User:PatrickA
Hello, my name is Patrick Anderson.
Some Rambling Thoughts
If there is not enough food, then why does the US government *PAY* farmers to *NOT* grow on land that is provably arable (arability is a requirement of qualifying for the payout)?
Reasoning may be something along the lines of:
"If we allow producers to saturate the market, revenues will plummet!"
"How will we profit unless we are able to sell at a price above cost"?
"What is the purpose of investing in a corporation unless you receive a return?"
"Profit relies upon scarcity."
"Abundance lowers returns."
"Profit requires Poverty."
Keeping price above cost, or in other words, "making a profit" is the primary and really only goal of most for-profit corporations. Smaller corps seem less vicious, but are identical in their legal gait.
But production CAN occur without profit.
Non-profits try to "get rid of" profits when or if they accidentally gain them. Often this is padding the wages and perks of some unapproachable steering committee or high-level management.
If you can't tell, I think non-profit is also incorrect. But there is another approach that is hidden almost in plain sight.
There is a special operational case in economics that occurs when collective Owners of productive Sources are the full Consumers of all of that production.
When the Consumer of some Object is the Owner of the Sources needed to create that Object, then price == cost and profit == 0.
So, if we can get Consumers to invest and OWN productive assets, even if they do not (yet) have the skills to operate them, and if that relationship can somehow be held in place (or at least if 'perfect' ownership can approached), then we can have production without Profit because the return on the investment is Product instead.
New, non-owning consumers would come late and pay a price a bit above cost, but if we treat that overpayment as an investment from the consumer who just paid it, then the organization would grow (more Sources would be purchased) while the ownership of that new bit would be in the hands of the person who paid for it.
