[p2p-research] Paying Investors With Product Solves the Paradox of Profit in Perfect Competition

[Patrick Anderson]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:
> Patrick,
>
> As you already know, I don't argue with your basic logic.

That's fine I suppose, but my clumsy explanations are not yet clear
enough to make the point provable.

Most others on this list assume ownership of the Means of Production
must be primarily restricted to those that happen to have the skills
to operate it, and that consuming investors should play only a very
minor role.

I once had a math teacher that made sure we understood each principle
by requiring we teach it to another person in the class and document
that teaching session.

If you can really see why the Means of Production should be in the
hands of those that will consume the outputs, could (would) you make
that presentation here in your own words in an attempt toward proving
it?

>
> I personally am only saying that I think the motivation, the "filter"
> through which people are processing reality, is **THE** reason why everyone
> in the world has not already adopted the most efficient, and logically best
> economic models and systems.
>
> What you propose is really a "commons",

I think you are right that investing consumers expecting only product
may appear similar to many attempts at making a "commons", but there
are some big differences.

One major difference is the lack of an overarching governance beyond
the group of owners themselves.  If you are part owner (a joint
investing consumer) in a milk dairy, the policy is set for that dairy
is made by fighting with the other co-owners, and is weighted by your
percentage of ownership.

> and Robert Axelrod
> (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/) already figured out several decades
> ago with his agent based modeling experiments that the only way that
> autonomous agents will "win" the game of the "tragedy of the commons" is if
> they "understand" or know the rules of the "game" they are playing
> (understand that they are using a depletable commons, and autonomously work
> towards not depleting it)
>
> So, we live in a world where some people cannot understand the "game" they
> are "playing". They thing they are "playing" a different "game" than
> "tragedy of the commons". And, we won't be able to get them to see reality
> any time in our lifetime.
>
> So, how do we create something that resonates with their ways of solving
> problems, and still tips the balance towards maintaining the commons of
> planet earth?

We could write and apply a corporate "Terms of Operation" to a new
business and insure all those that invest in it expect only product
(they would be pre-paying similar to how Community Supported
Agriculture or deli-dollars work).

The primary point I think that contract must enforce is that all
profit must be treated as an investment toward more Means of
Production so that price is naturally driven toward cost while control
is continuously distributed to those in need of the outputs of that
production.  And that investment must eventually VEST to the consumer
who origianlly paid it.  I don't how much time or under what
conditions that vesting must occur.  I hope someone here can help
discover that part.

>
> In the case of User owner, I think it will resonate with some people as it
> is. But, for those who it does not resonate with, "commons" must be reframed
> into motives that will resonate with them enough to get them to participate,
> but not enough to allow those motives to overtake and deplete. If we work
> within existing systems, it will become more apparentas to how this is
> possible. If we create a real world pilot project, that is. If we *try* the
> idea.
>
> So, I will commit to figuring out a way to *try* your idea. Will anyone else
> reading this also commit? If not, not a problem, we can still try it. We
> only need at minimum 2 people, and I assume that you would be one of those
> people, Patrick.

Yes, I'm going to have to just start a business - I'm thinking a
multi-purpose internet restaurant and workshop rental business with
such things as a room with a big-screen TV as a mini-theater, an
expensive sewing machine, extra-large washing machine, etc.

We might even just mimic the concept at first - before the contract is
finalized - by using the difference between price and cost as a "pre
payment" from each consumer that pays it and indicate that on the
receipt as a sort of post-dated coupon.

Then, once that coupon becomes valid (at some future date), the
consumer can spend it toward more product in the same business, but we
wouldn't yet be giving them REAL ownership since it would be too
dangerous to do so without an inter-owner trade agreement (the
contract) that would require them to treat new consumers in the same
fashion (just as the GNU GPL does for software).

These coupons might also be used as "votes" in how to change the
business.  For instance, some customers may dislike video games near
the eating area because they find them too noisy, so they could vote
for them to be moved to a different area.

I didn't mean to make this a stage to sell my views.  I'm only trying
to build upon what appears to me to be true.  I don't "own" any of
these ideas.  I couldn't have invented them.  They are ancient truths
that were accidentally lost or purposefully suppressed.  I'm probably
getting ahead of myself again.  Please be critical but logical in your
replies.

Patrick