[p2p-research] open-source gadgets have the best chance in markets where the technology has matured to the point that it is commonplace.

[Patrick Anderson]

Ryan Lanham wrote:
> I see it happening everywhere where huge natural resources are not required
> in production.  If such resources are required, the price falls to the value
> of the resources.   Labor and IP go to zero.


If the Price for the Consumer "falls to the value of the resources",
does that mean that Owner_Costs and Consumer_Price would be the same?

And if Owner_Costs and Consumer_Price are the same, then Profit must be Zero.

But if Profit is Zero, then why are these big corporations (such as
ConAgra, Tyson, etc.) still in business and reporting 'earnings' even
while moving very non-innovative products such as chicken meat and
frozen potatoes, etc.?


On the other hand, if you are correct, and if Price is moving toward
Cost (causing Profit to approach Zero), then not only do we have a
"problem" that work is being automated away, but we also do not have a
good explanation as to why anyone would be willing to invest in the
future.

There *is* a reason to invest besides Profit; it is called Product.

But production for the sake of Product alone would require (by
definition) for those investors and owners to be the very consumers of
those goods - and for each of them to be invested only to the degree
it would take to supply themselves.

That is an odd arrangement compared to the notion most people have -
where they envision the *workers* to be the investors and owners.