some details

[Guest guest]

Gee, Maharaj, I do enjoy our internet chats.

 

So, in reply, you -

 

> One thing I liked in this letter was your comment

> about "congregations". As I consider and tell

> others of your model the thing that sticks in the

> back of my mind is that although I agree with yoiu

> that there are probably enough kind people in the

> world who would pay the extra 80% if they knew the

> cows were not killed, still I kind of balk at the

> idea that they are packed close enough togeth for

> practical distribution of fresh milk to them on a

> daily basis.

> Then this word congregation hit me.

> We have a small congregation in San Jose, maybe 60

> active families, but they must be buying quite a lot

> of milk. There's good land only 1 hour from the

> city, so that means a dairy truck could come daily

> or evey two days, with fresh milk for all the

> members.

 

They would only need so much milk, then their is dairy

produce, and ghee, and finally there is export from

the congregation to "others", including restaurants

etc. We are also not just looking at milk, but also

crops, and ultimately even leather, wool and farm

services.

 

 

My idea is for a transparent stakeholder/consumer

farming package, dealing with all the present needs of

any developed business - wages, pensions, health and

safety, insurance.

So, if say 60 families could be found to have an

interest then the managers of the package would put

forward a proposal. Each family could invest say

$5,000. So 60*5000= $300,000 of share capital. On top

of that then one could add finance from money-lending

institutions to top up to $1,000,000. Obviously the

more money secured from stakeholders the less hot

money is about.

So with that million there is therefore some liquidity

to secure land, pay labour and invest in capital, both

fixed assets and human skills. Fortunately, the

initial stage requires a low capital expenditure on

buildings and machinery, that will increase later on

as the system goes into its further stages. So, as

long as there is sufficient funds to pay for training

of the work force then that is the main priority.

 

The idea is to have great transparency, but enough

control be the managers to not be debunked when a few

things go wrong. The consumer / investors will

realise, according to the plan, that their investments

will yield their desired goods and services and a

return on outlays, but ut is a long term investment of

which they must oversee the running of the system and

make suggestions & complaints to fine tune it.

 

The whole model is quite complex, but I think it would

work. It is different from a straight producer /

consumer relationship as the consumers are also the

investors and play a part in quality control and

management - they are direct stakeholders.

 

The social part here is secondary. Their moving to the

farm area is an independant thing. The main thing is

to find a way to aqure land and produce in a way that

is profitable (meaning not to make a loss, or better).

Once atha, economy, is established, that of

sustainable production, then other appendages, even of

a social grouping can add on. But none of the latter

should subsist at the expense of the former. The

business must be profitable whilst financial overheads

loom. If there are none then subsistence can be

sought, but for now that is a long way off.

 

Mark

 

 

__________

 

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

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