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.|||