[p2p-research] higher transportation costs can reverse globalization

[Patrick Anderson]

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Samuel Rose wrote:

> The only way to make what you describe really, really work for me right now
> is to chuck it all, and move myself somewhere  where I can make all of the
> rules, and where practically everyone else involved agrees to follow the
> system you describe.

You don't need to "chuck it all" or move to make all of the rules;
business owners can always choose the rules within their organization,
so all we need to do is start a business where the only investors are
also consumers in the amount that they invest.

For instance, say you knew 1000 other people that wanted "at cost"
organic produce.  If you and those other 999 people invested in a
small farm, those pre-payments would be toward the purchase and
operation of the farm.

All costs would have to be paid, just as on any other farm, except
they would be paid early by the consumers instead of financed through
a bank.

The product would then be available "at cost" since these
owner/consumers don't actually buy the product - they own it even
before it is produced!

> So, that leaves us with the reality that many people are not willing to
> share in the way you describe.

I don't expect 'regular' investors who fund operations with the
intention of collecting profit to change what they do.

I'm talking about consumers funding production of that which they
consume for themselves.  They are not giving up profit; they are
gaining "at cost" product.

> Many people are not willing to sell at cost.

There would be no selling.  The investors would be paid in PRODUCT
instead of PROFIT.  (actually, we could sell any 'extra' product to
'grow' the enterprise, but can avoid talking about that complexity for
now)

> Many people are capitalists, and they are not ready to change from being
> capitalists, and we all need to deal directly with them.

We'll just leave the capitalist alone and instead ask consumers to
begin investing.

Similar to Free Software, the capitalists will be angry that we are
being so efficient as we out-cooperate them, but will have no recourse
except maybe to join us.

>> If you and some other people collectively purchased a small farm for
>> the sole purpose of your own benefit, would the efficiency of others
>> be a problem for you?  Why or why not?
>
> Sam writes:
>
> When I said it would be a problem, I meant that the efficiency of local
> systems would once again be a problem for existing traditional corporate and
> government infrastructure. I didn't mean that pure profit driven motives
> need to also be the primary focus of self-governing local food systems. In
> fact, I am saying that they cannot. I am saying that local food systems need
> to position themselves to have higher priorities than financial gain and
> control.
>
> ****I am not saying, however, that local food systems absolutely must adhere
> to some ideal that flatly distributes all ownership of everything, and only
> sells at cost, period.  Why? Because no one will do it!!!!****

I don't suggest "flat distribution", I say profit should be treated as
an investment from the consumer who paid it.  When a consumer pays
alot of profit, he is investing alot.  When he pays little profit, he
has invested little.


> Most of the
> people I am connected with do not and will not have the luxury to become
> completely self sufficient in the way you suggest any time soon. They are
> still too dependent on existing systems and infrastructure. So, my change
> strategies are designed to work with existing interfaces and infrastrucures,

I agree this must be a "germ form" as the Oekonux guys would say.
That is why I suggest we begin corporations that simply have "consumer
ownership" as part of the "Terms of Operation".

This will be an easy sell if the initial investors are also consumers
of that product, since they will be investing for product instead of
profit.