I've been very close recently to setting up a social enterprise - broadly to do with recycling activities and community projects. The upfront bureaucracy is very off-putting, even to a survivor of research funding like me!
On 26 Sep, 12:42, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Yep...to be working with a group of people where everyone, from the > one who sweeps to the CEO make the same amount of monies, I would work > so hard that we couldn't fail in any way at all! This sort of trust is > lost on those who are too afraid that they will be seen as the > unnecessary blood suckers they in fact are. Borrowing from a different > thread, I wouldn't call such activity communist nor even socialist. It > wouldn't even be representative capitalism. But it would be a system > that would work with great activity and wages that would allow all to > buy stuff to keep the ball rolling. > > On Sep 26, 4:19 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The Economist is a strange source Orn. I used to read it as a matter > > of course for teaching purposes - now it's a google gadget. I still > > occasionally get 'economic intelligence unit reports' from it and have > > one from them expanding this article. I was going to bullet-point the > > findings if anyone showed any interest in this thread. Coops are no > > more likely to fail than any other kind of business and this is true > > for businesses avoiding "regular financing". I worked with some guys > > (years back) running a coop bakery who just wanted to bake the bread > > as the staff of people's lives (sounds 'corny' but they meant it). > > What's missing from the Economist is anything on how our real standard > > model has collapsed - Mom and Pop operations etc. Even the 'Pub' > > model has gone here. It strikes me that the old worries of lots of > > small business people were right, but that they didn't understand who > > and how their profits were being leached. My questions in this are > > are partly about how we can 'ring-fence' cooperative financing from > > the corporates and their stooges. > > > Your clip gets to the heart of some of this - I think some might see > > it as irrelevant, but it hits right to my feelings. I watched > > 'District 13' last night (French action movie) - the righteous cop > > saying 'Liberty, Egalite, Fraternite), the crook brought up hard 'Gas, > > Water, Electricite'. Happy ending - they stuffed the bureaucracy. > > What the Economist says nothing about is why the greed model has > > failed (though they are resuscitating). I suspect this is because it > > became 'big government by other means'. > > > There is no doubt we can make finance much more democratic, but I > > wonder if we have conflated 'democratic' with 'big government' in some > > way. Looking back a bit, Bush was trying to give out taxes to > > corporate banking without even en equity stake. Brown (much as I > > despise him) may have averted this - Blair may well have been > > suckered. We need to get back to credit as a form of trusting to > > people to work to build and trusting our eyes and senses. I rather > > strangely think the spreadsheet has a bigger role to play in all this > > than we realise. Can't explain in the space here. > > > On 25 Sep, 21:14, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yes Neil, there is a left backlash afoot today. Rand must be turning > > > over in her… > > > > For ‘the rest of the story’, see: > > > >http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14493098 > > > > Even Michael Moore is reporting some more egalitarian views near the > > > end of his interview. > > > >http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/24/after_20_years_of_filmmaking_on > > > > On Sep 25, 12:01 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Devices such as collateralised debt obligations and credit-default > > > > swaps have turned out to be spun out of invisible thread. This was so > > > > blindingly obvious the film ‘Pi’ was made years ago. Modelling > > > > through the Gaussian copula techniques never built in a market > > > > portfolio of investors using the said technique, and there was no > > > > stress on how secure such a system was from bonus-mad bandits prepared > > > > to ignore the very risks they could conceal (thus wrecking the > > > > model). Social finance, a movement based on the belief that financial > > > > innovation can be used directly to help society’s neediest people is > > > > now on the rise. > > > > There’s just been a conference in San Francisco for SoCap09, dedicated > > > > to building “social capital markets”. The event was abuzz with novel > > > > ideas such as a “social stock exchange” and “sustainable hedge > > > > funds”. The Clinton Global Initiative in New York, the Global Impact > > > > Investing Network (GIIN) is due to be launched. This is, in effect, a > > > > commitment to create a new asset class—impact investing—yielding a > > > > financial return alongside a social or environmental benefit. The > > > > network’s 20 or so members include big banks (Citigroup, Deutsche > > > > Bank, JPMorgan), philanthropic institutions (such as the Bill & > > > > Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation), the Acumen > > > > Fund, which invests charitable donations in firms supplying health > > > > care, clean water and so forth in Africa and India, and Generation > > > > Investment Management, a green-tinged fund manager co-founded by Al > > > > Gore. The GIIN’s goal is to share information on what works and what > > > > does not, to agree on common language and measures of performance, and > > > > to lobby for helpful laws and regulations. The creation of just such > > > > an organisation was a priority set out earlier this year in a report > > > > by the Monitor Institute, the research arm of Monitor, a firm of > > > > management consultants. If this group succeeds, the report argued, > > > > within five to ten years impact investing could grow to $500 billion, > > > > around 1% of the world’s total assets under management in 2008. > > > > The rising interest in social finance is the product of several > > > > trends. First, the financial industry and its clients spy a way of > > > > making money and doing good at the same time. Many impact investments > > > > are in emerging economies, which are expected to grow faster than > > > > developed ones. They may be uncorrelated with other assets and thus > > > > offer diversification and reduced risk. Impact investments such as the > > > > Calvert Community Investment Note (a bond) have performed relatively > > > > well during the recent crisis, fuelling demand for them. Bankers also > > > > detect a chance to give their image a badly needed polish. > > > > Philanthropy plays a part too—especially, it seems, for super-rich > > > > investors. Second, more people want to do well by doing good. > > > > Specialised intermediaries have sprung up, including several “social > > > > investment banks”, such as Total Impact Advisors, which is supported > > > > by Calvert Foundation, a pioneer of impact investing, and Social > > > > Finance, recently founded in Britain. Social-enterprise clubs are now > > > > among the biggest student organisations in leading business schools. > > > > Third, there is a growing demand for private capital and skills to be > > > > tapped to supply the basics of life and to get small businesses going. > > > > Government spending and philanthropy are not enough. Fourth, > > > > governments are providing encouragement. America’s controversial > > > > Community Reinvestment Act stimulated investment in poor > > > > neighbourhoods (too much, critics say). The State Department is > > > > expected to give financial support for the GIIN’s efforts to create > > > > useful measures of social impact. The British government has given tax > > > > breaks and introduced more helpful regulations for private investment > > > > in social projects, as recommended by the Social Investment Task Force > > > > it established in 2000. In the Netherlands legislation has encouraged > > > > green investing. > > > > > None of this is really 'new'. Some of us were active in these areas > > > > in the 1980s. Looking at some of the people involved now gives me the > > > > jitters, but my guess is these are the moves we need to make.- Hide > > > > quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
