Re: [ox-en] Robinsonades
- From: "Patrick Anderson" <agnucius gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:44:40 -0600
If everything is trading, then you are unable to analyze capitalism. You
are out-defining the problem.
I will separate Sharing from Trading in my mind in the following ways:
For either Sharing or Trading, the transaction is not complete until
both actors have delivered the goods and/or services being traded.
When Sharing, one actor gives first while the other may never
reciprocate, or may do so later, but without paying interest, and only
with a suggestion to repay the same value. Sharing is not "equal
exchange" because an exact price was not named, right?
Sharing becomes Trading when an exact price is named, payment is
required, interest is charged, 'rights' are enforced.
Trading is usually not an "equal exchange" either because customer
prices are usually higher than the owner costs of production. This
difference is called profit.
Sharing is not immediately reciprocal.
Trading is immediately reciprocal in that both parties must pay now or
must pay interest.
Borrowing is renting when exact-price is named, conditions-of-use are
and time-due are enforced.
If not, then why in the universe would he work on my rotting teeth?
Because he or she likes to help you, is happy with fixing rotten teeth,
simply likes you personally,
eesh, I may be in trouble in that case.
In a Peer Economy the dentist would be receiving a weighted labor
'credit' or 'deposit' paid by the community as a whole through some
sort of delegation committee, right ... or close?
What I would like to see is a situation where some customers could
choose to spend the time needed to qualify as any certain artisan.
If I want to start drilling teeth using community equipment, I must
meet the use and safety requirements of those specific co-owners.
does his/her task with a lot of fun, has a
personal mission to free the city from rotten teeth, is working in a
cool team etc. - at least one million reasons.
That is a very positive view of things.
Thus a popular task (say, programming) will end >>> up with a lower labor weight (say, 0.5), while an >>> unpopular task (say, garbage removal) will end up >>> with a high labor weight (say, 2.0).'"
I'm having trouble seeing this as anything other than State run
Socialism with my monthly stipend weighted by profession type.
We need to keep in mind those that will try to 'play' the system by
pretending to be working in several fields at once to collect more
than their share while do little or none of that work.
Will workers be required to clock-in? How do we make sure people
aren't slacking off? What incentive do I have to not take a 3.5 hour
lunch or an 18 month vacation?
Sorry, don't be angry about me: You _are_ selling capitalist logic, even
if you don't want to. I can accept this view, because it is the common
one. But not my.
For me, the phrase "capitalist logic" means Owners of Capital are
collecting Profit as a reward.
My suggestion is to treat Profit as an investment from the Consumer
who paid it, so that profit is NOT a reward, but an indicator of how
out-of-balance the property ownership is in that community.
Tourists pay high profit because they have no ownership to 'protect'
them from the current owners.
But if the corporation selling to the tourists is under a "Terms of
Operation" requiring all profit be the invested property of the
consumer that paid it, then those tourists slowly gain the Capital
ownership needed to guarantee their full control and at-cost access to
the products they want.
Capitalists strives to keep price above cost, but they can only do
that while Consumers do not have enough Capital Ownership.
When consumers own capital cooperatively, they accomplish goals
without paying what might be thought of as the externality of profit.
Contact: projekt oekonux.de