[p2p-research] against human rentals

[Josef Davies-Coates]

On 10 August 2010 00:44, 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?
>
>
> Profit is *undefined* when the Consumer is also the Owner.
>
> There can be no difference between Price and Cost in that case
> because the product is not being purchased.
>


Er, no.

Take the example of The Co-operative Group in the UK.

They are technically owned by the Consumers. Anyone can become an
owner-member for £1.

Profits are re-distributed to members as dividends in proportion the amount
of transactions they've had with the Co-op over the year.

The fact that prices are above costs helps the Co-op survive on a day-to-day
basis since it improves cash flow. (some) Members are happy to pay higher
prices because they know any surplus can be redistributed at the end of the
year (should they decide that is the best thing to do at the AGM).

Consumer Co-ops are the solutions to your problems Patrick. I am forever
perplexed as to why you continue to bang on about profit and don't just
spend your time promoting co-ops! :P

Personally I don't agree that everything should be owned and controlled by
consumers though. I prefer organisations that are stakeholder owned and
governed, i.e. workers, consumers/ service users, investors - as is made
possible by the "Somerset Rules" http://www.somerset.coop/somersetrules/

Josef.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100810/5f1e0673/attachment.html>