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!
Can you clarify what you mean by "exchange"in your concept as it presently stands?
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming that in your model there may be a number of different firms undertaking production of goods and services.
These goods and services are ultimately aggregated at the point of retail or "absolute exchange", either in intermediated fashion, or in a peer-to-peer arrangement between producers and consumers. It is here that people exchange what they have produced with one another through the transactions that take place during absolute exchange operations.
People are compensated for their efforts in producing those goods and services with claims that may take the effective form of tickets or tokens.
Alan Avans wrote:
ReplyDelete> Can you clarify what you mean by "exchange" in your
> concept as it presently stands?
By "exchange" I mean "change ownership".
We do not need to "change ownership" of a product if it is already owned by the person who will consume it.
That may seem an impossible scenario, but it is actully very common for SINGULAR ownership.
For example, the owner of a milk-cow does not buy the milk from himself after it is produced - he owns it already!
We can do the same thing with MULTIPLE ownership.
For example, the co-owners of a milk-cow do not buy the milk from themselve after it is produced - they own it already!
The (co-)owner(s) of a dairy do not buy milk because they own those Objects ALREADY as a side-effect of their owning the Sources of those Objects.
This eliminates one of the reasons we claim to need money.
> I'm assuming that in your model there may be a number
> of different firms undertaking production of goods
> and services.
I envision many productive sub-units within the Aggregate that are each co-owned by the people that intend to use the products thereof.
For example, if you want a community swimming-pool, then you can commit Sources or Skills to create and maintain such a facility. If you do not care, then you do not need to be a co-owner of that sub-unit.
> These goods and services are ultimately aggregated at
> the point of retail or "absolute exchange", either in
> intermediated fashion, or in a peer-to-peer
> arrangement between producers and consumers.
> It is here that people exchange what they have
> produced with one another through the transactions
> that take place during absolute exchange operations.
That is how Capitalism works, but is not what I describe.
People who commit skills (for example: milking cows) would make those commitments in exchange for others within the Aggregate making commitments toward producing things which that worker needs but does not have Skills.
The Sources of those products (such as milk-cows) are not owned by those that happen to have the Skills needed to 'operate' those Sources.
The Sources are instead owned by the people who need the outputs of that production. The end-users (milk-drinkers) are the owners of the Sources (cattle) AND the owners of the Objects (milk).
> People are compensated for their efforts in producing
> those goods and services with claims that may take the
> effective form of tickets or tokens.
Thanks for the careful reading.
I see what you mean here, and have called those claims "scheduling tickets" and "allocation tokens" in some of my other writings.
But I would like to move away from that characterization toward the drastically more simplified scenario where changing ownership does not occur (there is no sale), and so governments cannot interfere or collect taxes.
This 'short-circuit' of the market is explained at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent
You may also be interested in:
http://ImputedProduction.Blog.com/2011/05/20/longer-explanation