[p2p-research] The Age of Asperger: modern society is autistic!

[Patrick Anderson]

Mamading Ceesay wrote:
> The caveat, attended a session at the summit on Social Business where
> there was a discussion regarding profit.

I'm glad you bring up the issue of Profit.  The connection to Property
ownership is not clear.

Profit can be thought of as the inverse to Consumer Property.

When a Consumer owns the Means of Production (say an Olive Tree), he
then receives the Product (Olives in this case) exactly "at cost".  He
can't pay Profit, for who would he pay it to?

Production is kindof "short-circuited" under the special condition of
Source-Owner == Object-Consumer.

When the Owner of the Olive Tree eats a fruit for himself, he didn't
avoid paying any Costs, but what he does avoid paying is Profit.

He can't pay Profit, because that occurs at the point-of-sale, but
since he already owns the Product (Olives) as a side-effect of his
OWNing the Sources (Olive Trees), the last transaction (buying Olives)
doesn't ever occur.


> The problem with profit
> seems to be twofold, firstly where it is maximised at the cost of the
> customers, society and the environment.  Secondly where the profits
> are distributed almost solely to the shareholders and executives.

Yes.  My solution to the 2nd problem is to write a "Terms of
Operation" which we can use to begin new, special organizations that
choose to abide and enforce (over thier own Property) the rule that
"Profit is to be treated as an Investment from the Consumer who Paid
it.".

By doing this, the community is still able to grow (using that
difference between Price and Cost), but the Ownership of that growth
is automatically distributed to the person who was willing to pay for
it.

The solution to the first problem is implicitly contained within the
implementation of the rule, since any corporation choosing to use
these "Terms of Operation" will have no reason to maximize Profits
other than to speed the growth of that local community.

Furthermore, with regards to problem #1, Profits will naturally taper
toward zero since a side-effect of Consumers gaining Property
ownership is that they no longer pay Profit - it becomes undefined.


> To have a viable self-sustaining business, you absolutely have to have
> full cost recovery.

Yes, I agree.


> If you have profit on top of that, you can afford
> to invest in the training and development of your people.  You can
> afford to invest in equipment and other useful resources.  You can
> improve the compensation of your people. You can afford to employ more
> people.  You can cross-subsidise the cost of products and services so
> as to make them affordable and accessible to those who would not
> otherwise be able to use them.

Yes, this is true and somewhat good in that we, as Commoners, will
need to "grow" our holdings to replace the current system.  It's not
that we need more total production on the Earth nearly as much as the
Property ownership of those Means must be 'corrected' so they are held
by the very humans for which that production is supposedly occuring
(the Consumers).

But treating Profit as we do now causes growth to be concentrated into
the hands of the current owners instead of becoming the Property of
those who paid for it.