Steve Kurtz wrote:
>Anyone interested in community economic development may be interested in
>attending Getting it Done: the second annual grassroots conference on
>community investment. It will be held next week at Innis College on June 10
>& 11, 1998
BE:
I hope you will not forget "TITHING CAPITAL FOR COMMUNITY CORPORATIONS" as
an important new add-on to community economic development.
Nothing definitive has been written on "Capital Tithing" or "A Fund for
Community Owned Corporations." But, they are having intensive discussion
on the Internet.
The concern came from two recent events.
1) One was the book "Going Local" by Michael Shuman (see TRANET Review
Attached). Shuman proposes that real economic change can be produced by
Community Owned Corporations. That is for-profit corporation that are
based on community needs, owned and controlled by and for the community,
and put people and community before profit and power. Such community owned
corporations would not be subject to foreign competition for low paying
jobs. On the contrary, providing jobs would be one of their primary
purposes. Funds could come from either municipal taxes or from stock sold
to citizens.
Shuman uses the Green Bay Packers (a community owned football team)
as and example. In that case the citizens of Green Bay believe the team is
valuable both socially and economically to the community. So valuable that
they are not only willing to own the corporation, but also are prepared to
add to investment if/when need be. Such corporation may have an overall
economic benefit even if that particular corporation looses money. Here in
Rangeley, Saddleback Ski Center has the same impact on the village. But
it is privately owned and investment is made only on the basis of private
profit, not community welfare. So the community gets little benefit.
2) The Second action is the formation of "Real Wealth(RW), a group in the
top 5% of wealthiest individuals who recognize that the system, not their
productivity, produces their wealth. They are working to change the system.
To date the ideas they've announced are along the lines of more
Socially Responsible Investing (SRI). I've suggested that as praiseworthy
as SRI is, it is still benefiting "the system." Companies like Ben &
Jerry's, Patagonia, The Body Shop, Tom's of Maine, and other leaders in
social and ecological responsibility are still corporations. They have to
live by the rules of economic growthism in order to exist. These
corporation that are "doing well while doing good" still answer to "the
market." Many social needs do not have a market. Critics have suggested
that fat filled ice cream, cosmetics made from products supplied by Third
World gatherers, and top level sports wear are not reaching the market of
the poor and needy. There are many goods and services society needs for
which there is no market. I recently saw a TV show on the many devices for
the handicapped which work but cost thousands of dollars because they are
made one at a time.
It's been suggested that SRI should include a subdivision for
people who really make a change in the system. (Calvert has,of course,
moved a little in that direction.)
Linking these two ideas suggests that if the members of RW, and all
the rest of us, invested just 10% of our savings in a * Capital Fund for
Community Owned Corporations or Cooperatives * we would make a real
difference in the economic system.
The most critical response to the concept so far is someone who
suggests that 10% of the invested wealth is far too much. S/he suggestes
that even 1% so invsted would completely transform corporations. They
would have to look to community funds for any expansion financing and so
would be subject to insuring jobs, longevity, and community service in
order to expand.
Another respondent pointed out that Community Loan Funds (CLFs) are
well developed and have their organization the National Association of
Community Development Loan Funds (NACDLF. They provide support principally
to needs or community onwerhip. S/he suggested that NACDLF should be
approached to establish guidelines for community ownership. And to created
a directory of those now so oriented.
Some CLFs do limit their loans to cooperatives, My favorite is the
Coopertive Fund of New England (CFNE). They accept loans into the fund
with returns up to 4%, and make loans only to co-ops at rates only slightly
higher. I try to keep 1/10 of the savings for a rainy day in CFNE. But
would like to see a broader fund for community ownership.
It's been suggested that RW initiate a Fund for Community Owned
Corporations that would match locally raised capital for organizations that
puts people before profits. They might also establish an advisory system
for helping communities establish their own Fund for Community Owned
Corporations and Cooperatives. Other SRI groups are urged to put 10% of
their market value into profit makeing community owned corporations. In
the long run the profits might be substantial and the social change it
would engender could be phenomenal.
***********************
Bill Ellis
TRANET
PO BOX 137
Rangeley ME 04970-0137 USA
(207)864-3784
URL: http://www.nonviolence.org/tranet/
***********************
