Continued Studies - 02/26/2005 (Sharecropper Echo's)

PROXIMITY

GESTATION

Continued Notes

From The

Independent Studies

Of

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

Pertaining To

Social Consistencies

Within The Idea

Of

Proximity Gestation

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

02-26-2005

Tracy addresses commerce through examining different aspects of industry from that time period – which surprisingly aren’t much different than the dynamic range of today – some things he notes are even indicative of the reasons we find ourselves in a bottle neck of sorts.

He cites the common element of what is/was known in the U.S. as “sharecropping” as a normal standard of operations in agriculture – basically such is nothing more than wage labor.

He gives an example of how a product such as grain will hardly ever see profit for the farmer. I can see where it is of concern and importance of an economy to keep the price of staples at a minimum. A person could see where much of the entire economy is dependant on it.

On the same point, those within that economy would be more than self destructive (and without smarts enough to deserve a society) if it is that said members of economy were over zealous and greedy in keeping that price too low. So low as to keep any semblance of comfortable living and survival from those that made their way in agriculture.

A person would think that great efforts would be made to provide means with which and for which, for the survival and comfort of that aspect of economy.

In looking further in our modern society, a person can see resonations of such “sharecropping” as it has made its way into other aspects of business.

Such a similar dynamic has been effectively removing the independent store owners across the nation – and the opportunity for such in ways including exclusion of any that would rather not be a “sharecropper.”

Though it is that such practice is violation of the laws set forward to insure health in the economy, great effort is put into concealing it even though the overall effects on society are the same as if it were overtly practiced.

If a person puts aside the gross legal violations of such practice – it could be likened to a form of franchising. Something along the lines of “Associated Franchising” so to speak, but still in such an extreme that the economy itself is crippled and becomes valueless – unless of course it finds means outside of itself to maintain said value.

Granted such a practice is dangerous for the health of any economy – but lets consider how much of that danger would be removed if such practice was termed as “legal?” Associated Franchising is quite simply the same fiscal body though represented in different fronts and products.

Most times in our business world you have to commit yourself to one of the few existing “sharecropping” opportunities if you want to open a shop of any sort – really quite a contradiction when most people look to open something that they might find their own “space” so to speak.

Why not simply legalize it and even save on the obvious waste of those pretending to combat monopolies?

In a forthright sense, such practice is very much a standard in the modern day, why not then simply address it as a tendency in the business world which should be considered honestly as a direction which it is going? Then, simply address the problematic areas? This as well may justify the exploration of a more diversified monetary system. Such seems as though it could be instrumental in addressing those problematic areas within such a tendency. Even provide for the dual existence of both economic approaches; Monopolistic (in the “franchise sense”), and “Diversified” as it were…. Providing a “tiered” effect in some degree and different levels of dynamic motion so to speak.