Assuming the goods aren't time-sensitive, then it's just a normal investment. You get a larger reward, but it happens further in the future. Perhaps investors could buy the goods (or make a loan) after they leave the shore, sell them when they get back, and pocket the difference.
Sort of. It's not that simple. You can't just compare the rewards. You also need to compare the time element, because it limits how many rewards you can get.
For an illustration of how dramatic this can be, consider that a major factor of Apples success, for example, is that their inventory turnover has skyrocketed - to more than 60 times a year as of 2012, compared to ~36 times a year for Dell (inventory turnover was one of the things Dell used to be famous for) or about 15 times a year for RIM.
In other words in 2012, for every $1m of capital locked up in in inventory at any one time, if Apple had 10% margin before considering capital costs for the inventory, they'd make $100k per turnover, for $6m, while RIM would have made $1.5m.
That capital is not free - you're either facing borrowing costs or inability to invest it elsewhere.
(of course the shipping is clearly not the only thing affecting inventory turnover)
> Perhaps investors could buy the goods (or make a loan) after they leave the shore, sell them when they get back, and pocket the difference.
Banks have had revolving credit facilities to handle this kind of thing pretty much as long as banks have existed. This changes the numbers but not the overall principle.
To be clear: It is likely that there can be savings to make this way - I'm not disputing that.
E.g. there's already at least one cargo ship that uses a kite to save fuel costs by relying on wind ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails ). Clearly that's one thing that might make it profitable to making smart decisions about routes that maximize fuel savings even if that may slow down the delivery.
My point is just that it isn't sufficient to look at the savings for a single shipment - you also need to consider that the shipment will tie up substantial capital, and that has a cost per day too, whether in credit costs or in reduced ability to turn over inventory, and that will create very real limitations on how much you can slow down ships and still see benefits.
How about an automated factory ship? It not only transports goods, it makes them, and delivers them to the place where they are most needed. Automated ships around the world could then do resupply.
Or what about fish farming that works more like cattle grazing: a boat that moves a net of fish around to searching for food and nutrients before returning to land for harvest.
>How about an automated factory ship? It not only transports goods, it makes them, and delivers them to the place where they are most needed. Automated ships around the world could then do resupply.
Sounds crazy, but this has sort of been proposed with seasteading. Taking boats or building in international waters so they don't have to deal with local regulations. For example there was a boat off the coast of California where immigrants could go to work until they could get into the US legally. Or boats that perform abortions outside of places where they are illegal. It's not so much of a stretch that this could be done for manufacturing.
