Message 04817 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT04596 Message: 25/93 L13 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] Re: "At Cost"

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Franz Nahrada <f.nahrada> wrote:
list-en writes:

In Capitalist societies, actually everything tends to be sold at cost.

Of course this is the vulgar surface impression, it  includes the "Cost of
Capital" ;-) So on the surface of Capitalist
production you have three
forms of costs that are really porms of profit:

- the "wage" of the entrepreneur
- the "interest" of capital
- the "revenue" of landowners, include intellectual property owners, force

Wage is not a form of profit.

Wages are paid by owners to workers for work.

Profit is paid by consumers to owners for lack of ownership.

These interests are served by the surplus value that emerges from the
difference of "costs" and "value" (price)

Of course these costs are determined in a process of competition. The rate
of profit is a dynamic game.

Profit only occurs when consumers have insufficient ownership in the
Means of Production.

But it is a mistake to think that cooperatives can outcompete capital by
bringing down price to costs - they are faced with the fine art of
exploitation and their work is de-valuated.

Worker Cooperatives do as you describe.

Consumer Cooperatives have never been fully implemented because none
has treated profit as an investment from the consumer who paid it.

As you note, even simple reproduction has to calculate a difference
between price and costs because of losses, damage etc.

I do not think 'price' appears until trade, because my definition is:
price = profit + costs.

Do not conflate Wages with Profit.

Wages are a Cost.  Wages are paid for work.

Profit is not a Cost, Profit is the difference between Consumer Price
and Owner Costs.

Profit is what the mega-corporations brag about.  They are saying "Ha,
ha!  We can keep price above cost because you, the collective
consumers, have chosen to NOT invest for production.  You do NOT own
the oil fields, farms and factories for yourselves.  While we, the
current Owners invested with the strange goal of keeping price above
cost, and are so incented to scarcify, destroy and prohibit all
competing solutions."

cooperative can survive if they create a different "internal" cycle within
that is not based on price and costs, but on maximum overall effectiveness.

I agree we want maximum overall effectiveness, but don't think that
conflicts with keeping track of our costs of production.

I think we are on the same side here, but we just use the words differently.

It is 'wrong' to charge $10,000 for a glass of water in the desert,
but it is also Capitalism.

The consumer pays price above cost because he is not co-owner in that well.

Let's say the consumer jointly owned the well with 999 other
consumers.  Then he would have some real control, and should be able
to get the water "at cost" - whatever the 999 others agree must be
spent to maintain the health of the water source.

Let's say these owners hire a team of 5 of themselves to guard the
well and to collect the various costs of operation (including their
own wages by the way).

Each consumer/owner will pay some yearly fee to cover these 'base'
costs along with a per/gallon charged as they withdraw.  Auctions
could help fund solutions to high-demand problems.  For example, a
high number of simultaneous drinkers could bid against each other.  A
potential consumer with a low-priority scheduling ticket could offer
to pay some of the drink-fee for someone willing to exchange their
scheduling ticket.

This is my pattern for a public utility.

. The collective owning consumers are "we the people".

. Each owning-consumer pays his portion of all his real costs incurred.

. Each non-owning-consumer pays his portion of all his real costs
incurred and also pays profit which is invested for him in MORE
sources of that kind of production.

That will eventuall mean drilling MORE wells as the community grows.
But notice the community both grows and splits along border lines
defining both personal and public ownership.  Each citizen/consumer
controls and supervises all that he has ownership in.

Groups of consuming-owners organizing in this way need the ability to
seceed/split/fork from the group while retaining real ownership in all
the property they now have title to.

The ability to divide from the majority is vital to true freedom, and
is not being respected in any of the so-called democratic states.

Contact: projekt

Thread: oxenT04596 Message: 25/93 L13 [In index]
Message 04817 [Homepage] [Navigation]