Final Blog Post

Global to Local was about the rising push to make a more conscious effort to eat locally sourced food. This has been a trending response to globalization, where more and more people want to feel connected to where they live, and feel some unique sense of place, along with pride in their community. This desire has manifested in many ways, and one of them is to spend money on locally grown food, and locally produced goods. CSAs, as mentioned in the article, are about much more than growing food though, it is about connecting with the land you live on, and many CSAs are educational in nature. I like the idea of these CSAs, and I think anyone could benefit from knowing more about what they put in their bodies. I would like to see more food cooperatives pop up in urban areas, like Philly, where many parts are known as “food deserts”, as people could benefit much more from consistent access to quality food.

Conserving Communities was mainly about the negative impacts of globalization on small, rural communities. One of these issues addressed in this article is the tendency for large corporations to move into a small town, undercut the prices of small business, and completely control the market. The article also talks about what a disaster for the environment these large corporations have been. From warehousing and data centers to the building of new pipelines, many lands which were once forested and full of wildlife have become polluted or destroyed. While emissions and pollution exist at every scale of business in some capacity, small businesses, which source goods locally, and sell to their local communities, contribute far less to environmental destruction. This in many ways contrasts last week's readings, specifically The Local Trap, which talked about how strictly shopping local does not necessarily mean the product is more ethically produced. I do think however there is great benefit to being conscious of what you consume, and there is value to promoting local business, from both an environmental standpoint but also economically as well.

Final Readings

 The conserving communities reading tells about how people who represent a small portion of the population are being left behind in representation over the years. I knew from previous research that the amount of farmers in the US had dropped dramatically, but I had no idea it was that low. The article continues on about how the "small" are being underrepresented, and I think this is one of the most prevalent issues with globalization. Globalization tends to focus on the needs of the many, but sometimes the sample size is far too large. These farmers feel left behind as they are given the same standards that someone in the city does. The idea that the age we are moving into is "posthuman" feels like an exaggeration, but its shown more and more daily. How many times are the needs of people disregarded for the needs of a corporation? Native lands are wiped out for pipelines. Farmlands are destroyed for warehouses and data centers. The list of ways for small communities to care for each other is a great resource, but I think that getting people to subscribe to this way of life is much easier said than done.

The global to local reading is pretty cool. The ways it describes how to care for your local community are very helpful. It almost feels like a lost art, with how much people have been led to globalization. I hope to see more and more of this over the coming years.

E-Reserves Final Readings

 "Conserving Communities" talks about how large corporations look to take advantage of local communities.  Large corporations often move into small communities in order to create a new market for product, and something like that can have harsh effects on things like family-sized businesses.  That's not only a problem for the small businesses themselves, but also can effect the sense of community that the small business creates within a nearby area.  Not only that, but large corporations often can see a demographic like farmers as unimportant.  That's incredibly shocking to me that one could think that, as farmers are the backbone of both local and national industries and provide for a large portion of the nations produce and overall food production.  Large corporations coming in and making farmers seem unimportant can have especially harsh effects on local markets that these farmers often provide a large portion of food for.

    The "Global to Local" article gives possible solutions for people to use to fight back against some of what globalization stands for.  The CSA program portion of this article particularly stood out to me.  This relates to the first article, as creating/joining a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) program can create new local prosperity.  This makes it harder overall for companies to come in and take over vacant land, which CSA programs can instead use to produce more local food.  It creates a heavy sense of local community as well, increasing the overall sense of community and prosperity within a local environment. This article is highly relatable, as most of where I live contains agriculture that's kept local, and its created a good sense of community.

Final Readings

The article "Conserving Communities" addresses the issues surrounding large corporations taking advantage of local communities for their, and destroying the livelihoods of said communities in the process. The article draws attention to economic prejudice against small enterprises in favor of one large enterprise, and how their ultimate goal is not to create a society in which "everyone will be a winner," but rather to reduce the number of people who might be thought successful by our societal standards. Combatting these views held by the global community is the local community, made up of those who wish to focus on self-preservation. They believe that in order to foster a healthy local community, they must work to preserve the connections between things like farming, nature, food, and health. I liked that the article mentioned how both political parties in the U.S. favor national corporations over farmers, and how one "cannot be a democrat (small d) or a conservationist" but also be a "proponent of the supernational corporate economy." This observation highlights that economic prejudice mentioned earlier in the article and shows how difficult it really is to cause any meaningful change within agriculture and farming communities. 

The article "Global to Local" provides solutions for readers to fight back against global systems despite claims that there are no alternatives to globalization. Each section is divided into steps that one can take at different levels of the global scale: how they can make an impact as a consumer by supporting local organic farms and becoming informed about how certain products are made, and how one can make an impact as a citizen on all levels from local, to national, to global. The global citizen section of this article stuck out to me in particular because many people believe that they have no impact on large, global corporations as a citizen. However, by discussing avenues that the reader can take all the way up to the global level, including participating in global exchanges, the author shows just how many avenues of advocacy are accessible to everyday people, and that individuals can have a larger impact on the system than they are led to believe.

Final Post!

 Both readings focus on the harmful effects globalization has had on local communities and small farms, while also discussing ways people can respond. In Wendell Berry’s “Conserving Communities,” Berry explains how farming and rural life in the United States have drastically declined over time. At the beginning of the twentieth century, a large portion of the population worked in agriculture, but by the end of the century only around two percent remained. Berry argues that industrialization and globalization allowed large corporations to dominate farming and local economies, prioritizing profit and efficiency over people and the environment. As corporations expanded, many local businesses and rural communities began to disappear, especially in smaller towns that could not compete with national companies. Berry also suggests that political institutions are too influenced by corporate interests, making meaningful change difficult.

The reading “Global to Local” focuses more on solutions and how individuals can challenge globalization’s negative effects. The authors explain that supporting local businesses and farmers can strengthen communities overshadowed by large corporations. They discuss actions such as buying local products, supporting fair-trade businesses, joining community-supported agriculture programs, and becoming more involved politically and socially. The reading emphasizes that everyday choices, like where people shop or what they buy, can affect workers, businesses, and the environment on a larger scale. While many people feel powerless against globalization, the authors argue that local action and community involvement can still create change.

Together, the two readings show both the damaging effects of globalization and the possible ways communities can respond. Berry mainly criticizes the systems that caused the decline of rural life and local farming, while “Global to Local” offers more practical solutions individuals can use today. Both readings suggest that although globalization has weakened local communities and agriculture, people still have the ability to support fairer and more sustainable alternatives.

5/6

 The article about conserving local communities talks about the damage that has been caused by the effects of a globalized society to rural communities. The one part that stood out to me was where they talked about how farmers are seen as statistically not important. The government has seen farmers as less important because they do not bring in the same large size profits as an industrial corporation would. This article argues the idea that larger scale is by no means better because communities should be able to meet their own needs before supporting others. I think this shows how much loss there can be when big corporations come in and gain control over smaller scale operations making life less manageable for locals. With the continued growth of these larger corporate farms it makes it more difficult for local farms to keep up and make a living. 

The Global to Local reading is about the same issues in a way but with more of a focus on what people can do to help fight against this issue. The reading talks about how buying local food, supporting local agriculture, or even local banking can help support fighting the global corporations from taking over their towns. I think it's important to understand that if these global corporations receive strong support from locals, there is likely no chance they will do anything to support locals back. If you support the localized economy it is more likely that money will be put back in to strengthen the community in ways like supporting a family or keeping a farm going. I think these two articles give good examples of the power global corporations hold that we might not even notice.  

Final Readings -- E-Reserves

 In the "Conserving Communities", the author goes over the general decline of the farming business. At the beginning of the last century, nearly one third of the United States' population was in some kind of agricultural field. At the end of the 20th century, it was down to less than one-fiftieth, 2%. The chapter goes over how globalization has been a generally negative thing for local and rural communities, having their countrysides "exploited" by the big corporations. Such corporations have little to no care for the communities and land that they use, prioritizing profits over most anything else. Local shops and communities have been starting to die out in highly urban areas, as well as lesser urban areas with corporates popping up.

The chapter "Global to Local," the author discusses what we can do to help our communities. Something as simple as buying local can do so much to support the local, smaller businesses that are being metaphorically "trampled" by these much larger national or global businesses. Additionally, you can join a program hosted by your community to allow you to create relationships with the farmers. The later part of the chapter seems to go into a bit more of a political kind of view, with steps "as a citizen" that one can take, like voting, writing congress, addressing national issues directly or through art, etc. I think that it shows how much of an impact globalization has had on local communities and farmers that they're encouraging writing to congress about it. The situation has to be so dire at that point that they'd need governmental intervention in order to save what they're losing.

In all, these two reads blatantly show the more negative side of globalization and how it really treats the communities that built the foundation for agricultural practices.

Final Readings

 In Conserving Communities, it talks about how globalization has affected rural communities by disrupting local businesses. Large corporations move in and take all the profits leaving the locals behind. These coporotations are driven by profit and ignore many other factors to get as many pennies as possible. Unfortunately, both political parties are paid by the large corporations so change is difficult. I can see this with local mom & pop shops, who have been dying out as larger businesses take their clientel.

In Global to Local, the reading gives ways to help change the way things are on a personal level. You can help your local community by buying from small buisnesses and getting produce from farmers near you. You can also support fair trade to help prevent exploitation in production of products. Throughout the course, it has always felt that there's not much an individual can do without power, but this article helped make me remeber the things I can do with my very limited power that can make a difference in my local community.

Final readings - TYLER PRIVLER

The readings this week all focused on the negative effects of globalization on local communities, but they also discussed ways people can push back against those effects. In Wendell Berry’s “Conserving Communities,” Berry explains how industrialization and globalization have contributed to the decline of rural communities and small farms. He argues that major corporations and political institutions focus more on profit, efficiency, and technology than on people, local businesses, and the environment. One thing that stood out to me was his idea that both political parties are heavily influenced by corporations, which makes it difficult for real change to happen. Berry believes society has become too dependent on massive global systems, while local farming and community life continue to disappear. I thought this was interesting because it connects to many of the themes we discussed earlier in the semester, especially regarding cheap labor, corporate power, and globalization’s impact on everyday people.

The “Global to Local” reading approaches the issue differently by focusing more on practical solutions. Instead of mainly criticizing the system, the authors explain ways individuals can challenge the negative effects of globalization through local action and ethical choices. They discuss choosing local businesses, supporting local agriculture, fair-trade products, community-supported agriculture programs, and even worker-owned co-ops. What stood out to me most was the emphasis on how individuals can still make an impact at local, regional, national, and even global levels. A lot of people feel powerless against large corporations, but this reading argues that consumer choices and community involvement can still influence larger systems. It also made me think more about how everyday decisions, like where people shop or what products they buy, can affect workers, businesses, and the environment on a much larger scale.

Overall, I think both readings connect well because they focus on the same problem from different perspectives. Berry focuses more on how globalization and corporate power have damaged communities and weakened local independence, while “Global to Local” focuses more on realistic ways people can respond and create change within the current system. I agree more with the second reading because it feels more practical and achievable today, but Berry’s criticism still helps explain why these issues exist in the first place. Together, the readings show that while globalization has created many economic and social problems, individuals and communities still have the ability to push for fairer and more sustainable alternatives.

Week 15 Discussion

Wendell Berry's article discusses how agriculture and local business has been driven to near-extinction proportionally to the nation's population as a direct result of national political decisions. He talk about how to world is controlled by massive corporations that deliberately take away other's shares of deciding how things should be. He uses particular wording in describing how the government and education systems serve those corporations and not the people, and how they think that the natural world is lesser than the technological world. Placing the values of machines over people is a theme that surfaces once again. We've seen it when talking about cheap labor in underdeveloped countries, and we've also been hearing about it a lot more in they last year or two. He also talks about how standard political conventions won't work to solve the issue since both parties are controlled by the corporations. This is apparent even today; both parties are locked in a push-pull cycle and just stalemate over issues because there's always an alterior motive that prevents politicians from breaking away and serving the people over the corporations. 

The second article is written in a style that is better for application and practicality for the reader. The authors argue that history has proven that there are ways to combat the globalization of corporate domination, and outlines how readers can take action in a realistic manner rather than just hypothetically. It is broken up into 4 sections based on each role an individual can play and how one can fulfill the duties of that role to push back against negative globalizing forces. The section that stod out the most to me was the final one about the steps of a citizen. I like that it was divided into levels of scale, since that is what seems to deter people from taking action most frequently, at least from what I've seen. People will be reluctant to take action because they think they can't have an impact at anything above the local scale, so it is important to distinguish how they can impact the regional, national, and global scales as well.

These articles show 2 different perspectives of a similar issue. Barry focuses more on a radical change in the political system, while the authors of the second article focus more on reforming the current system through active participation. I agree more with the second article, simply because I think it's more applicable to what's reasonable or realistic in today's world. I think that Barry's ideal party system could eventually be achieved, but his means of getting there may not be achievable without the actions of the second article.

Final Blog Post!!

The first reading, Wendell Berry’s “Conserving Communities” shows how globalisation has negatively affected small communities, local farming, and people’s connection to the land. He argues that as the world has become more focused on global business, mass production, and profit, local communities have started to disappear. I think it clearly shows how big corporations and industrial farming have taken over which makes it harder for small farms and local businesses to survive. Berry believes globalisation encourages people to prioritise money and efficiency over the environment, food quality, and strong community relationships. Overall, I think he argues that society as a whole has become too dependent on large global systems and that communities would be healthier and stronger if people just solely focused more on supporting local businesses, local food and sustainable living.

The Global to Local reading seems to focus on the idea that globalisation has given huge corporations too much power over economies, governments, and everyday life, but it also explains that ordinary people still have the ability to create change. I think the authors argue that corporate globalisation encourages people to act mainly as consumers instead of active citizens, with society becoming more focused on shopping, profit, and mass consumption. They explain that global businesses often prioritise cheap labour and economic growth over workers’ rights, environmental protection, and local communities.  

The reading also discusses the ways in which people can challenge the negative effects of globalisation through local action and ethical choices. It encourages people to support local businesses, buy local food, join community-supported agriculture programmes, and choose fair trade products to support workers in developing countries. The authors also seem to promote worker-owned co-ops, socially responsible banking and investing, political activism and stronger community involvement. Overall, I think that the text does a really good job at arguing that although globalisation has created many social and environmental problems, people can still work together locally and globally in order to create fairer and more sustainable communities as well as economies.

Week 15 E-reserves

Conserving Communities: 

In the Conserving Communities E-Reserve, the author explains how industrialization and globalization have contributed to the collapse of rural communities. There are now fewer people living and working on farms and producing agricultural products. I was surprised by how extreme the decline was. While globalization has impacted many communities around the world, I wouldn't have thought farming would be one of them. Berry argues that large corporations have focused more on profit than on the people residing on the land. I think this all really shows how dramatically these industries have changed over the years. This also explains why so many small rural communities have struggled to survive. Ultimately, this reading has made me better understand how large companies and globalization have severely impacted the countryside. 

Global to Local:

The Global to Local reading discusses how people can navigate the negative effects of economic globalization. The author explains the different alternatives and ways people can reshape outcomes. I found it fascinating how much power an individual can have in the economy. I never thought about the wide range of choices and freedom we have in our everyday decisions. The author also emphasizes the importance of supporting local businesses and fair trade, which made me realize how where I choose to shop can have a big impact on the community. This has made me think about and reconsider where I shop as a consumer myself. Global to Local allowed me to see how shopping can impact communities from a bigger perspective. I now fully understand that even a simple product can influence workers, the environment, and businesses. 

E-Reserves

“The Local Trap” argues that just because food is local doesn’t mean it is better. People often associate local food with small farms, healthier products, and ethical practices, but none of that is guaranteed. Local systems can still have inequality depending on who runs them. This shows that it’s not about where food comes from, but how it is produced and distributed. When the focus becomes just keeping things local instead of making them fair or sustainable, the original purpose is lost.

The food miles reading makes a similar point by showing that distance isn’t the best way to measure environmental impact. While people often say food travels thousands of miles, those numbers are oversimplified. Production usually creates more environmental harm than transportation. Focusing only on distance ignores how food is grown and processed. The CSA interviews also show that “local” is more about connection and trust than actual distance, highlighting the difference between space (distance) and place (relationships).

The biopiracy reading about the neem tree shows how global systems can exploit local knowledge. Neem had been used in India for centuries, but corporations patented methods related to it and made profits from it. This forced local farmers to pay for something that was already part of their culture. While companies argue they improved the process, it still shows how power imbalances allow global systems to take advantage of smaller communities. and distributed. 

Post 15: E Reserves

         “Piracy by Patient” is about how patent law allows for the corporate ownership over traditional knowledge as well as natural resources. Many of this knowledge and resources comes from developing nations as well. The author refers to this as bio-piracy. This is the idea that what was once shared knowledge is now being privatized by Western corporations and being used for profit. This undermines local farming communities and exploits poorer countries. I agree with the author that this is exploitative and is to the detriment of local communities who have developed and shared this knowledge. I also believe that what corporations often call their own innovations are rarely their own, whether it is in tech, medicine or even farming. Innovation is the vast majority of time done in public institutions or local communities, while the profits of innovation are privatized. 

        The “Local Trap” describes how people will blindly assume that the scale of a farming operation is indicative of its efficiency, sustainability, or morality. The author is asserting that there are plenty of examples of small scale operations which are not as ethical or environmentally conscious as larger operations. They think what is more important in assessing those social responsibility factors, is who owns the farms, and what their goals are. I think to a certain extent, this may be correct, except in the case of Piracy by Patient, where large scale corporations, due to their scale, are able to inflict more harm.

        In the “CSA” article, the author talks about how “food miles” is an insufficient way of measuring the environmental impact of producing food. They also talked about how the idea of eating local is about having a connection between the food you eat and community, environment, and the understanding of the sources of what you’re consuming. It is not as much, as many people assume, about food miles and only consuming what is in your immediate physical environment. I think that understanding where your food is coming from, and having a personal connection to what you eat is important, and probably leads to a healthier lifestyle generally. Most food you buy in a grocery store gives you no way of knowing where that food came from, and that probably leads to a disconnect between people and their food.

E-Reserves

 "Avoiding the Local Trap" offers the assumption that local food is, by default, better than food chains and cuisines from places that aren't based nearby.  Local people see their food as healthier, more ecologically sustainable, and more beneficial to the global food system overall.  Often people don't want their food to be grown on large local farms.  I can agree with this usually, as living near farmers markets has provided me with the perspective that locally grown agriculture tastes better then corporately manufactured agriculture.  Large corporations constantly are selling their produce as a commodity instead of a basic food need, differing generally from many local farmers around the world.  While food being "good" is subjective, many people, such as the people in the article, are starting to prefer their local agricultural movements more and more over corporate-based ones.  They believe its not only better tasting, but added chemicals into international produce can be deterring for some when thinking about purchasing them.

   The "Food Miles" article also discusses how impacted food can become after it travels an incredibly long distance.  The author discusses the oversimplification of local vs international food, saying that there are advantages and disadvantages to both. It's good that both perspectives are offered in this article, because I do agree that there are advantages and disadvantages to both shipping produce internationally and growing food locally.

    The Piracy article about the Neem Tree is also interesting.  It discusses the idea of biodiversity, and how there's a dividing line between allowing people to use your resources for the benefit of the community, and companies using your resources purely for their profit.  It explains that companies coming in and patenting your products is piracy, and isn't a new concept in India.  While I don't want this to be true, the reality is that this happens more often then most people think.  I think people should be able to have the confidence that the government isn't going to simply come in and steal your ideas without at least giving the proper credit for it.

E-Reserve Chapters -- Local Trap, Food Miles, Piracy by Patent

 "Avoiding the Local Trap" is an article that goes over, as the title states, the "Local Trap." What the article means by the Local Trap is that activists and researchers assume that local food is automatically better than other, larger foods, such as chains. These individuals see the local food as innately healthier, ecologically sustainable, and overall a higher quality in comparison to the "global-scale-food-system." I think that the assumption doesn't go over everything. There are so little factors that go into what makes food "good," apart from being an entirely subjective topic already; for example what goes into the production of the food itself, like pesticides or entirely other contaminants that may impact appeal. The author then goes over how those individuals have conflated two entirely separate topics into one thing that had created this issue: capitalism and globalism. The author says how "they" [the activists] are trying to resist the globalizing of food, and that it should be left to the localities. This is wrong, and they're actually against the capitalization of agriculture and its practices. The monetization of farming and locally produced foods are what caused the issues that they have, according to the author. I generally agree that turning agriculture from a way of sustaining a family and community into a way to make mass amounts of money was a slightly negative event overall, but I wouldn't say that it makes the local-scale-food better than the globalized food. Like I said, there's so many little details that go under the radar when on this topic that really need to be brought up. In the text, the author includes a promotion for local food over global food, with 10 reasons. The very first reason is a subjective title "Local food tastes better." The other nine reasons seem to be general statements that support local, like it's non-GMO, it keeps diversity, etc. I think that people should do both, buy local and global. Support the local community of farmers and keep the economy going at the same time.

The "Food Miles" article starts out with the statement of "your average food item on your plate has travelled 1,500 miles." The author then makes a point of how that statistic is severely outdated, and had overly-generalized and assumed when calculating the total number. The author basically says that the entire statement is very vague and incomplete, as well as not actually focusing on the real "average" and it was a study in just one city, for a certain kind of product, with an ambiguous term of measurement. The author then makes the point of how the oversimplification / stereotype of; "local food is better because it isn't global" makes no sense when one actually goes into the details. The author then throws a curveball, [at least a curveball to me], and says that the "food mile critiques quickly mutated into 'local food is killing the planet and poor.'" To me, I'd think that the global food would be the cause of the earth's decay, but the author wrote the opposite. It was a headline in a news outlet. Then the author switches back to the "global bad" side and quotes The Economist's quote of "it is virtuous to buy one [a tomato] grow in a lavishly heated greenhouse in the Hudson Valley." The back and forth of the author's writing really gives me a feeling of whiplash, because there is a jump back-and-forth between the sides of the argument.
The author interviewed a number of individuals, and created a list as to why it's better. The top answer, as expected, is the freshness and quality. The rest of the list makes sense; supporting farmers, farms, etc., boosting community, lower carbon footprint. Some of the reasons are a little odd to me, though. Perhaps I don't completely understand what the interviewees meant by "Thankfulness for the food itself." Can one not appreciate food that was produced from elsewhere and put through effort to get to you? Am I misinterpreting the people's words?

The "Piracy by Patent" article goes over the Neem Tree and its vast array of very useful parts. The discovery and use of the Neem Tree, as well as many other plants, had been done for centuries, millennia, even. And in the late 20th century, someone took it to the U.S. and got it patented for themselves and their companies. People claimed that it was piracy to take the work and offer it as their own. The patenting was naturally met with major resistance by the people who had discovered the incredible versatility of the tree.
The way that the companies claimed ownership of those methods of neem usage really put into perspective how easy it is, or perhaps was. Nowadays, it is a very arduous process to get something patented; but back then, you could basically say "yeah I did this thing and it's mine." [Not actually, but it was a lot easier to get something patented.] It was very easy to [essentially] steal an idea that wasn't officially protected and get it to be under your name or company. The article highlights how this was going on with the tree and its subsequent processes, with toothpaste, medicine, toothbrushes, wood, fungal solutions, and many other things. In more recent years, the process has definitely become more rigorous and thorough, making sure that there isn't already something like what someone claims to have invented, as well as generally costing more to do.

E-Reserves 4/29

“Food Miles, Local Eating, and CSA” touches on a lot of important parts of where the food we eat comes from. I was wondering how at the beginning of the paper, how anyone was able to even estimate how far the average food item travels in miles because of how complex of a question that is. I was both glad to see that I was right and upset at how much disinformation had been spread about the answer to such an impossible question. I think the only answer that matters in that the produce you get from your grocery store unless specified otherwise has traveled much too far. It is also important to note that it doesn’t matter if your food was grown locally if it isn’t possible to naturally grow where you are and in the season you are because at that point you're causing the same amount of environmental damage that eating locally is supposed to stop. The best way to eat if you care about the impact the sourcing of your food has on the world is to eat locally from what's currently in season around you, and a great way to do this is through CSA. 

I found “Avoiding the Local Food Trap” to not be specific enough of an article for me to fully understand. I get that just eating locally produced food doesn’t guarantee that it's better for the environment and that it can’t guarantee that nothing will go wrong with the production. But I believe that this is a problem that almost every system has. It is always important to know that corruption can occur anywhere along with people abusing a system. This is why even when eating locally you have to do your due diligence and research the potential consequences if you're trying to do a good thing for either yourself, the environment, or the economy. 

“The Case of the Neem Tree” was an upsetting read. I do not know a lot about law especially when it comes to creating and enforcing patents but I think there needs to be some type of stipulation when it comes to stealing ideas from other people or communities. If something like the versatile use of the neem trees is already widely known and used people shouldn’t be allowed to come in and steal those ideas and resources to make money off of.