Could you therefore send me Kirtananda's business plan please,

[Guest guest]

> in

> response to excesses in business and society. Cow

> protection can run on the three engines of public,

> private and charity, or just on each one with its own

> predicaments. Just charity alone as a 100% subsidy may

> be problematic.

 

Yes, it hasn't worked in the past, as we have seen.

 

> > This is not some new visionary statement. It is

> > exactly what

> > Kirtanananda and others have said when they

> > justified commercial

> > approach to cow protection.

>

> But, did they gather data to back their hypothesis?

> Did they create an environmental plan, with growth

> rates, agroforests and capital expenditure on land

> improvements? Did they formulate a social plan, with

> labour requirements and costs, training and managerial

> stability and competence; as well as employment

> regulations and community projects and legal status?

> Did they create an economic plan, involving

> environmental and social expenditure, capital inputs,

> financing, profit and loss forecasts and everything

> else that a business needs to assess its viability?

 

No. He said that Krsna was no poor man, that Nanda Maharajah had

millions of cows, and that to put forth objections to not only yearly

breeding but also to additional purchases of breeding stock, as I was

in the 70s, was mundane thinking and that I should just have faith in

the guru.

 

>

>

> If the answer is yes - then please pass it to me, it

> will save me a lot of work to build one, and perhaps

> in analysing it I will be able to see the root of

> their downfall.

 

If you genuinely analyze the situation, the inevitable conclusion is

that without endowments, failure is inevitable. I don't need a

multivariate regression model to validate my experience. If you do

build one, and use valid assumptions, and accurate math, you will

eventually see what I am talking about.

 

>

>

> If not, or a partial no, then maybe it is in their ad

> hoc approach to the business that led to their

> failure,

 

Or maybe the underlying nonviablity, further confounded by their "ad

hoc" approach's use of rationalization and denial to accept empirical

reality of deepening failure.

 

> and with a fresh analsis and business plan

> formulation then perhaps a more viable model can be

> achieved.

 

One that uses subsidies and incentives yoked together to pull a cart

full of diversity I hope.

 

>

>

> > Does that qualify me

> > to have an opinion in your eyes?

>

> Of course, why not?

>

> And me, do I qualify for an opinion in your eyes?

>

> Mark

>

 

As long as that opinion is built on facts and not fantasy.

[Guest guest]

Dear Mark, comments below:

>

> > > in

> > > response to excesses in business and society.

> Cow

> > > protection can run on the three engines of

> public,

> > > private and charity, or just on each one with

> its

> > own

> > > predicaments. Just charity alone as a 100%

> subsidy

> > may

> > > be problematic.

> >

> > Yes, it hasn't worked in the past, as we have

> > seen.

> >

> > > > This is not some new visionary statement. It

> is

> > > > exactly what

> > > > Kirtanananda and others have said when they

> > > > justified commercial

> > > > approach to cow protection.

> > >

> > > But, did they gather data to back their

> > hypothesis?

> > > Did they create an environmental plan, with

> growth

> > > rates, agroforests and capital expenditure on

> land

> > > improvements? Did they formulate a social plan,

> > with

> > > labour requirements and costs, training and

> > managerial

> > > stability and competence; as well as employment

> > > regulations and community projects and legal

> > status?

> > > Did they create an economic plan, involving

> > > environmental and social expenditure, capital

> > inputs,

> > > financing, profit and loss forecasts and

> > everything

> > > else that a business needs to assess its

> > viability?

> >

> > No. He said that Krsna was no poor man, that

> Nanda

> > Maharajah had

> > millions of cows, and that to put forth

> objections

> > to not only yearly

> > breeding but also to additional purchases of

> > breeding stock, as I was

> > in the 70s, was mundane thinking and that I

> should

> > just have faith in

> > the guru.

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > If the answer is yes - then please pass it to

> me,

> > it

> > > will save me a lot of work to build one, and

> > perhaps

> > > in analysing it I will be able to see the root

> of

> > > their downfall.

> >

> > If you genuinely analyze the situation, the

> > inevitable conclusion is

> > that without endowments, failure is inevitable.

> I

> > don't need a

> > multivariate regression model to validate my

> > experience. If you do

> > build one, and use valid assumptions, and

> accurate

> > math, you will

> > eventually see what I am talking about.

> >

>

> In terms of genuine analysis, this is my approach -

> scientific; hypothesis formulation, data collection

> and analysis, conclusions and the build up of

> assumptions based on conclusions, and then put in a

> management scheme based on current knowledge.

>

> I have nothing against endowments, nor charity, nor

> goverment subsidy, nor business. What I am against

> is

> entrenched limiting factors that do not coincide

> with

> a potential feasible reality of Protection farming.

>

> I think one should build a model before one says it

> lacks viablility. Cow protection is viable as an

> economic farming system - it is just how to do it

> and

> the extent of market that can be succesfully taken

> in

> the Western market. It is a registered historical

> fact

> that cow protection has worked in India - now, the

> recent past, and the far past. Analysis if this data

> concludes in accepted viability, it is in the

> implimentation of it in the Western sphere that is

> what is needed, as well as its revitalisation in

> India.

>

> The extent of viability is a debatable sphere, and

> one

> in which the business actors must tread carefully,

> as

> failure is not deemed acceptable - it is definately

> necessary to avoid failure at nearly all costs. The

> nearly corresponding to the fact that an attempt is

> needed for inactivity is worse than failed activity.

> > >

> > >

> > > If not, or a partial no, then maybe it is in

> their

> > ad

> > > hoc approach to the business that led to their

> > > failure,

> >

> > Or maybe the underlying nonviablity, further

> > confounded by their "ad

> > hoc" approach's use of rationalization and denial

> to

> > accept empirical

> > reality of deepening failure.

> >

> > > and with a fresh analsis and business plan

> > > formulation then perhaps a more viable model can

> > be

> > > achieved.

> >

>

> There is no non-viability.

> The deepening failure is because of a build up of

> non-efficient farm units, that are now lost assets

> in

> productive terms. This is not totally the case as

> they

> could come back to productivity.

>

> And the last of what you say of the fresh analysis

> is

> exactly what I am doing. I see no divergence between

> our views here, and in many places.

>

> > One that uses subsidies and incentives yoked

> > together to pull a cart

> > full of diversity I hope.

>

> That is what I am after - subsidies are fine to a

> limit, and incentives are mostly in the business

> realm. Those together with government form the three

> bodies that can work together to achieve the goal.

> Again no division of opinion here.

>

>

>

> > >

> > >

> > > > Does that qualify me

> > > > to have an opinion in your eyes?

> > >

> > > Of course, why not?

> > >

> > > And me, do I qualify for an opinion in your

> eyes?

> > >

> > > Mark

> > >

> >

> > As long as that opinion is built on facts and not

> > fantasy.

> >

>

> Well, from analysing your comments here, I can see

> that we agree for the first time. I, as you, am

> after

> a truely viable model, not a fantasy. It is best we

> acknowledge the things that unite us more than that

> that divides us. It is in the divisions that are

> found

> the need to perfect the system, not destroy it.

>

> Looking forward to more discussion,

>

> Mark

>

>

>

>

__________

>

> Get your free @.co.uk address at

> http://mail..co.uk

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

__________

 

Get your free @.co.uk address at http://mail..co.uk

or your free @.ie address at http://mail..ie

[Guest guest]

Dandavad. Prabhupada kijaya!

 

Madhava GHosh prabhu wrote in response to Mark's statement:

 

> > and with a fresh analsis and business plan

> > formulation then perhaps a more viable model can be

> > achieved.

>

> One that uses subsidies and incentives yoked together to pull a cart

> full of diversity I hope.

 

Very well put. The trick now is to figure out the level of subsidies

required and find the source of these. Mark's hypothesis is that there is a

market for protected cow products which will pay enough premium for these

products to work without subsidies. Others say that there will need to be

pure donations to subsidize the product.

 

There are several advantages to subsidies:

 

1) Devotees and others living away from the distribution network of the

products can maintain a connection with cow protection by providing these

subsidies (perhaps through the mechanism Madhava GHosh prabhu suggests of

putting aside a certain amount for every gallon of commercial non-protected

cow milk they purchase.)

2) low-income devotees will not be forced out of the protected-cow product

market

3) Lower prices should mean a bigger market.

 

On the other hand, premiums are also good:

 

1) Customers may be more loyal as they are consciously purchasing based on

the unique value of the product.

2) Less dependence on donations which may fluctuate

 

I suggest that the best form of subsidy is the endowment. With an up front

endowment that provides the entire subsidy requirement, there is no worry

about fluctuating donation income.

 

Your servant,

Pancaratna das

[Guest guest]

-

Pancaratna ACBSP <Pancaratna.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

mark chatburn <markjon11 >; Mark Middle Mountain

<gourdmad (AT) ovnet (DOT) com>; Cow (Protection and related issues) <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Monday, May 28, 2001 8:25 PM

Re: Could you therefore send me Kirtananda's business plan please,

 

 

> Dandavad. Prabhupada kijaya!

>

> Madhava GHosh prabhu wrote in response to Mark's statement:

>

> > > and with a fresh analsis and business plan

> > > formulation then perhaps a more viable model can be

> > > achieved.

> >

> > One that uses subsidies and incentives yoked together to pull a cart

> > full of diversity I hope.

>

> Very well put. The trick now is to figure out the level of subsidies

> required and find the source of these. Mark's hypothesis is that there is

a

> market for protected cow products which will pay enough premium for these

> products to work without subsidies. Others say that there will need to be

> pure donations to subsidize the product.

>

> There are several advantages to subsidies:

>

> 1) Devotees and others living away from the distribution network of the

> products can maintain a connection with cow protection by providing these

> subsidies (perhaps through the mechanism Madhava GHosh prabhu suggests of

> putting aside a certain amount for every gallon of commercial

non-protected

> cow milk they purchase.)

> 2) low-income devotees will not be forced out of the protected-cow product

> market

> 3) Lower prices should mean a bigger market.

>

> On the other hand, premiums are also good:

>

> 1) Customers may be more loyal as they are consciously purchasing based on

> the unique value of the product.

> 2) Less dependence on donations which may fluctuate

>

> I suggest that the best form of subsidy is the endowment. With an up front

> endowment that provides the entire subsidy requirement, there is no worry

> about fluctuating donation income.

>

Comment:

Srila Prabhupada envisioned this same means for the establishment of Gita

Nagari - the city where Bhagavad-gita is lived. In his paper Interpretation

of Bhagavad-gita, which Srila Prabhupada wrote in 1948, he states that Gita

Nagari should be founded thus:

 

"In order to effect the program of Gita Nagari, it is necessary that at

least twelve gentlemen, picked from the families of Suchis and Shrimatis

should form an association. And with the help of these gentlemen,

arrangement has to be made to provide the fund of Gita Nagari with an income

of Rs 10,000 per month for the expenses of Gita Nagari."

 

It appears he has suggested an endowment type with a monthly amount stated.

Note the date of writting and the amount of monthly endowment. Of course he

is not referring to Gita Nagari here in America, but some place located in

India (Rs 10,000).

ys, Rohita dasa

 

 

> Your servant,

> Pancaratna das

>

[Guest guest]

Speaking practically how would the endowment model work in practice.

 

We have to encourage work for the agricultralist and cow protector at the

same time we have to cushion them from the stark realities of modern food

prices (which are too low) and costs of living which are high.

 

How would a farm unit of say 50 acres receive money from the emdowment.

 

Is it a fixed amount of income per year?

 

Would it be received in the form of no land rent (assuming he is a tenant)?

 

Is it based on subsidizing his crop production as modern farmers do i.e he

is paid an additonal amount depending on the amount of produce grown?

 

Is it land based i.e he is payed an amount of money depending on how much

land he has. Paid per acre (again as is done in conventional farming

countries)

 

To get a grip on these points could be very advantageaous for us, getting

more people actively involved with the land. How to make a livelihood from

the land. we have to have a model that works and can actually attract people

to dedicate themselves to the land long term in a family situation.

 

ys syam

[Guest guest]

>

>

> I suggest that the best form of subsidy is the endowment.

 

Absolutely.

 

> With an up front

> endowment that provides the entire subsidy requirement, there is no worry

> about fluctuating donation income.

 

Depending on donations is skating on thin ice. Endowments will also attract

larger donations, incidentally. Most successful long term institutions have

endowments. Check your local university as a model for what programs work

given varying tax structures in various countries.

[Guest guest]

"Syamasundara (das) (Bhaktivedanta Manor - UK)" wrote:

 

> Speaking practically how would the endowment model work in practice.

>

> We have to encourage work for the agricultralist and cow protector at the

> same time we have to cushion them from the stark realities of modern food

> prices (which are too low) and costs of living which are high.

>

> How would a farm unit of say 50 acres receive money from the emdowment.

 

I don't think there will be a one size fits all. For instance, in one case

someone could contract to supply flowers to the Deities at a guarantueed price

and consumption. Marketing is a major pain in the a-- and just having a set

market even at competitive prices could be a form of subsidy.

 

For cow protection, I see it more like their is an trust fund with predictable

income that approves the breeding of a cow and guarantuees the lifetime

protection of the calf. The breeder then breeda the cow, and eventually the

calf is placed with someone who is paid to care for the calf. May be the

original breeder, or may be someone else, who know has the security of

knowing

that they have that income and can concentrate on producing whatever.

 

Maybe the trust would buy land, then resell it to someone, taking the interst

in the form of the buyer keeping and caring for some fixed number of cows, and

only requiring the buyer to repay the principle. The buyer know has free use

of

paid for oxen and a source of manure to use for producing crops.

 

Maybe they would lease land owned by the trust to someone, whose lease payment

would be pay the taxes and liability insurance and care for a (some) cows

instead of having to come up with cash rent. They could also take an

equivelent

amount of produce in lieu of cash for the taxes and insurance, and then have a

marketing co-op that sold the produce to the temple that had an endowment for

the Deities for the purpose of buying bhoga for the Deities that had been

funded

by cash donations of devotees and life members still living in the cash

economy.

 

There are any number of variations.

 

>

>

> Is it a fixed amount of income per year?

 

If paying for cow care it would be.

[Guest guest]

Dandavad. Prabhupada kijaya!

 

I believe the answer rto these questions must first come from the potential

beneficiaries. WE need to start a dialog with existing farmers and find out

how they perceive the problems and the kind of solutions they have thought

of. Then we can start being creative and come up with more ideas. That is

what we are going to do here in Mayapur with the local farmers.

 

IN the context of Mark's ideas, which postulate a market for premium,

protected cow products, I would suggest loan guarantees for business plans

that address this market. These guarantees would provide some sort of

insurance for the cows participating in the project, so that even if the

project fails the cows don't suffer.

 

Your servant,

Pancaratna das