm">own</a> an apple tree)</small>, you will likely be able to charge <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> because that consumer is not '<a href="protect.htm">protect</a>ed'. Again, <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s must be paid either way, but <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> arises only when <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion are not yet in the hands of the consumers that are in need of those <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers of the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion treat the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as a 'reward' in that they pretend/assume/think they 'deserve' that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment, but consumers only <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> while they have insufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">- a "measure of monopoly of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership over the means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion".</span></i><br/>
Consumers typically <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> a <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e that is higher than the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er's <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. The <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between "Consumer <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e" and "<a href="own.htm">Own</a>er <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s" is called "<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>". Wages are one of the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
But consumers do not <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> when they have enough <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion. In that case, they <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s, including wages, but they can't <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>. If you think they would be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, please tell me who they would <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">Who does the measuring?</span></i><br/>
It seems to be an expression of nature. Like gravity or friction, mathematics does the measuring. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is a sort of 'pressure' that <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership exerts against <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t consumers causing them to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> more than <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>. Or maybe better to describe it as a kind of 'vacuum' caused by a consumer's LACK of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">In what other way would it be measured?</span></i><br/>
You might also observe it as a consumer's <b><span class="bold">dependence</span></b> on <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers. It is an inverse measure of competition that causes <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e to not reach <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">In what way<small>(s)</small> is the <a href="new.htm">new</a> way better?</span></i><br/>
By "<a href="new.htm">new</a> way" do you mean "Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed"? If so, the reason consumers already tend to <a href="own.htm">own</a> some of the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion is because it is just more efficient. Why do you <a href="own.htm">own</a> a stove instead of <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>ing it? If you <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>ed it instead, then you would not have full dominion over it, and you would also be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" <small>(<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> for no reason.<br/>
<br/>
The reason consumers don't already <a href="own.htm">own</a> much more expensive Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion is because it is not "worth it" for a single person to <a href="own.htm">own</a> an entire factory for themselves on the one hand, and on the other hand we haven't yet figured how to collectively <a href="own.htm">own</a> such things together.<br/>
<br/>
If 100 consumers could "get together" to purchase a small farm, then they could have "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e, but as soon as they <a href="start.htm">start</a> selling some of those <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts to non-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ers they would likely charge <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> while not treating that <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence as that consumer's investment. When that happens <small>(as it tends to always happen)</small>, the organization will grow from the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> that is paid, yet <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is more and more concentrated as those <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers treat those <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ments as a 'reward' instead of understanding them to be an investment from those who paid them.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">How do we get from A to B?</span></i><br/>
By organizing under a contract - a sort of "<a href="trad.htm">Trad</a>e <a href="agree.htm">Agree</a>ment" that enforces the requirement "<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> must be treated as an investment from the consumer that paid it".<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">What do <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> players gain or lose when measuring things <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>ly?</span></i><br/>
<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers who choose to play in this way will lose out on the immediate 'reward' of concentrating <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership into their <a href="own.htm">own</a> hands, but win in a subtle way as a successful community grows around them.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">May I suggest you <a href="start.htm">start</a> a <a href="new.htm">new</a> conversation on this?</span></i><br/>
Yes, I just <a href="start.htm">start</a>ed the topic "Scaling Swadeshi: <a href="part.htm">Part</a> One - The Meaning and Purpose of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>" at <a class="ext" href="http://www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A981">http://www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A981</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-04-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A861">www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A861</a><br/>
<i><span class="itlc">"Many hands <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e light <a href="work.htm">work</a>."</span></i><br/>
<br/>
Why won't you help me? I post here about this because I need help describing it and need feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> about whether or not my claims are sound.<br/>
<br/>
Is there anything I've said that isn't true? Is my logic flawed? If so, please tell me in what way so we can get on with this urgent <a href="work.htm">work</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Are you saying I must single-handedly begin a business in this manner and then report <a href="back.htm">back</a> here about how it goes before you <small>(or anyone)</small> will consider listening? If I could do that, I wouldn't be here wasting your time, but I don't have such talents. Does that <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e my observations false?<br/>
<br/>
I think it must be a psychological barrier caused by an assumption that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is a reward to be won and my challenge of that causing too much pain.<br/>
<br/>
No matter where I go or how I phrase it, the message seems to invoke only anger and boredom.<br/>
<br/>
I guess you are right. Probably nobody will listen until after I have made it obvious through a <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing example. Hopefully the world can wait that long.<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-04-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A861">www.GlobalSwadeshi.net/forum/topic/show?id=2097821%3ATopic%3A861</a><br/>
<br/>
Lucas,<br/>
<br/>
To your 'Re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es' list I would add <b><span class="bold"><a href="land.htm">land</a></span></b> <small>(as in surface area)</small>, <b><span class="bold">tools</span></b> and <b><span class="bold">Sun</span></b>.<br/>
<br/>
When these physical <small>(re)</small><a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es <small>("Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion")</small> are <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by the same people that will eat those <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts, then there is no <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>. Maybe you will say this is not a problem, but aren't we told that <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> the only reason for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion?<br/>
<br/>
On a small scale the reason for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, but as that organization increases in size, all of the consumers involved do not gain <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in their <a href="own.htm">own</a> "Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion", so the goals turn from <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t toward <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
You say <i><span class="itlc">"Food" is a strange problem. People die for lack of it, and it's not yet "solved" or rather it looks like it's being more "unsolved" everyday."</span></i> which I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> with completely, but again, if the problem of food <small>(or the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t of any industry)</small> were 'solved' <small>(when people have "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" access)</small>, then <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s drop to zero and all <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ers would stop <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion UNLESS the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion for that industry is <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by the consumers of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>s are highest when problems are most "unsolved".<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="art.htm">art</a>icle Sepp quotes from below says <i><span class="itlc">"Last year, they earned the <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e more than $1.9bn"</span></i>. But if the <a href="land.htm">land</a>, tools, seeds, water, and dirt were <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by the consumers of those almonds, then "the <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e" would have 'earned' nothing, since <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is zero in that case.<br/>
<br/>
How can we ever expect to 'solve' such issues while treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as a reward?<br/>
<br/>
Solutions destroy <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> and treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as reward incents the destruction of solutions. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is zero when consumers <a href="own.htm">own</a> the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion because <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is a measure of consumer dependence.<br/>
<br/>
Size itself is not the problem with agribusiness or with any other enterprise. The trouble is that growth concentrates <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion into the hands of the originators as they treat it as a reward instead of understanding it to be a plea for <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership from the consumer who paid it.<br/>
<br/>
Why can nobody hear me? If <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is the only incentive for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, then why did Mahaha Mphou's family begin <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion? Was it not for <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t?<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is not a reward, it is a measure of monopoly of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership over the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
We can quickly solve hunger <small>(and most all other problems)</small> if we could ever understand the true meaning of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> and <a href="start.htm">start</a> businesses that treat it as an investment in more physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es for the consumer who paid it.<br/>
<br/>
Until then we will continue to <a href="work.htm">work</a> against each other and hope that <a href="new.htm">new</a>comers never get "set up" with their <a href="own.htm">own</a> Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion - for whenever consumers have <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of that which they consume, the 'market' for that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is 'ruined'.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-01-2008:</span> Unsent post to <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008:BlogPost:4761">http://P2PFoundation.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008:BlogPost:4761</a><br/>
<br/>
These are <a href="use.htm">use</a>ful questions.<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">question: how to interest enough people who are regulars of a certain restaurant?</span></i><br/>
<br/>
A Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed Enterprise has far more potential for variety than its Capitalist counter<a href="part.htm">part</a>. Think of your <a href="own.htm">own</a> kitchen. The <a href="menu.htm">menu</a> is not set in stone because you can always change your mind about what ingredients to buy and how to prepare them.<br/>
<br/>
A Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed restaurant <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly is <small>(y)</small>our kitchen <small>(both yours, and ours)</small>. If you like salmon and buffalo, you will <a href="stock.htm">stock</a> <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the <a href="free.htm">free</a>zer<small>(*)</small> with those meats. When you want something <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>, you will begin buying that ingredient instead. The restaurant can offer the dishes of any other restaurant, so will never become boring. As much as you can find cooks that <a href="know.htm">know</a> how to prepare the dishes you like, you can have African, American, Brazilian, Chinese, Japanese, Mexican, Italian, ...<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">But any restaurant can't survive only on the habitual customers.</span></i><br/>
I think you are saying a restaurant can't <b><span class="bold">grow</span></b> with only habitual customers. That is true, but growth is not required <small>(will level off)</small> as all the potential customers in the area have access to such a restaurant.<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">What do those occasional clients get out of their visit to the restaurant? It could only be a lower <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e for their meal. I see no sense in <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing these customers <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.</span></i><br/>
A client without any <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership will notice little <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between this restaurant and a 'normal' capitalist restaurant except they will receive a strange receipt that is also a bond issued in the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> they paid above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>. They can throw the receipt away if they like, and in that case nothing will be <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>. But the bond is valuable <small>(it becomes a deed to <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty when it matures)</small>, so if they understand what it is, they could also sell it to someone wishing to invest in the business <small>(I call this a pre-<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion-bond)</small>. There is much more to say about this <a href="part.htm">part</a>.<br/>
<br/>
Each customer that doesn't yet have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the kind of thing they want will be buying <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, but consumers that have already <a href="stock.htm">stock</a>ed up on things they want will just be retrieving their <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty from the pantry or fridge or whatever. Think of it as a kind of shared kitchen. In some cases we may need lockers, but not always. It is common for college students to share a house with a shared kitchen. Sometimes food gets stolen. The problem with security will probably increase with the number of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
In either case the consumer might <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> a cook to prepare the food for them or they can sign-up <small>(bid)</small> for a time-slot where they can <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> equipment such as a grill. Usually you will just <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> a cook who has already <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>ed the grill, but sometimes <small>(especially during odd hours)</small> you might also cook for yourself.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="rent.htm">Rent</a>ing the grill <small>(or anything else)</small> is "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" when there is no rivalry <small>(say at 4 in the morning)</small>. You would only be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing for the gas and any sort of wear you might inflict. But <br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">Still, getting a meal at close to <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> would be a possible way to attract customers, a thing any restaurant has to do to stay in business.</span></i><br/>
A Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed organizations may offer <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t at a <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> if they want to attract more consumer-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, but it is not a requirement of operation; they can safely hold <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" indefinitely. A capitalist business cannot do this because the inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s expect to receive <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> instead of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
<i><span class="itlc">How would the late comers be required <small>(would they at all?)</small> to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e up for that first investment of the original <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers?</span></i><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<small>(*)</small> <a href="part.htm">Part</a> of the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of operation is the expense of purchasing and running a <a href="free.htm">free</a>zer. Your <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ments to the collective others will include <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> for any <a href="spac.htm">spac</a>e you occupy there. Just as any other <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the business, if availability is running low, the <a href="spac.htm">spac</a>e <small>(or time-slots)</small> will be auctioned off to potential <a href="user.htm">user</a>s. This will cause the winner of the auction to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> more than <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>. That <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> will be invested toward a <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="free.htm">free</a>zer, and the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> that winning bidder paid will 'vest' to him as his <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-01-2008:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://P2PFoundation.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008:BlogPost:4761">http://P2PFoundation.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2003008:BlogPost:4761</a><br/>
Thanks for the pointer Sepp. I love beer, especially <a href="free.htm">Free</a> <small>(as in <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom)</small> beer. ;)</small><br/>
<br/>
Unfortunately Beer<a href="bank.htm">Bank</a>roll is not truly Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed for two reasons:<br/>
<br/>
1. The initial inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are being persuaded to invest for <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> instead of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t. If they would <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> me in "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" beer, I would invest today!<br/>
<br/>
2. Many of the consumers are not <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers and do not automatically gain <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership according to the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> they <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>. Because of this, the organization is not self-balancing, and will continue to move further and further from being Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed as it grows.<br/>
<br/>
The quick way to check if any corp/org is Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed is to find out where the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s are going. If "<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" is being reinvested into the enterprise, AND if each of those reinvestments eventually 'vest' <a href="back.htm">back</a> to the consumer who paid it, then the Consumers will always be the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers. But if that <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence is treated as a reward for the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, or is reinvested but without regard to the original <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er <small>(the consumer)</small>, or if it is thrown away toward some random charity, then the chance for Consumers to remain <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers during growth is slowly eroded until you end up with another typical Capitalist situation.<br/>
<br/>
Since it is impossible for a consumer to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> when they have sufficient *<a href="real.htm">real</a>* <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership <small>(being paid with <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, not just typical corporate shares that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>out <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>)</small> in the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, the only people that will be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> are the late-comers. If we pretend they are not Consumers, and therefore do not 'deserve' <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, then we can pretend Beer<a href="bank.htm">Bank</a>roll is Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed, but the truth is that Beer<a href="bank.htm">Bank</a>roll is Originator <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed, and intends to keep <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, just as almost every other business in the world.<br/>
<br/>
On the front page at <a class="ext" href="http://BeerBankroll.com">http://BeerBankroll.com</a> Step 3 reads "Sell tons of beer and <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e a tidy <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>". This proves that the they are not Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed, and do not intend to to be since <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s safely approach zero in a Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed corporation. Allowing <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e to meet <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s is not a problem for a Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed business - it is one of the main goals!<br/>
<br/>
Thanks again for bringing this up. I don't mean to sound so negative. I'm only trying to be accurate.<br/>
<br/>
I am trying to figure out how to write the next <a href="part.htm">part</a> of this that shows how to <a href="protect.htm">protect</a> the <a href="work.htm">work</a>er's ability to consume and intend to also <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e it a response to Vinay's request at <a class="ext" href="http://GlobalSwadeshi.net">http://GlobalSwadeshi.net</a> to <a href="map.htm">map</a> out how a Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed restaurant would function.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<small>[Previous: <a href="diary-may-2008.htm">diary-may-2008</a>]</small></p>
<p class='footer'>
Page generated from <a href=".text/diary-jun-2008">diary-jun-2008</a> by <a href=".code/etym.el">etym</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>