Although there has been a >£1bn hotel group refinancing using a "Capital Partnership" for a 27 year revenue sharing agreement.
The "Capital Partnership" application of an LLP allows the introduction of a "Non-toxic" form of PFI and PPP.
ie a model linking together "partnerships of partnerships" or "cooperatives of cooperatives" of stakeholders with no place for "rentiers".
Imagine a partnership between an employee cooperative like John Lewis, and a retail/ "customer" cooperative.
Capital would come from the employees (as a pension investment in future revenues, instead of unsecured loans as now) and the customers (an investment offsettable against future purchases maybe): probably secured by "co-ownership" of the business premises (as opposed to a claim/mortgage over it).
The problem isn't that people aren't using LLPs. The problem is that a small group of hooligans think they own the fucking universe and the rest of us exist to keep them in money and luxury goods - plus entertainment when they decide a war is necessary.
I'm not clear how LLPs are supposed to solve that problem. Just because it's possible for an enterprise to become more open and sharing, doesn't mean that sharing and openness become more likely.
Now, if you could arrange a system where cooperative LLPs crowd out toxic corporations for solid market reasons (oh, the irony...), you might be onto something.
But I'm not seeing how, or even if, you're proposing to connect those dots together.
You put your finger on how it will happen. The "Cooperative Advantage" is the freedom from paying returns to rentiers.
Those businesses that do NOT use these tools will be at a disadvantage to those that do. Classic Darwinism.
That's where "Community Partnerships" come in.
I would advocate a couple of forms (and its not either/or) of "rental".
One is a "location benefit levy" based upon the amount of land occupied and the location/desirability of it, as measured by land rental value.
This levy would be pooled and redistributed evenly to members of the "Community Partnership" resulting in a net transfer from those who have exclusive use of more, and more "desirable", land to those who have less.
The second is a levy based upon income (or production of land, for farms) eg x% of income goes into a pot, is pooled and redistributed evenly.
And most people will have a hard time affording either.
The problem is that a small group of hooligans think they own the fucking universe and the rest of us exist to keep them in money and luxury goods - plus entertainment when they decide a war is necessary.
