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

Fri Mar 14 22:02:03 CET 2008

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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?

Strapped for time, but will return to do just that

>
>
> >
> > 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.
>

I think that this is a commons among owners, a governance commons. It can be
co-managed using the same basic rules as a natural resource commons. People
just need to know

http://www.communitywiki.org/en/CommunityWikiResourcePool#RecognizingCommons
http://www.communitywiki.org/en/CommunityWikiResourcePool#GoverningTheCommons

>
> > and Robert Axelrod
> > (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/<http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Eaxe/>)
> 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.
>

Looks like a good example plan. Maybe we could make some form of pilot
project, and test by way of a community currency we create?

>
> 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.
>

Personally, I think you are on the right track. Instead of criticism, I just
want to test it in the real world, preferably applied to a problem real
people actually care about solving, a "trial by fire". Except that the dead
carcass can be resurrected from the ashes and evolved, and we can not be
burned in the process, because we'll test it without taxing too much from
ourselves.

>
> Patrick
>

-- 
Sam Rose
Social Synergy
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
AIM: Str9960
Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/samrose
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
http://socialsynergyweb.com/services
http://socialsynergy.typepad.com

Related Sites/Blogs/Projects:
OpenBusinessModels: http://socialsynergyweb.net/cgi-bin/wiki/FrontPage
http://p2pfoundation.net
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
http://www.cooperationcommons.com
http://barcampbank.org
http://communitywiki.org
http://openfarmtech.org
Information Filtering:
http://ma.gnolia.com/people/srose/bookmarks
http://del.icio.us/srose
http://twitter.com/SamRose
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20080314/1691b92e/attachment-0001.html 