Patrick have you thought of the initial capital problem? In most cases people have different amounts of money which might lead some people to not be able to co-own. Then there are 2 possibilities we can consider. Either not allow companies to exist that are not co-owned. We will not have profit then as you say. We will also have a non-optimal solution.(ex farmers not be allowed to buy a tractor which is not co-owned). Allow poeple to be indebted to poeple and that will create profit for the creditor. The second case creates profit for some but the company is controlled by the customers - workers and this way the company will try to maximize the productivity of goods , the quality of the product and the working conditions. 2011/12/9 Patrick Anderson <[email protected]>
Sepp wrote:
It takes someone with a minimum of managerial skills to do the organizing,
I agree, and I am not one of those people.
But maybe we could pay those organizers a very large Wage instead...
The reason I resist paying them from Profits is that Profits simply WILL NOT EXIST if Investors are receiving Product for risk because there is no Sale.
For example, imagine a group of us Invest to buy and build a network for our own benefit.
We do not sell any of the bandwidth, but simply use that Product as our Return.
We must still pay all the Costs of production, including any Wages to managers and workers, but Profit will not exist because the Product will never be sold.
The scenario I describe is the 'static' case, and only applies unless we DO start selling Product to those with insufficient ownership.
Isn't it interesting that Profit only appears when the late Payer has insufficient ownership?
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis