|Subject:||Re: Vertically Integrated Permaculture Mosaic|
|Date:||Mon, 25 Jun 2012 20:50:59 +0100|
On Jun 25, 2012 6:13 PM, "Patrick Anderson" <address@hidden> wrote:
> Ramana Kumar wrote:
> > offering product as ROI, which strikes me as
> > interesting but suspicious because it's not going to
> > be as fungible as plain old money.
> People should use plain old money for as long as they
> need to, but I'm just saying is there is simply no
> reason to sell the Product when it is already the
> property of the person who will consume it.
> When you own an Avocado tree, you do not *buy* the
> Avocados from yourself - you *already* own them as a
> "side effect" of owning the tree.
> When a group of human co-own an Avocado orchard, they
> do not need to *buy* the Avocados from themselves -
> they *already* own them as a "side effect" of
> co-owning the trees.
This generalisation to groups is not obvious to me because humans don't eat (and use) avocados as a group. They might do it individually, or in subgroups. So what happens when someone wants to eat all the fruit on the tree he co-owns?
How is your answer better than the method where individuals buy and sell the fruit (perhaps where picking from the tree entails buying as an individual from the group of which one is a member) and how is it worse?
> Avoiding buying and selling after production allows us
> to guarantee the Price the Consumer pays is exactly
> the Costs he paid for that production - thereby
> eliminating Profit in a natural manner. This also
> evades sales taxes and other government interference.
> Profit is undefined when Product is ROI.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|