Capitalists must keep Price above Cost to collect Profit to pay their investors.
This unnatural arrangement is held in place through artificial scarcities and destruction of various kinds, and is also the reason Capitalist seek continuous Growth.
Users who co-own Sources can accept Product as their ROI, so do not sell the Product except when there is Surplus Product.
In that case, they only need to collect the Costs of Production to cover what they already committed.
But, since the latecomer is at a disadvantage, the Consumers+Owners are usually able to charge a Price above Cost (they collect Profit).
But since none of the Investors expect Profit to be treated as a reward, we are free to redirect that value as a growth vector - investing it *for* the latecoming user toward increasing production - with that ownership finally vesting back to that payer - so the control of that growth is auto-distributed to those who pay for it.
Rewarding Risk with Product eliminates exchange.
The Product is not sold because the user owns it already!
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Profit is Undefined when Product is ROI.
Capitalism abhors competition because competition reduces profit.
Capitalism seeks profit to pay investors.
But investors are people too, and they need things besides tokens - like sandwiches and beer.
So we could start a business that shapes investments differently - where the purpose of ownership is solely to receive a % of the product itself as your payment for risk.
And when surplus is sold to outsiders, some % of that will be treated as an investment from that payer - so every user gains co-ownership in the sources of all that they pay to use.
When owning for product, the 'core' of the organization reaches semi-stasis and operates at-cost, while latecomers at the 'edges' pay Profit when buying surplus, causing them to gain the property co-ownership which finally eliminates their need to buy Product late, since the (co-)Owner of Sources is the (co-)Owner of the Product (in the same %) even before it is produced!
The owner of a milk-cow must pay all the Costs of Production, including any Wages for Work he does not do himself, but does not BUY the milk back from himself, but owns it *already*, even before it comes out of the cow.
The same logic, when be applied to co-ownership, eliminates the need to buy and sell Products except when the Consumer does not yet have sufficient ownership in Sources needed to insure he owns that Product now and into the future.
Capitalism seeks profit to pay investors.
But investors are people too, and they need things besides tokens - like sandwiches and beer.
So we could start a business that shapes investments differently - where the purpose of ownership is solely to receive a % of the product itself as your payment for risk.
And when surplus is sold to outsiders, some % of that will be treated as an investment from that payer - so every user gains co-ownership in the sources of all that they pay to use.
When owning for product, the 'core' of the organization reaches semi-stasis and operates at-cost, while latecomers at the 'edges' pay Profit when buying surplus, causing them to gain the property co-ownership which finally eliminates their need to buy Product late, since the (co-)Owner of Sources is the (co-)Owner of the Product (in the same %) even before it is produced!
The owner of a milk-cow must pay all the Costs of Production, including any Wages for Work he does not do himself, but does not BUY the milk back from himself, but owns it *already*, even before it comes out of the cow.
The same logic, when be applied to co-ownership, eliminates the need to buy and sell Products except when the Consumer does not yet have sufficient ownership in Sources needed to insure he owns that Product now and into the future.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Titles, not Tokens
Perfect competition drives profit to zero.
Customer ownership is perfect competition.
When you finally own your house, profit is zero.
When you (co-)own a network, the price of access *IS* the cost of operation.
I wonder why we, as a species, do not apply this to all production.
I wonder how we were fooled out of being the owners of the land and
water and seeds and tools needed to supply ourselves with the raw
materials of food, drugs, cloth, soap, building materials, etc.
How could our city governments be so insanely ridiculous when it comes
to finance?
Why would a city ever go into debt when it is also collecting taxes?
What a bunch of nonsense.
All we really need to do is buy a couple hundred acres somewhere with
plenty of natural water and attract 1000 people to commit their
individual skills toward the work we will need to apply to the Sources
in order to make the Objects.
We won't need tokens because we will not buy the Olives and Milk and Honey, since we will already own them already because we own the Trees and Cattle and Bees.
Customer ownership is perfect competition.
When you finally own your house, profit is zero.
When you (co-)own a network, the price of access *IS* the cost of operation.
I wonder why we, as a species, do not apply this to all production.
I wonder how we were fooled out of being the owners of the land and
water and seeds and tools needed to supply ourselves with the raw
materials of food, drugs, cloth, soap, building materials, etc.
How could our city governments be so insanely ridiculous when it comes
to finance?
Why would a city ever go into debt when it is also collecting taxes?
What a bunch of nonsense.
All we really need to do is buy a couple hundred acres somewhere with
plenty of natural water and attract 1000 people to commit their
individual skills toward the work we will need to apply to the Sources
in order to make the Objects.
We won't need tokens because we will not buy the Olives and Milk and Honey, since we will already own them already because we own the Trees and Cattle and Bees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)