On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose gmail.com> wrote:
[Converted from multipart/alternative]
[1 text/plain]
Patrick,
I could just as easily dismiss everything you talk about as "Puer
Economic
Models".
Sam,
I should have been more careful and complete with my labeling.
I know VIA Technologies and Marcin are both accomplishing more than design.
The *Pure Design* label was showing that only the designs (Virtual
Sources) are being made 'Open' or 'Free(dom)', whereas I want to talk
about the strange case of making the Physical Sources of those things
'Open' or 'Free(dom)'.
I don't think that you have hit on some kind of seminal, irreducible
"core"
of human systems problem solving with your proposed economic ideas.
This isn't an ego trip for me. I'm only reporting what I observe.
I am severely concerned about the welfare of our planet and the
unnecessary starvation-levels in food production caused by treating
profit as a reward - which has caused agribusiness to drive the US
government to pass legislation that has brought us toward the brink of
disaster all in the name of keeping price above cost.
Economic ideas are only useful if people will use them.
Yes, and many people are surprised that software developers are
willing to invest (mostly labor) into Free Software for which they
only receive use-value. Those developers are investing (doing that
work) because they are also consumers of that software wanting more
control and a lower price.
I think your concepts are sound, as I've said before. But, I'd challenge
you
to find even 10 people who are willing to adopt what you suggest in
practice. Who are willing to *invest* in your idea, by adopting and
employing it.
I think almost any consumer would want to invest toward getting a
better product at a lower price. The problem is a matter of
organization, and I'm no businessman.
We should go after high-need + high-profit businesses first. Organic
food production is number one on my list.
I think in time, maybe 3 years, maybe 5 years, maybe more, that more
people
will emerge who's thinking is aligned with yours. But, at this time, it's
too radically different from the way that most people are solving their
problems of existence.
Are you saying I should just be quiet and wait?
This is why I concentrate on ways of solving problems of existence that
don't demand or insist that everyone must stop solving problems in part
by
employing capitalistic systems. because, everyone won't. I want to make
systems that can *interface* with existing systems, and even employ them.
I
don't accept that just because you have found a better economic model
that
it is unethical and immoral, or irrelevant that I do not immediately
adopt
it.
I do not care about ethics or morals since they are arbitrarily defined.
For instance, an even better economic model than the one that you are
proposing would be for me, and everyone else to just give everything to
each
other for free, and completely trust that every person would supply every
other person with something. This is even more theoretically efficient
than
UserOwned. Not only is there no "Price above cost", there is NO PRICE AT
ALL! In my model, not just "users" or consumers own the means of
production.
EVERYONE owns them! So, I don't understand why you don't adopt my
"everything is free" model over "User Owner"? My model is obviously the
most ethical, moral choice that there could ever be in an economic model,
period.
I just look at it as transactions between processes vying for
hardware. I'm assuming everyone (every process) will try to "get away
with" as much as they can.
If everyone would just "do the right thing", we wouldn't already be in
this mess.
But seriously, I believe that to have the highest likelihood for success
in
actually seeing change, that the conditions for helping change happen
must
emerge first.
Should I just wait silently?
It is my belief that everything that you are dismissing as "*pure
design*"
is in fact helping to create the conditions of change that people who are
*locked* into current paradigms need. It's clear to me, at least, that a
huge swath of people are not anywhere near giving up their current
solutions
(ie exchanging money for goods).
I don't want to stop using currency, though we do need to wean
ourselves off of the terrible Federal Reserve Note that we purchase
and then rent from private, off-shore bankers.
I think a possible pathway is for people to
find ways to eliminate the need to depend on the entities that help
bolster
and support price above cost.
Profit is extremely dangerous because it incents artificial scarcity,
destruction, and finally war.
Then, when these people have some breathing
room, and some of the long standing economic pressure is removed, they
can
start build the cultural infrastructure, and personal literacies that
WILL
be needed for a solution like the one that you propose.
It's really only a matter of making sure your investors are consumers.
You can then pay them in product instead of profit.
You'd be surprised at how many people don't really know how to
collaborate,
how to be involved in civic ways, how to build and sustain good
relationships, all of which would be needed for people to succeed in the
model you describe.
I don't see why. I'm not saying the consumers would be required to do
that specific work. We need division of labor for an efficient
society, and I assume the consumer would often be retreiving the
income to pay those workers by doing his own work in some other field.
A consumer owned business could operate quite the same internally.
We are getting closer, though. The paradigm of a "commons", and the
accompanying emerging ways that people are learning to co-manage them is
leading towards groups of people who will be able to sustain "user owned"
systems.
Why or in what way would a manager need to respond differently to
for-product shareholders than he would to for-profit shareholders?
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de