Re: Profit and Value, was: Re(2): [ox-en] extrinsic motivation = coercion
- From: Patrick Anderson <agnucius gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 07:23:42 -0600
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 6:07 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com> wrote:
price should include a fixed profit margin so that there can be
investment in new products as well as investment in more efficient
I agree we should charge a price above cost (profit) against
non-owning consumers, (this does not conflict with my claim that
profit is not required (nor does it even make sense) for sufficiently
But then the question (in my mind) becomes: *who* shall be the owner
of those new investments?
Should the current owners gain even more ownership - causing the
Capital Accumulation we already see?
Or should the person who paid for the investments (the consumer) be
the owner of those new assets so that ownership and control are
naturally and dynamically distributed at every exchange?
The answer seems clear to me, but maybe there is a reason to not allow
consumers to become partial owners?
Traditionally the reasoning would be because of the 'destructive'
impact it has upon profits - for when every consumer has sufficient
ownership (when we finally have enough apple trees for everyone to
eat, and the ownership of those trees is 'correctly' distributed to
the very same people who are in need of that good), then price == cost
and profit == zero.
So if, and only if, profits are treated as an investment from the
payer can future profits be safely tapered toward zero while
employment (drudgery) can also be safely minimized.
There appears to be no other way to solve this part of the problem.
Worker ownership does not do the same thing, and will not result in
the most efficient system as one in which ALL (both current and
future) consumers gain sufficient ownership in the Means of
Marx was wrong and the LTV is a distraction. Profit occurs when a
consumer is dependent upon current owners and has nothing to do with
workers at all.
Contact: projekt oekonux.de