[p2p-research] against human rentals

[Samuel Rose]

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Samuel Rose wrote:
>>> In Josef's example, we can only call "profit" by it's name
>>> while the worker simply accumulates wealth.
>>
>>
>> Profit is the difference between Consumer Price and Owner Costs.
>> Why pretend it is anything else?
>>
>>
>
> I pretend nothing.
>
> My point is simple:
>
> If a worker cannot accumulate what they earn, but must re-distribute
> it in order to live, it is *not* "profit" for that worker.
>
>


The above is in response to Patrick's earlier statement:

"Profit is not a result of Worker Effort, it is a result of Consumer
Dependence caused by lack of ownership in the Means of Production.

So, from a systems perspective, treating Profit as a reward for owners
is dangerous because it creates a positive-feedback loop that further
concentrates ownership into the hands of those few."


What I am really trying to say:

I agree that the technical definition of profit is basically "Profit
is the difference between Consumer Price and Owner Costs."

Josef suggested:


> In most workers co-op members are both paid a wage and receive a
> dividend (share of profits) relative to how much work they have done

Which really doesn't have anything to do with "Profit" for the worker.
Patrick introduced "Profit" into the discussion in response to Josef:

Patrick wrote:

"Profit is not a result of Worker Effort, it is a result of Consumer
Dependence caused by lack of ownership in the Means of Production.

So, from a systems perspective, treating Profit as a reward for owners
is dangerous because it creates a positive-feedback loop that further
concentrates ownership into the hands of those few."


Sam replies:

"Profit" is not the reward for the worker-owners. If profit is only
"the difference between Consumer Price and Owner Costs" than the
shareholder only gets a share of the total business profit. Once the
"Profit" is redistributed as "dividends" to shareholders, it is NO
LONGER "the difference between Consumer Price and Owner Costs", since
the accounting now takes into account each owners total costs beyond
the business entity in question. The funds, once distributed, cease
being "profit" for the business.

In turn, each worker can only really be rewarded via "profit", if
*their own* "difference between Consumer Price and Owner Costs" allows
each of them to accumulate wealth. If not, they are also distributing
money, not profiting.

You see what I am saying?


> --
> --
> Sam Rose
> Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation
> Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
> Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
> skype: samuelrose
> email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
> http://forwardfound.org
> http://futureforwardinstitute.org
> http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
> http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
> http://socialmediaclassroom.com
> http://localfoodsystems.org
> http://notanemployee.net
> http://communitywiki.org
> http://p2pfoundation.net
>
> "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
> ambition." - Carl Sagan
>



-- 
--
Sam Rose
Future Forward Institute and Forward Foundation
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
http://forwardfound.org
http://futureforwardinstitute.org
http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
http://socialmediaclassroom.com
http://localfoodsystems.org
http://notanemployee.net
http://communitywiki.org
http://p2pfoundation.net

"The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
ambition." - Carl Sagan