[P2P-F] Infinite Growth is Goal when Profit is Treated as Reward

[Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis]

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 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20111209/2bf31731/attachment.htm