Shayde
> NOT Employee owners who consume their own products.
I agree. Worker-Owned organizations seek to perpetuate profit just like all other Capitalists.
Profit indicates property misallocation, and is eliminated (the product is not sold, and so price and cost are identical) when the consumer of outputs is the co-owner of inputs.
Property used in this way is an optimization that pre-allocates product to those who will finally consume it.
----
For example, imagine 1,000 milk-drinkers buy and co-own a dairy for the purpose of receiving at-cost milk.
The each must continually cover their % of the costs of production, including any wages.
But since Product is their "Return on Investment" (ROI), they each collect their portion of milk that they <strong>already</strong> own without buying it from anybody.
Because the final transaction has been eliminated, the Consumer/Owner cannot pay Profit, and governments cannot even collect sales tax! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent for a portion of the idea.
----
Production is for Use-Value when the Physical Sources are co-owned by those who will consume the outputs.
This is analogous to how the Open Source gives Users access to the Virtual Sources (code), even though it would seem of little worth - since most Users do not have the skills needed to 'operate' those Sources.
Capitalism is about Exchange Value, not Use Value.
But when the <strong>Consumers</strong> control the Sources, and accept Product as the natural return for that risk, the product is not exchanged (is not sold), and so Exchange Value is not even a consideration - except in the case of surplus.
> We all cannot have a direct "ownership" stake in every
> enterprise which produces a good or service we consume.
> At least not a a voting stockholder kindof way.
I disagree. Crowd-funded will become crowd-owned as consumers learn to buy and co-own the Physical Sources needed for production and so have absolute dominion over the results at the lowest possible Price.
Many people already have "Mutual Funds" that scatter investments across many industries but give them almost no say in how that product is made, nor do they ever receive the product directly as a ROI.
We will create a "Fund Mutuals" that scatter investments across many industries and gives each investing-consumer the same % vote as the % of co-ownership, and accepts the Products themselves as the natural return for the risk of property ownership.
Just as with Open Source, not all owners will see the benefits operating in this manner, and so adoption will be slow at first, when only a handful of groups will understand how this could help their struggle for autonomy and resilience.
Authored Comments
Shayde
> NOT Employee owners who consume their own products.
I agree. Worker-Owned organizations seek to perpetuate profit just like all other Capitalists.
Profit indicates property misallocation, and is eliminated (the product is not sold, and so price and cost are identical) when the consumer of outputs is the co-owner of inputs.
Property used in this way is an optimization that pre-allocates product to those who will finally consume it.
----
For example, imagine 1,000 milk-drinkers buy and co-own a dairy for the purpose of receiving at-cost milk.
The each must continually cover their % of the costs of production, including any wages.
But since Product is their "Return on Investment" (ROI), they each collect their portion of milk that they <strong>already</strong> own without buying it from anybody.
Because the final transaction has been eliminated, the Consumer/Owner cannot pay Profit, and governments cannot even collect sales tax! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_rent for a portion of the idea.
----
Production is for Use-Value when the Physical Sources are co-owned by those who will consume the outputs.
This is analogous to how the Open Source gives Users access to the Virtual Sources (code), even though it would seem of little worth - since most Users do not have the skills needed to 'operate' those Sources.
Capitalism is about Exchange Value, not Use Value.
But when the <strong>Consumers</strong> control the Sources, and accept Product as the natural return for that risk, the product is not exchanged (is not sold), and so Exchange Value is not even a consideration - except in the case of surplus.
> We all cannot have a direct "ownership" stake in every
> enterprise which produces a good or service we consume.
> At least not a a voting stockholder kindof way.
I disagree. Crowd-funded will become crowd-owned as consumers learn to buy and co-own the Physical Sources needed for production and so have absolute dominion over the results at the lowest possible Price.
Many people already have "Mutual Funds" that scatter investments across many industries but give them almost no say in how that product is made, nor do they ever receive the product directly as a ROI.
We will create a "Fund Mutuals" that scatter investments across many industries and gives each investing-consumer the same % vote as the % of co-ownership, and accepts the Products themselves as the natural return for the risk of property ownership.
Just as with Open Source, not all owners will see the benefits operating in this manner, and so adoption will be slow at first, when only a handful of groups will understand how this could help their struggle for autonomy and resilience.