[p2p-research] higher transportation costs can reverse globalization

[Samuel Rose]

I think you are right on with the germ-form idea.  I think that if you can
couple consumer ownership with consumer education, consumer responsibility,
and consumer civic participation in the systems they control, consumer
literacy of foresight, and consumer literacy in commons co-governance, and
the complex systems that their business venture will be a part of, *then*
you'll really have something that will work. I think it's doable. But, I
think that consumer owned systems will need the infrastructure I mention
above. It doesn't have to be a license, but some form of certification
should exist as part of the bylways of such a company. That people have the
basic knowledge about how to guide it together responsibly.

Consumer owned also opens up the possibility that if walmart wants to
control your company, they can just simply buy up all of your products. If
you challenge them in court, they will probably win unless you make some
kind of really solid exceptional provision for this.

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:06 PM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>



-- 
Sam Rose
Social Synergy
Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
AIM: Str9960
Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/samrose
skype: samuelrose
email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
http://socialsynergyweb.com/services


Related Sites/Blogs/Projects:
OpenBusinessModels: http://socialsynergyweb.net/cgi-bin/wiki/FrontPage
http://p2pfoundation.net
http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
http://www.cooperationcommons.com
http://barcampbank.org
http://communitywiki.org
http://openfarmtech.org
Information Filtering:
http://ma.gnolia.com/people/srose/bookmarks
http://del.icio.us/srose
http://twitter.com/SamRose
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20080530/21619997/attachment-0001.html