Yes patrick that is what i mean. I also think that this is the only natural - common sense thing to do. But i would like to hear what the others say because i may be wrong.<div><br></div><div>I also agree with Dante about limiting private accumulation but I think that if we do what patrick and i say, we will nullify the previous wealth from affecting the future creation and distribution of wealth. Think of this wealth like a ferrari. Let them have this wealth. the ferrari cant make more ferrari s and increase inequality in opportunity.</div>
<div><br></div><div>(I am also in the direction of automating the whole process. People will put what they want and how much they like to work at a specific job, and the programm will automatically designate what job is the best for each person and the prices and amount of products that will be created. Engineers will also be able to put new production methods and the new graph will be instantly computed plus the price that people would be willing to pay for the new production method.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>There is one problem though.</div><div><br></div><div>Since profit will not exist, �it will just flow back to the consumers and producers, we will have a problem of competition with the rest of the world in which workers and consumers are forced to pay profit. If people decide not to accumulate wealth to increase productivity, they will unfortunately revert back to the system that creates inequality since in the rest of the world we are forced to increase productivity(through the profit maximization aim of enterprises).�<br>
<div><br></div><div><br><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/12/17 Patrick Anderson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:agnucius@gmail.com" target="_blank">agnucius@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>Apostolis wrote:<br>
> it is required of us to lose part of the<br>
> ownership we have of our work<br>
<br>
</div>I hadn't thought of it quite like this, but<br>
maybe it coincides with my viewpoint...<br>
<br>
The way I see it, those who choose to<br>
organize production are at an advantage<br>
compared to those who did not organize.<br>
<br>
The latecomer's disadvantage is easily<br>
measured by the amount the organized<br>
can charge *above* the real Costs of<br>
some Good or Service. �In other words,<br>
Profit measures Payer dependence or<br>
disadvantage compared to those who<br>
already have co-ownership.<br>
<br>
We can 'balance' this difference by<br>
allowing the latecomer to pay Profit,<br>
but then treat that overpayment as an<br>
Investment FROM THAT PAYER.<br>
<br>
This is the way I would concur with your<br>
assertion that we "lose part of our<br>
ownership". �I would say Profit does<br>
not belong to the already organized<br>
(does not belong to the current owners),<br>
but actually belongs to the Payer - but<br>
not as a Price cut - as an Investment in<br>
more Means of Production needed to<br>
move that Payer toward co-ownership<br>
needed to avoid ever again paying Profit.<br>
<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<span><font color="#888888">Patrick Anderson<br>
<a href="http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com" target="_blank">http://ImputedProduction.BlogSpot.com</a><br>
</font></span><div><div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
P2P Foundation - Mailing list<br>
<a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://www.p2pfoundation.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;border-collapse:collapse"><pre style="white-space:pre-wrap"><br></pre><pre style="white-space:pre-wrap">
Sincerely yours, </pre><pre style="white-space:pre-wrap"> Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis</pre></span><br>
</div></div></div>