-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
diary-feb-2010.htm
484 lines (481 loc) · 46.1 KB
/
diary-feb-2010.htm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
<head>
<title>diary-feb-2010 </title>
<link href=".code/preferred.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"/>
</head>
<body>
<p class='header'>
<a href="_home.htm">Home</a> | <a href="_faq.htm">FAQ</a> | <a href="_thesis.htm">Thesis</a> | <a href="_diary.htm">Diary</a> | <a href="_projects.htm">Projects</a> | <a href="resume.htm">Resume</a> | <a href="_todo.htm">Todo</a> | <a href="_index.htm">Index</a> |<p>
<p class='main'><span class="rel">Related:</span> <a href="diary.htm">diary</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-22-2010:</span> Posted to P2PResearch@<a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org">ListCultures.org</a><br/>
Eugen Leitl wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Patrick Anderson wrote:</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> Must the Material Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion required for P2P be necessarily</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> limited to *individual* <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> I would strongly suggest so.</span><br/>
<br/>
Hmm... Maybe I should rephrase. What I <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly meant to ask is:<br/>
<br/>
Must the Material Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion required for a more 'fair' <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy be necessarily limited to *individual* <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot2">>> devise a way to hold physical re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es together, but in a 'fair'</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> manner?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Of course, it's a design problem. <a href="diff.htm">Diff</a>icult, but doable in principle.</span><br/>
<br/>
Aside from any technical issues, what do you see as being wrong with how things are done now?<br/>
<br/>
In other words, assuming centralization has *some* benefits, why does it not serve us in the way we expect?<br/>
<br/>
As an example: What is wrong with G<a href="mail.htm">mail</a>? I understand they snoop on you, limit you, report you to 'authorities', etc., but why do *they* do those things to *us*, and why can *we* not get-together to <a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a> those datacenters for our collective 'self' so that we <small>(as a group)</small> finally have control?<br/>
<br/>
It appears to me the problem is that even when attempting to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion so-called "community <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed", we do not understand how to handle growth caused by <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>, and so ignorantly accumulate the control of those investments into the hands of the few that began the venture while leaving those who paid for the growth without any <a href="real.htm">real</a> control of their <a href="own.htm">own</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-22-2010:</span> Posted to P2PResearch@<a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org">ListCultures.org</a><br/>
<br/>
Eugen Leitl wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> I'm aware of non<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>-deployed ISPs, which includes the last mile.</span><br/>
<br/>
Unfortunately, so-called "non<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>" corporations still charge <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>, but then 'hide' that revenue in various ways, including padded wages or bonuses.<br/>
<br/>
They also grow the organization, but retain all the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of that growth for themselves, leaving the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s who paid without any <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty whatsoever.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> If you deploy</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> GBit Ethernet mesh which is municipally <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed and connect this by</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> intercity fiber there's no centralized <a href="back.htm">back</a>bone. It's a bit like a</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> federal railway only much less expensive.</span><br/>
<br/>
I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> it *should* be less expensive, since the municipality will not be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> to external <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers, but on the other hand, local governments suffer from other problems <small>(especially associated with how <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ing is collected through mandatory taxation)</small> that <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e them unable to allow full <a href="user.htm">user</a> <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom, nor truly at-<a href="cost.htm">cost</a> services.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot2">>> Patrick Anderson wrote:</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> > What should a Community do with <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Why, invest it into infrastructure operation, maintenance and upgrade.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Earth<a href="work.htm">work</a>s for one are remarkably expensive, especially a lot of them in</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> cluttered environment.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, but who should be the *<a href="own.htm">own</a>er* of that growth?<br/>
<br/>
Most assume it should be the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers or original organizers - as that is how Capitalism and even non-<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s <a href="work.htm">work</a> - but what would happen if that growth <small>(those investments)</small> were instead the <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty of the people who actually *paid* for them?<br/>
<br/>
That would create a very <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> dynamic where control was continuously 'distributed' and automatically balanced since the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> a <a href="user.htm">user</a> must <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> decreases naturally as that <a href="user.htm">user</a> gains <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty in the "Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es" of that good or service.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-19-2010:</span> Watching <a class="ext" href="http://Vimeo.com/5699670">Vimeo.com/5699670</a> <span class="quot2">>>James Pike - Equity <a href="part.htm">Part</a>nership; exploring non debt-based financing for <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>ding development in the downturn.</span><br/>
<br/>
He mentions Chris Cook's <a class="ext" href="http://OpenCapital.net">OpenCapital.net</a> <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>as and begins talking about Community <a href="land.htm">Land</a> <a href="part.htm">Part</a>nerships <small>(CLP)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
A CLP has four <a href="key.htm">key</a> members:<br/>
<br/>
CUSTODIAN: Has <a href="free.htm">Free</a>hold <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in perpetuity on behalf of the community.<br/>
<br/>
MANAGER: Hired by the CUSTODIAN.<br/>
<br/>
OCCUPIERS: Those using the outputs of that community.<br/>
<a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>s "at-<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>al. Receives equity if <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing more than <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
INVE<a href="stor.htm">STOR</a>S: Expect return for risk<br/>
<br/>
DEVELOPER/OPERATOR: <br/>
<br/>
LOCAL AUTHORITY: Enforces restrictions and taxes.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-16-2010:</span> Posted to P2PResearch@<a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org">ListCultures.org</a><br/>
Subject: Stabilizing Growth through Negative Feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> <small>(was: <a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom and the Purpose of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>)</small><br/>
Ric<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> <a href="stallman.htm">Stallman</a> wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> I don't see what happens in this system when there is no</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> reason for growth. Suppose there are 5 of these collectives which <a href="own.htm">own</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> all the means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion in a certain area, and people keep buying</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> from them, and they keep taking in <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y, but it <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es no sense for</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> them to invest in increased capacity because demand is stable.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
These consumers are <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing a <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>, so we <a href="know.htm">know</a> the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are collecting <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are using THE CONTRACT which requires a consumer's overpayment be treated as HIS investment in more Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
There is sufficient <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion in the area for all those <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing consumers, but the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es are not <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by those consumers.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of those Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es obviously have more <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion than they can <a href="use.htm">use</a> directly, for that is why they are selling the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts. During such conditions, the most <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>al route <small>(and I think will be the most common for 'over<a href="proper.htm">proper</a>tied' <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers)</small> would be some of the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers choosing to sell some of their extra Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es to those under<a href="proper.htm">proper</a>tied customers.<br/>
<br/>
But, <small>(in what I think will be a rare case)</small>, if none of the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are willing to sell any of their Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es even though they clearly have more than they can <a href="use.htm">use</a> for themselves, there will be no recourse but to buy or <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d even *more* Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es for the <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="user.htm">user</a>s - paid for by the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s - until every <a href="user.htm">user</a> has sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
For it is not just that we need sufficient <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, but the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion must be distributed to those who are willing to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for it, else <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom is not complete.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
When a <a href="user.htm">user</a> finally has sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership toward some <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ective, he no longer buys that type of <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ect from someone else because he already <a href="own.htm">own</a>s it as a side-effect of his <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty in it's Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
An <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es is also the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of all potential <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ectives of those <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
For example, when you <a href="own.htm">own</a> a car, you don't buy the <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ective "get across town" from somebody else, you <a href="own.htm">own</a> it as a side-effect of <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing for all the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of buying, maintaining, <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>ing and operating that Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e.<br/>
<br/>
When you <a href="own.htm">own</a> an apple tree, you don't buy the <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ects called "apples" from somebody else, you <a href="own.htm">own</a> them even before the blossoms have formed - as a side-effect of <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing for all the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of that Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> What do they do with the <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Are they required to reduce <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> so that they do not have a surplus?</span><br/>
<br/>
<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>es are set "by the market" in this system, but as <a href="user.htm">user</a>s gain <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es, they no longer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> anything more than <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> because they no longer buy those <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ectives directly, but instead receive them as a result of their <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es required for that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-12-2010:</span> Posted to P2PResearch@<a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org">ListCultures.org</a><br/>
Subject: <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> Measures the <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er's lack of Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership<br/>
Ryan Lanham wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> The Marxian stuff of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is meaningless.</span><br/>
<br/>
Are you saying <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es no impact on the <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e a consumer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s?<br/>
<br/>
What is cheaper:<br/>
A bunch of friends buy a large van to ride to <a href="work.htm">work</a> together.<br/>
A bunch of friends <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> a large van to ride to <a href="work.htm">work</a> together.<br/>
<br/>
If there is no <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ing and the <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e of <a href="rent.htm">Rent</a>ing, then all <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>al agencies would be reporting zero <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>s, right? I'm sure that is untrue.<br/>
<br/>
When you <a href="own.htm">own</a> an apple tree, you get apples at exactly the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
When you don't <a href="own.htm">own</a> the tree but want the fruit, you can buy them from another <a href="own.htm">own</a>er, but he will likely charge you a <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e that is more than it <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> to <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e. That <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence is <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> It is the capacity to generate <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s that is all important.</span><br/>
<br/>
No, the capacity to generate *<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts* is all that is important.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> does not occur when a consumer <a href="own.htm">own</a>s the Means <small>(or Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es)</small> of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>es are set by demand and supply...not by <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s.</span><br/>
<br/>
<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>es are affected by <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s because the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers must <a href="recover.htm">recover</a> at least what it <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> to <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e, or they won't even "break even".<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between Consumer <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>es and <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s is <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> increases as Consumer dependence increases, and decrease as that dependence decreases.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-12-2010:</span> Posted to P2PResearch@<a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org">ListCultures.org</a><br/>
Subject: <a href="fund.htm">Fund</a>ing an <a href="ecos.htm">Ecos</a>ystem Prototype <small>(was: <a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom and the Purpose of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>)</small><br/>
Kevin Carson wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> To me the problem with this whole system is that the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es seems to get very little out of <a href="agree.htm">agree</a>ing to license his</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> enterprise under such rules</span><br/>
<br/>
This is similar to the one of the reasons a <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ter programmer would choose to license the results of his labor under the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> <a href="gpl.htm">GPL</a>.<br/>
<br/>
In both cases, there are benefits from the resulting <a href="ecos.htm">ecos</a>ystem of <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ers who add their <a href="own.htm">own</a> specialized labor - causing the project to grow outside of your power, becoming a <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>ing entity independent of individual desires to stop it.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> aside from a lot of extra <a href="admin.htm">admin</a>istrative</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> hoops to jump through.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, the way I describe it seems nit-<a href="pic.htm">pic</a>king. I was trying to be exact in my explanation, but we could lighten-up on the precision to begin such <a href="ecos.htm">ecos</a>ystems in prototype.<br/>
<br/>
We could loosen in our implementations by investing only a small % of the <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> for the <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er while <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing-out the rest to various <a href="part.htm">part</a>icipants, including the <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>itional VC inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s and of course the <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
This could allow us to begin as a hybrid corporation similar to what Suresh and others are <a href="work.htm">work</a>ing toward.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The <a href="own.htm">own</a>er's <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es would be driven down</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> to <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> through the automatic function of the market,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> without a lot of paper<a href="work.htm">work</a> and <a href="admin.htm">admin</a>istrative complications.</span><br/>
<br/>
One thing I've noticed about even pure* Capitalism is that it always requires more than one Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e to bring <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> down. And even then there is <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> hidden in high wages and other requirements.<br/>
<br/>
But even if the <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>es were <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>ntical in both systems, there would still be the problem that I, as end <a href="user.htm">user</a>, do not have dominion over those Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es - and so cannot do the <a href="work.htm">work</a> myself and do not have much of a say over things except to beg those <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<small>(*)</small> Where governments provide none of the special favors they <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently do.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-12-2010:</span> Posted to P2PResearch@<a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org">ListCultures.org</a><br/>
Subject: <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> Measures the <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er's lack of Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership<br/>
<br/>
A potential Consumer will <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> a <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> when he does not have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion because he is *dependent* upon those <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
This imbalance can be incrementally corrected by treating that overpayment as the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er's investment in the growth of that organization so that Capital is no longer 'accumulated' into the hands of the few, but is transpa<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>ly 'distributed' <a href="back.htm">back</a> to the very person who paid it as a deed of <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in more Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es needed for that type of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t. It is a subtly 'forced' investment.<br/>
<br/>
This causes <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> to approach zero <small>(as <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e approaches <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>)</small> and control to be move to the hands of those willing to <a href="work.htm">work</a> instead of being centralized into the hands the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ees who treat <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as a reward for themselves.<br/>
<br/>
Treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as a reward for the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers is the physical basis of Usury.<br/>
<br/>
Treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as an investment from the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er is a negative-feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> against primitive accumulation allowing growth that is both sufficient <small>(according to the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> the consumer is willing to overpay)</small> and autoleveling <small>(because <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>==0 when an <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ect consumer has sufficient <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership)</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-12-2010:</span> Reading <a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlated_equilibrium">Wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlated_equilibrium</a>: <span class="quot">"'The <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a is that each player chooses her action according to her observation of the value of the same public signal.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-09-2010:</span> <a href="title.htm">Title</a> <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a: Life Ensurance<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-08-2010:</span> Posted to P2PResearch@<a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org">ListCultures.org</a><br/>
Subject: Stabilization Growth through Negative Feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> <small>(was: <a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom and the Purpose of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>)</small><br/>
Ric<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> <a href="stallman.htm">Stallman</a> wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> Does your <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a depend on unending <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic growth?</span><br/>
<br/>
No, treating <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er investment will redistribute <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership more than it will increase overall <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
Since <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es is <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently very far from being in the hands of the <a href="obj.htm">Obj</a>ect <a href="user.htm">User</a>s, <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty will need to change hands a great deal at first as farms and factories are slowly bought by groups using the contract.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>...<br/>
<br/>
As a collective whole, we have had for decades enough agricultural technology, if applied, could supply all humans many times over.<br/>
<br/>
But those who <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently <a href="own.htm">own</a> the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of our food, medicine, <a href="soap.htm">soap</a>, cloth, etc. cannot allow that those <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es to be utilized to their full potential, for that would cause <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es to drop.<br/>
<br/>
And they can't let <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es drop because their inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s expect <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as their return.<br/>
<br/>
These organizations grow so large they are able to purchase legislation such as the US Farm Bill that once again <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s farmers to NOT grow in areas that must be provably arable.<br/>
<br/>
This occurs because Capitalists treat <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> in such a way that it becomes a "positive feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> loop" - promoting actions that increase <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> even further, and subjugating the <a href="user.htm">user</a> to keep those measures in place.<br/>
<br/>
Our species is trivially able to support itself if only we could organize in such a way as to allow <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e to reach <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> in a 'safe' manner so we are not forever trying to '<a href="protect.htm">protect</a>' <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>e by <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>ping up <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>es and Wages through <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificial scarcity enforced by tarrifs and Unions etc.<br/>
<br/>
The usual opposite to that is to claim <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>e must be made '<a href="free.htm">free</a>' using instruments such as NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.<br/>
<br/>
But that doesn't <a href="work.htm">work</a> either, because the goal of those corporations is wrong from the beginning. They dont' care about <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t; they care only about <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>...<br/>
<br/>
Within Capitalism, the <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers of Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es are usually under obligation to inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s who expect them to treat <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> as the return for taking risk.<br/>
<br/>
But what about the <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t itself? We can <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s with <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion if those inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are also *<a href="user.htm">user</a>s* that will be satisfied with "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" goods and services under their full control.<br/>
<br/>
So how can we <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s if we intend to <a href="use.htm">use</a> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> for another purpose? One way is to attract Consumers to pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for a return of *<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t* instead.<br/>
<br/>
Everyone will have "high-level" control of their milk, eggs, bread, medicine, <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>ing, transportation, etc. We will have those things "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>". How much does it *<a href="real.htm">real</a>ly* <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> to send a photo from a cell-phone?<br/>
<br/>
<span class="bullet">.</span>...<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> gains <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership the Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es needed for the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion of each type of <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ect he consumes. And as his <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership approaches 'sufficient', his need to purchase <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ects approaches zero.<br/>
<br/>
For example: when the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> has enough <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in Peach trees needed to supply himself with all the peaches he will <a href="use.htm">use</a> during that season, then he no longer buys Peaches from someone else, but is instead already <a href="own.htm">own</a>er of his % of Peaches that fell from his tree. He must pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of dealing with that fruit, but does not <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, for who would he <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to?<br/>
<br/>
And since he no longer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> for that specific <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ective, he will no longer be 'growing' in that regard.<br/>
<br/>
His investments have fallen to zero because his <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> fell to zero; and his <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> fell to zero because he gained sufficient <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty in those Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er slowly gains <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty in Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es as the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> he paid is invested for him.<br/>
<br/>
While <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is treated as <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er investment, <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>ers gain <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty in Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es until they have enough of that type that no longer need to grow in that regard.<br/>
<br/>
Growth will approach zero as <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> approaches zero,<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> will approach zero as <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty approaches 'sufficient' for each type of <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ective.<br/>
<a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty will approach 'sufficient' if <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is treated as a <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er's investment.<br/>
<br/>
Growth will auto-level and stabilize in a natural manner when the goal is the outputs of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion instead of the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e and <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
This occurs because we will treat <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> in such a way that it becomes a "negative feed<a href="back.htm">back</a> loop" - promoting actions that decrease <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> toward and even reaching zero, <a href="free.htm">free</a>ing the <a href="user.htm">user</a>s by giving they full and final control that <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed organizations would never do.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-07-2010:</span> Posted to P2PResearch@<a class="ext" href="http://ListCultures.org">ListCultures.org</a><br/>
Subject: <a href="user.htm">User</a> <a href="free.htm">Free</a>dom and the Purpose of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a><br/>
Ric<a href="hard.htm">hard</a> <a href="stallman.htm">Stallman</a> wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> But what happens when you get <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> but further expansion</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> is not desirable?</span><br/>
<br/>
Let's look at the most simple case where 1 person <a href="own.htm">own</a>s some Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e and applies THE CONTRACT* to that <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="imag.htm">Imag</a>ine I <a href="own.htm">own</a> a more expensive roto-tiller.<br/>
<br/>
I choose to apply the contract to that Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e and begin <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>ing it to others for a <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e that is higher that my <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of: investment, maintenance <small>(oil, fuel, wear <a href="part.htm">part</a>s)</small>, <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>age, wages to any <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers I had to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>, wages to myself for managing it all, etc.<br/>
<br/>
Since I am collecting <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>**, and since I am choosing to apply the contract, I must save those overpayments until I have enough to invest for all the people that overpaid to <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> the tiller during that round of growth.<br/>
<br/>
In most cases, <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers will not be 'selling' any of their <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent holdings, and so the overpaying <a href="user.htm">user</a>s will usually be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing toward the purchase of *more* Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
Let's say, after a year or so there is finally enough <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y in the '<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er-<a href="fund.htm">fund</a>' to buy another tiller.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
It is a little unclear to me what we should do right here.<br/>
<br/>
On the one hand it <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es some sense to let the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers invest the <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y and then release the <a href="fract.htm">fract</a>ional-<a href="title.htm">title</a>s to that Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e to the group of <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
The <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers are generally more informed about what would be the best investment in that field, but it seems unfair and very wrong to not involve the end-<a href="user.htm">user</a> when it is his <a href="free.htm">free</a>dom we are trying to <a href="protect.htm">protect</a>...<br/>
<br/>
This needs to be outlined more clearly and may need to be <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the contract.<br/>
<br/>
So, even though I think the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers would probably be <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing the investments, the more important point is that those original <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ers of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> become the <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="title.htm">title</a> holders of that <a href="new.htm">new</a> Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>e.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
To answer your question more directly: I would not be 'expanding' my <a href="own.htm">own</a> holdings, but would instead be acting a sort of "growth conduit" for those who do not yet have sufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The question is, how does selling me a share affect the value</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> of everyone else's share?</span><br/>
<br/>
Where you say "selling me a share" I will rewrite "my <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>". So your question becomes:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> how does my <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> affect the value of everyone else's share?</span><br/>
<br/>
When you <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> a <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>, that overpayment is held with the overpayments of many other <a href="user.htm">user</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
After there are sufficient <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>s to move forward, those <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s become your <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in more Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es such as a <a href="new.htm">new</a> farm or another factory.<br/>
<br/>
You are not taking any value from anyone else, you are <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>ing your <a href="own.htm">own</a> growth through the collective purchase of the material means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion needed to meet your <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ectives.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Suppose there are a million shares</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by various people, and the farm sells me one share.</span><br/>
<br/>
It is probably confusing to think of this in terms of <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>itional 'shares' because what I'm talking about it a % of <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership shared among *only that group of <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ers*.<br/>
<br/>
There are no committees or board-members or any such bureaucracy unless that individual group decides they want to subject themselves to such a system of rule. Very large groups may find some need for variations of such self-imposed structure.<br/>
<br/>
Groups of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers using the contract are *fully independent* of each other. Some <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers will decide they want the oil changed in their tiller every 200 hrs, while another group may decide they will do it every 300 hrs.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Does that mean that there are now 1,000,0001 shares <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> and everyone else's share has gone down a little in value?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Or do they get a dividend?</span><br/>
<br/>
If by 'dividend' you mean "will the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers receive some of the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as a reward?" then the answer is 'no'.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is treated as an investment from the <a href="user.htm">user</a> who paid it because <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> measures a <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er's lack of <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
----<br/>
<br/>
<small>(*)</small> THE CONTRACT is the <small>(as yet incomplete)</small> legally-binding "Terms of Operation" that <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers can choose to apply to their <a href="own.htm">own</a> Physical <a href="sourc.htm">Sourc</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<small>(**)</small> When there is just 1 <a href="own.htm">own</a>er, <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is easily 'hidden' when the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s himself excessive wages which takes from the pool that would have otherwise been labeled <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>. This ability diminishes as <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership is multiplexed, since the other <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers will then demand such <a href="job.htm">job</a>s be put 'on the market' to lower their <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-07-2010:</span> Posted to a private e<a href="mail.htm">mail</a> list<br/>
Joel,<br/>
<br/>
I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> that <a href="land.htm">Land</a> and Capital <small>(<a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership)</small> is the most<br/>
foundational problem. <a href="own.htm">Own</a> or be <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed.<br/>
<br/>
But this does not conflict with my message.<br/>
<br/>
I talk mostly about how <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> should be treated. But notice what I<br/>
say should be done with it: It must be invested in <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ership <small>(<a href="land.htm">Land</a> and Capital)</small> for the <a href="user.htm">user</a> who paid it.<br/>
<br/>
The reason this is the 'solution' to our need for <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership<br/>
is that <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is measuring the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er's *lack* or *need for* <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty.<br/>
<br/>
So you might say: <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> = 1/<a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty<br/>
<br/>
As <a href="user own.htm">user own</a>ership in <a href="land.htm">Land</a> and Capital increases, the less <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> he<br/>
will <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> - as he becomes his <a href="own.htm">own</a> supplier <small>[<small>[Without necessarily being<br/>
the <a href="work.htm">work</a>er that operates those Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion]</small>]</small>.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Joel Pierre wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> The Overriding law of all <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omics is:</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="land.htm">Land</a> + Labor + Capital = Wealth - <small>(<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> + wage + interest)</small></span><br/>
<br/>
This is what occurs during '<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion'. But <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is only one<br/>
phase of <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omics.<br/>
<br/>
This equation does not mention '<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e' which occurs during the phase<br/>
called '<a href="trad.htm">Trad</a>e'.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between the <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e an end-consumer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s and<br/>
the <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s an <a href="own.htm">own</a>er already paid. When the consumer and <a href="own.htm">own</a>er are the<br/>
same, then the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e of the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t is exactly the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s you paid to<br/>
get the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed.<br/>
<br/>
It is when we <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers, <small>(as consumers)</small> <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> a <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e above <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> that we<br/>
are losing our value.<br/>
<br/>
We have been fooled into believing the <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers must <a href="own.htm">own</a> the Means of<br/>
<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion so we can guarantee high Wages.<br/>
<br/>
But what we <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly need is to <a href="own.htm">own</a> the <a href="land.htm">Land</a> and Capital needed for the<br/>
things we Consume so we can guarantee low <a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>es.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Is <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> the wealth explained in above equation?</span><br/>
<br/>
Wealth here appears to be representing '<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t', not '<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>'.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> doesn't exist unless the Apples are sold. At the<br/>
point-of-sale, if the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er gives more than it <a href="real.htm">real</a>ly <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> the <a href="own.htm">own</a>er<br/>
to <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e that <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ect, then <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> has been paid.<br/>
<br/>
For example, if you <a href="own.htm">own</a> a plot of ground <small>(<a href="land.htm">Land</a>)</small>, and Apple tree and<br/>
tools <small>(Capital)</small> and are willing to <a href="work.htm">work</a> or to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> someone else<br/>
<small>(Labor)</small>, then the Wealth received is the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t == Apples.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> If so, who has a claim to what portion? If the problem is indeed <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, could it not be caused by an imbalance on the other side of the equation?</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, that is true. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> can be thought of as the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er's lack of<br/>
<a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> only occurs when the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>er has insufficient <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the<br/>
<a href="land.htm">Land</a> and Capital needed to <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e that thing. Otherwise he can hire<br/>
another to do the Labor <small>(a <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>)</small> or even do that <a href="work.htm">work</a> himself. He<br/>
will have to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> all the other <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, but will not <a href="pay.htm">pay</a><br/>
<a href="profit.htm">profit</a> - for who would he <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> it to?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> If you subscribe to the school of thought where life is about your individual experience, it follows that you were placed here by a higher power and that there is order in the universe. When this order is interrupted, the universe seeks to <a href="restor.htm">restor</a>e balance and the effects of this are felt by all involved <a href="part.htm">part</a>ies.</span><br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>amental law that <a href="land.htm">Land</a> + Labor = Wealth</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, but again, that is <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t, not <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The symptoms, such as <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, will not disappear until we solve the problem being caused by breaking the laws of the universe.</span><br/>
<br/>
I was hoping to <a href="use.htm">use</a> a better treatment of <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> to solve our lack of<br/>
<a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty by taking advantage of their inverse relationship to each<br/>
other.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Feb-02-2010:</span> Posted to a private e<a href="mail.htm">mail</a> list<br/>
<br/>
Since corporations are the only ones getting anything done, <small>(where does your ce<a href="real.htm">real</a> come from?)</small>, and since every corporation would go out of business unless <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> were being collected, then what are we to do otherwise?<br/>
<br/>
The corporations have so much power because WE paid them!<br/>
<br/>
If we don't like the power they have, then shouldn't we stop <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing?<br/>
But if we do that, then where will all the things we need come from?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
It is tempting to pretend "God-dammit, I'll just pull up my britches and do it myself!". But that is only a dream when your britches are from China.<br/>
<br/>
Most individuals can't <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e all of even their basic needs in solitary confinement. We must learn how to organize in a corrected manner to allow specialized <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion while treating the value called '<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>' in a way that avoids handing control to those that <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ently organize.<br/>
<br/>
Why are the Chinese so <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive?<br/>
Why is the US no longer <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tive?<br/>
<br/>
Many people will say "Well, it's just not <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>able to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers so much in the US when the same labor is 1/10 the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e in China/India."<br/>
<br/>
These things must be said without much thought, since the same person is likely also an opponent of Corporate power which has been brought about by their collecting <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> from us, the <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing consumers.<br/>
<br/>
So if <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> is the problem, shouldn't we at least try to determine where, when and why we <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> that value?<br/>
<br/>
And if we can determine the true origin of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>, then maybe we can decide how that value should be treated to avoid the overaccumulation that finally <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es bullies out of those that were nice enough organize in the first place.<br/>
</p>
<p class='footer'>
Page generated from <a href=".text/diary-feb-2010">diary-feb-2010</a> by <a href=".code/etym.el">etym</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>