Re: free vs. common (was: Re: [ox-en] A name for a peer-production-based society?)

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Diego Saravia <[email protected]> wrote:
> [Converted from multipart/alternative]
>
> [1 text/plain]
> 2009/9/9 Patrick Anderson <[email protected]>
>
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Diego Saravia <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > every day computers cost less and fish cost more
>>
>> When you say 'cost' you are probably talking about the 'price' you
>> pay, not the real 'costs' of production.
>>
>> The difference between 'price' and 'cost' is exactly 'profit'.
>>
>
>
> ok, and?

And we can be productive even without profit, though profit will
continue to be around for as long as new consumers are paying for
product because of their lack of ownership.

So profit is something that can taper toward zero, but will only be
zero for short periods - for as long as that consumer is not 'moving'
his demand.


> cost is less than price (usually)

But only when the consumer has insufficient ownership in the Physical Sources.

We can nearly eliminate profit by treating it as an investment from
the consumer who paid it.


>> Yes, but only humans purposefully increase scarcity for the purpose of
>> increasing profit.
>>
>
>  yes,  monopolies.

What does the US Farm Bill paying farmers to NOT grow have to do with
monopolies?


> that is the commons problem
>
> problem that is not shared by free goods.

The "commons problem" IS shared by 'free' goods because 'free' goods
are not 'free' because of they ***ALWAYS*** require scarce physical
resources for hosting.

>
>
>> The farms should be tiny and distributed.
>>
>> We should make fish farms inside of every city by raising them in
>
> creeks running throughout the town.
>>
>>
> could be, but why is not happening?

I already told you.

Governments are run by Corporations.
Corporations seek Profit.
Profit requires Scarcity.

So governments always choose scarcity because that's what they are
told to do by owners seeking profit.


>
> what are the costs?

The costs are that we do not have access to clean, "at cost" fish, but
instead must pay manyfold more for poisoned filth.

>
>
>> But we cannot do that now because our local governments are dedicated
>> to being purposefully unproductive for the benefit of the Capitalists
>> (to increase profit).
>>
>
> you think so? all local governments in the world?
>

Yes.

>
>
>
>>
>> I said they should *own*.  I did not say they must have the skills to
>> *operate* them.
>>
>>
> ok, not workers, but consumers
>
> in fact, we all are consumers
>
> one men one vote
>
> so you think that all productions means must be in state hands.

Absolutely not!

I'm talking about small groups of independent owners, not some
One-World-Government NWO terror.


>
>> Ownership and Working are two separable roles.
>>
>> We have been hypnotized into believing ownership must be in the hands
>> of those that happen to have the skills needed to operate those
>> Physical Sources, but that is not the real problem.
>>
>> The real problem is that ownership must be based on the role of
>>
>
>
> the only property that matters about property is "rent"
>
>>
>> Yes.  Then price == cost and profit == 0
>
>
> so you are thinking about a stationary society
>

I do talk about the static case because it is most simple.

But I'm also talking about the dynamic case when I say "profit must be
treated as an investment from the consumer who paid it".

> can we have growth without profit?

No, that is why I say we *should* collect from poor, defenseless
consumers, but we should then treat it as their investment in more
Physical Sources so we each and every-one finally have ownership.

>
> the problem is not with profit, but with profit distribution in rent form.

Sorry, but I don't know what you mean here.

>
>>
>> The traditional definition of a "Consumers' Cooperative" shows the
>> individual consumers are not in control, but have instead forfeited
>> their rights to a representative committee that causes the
>> organization to be run largely the same as a for-profit corporation.
>>
>>
> in my life i was involved in several consumer cooperatives, and work
> cooperatives as well.
>
> cooperatives are good, but they are not a complete solution.

That is because they are incorrectly structured, and profit is
misunderstood and so mistreated.

>
> but we are really far away the starting point of this conversarion

Who gives a damn?  Let's get something done instead of worrying about
convention.
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: [email protected]