We simply talk about different things. Initial funding comes with different risks.
I think established cooperatives should issue bonds for expansion.
New cooperatives cannot issue bonds because nobody can judge the risk. They have to do a startup and sell shares in a company that owns the assets. But why should the founders limit themselves and do the opposite of Zuckerberg and give their influence away by just owning one vote in the participating cooperative?
Ok, you were convinced. I mean the search for how to finance cooperatives should only be done when investors don't hesitate to buy cooperative bonds.
It's not new but also not tried in a convincing way.
I believe that it is possible and that it's worth trying until a working combination is found.
Or cooperatives don't issue bonds because they believe that nobody will buy them.
It's the perfect investment for people who don't want to participate in the usual capitalism.
No I haven't.
But I expect that the search for people who want to participate in an expanding cooperative is the bigger problem.
Do you know of a cooperative that wants to issue bonds?
Investors want to make money above all. You can issue bonds with favorable interest rates as long as you have a solid business.
You can have cooperatives right now.
The bigger story is:
Who are those 343,011 idiots?
Does difficulty matter? Any communist revolution will be more difficult than establishing a network of cooperatives. I believe that if there is a desire for Socialism, people will spend the time to establish cooperatives.