-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
diary-jun-2009.htm
338 lines (335 loc) · 42.9 KB
/
diary-jun-2009.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
<?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-jun-2009 </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/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-22-2009:</span> Generate Tag lists from the set of defined terms appearing within each document.<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-18-2009:</span> <a href="work.htm">Work</a>ing on the definition of PSF <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t Futures and it's relationship to the <a href="gnurho.htm">GNUrho</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-18-2009:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://FEE.org/articles/tgif/intellectual-property">FEE.org/articles/tgif/intellectual-property</a> <span class="quot2">>> Intellectual "<a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty" Versus <a href="real.htm">Real</a> <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty</span><br/>
What Are Copyrights and What Do They Mean for <a href="lib.htm">Lib</a>erty?<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-18-2009:</span> Thinking about 2 very <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> targets for <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency issuance:<br/>
<br/>
<small>(1)</small> A "<a href="title.htm">Title</a> of <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership" over a *specific instance* of some physical <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. For example: 74% <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Peach tree located at GPS coordinates X. This is issued by the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>er and must be offered <small>(probably as a 'receipt')</small> to any customer that paid more than <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>.<br/>
<br/>
<small>(2)</small> A "<a href="promis.htm">Promis</a>e to <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>" the <a href="work.htm">work</a> required to achieve some quantity and quality of Goods or Services within some window of time. This is issued by someone intending <a href="work.htm">work</a>er<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
This is the basis of the two-sided PSF "<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t Future".<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-11-2009:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://OrgTheory.net">OrgTheory.net</a> <span class="quot">"'the science of association is the mother science; the progress of all the others depends on the progress of that one.'"</span> -- Alexis de Tocqueville<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-11-2009:</span> Beginning to watch <a class="ext" href="http://Dmytri.info">Dmytri.info</a> for better ways to word my approach in the context of <a href="trad.htm">trad</a>itional notation.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-11-2009:</span><br/>
Thinking about the appa<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> invalidity of a "Consumer <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ed" enterprise because it seems to ignore the plight of the <a href="work.htm">Work</a>er.<br/>
<br/>
But '<a href="work.htm">Work</a>er' and 'Consumer' are roles we each play, not independent groups that should battle!<br/>
<br/>
'<a href="own.htm">Own</a>er' is another important role. We must each fill ALL 3 of these roles in the <a href="gnu.htm">GNU</a> enconomy.<br/>
<br/>
But what is a better <a href="title.htm">title</a>? "<a href="payer own.htm">Payer Own</a>ed", "<a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er as Inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>" ... "<a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>"?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-11-2009:</span> Posted to <a class="ext" href="http://Groups.Google.com/group/openmanufacturing">Groups.Google.com/group/openmanufacturing</a><br/>
Permafacture wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Lord <a href="agnu.htm">AGNU</a>cius wrote:</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> > A consumer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>s *<a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e* which is a combination of all <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> > *<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s* <small>(including wages)</small> AND also includes the magic value called</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>> > *<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>*.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> you'll have to clarify this magic value. All the dollars go</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> somewhere, and thus everything is a "<a href="cost.htm">cost</a>".</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Hi Permafacture,<br/>
<br/>
I understand a <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er sees <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> as a <a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>, but I'm talking about the '<a href="pop.htm">pop</a>ular' definition of these terms that are written from the point-of-view of the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers of the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost</a> says <span class="quot">"'Usually, the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e also includes a mark-up for <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> over the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.'"</span><br/>
<br/>
So, to avoid confusion, I will stop using these bare terms, and instead prepend an '<a href="ide.htm">ide</a>ntifier' that will keep our thinking more clear.<br/>
<br/>
The following relations are equivalent:<br/>
<br/>
<a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er_<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e == <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s + <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a><br/>
<a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> == <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er_<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e - <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s<br/>
<a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s == <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er_<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e - <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
So, <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is not an <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, it is the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers receive ABOVE the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is the <a href="diff.htm">DIFF</a>ERENCE between <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er_<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e and <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
From the <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er's point-of-view, once the transaction is made, a <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er's_<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e paid becomes his <a href="own.htm">own</a> "<a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>", even though it also contains <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>s paid to those other <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ers.<br/>
<br/>
For example:<br/>
Say the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er of a "pin factory" buys steel as an input of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. He will <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> a <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er_<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e which includes both <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s AND <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>, but from HIS point-of-view, that purchase is simply an <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a> because he cannot avoid <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing it.<br/>
<br/>
But wait, there IS a way to avoid it.<br/>
<br/>
A <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er can escape <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> by becoming the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er of THAT <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion too. So, if the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er of a "pin factory" <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed the steel mines and smelters <small>(or whatever)</small> and all the equipment needed for THAT <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, then he would still have to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s <small>(including wages)</small>, but would no longer <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>s, since who would he possibly <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> them to?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Perhaps that <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> is <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y owed to inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, this is a problem with WHO we choose as inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s. If the inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s were potential Consumers, and were investing for the purpose of *<a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t* instead of <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>, then we could <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> them in <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t instead.<br/>
<br/>
For example, would you be willing to invest <small>(pre-<a href="pay.htm">pay</a>)</small> $100 toward <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing shares in a Cell-Phone company <small>(<a href="co-own.htm">co-own</a>ed with say 999,999 other people)</small> that would then provide you with "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" service?<br/>
<br/>
Your <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er_<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e would be far lower since you would then be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing only <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s while avoiding the 'leak' of <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>. If we want to <a href="know.htm">know</a> how much more efficient this is, all we need to do is look at the 'earnings' of Sprint, Nextel, etc. to see what we would not be <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ing.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y needed to offset inflation</span><br/>
<br/>
We are so accustomed to the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a that inflation cannot be avoided.<br/>
<br/>
Who issues the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency for your nation?<br/>
<br/>
Is it your <small>(corrupt, and so there is another level of trouble)</small>government, or is it a cabal of private, offshore <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>ers?<br/>
<br/>
If you <a href="liv.htm">liv</a>e in the USA <small>(and nearly every other country on earth)</small>, that <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency is issued <small>(as disturbances on magentic media)</small> by private <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>ers who then buy US Bonds on the open market - bonds that, from what I understand, are largely <a href="back.htm">back</a>ed by the <a href="land.htm">land</a> of our national forests and other irreplacable assets.<br/>
<br/>
The National Debt is a direct result of this sham that is so filthy and <a href="back.htm">back</a>ward it can <a href="hard.htm">hard</a>ly be believed or even comprehended why we <small>(the people)</small> would not just issue our <a href="own.htm">own</a> <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ency as some presidents <small>(Lincoln, Kennedy)</small> tried and were murderd because of.<br/>
<br/>
<a class="ext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110</a><br/>
<br/>
We are loosing <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership of the ground beneath our feet because we BORROW those electronic blips instead of issuing them ourselves. God <small>(if there were one)</small> we are dumb.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> or to re-invest into expansion and development of the operation.</span><br/>
<br/>
Yes, this is a good point. I <a href="agree.htm">agree</a> <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> should be <a href="use.htm">use</a>d to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for growth, but my contention here is that the <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership of those <a href="new.htm">new</a> investments should be <small>(or become as they 'vest')</small> the <a href="proper.htm">Proper</a>ty of the person who *PAID* it - so that each <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er <small>(consumer)</small> slowly gains <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion according to the a<a href="mount.htm">mount</a> he is willing and able to <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> above <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s until his <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er_<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e approaches and even can reach <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> If you think a $1 motor</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s $50 dollars because CEOs are <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>ing seven or eight figures,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> well, you'd have to show me something besides your speculation. I</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> think those unnecessary folks are leaching only a very small</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> percentage of the total <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y fluxing through the operation.</span><br/>
<br/>
CEOs are paid excessive wages <small>(which are booked as <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s)</small> because the pool of <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers is not diversified enough to thwart such stupidity.<br/>
<br/>
The other <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers either do not have any <a href="real.htm">real</a> control <small>(blind inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s such as those buy Mutual <a href="fund.htm">Fund</a>s, etc.)</small>, or they are controlling <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers that do not complain because they also receive similar handouts.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot2">>>Why dance around wondering how to lower <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s when the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>>manufacturers are always trying to lower those <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s to maximize</span><br/>
<span class="quot2">>><a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> I was hoping to explain not how to lower manufacturing <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s, but how</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> much more significant these <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s are than the mere <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e of scrap</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> metal. I brought up these <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s because I think these <a href="real.htm">real</a> <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s are</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> what actually determine the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e of an <a href="obj.htm">obj</a>ect. Any business laden</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> with a burden of truly unnecessary <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s would quickly be put to rest</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> by another venture trying to eliminate those leaks.</span><br/>
<br/>
Perfect Competition would eliminate all <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>, but Perfect Competition will occur only when every <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er has sufficient <a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion needed to escape that <a href="pay.htm">pay</a>ment.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> I think if you <small>(yourself)</small> tried to <a href="buil.htm">buil</a>d small 6V dc motor, even if</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> you were given <a href="cam.htm">CAM</a> programs and CNC <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hines <small>(and you didn't feel</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> obliged at all to give anything <a href="back.htm">back</a> to those programmers for their</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="work.htm">work</a>)</small>, you'd be well over the $50 mark for a <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t of less quality.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> It would take you days to <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>e one and just wait till you get the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> electricity bill for running that electric arc furnace to extrude that</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> copper wire.</span><br/>
<br/>
Are you saying no business ever collects <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>?<br/>
<br/>
If so, then what is it they report as 'earnings' at the end of each quarter?<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> Nor do collectively run manufacturing operations <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e goods at a</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> small <a href="fract.htm">fract</a>ion of what capitalistically <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed operations offer.</span><br/>
<br/>
"Collectively run" operations are inevitibly <a href="own.htm">own</a>ed by a small group of <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers, not by those who <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a> for the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t thereof, so are essentially the same as Capitalists, since their goal is also to keep <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er_<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e above <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s.<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> You present an interesting <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a. Superficially related to marx's</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> surplus value, but the <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> you speak of is very <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>. Pardon</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> me if I misunderstand, but i see that, rather than being concerned</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> with reclaiming the life energy of <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers, you seek to end capitalism</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <small>(the rule of <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>ers and inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s)</small> in order to lower <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>es. How</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> very capitalist!</span><br/>
<br/>
I'm trying to multiplex <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership across those finally <a href="use.htm">use</a> the outputs of that <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion so they can have ultimate control at minimum <a href="pay.htm">Pay</a>er_<a href="pric.htm">Pric</a>e.<br/>
<br/>
As a side-effect, maximizing competition minimizes <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> - even to the point of 0!<br/>
<br/>
But that is OK when the inve<a href="stor.htm">stor</a>s are the same group that will be satisfied with "at <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>" <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>t, for then we can all win instead of being a culture that requires late-comers perpetually <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> more than <a href="own.htm">Own</a>er_<a href="cost.htm">Cost</a>s as some sort of 'reward' for the <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="own.htm">own</a>ers while the late-comers remain dependent upon them.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-10-2009:</span> At <a class="ext" href="http://Blog.P2PFoundation.net/peer-money/2009/06/09">Blog.P2PFoundation.net/peer-money/2009/06/09</a> Kevin Carson wrote:<br/>
<br/>
<span class="quot">> The rate of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> on capital is inhe<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> in wage labor, via the <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence in value between labor's <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t and the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e of labor-power.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> The mere fact of the capitalist's <a href="own.htm">own</a>ing capital is the <a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e of surplus value.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> The natural value of labor-power, in a <a href="free.htm">free</a> and non-capitalist market, is the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t of labor.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Individualist anarchists consider labor to be the unique factor in that it is the one commodity whose <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e is not determined by the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. It is the natural <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e of affairs, in a <a href="free.htm">free</a> and non-capitalist market, for the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e of labor to be determined by the disutility of supplying it, rather than the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> of re<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ing it. And it is the natural <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e of affairs for the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e of capital to be determined by the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> of supplying it.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> It is <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificial scarcity of capital - namely, <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e restraints on competition among those supplying it, and <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e restraints on direct <a href="work.htm">work</a>er access to the means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion and subsistence - that enables capitalists to charge a premium for access to capital, and <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers a wage less than their full labor-<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> A major component of the gross rate of interest is an <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificial scarcity-premium, resulting from entry barriers and restraints on competition in the supply of cr<a href="edit.htm">edit</a>. This <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificial scarcity and <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificial expense of capital reduces the bargaining power of labor, and thereby affects the rate of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> on industrial capital. For Marxists, the rate of interest derives from the rate of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>; for individualist anarchists, the reverse is true. And if Bauwens and other advocates of peer <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y are not individualist anarchists, they share the same understanding that the structure of <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y itself affects the exploitative character of capitalist <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> The purpose of open-<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e and P2P is not to eliminate exchange in and of itself, but to eliminate <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificial scarcity. The philosophy of open-<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e and P2P does not involve only eliminating scarcity and <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> in the cognitive <a href="real.htm">real</a>m, where the marginal <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> of re<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is zero <small>(software, music, etc.)</small>. It also entails eliminating unnecessary <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of physical <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> That means, for <a href="start.htm">start</a>ers, eliminating the portion of commodity <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e that results from embedded <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>s on <a href="art.htm">art</a>ificial <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty rights. This category includes <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>rietary designs. It includes oligopoly markup from restricted competition resulting from <a href="prop.htm">prop</a>rietary design, and "intellectual <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty" restrictions on competition in <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ing generic spare <a href="part.htm">part</a>s and <a href="mod.htm">mod</a>ular accessories for competitors' platforms. It includes markup from IP-dependent designs that discourage ease of repair and reuse. It includes markup for patented or contractually mandated accessories <small>(cheap glucometers plus expensive testing strips, cheap printers plus expensive cartridges, cheap phones with expensive service plans, etc.)</small>.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Andreas Wittel, in a post to the P2P Research list, asks</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> So why tinkering at the edges of a <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>tary system, why creating <a href="new.htm">new</a> ones? How could <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>tary systems stop or even diminish the exploitation of labour power? If they can't, why bother? Of course I am not suggesting that <a href="work.htm">work</a> towards a <a href="new.htm">new</a> <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>tary system should be abandoned in the p2p community. I just don't see the point. I would like to focus my inquiries on the question how the p2p community can contribute to a fairer system of <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>tary exchange for labour <small>(= value)</small></span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> .</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> The answer is that ordinary <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ers, by using <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>ed, crowd<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>ed, cooperative forms of social lending to aggregate their <a href="own.htm">own</a> small capitals into larger sums of investment capital, can finance <a href="work.htm">work</a>er-<a href="own.htm">own</a>ed enterprises through their <a href="own.htm">own</a> self-organized financial system - thus eliminating the monopoly <a href="rent.htm">rent</a>s previously paid to the <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e-privileged, <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e-licensed <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>ing <a href="sect.htm">sect</a>or for providing that service.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> .</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> We should keep in mind that the primary function of <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y isn't to serve as a <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>e of value. For the purposes of local <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omies, it is more important as a measure of value for facilitating exchange. Local <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>encies, LETS systems and other barter <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>s, provide liquidity to facilitate exchange of future <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts or services between ordinary <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ers who may not have accumulated <a href="stor.htm">stor</a>es of past value. Local <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>encies enable <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ers to directly exchange their wares within a <a href="net.htm">net</a><a href="work.htm">work</a>, without the interme<a href="diary.htm">diary</a> of conventional <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y from the outside capitalist <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> .</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Thomas Hodgskin, writing in the 1830s, demolished the "labor <a href="fund.htm">fund</a>"defense of <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> by pointing out that wages aren't paid by the capitalist out of accumulated past <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. They are, rather, advanced from <a href="curr.htm">curr</a>ent <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion by some <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers against future <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion by other <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers. The same function, of coordinating exchange of future <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ts, could be carried out cooperatively by <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers themselves. By preempting the function and monopolizing it through a <a href="stat.htm">stat</a>e-privileged <a href="bank.htm">bank</a>ing system, the capitalist or financier is able to collect tribute for it.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> .</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> If the <a href="real.htm">real</a>ization of capital follows a circuit, as described by Marx in Capital, the same is also true of labor. The circuit of labor is highly vulnerable to disruption. And the more steps in the circuit, the more likely it is to be broken, and the more likely the <a href="real.htm">real</a>ization of labor <small>(the transformation of labor into <a href="use.htm">use</a>-value, through the indirect means of exchanging one's <a href="own.htm">own</a> labor for wages, and exchanging those wages for <a href="use.htm">use</a>-value <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed by someone else's labor)</small> is to fail. When we <a href="part.htm">part</a>icipate in the capitalist <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy, we must first obtain <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y by either selling our services to a capitalist wage <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>er or amassing the <a href="start.htm">start</a>up capital for a high-overhead, high-risk conventional business to sell one's services to the customer. Then we take the <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y and <a href="use.htm">use</a> it to hire the services of others, with the a major <a href="part.htm">part</a> of the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e going to the overhead <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of a conventional capitalist enterprise, and the capitalist <a href="employ.htm">employ</a>er perhaps taking his cut as well. Local <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y systems, by promoting direct exchange between <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ers, eliminate many of the insecurities and uncertainties of the capitalist <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy. By reducing the intermediate steps between <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion and consumption, they also reduce the contingency involved in consumption.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> .</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Michel Bauwens recently argued, contra Siefkes, that "there are important aspects of <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>tary transformation that are related to the peer to peer agenda."</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> The most important thing to remember is that the peer to peer dynamic requires <a href="free.htm">free</a> or very easy access to means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, and that this mostly <a href="work.htm">work</a>s for the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion of non-rival immaterial goods, but that the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion of physical goods, even if the designs can be open and <a href="free.htm">free</a>, need <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> <a href="recover.htm">recover</a>y mechanisms....</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> ...For peer to peer self aggregation to occur, we need distributed infrastructures. Only if the individuals have control over their <a href="own.htm">own</a> means of <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, can they <a href="free.htm">free</a>ly self-aggregate. That we can do peer <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion of <a href="know.htm">know</a>ledge, software and designs is because <a href="know.htm">know</a>ledge <a href="work.htm">work</a>ers have access to <a href="compu.htm">compu</a>ters and a socialized internet<a href="work.htm">work</a>. If we had distributed <a href="mac.htm">mac</a>hinery, more distributed access to capital, more self-aggregation could occur.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> ...Peer to peer is about non-rival goods that can be re<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ed at marginal <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> and abundantly.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> The more we can engineer abundance, the more this can happen. But classic capitalist <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y is about engineering scarcity, as are capitalist markets generally. <a href="mone.htm">Mone</a>tary transformation is aimed at creating sufficient <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y supplies, accessible by all.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> In Bauwens' recent debate with Michael Albert at Znet, Albert seemed preoccupied with the <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>a that peer <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion applies only in the immaterial <a href="real.htm">real</a>m, where the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s and permissions for obtaining inputs are negligible and the marginal <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> of re<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion is zero.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> If some group <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>es outputs that require inputs, it would have to get the inputs. It would have to get the labor. People could say no. Permissions, and perhaps acquisitions, are involved. More, peer to peer seems to be only about undertaking joint ventures that have no significant <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s. Is that right?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> But this misses the whole point, which we have seen above: that the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> of inputs, even in physical <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, is not just a given but itself a dependent variable that can be affected by peer organization.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Rather than there being an impermeable dividing line between qualitatively distinct categories of market and peer <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, it is more accurate to say that physical <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion can become more "peer-like," even when some aspects of it are governed by market exchange, as the <a href="cost.htm">cost</a>s of physical <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion fall. The <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>erence between cognitive and physical <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion, and between <a href="free.htm">free</a> <a href="speech.htm">speech</a> and <a href="free.htm">free</a> beer, is one of degree rather than of kind.</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-10-2009:</span> Rereading <a class="ext" href="http://Dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LTV-FAQ.html">Dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LTV-FAQ.html</a> <span class="quot2">>>Frequently Asked Questions about The Labor Theory of Value</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-09-2009:</span> Draft meant for <a class="ext" href="http://Groups.Google.com/group/openmanufacturing">Groups.Google.com/group/openmanufacturing</a><br/>
Paul D. Fernhout wrote:<br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> <small>(in theory)</small> compensates for taking on risk. That is, you might invest</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>es into a <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion facility where no one wants the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t, and</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> lose your entire investment. <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a> is also supposed to reward initiative</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> and the management aspects of investing.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Still, in a mature <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omy <small>(where not much is changing and there is complete</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> competition without monopolies)</small>, <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> will go to zero <small>(according to</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> mainstream <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omics)</small>.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> "Why <a href="profit.htm">Profit</a>s Don't Go to Zero"</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a class="ext" href="http://www.thestalwart.com/the_stalwart/2005/06/why_profits_don.html">http://www.thestalwart.com/the_stalwart/2005/06/why_profits_don.html</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> "The conclusion is that it simply takes a long time for <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s to</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> disappear. <a href="part.htm">Part</a> of the reason is that people expect <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s to disappear</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> quicker than it does, so people are hesitant to get in on the action. This</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> actually explains a number of things, such as why asset bubbles don't burst</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> as quickly as they should."</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> I don't see why mainstream <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omists don't see a problem with <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> everywhere going to zero and then ending capitalism eventually, but maybe</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> they think after a "business cycle" that businesses will fail and then there</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> will be a chance for <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> again? They handwave it away perhaps, and talk</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> about <a href="profit.htm">profit</a> motivating innovation, as if all innovation was valuable <small>(like</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> the innovation of figuring out how to get young kids to smoke using cartoon</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> animals was a good thing for society)</small>.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> Anyway, I don't think you will get too much support against "<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>" in the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> USA <small>(maybe elsewhere)</small> because it is often a reward for initiative and risk</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> taking and investment management.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> One may, of course, question by what right some people get to be investment</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> managers and not others <small>(aspects that come from pa<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>s, inheritance,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> marriage, luck, being first, connections, etc.. :-)</small></span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> What you might better focus on IMHO is "<a href="rent.htm">rent</a> seeking" or "<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>" or</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> "royalties" <small>(the name coming from association with kingly privilege and</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> monopoly <a href="back.htm">back</a>ed by an army)</small> related to "monopoly". Monopoly is supposed to</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> be a dirty word to a <a href="free.htm">free</a> market society, but our society is riddled with</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> monopolies <small>(copyrights, patents, <a href="land.htm">land</a> <a href="own.htm">own</a>ership, social relations,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> certifications, college degree granting, professional licensing, who can</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> prescribe drugs, etc.)</small>. <a href="rent.htm">Rent</a>s generally come from monopolies in some form,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> over <a href="land.htm">land</a> or over <a href="ide.htm">ide</a>as or over rights to do something or access some</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> re<a href="sourc.htm">sourc</a>e exclusively. And the question then is, by what right does someone</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> declare they <a href="own.htm">own</a> a parcel of <a href="land.htm">land</a> that, say, a mine is on so they can ask</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> for "<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>"? Or by what right does someone who is on the other side of the</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> planet claim to "<a href="own.htm">own</a>" a warehouse or farm or oil field they may have never</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> seen? Or by what right does someone say only certain people can prescribe</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> drugs?</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> So, asking how much of a motor's <a href="cost.htm">cost</a> is "<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>" may get you further than</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> asking how much is "<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>", at least, as long as there is risk involved in</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion. Once you eliminate "<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>" from the <a href="pric.htm">pric</a>e of a motor, then you</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> could go <a href="back.htm">back</a> to looking at <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>. <small>(<a href="note.htm">Note</a>, that in this sense, I <a href="use.htm">use</a> "<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>"</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a href="diff.htm">diff</a>e<a href="rent.htm">rent</a>ly than that <a href="part.htm">part</a> of <a href="mone.htm">mone</a>y that goes to the upkeep of a <a href="proper.htm">proper</a>ty,</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> like to fix leaky roofs or repair broken sewage lines or <a href="pay.htm">pay</a> for heat if</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> included.)</small> Although it gets hazy then how much of <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> is "<a href="profit.htm">profit</a>" and how</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> much of it comes from having a monopoly on something.</span><br/>
<span class="quot">></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> From:</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> <a class="ext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking</a></span><br/>
<span class="quot">> "In <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omics, <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> seeking occurs when an individual, organization or firm</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> seeks to earn income by capturing <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic <a href="rent.htm">rent</a> through manipulation or</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> exploitation of the <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic environment, rather than by earning <a href="profit.htm">profit</a>s</span><br/>
<span class="quot">> through <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic transactions and the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion of added wealth."</span><br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-08-2009:</span> Thoughts on careful word usage and role playing...<br/>
The terms 'consumer' and '<a href="produc.htm">produc</a>er' confuse our analysis by anthromorphosizing these <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omic roles.<br/>
<br/>
Except for dependents, every actor is both a consumer AND a <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>er.<br/>
<br/>
Consumption and <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>tion and are actions we take, not opposing groups that compete.<br/>
<br/>
There is no such thing as a <a href="work.htm">work</a>er that does not eat, nor are there eaters that do not <a href="work.htm">work</a>.<br/>
<br/>
An actor may <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e a good which he does not consume.<br/>
An actor may consume a good which he did not <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e.<br/>
<br/>
Most actors do both. They consume the <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>t of others while <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>ing for others.<br/>
<br/>
They also likely <a href="produc.htm">produc</a>e some of what they consume, but that is not <a href="econ.htm">econ</a>omically interesting.<br/>
<br/>
We each and all must complete both of these tasks.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="own.htm">Own</a>ership in the Means of <a href="produc.htm">Produc</a>tion is not a question of "which group should have", but a question of "what actions should cause".<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-04-2009:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://Cap-Lore.com/CapTheory">Cap-Lore.com/CapTheory</a> <a href="mak.htm">mak</a>es me think about physical security in the context of a human community.<br/>
<br/>
<hr/><span class="date">Jun-04-2009:</span> <a class="ext" href="http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)">http://Wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)</a> needs more clarity and precision.<br/>
</p>
<p class='footer'>
Page generated from <a href=".text/diary-jun-2009">diary-jun-2009</a> by <a href=".code/etym.el">etym</a>.</p>
</body>
</html>