[p2p-research] Stabilizing Growth through Negative Feedback (was: User Freedom and the Purpose of Profit)

[Patrick Anderson]

Richard Stallman wrote:
> I don't see what happens in this system when there is no
> reason for growth.  Suppose there are 5 of these collectives which own
> all the means of production in a certain area, and people keep buying
> from them, and they keep taking in money, but it makes no sense for
> them to invest in increased capacity because demand is stable.


These consumers are paying a Price above Cost, so we know the current
owners are collecting Profit.

The current owners are using THE CONTRACT which requires a consumer's
overpayment be treated as HIS investment in more Physical Sources.

There is sufficient production in the area for all those paying
consumers, but the Physical Sources are not owned by those consumers.

The current owners of those Physical Sources obviously have more
production than they can use directly, for that is why they are
selling the products.  During such conditions, the most ideal route
(and I think will be the most common for 'overpropertied' owners)
would be some of the current owners choosing to sell some of their
extra Physical Sources to those underpropertied customers.

But, (in what I think will be a rare case), if none of the current
owners are willing to sell any of their Physical Sources even though
they clearly have more than they can use for themselves, there will be
no recourse but to buy or build even *more* Physical Sources for the
new users - paid for by the users - until every user has sufficient
ownership.

For it is not just that we need sufficient production, but the
ownership in that production must be distributed to those who are
willing to pay for it, else freedom is not complete.


When a user finally has sufficient ownership toward some Objective, he
no longer buys that type of Object from someone else because he
already owns it as a side-effect of his property in it's Physical
Sources.

An owner of Physical Sources is also the owner of all potential
Objectives of those Sources.

For example, when you own a car, you don't buy the Objective "get
across town" from somebody else, you own it as a side-effect of paying
for all the costs of buying, maintaining, storing and operating that
Physical Source.

When you own an apple tree, you don't buy the Objects called "apples"
from somebody else, you own them even before the blossoms have formed
- as a side-effect of paying for all the costs of that Physical
Source.


> What do they do with the money?
> Are they required to reduce prices
> so that they do not have a surplus?

Prices are set "by the market" in this system, but as users gain
ownership in Physical Sources, they no longer pay anything more than
Cost because they no longer buy those Objectives directly, but instead
receive them as a result of their ownership in the Physical Sources
required for that production.