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

[Patrick Anderson]

Alex Rollin wrote:

> At some point I might "break even" as a vested partner, which might mean I
> could purchase burgers at the $3.75 rate

Ownership has a surprising effect on profit.

When the consumer of an object owns the physical sources of that
product, then he must pay for the costs of that operation.

For example, if you own a backhoe, then you must pay the costs to
operate and maintain and store the machine.  You must grease it, add
oil and diesel, check the water, etc.

If you hire people to do those jobs, then you will need to pay those
wages (as a cost).

You must pay all of the same costs as any other owner, but the one
thing you don't pay is profit - for who would you pay it to?

So profit = 0 when the owner of sources is the consumer of those
objectives because there is nobody else to pay.



> I'm not sure that I understand the overall utility of ever 'lowering' the
> price to 3.75 since this points at some kind of 'stable' system,

A surprising feature of object users being source owners is that price
approaches cost on it's own!

I'm not suggesting we lower prices artificially.  We should charge
just a little less than the "going rate" in the area.

But we won't be able to stop profit from approaching zero for any user
gaining ownership in sources - because the owner of sources is also
the owner of objects even before they are even produced!

For example: One objective of a backhoe is to create big holes in the
ground.  When you, as source-owner, pay for that backhoe to be
operated, you pay only the costs.  Nobody is lowering the price for
that objective; price==cost as a *side effect* of your ownership in
the sources.

If you own a cow, then you don't buy the milk from yourself, you only
pay the costs of production.

If you co-own some cows, you don't buy the milk from yourselves, you
only pay the costs of production.

If you own a dairy with 999 other people, then you must each pay your
portion of the costs, but you wouldn't need to buy the milk from your
collective 'self', but would each already own the same % of milk as
you own cattle.

You could also eventually also have ownership in equipment to make
butter, ice cream, cheese, etc. - and would then own those objectives
"at cost" as well.


> To go further, which sources, how deep into the supply chain, and for how
> long (1 year or perpeuity) are the sources secured?

You, as the payer of profit, should ultimately gain co-ownership in
*all* of the means of production for as deep as those chains run.

You, as the owner of sources, should have the option to sell
immediately or to keep ownership for any length of time.

Under the Terms of Operation outlined, if you sell or trade any
objectives produced by those co-owned sources, then you would be
required to treat all price above cost charged against that purchaser
as their investment in more sources.

A significant side-effect of treating profit in this manner is that
participants will tend to pay for only about as much as they need for
themselves and so there will not be much of a problem with
overaccumulation.