Re: Profit and Value, was: Re(2): [ox-en] extrinsic motivation = coercion

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Contrast the definition of equilibrium in economics to the definition of
stagnation or systemic death in cybernetics. Notice that there's a
difference between "equilibrium" and "no activity".

A system in equilibrium is stable but not necessarily systemically dead.
Systemically dead systems invariably get replaced by more alive systems,
much in the same way as exploded systems (as in Markov explosions) get
reset to random states.

See W. Ross Ashby's "Introduction to Cybernetics" and any introductory
text to self-organization for details on the jargon.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ is always a good start.

 - Smári


marc fawzi wrote:
>> This in itself is already a myth. In a true equilibrium (if that would
>> exist) there wouldn't be any exchange.
>> Of course, there is no equilibrium. We are living in a world of massive
>> consumption, producing a lot of waste.
>> So trying equilibrium-based theories is doomed to fail.
>>
> 
> 
> I agree it's a myth. However, in a true equilibrium anyone who wishes
> to get X number or amount of some good or service should be able to do
> so at the median cost of that good or service + a fixed profit
> 'margin' ... However, this model itself is not viable given the flawed
> tendencies we have as human beings, which I'd yet to boil down to a
> coherent problem statement (although you can see parts of the problem
> in discussions like [p2p research] the abundance of art)
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Stefan Seefeld <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Smári McCarthy wrote:
>>> Profit != benefit. All work and produce thereof is, we can imagine, in
>>> some way beneficial. However, profit comes only when the value of the
>>> product is higher than the cost of production. If I try to profit from
>>> you, I am trying to get from you more than what I am offering is worth.
>>>
>> The value of what you are offering is contextual. It is worth something to
>> you, something different to someone else. There is no one global measure
>> that can be applied.
>>
>>> In a free market, price theory says (which is, as Diego correctly points
>>> out, an equilibrium theory, but equilibriums occur naturally in the
>>> absence of external "coercive" influence), the ability of any player to
>>> profit from another is decreased by the ability of third parties to
>>> compete. If the market is free, competition (or, better, cooperation) is
>>> on equal ground, and profit is driven to zero.
>>>
>> This in itself is already a myth. In a true equilibrium (if that would
>> exist) there wouldn't be any exchange.
>> Of course, there is no equilibrium. We are living in a world of massive
>> consumption, producing a lot of waste.
>> So trying equilibrium-based theories is doomed to fail.
>>
>> Regards,
>>      Stefan
>>
>> --
>>
>>     ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
>>
>> _________________________________
>> Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
>> Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
>> Contact: [email protected]
>>
> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkoCAhIACgkQ9cJSn8kDvvEjYACfYli078Q+cKwGl7h5q5l8YLrR
i38AoJJXsrEIVhXpFUUoDwERZ+giS91Y
=Sr2+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: [email protected]