Lets just say that we created a network of such 'companies'. Then a new invention is found that improves production by far. A number of consumers want to create a factory to make a product with this new invention but they lack the money 'and' neither a subset of consumers or anyone else is willing to give them money without interest(profit). what should they do?
Let me just say that the problem of profit is more important when we think of its consequenses in a long period of time and think of the network in general. Thus we have to find a rule in which all new companies in this network abide.
Should we then put a rule that will disallow them to give profit to some which might be hamfull in the health of this network of companies in the future,
when accepting to give some profit to them is also profitable for the consumers in the short term?
(In both cases consumers - workers control the production.)
What you propose was my first thought as well. So let me reiterate the problem? If people are willing to invest with the rules you say, then indeed there will be no profit. What happens if they dont accept your rules and dont invest? We should think globally.
2011/12/9 Patrick Anderson
<agnucius@gmail.com>
Apostolis wrote:
> Patrick have you thought of the initial capital problem?
Yes, we can fix this by allowing the latecomers who do
not have capital to pay Profit when they *buy* the Product.
But, in order to avoid subjugating those new users, we
must treat that over-payment as that Payer's Investment.
In other words, "Profit is Payer's Investment".
This allows us to accept latecomers so we can grow,
but avoids the usual problem of capital accumulation.
Also, since we are not treating Profit as Reward, there
is no incentive for continuous growth that causes usual
Capitalist businesses to never be satisfied with stasis.
> In most cases people have different amounts of money
> which might lead some people to not be able to co-own.
Yes, we can sell surplus to those who cannot afford to
invest up-front, charging Profit against them, but when
we Invest that Profit in more Capital, the ownership of
that new Property must eventually vest to that Payer.
>
> Then there are 2 possibilities we can consider.
>
> Either not allow companies to exist that are not co-owned.
I don't think we can stop others from running their
businesses however they like.
I only intend to create new businesses that have
internal constraints enforced through a legally-binding
Terms of Operation - similar to how the GNU GPL is
applied by 'owners' to their own property.
> Allow poeple to be indebted to people and
> that will create profit for the creditor.
By 'indebted', do you mean "pay Profit"?
I agree we should allow latecomers to pay Profit,
but we should (choose to) treat that over-payment
as an Investment from that Payer - so that all users
incrementally gain the co-ownership needed for
them to eventually also stop buying Product.
The (co-)owners of a dairy must pay all the Costs
of production, but they do not buy milk since they
own that Product *already*, and since the last
transaction is missing, Profit does not exist.
|||Profit is undefined when Product is ROI.|||
_______________________________________________
P2P Foundation - Mailing list
http://www.p2pfoundation.net
https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis