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

If there is no profit margin,

then how would the consumer-owned producing entity get the material
resources they need to invest in higher production efficiencies or new
goods/services?

There is a cost to everything, as you agree, so how would they afford
those resources which they need to attain higher production
efficiencies, be them new production machinery or whatever production
resource.

If they only cover the cost of production, how do they cover the cost
of efficiency improvement or investing in new goods/services?



On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:23 AM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:07 AM, marc fawzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> price should include a fixed profit margin so that there can be
>> investment in new products as well as investment in more efficient
>> production...
>
> I agree we should charge a price above cost (profit) against
> non-owning consumers, (this does not conflict with my claim that
> profit is not required (nor does it even make sense) for sufficiently
> OWNING consumers...
>
> But then the question (in my mind) becomes: *who* shall be the owner
> of those new investments?
>
> Should the current owners gain even more ownership - causing the
> Capital Accumulation we already see?
>
> Or should the person who paid for the investments (the consumer) be
> the owner of those new assets so that ownership and control are
> naturally and dynamically distributed at every exchange?
>
> The answer seems clear to me, but maybe there is a reason to not allow
> consumers to become partial owners?
>
> Traditionally the reasoning would be because of the 'destructive'
> impact it has upon profits - for when every consumer has sufficient
> ownership (when we finally have enough apple trees for everyone to
> eat, and the ownership of those trees is 'correctly' distributed to
> the very same people who are in need of that good), then price == cost
> and profit == zero.
>
> So if, and only if, profits are treated as an investment from the
> payer can future profits be safely tapered toward zero while
> employment (drudgery) can also be safely minimized.
>
> There appears to be no other way to solve this part of the problem.
>
> Worker ownership does not do the same thing, and will not result in
> the most efficient system as one in which ALL (both current and
> future) consumers gain sufficient ownership in the Means of
> Production.
>
> Marx was wrong and the LTV is a distraction.  Profit occurs when a
> consumer is dependent upon current owners and has nothing to do with
> workers at all.
>
>
> Patrick
> _________________________________
> Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
> Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
> Contact: [email protected]
>



-- 

Marc Fawzi
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: [email protected]