Tuesday Log File
Soon crowds of internet users will realize they already pay all the costs for that connectivity, so will instead pool their funds to buy and own ISPs for the sole purpose of receiving the results.
When crowds of users own the means of production, the price they pay as consumers is exactly the costs they pay as co-owners and profit does not even exist!
There is no reason to kowtow to random owners of the goods and services we need when we, as groups of consumers, can be the direct owners ourselves and so never again need to beg someone to do what we consider right, but what their shareholders consider wrong.
When we, as consumers, own the inputs of production, we own the outputs automatically, even without buying those things, and the costs of production is all we must pay, and finally we will have full and absolute dominion over that production as we always should have had.
This is easy to see for an owner in solitary confinement:
The owner of an Apple tree does not buy Apples from himself, that would be silly!
The co-owners of an Apple orchard do not need to by the Apples from themselves, that would be silly!
But somehow the multi-owner version of that arrangement has eluded us.
Consumer Cooperatives do not do this – the ‘members’ must *buy* the product from some central authority and be charged profit at that time, and pay sales-tax and also loose real control over how that production is achieved.
And so Imputed Production simplifies production by eliminating the final transaction for those who prepay for goods and services *iff* each investor is receiving real co-ownership in the physical sources.
…
That solves the ‘static’ case, where each person owns exactly as much inputs as the predict they will need of outputs.
To address the ‘dynamic’ case, where the prediction was too high or too low, and also the case where a newcomer is buying surplus, we must understand how profit is inversely related to property.
When a consumer owns enough inputs (owns enough of the Apple orchard or taxi fleet), then the price they pay is exactly the costs of the operation for their portion and profit is undefined (does not occur). This proves the origin of profit is the consumers’ lack of ownership in the means of production.
But when a consumer needs more than they predicted (more Apples or more taxi rides), and if there is surplus to sell, then they can buy those outputs *late*, and will most likely pay profit during that transaction.
Charging profit against latecomers is not the sin of Capitalism. The sin is not recognizing that profit must be treated as an investment from that payer, causing latecomers to gain ownership in the *growth* of that production (planting more Apple trees or buying more taxis).
Treating profit as the payer’s investment causes growth to be autodistributed to those willing to pay for that growth, and causes profit to continuously approach zero (undefined).