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

[Converted from multipart/alternative]

[1 text/plain]
> 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.
>
>
>

Ok


>
> What does the US Farm Bill paying farmers to NOT grow have to do with
> monopolies?
>
>
a lot, but is a completly different discussion, this thread was about common
vs free.



>
> > 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.
>
>
prices in market economy are related to marginal costs

and internet is designed to have 0 marginal cost

so you dont pay more for sending a 1kb mail than to send a 0.5 kb mail.


Governments are run by Corporations.
>

not always, you have fidel castro, you have chavez, correa, morales, etc


> Corporations seek Profit.
> Profit requires Scarcity.
>
> So governments always choose scarcity because that's what they are
> told to do by owners seeking profit.
>
>
scarcity is not choseen, is part of material world structure



>
> >
> > 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.
>

fish will be day to day more expensive.


>> 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.
> No
>


> > 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.
>
>
small groups are incapable of organizing world wide activity

they always will be eliminated or controled by your corporations


>
>
> 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.
>
>
if you have growth you always will have profit. that is not the problem, the
problem is that part of profit is distributed as capital o land rent


> >
> > 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.


no one, but we can began another thread if we want to analize cooperatives


-- 
Diego Saravia
[email protected]
NO FUNCIONA->dsa-AySywPH+/[email protected]


[2 text/html]
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: [email protected]