Are you sure there isn't something....?
;-)
I think the key is the "business community". If your ideas are right (or heading in the direction of right), then they should make sense to wise brains in not-driven-for-profit companies: certainly not only not-for-profit organisations (for me they have their own reasons for being NOT-for-profit, whatever they may be)--I mean, why wouldn't a designer of wind turbines, a buyer of windturbines, and a financier of wind turbines want to come together under the mutually beneficial system you are promoting?
As I understand it, Jerome says: the builders want their cash up front. If it doesn't work for you, tough.
But--why build something that won't work? There should be continual conversations throughout all processes; nudges and pushes and pulls always aiming NOT to more profit (and THAT is the key, the maximising of profit is what you DON'T propose--for reasons to do with something-from-nothing-doesn't-work;
So I see a wrong parallel. If the builders won't commit into the future (e.g. taking energy credits as part-payment), then--are there NO builders who will?
Starting small--I think community (collective!) wind turbines are a great idea--sold to specific communities, the prices explained, all the benefits--
and with a promise (legally binding) to fix all problems (that legal document should, for me, look something like paul spencer's LLC--in it's accuracy in key points and understanding of people)--and also...
to deal with the UPGRADES!
So...a long-term deal. Work for decades. Work for the generations--jobs, careers, all the knock on effects.
heh....I'm still trying to paint the picture! Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
I mean, why wouldn't a designer of wind turbines, a buyer of windturbines, and a financier of wind turbines want to come together under the mutually beneficial system you are promoting?
Indeed.
And I am merely pointing out the increasing use of these models, albeit not necessarily yet the "full monty".
eg this yesterday....
Fishy Glasgow LLP
rg:
If the builders won't commit into the future (e.g. taking energy credits as part-payment), then--are there NO builders who will?
Builders wish to receive something which has a value in exchange. Currently these are IOU's issued by credit institutions, and builders accept them because they are confident that everyone else will.
If (say) land rental value units were widely acceptable, then the builder would accept these, too, and he would probably prefer these to IOU money, because he would know that these units would hold their value by reference to land rental values. Unlike IOU's, which would not.
Within an "Open Corporate" LLP or LLC framework there is no profit and no loss, but there is mutual creation and exchange of value.
The idea is that you may cover your costs, if you need to, right now, but anything more than that constitutes an "investment" giving you a piece of the production or revenue flow - if there is any of course...
That way you have "skin in the game" and an interest in the outcome...sharing the development gains, if there are any....
Starting small--I think community (collective!) wind turbines are a great idea--sold to specific communities, the prices explained, all the benefits-- and with a promise (legally binding) to fix all problems (that legal document should, for me, look something like paul spencer's LLC--in it's accuracy in key points and understanding of people)--and also... to deal with the UPGRADES!
The future I see is not a "transaction model" at all - Buy, Borrow, Build and Bugger Off - but a service provision/ Trusteeship model, where the asset is placed in the hands of a Custodian and the resulting production value shared equitably.
There is then an interest in building to good standards of quality and energy efficiency because this cuts the cost of use over time, and therefore maximises the return over time.
ie essentially an "evergreen" lease. Naturally the builders/ manufacturers themselves would start examining if and how their "costs" may become partners.
