[Abundance] Short Circuit Production - Eliminating the Exchange of Goods through Property Ownership. (was: The "Free Market" requires scarcity)
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Patrick Anderson
May 1, 2010, 11:47:24 AM5/1/10
to
Kevin Carson wrote:
> I don't think there's any confusion about the fact that people in
> business *want* to make money.
That is very unfortunate.
We won't fix this until we begin to make businesses for the purpose of
making products, not for money. Money is not value in itself, it only
'points' to value.
> Destroying product in order to reduce supply and drive up the
price is just great
Poverty is the *difference* between Price and Wage.
Attempting to fix the problem by increasing both will get us nowhere.
Most people think Workers need a higher Wage and assume nothing can
be done about lowering Price.
But if the Worker were a co-owner in the Means of Production of that
which he *Consumes*, then Price would be as low as possible - Price
would *equal* Cost because he wouldn't buy the Product, but would own
it already as a "side effect" of his ownership in the Sources.
When a Consumer of Apples owns the Tree, he might hire someone to pick
that fruit, and must pay all other Costs as well, but does not even
have a chance to pay Profit because the Exchange of those Goods does
not even occur when they are already the property of the person who
needs them.
> How would that change if customers owned the sweatshops?
We must support those Workers "from below" by helping them also own
the Sources of that which they Consume.
> Isn't it just as much in the interest of
> consumers to get workers to work for as little as possible?
This is a good point within the traditional mindset of protecting
Workers by propping-up Wages.
But let's look at this from the other direction:
Let's assume Consumer Ownership is a bad idea.
Now, what will we do to protect Workers if Consumers begin organizing
and Owning the Means of Production as i have described?
Since there will be no selling at the end of the season (the owner of
a fruit tree owns the fruit already) there will be no Profit for the
Workers to claim they should deserve.
Profit will never even 'happen' in this "short circuit" scenario
because the product will already be in the hands of those that will
finally use it. This means Price will be at the minimum it can ever
be - which is exactly the real Costs of production and Profit will be
'undefined'.
Nor will the Workers be able to prop-up Wages since they do not have
ownership in the orchard beyond that which they need for their own
Consumption, and so cannot keep other workers from under-bidding for
that job.
So the only safety I can see for the Workers is to protect their
ability to Consume by helping them co-own their own Means of
Production that will supply them with the goods they need.
This will also 'protect' us from the 'dangers' of automation and
robotics, and all other forms of abundance.
Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Abundance" group.
To post to this group, send email to postsc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to postscarcity...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/postscarcity?hl=en.
> I don't think there's any confusion about the fact that people in
> business *want* to make money.
That is very unfortunate.
We won't fix this until we begin to make businesses for the purpose of
making products, not for money. Money is not value in itself, it only
'points' to value.
> Destroying product in order to reduce supply and drive up the
price is just great
Poverty is the *difference* between Price and Wage.
Attempting to fix the problem by increasing both will get us nowhere.
Most people think Workers need a higher Wage and assume nothing can
be done about lowering Price.
But if the Worker were a co-owner in the Means of Production of that
which he *Consumes*, then Price would be as low as possible - Price
would *equal* Cost because he wouldn't buy the Product, but would own
it already as a "side effect" of his ownership in the Sources.
When a Consumer of Apples owns the Tree, he might hire someone to pick
that fruit, and must pay all other Costs as well, but does not even
have a chance to pay Profit because the Exchange of those Goods does
not even occur when they are already the property of the person who
needs them.
> How would that change if customers owned the sweatshops?
We must support those Workers "from below" by helping them also own
the Sources of that which they Consume.
> Isn't it just as much in the interest of
> consumers to get workers to work for as little as possible?
This is a good point within the traditional mindset of protecting
Workers by propping-up Wages.
But let's look at this from the other direction:
Let's assume Consumer Ownership is a bad idea.
Now, what will we do to protect Workers if Consumers begin organizing
and Owning the Means of Production as i have described?
Since there will be no selling at the end of the season (the owner of
a fruit tree owns the fruit already) there will be no Profit for the
Workers to claim they should deserve.
Profit will never even 'happen' in this "short circuit" scenario
because the product will already be in the hands of those that will
finally use it. This means Price will be at the minimum it can ever
be - which is exactly the real Costs of production and Profit will be
'undefined'.
Nor will the Workers be able to prop-up Wages since they do not have
ownership in the orchard beyond that which they need for their own
Consumption, and so cannot keep other workers from under-bidding for
that job.
So the only safety I can see for the Workers is to protect their
ability to Consume by helping them co-own their own Means of
Production that will supply them with the goods they need.
This will also 'protect' us from the 'dangers' of automation and
robotics, and all other forms of abundance.
Patrick Anderson
Social Sufficiency Coalition
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Abundance" group.
To post to this group, send email to postsc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to postscarcity...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/postscarcity?hl=en.
Edward Miller
May 2, 2010, 11:56:41 AM5/2/10
to Abundance
Why can't workers and consumers be the same people, and own
cooperatives on that basis. Instead of paying with money to become a
member, you'd pay with sweat equity. The reduced labor costs make it
better for the members-as-owners and the elimination of profit and
labor costs make it better for the members-as-consumers and the
ownership aspect would make it better for the members-as-workers. Mix
this with open source, and then you don't have to hire a bunch of
expensive smart people to reinvent wheels.
The only problem is that this doesn't necessarily work so well for
narrow companies that produce few products. It would work better for
large vertically integrated companies. Perhaps the logical extension
of that idea would be an arcology where all members are workers,
consumers, and owners. Like a cruise ship or Disneyland.
Except under this scenario profit could still exist for non-members.
People could come visit your arcology and enjoy all the amenities as
long as they are willing to pay above-cost.
This still has the problem of late-entry members. Perhaps those sorts
would have to pay money to make up for the lost sweat equity.
Also, all sweat equity is not created equal, so this is a serious
issue. Valuable workers perhaps could work less hours, but that would
probably seem unfair. Unless people are only admitted members if they
fall within a certain sweat equity value range. Which seems to
exclusive, subjective, and conformist.
So I think ultimately, each cruise ship needs to just have one member-
worker-owner and a bunch of robots. That is probably the logical
extension of mutualism.
> Social Sufficiency Coalitionhttp://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com
cooperatives on that basis. Instead of paying with money to become a
member, you'd pay with sweat equity. The reduced labor costs make it
better for the members-as-owners and the elimination of profit and
labor costs make it better for the members-as-consumers and the
ownership aspect would make it better for the members-as-workers. Mix
this with open source, and then you don't have to hire a bunch of
expensive smart people to reinvent wheels.
The only problem is that this doesn't necessarily work so well for
narrow companies that produce few products. It would work better for
large vertically integrated companies. Perhaps the logical extension
of that idea would be an arcology where all members are workers,
consumers, and owners. Like a cruise ship or Disneyland.
Except under this scenario profit could still exist for non-members.
People could come visit your arcology and enjoy all the amenities as
long as they are willing to pay above-cost.
This still has the problem of late-entry members. Perhaps those sorts
would have to pay money to make up for the lost sweat equity.
Also, all sweat equity is not created equal, so this is a serious
issue. Valuable workers perhaps could work less hours, but that would
probably seem unfair. Unless people are only admitted members if they
fall within a certain sweat equity value range. Which seems to
exclusive, subjective, and conformist.
So I think ultimately, each cruise ship needs to just have one member-
worker-owner and a bunch of robots. That is probably the logical
extension of mutualism.
Kevin Carson
May 4, 2010, 1:25:52 PM5/4/10
to postsc...@googlegroups.com
On 5/1/10, Patrick Anderson <agnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When a Consumer of Apples owns the Tree, he might hire someone to pick
> that fruit, and must pay all other Costs as well, but does not even
> have a chance to pay Profit because the Exchange of those Goods does
> not even occur when they are already the property of the person who
> needs them.
> When a Consumer of Apples owns the Tree, he might hire someone to pick
> that fruit, and must pay all other Costs as well, but does not even
> have a chance to pay Profit because the Exchange of those Goods does
> not even occur when they are already the property of the person who
> needs them.
> Since there will be no selling at the end of the season (the owner of
> a fruit tree owns the fruit already) there will be no Profit for the
> Workers to claim they should deserve.
>
> Profit will never even 'happen' in this "short circuit" scenario
> because the product will already be in the hands of those that will
> finally use it. This means Price will be at the minimum it can ever
> be - which is exactly the real Costs of production and Profit will be
> 'undefined'.
But not all profit is monetized. You may not sell your house or
> a fruit tree owns the fruit already) there will be no Profit for the
> Workers to claim they should deserve.
>
> Profit will never even 'happen' in this "short circuit" scenario
> because the product will already be in the hands of those that will
> finally use it. This means Price will be at the minimum it can ever
> be - which is exactly the real Costs of production and Profit will be
> 'undefined'.
monetize the appearance of your lawn, but if you get landscaping
service for dirt-cheap wages because you're hiring illegal aliens,
you're still profiting in a sense. And that is true of all forms of
utility or consumption goods produced directly for the consumer.
> Nor will the Workers be able to prop-up Wages since they do not have
> ownership in the orchard beyond that which they need for their own
> Consumption, and so cannot keep other workers from under-bidding for
> that job.
>
> So the only safety I can see for the Workers is to protect their
> ability to Consume by helping them co-own their own Means of
> Production that will supply them with the goods they need.
giving them ownership, but by otherwise increasing their bargaining
power. I think this lesson operates all around. It's not what an
economic actor *wants* to do by way of making a profit, but what
they're *able* to do given the bargaining power of other actors. And
regardless of whether capitalists or worker-owners *want* to make a
profit, their ability to do so is undermined because they can't
prevent others from bidding for the job.
--
Kevin Carson
Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org
Mutualist Blog: Free Market Anti-Capitalism
http://mutualist.blogspot.com
The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto
http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com
Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html
Patrick Anderson
May 4, 2010, 2:19:03 PM5/4/10
to postsc...@googlegroups.com
Edward Miller wrote:
> Why can't workers and consumers be the same people,
> and own cooperatives on that basis.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but will try to answer meaningfully.
> Why can't workers and consumers be the same people,
> and own cooperatives on that basis.
Today society we have a parasitic arrangement where massive owners of
Capital are Consumers but do no valuable work. They are the true bums
of our society.
In a better world, every consumer will be a worker in some manner.
And of course we already know every worker is the a consumer of
*something*, for nobody can live without food and water and probably
shelter and sanitation.
1.) One reason a consumer may not be the worker for the product he
needs is because of "variance in skill".
For example, even if they have access to all the tools, most people
cannot troubleshoot and fix problems with diesel engines.
2.) Another reason a Consumer may not be the Worker for the product he
needs is because of "need of help".
For example, even if they have access to all the tools, *nobody* can
perform brain-surgery upon themselves.
3.) Another reason a Consumer may not be the Worker for the product he
needs is because it "improves efficiency".
For example, even if they have access to all the tools, it is valuable
to have someone else cook for an entire neighborhood while I am out
shoveling manure and others are programming computers, and others are
fixing teeth, etc.
> Instead of paying with money to become a member,
> you'd pay with sweat equity.
mean Tools, Buildings, Energy, and all other inputs of production).
> The reduced labor costs make it better for the
> members-as-owners and the elimination of profit and
> labor costs make it better for the members-as-consumers and the
> ownership aspect would make it better for the members-as-workers. Mix
> this with open source, and then you don't have to hire a bunch of
> expensive smart people to reinvent wheels.
>
> The only problem is that this doesn't necessarily work so well for
> narrow companies that produce few products. It would work better for
> large vertically integrated companies. Perhaps the logical extension
> of that idea would be an arcology where all members are workers,
> consumers, and owners. Like a cruise ship or Disneyland.
work on cars, make furniture, use large washing machines and
expensive/heavy-duty sewing machines, and get all of your meals "at
cost".
If nobody else is trying to rent the machine when you want it, then it
will be available "at cost".
But if there is a scheduling conflict - if someone else want it at the
same time - then you will bid against each other.
The winner of that auction will be paying a "price above cost" (Profit).
We will treat that overpayment as HIS investment toward the purchase
of yet *another* instance of that type of tool since the fact there
was a conflict proves there were an insufficient number of instances
needed to meet peak demand...
On the other side of this, as co-owners of those tools begin to
neglect their upkeep (because they no longer care about them), then
those who rent - even when just paying maintenance - should probably
incrementally become the current co-owners ... but this is a delicate
matter that I have not fully explored.
> Except under this scenario profit could still exist for non-members.
> People could come visit your arcology and enjoy all the amenities as
> long as they are willing to pay above-cost.
>
> This still has the problem of late-entry members. Perhaps those sorts
> would have to pay money to make up for the lost sweat equity.
not yet have sufficient ownership to protect themselves from it, but
would then treat that overpayment as an *investment* from the very
same person who paid it.
Treating Profit as Payer Investment is a "Negative Feedback Loop" that
causes those latecomers to incrementally gain their own property which
means they eventually will also receive all goods and services "at
cost".
> Also, all sweat equity is not created equal, so this is a serious
> issue. Valuable workers perhaps could work less hours, but that would
> probably seem unfair. Unless people are only admitted members if they
> fall within a certain sweat equity value range. Which seems to
> exclusive, subjective, and conformist.
One example of the trouble it causes is how it incents workers to
'milk' an occupation - to drag-out the solution because to complete
the job early becomes a punishment!
We want to incent the automation and the elimination of drudgery.
Work is not a need in itself, it is a hurdle on our road to success!
We should reward clever solutions that destroy jobs. If we are
carrying water in buckets (metaphorically), we want the "young
whipersnapper" to feel safe enough to say "maybe we should lay some
pipe".
>
> So I think ultimately, each cruise ship needs to just have one member-
> worker-owner and a bunch of robots. That is probably the logical
> extension of mutualism.
If so, then what is the point of this discussion?
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages