Re: Profit and Value, was: Re(2): [ox-en] extrinsic motivation = coercion
- From: Patrick Anderson <agnucius gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 10:44:02 -0600
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 7:35 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi gmail.com> wrote:
If there is no profit margin,
Please read what I have written more carefully.
We *SHOULD* charge price above cost. There *SHOULD* be a profit 'margin'.
The only question is *WHO* should receive ownership of that investment.
Should it become the property of the current owners - causing capital
to be further accumulated into the hands of the privileged?
Or should it be the property of the person who just paid it = the consumer?
then how would the consumer-owned producing entity get the material
resources they need to invest in higher production efficiencies or new
Yes, I agree, profit should be collected, and should be "ploughed
into" the same organization.
We *should* charge profit against anyone needing to buy goods
(consumers who do not yet have sufficient ownership to 'protect'
themselves from profit), but those funds (that the consumer just paid)
should be *HIS* property ownership (after a 'vesting' period).
This turns profit into a sort of semi-coerced investment.
There is a cost to everything, as you agree, so how would they afford
those resources which they need to attain higher production
efficiencies, be them new production machinery or whatever production
Again, let's charge profit. And, as you say, let's reinvest it into
It is the traditional claim that the *current* owners should also gain
ownership of those new investments that I question.
If they only cover the cost of production, how do they cover the cost
of efficiency improvement or investing in new goods/services?
By charging profit (price above cost), but treating that growth as an
investment from the consumer who paid it - so that growth occurs
without being centralized.
Contact: projekt oekonux.de