[p2p-research] User Freedom and the Purpose of Profit

[Patrick Anderson]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> But what happens when you get profit but further expansion
> is not desirable?

Let's look at the most simple case where 1 person owns some Physical
Source and applies THE CONTRACT* to that property.

Imagine I own a more expensive roto-tiller.

I choose to apply the contract to that Physical Source and begin
renting it to others for a price that is higher that my real costs of:
investment, maintenance (oil, fuel, wear parts), storage,  wages to
any workers I had to pay, wages to myself for managing it all, etc.

Since I am collecting profit**, and since I am choosing to apply the
contract, I must save those overpayments until I have enough to invest
for all the people that overpaid to rent the tiller during that round
of growth.

In most cases, current owners will not be 'selling' any of their
current holdings, and so the overpaying users will usually be paying
toward the purchase of *more* Physical Sources.

Let's say, after a year or so there is finally enough money in the
'payer-fund' to buy another tiller.


It is a little unclear to me what we should do right here.

On the one hand it makes some sense to let the current owners invest
the money and then release the fractional-titles to that Physical
Source to the group of payers.

The current owners are generally more informed about what would be the
best investment in that field, but it seems unfair and very wrong to
not involve the end-user when it is his freedom we are trying to
protect...

This needs to be outlined more clearly and may need to be part of the contract.

So, even though I think the current owners would probably be making
the investments, the more important point is that those original
payers of profit become the real property title holders of that new
Physical Source.


To answer your question more directly: I would not be 'expanding' my
own holdings, but would instead be acting a sort of "growth conduit"
for those who do not yet have sufficient ownership.


> The question is, how does selling me a share affect the value
> of everyone else's share?

Where you say "selling me a share" I will rewrite "my paying of
profit".  So your question becomes:

> how does my paying of profit affect the value of everyone else's share?

When you pay a price above cost, that overpayment is held with the
overpayments of many other users.

After there are sufficient funds to move forward, those profits become
your real ownership in more Physical Sources such as a new farm or
another factory.

You are not taking any value from anyone else, you are funding your
own growth through the collective purchase of the material means of
production needed to meet your objectives.


> Suppose there are a million shares
> owned by various people, and the farm sells me one share.

It is probably confusing to think of this in terms of traditional
'shares' because what I'm talking about it a % of real ownership
shared among *only that group of payers*.

There are no committees or board-members or any such bureaucracy
unless that individual group decides they want to subject themselves
to such a system of rule.  Very large groups may find some need for
variations of such self-imposed structure.

Groups of owners using the contract are *fully independent* of each
other.  Some owners will decide they want the oil changed in their
tiller every 200 hrs, while another group may decide they will do it
every 300 hrs.


> Does that mean that there are now 1,000,0001 shares owned,
> and everyone else's share has gone down a little in value?
> Or do they get a dividend?

If by 'dividend' you mean "will the current owners receive some of the
profit as a reward?" then the answer is 'no'.

Profit is treated as an investment from the user who paid it because
profit measures a payer's lack of property.


----

(*) THE CONTRACT is the (as yet incomplete) legally-binding "Terms of
Operation" that property owners can choose to apply to their own
Physical Sources.


(**) When there is just 1 owner, profit is easily 'hidden' when the
owner pays himself excessive wages which takes from the pool that
would have otherwise been labeled profit.  This ability diminishes as
ownership is multiplexed, since the other owners will then demand such
jobs be put 'on the market' to lower their costs.