Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Patrick Anderson
Economic Systems Engineer
Economic Systems Engineer

Patrick's posts

As supply approaches demand, price approaches cost and so profit approaches zero.

This means for-profit industries can never solve any problem completely since doing so puts them out of business.

Production in the future will be for-product when the consumers finally realize they can co-own the Means of Production for their own mutual benefit and accept the product itself as the return on investment and so pay only the real costs of production and nothing more.

For-product industry does not need to generate profit because the shareholders are compensated by receiving the product at cost without the need to buy it from anyone.

Post has attachment

We pay all the costs of production (and even more when we pay profit) but have no control because we have no ownership.

And so we grovel before the owners and the governments those owners control, begging for them to help us reach our goals.

But they cannot help us, for to do so would reduce the profits their investors expect as return for the risk they took.

And so it seems consumers and owners must forever be at odds since abundance and scarcity are mutually exclusive goals.

And yet maybe it is not so impossible.  We have missed the most simple and obvious arrangement there could possibly be.

Imagine we, the consumers, are the owners.  It is easy to see we could afford it, since we already pay all the costs.

Soon we will realize that groups of consumers can crowd-fund the purchase and upkeep of businesses for their own benefit.

They will do this to have full dominion over those operations while receiving the product at exactly the cost of production.

There will be no need to worry about 'fair' prices because the product is not sold and the goal is not product, not profit.

This first step toward a new economy eliminates unnecessary transactions that confuse us into seeking scarcity over abundance.

                Cross-Product Health Assurance

We can guarantee future Products by Cross-Committing Sources and Skills.

Products are goods and services like food, housing, education, transportation.
Sources are the land and tools and organisms needed to create those Products.
Skills are the time and effort applied to the Sources to create those Products.

Some investors cross-commit Sources while others investors cross-commit Skills.
Each investor receives commitments of Sources and Skills from others in return.

Each investor becomes a property owner in the Sources of the Products they seek.
Each investor becomes a "promise holder" of the Skills applied to those Sources.

The Products are not sold because they already belong to those who will use them.
Each Investor owns as much Product as they own commitments of Sources and Skills.

We must depend upon many external Products during the 'bootup' stage of growth.
Dependence is decreased through vertical integration and horizontal diversity.

Surplus is sold to outsiders in return for their commitments of Sources or Skills.
Commitment above cost is collected but then reflected to the payer as investment.

Any subgroup, for reason, may secede or sell their portion of Sources they co-own.

Here's an idea which I hope can help with "Massive Collaboration" for goods and services we know we will need on a recurring and continual basis such as food, water, housing, health-care, etc.

First, create 'core' businesses that are each co-owned by the future customers of that very product.  For example, a chicken farm and tools for those who want eggs, a dental office and tools for those who want to insure their teeth will be fixed, a barley field and hops field and a brewery and tools for those who want beer, etc.  We can most likely use crowd-funding to start for each of these with the 'perk' being real co-ownership in that enterprise.

By creating a variety of these core businesses to cover each need we have, we will also be able to swap skills (exchange promises to work) and thereby also eliminate the payment of wages in the traditional sense.

Each core business will not be profitable at first simply because we will not be selling the product.  Each co-owner owns his portion of the products (eggs or fixed teeth or beer) as a result of his paying his portion of the costs of production.

This may seem useless, but is actually very valuable because it creates a solid foundation for the efficiency of scale we need to compete with traditional businesses.  These customer/owners will rarely leave because it is impossible to get the product for less than the real costs of production.

Once each core is full operational, we begin selling surplus to outsiders and charging profit against them.  This will cause the core to grow in size.

If we want the core to remain stable as it scales, we will need to treat some % of the profit as an investment from the payer so that all consumers incrementally gain the co-ownership needed to receive that product at the real costs of production.

We, the masses, pay all the costs of production when we buy any product.

We pay for the construction, operation and maintenance of all the factories and farms and mines and cell-phone towers that supply us with the things we need and want.

This proves we can afford to own all of these means of production since we already pay for them (and even more when we pay profit). We pay all the costs and yet have no control because we have no ownership, and so must continually beg the owners to do what we want.

We have been misled into thinking the workers must bear the costs of ownership, and so have not been able to organize production on a large scale to compete with the capitalists.

Soon we will realize large groups of consumers can afford to pool their resources (think crowd-funding) to buy farms and factories and mines and cell-phone towers, etc. for the purpose of receiving the product instead of for the purpose of selling those products.

Once this happens, the price we pay as consumers will be the costs we pay as co-owners, while profit will be undefined since the product is never sold when it is already in the hands of those who will use it.

Post has attachment
Kostas Marioglou differentiates between 3 different types of holdings :

1. State-Owned: Central control by 'representatives' who routinely work against the public because for-profit corporations lobby for favors.

2. Privatization: Central control by private owners who routinely work against the public because they seek to maximize profit (profit requires scarcity and domination of the consumers).

3. Public-Owned: Decentralized control by private owners who work for the public because these groups are the consumers themselves.

In the future, "Public-Owned" might become known as "Crowd-Owned" as crowds of consumers pool their money to Crowd-Fund and purchase the shares they need for their own benefit and retain that ownership as private property without ever selling the water and so create "Use-Value" enterprise where the owners and consumers are finally one and the same - thereby uniting the goals of each into one purpose.

Some say the Workers should be the owners and some say the Consumers should be the owners and some say it should be a mixture of both.

Imagine you are not connected to the internet, but want a wired connection between your computer and your neighbor's computer.

Imagine you hire someone to do that work and continue to hire them to maintain that connection.

Should that worker have some ownership in that very small network?  Why or why not?

Now imagine you and your neighbor connect to other people, and they to others and so-on until there are thousands and millions and even billions of connections.

Should the workers that install and maintain those connections have some ownership in that very large network?  Why or why not?

We use corporations and governments to organize the production we need.

But we have very little control over how these these entities operate.

The very wealthy have a disproportionate voice compared to the rest of us.

Some view this problem as solvable through static limitations
such as a cap on property holdings or an arbitrary maximum income.

But I see this specifically as a dynamic problem that must be solved
by adjusting the origin of property accumulation.

I claim profit (the difference between consumer_price and owner_costs)
is the origin of property accumulation and we can solve this problem
by creating businesses/organizations that are co-owned by crowds of
consumers who choose to impose a Terms of Operation upon themselves

1.) Treats Product as the investor's return.  This means only
consumers will invest to become co-owners, and only in the amount they
predict they will need of that product.  This also means the product
will not be sold (except for surplus as explained below), as it is
already pre-allocated to those who need it.  This eliminates profit
for those co-owners (they pay only costs as owners) and also
eliminates sales tax since there is no final transaction (the co-owner
of a dairy does not buy milk from himself because he owns his portion

2.) Treats Profit as an investment from the consumer who paid it.
This means the current owners will charge profit against latecomers
when surplus is sold to those with insufficient co-ownership, but that
profit is immediately invested on behalf of the person who paid it so
that all consumers incrementally gain the co-ownership they need to
control the production they must have.  This auto-distributes property
to those willing to pay for that expansion, thereby avoiding the usual
problem of over-accumulation.

3.) Treats Promise-to-work as another kind of investment so we can
trade skills before production begins and eliminate the traditional
paying of wages and also avoid income tax.

4.) Allows any subgroup to secede and retain their portion of
ownership when there is a conflict.  This is a (rough) attempt to
solve the Tyranny of the Majority issue.

Why do farmers choose evil Monsanto eggs and seeds when so many of us want righteous heirloom varieties?

Why is agriculture either poisonous (Monsanto GMO seeds and eggs) or too expensive (CSAs, Farmer's Markets) or required to be done in solitary confinement (gardens)?

Why are we unable to control production in groups for our own mutual benefit without being overcharged?

How have we become so sure the farms and factories must be owned by someone besides us?

It is easy to see we can afford to own them since we already pay all the costs and even more when we pay Profit.

Soon we will realize we can use a variation of crowd-funding (let's call it crowd-ownership) to co-own the Means of Production for our own mutual benefit.

We will regain control by investing to co-own Farms and Factories and then accept the Product itself as the return for those risks.

We will not need to sell the Product since those who need it (the consumers) will be the owners already, as a side-effect of our co-owning the Means of that Production.

This will finally give us absolute dominion over all the goods and services we need without the usual conflict that occurs between owners and consumers - since, in this case, the consumers are the owners.

Once this is in place, corporation and government can once again be safely merged, since the only reason government is against us at all is because the corporations that puppeteer them seek scarcity when seeking profit which is saught because they have ignorantly chosen investors that expect profit as ROI.

But consumers can be small investors (of either Capital or Work-Bonds) and can accept the Product itself as ROI.  This solves many problems at once.

We cannot wait much longer to begin forming business in this way.  We only need a way to pool our efforts.  I am working on a web-interface that will allow that kind of cooperation.  It will appear similar to crowd-funding websites with these differences:

.) Investors receive real co-ownership in the Means of Production of the goods and services they need.
.) The projects will be inter-connected so you can receive a wide variety of goods or services from your investments.
.) Middle to Upper-income investors will commit Land or Capital.
.) Middle to Lower-income investors will commit Work-Bonds which are a "promise to work in the future".
.) Investors will "cross-commit" those inputs early, before production begins, so one of the usual problems of barter (simultaneous coincidence of wants) is eliminated.
.) Projects never payout Profit or Wages.  Each investor becomes a co-owner in that which they need the outputs and receives Product (good or service) as a side-effect of that co-ownership.  This is a subtle but massively important difference from current crowd-funding or CSAs.
Wait while more posts are being loaded