Infinite Growth is Goal when Profit is Treated as Reward
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.|||
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 <[email protected]>
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
Apostolis wrote:
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?
I have thought about this problem and imagined it might be ok to allow Venture Capitalists to invest, paying them some % of the Profit. The crucial point is that *some* % of the Profit be treated as Payer Investment, for otherwise those late users will never gain the co-ownership needed to crawl out of subjugation. You can read my attempt at explaining this here: http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com/2011/09/burn-ring-funding-model.html I call it "Burn Ring" because the VC's ability to collect Profit from Payers will incrementally "burn-out" as those Payers gain ownership, and so will leave a wake of very high production that undercuts all Capitalist endeavors - since the co-owners who have sufficient ownership will be receiving Product at Cost, and so will never be tempted to buy from those who must sell at a Price above Cost. Profit will continue to flow to the VCs for as long as new Consumers are found who do not yet have sufficient ownership. I think this will be a very attractive investment because of the stability of the 'core' created by all the co-owners with sufficient ownership.
Patrick, in both cases i presented, consumers have ownership of the company from the beginning till the end. What I mean by that is that only consumers and workers decide how to produce things. Profit is given to the creditors due to the fact that they had money when you needed them. in essence, It is as if we accept profit all together, with one important difference though. Today, since it is not consumers - workers that decide, companies spend millions for advertisements. They create bad quality products and try to hide the truth from the public. they have hazardous working condtions etc. Another thing.. I have almost finished the math behind the simulation of such a network. Then I ll need to program the simulation. Then we could ask the program what the effects of the rules we might pose, have on the network.. 2011/12/9 Patrick Anderson <[email protected]>
Apostolis wrote:
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?
I have thought about this problem and imagined it might be ok to allow Venture Capitalists to invest, paying them some % of the Profit.
The crucial point is that *some* % of the Profit be treated as Payer Investment, for otherwise those late users will never gain the co-ownership needed to crawl out of subjugation.
You can read my attempt at explaining this here: http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com/2011/09/burn-ring-funding-model.html
I call it "Burn Ring" because the VC's ability to collect Profit from Payers will incrementally "burn-out" as those Payers gain ownership, and so will leave a wake of very high production that undercuts all Capitalist endeavors - since the co-owners who have sufficient ownership will be receiving Product at Cost, and so will never be tempted to buy from those who must sell at a Price above Cost.
Profit will continue to flow to the VCs for as long as new Consumers are found who do not yet have sufficient ownership. I think this will be a very attractive investment because of the stability of the 'core' created by all the co-owners with sufficient ownership.
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
Apostolis wrote:
in both cases i presented, consumers have ownership of the company from the beginning till the end.
That is what I intend too, but only covers the 'static' case where the scale of production is exactly the amount needed to supply the consumer/owners with the Products they need. Whenever there is Surplus, we will probably want to sell that extra Product to some consumers who do not yet have ownership. In that case, those latecomers will likely pay Price above Cost (Profit), and so we can use that overpayment as though they were investing - so that even those latecomers will gain co-ownership and cause them to move toward case #1 as well. Treating Profit as Payer Investment will 'stablize' the growth of that entity - causing growth to approach zero as each Payer/Consumer becomes a co-owner, and thereby stops paying Profit. Does that make sense? This is very important for an accurate simulation.
I was refering to the dynamic case when I said that. When you take a house with a loan, you are the owner of the house. 2011/12/10 Patrick Anderson <[email protected]>
Apostolis wrote:
in both cases i presented, consumers have ownership of the company from the beginning till the end.
That is what I intend too, but only covers the 'static' case where the scale of production is exactly the amount needed to supply the consumer/owners with the Products they need.
Whenever there is Surplus, we will probably want to sell that extra Product to some consumers who do not yet have ownership. In that case, those latecomers will likely pay Price above Cost (Profit), and so we can use that overpayment as though they were investing - so that even those latecomers will gain co-ownership and cause them to move toward case #1 as well.
Treating Profit as Payer Investment will 'stablize' the growth of that entity - causing growth to approach zero as each Payer/Consumer becomes a co-owner, and thereby stops paying Profit.
Does that make sense?
This is very important for an accurate simulation.
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
Apostolis wrote:
When you take a house with a loan, you are the owner of the house.
Are you saying the "payer's lack of ownership" is the same as "debt"? I had never thought of it in that way. So when I say "profit measures the consumer's lack of ownership in the means of production", I could instead say "interest measures debt". So we are in debt to the Capitalists because we have not organized to co-own the means of production for our mutual benefit. That make a lot of sense. I wonder how this compares to Chris Cook's take on the subject, which seems very similar to what I propose but continues to elude me. His older work is at http://OpenCapital.net also see http://p2pfoundation.net/Chris_Cook I would CC him, but can't seem to find his addr.
I hope we didnt get confused because of my english. How do you say in english the ability of a person to decide what to do with an object or to decde what others could do with it. I call this ownership. maybe I use the wrong word. And yes, profit and debt wear different dresses but are the same person... lol. 2011/12/10 Patrick Anderson <[email protected]>
Apostolis wrote:
When you take a house with a loan, you are the owner of the house.
Are you saying the "payer's lack of ownership" is the same as "debt"?
I had never thought of it in that way.
So when I say "profit measures the consumer's lack of ownership in the means of production", I could instead say "interest measures debt".
So we are in debt to the Capitalists because we have not organized to co-own the means of production for our mutual benefit.
That make a lot of sense.
I wonder how this compares to Chris Cook's take on the subject, which seems very similar to what I propose but continues to elude me.
His older work is at http://OpenCapital.net also see http://p2pfoundation.net/Chris_Cook
I would CC him, but can't seem to find his addr.
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
On 10/12/11 12:54, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis wrote:
I hope we didnt get confused because of my english.
How do you say in english the ability of a person to decide what to do with an object or to decde what others could do with it.
I call this ownership. maybe I use the wrong word.
It is one of the functions of ownership / or aspect of property relations. In liberal jurisprudence it is sometimes called decision-making powers. m
participants (3)
-
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis -
mp -
Patrick Anderson