Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis wrote: > That doesnt explain though why the profitability > in general decreased in the first place.
We are very confused about the origin of Profit. There are many attempts to explain where it comes from, but they conflict with each other, and do not have a logical basis. But we can find the real source of Profit by finding it's 'asymptote' - the conditions under which it hits zero. One clue is to notice Profit only occurs if the Product is sold. (When I say Profit I am referring to the difference between the Price paid by the Consumer and the Costs incurred by the Owner.) Products are not sold when the Consumer already owns them. For example, the owner of an Apple tree does not *buy* the Apples from himself, because he already owns them. Even if he paid someone else to do the work, those wages are calculated as a Cost. The owner must pay all Costs, but he does not pay any more than that (he does not pay Profit). The Price he pays is exactly the Costs of production. This can be true of an Apple orchard co-owned by 1,000 people. There is no reason for those people to *buy* the Product back from their collective selves, but that is how cooperatives work now, and so there is many troubles caused by our misunderstanding the meaning and purpose of Profit - causing control to be continually concentrated into the hands of a few. This seems to prove the origin of Profit is the Consumers' lack of (co-)ownership in the Means of Production, and can safely reach zero (actually UNDEFINED) when each Consumer (co-)owns enough of the Means of Production for each of the Products he needs such that he no longer buys those Products, but already owns his % according to the amount he (co-)owns in the Means of that production. But that only solves the 'static' case, where each Consumer owns *exactly* as much in the Means as he needs Product. When there is surplus, and there are Consumers with insufficient ownership (meaning they must by Product), then there is a possibility for Profit (Price above Costs) to occur. In that case, I believe we should charge Profit against those latecomers - as much as the "market will bear", but then treat that overpayment as though that payer had made an investment in his future needs - so he eventually also gains the (co-)ownership needed to stop buying that Product. For example, if a Consumer pays $10 for a bushel of Apples that only Cost $7 to deliver, then the current (co-)Owners would receive $3 in Profit. We would accept that Profit as normal, and use it to increase the size of the orchard (buying more land and trees), but that new property must eventually 'vest' to that Payer. _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
