[p2p-research] Abundance Destroys Profit [was: Tick, tock, tick, tock… BING]

[Patrick Anderson]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:02 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > people cannot consume what we can make
>>
>> That is because ownership is being used for profit instead of product.
>>
>> We will use ownership to gain the control we need.
>>
>> And we will use profit to help latecomers gain the ownership they need.
>>
>
> State your estimate of the probability that capitalism ends as now for every
> 5 year period going forward.  Combine that with the probability that this
> end will be peaceful and easy.  That is the likelihood, in a given period,
> you think your outcome will occur.

Capitalism doesn't need to *end* for us to begin organizing in new ways.

The change I propose can be implemented as a corporation with a
special Terms of Operation to enforce the one constraint [profit is
payer investment].


>>
>> When you say 'capital' I assume you mean Capitalism.
>>
>
> Capital is mostly money now.  If by capitalism, you mean a credit driven
> economy of markets, then, yes, I mean capitalism.  If you mean it as Marx
> did, then no, I don't mean capitalism.

We will always need markets because we will always want to trade skills.

Trading goods will be minimized within "User Owned" corporations
because when you co-own part of a dairy cow, you own the milk as a
'side-effect'.  Owning consumers do not need to buy the goods when
they own the sources - they must only pay for the costs of that
production and then they own the goods by virtue of their owning the
sources.  They will then occasionally come to 'claim' (picking up
their portion of raw milk according to the % of their ownership in the
diary) their property.

Marx was very wrong about at least one thing: the terrible error that
leads us to cling to the short-sighted notion that ownership in the
Means of Production should be in the hands of those who happen to
possess the skills needed to 'operate' those sources.

The consumers must learn to co-own the Physical Sources of Production
before User Freedom can enter the physical realm.

>>
>> Capitalism requires scarcity because profit is being misunderstood and
>> causes us to not realize the fatal requirements of traditional
>> investors who demand price never reach cost.
>>
>
> Capitalism doesn't require scarcity.

What is the paper
http://P2PFoundation.net/Crisis_of_Value_and_the_Ethical_Economy
about?

If profit doesn't require scarcity, then why do governments -
including the US - pay farmers to *NOT* grow food on land that must be
proved to be arable?

Why were dairy owners pouring milk on the road during the Great Depression?


>> Treating profit as a reward for current owner incents scarcity and
>> destruction.
>
> Profit is a form of reward for risk.  Risk is taken because someone has
> superior information, abilities to plan, or out of sheer gambling.  Want it
> incents is greater risk-taking so long as it doesn't fail.

Yes, that is how most all corporations treat it now.

But we are not *required* to do so.

When we finally understand where profit comes from, and when we can
design a funding model that includes some % of investors who are
potential consumers that will accept "at cost" product as their
return, then we can begin to handle that "price above cost" as a
solution to that payer's dependence upon the current owners.

Until then we will continue to be confused about why abundance destroys profit.


Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com