Saturday, October 29, 2011


Our system of trade needs a self-inflicted 'governor' - a negative-feedback loop - to allow the steam-engine of production to operate without the explosive danger caused when power is concentrated.

Much like a float and valve controlling water level, we would benefit from treating Price above Cost as the Payer's Investment.

Profit measures the Payer's lack of ownership in the Sources of Production. A Consumer will pay a Price above Cost when he does not have sufficient ownership in the Means of Production because he is *dependent* upon those current owners.

This imbalance can be incrementally corrected by treating that overpayment as the payer's investment in the growth of that organization - so that Capital is no longer 'accumulated' into the hands of the few, but is transparently 'distributed' back to the very person who paid it as a deed of property co-ownership in more Physical Sources needed for that type of product. It becomes that consumer's investment in his own future.

This causes Profit to approach zero (as Price approaches Cost) and control to be move to the hands of those willing to work instead of being centralized into the hands the payees who would otherwise treat Profit as a reward for themselves.

Treating Profit as a reward for the current owners is a positive-feedback loop which concentrates property into the hands of those who already have more ownership than they can use directly (as proven by the fact they are selling the Product instead of using it for themselves). This makes the rich richer, as these established agents receive even *more* control while leaving late-comers in the cold - even though it is the Payers of Profit who funded the growth of that organization.

Treating Profit as an Investment from the Payer is a negative-feedback against over-accumulation - allowing growth that is both sufficient (according to the amount the consumer is willing to overpay) and auto-leveling (because Profit approaches zero as each consumer gains sufficient ownership in Physical Sources).

The owners of an Avocado tree must pay for all the Costs of that production, including any Wages for work they do not do themselves, but Profit does not even enter the equation because the fruit is not sold at the end of the season since it is already the property of those who will use it.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

A GNU Production Model

We need to change why we Invest and how we Share Revenue.

1.) Product is Investor's Return: This is an Investment strategy that
uses Product as the ROI, and so requires the Investors be the Users

2.) Profit is Payer Investment: This is a Revenue-Sharing strategy
that Invests some % of Profit for the User who paid it.

3.) Investments are Commitments of Sources and Skills: This is
a way to gather the Land and Capital needed (those committing
Sources would relinquish ownership to others in a group targeting
some specific Product) and also to insure the diverse work needed
would be accomplished without need to fight the "simultaneous
coincidence of wants" trouble with typical 'late' barter.

By committing Skills *before* production, we can trade Labor
between ourselves, and never need to trade oranges with apples,
since the co-owners of the Sources of those Products would
own their % of the Product *already*, even before they are
produced. I call this "Predictive Barter" - where we Swap Skills
early instead of attempting to Swap Products *late*.