Value, Money, Currencies, Mobile Technology and Scenario Planning

OS Homo Sapien 2.0

2011-06-13T14:57:00.001-07:00

"Both of these authors assert that the root cause of our difficulties lies in our view of reality. They contend that our shared worldview — based upon principals such as atomistic or mechanical materialism, duality, anthropocentrism, separateness and reductionism — has been heavily shaped by outdated scientific insights that formed the catalyst for the Scientific Revolution approximately 300 years ago. In other words, our crisis is one of software and not hardware."

http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/os-homo-sapiens-2-0-new-human-software-coming-soon/

This post on the UN blog speaks to something that I have been talking about, in one way or another, for the past several years. There is essentially a convergence occurring in our environment where we will be forced into a new set of revolutions on the level of the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution combined. This shift is fundamental because it not only requires a shift in our material experience of life - how we organize our economies - but also in our social philosophies - our consciousness needs to shift - in order for us to survive the current multiple crises.

I have tried to articulate this in my writings around an idea of a Somatic Future - a future in which our humanness is valued because we have "sense" of our environment. This means that we have to increasingly perceive our physical world, understand, relate and emphatically experience our interconnectedness in a way that we have never really imagined. I have struggled with this articulation in much of my research over the past 15 years. These issues of interconnectedness and the failings of a Newtonian and atomistic understanding of the world drove me to engage with questions of global corporations, and ultimately to study international political economics. The work of my academic mentor, Gillian Hart, greatly inspired me (and the work of Critical Human Geographers) who engaged the failings of an atomistic view of the world and of the economy. I worked in my MA research on trying to understand money not as a technology, or something that appears from the outside, but as something deeply intertwined and socially constructed.

All of this creates great complications but also the potential for empowerment but it must be based on some configuration of collaboration, new forms of social and organizational structures, and a view of the future that clearly realizes the future as a time of deep interconnectedness. We are approaching a fourth dimension of reality, one that will give us insight into the relationships between everything and one in which we may struggle to ever see apartness as something given and unbridgeable. In fact the idea of "individual" may come to be viewed as a total fallacy and a false god!

Data, Decision Making - Somatic Age?

2011-05-19T11:12:00.000-07:00

This very interesting article appeared in the latest Mother Jones, "The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science". It is a great article showing how we fail to make rational decisions - or rather fail to absorb new facts in a way that results in our changing our minds about a particular view we may have, essentially arguing that there is more to decision making then rational fact-based arguments. And, that more information and data is not how you get people to change their minds or accept a particular issue as important or otherwise.

The article is easy to read and does a great job of explaining some pretty complex ideas. My favorite line in the article goes, " In other words, paradoxically, you don't lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance." The author is arguing that we need to think about how we frame our arguments and thinking first about how it can be presented in a way that is not threatening to the value framework of a particular individual - that we are not trying to destroy that persons framework of values but trying to expand it in some way. Collaboration rather then hierarchy I guess! Emotion rather then logic. Engaging the irrational.

What this all points to in this age of information and head based thinking is that we are sooo far off still from understanding how our emotions are so critically involved in our decision making, and that our biases are built into what we actually perceive (much like what they say about us trying to observe quantum particles - that they are essentially impacted by our very viewing of them). In many ways I think the age of information overload and free access to data is slowly pushing us (or maybe not so slowly) towards an age where we focus on our emotion and spiritual and energetic beings. I think of this as a somatic age.

In other words, my believe is that the outcome of the somatic age will be a great enlightenment that will result in our understanding and exploration of the spaces of our existence that do not fit within rational frameworks or conscious thought. Many neuroscientists are starting to discover the role of our subconscious and that it is far far more important in our decision making process then previously believed or accepted. I see this as a wonderful thing - the age in which we start to become embodied, the age in which we start to sense our selves somatically is upon us. This, after all is what separates us from machines and technology - our somatic ability to sense our world around us, to process complex emotions that are co-produced by those around us.

I think this is already why we are exploring collaboration and other methods of connecting that allow us to realize our collective value and strength. The revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East show the role of emotion. No fact was released, no leader emerged that suddenly "reasoned" the people into action. Their emotional selves, and their subconsciousness made a decision to act and this was picked up on collectively. And they perceived this somatically feeling driven to collect and could not ignore the overwhelming feelings of their existence.

Those of us who explore long range futures and use scenario planning methods need to acknowledge that the future is not just about technological or "social" change, but about a transformation in our somatic understanding of our world and that this is by far our weakest muscle or skill. We know how to deal with data - even if we don't do it in ways we thought we would. As we as humans get more and more inundated by technology and as technology takes over the roles of our rational data processing minds we will gravitate to exploring this other side of our selves the side that will increasingly distinguish us from machines and technology as a whole.

Fourth Sector Financialization and the Value of Pricelessness

2011-04-13T13:33:00.000-07:00

"New layers of financialisation pose challenges for the sustenance of local ecological knowledges and 'biocultural diversities'. They rationalise human and non-human natures to conform with a particular economic system that privileges price over other values, and profit-oriented market exchanges over the distributive and sustainable logics of other economic systems." (Banking Nature? The financialisation of environmental conservation)

The above quote from a recent article published through the Open Anthropology Cooperative Press highlights one of my biggest concerns about the current trend in the development of what are being called hybrid business models, or fourth sector networks or for-benefit corporations. Essentially the same determinant is being used to guide the decisions of consumers and producers - price. If something can be produced cheaper then it is going to be more successful. So, it becomes about how can you produce goods in an enlarged framework of values at the cheapest price. Hence, the idea that you can include environmental or social costs into your overall final price will again be driven by reducing those impacts on the environment or society as viewed as costs. This I think can go both ways - you can either lower your negative impact on the environment or society, thereby reducing your costs and enabling you to provide your good at a lower cost, or alternatively you can add value to the environment or society that in someway enables you to offset other costs again with the aim of lowering the overall cost of your good.

This means that the exact same metric is being used to guide our business decisions and our consumption decisions: price.

This then reminds me of my idea of infinite value which I have expressed in other places on this blog. What I found so powerful about this idea is that it ultimately throws the whole "price" question into a bit of turmoil. It is both a price - but is also no price - it is priceless. So we have assigned it a price but it is a price that is infinite meaning that it can not be purchased. The flip side being that it can be destroyed, or reduced. Something can go from priceless to worthless - through destructive behaviours or through the compartmentalization of the whole. So a forest, seen and valued as a whole system, can be viewed as priceless. But, a tree can be assigned a price that is within the realm of reason.

In a conversation I had with a professor at UC Berkeley a few years ago it was this exact issue of price. The financialization of everything does not necessarily avoid its consumption or destruction. However, today the alternative has been focused about the zero valuation or pricing of most shared resources. Somewhere in there we need to give it a value that removes it from the ability to price it at all.

It is time for another metric to dominate - something other then price!

The point is that if we are able to price everything - the entire ecosystem - and then price the costs of reduced or increased value of this ecosystem - we will come out with a better price. Yet, this does nothing to reduce our destruction or consumption of the environment. If the price is low enough someone will buy it. And, as the luxury goods market shows - some people will even pay a higher price. A destructive product can still be produced, and its price may be high, but someone will purchase it.

Price is the wrong metric. What is the alternative metric? Is it about metrics at all? What is this deeper shift then that we require? Damn...I wish I had that answer.

Wall Street Leviathan

2011-04-11T11:35:00.001-07:00

Here is a decent look at what the Financial Commission's report on the 2008 Financial Crisis found (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/apr/28/wall-street-leviathan/?page=1

). Though it fails to address the deeper issue of the actual systemic way in which we construct or create money. I think what is so striking is that even though we had financial regulation that was supposed to limit the instability of the financial system from roughly 1933 to 1999 we had a series of ongoing financial crises that led to in part the Lost Decade in South America, the S&L debacle, the need to end the dollar/gold standard, a massive increase in debt, and more. And, it only took 9 years from the time that the Glass-Steagal Act was repealed to have an almost catastrophic global financial collapse, this despite this long history of supposed stability!

What has actually been going on throughout most of modern financial history, and including supposedly the stable years under the Glass-Steagal Act is a series of mini crises that have been viewed by the elites (regulators, politicians and bankers) as having been dealt with. The solutions have generally been focused on shifts in the regulatory environment. All of this has been presented as increasing the stability of the system. Then, the argument goes that in 1999 we ended the stable era by repealing the Glass-Steagal Act and before we knew it we had a full blown global financial crisis. The question is what is the more important data point to follow? Was it the ending of the Glass-Steagal era or is it the much bigger pattern of data seen through the lens of multiple mini-crises throughout the US financial system (and really globally). What is being argued often is that those earlier crises are not related to the current crisis. The current crisis is related to a shift in the regulations of 1999 and the solution is new regulations that will return us to the pre-1999 era of stability.

Allow me to draw an analogy with the revolutions of Tunisia and Egypt. We can see them as one off events that "suddenly" emerged driven by say a prolifieration of social media technologies that due to a shift in technology (regulation) we have a break from the old pattern and the result is a revolution (financial crisis). Or, we can see them as the result of a series of efforts, strikes and demonstrations (mini financial crises), that had finally culminated and created enough momentum to realise a revolution (2008 Financial Crisis). The analogy I am making here is that for many of the elites in Egypt and Tunisian socieites those earlier demonstrations and strikes had been viewed as mere annoyance and requiring small shifts in regulation (and of course violent oppression) - but the sense was that they had been successfuly squished and represented no systemic problem. However, they were blatanly wrong - each little permutation was helping to build energy towards a bigger shift - a revolution - despite the best efforts of the elites (or regulators or authorities or politicians; call them what you want).

This same thing is, I believe, going on in the financial system. We view all those earlier events as mere business cycle permutations that occurred under a given regime - a regime that was put into place in the 1930's and presented as stabilizing and unifying. The truth is far from that, instead we have had decades of financial crises slowly spreading and linking up around the world. And, despite all the efforts over the decades of squishing their bigger impact it culminated in the 2008 crisis. For the elites of this system they view the important data point as the shift in regulation they do not see a systemic risk, they do not see a major shift in their operating terrain and they do not see all of this history of events linking together and building momentum and energy. So, the question is does the 2008 crisis truly represent a culmination - a revolution? - or does it represent just a bigger permutation still to be followed by a bigger revolution/crash in the financial system?

I think the fact that the answer from the elites has been to change regulations points to the fact that 2008 is not the revolutionary moment but rather another, though much bigger, permutation in our financial system. The last time our financial system experienced such a grand permutation was during the Great Depression which at first led to a series of regulatory responses, but ultimately led to one of the biggest shifts in global society and the horrors of World War II - though it took almost 6 years before America was fully impacted by that global revolution driven by WWII.

We sit in 2008 and debate our regulatory shifts and solutions, our new presidents and banking brands. We view it as a one off event driven by a shift in the regulatory environment. Yet, my sense is there is something deeper here and that the forest is being missed, while we focus on a couple big trees. I have a strong sense that in the not to distant future we may witness another major financial crises and at some point it is going to truly culminate in a revolution - one that will require a major reconstruction of one of the most fundamental human concepts - money!

Viva the Peaceful: 9/11 and Libya

2011-03-21T21:28:00.001-07:00

There is certainly the danger that this blog post gets a bit rambling. However, I have been dealing with many threads of thought with the recent events around the world especially those of North Africa (note - that Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco are all in Africa) and Wisconsin.

My feeling from the start has been of total awe and true support - despite what might emerge from these attempts at political revolution - for these local democratic efforts. All of these uprisings have essentially swelled up - though not without many decades of tyranny and abuse by the targeted regimes - without clear leadership, without a coherent plan and without violent aims. These movements remind me of what was going on around the globe with the rising international movement of activism at the turn of the end of the 20th century. These efforts focused on the multi-lateral institutions of the world that seemed to only pander to the interests of the elites. The lack of many of these institutions at having any kind of social voice was one of the biggest complaints. People felt that the interests of communities, of locals, of underprivileged and poor were not being heard or acknowledged. This led to the organic rise of a non-hierarchical globally connected movement. This movement was what created the Battle for Seattle in 1999 (an event that I had the privilege to attend as a photojournalist for the Independent Media Center), and the growing World Social Forum in Brazil and many such efforts.

Then came 9/11 and we had war! And our movement was derailed, our focus shifted, government now had increased power to crack down on demonstrators, to block access to countries and use new surveillance tools. At the time - and I think maybe somewhere on this blog - I wrote about how I felt that 9/11 was as much about our history in the Middle East as it was about ending the rising social movement. 9/11 became an excuse to crack down and switch our focus to a debate over violence - and acceptable forms of violence and war and more.

I bring 9/11 up because I believe in many ways what is going on in Libya is another example of this. The movements in Tunisia and Egypt, the ongoing demonstrations in Yemen, Morocco and those of Bahrain were movements focused on peaceful demands. Many of these efforts first met with violence and harassment, many of these movements were against US supported dictators. But, most importantly they were non-violent, they were spreading organically, they had no leadership and there seemed no way to stop them. Enter the use of violence - the effort to stop Qaddafi - who conveniently is an enemy of the West so we have a good excuse and a good history of indoctrination in the mind of Westerners to his evil ways (and I am not saying that he is not a tyrannical leader that should leave immediately). But, note that there was and still is no mention of protecting demonstrators in Egypt, Morocco, Yemen, Bahrain. I don't need to get into the geo-strategic questions of this reasoning. Rather, what I am trying to draw attention to is the way in which the use of American (and Western) violence has again come to control the debate. It has meant that the movements in these countries are now faced with the prospect of violence and of the divides between the West and Arab worlds. It returns us to the same rhetoric of violence, and us verse them, while moving us away from the awe-inspiring, hair standing up, immense voices of democratic peoples movements.

My point is that there seems to be a connection here. In both instances violence was inserted into the global conversation around the power of peaceful movements. It is as if we are being reminded, dis-empowered almost, by the fact that violence will inevitably enter the picture and that violence is the solution in the end - that peaceful movements (and by peaceful I don't mean that there won't be violence in the form maybe of self-defense against government forces - the same thing happened in Seattle and hence became the Battle of Seattle, but again in this instance the government inserted the violence and changed the debate) can't solve the problem.

The attacks on Libya deeply concern me. Yes, it is true that maybe Qaddaffi would have attacked and slaughtered people in Benghazi, maybe he would have retained power. But, in the end maybe his legitimacy would have been so weakened that he would not have been able to hold onto power. Now, we are at war, now we see the splintering return the Middle East verse the West - the insertion of US military power. Why in this instance is technology not all powerful? Why in this instance are the people not empowered? Is it because Qaddafi has chosen to use force? Has he not done this before? Did not Mubarak or the leaders of Yemen, or the leaders of Tunisia or other countries use violence and oppression?

I think that this decision to bomb Libya is the right decision for the elites and political powers of the world - because it returns the debate to a terrain they know and understand well. A terrain of violence and overwhelming force. I think this decision is aimed at ending the spread of these movements around the world. Leaders never know what to do with non-violent demonstrators. Thans Gandhi, thank MLK, thank Mandela for showing us this.

Viva the peaceful.

Japan and the need for Scenario Thinking

2011-03-17T11:42:00.001-07:00

I am sitting listening to the radio about what is going on in Japan. There is much being said about how the government is not helping the local authorities around the nuclear power plant, how the American's are not playing a bigger role in providing food and other goods to stricken communities, and why there isn't a greater presence of the global nuclear power authorities housed in the UN.

And, there was one thing that each expert on the panel mentioned, the fact that there was no preparation for this scale of disaster. They said repeatedly that this "scenario" had not been thought of. This puzzles me in several ways - surely the global nuclear authorities would run a set of scenarios that would look at multiple environmental disasters - or was it just assumed that such a conflation of events would never happen? The American's obviously have no plans in place for helping Japan, or any other country that they have a large military presence in, for helping that country in the throws of a major catastrophe. And, there was obviously no plan within the Japanese government for a nuclear meltdown in a region that may not be accessible via road.

This event in Japan follows quickly on the heals of the series of North African revolutions. Again, here we see a bunch of events occur that no one had thought of, or had considered as within the realm of reality. We see this is in the failings of the American's to have any clear response to the revolutions - they failed to know where to stand with Mubarak, they have miss-stepped a couple times in Bahrain - between supporting the monarchy and now dealing with Saudi Arabia's military arrival.

All of these events over the past couple of months point to the need to fully explore multiple futures, and to take into consideration wild card futures (very unlikely) and other possibilities in a way that allows us to build resiliency into our system. The need to consider the range of unexpected events and the possibility of increasing convergence between environmental and human disasters - as our populations grow so will the devastation be increased.

At my company, Adaptive Edge <http://www.adaptive-edge.com>, we work to provide this to companies and governments. We explore ways in which these entities can learn to adapt to unexpected events while helping to be part of the already existing shifts in our global political-economy. Ideas of involving stakeholders, engaging unexpected realties, and exploring the impact of already existing trends on our possible futures.

I think the big message here for people, governments and businesses, is that they need to prepare for multiple futures and possible scenarios of what could occur. Having those futures on their shelves with associated strategies is something that we all need - it is a way of being prepared, agile and resilient.

My prayers are with the people of Japan, New Zealand and North Africa as they all deal with the arrival of unexpected events and the sudden emergence of new futures - futures that many may not have ever thought possible.

Flipping the Switch

2011-02-10T11:41:00.001-08:00

There is a lot of talk in many circles that one of the biggest unknown unknowns about our current ecological system is if a switch will flip. In other words, something like the last straw that broke the camels back, or the butterfly effect (basically a type of systems feedback loop). We see some of this kind of behavior with revolutions - think Tunisia and Egypt, were a long history of small things kept building pressure, building pressure, and then suddenly one small isolated event, or what appears to be an isolated event, suddenly triggers massive change.

One of the things that is going on in our environment right now is a massive loss of biodiversity, so a range of species and ecological environments are being destroyed and driven to extinction. While this certainly bodes badly for the continuance of the current ecological system, at least within the boundaries that support human existence, it certainly doesn't mean that the trend towards loss of diversity will continue.

My thought is, "Is it possible that we could see a sudden explosion in ecological diversity?", "Could the space created and the instabilities created through the loss of normal equilibriums result in nature being incredibly and explosively evolutionary?" "Could we see a massive series of mutations and new plants emerge in a way that we could never have been anticipated or expected?"

I am no ecologist, so I don't know that I can answer this question. What I do think is it is a possibility, and that this possibility could play out in at least three scenarios:

1) The sudden explosion in increased diversity is damaging to humans. This could mean an explosion in viruses and bacterias that we have no defense mechanism for. Or, a massive increase in invasive species that proliferate across almost all ecological environments killing our crops, taking over environments and generally being hostile to humans.

2) This increased diversity enables us to harvest new foods, discover new animals and other ways of harnessing the environment. In this scenario we are reactive.

3) We are able to co-develop this explosion through the use of new human knowledge of genetics and bio-engineering. This would help us to work and mold certain evolutions with an aim towards benefiting both humans and the overall sustainability and resiliency of the needed human eco-system.

In other words, could our massive killing off of the environment, coupled with our immense knowledge of the engineering of nature, allow us to counter-act and respond, positively, to the negative trends we have set in motion.

Could the loss of bio-diversity actually enable one of the biggest flowerings in diversity and evolution?

We know, based on the laws of thermodynamics, that what humans have done is transfer massive amounts of energy from one space (mostly fossil fuels) to another, releasing lots of stored energy into what could be seen as increasingly non-equilibriated systems. That energy is gonna produce something!

Just a thought!

Future philosophy

2011-02-06T12:29:00.001-08:00

I predict that the rise of Asia will result in the emergence of new philosophical ideas that will enable us to have a political economic revolution on the level of the industrial revolution. This is because philosophically we have been constrained, within political economic theory, by the ideas of individualism and the rights of property, which in there ways were rebelions agianst the ideas that underpinned feudalism.

Our future is based on new philosophical ideas that will allow new economies to emerge that will appear as logical to us and therefore enable us to value things that we had not previously seen as valuable.

I can list a number of these but because I am writing this on my mobile phone I will try and update this post later.

Wake-up we are all......

2011-02-04T09:01:00.001-08:00

I stand with the people of Egypt
I stand with the people of the Arab world
With the people living under regimes of authoritarianism
Living in enslavement to capitalism

We are all united in our collective conscience
Knowing that this way is no longer the way

There was a time when feudalism broke
When churches crumbled and tribalism disintegrated

We are here together
Now

Egyptian, Arab, Jew, Christian, Hindu and more
Together we must rise to create an era that frees us from this self destruction

It is a choice between co-creation or imposed destruction

We are all living under regimes that are not sustainable
That will destroy our planet and leave no hope for our children
Wake-up
We are all Egyptian

Sense of Change

2011-01-26T08:34:00.001-08:00

My sense of change in this society is as if we are moving into a direction of newness without knowing what it is meant to be. Could this be the first time in human history where we have had the foresight to see that our current modus operandi will lead to demise of the human race, or at least of our societies and cultures as we see them? In the past the fundamental shifts in our economy have been driven by shifting dynamics within society - be it a new emerging wealthy class who challenge the previously entrenched political-economic configuration (I know that Political-Economy is normally not hyphenated, but because I don't see them as two separate entities - I can not understand a political or economic conversation without the one relating to the other - so for this reason I can not see it conceptually as two separate words/concepts), or a new form of trading or government/state structure emerges that challenges the already existing system.

Today we are trying to shift society without creating a discontinuous event - we are not wanting a revolution we are wanting a conscious shift to occur. We are counting on us as a group of humans to be able to make this shift through choice (though encouraged by circumstances), through reason, through a sense of shared future. This I believe is a unique event in human history. The question then is not what happens during a discontinuous event, but what happens when we have rapid, consciously chosen change? How is this done? How do we do this again and again and again while focusing on, creating and emphasizing a better future for all (including the poor, animals and other living creatures).

I sometimes find myself praying for a revolution that will allow this change to occur. However, I know what revolutions look like and they aren't pretty and they give no guarantee of the ultimate result. This then calls for a creating of a shared vision of what that better future is. Can we change incrementally? Can we change suddenly?

Shared Vision

2011-01-25T17:10:00.001-08:00

In my line of work spotting trends, seeing marco or large pictures is critical. Often these things are missed by people working and digging away at day to day life. I see this going on all the time - efforts around "green building" or "sustainability" and more are examples of people trying to attempt to define these terms without exploring or identifying with the bigger trend. These are loose terms, terms that we may not necessarily all share a clear definition on. And, it is this lack of clarity that in my opinion highlights several issues. First, these terms are only labels, they don't represent a "movement" or a shift of any fundamental nature (I will come back to why I think this) and secondly, these terms fundamentally don't redefine anything in our society.

My first point is very much linked to my second point. The very fact that the definition of these terms or any number of terms used are unclear or open to manipulation highlights the way in which they are labels and not defining philosophical ideas that can then be used to shift or build a new society upon. Think of this in terms of ideas like liberty, or private property, or something of a similar nature. I think what these terms miss is a deeper question, a deeper philosophical issue is going on.

Perhaps it is my philosophical nature that drives me to this point. However, I think that something will always be open to manipulation if it is a label used to try and band-aid over something more fundamental. What is green about? What is sustainability about? What are these terms, and their increased use and prominence, trying to highlight?

My belief is, as I have said in earlier posts, that it is about a question of values. A shift of values is what it is about and the definition of these terms is nothing less then an attempt at defining the new values of society. Yet, are we clear on what these values are? Are we really having a deep societal, global, cultural conversation around this idea? When ideas of liberty emerged in England during the Industrial Revolution (say the argument of Locke amongst many others) the question was not so much about private property, but about the definition of a new value - that of individual liberty being primary. (note that I am aware of the political economic shifts that occurred that led to the argument for private property but I think it still required/forced a reconfiguration of values)

We are faced with these sorts of questions again. What are the fundamental values that we are trying to highlight that form the basis of "green" or "sustainable"? In my opinion any attempt to define these requires us to define our values as a society. And, I think this only happens when the current system of values is shown to fail (and I think evidence is mounting for this - much as it did during the breaking down of feudalism).

We need to think about this in a deep way, but in a way that is rigorous in its logic, rigorous in its integral approach, and rigorous in its attempt to be global. These values are the values of the future, they are attempting to emerge, but in my opinion no philosophical argument has helped clarify or codify them in the way that earlier ideas were (I dream and wish and sometimes pray for the ability to write such a text).

Or perhaps they are being defined but they will only be seen as defining arguments when we have hindsight (historical perspective).

In the mean time think about what you believe are the new values of the world that will help us define and entrench certain terms.

I value relationships and I value individuality. How do we build a new philosophy that does this for us?

East vs West (Relationships vs Individuality)

2011-01-25T13:34:00.001-08:00

I was listening to an interesting talk on the radio today - I think it was on NPR and the show was Philosophy Talk. Anyway, they had on a cultural psychologist who was talking about the concept of self and how we construct this sense of self. She talked about her experience in Asia vs the US or West. After many years of teaching Asian students, I think mostly Japanese, one of her Asian students said that her concept of the "self" and how it comes to exist makes no sense. After many more discussions and explorations it was concluded that the construction of self is so different in these two cultural spaces.

In Asia you, your sense of self and a construction of an identity, is built around your relationships and obligations to others in the world. In other words your self is in many senses positively enhanced by your relationships and gives it a sort of relativeness or relatedness. In this way everything can be seen as related and interconnected. While in the West we create a sense of self through being individual by finding ways to make yourself unique compared to others. Your sense of self is supposedly independent of others or your relationships or your history.

Without a doubt there is something incredibly liberating about the Western sense of self. It has allowed us on many levels to move beyond tribalism and other stuck social obligations. Yet, the power of relationships and the importance of recognizing the network of humanity is becoming increasingly critical.

We are moving into an age where we have to find a way to incorporate individuality with relationships. We have to define a new way of constructing values, of empowering relationships and giving individual freedom. This is in many ways this requires a revolution in philosophical thought. We can not merge the East and West into one grand globalized economy if our sense of self is constructed completely differently. Why you might ask? Well, if a sense of self it intimately tied to our way of identifying and informing systems of value, then the way we think of economies (systems of value creation/protection/recognition) will be in constant contradiction.

This is why I think the future is neither individual nor relationship it is "individship" or something like that. My point is that this merging of great philosophies of self - a product of our incredibly globalized world is going to require profound shifts. What is critical about this meeting of cultures, as opposed to earlier interactions is that in many ways it is done through non-hierachical relationships (the internet, universities, products). For the first time we have to come to an agreement, not a domination of one over the other.

Look out for new ideas of self to emerge!

Money and the conversations

2011-01-25T10:52:00.000-08:00

I hope this is not another rant. But, it feels like one!

I am constantly confused by conversations that come from very wise people around money. The differences between a "currency", a "unit of account" and a "measure of value" are critical. Most people focus on the conversation of "currency". So, they talk about banks printing currency, or communities issuing currency etc. Who issues the currency is of critical importance, that I am certain of. However, a currency only has value because the unit of account is considered a reliable measure of value. So, if everyone is printing currency using the same unit of account - this may be a dollar or a pound, it may be an Ithaca Dollar or a Time Dollar or whatever you want to name your currency - they are going to need to establish a reliable measure of value via a unit of account. Some communities may come up with their own unit of account but almost always they link it or establish it in a relationship with an established unit of account. So Ithaca may have its own unit called an Ithaca, but they will almost invariably give it an exchange value, often fixed, with the established US dollar unit. So maybe 10 Ithaca's are worth 1 US dollar.

This is critical. The establishment of a unit of account requires the creation of trust as to its ability to reliably measure value. Part of this trust is established through the fact that it can be trusted that it won't be overissued and therefore cause an inflationary devaluation of that currency. This was the problem that went on in the USA during the height of free-banking. People were issuing currencies in units but their reliance, or ability to consistently measure value, were greatly limited and unreliable. So, the assumption that a community can issue a currency may be true but it still reliant on the value of its relationship to the chosen unit of account and its ability to reliably measure the value of an exchange.

My concern is this level of money, something that Keynes talked about, is often not spoken about by many of todays alternative money theorists.

The big question, is how do you establish a new measure of value, represented by a unit of account, that is then actualized in a currency (be it paper, gold, silver or digital bytes). You need to establish new measures of value, and these require concrete relationships of trust.

It can not be overlooked that any attempt at creating a multitude of currencies will invariably lead to a devaluation or threat to the reliability of that unit if they are over issued in aggregate. You can not maintain a fixed relationship between units of account - this has been very clearly illustrated through massive amounts of economic research. The crash of the Gold Standard and fixed currency regimes (the conversation around the Chinese Yuan is an contemporary example). This is true if a central bank continues to print (issue) money or if a hundred communities issue their own currencies. The value of something as it approaches infinity in terms of being able to measure an exchange will head to zero.

The challenge then is not about who issues new currencies (though this is important) it is about creating new measures of value that are reliable and are not directly related to an already existing unit of account. Part of the reason I believe that we have historically put all currencies into a relationship with each other is the homogenization of value measures. As countries align and attempt to measure the same sorts of exchanges in the same sorts of ways the can align the value of their currencies. However, if you are measuring things with your currency that no other economy sees as important it is next to impossible to establish a relationship between the two. The point is that exchanges are being measured and therefore what is measured and what is considered important to measure can and will shift over time.

It is not about creating new currencies it is about creating new units of account that measure exchanges and their values in new and unique ways. And, this is a far harder question to tackle because it is not about a technical solution, it is about a social solution. It is about a revolution in systems of value.

Markets and Politics: Are they really two separate choices?

2010-12-05T14:51:00.001-08:00

I think that Sam Fleischacker makes a good argument for reducing the claim made by many that Smith's biggest contribution was the notion of self-interest (read his post here: Economics and the Ordinary Person: Re-reading Adam Smith.) The role of the individual to know most about his needs, and his ability to temper those selfish needs at the interest of others, are certainly critical notions to our world today and the increased recognition of the "relationship" as being critical to the functioning of our society as a whole and of our commercial lives.

Yet, there is one thing that stuck out for me in Fleischacker's analysis (I have to state that I have not read any of his books) is the assumption that there is a seperation between markets (economics) and politics (politicians); that somehow the market exists without the political influence of the state. I am not sure that Smith saw it this way. From my readings of Smith, he saw the need for a new type of politics that liberated and encouraged a form of market exchange based on private property. This was of course in direct opposition to the ideas of monarchy and the power of the landed class over the merchant class.

If it is not Smith that saw this separation of market/economics and politics, then I get the sense it must be Fleischacker who sees this separation. Fleishacker says, "This respect for the market, as a tool for character development, is unusual among moral philosophers: most of Smith's predecessors, peers, and successors would have favored the political realm, instead, as the best place to develop character." I disagree with this, I believe Smith saw a particular type of political-economics as being a constraint on the development of individual's character and wanted a new form of political-economy to move into one that enabled a form of market exchange based on the individual preferences of the consumer rather then the needs of the monarch or noble.

It is this continued analytical separation between economics and politics that I believe continues to confound many theorists and plays strongly into many of the dialogues and debates currently underway around questions of finance and money creation. Seeing money as something separate from politics or even economics, as something natural and epiphenomenal; as if money will exist without specific socio-political structures. The same assumption seems evident in Fleischacker, one in which the market is natural and will exist in its current form irrespective of political choices.

Perhaps I am overstating Fleischacker's argument and interpretation. However, it is a linguistic question, one that I am sure Chomsky and others would highlight. These false distinctions are something that I don't believe many moral philosophers of the Enlightenment would have supported.

Wikileaks - Aid, China and African Choice

2010-12-05T13:20:00.001-08:00

The Guardian newspaper highlighted some of the African cables taht came out of the US Embassy's as part of the Wikileaks. I find these cables very interesting as they in many ways show an honest insight into how African's are viewing the rise of China's economic influence in Africa. The ability of China to offer investments in a way that differs greatly from the Western model of AID development has as the African's rightly point out that this is "giving the African countries options after several decades of a largely "Western" development model."

I think this is a critical insight into how the African's have felt in the decades of Euro-American AID. They have not had a choice, during the Cold War the choice was between Communism and Capitalist-Democracy and either choice came with huge costs and potential conflict. Today's choices come with far fewer consequences, and most of them are in some way positive. There are concerns raised that this Chinese model offers support to corrupt governments. I am not well studied in this arena (my friend Steven Nakana is far better versed in this stuff) but I do know that many horrid dictators in Africa were supported by Western governments over the decades of development AID.

The point is that it opens up the choices and this is a good thing, it increases competition and forces governments to offer a range of choices - a set of diverse options. This is good for Africa, after all Africa is not monolithic and the situations faced by each country are both unique and similar. This is why it is great to see the UK' DFID being identified for its ability to work on small projects in collaboration with others including the Chinese.

Ending with my continued belief that Africa is going to surprise everyone in the 21st century. More on that later though. Oh here is the link to the Guardian article: US embassy cables: African countries prefer Chinese aid to US-China cooperation.

2 Apps that I predicted

2010-11-07T14:26:00.001-08:00

Okay so here are two ideas that I knew would come out (and have spoken about these sorts of ideas on several occasions with friends and family as potential business ideas:

www.socialsafe.net

http://dadapp.com/

Look out for the one that revolutionizes our interaction between PDF's, Word Documents, Web Sites and our need to link all this data together into a personalized social graph of our ideas and how they are linking together. This of course is really what scholars need. They need a way to follow their trails of information, where they got quotes, who they first read about someone and how they got the data. Hyperlinking between all documents on our personal computers is what is needed and will emerge very soon.

I can say more about this idea later but I wanted to put it out there. This is much like what I have said about the lack of data portability of social networks, something that Social Safe is attempting to solve - in a fairly rudimentary fashion. It is a long way to go but the inevitability is that all social networks will operate on the same protocols allowing users to share data across networks.

Three Paragraphs

2010-10-31T20:06:00.001-07:00

Growing up in Cape Town, South Africa, in the 1980's and early 1990's, was a blessed experience. I was surrounded by nature, pristine and beautiful, on all sides. Since moving to the USA in 1993, I have returned regularly to Cape Town, always enjoying and relishing the return to that beautiful environment. Yet, something started bothering me over the past five years. Since the end of Apartheid the economy has been growing, the cities have been booming and more and more trash is appearing on the beaches and in the ocean. My daytime strolls along the beaches of Cape Town increasingly began to involve picking up multiple bags of trash – plastic bottles, lids, bags, and other random flotilla.

As a trained political-economist, with a deep interest in questions of sustainability and development, I couldn't help but be concerned by this destruction of value and wealth. I was puzzled by the fact that almost all of this "trash" had at one point represented valuable goods. These goods had cost many, many dollars to produce and purchase - yet the end result was that they had become worthless. This worthlessness didn't make sense to me. Why would something that had cost someone good money, like the container that holds a drink of Coca-Cola, become worthless? And, even more so, how could we prevent it destroying something else of huge and infinite value – a clean and pristine environment that is healthy and resilient?

It is the protection of this beauty and the need to find a way in which our society can operate while protecting and recognizing this infinite wealth, which we are surrounded by and dependent upon for our survival, that became the central focus of my MA research. I am deeply passionate about bringing to the fore the need to recognize this value, the value of the things that our economy and our financial system fail to recognize.

My childhood was built off the very visceral experience of nature. It is something that I deeply desire for my own children, and yet, I understand the need for economic development and an improved standard of living. The challenge of negotiating these different working elements is something that I devote my life to. I want to be part of helping to drive pro-active solutions, solutions that center on the recognition of the environment and the infinite wealth and value that it represents. For me, there is more value in abundance then in anything else. Having an abundant environment - abundant ocean life, abundant forests and abundant clean air - is all more valuable to me and I believe to us as a society, then any scarce commodity or high-priced good.

On the streets of Oakland. So awesome!!

2010-09-24T17:55:00.001-07:00

My Little Rant

2010-09-21T11:23:00.001-07:00

[Note: this was written in one sitting with very little editing or planning. I hope that it conveys my general disappointment at much historical and monetary analysis]

I am constantly shocked by the bad scholarship that so many academics produce. In my research of the world of money and specifically community currencies I keep coming across advocates of these currencies who are not basing their arguments on accurate historical research.

A classic misreading of history is that the creation of the Federal Reserve was about the consolidation of the moneyed interests of the USA. But, if you look closer it also has to do with the increased access to credit - something that was a massive problem throughout the 19th century in the USA. That is why President Wilson, who was deeply concerned about the monopolization of money and credit by bankers, called the creation of the Fed, the "democratization of credit". But why the focus on credit? Because at this time the idea that you could "create" money was anathema to all concepts of money - it represented government attempting to create value, something that was not permissible in the minds of most intellectuals. Money needed intrinsic value and was not the product of any actions of government. This thinking about money came to be fundamentally challenged by Keynes (though he built off a series of work done in the late 1800's) who highlighted the role of
money of account.

The question becomes what is the difference between credit and money? To explore that answer you have to understand the role of "money of account". Read Keynes, or for a more modern analysis look at the work of Geoffery Ingham. Money is not about the form, though this seems to have some sort of impact on our societal experience of money, money is about the unit of measure that is the measure of money. An authority is needed to impose this unit of measure, and it does NOT emerge spontaneously through barter, but rather requires some sort of consolidation, standardization and enforcement - the State, for example. However it does not necessarily require the State, I think you could have some other sort of authority, but some agreement needs to be enforced and regulated for a currency to become money.

Money is the creation of society. The relative scarcity of money is a socially constructed reality and is actually necessary to reinforce a standard measure of value which forms the basis of money of account. What is important is understanding the implication of who puts the money into circulation - and the importance of this is because money is so much more than just a medium of exchange - money does not just "represent" or "lubricate" the real economy - it is something far more, something that is a fundamental element in our socio-political mindset.

My point is that due to the fact that terms like money, democracy, credit, banks and more have all changed and evolved to mean very different things at very different historical moments thus if you are going to quote some of the great minds of America, then the historical moment in which their speech occurred needs to be taken into account. The shifts in form of money are critical because they have helped highlight the role of the creator of money. They have done nothing to clarify how to create that standard of value, and often the question of how that value is created is ignored. Throughout the history of money in America, one thing has remained constant - the source of money and its value is something that is believed to be beyond the control of the government (and society). When we thought of money as gold we believed that money had to have an intrinsic value - and that this source of value had nothing to do with government. This of course completely ignored the fact that government would create a designated unit of account such as the $, and then say that so many grams of gold were worth a set amount of dollars. Nothing natural there! Today we give money its value via the marketplace - in the realm of free-floating exchange markets. Again, we have no power over the value of money as it is something left to the markets. This alienation of the source of money's purchasing power (which is what allows us to actualize its value) is what we struggle with. How do we give money the kind of purchasing power that enables everyone to have enough financial power to buy all the things that they need for survival, and prevent the destruction of the living ecosystem?

The claim by community currency (CC)advocates is that to achieve this all we need to do is allow communities the power to create their own currency. The fact that it is often referred to as a currency and not as money, betrays a gap or maybe even a conflation between money and currency. In fact, this is what is critical, money can operate without currency. The questions that need to be answered by the CC advocates is how do we maintain this local currency’s purchasing power? How do we create a unit of account? How do we account for the fungibility of the money, and the additional economic costs of multiple currencies with different units of account and fluctuating values? Is the democratization of money about its decentralization? Or, is it about centralizing it in the state, ending the role of banks? If we democratized money via decentralizing its creation, we run the risk of completely destroying our political-economy, because ultimately there will be no reliable currency available. Despite some highlighting the role of "free banking" in Scotland and the US in the 19th century it ignores the fact that all of what these banks created was still in the same money of account - issued as "dollars' of credit off a scarce monetary base - in addition these experiments never prevented economic crashes or banking crises.

Today’s debates over the democratization of money follow two broad threads - one that wants to place the creation of money more fully in the hands of the state, while another group wants to create a form of money that requires no state.

The important distinction to make is that money is more than just a medium of exchange. Anything may serve as a medium of exchange (see the story about pigs being the medium of exchange), but the “moneyness” of money comes from its abstract value and ability to cancel debts. The ability of money to do this is through the authority that reinforces the existence of a relationship between the currency and the money of account. An authority of some regard is needed so that this reliable currency can be used to cancel all debts that are covered within the sovereign space of the state.

Many community currency advocates ignore the role of the state in creating the authoritative money of account and fail to highlight how they might do this in a way that will help to continue the existence of their local capitalist economy. It is this part of the community currency argument that is often ignored - the ideas that they are expressing have no focus on challenging the basis of private property or the focus on the sale of labour as one’s main means to economic survival. If these elements are going to continue to exist, if you are going to continue to operate within a capitalist economy then you are always going to need access to capitalist money. The solution that will emerge on the local community level will do nothing to change this fact - what it may do is reduce the welfare responsibility of the state because of the increased access to means of exchange that in no way enable you to accumulate credit or wealth - unless you accumulate goods that are then transferable into the national money.

What does it mean to democratize money? I have struggled with this question for almost 2 years now and is part of my 15 years of political-economic research. I have studied what the American democracy has done. Demands for the democratization of money have been around for most of the past 200 years. The government's focus has been on maintaining a scarce supply of money – while boosting the supply of credit. This focus on credit has resulted in an elastic currency that feeds the side of money that is focused on fulfilling the purposes of exchange. The scarcity of currency has also allowed the government to maintain the abstract value represented by the money of account.

The question I now come to is what happens in an economy where there is no real distinction between money and credit? The works of Keynes, Wicksell, Innes, Smithin, Weber and Ingham are critical in this exploration. The idea that money is neutral needs to be dropped, that it is just the product of barter is false - an idea that is shared by most theorists including community currency advocates and Marx. Money and its creation has profound implications - and is a socio-political construct - with the aim of reinforcing particular economic functioning. However, a proposal to end this construct of money needs to account for this history and understand what the actual economic implications may be for the overall political-economy.

The American government has democratized money in a way that works with the dominant economy - the capitalist economy - this is the democratic responsibility of their government. However, if the government were to shift the way it creates money - perhaps ending the role of credit or interest - a new political understanding would need to be instituted. Money is part of a much bigger equation and the question of its democratization ultimately rests on our notion of democracy which ultimately rests on our notion of citizenship and the socio-economic benefits of this shift in ideas of citizenship (see the works of E.M. Wood).

Money is part of a greater revolution, but any assumption that it does not need some sort of authority for it to actually serve as money and not just a medium of exchange - which it cannot fulfil without being backed by an authoritative measure of value. We have to recognize that the democracy we have today is a democracy that has been designed to fulfil and meet the needs of a capitalist socio-economic structure.

Money is not the problem. Recognizing the way in which it is used to reinforce the existing economy is critical. But, the solutions that are proposed need to be grounded in history and in the recognition that money, the full functioning thereof, requires an authority of some nature to define and enable its abstract value.

I am not sure that we can create a moneyless society, now or in the future. For if we accept that money is actually based in the “money of account”, which is an abstract and somewhat arbitrary value used to settle debts, then it would be almost impossible to imagine this being replaced in the near future.

Money is important. But on its own it does not provide us with much information. We need to see it in the bigger picture. This is where the CC movement is interesting in that they are demanding a different type of democratization - but they are assuming at the same time that this different kind of money will somehow move the local economy to a different type of socio-political space and enable us to reduce the ravages of capitalism. I am quite skeptical of this.

Crises of Capitalism - Animated David Harvey

2010-07-01T13:59:00.000-07:00

This is a great 11 minute video of David Harvey's recent talk at RSA in London. David is a great Marxist analyst and has written several books about capitalism and finance. I have to admit that I have not had a chance to read his books cover to cover, only snippets and listened to some of his talks. There are a couple quotes that I find to be fantastic.

The first one goes, "The whole history of capitalism has been about financial innovation, which has the effect of empowering the financiers.” This is a powerful quote for me. It really gets at my inner inspiration and is what drives me to explore the side of our political-economy that deals with this question. In my research I am attempting to highlight this financial innovation by showing how very clear political decisions were taken that would make money compatible with capitalism within the confines of an American style democracy that entrenches the rights of private property.

This thinking falls heavily on Geoffrey Ingham's understanding of money as having its own forces of production. David Harvey is essentially highlighting the same fact, as I am, by trying to highlight some of the historical evidence for understanding money in this way. Money needs to be seen as something that has been built and constructed so as to make it compatible with the functioning capitalist democracies of today (here I am borrowing a term from E.M. Wood).

I believe this is a powerful intervention that is been pushed by those that are exploring Community Currencies and other forms of alternative money. This brings me to the second quote, "We have a duty to change our mode of thinking". Here Harvey is throwing down a particular challenge to academics. He is telling us we have to bring a fresh perspective to our way of analyzing our political-economy.

I know that I am doing this. I know this because most people reject my thinking and assume that there is no real relevance to a discussion of money in terms of building a viable post-capitalist ecologically minded political-economy. My sense, and I think Harvey would agree (though I have not had the chance to ask him personally) that this is a good site for exploration. As Harvey points out, since the 1950's the US and the Bank of England have been siding with the financiers over manufacturing. This highlights clearly the way in which money has its own forces of production and is a tool in and of itself that is most clearly entrenched in our political system.

We have to understand money in a new way. We need to bring a fresh perspective to it. Both in terms of understanding how it got to the position it now holds, how changing it in meaningful ways challenges the entire conception of our current political-economy, and that it is not something that is a result of the economy but is constitutive of the sort of political-economy that we chose in the 18th century to entrench into today's capitalist-democracy.

I believe that the most important direction we can move our monetary system towards is one that is not focused on accumulation of money as a form of wealth, one that has a pricing mechanism that can respond to both abandunce in terms of supply and infinite value in terms of price. These are the innovations we need to think about incorporating into our financial system. Until then we will continue to battle a system that is both controlled, focused on scarcity and has two opposing forces 1) accumulation 2) velocity (aka movement) of money.

Here is the video.

This is the animated video:

And this is the full lecture video:

Positive Press About South Africa

2010-06-25T12:09:00.000-07:00

Here are a couple nice posts I received about South Africa over the past couple of days.

The first one is on Huffington Post: South Africa Rolls out the Ubuntu Abundance

Then there is this one my father forwarded to me

Written by Peter Davies…..on the Supersport website this morning…..I think it’s brilliant, x

Dear World Cup visitors,

Now that you are safely in our country you are no doubt happily realising you are not in a war zone. This may be in stark contrast to what you have been bracing yourself for should you have listened to Uli Hoeness or are an avid reader of English tabloids, which as we all know are only good for wrapping fish ‘n chips and advancing the careers of large-chested teens on page three.

As you emerge blinking from your luxury hotel room into our big blue winter skies, you will surely realise you are far more likely to be killed by kindness than by a stray bullet. Remember that most of the media reports you have read, which have informed your views on South Africa , will have been penned by your colleagues. And you know what journos are like, what with their earnest two thousand word opuses on the op-ed pages designed to fix this country’s ills in a heartbeat. Based on exhaustive research over a three-day visit.
Funnily enough, we are well aware of the challenges we face as a nation and you will find that 95% of the population is singing from the same song-sheet in order to ensure we can live up to our own exacting expectations.

We are also here to look after you and show you a good time. Prepare to have your preconceived notions well and truly shattered.

For instance, you will find precious few rhinos loitering on street corners, we don’t know a guy in Cairo named Dave just because we live in Johannesburg , and our stadiums are magnificent, world-class works of art.

Which is obviously news to the Sky TV sports anchor who this week remarked that Soccer City looked ‘ a bit of a mess’. She didn’t realize the gaps in the calabash exterior are to allow in natural light and for illumination at night, and not the result of vandalism or negligence.

The fact that England, the nation which safely delivered Wembley Stadium two years past its due date, is prepared to offer us South Africans advice on stadium-readiness should not be surprising. The steadiest stream of World Cup misinformation has emanated from our mates the Brits over the past couple of years.

If it’s not man-eating snakes lurking in Rooney’s closet at the team’s (allegedly half-built) Royal Bafokeng training base, then it’s machete-wielding gangs roaming the suburbs in search of tattooed, overweight Dagenham dole-queuers to ransack and leave gurgling on the pavement.

In fact what you are entering is the world’s most fascinating country, in my opinion. I’m pretty sure you will find that it functions far more smoothly, is heaps more friendly and offers plenty more diversions than you could possibly have imagined.

In addition to which, the population actually acts like human beings, and not like they are being controlled by sinister forces from above which turns them into bureaucratically-manipulated robots.

Plus we have world’s most beautiful women. The best weather. Eight channels of SuperSport. Food and wine from the gods themselves. Wildlife galore. (Love the Dutch team’s bus slogan: “Don’t fear the Big 5; fear the Orange 11”).

Having said all that, Jo’burg is undoubtedly one of the world’s most dangerous cities. Just ask those Taiwanese tourists who got out of their hire car to take close-up snaps of tawny beasts at the Lion Park a few years back. Actually, ask what’s left of them. And did you know the chances of being felled by cardiac arrest from devouring a mountain of meat at one of our world class restaurants has been statistically proven to be 33.3% higher in Jozi than in any other major urban centre not built upon a significant waterway? It’s true. I swear. I read it in a British tabloid.

Having recently spent two years comfortably cocooned in small town America , I’m only too aware of how little much of the outside world knows about this country. The American channel I used to work for has a massive battalion of employees descending on World Cup country. It has also apparently issued a recommendation to its staff to stay in their hotels when not working.

Given that said corporation is headquartered in a small town which many say is “best viewed through the rear-view mirror”, I find the recommendation, if it’s true, to be utterly astounding. In fact I don’t believe it is true. Contrary to the global stereotype, the best Americans are some of the sharpest people in the world. The fact they have bought most tickets in this World Cup proves the point.

Of course I have only lived in Johannesburg, city of terror and dread, virtually all my life, so don’t have the in-depth knowledge of say, an English broadsheet journalist who has been in the country for the weekend, but nevertheless I will share some of my observations gleaned over the years.

Any foreign tourist or media representative who is worried about his safety in South Africa should have a word with the Lions rugby fans from last year, or the Barmy Army cricket supporters (lilywhite hecklers by day, slurring, lager-fuelled lobsters by night). They managed just fine, just like the hundreds of thousands of fans who have streamed into the country over the past fifteen years for various World Cups, Super 14 matches, TriNations tests and other international events. Negligible crime incidents involving said fans over said period of time.Trivia question: which country has hosted the most global sporting events over the past decade and a half? You don’t need me to answer that, do you?

In addition. Don’t fret when you see a gaggle of freelance salesmen converge on your car at the traffic lights (or robots as we like to call them) festooned with products. You are not about to be hijacked. Here in Mzansi (nickname for SA) we do a lot of our purchasing at robots. Here you can stock up on flags, coat hangers, batteries, roses for the wife you forgot to kiss goodbye this morning and a whole host of useful merchandise.

Similarly, that guy who runs up as you park the rental car outside the pub intends no malice. He’s your car guard. Give him a buck or two and your vehicle will be safe while you refuel for hours on our cheap, splendid beer. Unless someone breaks into it, of course.
We drive on the left in this country. Exercise caution when crossing the road at a jog-trot with 15 kilograms of camera gear on your back. Exercise common sense full stop. Nothing more. Nothing less. If you want to leave wads of cash in your hotel room like our Colombian friends, don’t be surprised if it grows wings.

Bottomline. Get out there and breathe in great lusty lungfuls of this amazing nation. Tuck into our world-class food and wines. Disprove the adage that white men can’t dance at our throbbing, vibrant night-clubs. Learn to say hello in all eleven official languages. Watch at least one game in a township. You will not be robbed and shot. You will be welcomed like a lost family member and looked after as if you are royalty. Ask those Bulls rugby fans who journeyed to Soweto recently.

With a dollop of the right attitude, this country will change your life.
It’s Africa ’s time. Vacate your hotel room. Join the party.

Waka waka eh eh.

Your request is being processed...

Community Currencies: Fundación Pachamama and the Central Bank of Ecuador

2010-06-25T11:48:00.000-07:00

I am re-posting this post from the blog belonging to The Panchamama Alliance:
The article is really interesting as it highlights a growing trend of Central Banks coordinating and beginning to collaborate with community currency projects. Understanding the deeper political significance of this I think is very important. We are witnessing a trend of deepening of financial markets, but with a very different goal often associated with these new financial services. The question is what does this mean for the larger political-economy. Are we witnessing the emergence of a new form of political-economics or a deepening and expansion of capitalist systems?

Fundación Pachamama and the Central Bank of Ecuador jointly organized a workshop on complementary currency systems that was held on June 3 and 4 in the headquarters of the Central Bank in Quito. Ultimately the goal is to develop new economic models for rural development including new exchange networks and alternative, complementary currency systems, which will help people in Ecuador get access to credit and promote local production, consumption and trade.

The workshop, called “Systems of Alternative Pay and Means of Complementary Pay,” was held to strengthen the conceptual understanding of the diverse methods of complementary currency systems and the key elements for implementing a system on a national level. In addition, the workshop aimed to explain the workings of a successful model developed in Uruguay (called C3U), and the advantages of creating and applying this system. Finally, the workshop aspired to establish work links between administrative organizations and Uruguay project architects with the Central Bank of Ecuador and Fundación Pachamama.

The first day was a planning meeting with personnel of the Central Bank; Javier Félix, advisor from Fundación Pachamama, and the invited participants from Uruguay; Fernando Cetrulo from Foundation STRO Uruguay and Enrique Baraibar, from the Direction of Development Projects of the Uruguayan Presidency. The workshop began with various presentations from the different projects of the Central Bank, discussing alternatives to economic policies with complementary payment means and compensation systems, and the C3U model. Conceptual input was given to widen the vision of those charged with the diverse projects of the Central Bank, based on the experience of peers from Uruguay.

On the second day, the workshop was opened to the public, including members from the Ecuadorian State, the private sector, non-governmental organizations, directors of Savings and Credit Cooperatives, and other organizations related to the Solidarity Economy, and university students studying economics in Quito.

The workshop achieved the planned objectives and culminated with the signature of a cooperation agreement between the Central Bank of Ecuador, Fundación Pachamama, the STRO Foundation, and the Direction of Development Projects of the Uruguayan Presidency, recognizing the importance of the development of alternative currency methods for the participating institutions. This agreement lays the groundwork for cooperation between all the participants for implementing alternative currency methods that benefit an improved distribution of wealth, employment generation, economic stability, and social development for Latin American countries.

Re-Politicizing Money

2010-06-22T12:26:00.000-07:00

One of the big arguments made about our current political-economy is that an actual break has occurred where the political and economic spaces are viewed as separate. This is an argument made by many different theorists (though of course right now I can barely remember any of their names) including E. M. Wood in her book, Democracy Against Capitalism. The idea being that what we are all guaranteed in today's democracy are formal political rights that have no direct impact on our economic standing. Wood says, "In that sense, political equality in capitalist democracy not only coexists with socio-economic inequality but leaves it fundamentally intact." (Wood, Democracy Against Capitalism, P. 213) Today's democracy promises you political equality but gives you no economic guarantee - you have no economic rights. Of course there have been concerted efforts, and relative successes, in creating economic rights but in the end inequality, private property and class distinctions remand de facto and accepted without question. A country is democratic regardless of questions of economic inequality. A fairly close reading of the history of democratic ideology will highlight the uniqueness of this idea of democracy as only applying to political rights with no relation to economic rights.

I believe along with these other theorists that the very separation of politics and economics is a false separation. I don't see how they can actually exist as separate spaces. In fact if you think about it, there is no way that any of our economy can exist without political decisions - the decision to protect private property is a political not an economic decision. This is just one example. The one that I find most fascinating is the question of money.

Money has been depoliticized in many parts of the world and certainly in much of the economic philosophy the goal is to frame money as depoliticized. Yet, the construction of money is political - who gets to issue it, with what characteristics, etc.. Much like the idea of private property, money is viewed as being in a natural form. A form that is a product of the economy, which is the product of natural forces. But, I think that the rise of community currency movement and increasing discussion about the way we create money and the impacts of this creation on our political lives has the potential to re-politicize money and make it part of a relevant political discussion. I think that this could lead the re-integration of politics and economics and the rise of series discussions over what our political-economy consists of and what our choices are, which are always political.

My hope is that as research and explorations into community currencies deepen we will see the growth of political-economic research and the recognition that we have far more power as a collective, over the shape of our socio-economy and that we can redefine the system in ways that give democratic citizenship deeper meaning and the ending of the separation of political and economic rights into two separate spaces.

The Wall St. Journal: The coming currency revolution

2010-06-18T13:36:00.001-07:00

I think this is a great video showing the organic emergence of currencies around the world and how technology is helping to spread them. I think this speaks a lot about the future and the rise of this as a new economic space. It will bring value to things that have not been recognized as valuable in the past. However, I don't agree that value is all about scarcity. The idea of scarcity as the driving motivation for value in my opinion is flawed and is exactly why we have landed up in such an environmental crunch. We need to think about how to design currencies for abundance. How do we get abundance to be recognized as valuable? This to me is the big question.

I do wonder again about what this means in terms of scarcity and a system that only responds to things that are scarce - surely the freeing up of information and its increasing cheapness due to abundance is not a loss of value. The increased abundance of information is increasingly valuable to society. The more information, the more value this has to us. This is the same question to be explored around the environment and questions of abundant and healthy eco-systems.

I do think what these currencies raise is the question of democracy as Douglas Rushkoff points out the democratization of economics and of money is a movement we are steadily heading towards. However, we have to understand democracy in the way that it has been used to enable capitalism and the role that ideas of scarcity and representation play in limiting the power of the citizen. Perhaps, this currency movement will both highlight questions of scarcity vs abundance and representation vs participation.

However, I love seeing these discussions entering mainstream. I think at some point there is going to be a serious challenge from the state as it attempts to regulate and claim control over the currency space. This is important because our entire capitalist democracy that we live under is dependent on the control over the creation of money. The future will be interesting as is the current moment.

Theory Matters

2010-06-17T15:38:00.001-07:00

I remember having an argument with a really good friend of mine (well
maybe argument is a bit strong of a word) about the importance of
theory. It was while I was getting my undergraduate degree at
Berkeley and I found myself completely enthralled by theoretical
thinkers - everyone from Doreen Massey to Weber to Marx to Gillian
Hart and onward. I wanted to be spend my life engrossed in
contributing to our theoretical world. It was then that I realized I
really wanted to be an academic, a thinker, someone that gets paid to
think and give those ideas back to humanity.

For me it is hard to see the distinction between this world of
physicality and our theoretical interpretation of it. I see nothing
more important then theory. Everything for me is in someway grounded
in theory. Call it ideas, call it perceptions, call it your lens into
life. It is all bound up in a theoretical understanding.

For an academic the hardest part is articulating ones theoretical
ideas. I think my blog may give this away to my readers. I struggle
to articulate my ideas, my theories. I have many and often I wish I
could just sit down and vomit them out onto paper and truly express
them. Sometimes words just seem to stumble me - and I think of myself
often as an artist. I like to think of papers that I write as
paintings. I start with a blank canvas and by the time I am finished
I hope to have a story (picture) that others can relate to and that
my sense, my message, my interpretation is clearly expressed and
shared and transferred.

For me the value of theory becomes even more important in the world
of socio-political-economy. How we understand the meaning of economy,
of democracy, of money or any other social construct - these are
things not like trees or water, but things that we as humans have
theoretically constructed and actualized into a having a material
impact on us - is of critical importance.

I am in the throws of writing my Mphil dissertation. I have sat with
it for many months, unable to write anything clear and cogent. Though
I know what I want to say, I have had conversations, written many
many notes and random scribblings but have failed to put something
together that can be called an academic piece of work.

Well, now I am writing it. I sit in my office 35 hours a week in
North Berkeley attempting to write. Sometimes not getting much done
but other times it flows out.

Anyway, back to my original point. The point I wanted to make about
the importance of theory/ideas. I have been reading about democracy
and democracy as it is understood and came to be constructed in the
USA. It is quite incredible when you realize that a word as powerful
and commonly used as "democracy" has had profound shifts in
theoretical understanding that have had massive impacts on our socio-
economic lives. That the theory of democracy matters is beyond doubt.
Understanding how it has changed, why it has changed and the fact
that it can change again is something that I believe truly empowers us.

We can always change our minds. We can always change the way we think
about ourselves, about our lives and those around us. It of course
becomes much harder when that change has serious impacts on our
individual or collective material lives. This is why I believe
certain ideas become stuck and do not change. This is also why
moments of "conjunctural change" (an idea I got from Prof. Gillian
Hart) are of such importance. Those moments represent incredible
opportunities to insert and change theoretical ideas.

I believe we are in one of those conjunctural moments. I believe most
clearly this can be seen in our financial system. What happens next,
what type of money we create and what type of political-economy that
results in will be driven by theoretical understandings.

I hope that I am able to contribute something of value to that debate
and impact the way that we theoretically construct our lives and our
economies so as to actualize new material conditions, through the
creation of powerful theoretical ideas.

In the mean time I hope I can get this dissertation done!

Saving Global Capitalism - IMF and the SDR as a Supra-National Currency

2010-06-10T16:50:00.000-07:00

I want to make a prediction.

The global capitalist economy will be saved by the creation of a
supra-national currency housed in the IMF and will in some way be
designed along the lines of the SDR.

Though, I am pretty sure it is not a novel prediction and that there
are others out there that have and will make the same prediction. The
future of money will move towards the SDR (Special Drawing Rights
which allow nations to increase their foreign exchange reserves
without money being borrowed or lent. This facility is provided
through the IMF). What this means is that new money will be created
through the fund replacing the dollar as the anchor currency and
relieving the pressure on almost all states with regards to their
sovereign debt. This will almost certainly be the only way to satisfy
the "markets" (I hate to use the term markets in this way but I do
not want to get into that discussion). Because the SDR will be backed
by the global economy, and not one particular economy, it will return
a certain amount of security and confidence to the global markets.

I can not say exactly how it will look. You can read more about the
SDR on Wikipedia and several other blogs and websites. What I can
predict is that several countries will gain a bigger say in the role
of the IMF - such as China, India, Brazil and most interestingly
South Africa. We have already seen these countries demanding a bigger
say on the IMF over the past 10 years.

This creation of a supra-national currency will change the role of
individual sovereign states and may usher in a completely different
political climate ending a certain mercantilist type of economic
thinking. This is because no one nation will control money and the
global economy. The longer term impact is of course hard to predict
and I am sure that this will raise the heckles of many of the
conspiracy theorists - those that believe in the New World Order or
other such ideas. However, I believe it is the only way we will
ultimately save our global economy from a massive and devastating
collapse that would match or exceed the Great Depression.

The importance of this is hard to over-state. As the work of Karl
Polanyi showed in his book, The Great Transformation, the last time
our global economy collapsed it lead to fascism and global war. We
all want to avoid this possibility especially in a nuclear world.

What it will raise, this shift, is a discussion of money and how we
understand its creation and purpose (by this I mean what type of
political-economy do we want). There are many discussions going on
around the world dealing with the question of the creation of money.
Some of the most interesting look at creating a range of currencies
that serve a range of purposes and a range of spatial communities.
Bernard Lietear is one of the pioneers in this thinking - raising the
importance of building a system of multiple currencies that act from
the local community to the global community. There are deeper
questions of the impact of debt, scarcity and the like. That is all
for another discussion - some of which I have already dealt with in
other blog posts.

In the end saving the global capitalist economy will rest on the
creation of this global supra-national currency.

The Gulf Oil Spill

2010-06-08T22:05:00.001-07:00

I have a theory about monetary value. The need for a system that recognizes that which is priceless, that which holds infinite value. That which no money can buy nor pay for. The Gulf oil spill is a very real example. We try to put a price on the cost of this spill. Sure, there are the economic impacts of the loss of business and perhaps of fisheries. This is a real cost that will affect peoples real lives.

BP may land up paying billions of dollars in damages, but will this replace the ocean? Will this buy us new plankton, new dolphins, fish, whales and most importantly a clean ocean? It most certainly won't. It can not do this, it is an impossibility. Once you pollute something like that it is polluted, no amount of money can fix this. Once the air is polluted that is it, it is dirty. Once the eco-system is destroyed a value that never was recognized in the monetary system is lost. Something priceless has been lost.

Money has no ability to accept this. It can not deal with that which holds infinite value because infinity is about abundance while money is about scarcity. The two work in direct opposition to each other. This is why we allow drilling in the bottom of the gulf because we actually have not priced in the value of the clean water. If we were to do this, it holds the potential of destroying the very pricing mechanism that enables the drilling of oil.

At the end of the day BP will pay huge fines and then go back to drilling. But, something will have been lost. We will try and put a price on it but in the end it won't even come close to the true value of this disaster.

It is time to recognize that there is value in the abundance of a clean and healthy eco-system. That this value is infinite and that our monetary system fails at taking this into consideration. It is time to innovate and develop a monetary system that knows how to recognize the value of things that are priceless.

How do we do this? I wanna know! It is something that I puzzle over daily while knowing it is critical to our future as a healthy species. Infinite value and abundance.

Democratizing Money - My Thesis Proposal for my Mphil at UCT

2010-06-08T15:24:00.000-07:00

Democratizing Money - Saul Wainwright MA Proposal

Introduction

2010-06-08T15:01:00.001-07:00

I am trying to write a thesis. I am trying to sort out my many ideas around money. I have never chosen simple ideas, I never see it as simple, perhaps that is a weakness in my thinking. But, as a political-economist I can not ignore the complex social and historical specificity of all institutional developments. I am exploring money, I want to understand money as something that has been constructed to serve a specific purpose. To do this I have to place it into a specific political history. Money, today's money, is built around a set of particular political-economic needs. I will continue to explore these ideas in the coming weeks and months while writing.

This was a small introduction that I wrote a few weeks ago. It is very loose and will most likely change radically in its final drafts but I think it gives a good launching pad into my work. My first chapter of my thesis is looking at the USA and the way in which the creation of the US constitution reworked the very ideas of democracy away from its original concept of direct towards what can barely be considered democratic - namely a form of representative democracy. Which is essentially built on the idea that our rights as individuals and communities is some how alienable - that we can give them to some one else who can then represent us in some sort of abstract way. This shift in thinking about democracy is not my idea, it is an idea that has been well developed by other academics. My point is to highlight this so that I can then illuminate the way in which money has been theorized and presented within this form of democracy and show how the democratization of money has been built around an effort to support what is known as a capitalist democracy. Ultimately this will allow me to ask what it actually means to democratize money - a claim that many advocates of community currencies make.

Here is the intro as written thus far:

Money is often viewed as a neutral veil behind which the "factors of production of the 'real' economy operate." (Ingham, Capitalism: 44). This classical economic theory assumes that money operates as a lubricant for exchange, enabling a standard measure of value to be utilized in the process of economic exchange. The assumption here is that there is no utility to the holding onto of money and that any value realized from this money is through consumption and investment, not through the hoarding of money. However, this is exactly what happens in capitalist economies, people hold onto money to deal with moments of insecurity, to have money for those times when they may become unemployed or have a medical emergency or the economy as a whole crashes. In an economy that is dependent on the supply of money to enable the very acts of exchange and investment the role that the supply (or lack thereof) plays in the economy is of vital importance and how that supply is managed or created has huge political-economic impacts. Keynes, along with Marx and Schumpeter all moved beyond this idea of money acting as the lubricant of essentially a barter exchange concept of the economy (Ingham, Capitalism: 44). These three theorists all argued that this concept "ignored the essential historical fact that capitalism was a 'monetary production economy' with the goal of realizing profits" (Ingham, Capitalism: 44).

This understanding of the economy raises the importance of money and its creation to something far from neutral or acting as a veil, in fact it is the very thing that the economy is dependent on for its smooth operation. The management of this element is of critical importance and the mismanagement of it can have dire consequences. This is evidenced by the numerous financial crises that have wracked capitalist economies over the centuries. Therefore along with the efforts of Mary Mellor, this paper claims that the creation of money has played a more significant role in the creation of today's capitalist political-economy then has previously been acknowledged by most political and economic theorists.[1] What is even stranger is that the role of the creation of money in our "total money economies" is something that is often ignored by theorists of alternative non-capitalist economies despite the totalizing phenomenon that money plays in today's modern society (Mellor, Politics and Money: 47). Money is not neutral and it is not a veil and it does not just emerge but is a "fundamentally social" construct (Mellor, Politics and Money: 47). In fact money needs to be understood as having its own "'force of production' which,… has its own particular "'relations of production' with its own 'relations of production'" (Ingham, Money is a Social Relation).

All forms of money are "social relations" (Ingham, Money is a social relation) and therefore need to be understood as constructed by society. One way to explore this is by looking at the history of money as something separate and important in its own right. Yet, at the same time we need to understand how and why this money developed in the way it developed. Societies do not create institutions and systems abstractly, rather they are responding to the material needs of society and ultimately they are trying to find solutions to the existing problems. These solutions are not just guided by the general good will of society, but are driven by particular powerful interests that have the ability to construct and impose their socio-political systems of governing the mode of production that enables the provisioning of societies material needs. Why did money emerge and develop to the state that it is in today? How was this done and by who' with what interests and goals in mind? We can only begin to answer this question by understanding what the context was that it emerged in.

Due to the limitations of time and space I cannot explore the entire history of money. However, I can look at the rise of, what E.M. Wood calls, the "capitalist-democracy" (Democracy against Capitalism) and the way in which money was presented and reconfigured, through its own set of social relations, within the context of this capitalist-democracy. The assumption here is that money was conceptualized in ways that enabled the capitalist-democratic system and its associated class relations to persist and remain powerful. This had to be done in a way that dealt with at least three distinct interests – the owners of property/capital, the non-property owning voters, and the bankers/finance owners.

[1] Mary Mellor, "The Politics of Money and Credit…"

The Finance Lab

2010-06-08T11:59:00.001-07:00

I cam across The Finance Lab prospectus today while sitting in my
office (actually a friends apartment). This got me sooo excited. This
is exactly the idea that I recently proposed to a contact at Global
Business Network and am still hoping to continue the conversation.

I hope that I can get my skills into these sorts of discussions. I
hope that I can find a place for me in something like this lab or
something similar and be part of a team of people thinking,
theorizing and putting into action the resulting policy ideas that
lead to innovation and change in our financial system.

I think I can do this. It is all slowly coming together - my deep
interest in political economics, economic development, environment
and sustainability, scenario planning and most importantly financial
systems.

Please let there be an awesome job for me in this space that allows
me to utilize my creativity, my intellectual knowledge and my
passion :-)

Political-Economy or Political Economy

2010-05-20T06:27:00.001-07:00

I saw Yaj Chetty's article in the Business section of the CT earlier in the week. He writes very well and manages to convey some of the big issues in our monetary system in clear and concise way. I am surprised that I never came across his work before. Always amazes me no matter how much time you research a field there are always people that don't make it onto your radar!

The one issue that I am noticing in many of the discussions of money, including Yaj's, is the lack of talking about it in a political-economic framework. This split between economics and politics persists in this way. The relationship that money has to a political system is undervalued or under-recognized. What does it mean to change our monetary system? Is this just an economic question? Or just a social rights question? What does it mean for our political system and how can we change the one without the other shifting? I think this kind of thinking dominates because we think we have perfected the political system and all that we need to do now is change the economic system. I think this is us falling into the exact same trap that this split has been set up to do - were we can debate economics as if it is a separate field, something that free-market ideologues have done really well at. Often the way that democracy is talked about reminds me of Fukuyama's famous article, The End of History, where he talks about our having reached the pinnacle of our economic framework. Is this really the best democracy we can design?

I think this of course raises a much more complex question about what democracy means, what our current democracy does and how it came into existence. There is no way to really separate our monetary system and our political system. Our political system has in many ways been designed to support and reinforce our monetary system. Tweaks have been made that allow the monetary system to operate. This is where the real challenge comes, this is where the real political question rises. How do we create, theorize, advocate a new political system that enables a change in our monetary system? Can we really continue to live in a representative democracy that has been developed to enable capitalist economics with a decentralized non-sovereign monetary system?

I am not sure that we can. I don't know what to propose yet in terms of what that would look like. But, my hunch is it is along the lines of network ideas - ideas of deliberative democracy via networks and that the economic system and monetary system will replicate this. This is where we have to head, the ending of this limited idea of space and sovereignty, of nationalism and hierarchy. These kinds of shifts are essential to our diversity and complexity of a global humanity.

Conspiratorial Politicization of Money

2010-05-05T03:29:00.001-07:00

One of the challenges in my research was raised in a recent email conversation with a fellow researcher, Noel Longhurst.

He asked me the following, "I agree with you about the politics of money and definitely think that it is an area that is rich for further exploration. However, there is another angle to this and that is that fact that elements of the monetary reform movement engage in a different kind of politics. I am thinking here of conspiracy theories / New World Order / anti-Semitism. Such politics form part of the real and everyday lived politics of monetary reform and can do great damage to the wider cause of politicizing money. I wonder whether you have considered how such politics fit into your work? Or how they might be relevant?"

This is a very important and legitimate question and the danger of this kind of politicization of money is apparent. Though, my effort is not to politicize money but rather to show its historical politicization. Money is, has been, and always will be, a political question. What is true is that some of the most vocal critiques of our current monetary system center around a view that there is a massive conspiracy underway that enables this elite group of bankers to control the global monetary system. The most popular or widely disseminated interpretation is found in the pseudo documentary Zeitgeist. And, similar critiques are bantered around on the Facebook and the web more generally.

As with all conspiracy theories there is an element of truth. Yes, a group of bankers along with government leaders have come together several times over at least the past 100 years to cobble together monetary systems that guaranteed the continued existence of the type of banking and political system that they dominate. This is no surprise and in my book certainly doesn't qualify as a conspiracy.

However, what is never asked is the context of these moments. My research is an attempt to contextualize these moments. Giving attention to the political-economic ideas that were available, and the particular issues that they were attempting to solve.

Often people have a view of history and the history of political ideas more specifically as bounded, without continuity and without history. Often viewing these ideas as static – that when we say democracy that this idea of democracy has not evolved and that the use of the word today is the same as the use of the word 300 years ago. This is far from the truth and a quick, but close study of the concept of democracy as it was presented within the context of the creation of the USA will show how vastly different it is from ideas of Greek democracy – the originators of the idea.

My point here is that these conspiracy theories (or other far-flung ideas of Semitic control of money, etc.) tell us nothing about the how or the complicated why; if they engage with the question of why it is simply a perversion of power and control by a hidden elite.

But, as a political-economist this gives me no tools, or ability to understand how we may enable and create change; how we can take political ideas and rework them, and to apply them to the historically specific context that we find ourselves in, filled with very real challenges and limits.

All of the changes that have occurred to our financial system – the creation of the Federal Reserve in the USA, the gold-standard, Bretton Woods and the more recent floating exchange system - all came about in some way to address the very real problems of those historical moments. They were not sudden flowerings of conspiratorial powers, but rather people with power attempting to solve problems within the context of the historical moment they found themselves in. This is not to deny that they wanted to retain their own power and were looking for solutions that would guarantee this – again there is nothing surprising about this.

In all of these instances both the bankers and the politicians had an invested interest in solving the problems, but they were constrained in very real ways by at least two broad elements; 1) the ideas and knowledge available to them in that particular moment was limited and historically as well as geographically specific, 2) the need to continue the existence of the dominate political-economy.

Let me deal with the second point first. It seems obvious, at least to me, that they would want to preserve the political-economy. Failure to do so, especially if there was no viable alternative, had the potential to result in what can only be thought of as catastrophic collapse of the functioning political-economy. And, it is hard to deny, especially when looking at history, that this could result in the complete breakdown of society and the very real possibility of a range of horrors emerging, that are often linked with these sort of sudden collapses. Think of Fascism as the most recent powerful example.

Then, turning to my first point, a question of knowledge which needs to be further qualified as that knowledge which is both known (available to us in those historical moments) and is viewed as acceptable by those implementing or driving the changes. As an example, and this is one I use in my research, we can look at the idea of democracy. In the USA during the writing of the constitution the idea of democracy that was being used by the "people" was one that was a direct descendent of Greek ideas of direct democracy. Yet, this idea of direct democracy seriously threatened the continued existence of both private property and debtor/creditor relations – two of the most critical elements in capitalist economics. The writers of the constitution had a dilemma. They needed to find a way to get the American people to agree to the constitution but they couldn't, because of their own political-economic interests and desires to preserve the commercial powers that dominated, accept a notion of democracy that threatened the very existence of their political-economy. Yet, on the other hand people would not accept a system that was not democratic – or at least presented as democratic. The writers at this time had to reconceptualize democracy into something that we now call representative democracy, and increasingly just democracy. This was only possible due to the brilliance of the Federalist arguments – the knowledge at the time that was also compatible with the dominant political-economic powers.

My point is that if they had not been able to think of a different version of democracy, if they did not have the "knowledge" then we may have landed up with a very different America. Perhaps a non-capitalist America? Perhaps a non-democratic America? The solution was a historical solution in a specific moment limited by concrete realities and conceptual knowledge.

My belief is that the political elite (including the bankers) were in this sort of constraint during the moments that I listed earlier. They needed to preserve the dominant political-economy so as to preserve their power but they were faced with a very real crises that could result in the total collapse of the political-economy. Hence, they need a solution but they only had the knowledge that they had at that time. They solved the problem within the specific historical moment with what they knew with the aim of preserving the very system that allowed them to dominate. Again is this any surprise?

Is this a conspiracy? When does it play out any differently? In a revolution? And, in the new revolutionary state do people behave any differently?

In the 21st century we are facing another crises. Again our monetary system is appearing precarious and threatening the entire political-economy. What solutions will we present? What is the context of today? Those with political-economic power will attempt to solve this problem again within the limits of this historical moment. They will attempt to preserve the political-economy so as to preserve their power and wealth. They will do so with the ideas and knowledge available to them.

The question becomes fundamental on two fronts; 1) do we want to continue to preserve this political-economy (is that even a possibility?) and to complicate this a bit, it is not an either/or question. There may be elements of this political-economy that we want to keep and elements we want to discard – which is exactly how history works and especially history of political ideas. 2) How do we (those that sit outside of direct political-economic power) impress our ideas into the debate in a meaningful and helpful way?

Conspiracy theories in this way are actually disempowering. They make people sound like fear mongers, racists, bigots and politically unstable. And, what is truly disempowering, is that it can banish some really good ideas, leaving us with no tools or data on how to politically pursue alternative projects.

Monetary innovation could be extremely powerful, it has the potential to rework the entire political-economy in a way that has never been imagined, or realized by the masses.

Yet, this is the irony, history has shown us that monetary innovations have been very good at enabling the current political-economy to continue to dominate, it is what has saved capitalism time and again.

What would happen if other forms of money were introduced? And, how do we do this in a politically viable way? How can we gain control of this debate in a meaningful way? What does the democratization of money mean? And, who gets to define its meaning?

The truth is Noel is right; these forms of conspiratorial politicization of money can be really dangerous. They are simplistic understandings of the politics of money that fail to understand history. I hope to contribute to moving the debate into a far more meaningful and profound place. A place that can truly contribute to advancing our political-economy in ways that will fundamentally benefit all of humanity.

Next Economy Dialogue - Colin Boyles Editorial

2010-05-04T06:27:00.001-07:00

Colin Boyle's article in the Next Economy Dialogue series in the Cape Times is exactly the kind of analysis that I find to be rather boring. It is not that the writer is wrong, or that he is not intelligent or even a good writer. I just find it boring. Once again it is someone talking and thinking inside the box. Yes, we often hear about this idea of thinking outside of the box. You hear this a lot in Business Schools or other sorts of creative entrepreneurial conversations. And, there is much validity. I think it is just about the size of the box. I think often people think outside the box, but that box is inside another box much like those Russian dolls that you can keep pulling out a smaller and smaller doll.

So, the central assumption in much of the type of analyses that Boyle presented is that the box is actually fine - the basic size and the sides of the box are correct and naturally given (not socially constructed), therefore barely up for debate. This type of analysis has increasingly become the norm since the fall of the communist experiment in the majority of the world. Let me note here right now that whatever I have to say I am not a communist, and I don't think I am a socialist, in fact maybe I am a capitalist! The point is that I try to interrogate the dominant way of thinking about our economy in the hopes of finding a viable solution that is not based on the same fundamental assumptions that so much analysis takes for granted.

Back to Boyle, for him what needs to be fixed is the way that the inside of this box is laid out; move this, change that, tweak this and then ultimatley we will free the true and natural economy. And in this case it is quite obviously the capitalist economy which will naturally and "magically" unleash a barrage of job creation and wealth. The solution is just less regulation, more alignment with the private sector and greater business/state cohesion. Perhaps some of these elements are needed, but the assumption is that capitalism and its underpinnings will a) provide these solutions and b) that it is a sustainable and long-term viable path to explore.

In the end it is just about the right mix. The problem is that this type of analyses leads down a slippery slope of constantly tweaking, constant problem identifying and ultimately constant blame. Something or someone else is the problem.

This can only be held true as long as we don't step out of the box. What is worse is that it is for most a glass box. This means that you can't even see the walls, you don't even know that they are there, nor are you sure how they keep standing. What is it that enables those glass walls to stand and exist in the first place, and who the heck built them?

For me the question becomes how would it look if the glue that kept these walls standing started to fail? What if the monetary system collapsed? What if labor stops being sold? What if the compound growth of the economy hits the finite limit that is inherent within this closed system called the earth?

I am not saying that any of these are a given. Yet, there is one that has some very real flaws. Our monetary system! Not only is it premised on compound growth (compound interest) which leads to unsustainable exponential growth, but as research into complex flow systems (which is what our monetary system is - a complex flow system) shows that there is a very real question of the sustainability of a system that is homogeneous and pushes itself to the point of efficiency over all other goals. This has been shown time and again throughout nature and other man made systems (think of our electricity systems with centralized power generation and their collapse such as the great black-out in the North East of the USA about 6 years ago) to be dangerous and susceptible to sudden collapse. Our monetary system is again teetering on the edge. This is not the first time, the question is can it be saved in its current form? And, if it is not saved can capitalism survive? And, if it cannot what do we have planned for this collapse? Have we even thought about this? Are we gonna wait for the possibility to materialize or are we going to spend some of our incredible human knowledge, intellect and creativity to explore alternatives?

I can't believe that we would not do this. It seems completely full hardy. Energy generation is the same - we for the longest time just assumed that oil would last, well if it runs out and we never thought up solar or wind power were would we be? The advantage is that we can almost predict when oil will run out. With the monetary system we have no idea when it would collapse, but based on the physics of it it seems to be almost inevitable.

This is why I get bored by articles like this one by Boyle. It doesn't ask anything new, nothing. It doesn't challenge anything and it certainly assumes everything is fine going forward. Perhaps it will be, perhaps the leaders of the world will come together and cobble together another monetary system that saves capitalism and their political power - much as they did during the creation of the gold standard, the Bretton Woods system and the floating fiat monetary system that dominates today. However, I am not convinced that capitalism can really survive as it constantly attempts to grow and grow and grow exponentially - this is pure suicide.

Come on everyone, lets think creatively here and find new ways of meeting the needs of all of us that are not based on unsustainable efficiency driven compound growth economic models. Exponential growth is just not a viable goal. Step outside the glass box and see if you can find the walls!

the stoke - our stoke - kelly and I live the stoke

2010-05-03T06:46:00.000-07:00

Kelly writes great blog posts. In fact on many levels we couldn't have more different writing styles. I am academic and struggle with all kinds of intellectual ideas. She, well, she plays and has fun and writes in a way that would horrify most English teachers.

But, this post is again, like many others, so true to both her spirit and mine. Kelly and I constantly search for this balance between play and work, making money and enjoying the other priorities. She is a perfect partner for me - we remind each other all the time of what the other sometimes forgets.

Thanks Kelly I am "stoked" to be your husband.

the stoke

May 3, 2010 in Uncategorized

The other night my family & I went to a new restaurant in Muizenberg. While waiting for our food, we discovered a pile of surfer magazines. Upon reading an article or two, my husband said, “Surfers have their priorities straight. They are all about the stoke”. aka – the whole reason for living…the “pinch me I’m alive”…the “sick, dude! just rode a killer wave!” flavor of it all.

I have to say – the first time I went surfing, I did feel the same way. I was Giggling. Literally. I have to say in total honesty that it was one of the most fun days of my entire life.

I grew up water-skiing & downhill skiing a Lot. It was part of life. We ice-skated, swam, & water-skiied in our backyard. We road our bikes to school, etc. etc. We weren’t Trying to “be active”. We just were. It was just part of our lives.

Now that I look back, I am so grateful for all of this, & also recollect that the absolute best times in my life were on top of a mountain, flying on a wave, or sitting next to a campfire. The outdoors. It reminds us again of the “life!” in our lives.

And, this brings me back to “the stoke”, & the whole premise behind every piece of art it seems I’ve ever gone about creating. When drawing an apple, I am celebrating that apple. I am taking the apple out of it’s ordinary context and saying, “Look at this apple! It’s freaking gorgeous! It”s freaking delicious! The flavor! The ripeness! The plumpness! The color!”. When I take a bed into a city street & have a kid, a garbageman, & a famous politician jump on it, I’m saying, “Look at how cool this bed is! Look at this! We can jump on it!”

It’s regaining that fresh perspective and appreciation for it all. To quote myslef again, “My intent is to take something simple like a leaf, or a carrot, or a fat lady’s bum; and give it the glory it deserves.”

And I’ll end with this haiku I wrote one recent morning:

Loving the sufers

Outside my window flying

Salt-crusted soul-food

———————————

Thank you, surfers, for your “stoke” & your inspiration. cheers.

Kelly's Lovely Post

2010-04-07T08:40:00.001-07:00

Kelly posted this on her blog the other day. I think it is really awesome and speaks to the deeper essence of her work on the PlayJumpEat project (http://www.playjumpeat.com)

You can see the post here: http://messymonkeyarts.wordpress.com/2010/04/07/original-bed-jump-motto/

I have to admit, when I first wrote this, it made me want to cry!! ……….

Throw all caution to the wind & Jump, Cape Town!

Jump for JOY!

The Bed represents:

Joy.

A common thread of Humanity.

Whether in Manhattan or the Kalahari, we were all born Humans. Babies. Kids who like to Play.

We are all now Actors, Polititians, Mothers, Fishermen, Surfers, Tourists, & Supermodels – all coming in different shapes & sizes, colors & hues, with different voices and stories for the world.

Nevertheless, we are all still Humans, &

Kids who like to Play.

So Come to the bed & Jump, Cape Town!

Jump for Joy!

Money and my need to write

2010-04-02T06:17:00.001-07:00

This is a quick sharing of ideas on money. I have not edited this in great detail. I am trying not to get to caught up in that. I am struggling to get my writing flow back – call it writers block. I need to write an editorial for the Cape Times on money and I need to get my thesis going. So, please recognize that this is more an exercise in writing then an actually constructed paper.

I recently attended the first of hopefully many Next Economy Dialogues sponsored by both the Cape Times and the Department of Economic Development. It was an interesting conversation with some key words and ideas being expressed. Yet, I was haunted by one element to all of the ideas, especially those that actually proposed something – from increased infrastructure investment to the green economy to executive pay and dual economies. It assumes two things 1) that these elements are in one sense disconnected – that we can operate with an idea of two economies but not look at the relationship that exists between them and undoubtedly reinforces them – it is a classic dualistic framework. The second issue I have is 2) that the discussion operates from an assumption that the "laws of economics" are fixed and given – essentially natural – and that it is about finding the right combination of variables to allow the capitalist economy to manifest in all its glory, a glory hidden beneath the badly aligned variables; basically capitalist economic laws are a given and we need to find a way to enable them to operate which will result in increasing equality, rising standards of living and a form of happiness and contentment.

This doesn't surprise me; this is often how it is. We assume the system, which identifies the problems, which means we know what the solution is – to enable the assumed system to more fully operate. Where is the relationship in all of this? These problems that we identify are they independent of the system? Does the actual system have anything to do with the creation of these problems? Can the system operate without these inequalities? Can it operate in a way that will be sustainable and holistic? Can it operate in a way that it will guarantee every new entrant into this life a decent place to live to eat to pray and clothes to wear? Why do we assume this system can do this?

I ask this question not to say that this system can't – though I tend to believe that it can't, certainly not in the long term – provide what it promises. But, I think that if we are going to try and solve the problems of this country, South Africa (which is really just a microcosm of the global picture) then we need to integrate the elements (the variables) not in isolation but in relationship, but not from within the system but from a vantage point that can more objectively look at it. I guess trying to be an alien in your own reality. What happens if we drop the assumptions – that money needs to be created through private banks, that individuality is primary or that the economy is an expression of the natural unfolding of the kernel of capitalism, that the economy is separate from the politics? I am not sure that I am making my point. So, let me try and bring it into my thoughts around money.

You see for me, one of the elements that are often assumed is that of money. It is assumed that its form is in its most advanced stage, that the elements that dominate its creation and reproduction are the best and most viable forms. Money is viewed as a problem, yet is the thing we all want. It is viewed as abundant by some but its quantity is controlled by a system of elite banks (though, my belief is this power of banks is slowly eroding with the rise of virtual currencies and mobile phones). There are so many contradictions to money that we could fill a whole book with the lists. Yet, there is one fundamental question that rarely seems to get asked – it doesn't get asked by Vavi at COSATU, I don't hear Bobby Godsell talking about it when he mentions value and I don't hear Minister Patel saying anything about money when talking about green economies.

This is both strange and not surprising, yet it is important because (taking us back to our earlier discussion of what creates the problem) the question of the creation of money doesn't actually come into the discussion. The assumption might be that we need to expand financial services or create new credit laws – not much different than saying we need more infrastructure investment and more hospitals, right? I mean, this just sounds like a band-aid in all cases and it does not explore the relationships. What relationship is there between the way we create money and the types of inequalities that we struggle with. And, if we can take a step back and ask if the actual system we are living in is creating these problems that we have identified – say inequality and poverty – then what role does capitalist money play in that systems creation and reinforcement and does extending its reach make it more likely to reduce the problems we have identified? If we create money the same way with the same people controlling its creation will it truly resolve the problem? How can we keep trying the same thing and expect different solutions? Yes, I am paraphrasing an oft-associated comment with Einstein but you don't need to be a genius to agree with it and realize the logic.

I argue not for one form of money or another. I argue for the realization that it, money (and all the other "problems" we may identify) are elements in relationship with the other variables and because of money's huge power within this economy we need to understand how it is used and how it (or rather those that control its creation) reuse the economy to sustain itself – as for example a problem of scarcity, and bubbles and crashes. We have to be willing to ask the question of what an alternative form of money would look like? Could changing its characteristics have big impacts on the economy and society? Would it be complementary or in conflict with the dominant money?

There have been many histories of money written through time. No shortage of information about the evolution of money from shells to gold to banking to what it is today. Yet, many of these studies seem to ignore money as something that has not evolved as a result of the economy – it is seen as much as infrastructure, as a necessary element yet at the same time its production is assumed as an outgrowth of the economy. One of the theorist's who has explored money as something that has its own forces of production, as something that is constituted of its own social relations that are not necessarily direct outgrowth of the economy is Geoffrey Ingham in the UK. The importance here is to see money not as assumed, or as naturally capitalist (in that its characteristics underpin the dominant elements of capitalism or essentially we could say, respect or acknowledge those elements) but as something that has shifted and changed in very particular moments. Who then changes money and when has money changed and why and by whom and who has come out in control of the supply of money and has that control of money creation become crucial to the operating of today's political-economy and what would happen, as Keith Hart an anthropologist has proposed, if money became more democratic (in the sense that its production is not controlled by a few but by all or the many)?

I ask this question not because I propose it as an alternative, but because I believe that is exactly what is going on today around us. The proliferation of multiple (numbering in the thousands) community currencies (a generic term I use to cover many different kinds of monetary forms that have not been created by the state or the banks but generally by self-organized communities) is a growing trend. The rise of cheap mobile technologies and the Internet offers great opportunities for the increased production of community currencies with much lower costs and barriers to entry. It also opens up the opportunity for a reconfiguration of ideas of local vs global in this movement. Could currencies be shared with global communities with these technologies?

Class Inequality and the Social Production of Money

2010-03-31T06:14:00.000-07:00

I find Geoffrey Ingham to give one of the best understandings of money. The question of how money operates in our political-economy needs to be understood as more then a neutral veil, or epiphenomenal and our understanding of democracy then needs to incorporate ideas of democracy that reflect directly on our concept of a economic democracy. Money ultimately is not just (if even) a reflection or expression of the economy but its very creation and control is constitutive of the particular class and economic relations that dominate and drive forward the political-economy.

Figuring it all out

2010-03-30T02:37:00.001-07:00

Okay I am sending this via email to see if it works and lands up getting posted. I have spent weeks learning how to link everything together - blogs, twitter, facebook, flickr, youtube etc. I tell you it is quite an art of connection.

I hope that this email to blog will enable me to write more regularly about my ideas and thoughts.

Brazilian Central Bank Backs "Social Money"

2010-03-29T12:55:00.000-07:00

I don't post much these days about what I find in my explorations around the money space. That is in part because my energies have been focused more on accumulating money rather then on the discussions and explorations into alternatives.

With this in mind I am part of several email lists etc. and this one came across my desk today. I think it is a very interesting email talking about agreements between the Brazilian Central Bank and community based currency projects. This could be one of the first instances in which a central bank has backed a community currency project. It will be interesting to see how this devlops

From: Miguel Yasuyuki Hirota
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: [cc_research] The Central Bank of Brazil works to strengthen
community currency initiatives
Message-ID: <4BB0885F.6030905@olccjp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

Dear all,

I'd like to share the information I've just got from Brazil.

The Secretaria Nacional de Economia Solid?ria (SENAES), which
belong to the Brazilian Ministry of Labour and Employment (MET), has
just issued its news letter

http://www.mte.gov.br/ecosolidaria/Acontece_SENAES_13_ed.pdf
(Portuguese)

and on the page 1 you can read the following article (I translated
it into English).

---------

Title: Coopera??o com banco central (Cooperation with the Central Bank)

The cooperation agreement between SENAES and the Central Bank aims
to realise studies on community banks and on social money, envisioning
the creation of the monitoring and evaluation mechanism and of the
development of this sector in Brazil. After a decade of many
articulation and mobilisation of the solidarity economy movement, with
the support of SENAES, the recognition by the Brazilian State was won,
by way of this terms of cooperation, that territoty-based communities
(small municipalities, neighbourhoods) can build their monetary authority.

For the first time the Central Bank of Brazil recognised the
existence of this tool called "community banks and social money" and
their important as social technology which generates financial
inclusion. With this, community banks will be less vulnerable, both
from the formal viewpoint - as definitions on their function,
methodology, characteristics, attributes, goals and concepts are
established - and SENAES closed a cooperation agreement with the Central
Bank also for the more social visibility to be achieved.

At this moment, a working committee and the work agenda it will
realise by itself are being created. With the concretisation of the
partnership there will be the elaboration of norms which should orient
actors who want to know, support and develop community banks which use
social money. SENAES is proposing the realisation of five public
hearings so that the society should join, together with the solidarity
economy movement, in the sense to warrant the more participation in the
elaboration of referred norms.

On the basis of this agreement, the community bank initiatives
under way win a new institutional framework, enabling the realisation of
new strategic partnerships for their development. On top of that, these
banks will be benefitted with the enhancement of of incentive and
promotion policies, and the institutional environment will be quite
favourable for the consolidation of such policies, which means that
public resources for training activities, technical assistance and
adequate credit lines.

Open Social Networking - The Future

2010-03-23T03:42:00.000-07:00

The future of social networking is open source. The idea of not being able to take all your profiles history with you when you leave FB is completely the opposite of the ethos of the web. I foresee that every person will have his or her own profile on a web url that is built on an open source software much as the backbone of the web is reliant on Linux. This would allow your profile to lock in and be rendered through any specific gui interface.

In other words I always log into my web profile at say www.saulwainwright.com and through that I can go to my FB page, Twitter etc. Yet, everything that I have is in one place, at saulwainwright.com and belongs to me. Certain information I can control and limit, certain information can be accessed by certain applications such as FB and other cannot. So, I can have all my videos on my server under my profile and I can share some with say FB and some with Youtube, but the video itself remains mine forever, even if Youtube grabs a copy and places it on their server, the rights remain with me and they, Youtube, has to give me all data related to it – who saw it, when their comments etc. All this information is sent back to me in a standard open source format that allows me to store it and potentially share that data with another network – say FB. This means that what people need to ultimately design is the interface, we the people, own the back end.

Kind of like going to a coffee shop because it has a nice ambiance and good coffee and maybe some good books, in fact you may even meet some people there. But, at the end of the day you go back to your home, with the numbers, conversations and any other “data” you picked up. You may go off to another bar that night and bump into the same person or new person, a person that has never gone to that coffee shop. But, you can easily share all the information you acquired at the first coffee shop because you have it on you, it is in your cell phone your brain your notebook. That is social networking. Not today’s form, this is social control.

Kelly Gets Press

2010-01-25T07:03:00.000-08:00

Kelly's project, PlayJumpEat is getting great coverage. People just love her Bed Jump images and the Couture series. It is truly a fantastic series.

There has been lots going on for the project. It is going to be part of the Infecting the City public art event in Cape Town during the week of February 13th through the 20th. Then, she is hoping to have the bed part of the Design Indaba at the end of February. And, there is plenty more to come.

Here are three of the articles that have been written so far. Expect more from Elle Decor and Itch! magazine amongst others.

Kelly Wainwright in Infecting the City

Kelly in British Airway's Horizon Magazine

Oak Article

Knock Knock

2009-12-09T01:29:00.001-08:00

Havel & Schumacher

2009-07-03T07:15:00.001-07:00

Vaclav Havel and E.F. Schumacher: Truth and Expansions of Political-Economic Alternatives

Vaclav Havel - The Power of the Powerless"

2009-06-24T08:46:00.000-07:00

Here is a great piece, it is part of Vaclav Havel's famous essay, "The Power of the Powerless"

The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.
Individuals need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave as though they did, or they must at least tolerate them in silence, or get along well with those who work with them. For this reason, however, they must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system.

Barack Obama's speech in Cairo

2009-06-11T01:39:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama's speech in Cairo:

I like these final paragraphs of his speech. I think it speaks at something deeper and, if there is one thing that Obama is good at that is oration. And, I fully believe that words are important, they can help build and sustain bonds and open up new ways of interacting.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort - a sustained effort - to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples - a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

von Hayek, Denationalising of Money

2009-06-11T01:24:00.000-07:00

"Though the popular tendency in economics is to accept only statistically testable theories...they have acquired a quite undeserved reputation." (von Hayek, Denationalising of Money, p. 48)

I think that this is one of the biggest battles in the field of economics and more generally in the study, or need for a renewed emphasis, on Political-Economy in a qualitative rather then quantitative study. My feeling is much of the work that really relates to the Political-Economy in this way is happening in Anthropology and Sociology and Human Geography. However, there is a long history of solid Political-Economics or the Philosophy of both. I find myself in that space, and am often dissapointed by what I bump up against in most political and economics departments where the research has become so intensly mathematical and quantitative.

von Hayek was one of those very interesting and great Political-Economists. Not that I agree with many of his ideas, but I do agree with the above quote.

Bed Jump Cape Town

2009-04-24T01:45:00.000-07:00

My incredible wife, an incredible creative consultant and the founder of the awesome Messy Monkey Arts has started a new project called Bed Jump Cape Town.

She has been going around the city of Cape Town with the renowned photographer, Inge Prins, photographing everyday people jumping on a bed - Surfers on Muizenberg Beach, the cleaning staff at the Mount Nelson Hotel, fishermen at Kalk Bay Harbor and more.

The goal is to have a large gallery show, where the photographs are auctioned off and the monies donated to a program started by three mothers in Lavender Hill (a rather poor and gang infested suburb of Cape Town). The program called, Mothers Unite, feeds the local children daily with foods donated by local businesses.

Here are a couple videos to give you all a taste. The plans are to take the same concept global - Bed Jump San Francisco, India, Europe and more.

Oh Thesis Question!!

2009-04-17T04:49:00.000-07:00

I am in that time - that time of trying to survive and navigate the thesis proposal. I have a good idea of the arena I want to explore - value and money. Specifically the role that alternative currencies can play in promoting a broader spectrum of values - most notably issues of scarcity and competition.

These are two of the elements that I consider to be critical to the belief mechanisms that help to drive modern capitalism and the connected negative consequences of that system. The question then is how do you create a system that recognizes concepts of abundance and cooperation? My answer has come to rest on notions of money - and on ideas of creating alternative currencies that place or rather respond to values of abundance and cooperation in a positive way.

I believe that a currency that operates under the rules of 1) Zero Interest 2) A separation of medium-of-exchange and store-of-value 3) that has a demurrage, will bring us closer to meeting the goals of reducing environmental destruction, reducing growing inequalities (which is driven by hoarding of money) and of reducing the need for competition (and therefore commodification) while helping to promote the ability of communities that currently lack a medium-of-exchange to generate their local economies (and here I am referring to communities in Africa).

I place my energy behind the creation of alternative currencies because I believe this has two impacts on society 1) It allows us, as a society, to recognize our power over the economy and that money is our creation, not some God given right of the state or even a natural byproduct 2) It allows us to explore value systems and forces us to talk and debate about what are the most critical things that our money needs to value.

In this way I turn to the rise of mobile technology in Africa and the pioneering ideas of Michael Linton who talks about the value of technology in the spread and creation of alternative currencies. Much of his thinking is detailed by Keith Hart who talks about the changing subject/object relationship that is produced through the virtualization of money.

As I am sure, and hope you can see, I have built my thinking into a pretty cohesive flow. The big question is where do I ask my question and at what point do I place that question? I am not interested in the quantitative element of this discussion, I think Friedrich von Hayek said it best in his book "Denationalisation of Money",

"Though the popular tendency in economics is to accept only statistaically testable theories...they have acquired a quite undeserved reputation." (p. 48)

He then goes on to say,

"To introduce sharp distinctions which do not exist in the real world in order to make a subject susceptible to mathematical treatment is not to make it more scientific but "rather less so." (p 48)

It is with this in mind that I look to explore these questions through a much more philosophical and theoretical lens. I believe that these questions are not mathematical but are far more social and political.

I am trying to find a professor at University of Cape Town that is wiling to work with me in exploring these ideas and helping me to formulate my theoretical framework. I have, as of today, still not found that individual. I will continue to push forward.

Community Currencies - From von Hayek to Linton and back again

2009-04-07T01:54:00.000-07:00

As I dig further into my research of money and the varied ways we could organize our currency system I have come across an interesting convergence. It is a convergence that I have seen happen in other arenas, but the starting points are vastly different.

I have been researching alternative/complementary currencies (I use the term "alternative" as a loose definition. Effectively meaning a complementary currency, however one that acts as an "alternative" to the national currency) for over 6 months, and political-economy for many years. I have read large amounts of literature with the majority of it coming from groups of people who make the argument for local economies.

These authors include Thomas Greco, Michael Linton, Eric Harris-Braun and many more. What all of these people are trying to do is present the opportunity for communities to create there own medium-of-exchange. And, ultimately, to challenge the monopoly of money creation that the state has aquired. Many of these writers are focused on the "local" and of, "reinvigorating" these local economies with the aim to building new social relations, creating value around community and small businesses. One can see this as a push back, a Polanyian double movement, against the multi-national corporate driven globalization. The argument is in part grownded in the belief that these alternative currencies could capture some of the ground back from the advance of globalization. I have written about my issues of conceptions of the local that dominate much of this literature.

The part that does excite me about it is the idea of actually being able to create your own medium-of-exchange as a community. That this in its own way is paradigm shifting - Keith Hart talks about this, though I don't think he uses the term "paradigm shifting". Eric Harris-Braun, Art Brock and Bernard Lietear also touch on this. It certainly challenges one of the most taken for granted elements of the economic systems - money creation. The goal is to really redefine what currency means and how we view our economic system. Each one of these thinkers/writers deserve a much deeper analyses, but for now I am mearly trying to set the stage for a type of convergence that I want to highlight.

Until recently I had not come across any other main-stream economists making an argument for the creation of alternative currencies. I have heard that Greenspan has talked about the rise of alternative currencies in the 21st century (I have yet to see the actual quote). However, my recent discovery of the book by Frederich von Hayek called, "Denationalising of Money" calls for the end of the state monopoly of money creation - the separation of money creation and government. His argument is founded on the belief in markets and free competition. That these two elements will lead to the creation of multiple, stable (but flexible) currencies and will end the ability of the government, through its monopoly, to create inflation/deflation by printing more money.

One thing that von Hayek does not say in his book is if the government will still be permitted to create money? Or, if all money creation, is left to the private sector. I am inclined to believe he would have defaulted to the latter.

What I find extremely interesting here is that we have, on the left - the community based local economy activists and on the right we have the neo-liberal free-market economists - all coming down to the same conclusion; freeing up the right to create a medium-of-exchange.

What, of course, is critical here is how these alternatives are framed and what, if they are to be created, these alternative currencies look like. This leads to the next, and what I think is probably the harder and more complicated question to answer; what are the critical elements of an alternative currency? What attributes does this currency have? How is it valued? Is it backed by commodities? Assets? These questions are all very murky and are talked about by many different schools of thought.

At this point I believe that a zero-interest (Silvio Gesell and Margrit Kennedy), non-debt based (James Robertson and others) currency offers the greatest possibility of enabling a type of capitalism that does not require continues growth , and helps address the issues of compound interest and exponential growth (Steady State Economics, Herman Daly and many others). The ultimate goal being a reduction in the environmentally destructive nature of our current economic system, and reducing those that live in absolute poverty.

I am not fixed on these attributes, I may discover that there are serious flaws in them. I continue to explore and dig around. The place that this has brought me to is an exploration of the explosion of the mobile phone in Africa and the concurrent development of mobile-banking and airtime bartering/transfers. With a grant that I recently received from the Institute for Money, Technology and Financial Inclusion I hope to explore this intersection between global networks, virtual currencies, under-monetized economies and alternative currencies. My feeling is this intersection offers an incredible opportunity to explore the multiple elements of the issues raised.

More to come....

What Bruce Sterling Actually Said About Web 2.0 at Webstock 09

2009-03-02T01:56:00.000-08:00

I just read this article by Bruce Sterling on the Wired Blog and there are several paragraphs I wanted to highlight because I think that they get at the heart of where we are heading as a global society:

When Bruce talks about the "clouds" in Web2.0 he makes a very interesting analogy with financial thinking and the rise of "securitization" pointing out some of the connections and inherent contradictions:

Imagine that this was financial thinking [referring to clouds in Web2.0 world] -- instead of web design thinking. We take a bunch of loans, we mash them together and turn them into a security. Now securities are secure, right? They are triple-A solid! So now we can build more loans on top of those securities. Ingenious! This means the price of credit trends to zero, so the user base expands radically, so everybody can have credit!

Nobody could have tried that before, because that sounds like a magic Ponzi scheme. But luckily, we have computers in banking now. That means Moore's law is gonna save us! Instead of it being really obvious who owes what to whom, we can have a fluid, formless ownership structure that's always in permanent beta. As long as we keep moving forward, adding attractive new features, the situation is booming!

In this next quote Bruce points out some of the inherent stupidity in much of the West's thinking about global connectedness and the role of the web. It is about "networking" it is about "communicating" it is not about what we think - creating viable monetized business models. Hell, the sharing of ideas is what is viable.

The people of the world are building a new global network and it doesn't require the fastest and best computer in the world with fat high-speed connections. What it requires is very simple technology - remember when the phone came to the west how that revolutionized our worlds? How it allowed us to grow a new set of relationships? This is what is going on in the world - in Africa, India, Asia, S. America. People are able to make phone calls - that is powerful stuff. And focusing on this is what will maybe give us a sense of the direction we are headed in.

Bruce points out that we don't even know what we are creating next. This is what is so exciting we don't have a blueprint but we have a sense we know that the last system and what it was built on is non-sustainable and it will and has collapsed. Time to network to talk to share and to communicate.

Gosh, we're really sorry that we accidentally ruined the NASDAQ." We're Internet business people, but maybe we should spend less of our time stock-kiting. The Web's a communications medium -- how 'bout working on the computer interface, so that people can really communicate?

That effort was time well spent. Really.

A lot of issues that Web 1.0 was sweating blood about, they went away for good. The "digital divide," for instance. Man, I hated that. All the planet's poor kids had to have desktop machines. With fiber optic. Sure! You go to Bombay, Shanghai, Lagos even, you're like "hey kid, how about this OLPC so you can level the playing field with the South Bronx and East Los Angeles?" And he's like "Do I have to? I've already got three Nokias." The teacher is slapping the cellphone out of his hand because he's acing the tests by sneaking in SMS traffic.

"Half the planet has never made a phone call." Boy, that's a shame -- especially when pirates in Somalia are making satellite calls off stolen supertankers. The poorest people in the world love cellphones. They're spreading so fast they make PCs look like turtles.

Digital culture, I knew it well. It died -- young, fast and pretty. It's all about network culture now.

We've got a web built on top of a collapsed economy. THAT's the black hole at the center of the solar system now. There's gonna be a Transition Web. Your economic system collapses: Eastern Europe, Russia, the Transition Economy, that bracing experience is for everybody now. Except it's not Communism transitioning toward capitalism. It's the whole world into transition toward something we don't even have proper words for.

Ultimately Bruce gets at one of the fundamental questions I am asking in my own research and I think many others are asking:

After a while you have to wonder if it's worth it -- the money model, I mean. Is finance worth the cost of being involved with the finance? The web smashed stocks. Global banking blew up all over the planet all at once... Not a single country anywhere with a viable economic policy under globalization. Is there a message here?

Are there some non-financial structures that are less predatory and unstable than this radically out-of-kilter invisible hand? The invisible hand is gonna strangle us! Everybody's got a hand out -- how about offering people some visible hands?

Can we not design as system of economic interaction that doesn't require us to "monetize" everything in order for it to get some semblance of value? Can we create a system that recognizes "abundance"? That there are certain things that hold an "infinite" value - that there exists no right to destroy or purchase this value?

What can we do about the way our money behaves? Can we design multiple currency systems that are able to meet our needs as a global society? What role does "credit" have in all of this? What about creating money without creating debt?

Oh I am sure there will be many market fundamentalist arguments against this. That is okay it needs to be tested. However, we are moving into a new territory of economic systems and this needs to be recognized. We don't know exactly what it looks like but we know how we want it to work.

As Bruce says it needs to be about "visible hands" not a groping around for some "invisible force" that operates beyond our control.

Cape Town: What a lovely city to visit

2009-02-26T12:19:00.000-08:00

Reflixivity - George Soros Concept

2009-02-23T07:08:00.000-08:00

He is one of my favorite financial thinkers. Here are a couple quotes from his blog about his concept of Reflixivity.

This remarkable sequence of events can be understood only if we abandon the prevailing theory of market behavior. As a way of explaining financial markets, I propose an alternative paradigm that differs from the current one in two respects. First, financial markets do not reflect prevailing conditions accurately; they provide a picture that is always biased or distorted in one way or another. Second, the distorted views held by market participants and expressed in market prices can, under certain circumstances, affect the so-called fundamentals that market prices are supposed to reflect. This two-way circular connection between market prices and the underlying reality I call reflexivity.

It is important to recognize that regulators base their decisions on a distorted view of reality just as much as market participants—perhaps even more so because regulators are not only human but also bureaucratic and subject to political influences. So the interplay between regulators and market participants is also reflexive in character. In contrast to bubbles, which occur only infrequently, the cat-and-mouse game between regulators and markets goes on continuously. As a consequence reflexivity is at work at all times and it is a mistake to ignore its influence. Yet that is exactly what the prevailing theory of financial markets has done and that mistake is ultimately responsible for the severity of the current crisis.

What Are Banks For?

2009-02-22T13:42:00.000-08:00

This was first published in "Punch" on April 3, 1957: But it is still VERY pertinent to banking practices today.

Q: What are banks for?
A: To make money.

Q: For the customers?
A: For the banks.

Q: Why doesn't bank advertising mention this?
A: It would not be in good taste. But it is mentioned by implication in references to reserves of £249,000,000,000 or thereabouts. That is the money they have made.

Q: Out of the customers?
A: I suppose so.

Q: They also mention Assets of £500,000,000,000 or thereabouts. Have they made that too?
A: Not exactly. That is the money they use to make money.

Q: I see. And they keep it in a safe somewhere?
A: Not at all. They lend it to customers.

Q: Then they haven't got it?
A: No.

Q: Then how is it Assets?
A: They maintain that it would be if they got it back.

Q: But they must have some money in a safe somewhere?
A: Yes, usually £500,000,000,000 or thereabouts. This is called Liabilities.

Q: But if they've got it, how can they be liable for it?
A: Because it isn't theirs.

Q: Then why do they have it?
A: It has been lent to them by customers.

Q: You mean customers lend banks money?
A: In effect. They put money into their accounts, so it is really lent to the banks.

Q: And what do the banks do with it?
A: Lend it to other customers.

Q: But you said that money they lent to other people was Assets?
A: Yes.

Q: Then Assets and Liabilities must be the same thing?
A: You can't really say that.

Q: But you've just said it! If I put £100 into my account the bank is liable to have to pay it back, so it's Liabilities. But they go and lend it to someone else and he is liable to have to pay it back, so it's Assets.
It's the same £100 isn't it?
A: Yes, but....

Q: Then it cancels out. It means, doesn't it, that banks haven't really any money at all?
A: Theoretically......

Q: Never mind theoretically! And if they haven't any money, where do they get their Reserves of £249,000,000,000 or thereabouts?
A: I told you. That is the money they have made.

Q: How?
A: Well, when they lend your £100 to someone they charge him interest.

Q: How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say five and a-half percent. That's their profit.

Q: Why isn't it my profit? Isn't it my money?
A: It's the theory of banking practice that.........

Q: When I lend them my £100 why don't I charge them interest?
A: You do.

Q: You don't say. How much?
A: It depends on the Bank Rate. Say a half percent.

Q: Grasping of me, rather?
A: But that's only if you're not going to draw the money out again.

Q: But of course I'm going to draw the money out again! If I hadn't wanted to draw it out again I could have buried it in the garden!
A: They wouldn't like you to draw it out again.

Q: Why not? If I keep it there you say it's a Liability. Wouldn't they be glad if I reduced their Liabilities by removing it?
A: No. Because if you remove it they can't lend it to anyone else.

Q: But if I wanted to remove it they'd have to let me?
A: Certainly.

Q: But suppose they've already lent it to another customer?
A: Then they'll let you have some other customers money.

Q: But suppose he wants his too....and they've already let me have it?
A: You're being purposely obtuse.

Q: I think I'm being acute. What if everyone wanted their money all at once?
A: It's the theory of banking practice that they never would.

Q: So what banks bank on, is not having to meet their commitments?
A. YOU GOT IT!

Our Oceans are in Trouble

2009-01-08T11:04:00.000-08:00

I have been reading a special report on the Oceans that was recently published in The Economist that has made me sick to my stomach.

It talks about how our fish stocks are almost wiped out, that the oceans are becoming acid changing the entire composition of the oceans behavior. The profusion of massive dead zones throughout the oceans with algae and red tides. The possibility of most shell fish dying off, nuclear waste, pesticides and other heavy metals flooding into the oceans. The destruction of almost all coral reefs.

This is not a singular issue. It is not just a problem of too much CO2 but is rather a product of the type of economic structure we have in place. An economy that truly places no value on the abundant natural resources. They are viewed as holding no value so therefore no cost is associated with their destruction until it is potentially too late.

It is time to rethink this economic structure. Not tomorrow. But TODAY!! It is time to create a value structure that recognizes the value held in our global common goods; that abundance is a valuable element in the economy and needs to be integrated into the pricing system. We can not ignore this any longer.

Or, within our lifetimes there will be no more sharks, tuna, coral reefs, whales or oceans safe to swim in. It brings tears to my eyes and we the people, the citizens and stewards of this system need to wake up and take responsibility. Change is hard but it is a necessary and constant part of life.

I believe the most important thing we can do is come up with an economic structure that places value on abundance over scarcity, on cooperation over competition, on flow over accumulation. This, people, is a task for our generation and we must, we have to, step up and take responsibility now!!

Pirates or Citizen's Coast Guard

2009-01-08T10:44:00.000-08:00

I have been reading about the "pirates" off the coast of Somalia. I have to admit that at first I bought the story that was being promoted by the western media.

It goes something like this, "innocent commercial boats are attacked by wild machine gun totting Somali's looking for a few million to finance the extremists that have destroyed the country".

I am sure there is a modicum of truth to this. But, what is the back story? Why would these guys go out and hijack these boats? Why now? Why would they be willing to do this and what is motivating them? But, in classic western media style Africa is again portrayed as all messed up and just another case of the "failed state". So, lets send out some of our big military ships to protect the ability to do business. Yes, because oil and other goods are more important and worth the investment.

Well, I was sent this article written by Johan Hari of the London Independent which was posted on the Huffington Post recently and it really opened my eyes to a background story that I had not heard anywhere in mainstream media.

The story goes that foreign ships have been fishing the waters off Somalia devastating the ability for small local fishermen to catch enough food to survive. The really shocking element is that there are reports of dumping of barrels of nuclear waste off the coast. Many of these barrels washed up after the Tsunami in 2004. This resulted in many people dying of strange cancers and diseases.

Could it be that the Somali's are actually defending the territorial integrity of their waters? Could it be that the Europeans and others have ignored requests for compensation or protection of the Somali's coastal waters? Perhaps this is how you have to do it - take matters into your own hands when your interests are ignored by the west!!

I am shocked and disgusted and once again convinced that Africa is always framed in the dark ways that benefit the Africanist perspective that dominates western media (it smacks of the famous Edward Said's famous "Orientalism").

Read the article and tell me what you think: http://tinyurl.com/7y4lc3

The Local In Alternative Currencies

2009-01-07T21:48:00.001-08:00

My biggest concern since my foray into the world of alternative/complementary currencies is the almost constant focus on a particular concept of the "local". The type of local that these ideas are operating out of is a local that is defined by a physical geography - local with defined space and boundaries (when using the term local I am operating based on this type of definition unless otherwise stated). This is a physically bounded and situated concept of local and does not seem to pay attention to broader concepts of local - virtual networks, Diaspora communities, personal and business networks and more.

The emphasis on this type of local is based on the belief that small, locally based economies are more stable and resilient when they are not dependent or financially integrated into the global economy. This is a thinking of the global and local within a dichotomous framework - seeing the global as something separate from the local and therefore something to separate from or become distinct from. What is true is that globalization operates differently in every space and is geographically and historically constituted and therefore different facets and experiences of globalization are produced in every local economy.

The understanding that the local currency movement operates from assumes that globalization "impacts" local communities and is largely a-historical and is therefore something that is imposed upon us and must therefore be fought against. This is like talking about our different organs from the perspective of the "impact" that the human body as a whole has on a particular organ. This, as we know, is folly and is not the most constructive way to handle an issue that is "localized" - if my lungs are giving me problems I don't look at the entire body and say that we need to remove the lungs from the "impact" of the body. The two can not operate separate from each other. Globalization is local as much as it is global - it takes the local to produce the global. We, the people, are the ones that have created and continue to create globalization and we can create it in any and all forms that we may desire. It is not something that is predestined and designed - it is not something that operates separate from us.

The logic that is used to go from a critique of the monetary system to a critique of globalization is problematic to me. I, personally, see nothing wrong with globalization - especially the type of globalization that is rooted in interconnectedness and flows of information and goods across "physical" boundaries (I also think that globalization is an experience that is part of human existence - the sharing of ideas, goods, languages, etc) . I do not believe that we can, nor need to, end "globalization". Ultimately globalization is made up of many, in fact an infinite amount of "local economies". What is problematic is that the blood (money) that is pumping through these economies is somewhat toxic - as if the economy has drunk too much alcohol and is self-destructive.

Globalization is not the problem, nor is the loss of the "local". Rather the problem is the incentives and values that are rewarded and promoted within the current economic system which in great part are guided and driven by the way we create and construct our current monetary system. The alternative currency movement will find greater success in finding ways to integrate and relate to the global economy rather then viewing itself as in "opposition" to or in a process of "re-localization" as something that is against the global economy.

Shaping Tomorrow

2008-12-22T08:08:00.000-08:00

I just re-read a post that I made on a online group that I belong to called Shaping Tomorrow which is a group of futurists. I thought it spoke to my passion and the overall image that I am getting of our economy and the points at which I think we need to put some pressure in the hope of effecting change.

I think the fundamental question is why is the system rewarding excessive consumption, massive flows of money and huge deficits and debts? How did this come about and what drove this process? American's are certainly the "largest" consumers but there are many other consumers in the world. I know I was shocked when I went to Asia and saw the massive malls and the huge desire to consume and posses stuff - it is not only an American phenomenon we are just the leaders.

The economy rewards the creation of useless products - trinkets, environmentally destructive extraction and production technologies, and "over-spending". Why?

Our economy grows when we "consume" and shrinks when we don't. It is what drives us - it is like having a constant carrot and stick scenario in our collective conscience. The reality is the economy is not something that operates without humans - however it can create and incentivize certain human behaviours leading often to problematic outcomes. This is why Stiglitz is one of my favorite economists because he realizes that the economy is actually part of us - rather then us as part of the economy.

We need to seriously reevaluate the values and behaviours our economic system incentivizes and work at changing that. I think it is pretty simple - value abundant clean resources, value industries and products that are zero waste and zero negative environmental costs, value human sustenance through cooperation, remove scarcity as the central driving factor of the pricing mechanism and create a pricing system that assigns increased value to increased abundance of life sustaining resources.

Just some thoughts!!

Time Magazine Talks About Complementary Currencies

2008-12-11T11:06:00.000-08:00

I think it is really cool that Time Magazine did a three page article about complementary currencies. You can check it out here.

Netsquared/USAID Challenge Proposal

2008-12-09T12:03:00.000-08:00

I have a submitted a proposal to the Netsquared.org/USAID challenge and I would love all of you to take a moment and go on over and register and vote for my project. I have until the 12th of December to get enough votes to get into the top 15.

The short description of my project:

Develop a mobile phone m-banking application aimed at enabling the creation of community based complementary currencies. Using open-source software, FrontlineSMS, the application would operate in much the same way as Wizzit and mPesa.

We will be working closely with Ken Banks who helped create FrontlineSMS - and whose technology is involved with the very successful Ushahidi.

There is much written on the net about complementary currencies of which there are over 1,900 currently in operation. From Switzerland to USA to Argentina to South Africa and on to New Zealand and Malaysia to Japan. Some of these are even sanctioned by governments and can be used to pay local taxes.

As we can all see in today's world there are series questions around the viability of our current financial system. We all see very clearly that when our national currency fails to circulate we are left with almost no means of trading with each other. This is not because I don't have something to sell that someone wants to buy - rather the missing ingredient is money.

My goal is to explore ways of adding additional resiliency to our financial system - one that has multiple layers of currencies. Not to end the national currency but rather to add to the system (a lot of this thinking is based on ideas of complex systems and their need for resiliency over efficiency). There are other inherent issues that are raised by the way our money is created that will ultimately need to be addressed - the false scarcity, the need for perpetual growth, the problems of compounded interest and the competitive nature that the system helps propagate.

Ultimately creating complementary currencies and getting them into the poorest communities could offer some novel development opportunities. The problem in these communities, once again, is not that no one has labor to sell or doesn't need stuff. The problem is no one has the means to pay each other!!

Okay I think I need to leave it at that. I have of course dropped some big ideas without indepth explanations. But, I wanted to keep this shorter then it already is.

So if this seems interesting and you want to help vote for my project!! (pretty please)

The Green Festival Website Needs More Social Media Elements

2008-11-28T14:42:00.000-08:00

I wanted to followup my previous with some ideas about how the Green Festival website could advance the role it plays in the festival.

I think first it is important to emphasize that this is a really powerful part of the current community building, especially around issues of sustainability, green economics and much more.

Having said this the presence of the festival in the multiple blogging and social network platforms could be greatly increased and would also help cultivate lasting conversations and communities beyond the short 2-day event.

Some ideas include:

1) Create profiles, groups and pages in different social networks. Actively participate and keep your groups and profiles cultivated. Some examples of social networks could include Facebook, Twitter, Flickr and Myspace and many more.

2) Create locally specific resources that are community created and accessed via bulletin boards or forums. These could also link directly into existing networks in the communities that are hosting the festival.

3) Set-up a live web-cast of the talks for those in other parts of the world and within the USA that don't live in the bigger cities and struggle to access these types of conversations.

4) Work at linking up with similar festivals around the world and create a single networked space were ideas can be transfered, conversations can be shared and ultimately a large global community could flower. There may be something out there already that this could link into actively.

I am sure there are other ideas that could be used here and I feel that there could really be some active community based marketing that would help get a larger story out and perhaps lead to gatherings occuring at and during the festivals that in them selves would be powerful catalysts for change and community growing.

San Francisco Green Festival

2008-11-28T13:43:00.001-08:00

I have been meaning to share my thoughts on the recent San Francisco Green Festival that happened in the first week of November. I have been to several of the festivals, my first time as a volunteer about 5 years ago. The last few times as a "helper" for my friends over at Blue Lotus Blankets.

As with all festivals that you go to some years are better than other years. And I believe this was true for this festival too. I saw some really great talks from John Adams, Kevin Danaher and Riane Eisler. All three were very powerful and uplifting talks - dealing with paradigm shifts the green economy and new economics. Relevant and important conversations.

My concern came from walking around the festival and looking at the products that were being sold and the type of "atmosphere" that was being created. I have to admit that it felt like being in a glorified mall. Seriously - there were free samples of "green" chips in throwaway bags, "green" herbal drinks in plastic bottles, "green" health bars in wrappers, "green" beer being served in plastic bottles, stacks of magazines and newspapers.

In the end it felt like a version of a green consumer hell. This is not to takeaway from the really interesting and dynamic businesses and products that were being offered.

My point is that moving from these inspiring talks into the larger halls was like moving from the future back into the past. I was at pains to see the truly green economy, to see a community being developed or to see products that were offering innovative solutions rather then "alternatives" to the crappier product that you didn't really need to begin with.

Don't get me wrong I think that there is much gained from this movement towards greening businesses. I am a big advocate of it in many ways. What the festival really felt like it was saying is, hey listen to us talk, feel good, then go ahead and pick up some chips in a single use bag and head over to drink some beer out of those non-recyclable plastic beer glasses.

Co-op America says that they screen all of the businesses that join the festival and that this is a pretty stringent screening. But I failed to see what the message was that they were trying to convey via the businesses that they allowed to participate. I don't see how selling stuff solves the problem of over-consumption and environmental destruction. I have heard the argument of, "well, if they are going to buy a bed then wouldn't you prefer they bought a "green" bed?" My response is of course. But, a bed and a health bar, a magazine or a bottle of some herbal drink are very different things.

It forces the question of what is it that we NEED to life a decent life? What is SUFFICIENT?

The point is that if every person on the planet got up every day and purchased a "green" health bar or packet of chips that were packaged in a throwaway wrapper we would still be in huge trouble - no matter how green the product was, there are still finite resources. This is not sustainable.

This is not green, and the Green Festival has lost its focus and is not helping to change and redirect consumption behaviour but rather to offer people the opportunity to sustain the type of consumerist life styles that Americans, and many other people around the world have become accustomed to.

I am saddened by this development and I hope that the next festivals are more geared towards promoting community and a focus on what is a sufficient life style verse a sustained lifestyle.

Posts in the Making

2008-11-22T21:15:00.000-08:00

I have been meaning to post on the blog for a while. I have been busy but have several posts lining up - some partly written others much more conceptual

1) My thoughts on the green festival in SF
2) Value - Use vs Exchange in Adam Smith
3) My latest ideas on my grad school research - alternative/complementary currencies and the use of mobile technology
4) Cre8 my wife's incredibly successful fundraiser http://www.messymonkeyarts.com/cre8

Perhaps couple more. I hope to write some of these next week when my life will slow down a bit. I have been doing lots of job hunting and networking, helping to organize events for Kelly, doing some research for others and just generally catching up with the non-virtual world.

Deeply Engaged

2008-10-29T09:42:00.001-07:00

I am deeply engaged with exploring ideas and theories of
value and how they relate to our system of money and the creation of
wealth and economic development. I have been exploring a concept of
"infinite" value. The goal of this approach, is to get our economy to
recognize that which is abundant but valuable - rather then the
reverse, the economy only valuing that which is scarce.

My classic example is the case of clean air. It is an abundant
resource, but holds infinite value - there is no way we can put a
price on it as without it we are dead and any reduction of the
"value" of this resource (eg. pollution) is a loss of value for all.
Currently our economy only values these type of resources from the
negative side - you can pay for the right to pollute via carbon
credits or fines. This to me is only a band-aid and will not solve
the ultimate problem.

Comment on openmoney.ning

2008-10-28T11:01:00.000-07:00

I have been exploring the writings and conversations on the http://openmoney.ning.com network and came across an article by Eric Harris-Braun

"But what our current monetary system cannot structurally decide at all is what wealth itself is. That question is not decidable within the monetary system, it takes it as an axiom"

I think this is the most critical element to understand. And this is where the meta-system concept really becomes clear. Part of what this talks to is the fact that people are not empowered in this money system. Value is a product of a reflexive relationship between all the members of society.

Hegel, the German philosopher, talked about how the concept of private property (which is used as the root of wealth creation in this current system) is only private property because others choose to recognize it as such. This is where the collective consciousness comes into play. If I say something is private property (or public property) and no one recognizes it as such then well - no matter how loud I yell - it still will not be private property until others recognize it as such.

I believe this same concept holds for value. Our monetary system does not have the ability to recognize value in things that we, as a society, have not yet created a viable value structure for. A system that includes and recognizes these sets of values. For me a concept of "infinite value" - a value that encompasses that which is so valuable as to prevent the possibility of ever actually putting a price on it, you can't buy it, you have no right to destroy it and it is non-tradable - is a critical part of the process.

The idea is to create a value that recognizes things that are abundant but critical - elements that are not driven by a concept of scarcity value. I believe the work of a new monetary meta-system is critical to this process as the current system does not have the capacity to incorporate this value structure.

I am excited to participate, watch and collaborate with all those that recognize this critical element in our society and economy.

Value

2008-10-27T20:58:00.001-07:00

I think one of the most fundamental issues here is a concept of value. If we use Hegelian thinking we can come to the conclusion that most of our concept of value has been derived from its "recognized" value. In other words much of what we buy and consume only has a value - and a price point - in part because others want it or said another way, recognize it as having value.

This is where our value system, as currently theorized, breaks down. Our environment has a value that our current value system - and hence our monetary system - has no way to identify. It is because the value system is based on a concept of scarcity - we have theorized that which holds more value is in greater scarcity.

How then do we deal with that which is abundant but incredibly valuable? Like clean air or clean water? How do we create a value system that recognizes this? So, that our monetary system can represent this value and ultimately give us the ability to protect and rightfully share that value? Which, will lead to a continued "wealth".

I propose an idea of "infinite value". Infinity is a number, a mathematical variable that we can use and incorporate into our "writing/language". If we can theorize a value system that knows how to contain everything from the "zero" value to the "infinite" value then we can start to invest a concept of a recognizable value that has meaning to our monetary system and apply this to our clean water and air.

I believe this approach will bring us closer to being able to protect and "grow" our wealth that is most clearly stored in that which is abundant and holds infinite value.

Incentives

2008-10-27T10:23:00.000-07:00

This is a quick post - but I just watched this very short video on CNN about pollution in China. This is a story that we have heard a few times and it is one of great concern with such rapid industrial growth.

My question ultimately is how do you build a different incentive structure into the economy so that there is no reward for pollution and the destruction of something as important as fresh water. I think that laws and policies are always just a band-aid and as long as there is incentive - monetary - that you gain from polluting and "reducing" costs then these things will keep happening.

This is why it is a much deeper question, a question that we have to truly explore and understand why our economy rewards this behaviour when it is so obvious that it is the last thing that should be rewarded.

I continue to explore this in a deep way through understanding our monetary system and our concept of value that our monetary system is set up to represent. I have been exploring such organizations as The Transitioner and other such groups. I think this is a very, very fundamental question we need to answer.

Africa Image

2008-10-08T11:24:00.000-07:00

As someone that grew up in Africa, poor but not abject, and have traveled to some of the poorest parts of Africa I agree that "happiness" is experienced often regardless of your "material" conditions.

This said - there are basics that we all need, to feel a sense of "humanity". They are age old things that the great philosophers have talked about for eons. In modern terms they are things like - fresh water, food, clothing, security and a place to sleep.

In America we think that this means - Gucci, 3600 sq foot houses, every imaginable food and more. We have excess but think it is what will get us closer to satisfaction and happiness.
Africa needs to build up the basic necessities - this is what leaders in Africa are starting to talk about.

The image of Africa in America is sooo distorted - but this is true for the image of America in Africa too.

We all come up with easy to grab soundbites. It is our challenge as citizens to change those views and challenge those perceptions.

Change

2008-09-15T18:07:00.000-07:00

I get so furious and sad. In fact it brings me close to tears. The fact that we are so trapped in a story of our own creation and most of us don't even realize it. Those of us that do are not really sure what to do with this information - not to mention that our society constantly tells us that we are wrong to think that there is an alternative or that maybe there is something inherently wrong with this system - this culture!

I am not just referring to American culture or even European culture. I am talking about western culture but also the overarching human cultural story of violence, power, sex and capitalism. It is not that these are the only cultures that have or do exist. In fact we know that there are far more healthy ways to co-exist.

I just heard Derrik Jensen on the radio show Flashpoints on KPFA. I had not heard of him before but he spoke so blatantly to the ugly truth of our cultural situation. Sure - he may be attempting to highlight and emphasize the outliers in our culture - the extremes. But, he is right to do so in an attempt to capture the story line and the space in our media. What he said, that really struck me, actually there were two things that he said.

First, that when you seriously think about it and recognize the fact that when the Europeans arrived here in the USA they had been living here for close on 12,000 years. That the entire land was in pristine shape, that they lived decent lives filled with leisure and a deep sense of community (this is not to say that there were not issues and troubles with their lives).

In the course of the subsequent 400 years we have managed to pollute, decimate, and wipe out most of what was indigenous about this land. Were are we now? Well, according to the EPA you can't drink out of a single river or stream in the US because they are almost all poisoned with carcinogens. We have to work to earn salaries to buy food because all the wild food has been killed, co-modified or fenced off.

Somewhere along the line a sense of value and worth has been lost. The fact that we are part and parcel of this place has been removed from our sense of being. Derrik may say that this is a form of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome - that we live in a culture that traumatizes us from start to end; through our schooling systems, our police forces, our media of violence and sexism, our constant reminder to be afraid and our sense of having to work as slaves to the dollar bill.

Repeated stress, repeated trauma with no relaxation or down time. No sense of security has been emphasized, a sense of the ability to explore, to be who you are and to do what is natural to you and me.

I sit in my life now - at 30 years of age with my stunning wife and my beautiful baby and I wonder what I can do as a husband and father to provide the space and community that will raise a baby filled with a sense of safety and love, compassion and exploration. How do we do this in our own lives? How do we engage this in a way that both transforms our selves and our culture?

I wish I had the complete answer here. But, what I do know is that I do not want to be a slave to my money to the need to earn dollars, to be afraid and to feel stressed and overwhelmed. These things make us operate from a place of adrenaline and leads us to see life in a vision of a tunnel - thereby excluding options and opportunities that are there but outside of our tunnel.

I know that my contribution to this is around exploring and evangelizing a new form of value thinking - of what we value, how we value it and why we value it.

To me this is one of the roots of our problem - one of the big lies we have been fed. That of value! We need to value things that are not valued things that can't actually be commodified and that is why it is such a threatening space to go into. Because, as far as our economic and cultural system is concerned - if you can't commoditize it it holds no value. The problem is that the things that are of some of the highest value are not things at all but are rather rights and access. "fresh water" "clean air" "access to healthy food" "clean environment" "the right to rest" "the right to health care" "the right to relaxation and compassion"

What I do know is that I need to make this change in my life as quickly as possible because there is not much time to sort this out. There is no time to wait to see what happens - I need to voice my voice to share my ideas and help to lead this change - because this change will not occur till enough of us choose to lead.

I don't know what this is nor where it is going. But - I hope we will all help each other get there with love, compassion and joy!

Revalue Value

2008-09-11T14:10:00.000-07:00

I think I am pretty convinced by much of the economics that exists today - I think that corporations have many incredible functions, that money serves a purpose that will not be easily replaced, trade certainly has its advantages as do certain clusters of specialization's. Therefore I wonder what drives the economy to destroy the very backbone of our existence? Is it because the economy is something separate from us? Has it really become so unembedded (to play of Karl Polayni)? Perhaps it has, perhaps we as a a society have forgotten that we created this entity, this thing called the economy. It is a product of human ingenuity, creativity and resourcefulness. It is not something separate from us like water, and sky - rather it is something that will not exist after us, it did not exist before us and perhaps we may even be able to live without it.

Therefore it is about taking ownership of the economy - not in a revolutionary overthrow the rich or the powerful. No, I am actually talking about it in a much more participatory and creative process. I like to think of it very academically but actually it is something far more creative actually something co-creative. It is a creation of a theoretical understanding and interpretation of our society and how we "need" to exist. The economy has been and continues to be in many different forms - socialist, capitalist, communist, authoritarian etc...there is a long list of many smaller and more refined understandings of these economic differences.

What I am after is how do we recreate our economy from a fundamental point - from the point of value! How is value understood and interpreted. And, why do certain things, the things that we hold to be the most sacred in so many levels hold minimal value in our economic system? How do we add to the story of our economy a new understanding of value. I play with it by calling it Infinite Value - this is a value that encompasses that which holds so much value due to its critical role in our sustenance as people.

This is my effort at going at the understanding that we do not need to save the planet - I am 100% certain that the planet will live long beyond our existence. The thing that needs saving is us and the way we can save ourselves is by valuing what is critical to our survival. This is not a dictatorial approach or a "rule" based approach that tries to constrain the behavior of people and companies with a set of arbitrary regulations that have been placed after long battles. No, this is rather an attempt to get the economy to recognize the value of certain elements upfront despite their apparent abundance or short-term lack of utility.

We need an economy that takes this into consideration. The economy is based on value and value is based on ideas that we have theorized and put together in books like Marx and Smith etc...It is at this place that we step into a realm that starts getting a bit more complicated. The essence, and to keep it simple for this post, is that I want to see how I can incorporate a value concept that recognizes that which is critical and holds Infinite Value.

Synopsis - I think

2008-09-09T17:40:00.000-07:00

What I am trying to get at is the difference in ways of thinking and how effective these are in creating different types of opportunities and realities for us. This thinking is deeply embedded in Quantum Physics, Sciences of Cognition and in understandings of theory.

How we frame what it is that we believe we are experiencing leads us to identify certain limitations that may only exist because of the way we have theorized and framed our reality. If we can rewire the framework (the theory) that we have founded our reality on new opportunities will suddenly appear, along with new limitations. This is actually a very powerful concept that we can all use in our lives and always creates a sense of empowerment and hope. As long as we recognize that we have the most power over our thoughts and minds we can always find some new set of opportunities we previously would have never have recognized.

It is at this intersection that I want to explore the theory of value. How has value being theorized in a capatilist monetary based system and how has value actually landed up manifesting itself. This then leads into how can we add an additional element to value and create the ability for it to recognize things that hold a type of infinite value due to their i) critical importance to our survival ii) there current relative abundance iii) that certain things hold value prior to their relative scarcity.

The Power of Thoughts

2008-09-09T17:17:00.000-07:00

So often we forget that there are power dynamics at play, that there are structural limitations in place (in some ways these may be slightly open to our interpretation and I think that quantum physics may have something to say about this). However one of the most powerful things that I have seen in action in my own life most clearly is our "state of thoughts".

In fact I think I want to coin this term. This is the most powerful force in our active lives, it is the one element that we actually have the most power over. The more we can rewire our brains to notice love, compassion, opportunity, light, empowerment and to associate our bodies with these thoughts the closer we get to a sense of satisfaction and calm. This is truly what we are after and it brings us a step closer to happiness.

I also think that this idea can be extrapolated outwards and incorporate and entire town, city, state, country and continent and ultimately globe. You see - how we all think about our lives impacts everything around us and most critically ourselves.

When I move from one space to another, one country to another we are empowered to realize the power of this thinking mechanism, this creating of reality and this experiential experience that we all go through.

When you leave America you realize that our culture is not really the "global culture" we are lead to believe it is. You also realize that we are not the only ones creating it and that ideas are just as permeable from there to here as they are from here to there. This is were the power dynamic actually starts getting really interesting in my mind.

It is actually part of the power dynamic - the light verse the dark perhaps - call the parts what you want but I think it plays into a level of the power dynamic. Why is it so often that those that believe in opportunity and success, empowerment and light succeed in their ways regardless of where they start in life?

You see it is the actual sustaining force - it is this that we work at trying to share with those around us. This is what is infectious, this is what makes America a wonderful place, it is also part of what is currently crumbling here in America and growing in other places, most importantly and interestingly for me, this includes Africa as a whole and most specifically South Africa.

When I go back to SA I experience the difference of the mindset I also see the mindset of my family and of their community. I contrast this with my community here and those I surround myself with. They are very different communities and they also live very different lives of economic opportunity. Okay, this can just be a structural difference - America has more money, more education and therefore more opportunity.

My first response to this is that there are plenty of people in SA living very successful and materially comfortable lives. It is, therefore, not a structural thing that plays the dominant role here in my opinion. The real difference is the difference of thinking - America was poor once too. It has had other advantages - slavery amongst its biggest. However, this can not account for all the difference. Okay - I may be going down a rabbits hole here...

Babalife & Babajob

2008-05-22T22:09:00.000-07:00

I have always believed that traveling is a good thing to do. It broadens your spectrum and you get to see ideas, things and concepts that you would never have previously come across. I have traveled to many places and one of the most interesting and different places I have been is India. It is a place filled with such a type of dynamism that it is hard to put your finger on it. I only spent 10 days in southern India a few years ago and it was truly a magical experience.

So it was with no surprise that, while doing research into SMS technology that I came across Babalife and Babajob.
They are sister companies that provide social networking for job seekers and job hunters. The really incredible aspect of it is it is primarily built around the ability to utilize SMS technology. You, as someone looking for a worker, can query the system via SMS. While checking on the background of people via your social network - how are they connected to you or people you know. Kind of a six-degree's of separation idea.

This is brilliant!! I have to tell you. And, it is something that so speaks to how the rest of the world is going to grow up interacting with the web. Their interactions are not going to be computer based - rather they are going to interact via cell phones. They are going to text, use WAP and eventually 3G cell based interactivity.

I realized this while I was in South Africa this winter. Everyone outside of the USA uses text way more then voice, not to mention the cell phone is so much more ubiquitous. In fact - it is the primary life line for the majority of people. Many of these people have never had a land line, never mind a high-speed internet connection.

You see we forget that the way we interact with the web is not universal and that the future is going to be very different for the majority of the world. India is showing that as are many other companies that are emerging from the rest of the world.

I of course have not used Babalife or Babajob, but even if the service is not very reliable the technology and the structure are what will be the start of a whole much bigger revolution. It is like cell phones are still in the "dial-up" phase with the MS-Dos screen.

More to come......I'm sure of it!!!

TED Africa 2008 - Canceled

2008-05-16T18:06:00.001-07:00

Okay - well I will be the first to admit that I am completely biased towards anything positive and exciting about Africa. After all I am an African and grew up on the continent. After 15 years of living in the USA I will be returning to explore opportunities, to enjoy the sun and to relax on the beach all while ingesting the loveliness and magic of the African soil.

So, it was with a very sad heart that I saw this blog post from one of my favorite African bloggers - TED Africa Canceled. The reasoning appears to be pretty vague - something about the delay in getting licenses sorted out. I am not sure - I wish I knew more about why because I would gladly donate my time to getting the conference to happen.

For those of you that have not heard of the TED Conferences you should most certainly check out there website. The original conferences happened in Monterey, California and have brought together some of the most exciting and greatest minds in a broad range of fields - technology, arts, academia and more. There conferences are legendary and I have salivated (as has my wife) thinking about having the blessing of attending one of these workshops.

In true form to the basic motto or goal of the TED conference: "Ideas Worth Spreading" they hosted a TED Global in Arusha, Tanzania in 2007. This was a very successful conference and everyone was excited about a followup in another part of Africa. Perhaps it would be better to host it again in Tanzania, after all they already have the know-how and have done it before.

I am South African and would love to see it hosted in SA - but I would rather see it happen in Africa this year then it not happening at all. Who knows, perhaps something miraculous will happen and it will be pulled together. In the mean time other efforts will continue I am sure.

I think what this all points too is the growing importance of the "emergent economies" of the world. (Yes, emergent and not emerging - think about it and let me know if you have a question about the use of the term). These economies in Africa, Asia and S. America are going to reshape the world over the next 20 to 30 years. The odds are shifting - you can feel it in the air (or at least I can) - and these places are where so much ingenuity and creativity is going to explode into the global scene. This time, I hope and I pray, that the "forgotten" part of the world will actually prosper and benefit and show how it can all be done differently.

Hopefully the NextEinstein will be from Africa!! I am almost certain that he/she will.

Emptiness-Hidden Potential

2008-05-13T10:35:00.000-07:00

I have started reading a book called "The Diamond Cutter" by Geshe Michael Roach**. I have only read the first 4 chapters and have found it rather interesting. The subtitle of the book is: The Buddha on Strategies for Managing your Business and Your Life.

I know that the subtitle makes it sound kind of cheesy. And, I wouldn't normally pick up a book like this. But it came highly recommended by my wonderful father, who I turn to regularly for reading material.

The first major "lesson" in the book is around the concept of Emptiness or Hidden Potential. In summary the idea is that everything in our lives has hidden potential and that that potential in great part is dependent on our perception. That any single event, person or action acquires differing values dependent on the perception of the person viewing/experiencing the action or event.

For me personally this is nothing new. It is one of the things that I have struggled to integrate into my life for a long time. It requires you to kind of take a step back and evaluate things very differently. Or, at least, that is how I have gone about dealing with it.

This being said how does one pay attention to the way we are perceiving things? Can one change one's perception? If so, how do you go about doing that? I think that these are questions that will be answered later on in the book.

I have had a recent experience with this in my work/career life. I have identified some, what I perceive to be, fundamental flaws in the structure of a certain company that I have interacted with. One could perceive this as a purely negative thing - but this is exactly the crux of the argument. An event, situation, action is not in its purest sense anything more then an empty moment waiting for the varying perceptions that help "define" it. So - something is only what it is through perception.

I think I am going on a little tangent here but I am going to follow it anyway, because I think it gets at some of the esoteric and quantum physics elements of this argument. We know that our perception our "action of watching" an event affects the outcome of it. So, therefore an event or action is more of a container filled with an infinite amount of possibilities. Which possibility actually plays out and how it affects the viewers is dependent in great part by how it is is perceived.

One of the easiest ways to think of it is in the negative/positive dichotomy (though I hate binary thinking). Some people will perceive the collapse of a house as negative; the occupants, the owner. This is an accurate and fair perception. Yet others may perceive it in a positive light; the contractors, the architect. Once again this is an accurate and fair perception after all the collapse of the building has created additional work for these peoples.

So, we have to always remember that an event or an action are not inherently bad or good, but are rather open to multiple perspectives and interpretations all of which may be accurate.

To get back to my story about the "flaws" that I spotted in a business. These flaws can be perceived as "fundamental" and therefore prevent the company from growing in any long term situation. Or, it can be viewed more positively and a solution may be proposed, which is exactly what I did, that provides additional opportunity and creates new "hidden potentials".

What this understanding does on one level is it frees us up from being concerned about the inherent "rights" and "wrongs" - the good and the bad decisions. And, allows us to become far more empowered. We can now affect the outcome because the outcome to a great deal is dependent on our perception. Or rather the result can be interpreted in many different ways.

This is where the personal becomes so important. We have to take control of the situation in our selves, in our minds in our emotions and understand that how we are perceiving things is what is affecting the power of the events. That we can truly affect how experiences effect us.

I will keep you guys posted as I progress through the book and let you know if I have this right according to Roach.

**I want to note here quickly that there is some controversy surrounding Geshe Michael Roache as a person and some of his practices. I am not interested in commenting on this aspect of him personally but rather on his book and some of the ideas that he is sharing. If you want to read more about the controversy check out www.diamond-cutter.org

Kelly Tells You About Our Trip

2008-05-08T06:43:00.001-07:00

Hello All! - near and far, far & wide!

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO'D PREFER NOT TO READ A NOVEL, PICS WILL COME EVENTUALLY!.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO LIKE THE UPDATE - HERE IT IS!:

O.k. - we've been in Cape Town for 4 months now - we are leaving today!
It's been full of adventure.
We had 12 guests in total - 2 of whom we, unfortunately, had to kick out!, but 10 who were lovely! :)
2 who came for 6 days and 7 nights ( 30 hour+ flights both ways), jet-lag included!
2 who came solo - (I think they had the best time!)...
& the list goes on...
but a few of our very closest friends, whom it was so sweet to share this existence with!
It felt nice to have "home" here with us!

As you may remember, we lived (are still living), RIGHT on the beach.
We woke up (wake up) to the sun rise in our face (literally - we see it in bed), to the wave's crash...
Saul goes down every single morning to meditate, do yoga, and go for his daily swim.
Eyala and I join him sometimes...
(she watches us do yoga) :)
Otherwise, we sit there & watch the sun/eat sand ourselves.
We've gone for MANY a walk!
We did buy a surfboard, signed up for pilates, french, & dance...
all of which we're essentially taking "rain checks" for!
At the end of the day, between work & baby, the walks & sun rises out the window, etc., were all we needed on this round!

what else?
things have happened here.
We've been bombarded by "business ideas".
BASICALLY - this is California at the tip of Africa.
But - this is California at the tip of Africa in the 60's...
it's fresh.
it's fertile.

SAUL:
Basically, this company Saul's been working for - this PR/marketing firm (on-line), has given him the thumb's up to start to manage a "S. African" wing. Basically, Saul is going to be starting his own company with his dad (who also lives here).
They will be outsourcing work here, as it is much cheaper for the company he's working for now to function this way.
Basically, it's in so many words, they're forming a "call center", but via the internet on blogs! - & with integrity & clear intention.
It's not Saul's dream, but yet it is.
It's an opportunity he cannot pass up!
ps - his job has been a sort of crash course in the corporate ring...
we thought it would've made a tantalizing reality show!...with all the main players in Mauritius, South Africa, Germany, India, & the US.

While doing this, he's also looking at a master's program at UCT.

He's also been working heavily on a travel site (more to come on this), with a bunch of guys in Cali, and his dad. This is a very large-scale project, hopefully to be launched sooner than later.
We'll keep you posted on these details!

KELLY:
I, on the other hand, have connected with the UCT Business school for Messy MOnkey!
Our dearest friend Michaelle set up an "incognito" meeting, if you will.
She invited us all out to her sister's country home...us, and a couple of her other friends she thought we might just hit it off with.
Well, firecrackers, my friends...
firecrackers!
The woman is an artist, but has an MBA.
She is connecting me to the most fascinating people in the Monkey world - global.
Basically - she wants me to come back here in August, and work on something called the THINK INDABA.
It's a 2-week intensive "leadership training" program for leaders from all around Africa (usually around 30), who all pay about $8,000 to come take this course.
They want me to do some creative consulting with them, and to integrate some Monkey!
wow. - o.k.!
Cannot pass this up!
But, it's just the tip of the iceberg.
They've also connected me to a company called: CREATEGY (Creativity + Strategy), & HUDDLEMIND - a lab of sorts for creative experimentation of many different kinds...
I've had 5 different meetings re: all of these things since this "incognito" connection occurred!
Again - it's ripe.
It's fresh.
It's California in the 60's.

So - yes, it looks like we must come back here in August.
Think of us as bi-continental people!, 'cause to me, Cali is home.
Oaktown is home!
460 43rd St. is Home!
However, we've gotta follow this lead/these leads!, and eat this ripe fruit!
Opportunity knocks!
(plus, I must say) - living in between the mountains and the sea ain't too bad!
The food is getting better and better!

&, on that note, since we'll be here anyway, I'm starting a farmer's market in this little town we live in!
It's called Kalk Bay, and it's really funky - already.
It's full of hipster color/character, antique stores, fishing boats, and interesting restaurants...mediterranean-style landscape/houses...
BUT, it's seriously missing a good grocery store & a farmer's market!
So - I've already been calling the "council" & meeting with locals to get it sorted.
Since I'll be running it (it'll be called EDIBLE VILLAGE, by the way!)...
I'm also gonna have a taco stand at it, and a coffee cart!
(which they don't have either of yet) - at least not Really!
So - we'll have an umbrella company called: MAMA'S
the coffee cart will be: mama's PAPA DAWG coffee (it'll be drip-coffee, by the way).
&, the taco stand will be: mama's MUCHO BUENO tacos (fresh, stone-ground corn tortillas, heirloom beans & tomatoes, etc.)
we'll start there, and see what happens.

In the meantime, we're excited to go back to Oaktown!
I plan on painting 10 paintings.
I've just been asked to illustrate a children's book.
But, mostly, I plan on hanging out with my Baby!, & all of you! (who apply here! - live locally!),
& work a couple farmer's markets, etc.
do some of that Bay Area stuff I haven't done yet, or in awhile:
full moon kayak,
Yosemite?
Tahoe trip...
lots of bbqs,
brunches...
seek out some good Oaktown gospel church singin'?!
party with Eyala on July 12th (the big: 1)
Speaking of which,

EYALA b.:
aka: bubu:
(almost) walkin'!
2-teethed CUTIE!
She's doing great.
She spent most of her time on her mama in the ergo-carrier walkin' here/walkin' there...jibber-jabberin' to strangers, etc.
You'll see most all of this in the photos.

THE HOUSE:
basically, we've been camping in a huge, 5-bedroom house, which will be Exquisite when it's restored!.
Regardless of that, it is a gem - location! location! location!
hardwood floors are great, white-painted wood ceilings are great, sun room is awesome! -
what we will look forward to upon returning home to Oaktown is:
furniture,
aesthetically pleasing sheets,
a nice shower,
Kiran :),
our hot tub,
& an "average"-sized washer!, & a dryer!
And, a DISHWASHER!!
(btw, we will not stay here on our return).
We are looking for a 3-bedroom cozy spot in Kalk Bay.

IN OTHER NEWS:
we did also experience:
calling in (911) re: a drowning :(
maggots!
potent stomach bugs,
Saul fainting in the bathtub,
Eyala's fever of 104,
& then, Eyala's oral thrush/rash...
(seemingly all in a row!)...

HIGHLIGHTS:
(the unexpected moments!):
those moments in the water where you catch the wave!...
(what is that)?!
it always catches me by surprise; bliss!
Saul is often found frolicking back to his beach towel after rounds of this.
giddy.
best is when we get to do it together (when aunt sasha's around?!)...

Any/everything we do with our friend Michaelle.
She's so cool/fun.
So - there's this big bike race here called the ARGUS.
Anyway, it goes Right in front of our house.
So- we cooked b-fast in the driveway, and danced to Michael Jackson.
Michaelle, Sasha, & I were dancing for all the cyclists.
so much fun.
(only wish I'd had Madonna!) :)

Again, Michaelle hosted us at her sister's country/modern home.
She has a knack for wining/dining/hosting/pampering

.
yum!

She, Saul, & I went and kicked it on this beach the size of your sofa. It's where the 2 of them grew up together.
It was so sweet!

I really like hanging my laundry at noon - when I can still see the moon.

the sunrises!
the sunsets!
the full moons!

Meeting Caitlyn & Jess - the daughters of Penny (the woman who owns the local organic shop).
so sweet.
(love it there!)...
Bubu and I walk there along the sea.
It takes 20 minutes (max).
We also pick up our veggie box once a week at the OLIVE STATION.
We know everyone there too.
Small Town!
Right now we owe Penny for 2 cookies, and the local bakery for an apple danish.
love that! (yes - those are saul's delicacies!)...

spontaneous girly shopping with Dalila & Glendy.

singing rounds with Peter, Mer, & Dalila. :)

all the unexpected:
watching bubu love the rain.

84-degree days (which happened more regularly in Jan./Feb./early March, but sometimes in April)!

sitting in a sandpit (on the beach), as though it were a bathtub, and just watching bubu marvel at the dogs, waves, other babies, birds, & other such Fascinating things!...

&, the coolest thing happened just yesterday (the day before we are to leave!)...
We visited a pig farm in the middle of the City - hidden in the dense residential area...I'm going to try to set up a farmer's market there...
soo cool!

See you all soon.
So much Love!
kel & the wainwrights.

In DC

2008-05-08T06:30:00.000-07:00

Hey everyone that reads this blog - I think it might only be me that does though....

We are in Washington DC, actually just about 3 miles from the Pentagon. It is very beautiful here and the weather has been supreme. Our flight from Cape Town to DC was just perfect. We each had a whole row of seats to sleep on and Eyala slept for about 14 or the 18 hours of flying. That was fantastic!!! She is such a trooper.

We leave for Oakland tonight at 4:45pm and arrive at 7:26pm PST. Our dear friend Rachel has volunteered to pick us up which is fantastic. I am really looking forward to being home and sleeping in our bed and just enjoying our very cozy home.

I will be posting a whole bunch of photos from the trip in a couple of days so keep an eye out for those. I may start trying to embed the flickr link for those of you who are interested - though the photos will be password protected most often.

More thoughts will follow on this blog in the coming weeks.

My Jewish Family

2008-04-30T04:01:00.000-07:00

Here is a picture from my Grandmother Betty's 90th Birthday

Deparment of Home Affairs - And the Moaners

2008-04-30T03:41:00.000-07:00

Okay so today I went to pick up my South African passport at the Department of Home Affairs in Wynberg. I had applied for it about 10 weeks ago. Last time I went in, which was about a week ago, my passport was not there but they assured me it was on its way and I could pick it up the following week.

Of course I was concerned it would not arrive in time as I am leaving for the USA on the 6th. None the less, I took their word for it and returned this week. And, with much relief, got my passport. Phew!!! Crises averted.

But, what inspired me to sit down and write this blog post was the people sitting around me and bitching. I mean, complaining about waiting and the slow service and the fact that they had landed up sitting in the wrong section for an hour only to find out they had to get in a different line.

I have dealt with beauracracy for many, many years. I had to navigate the US immigration system. Let me tell you that was hell. I used to get up at 4am to drive to the nearest office, and sit outside until 8am when they opened the doors. Waiting and waiting - no water, no cell phones and no food allowed. That sucked. But, I got my green card, and after 12 years got my US passport. No easy feat.

One thing I learned was that there was no point in bitching or complaining. It was only gonna stress myself out and piss off the people behind the counter that were generally trying to help.

Come on now South African's stop complaining. Everyone, all the bloody time, complaining about this and that. About how bad the service at this department was, how slow this process was. This attitude just sucks - and it is annoying.

I guess my point is that everyone's complaining and negative attitude about these things in reality has nothing to do with South Africa as a nation-state, but has everything to do with the attitude of the individuals. I know this because I have heard people bitching in other parts of the world - where, in the USA, if you are a citizen it take 2 to 4 weeks to get a passport. That is pretty darn efficient but it is a pain to apply for - very specific photographs, huge amounts of very specific documents etc.

What I am confused by is what everyone is comparing South Africa too? Where did they get this impression that South Africa is so bad? Is there something in the water? Is it a legacy of Apartheid? The food people eat? Anyone got any ideas?

It is so strange for me. Because, when my wife and I decided to return to South Africa it was because we were inspired by the space. That it was filled with opportunities and is exciting and interseting. In fact the vast majority, in fact everyone that I know who has visited this country, feel that is an incredible place. They all want to come back, live here and play.

South African's you need to wake up and realize that you live in a wonderful place - filled with its own problems - but certainly nothing we can't ultimately overcome. The better your attitude the better the experience the better the space and the more chance of us all coming together and building an even greater country.

And, those people at the Department of Home Affairs - they deserve a good pat on the back for workign hard and trying to get it all sorted out. In fact, they even volunteer on Saturdays so that the office can be open for those of you that have to work.

Be positive!!! Stay positive!!! And, it will all be so much more pleasant an experience for you and those around you.

Africa-The Land of Creativity and Ingenuity

2008-04-29T03:57:00.000-07:00

I am soo excited by this space and place. Africa is happening people!!! Seriously. It is a place filled with so much creativity and ingenuity. I could spend days digging through all the interesting blogs and reading about all the interesting projects and technologies being put together. And, remember, this is only a fraction of what is going on. The rest doesn't even make it on to the net.

Some people have likened South Africa to California in the sixties - I hope so, but I hope that the end result will be so much more then that. People have to be creative you have to come up with out-of-the-box thinking and solutions when you can't run down to Office Max or Best Buy (two massive electronics stores in the USA) to "purchase" your solution. Here you have to get creative.

I came across two blogs recently that have really excited me (and when I say recently I mean in the past 24 hours) and I haven't even been able to really dig through these blogs yet.

Check them out: Afrigadget and WhiteAfrican

Both of these are focusing on technologies and I think that is awesome. As any of you know, that have either read my blog or know me personally I am not a techie kind of guy. Nor, do I believe that the only real way to solve our problems is through technologies. For me the most critical thing is how we think, what we think about and how we theorize and frame our problems and solutions.

This is why these sites and what they identify excites me so much. It shows a way of thinking an understanding that we can create solutions that we don't have to think along the regular paths and within the normal theoretical frameworks. That we can break out of the mold that Africa has placed itself in and actually start solving and creating alternatives ouselves. Using what is available to create new ways, new options and new solutions.

If you dig around the Afrigadget site you will find two cool articles. The first one is about using recycled parts, and dual sim chips in cell phones the other one is about building bicycles out of bamboo.
These are not people that are trying to come up with the latest million dollar solution. But, rather are looking at solving everyday problems - transport and communication.

Everyday I get more and more excited about my return to South Africa. To climbing into my bio-diesel (made from waste oil, or non-edible plant matter - and hopefully from blue-green algea on of these days) and driving into Africa. Finding and exploring, learning and giving. Because, for me this is the next play ground. Africa is where it is at. Africa is where our solutions are to be found. Africa has to think differently - it has to follow a new path an emergent path.

I hope all of you get a chance to come to this lovely place and explore and be excited.

Oh Beautiful Days

2008-04-28T07:06:00.000-07:00

A picture taken at Clifton Beach in Cape Town.

27 Dinner in CT

2008-04-28T01:13:00.001-07:00

I have been living in my home country for the past 4 months with my wife and child. It was meant to be just a visit - but we are planning on returning in August for an indefinite period of time. There are many reasons for this decision - beautiful city, family, cost of living but one of the biggest reasons for both my wife and myself is the incredible amount of entrepreneurial spirit and opportunity in this country.

I spent last night at a dinner with about 20+ social media entrepeneurs in Cape Town last night. It was an interesting and exciting time. It is a dinner that happens monthly on the 27th of each month - they rotate the dinners from one city to the next - Cape Town, Jo'burg, Durban etc. It is known as 27Dinner and is organized by the affable Dave Duarte who I had the pleasure of meeting a few weeks ago through an old friend while spending a weekend in a cute little town called Stanford. Dave is a great guy and runs multiple projects - among one of the most interesting is his work with Huddlemind.

If you explore the link to the 27Dinner wiki you will get a chance to check out many interesting companies and bloggers in South Africa. Several of these guys have gone global, or are partly owned by larger companies. There were two speakers last night - first was Eric Edelstein who has started several successful companies the better known one being incuBeta. His latest venture is SpringLeap which allows you to vote on t-shirt designs and then have them made up and shipped off to stores around the country - if not the world. It is a proudly South African company with all the work, printing, CMT of t-shirts being done in SA.

The other person that I got to hear speak last night was Charl Norman. He gave a little talk on building social networks - and the work that he has done, very successfully, with at least 3 social networks. The first and biggest being Blueworld (which just partnered with one of South Africa's biggest media companies 24.com). Blueworld is a specifically South African social network - working on bringing South African's together, and giving them a chance to meet people they haven't met before.

It was a really great time. It is incredible how active social media/new media is in South Africa. How many of these young, talented and excited people are invovled in doing really cutting edge and interesting stuff. It is so cool hanging out at the tip of Africa experiencing something that you wouldn't expect to find. How people in the rest of the world really don't get what is going on in Africa today. I wish they did, I wish everyone could focus on what is great about this country and this continent.

Hips, Surgery, Cists

2008-04-23T11:48:00.000-07:00

I am sharing this story with all of you. Inspired by my reading of the book by Jerry White, the co-founder of Survivor Corps (previously known as Landmine Survivor Network). I haven’t written about this before. I don’t even think I will re-read what I have written before sharing it. It is intense. There is so much blacked out, so much I don’t remember. I am not sharing this for sympathy, I am sharing it because I have not shared it before.

When I was 6 years old my mom took me to see a doctor because I had been limping, and complaining of pain in my left hip. She thought at first that it was nothing, just a regular, hyper-active boy that had probably bruised his leg playing with friends.

I don’t remember the date of this visit but I do remember the moment when, while I was sitting on the floor at the doctors office tying my shoelaces after the x-ray, the doctor turned to me and told me not to move that they would get me a wheel chair immediately. That they were going to have to operate on my leg the very next day. I remember the shock, I remember being wheeled out of the doctors office into the ward.

They had found a large cist in my hip joint. Right in the ball and socket joint. The cist had eaten, yep pretty much consumed, the bone in my hip joint to the point that the hip had actually fractured because it was so weak. The doctor was worried that if he didn’t operate on it that the amount of blood getting to the rest of the bone in the leg would not be sufficient. That, essentially, gangrene would set in and I would loose the whole leg.

I remember many agonizing hours of lying in cat-scan machines, these things sucked – if you moved, even slightly the whole process would have to start again. For hours, it felt – especially for a hyper-active 6 year old – I would lie in this tube while they studied my hip.

That very next day I went into surgery – I think the surgery lasted around 8 hours. My poor mother was pacing around in the hospital corridor waiting, no news just waiting. My father didn’t even live in the country at the time. My mom was a single mother with a 3 year-old, my sister Sasha, and her 6 year-old son in surgery.

They had to cut into the hip, scraped the cist out and chipped chunks of bone from one part of the hip and put them in the part where they cist had eaten – they call this a bone graft. All in the hope that the bone would take and re-grow.

I remember waking up from the surgery the next day – in a plaster cast from my chest down. I was essentially immobile. There was a tube coming out the side of my body running into a jar that was draining my blood.

The pain, my God, the pain was like nothing I can explain. The hip throbbed, it felt like it wanted to explode, that it would explode. It felt like it was thumping against the side of the plaster cast that it was going to break out and explode.

There I lay, in the hospital, unable to move, having to shit and pee into a tray. No privacy, no sense of self-control and so alone.

I was young, I think that was the best thing I had going for me at the time. I was resilient. I don’t remember thinking too much about it. I was just in live mode. I lay in that hospital for several weeks. My mom would come visit me daily, spend time with me. The nurses were awesome. I got a remote control car that I would drive around the ward, much to the annoyance of the nurse.

I remember the other kids in the ward. There was a young child who had been burned terribly when a candle fell into his cot. My mom would go over an comfort this boy, his mom was poor and worked and couldn’t come and visit him all the time. He cried all the time. Even at that age I understood the importance of not feeling sorry for ones self. That others had it tougher. That I had my leg, that I had my mom by my side and that I would be fine.

I remember going home, still in my plaster cast, having to in a bed, day in and day out. I was a kid, and surged back quickly. I found ways to push myself around on a piece of wood that my mother put four wheels on. I could motor around the house like a maniac, much to the horror of my mother. I would be wheeled up to my local primary school in an old stroller. Legs sticking out and a blanket over the part of the plaster cast that was cut out – so that I could pee – for privacy. I would go to school to get my reading books and stay in touch.

I think it was several months before the cast was removed. I remember the day. Going into the hospital – having the cast cut-off. It was scary, what was even scarier was seeing the leg. It was emaciated. Thin, real thing. No muscle. It was essentially useless. I remember trying to move it and nothing would happen. I remember freaking out thinking it was actually dead, that it wouldn’t work again. The nurses assured me it would be fine. After a couple months on crutches I would be walking soon enough.

This wasn’t the truth. After many more hours in cat-scans and x-rays they found that the cist had grown back. That they would have to operate a second time. I remember crying, telling the doctor that he couldn’t. That they were wrong, it was fine. No please not the cast again!!!
I made the doctor promise that he wouldn’t put me in the cast again. Please!! He said he would try his best.

Back into the operating room, back under those lights. Passing out to fading voices. Waking up in pain. Throbbing, throbbing!! But no cast…I was sooo happy. I knew that I could at least move around. That I wouldn’t have to lie in bed all day and call for help every time I needed to pee or shit. What a relief.

The next 6 to 9 months I walked on crutches. Leg in a sling!!! Everywhere. Hey, man I was good on those crutches. I could move fast and furious.

But it was long and slow. It was tough. I remember when I stopped having my leg in a sling. It was almost 18 months since I had stood on my left leg, had walked. It was intense. They didn’t do much therapy. It was kind of get your shit sorted and move.

I don’t remember much about learning to walk again. About rebuilding my leg. I do know that I threw myself into running, swimming, playing rugby and playing in general. Gosh, how good it felt to run 800 meters – like the best meditation in the world. To swim 1 km in the morning before schools started. I was blessed, I had a working leg.

Crazy when I think back on it now. I have never written openly about this time in my life. I still have two big fat scars on my hip. Sometimes my hip hurts, the muscle structure is vastly different between the left and right hip. But, it works. I walk, I swim, I jump, I run. I have two legs. What a marvel.

I read Jerry’s book and I think how lucky I am. How blessed I am to have both, to walk on the feet I was born with. Thank the Lord!! Truly.

Food Value

2008-04-22T14:05:00.000-07:00

The world seriously seems to be going a little haywire. I have been reading all about the food riots. Well, maybe not all about them – but I am certainly aware that they are happening. That prices have gone up and that this of course hurts the poor first and foremost. If you barely have any money to eat and prices outstrip any wage increases, with no room for cutting discretionary spending then you are certainly in a shitty position.

I came across a blog that was talking about this – it is in great part an anti-capitalist blog post but that is not really the point (here is a link to it: http://www.empirenotes.org/). The most relevant part of the blog post to me was the raising of the issue of having global markets for food and as a secondary note the fact that the US food aid has to all be produced in the USA.
The first issue; that having global food markets can of course be argued as both a good thing and a bad thing. Lets look at the good thing – effectively you as a farmer are able to produce your product and sell it at the highest price, therefore making a profit and being able to continue to be a farmer. In fact it is supposed to act as an incentive. It also should mean that when one region of the world is lacking in food it can go into the global commodities market and purchase the necessary food to feed its people. Also, you would think that this setup would incentivize increased production – because with global futures markets farmers can often hedge their bets and know, to a degree, what price their grain will fetch on the market come harvest time. So therefore I will produce X because price is Y.

This has held relatively true. And in fact we are producing massive amounts of food. More then we need to feed everyone. However, and this is where the bad comes in, food is now treated purely as a commodity. Not a necessity, not something that holds a value far above a pure dollar figure. It after all is needed to sustain life – no food no life. No life no food. Okay, well, my point is – and maybe you can guess this by now – is that this is something that on a certain level holds an infinite value – food for eating is priceless. People need to eat – that is a fundamental need and a fundamental right. People do not need to drive cars, grow pigs or make disposable containers out of corn.

What we have then is a market distortion. An incorrect value has been placed on a product/commodity/entity. Once again this is a capitalist failure. The question is how does the market correct this one. If we believe in free markets then what we should expect is that food production will rise sharply and the price will drop accordingly and everyone will have their bowl of rice. However the global distortions continue to exist – subsidies is one of the biggest ones. We can nit-pick it in all of these ways. But, for me it is about a system that does not value something above and beyond a quantifiable price. Essentially infinite value.

Once again how do you bring infinite value in to a pricing system? Can a pricing system hold infinite value? Or, are we just barking up the wrong tree and need to realize that capitalism is bust. Kapoo!!

If it is then what is the alternative? What do we construct in its place? I have a friend that talks about a gift economy. She hasn’t really developed the concept much further then the idea that if we all approach the world, our friends and our lives from a place of giving then we will all be taken care of. Well, I of course have issues with this on some levels because at the root of it is still a value judgment. How much do you give? When someone gives do you take? What if you take more then you give? Perhaps on a purely esoteric level this equates. I am not sure. But, the point for me is that we are still caught in having to construct some sort of value system.

Ultimately any system of economics has value at its root. The question is how is that system constructed and what holds the highest value – so far capitalism is tapped out at the trillion dollar mark. Once we get beyond trillions we have an issue. But, that which is recognized as holding an infinite value is something that it cannot contain and therefore ignores.
This is a shame because those are the things that we need to value the most. They are something that we need to incorporate. They are values that are above all other values.
We need to feed people first and foremost. It is not about how much money you can get for your corn that matters. Hell, if everyone is fed and there is corn left over then go ahead and make your fork and knife out of corn. But, if there are those in hunger then a value, an infinite value, is being ignored.

I am sure this is a rambling two pages of scrambled text. I am trying to decipher all of this and find a way to put it together so that it makes sense. How to apply infinite value and how to construct a system that includes this. A theory that fits.

Any idea?

Linear Paths

2008-04-20T09:08:00.000-07:00

I am always amazed at how many people view time as a linear experience and then use that understanding to conceptualize development theory. Essentially coming up with the conclusion that we are all on a single path of development – following stages from 1 to 2 to 3…. I know that this is actually a very Marxist way of envisioning the world. But, our greatest scientist, Einstein, showed us in a very basic fashion how time is relative. In fact, depending on your vantage point your experience is different vis-à-vis someone else’s experience. In essence one can apply this to the global physical geographic landscape. Those of us standing in Africa view development – the trajectory of it – differently then those in Europe and that the end result – the final station/stage (if there can even be such a thing) – are not necessarily following the same path as others.

I am no physicist – and perhaps I am completely misapplying Einstein’s thinking, but hopefully you get the point. Essentially I am amazed at how people place development on a single path, a trajectory that all nations, no matter where they are located, no matter what their relative position is – view, experience and follow the same path; that development is a linear process. I am emphatically disagreeing with this view, and in my favorite professor, Gillian Hart’s words – it is always constituted of historically and geographically specific parts. That it always, always, depends on where you are, what you have experienced and how the world has interacted with that space.

What this means for so many people is places like Europe or America are ahead of places like Africa and S. America. And that places like China and India are somewhere in the middle. And, that we in South Africa are still a hundred years behind those in Europe.

In fact I sat today at one of my favorite little coffee shops in Kalk Bay, very Euro/very French coffee shop, with a young Greek-South African brother and sister. They were talking about how the culture of Europe is so much further ahead of South African culture and that that is why they no longer want to live here in South Africa. I didn’t challenge them on this notion. But the truth is that these are not two cultures on the same path just at different stages. They are two cultures on the same planet in different phases of their historically and geographically specific emergence. South Africa is not European it is not American it is a version of an African culture with elements of these other cultures. It is what it is and will never be something that it can’t be. It can never be European; in fact the only place that can be European is Europe.

Sure we can argue that there are elements within the European culture that are important and valuable and aught to be integrated into our South African culture. But, hell, has anyone read the South African constitution lately. That seems pretty “advanced” to me and incorporates ideas that Europe has struggled to integrate into any legal structure for eons. Remember it was only 60 years ago that the Europeans were slaughtering each other because of the differing religious ethnicities.

In a discussion with a new friend a few weeks ago, while hanging out in the ever so quaint town of Stanford – about 1.5 hours outside of Cape Town – we were using and debating terms like “1st world/3rd world”, “developing/developed” etc. (You all know the different versions of this.) She started using the term “emergent” - South Africa is an emergent culture. It is not emerged, it is not emerging as something. It is under constant formation that is historically and geographically specific.

We all need to remember that the thinking has been so dominated by those in the north that we have bought into the greatest marketing achievement of all time. That some how Europe and America, in the infamous words of the scholar Francis Fukuyama, has reached the “end of history”, which somehow Europe and America have beaten us to the final station on the road of “progress” and “development”. Yet, no one has considered what Africa may still have to offer South Africa’s very specific historical experience and that its very specific geographical location affects and continues to affect what cultural experiences will emerge.

You are fooling yourself if you think Europe is more advanced; that somehow it has something over the rest. The primary thing that we all want is the ability to feel physically safe, for our children to feel safe and that our ability to provide for our family and ourselves is somewhat guaranteed. Europe and America have traditionally (or at least in Europe for the past 60 yeas) been able to create that sense of security. There is nothing about the way that Europe operates or the “stage” that it is in that guarantee this. That at some point this ability will be reduced and Europe may not be so advanced.

What I think is so often missed is that we are heading towards an end goal – that there is somewhere that we are going to end up. In the end it is this view of life that we are all so caught up in – that this is what has been marketed to us. That the goal is to own a big house, a fancy car and cool sunglasses. And, that when we have this we are done and can sit back and be happy. What crap. That is just the start – that is where it all begins. We are all in a constant process of emergentness – that we are trying to find our space and that anyone that tells us that those are already there and we are just playing catch up are, well, in for a surprise one of these days.

Strip Mining

2008-04-19T09:33:00.000-07:00

There is something wrong with our economy when it rewards something like coal strip mining. That this is considered more economically efficient and profitable to society. How do you get the economy to recognize that blowing 300ft off of a mountaintop to get at 2 feet of coal is neither truly efficient nor economical? Are the ultimate costs far greater then any other method – ecologically, socially? Is it just a matter of externalities not being included in the cost of production? If you included the externalities would it make this method too costly? Yet, how do you include the loss of something like a mountain top –how can you place a price on something like a mountain, a forest a cleanly flowing river. These things have values that are priceless – their value is infinite in its nature and there is no way to truly place a price on this.

Therefore we are faced with the recognition that a pricing system that is based on ideas of scarcity cannot fully account for what needs to be recognized by the economy. This leads us to the need to create an economic system that in someway can account for things of infinite value. That infinite value is always part of the equation and that ignoring that which holds infinite value results in the environment and social horrors that we see capitalist economics imposing on our society and earth.

How then do you include this value, how do you create a system that recognizes things of infinite value? What needs to be changed in an economy? Is capitalism inherently unable to include that which holds infinite value? What happens if we focus the economy on the concept of abundance instead of scarcity? What if the economy pays attention to abundance and the pricing system is based on a concept of abundance?

In today’s world abundance is actually more prevalent then in any other time. Money is more abundant then at any other time, food is more abundant then at any time, there are more commodities above the earth then below the earth. There are more homes, more people; there is more of everything then at any other time in history. Yet, our economy is still driven by concepts of scarcity. Decisions and prices are still focused on scarcity.

What would an economy look like that focused on abundance? How would you create a pricing mechanism that paid attention to abundance? Can you create such a system? Does the system have to be something completely different that doesn’t even use a pricing mechanism? Doesn’t use money? A gift economy? This is where the juicy questions arise. This is where one truly has to delve into theories and explore what is contained within this train of thought.

I am constantly thinking and exploring these questions. From my basic research, and asking some big time economists. No one has answered this question of infinite value in capitalist pricing mechanism. It is a void in the thinking of a pricing system and is something that needs to be answered. I am committing myself to exploring this idea further and trying to see if I can’t come up with a theoretical understanding that is able to include that which holds infinite value.

Global Dewey Decimal Point System

2008-04-15T03:31:00.000-07:00

http://www.netvibes.com/

This is a site that attempts to aggregate your information/sns profiles across the web. This is an element of what I have been trying to get at. This is essentially an aggregation, much like signing up to a bunch of RSS feeds, that you can then participate in multiple spaces but have a single point of entry. It is personalized however and in that sense is not community based - it is individual based.

What happens if you can create an aggregation site that organizes this information based on what is being pumped out by, for starters blogs. I wonder if this exists. There are two trends here. 1 is the people that are willing to spend the time on the web to follow the information, to create the profiles and to sign up to RSS feeds etc. So that they create their own little "social library".

Then there are the others - like me - that don't care to do this yet still use the web as a resource and a place to find information. The only real way that one does this is through google searches. Yet, if I went into a library I would be able to look through the catalog using the dewey decimal point system. Can one create something like this for the web? Can one actually use the web as a library? I guess that is what google is trying to do. Except that the commercialized aspect of it has driven the system to be gamed. No one ever needed to game the dewey system. Either your book was good or it wasn't, either it was relevant or it wasn't. You don't really know what is relevant or not. So, google tries to create the personalized search. Google is willing to follow your personal trends and use algorithims to estimate/guess what it is that you are actually looking for.

In the end there is something missing here. There is an element of access to this information that makes it a complete waste. Well maybe not complete but problematic none the less. The barage of information has created a certain level of redundancy that can only be truly accessed through your own personal search and aggregation methods. The community, this idea of social media, is really a fallacy because it is only if you participate directly in it that you benefit.

Are we then only left with google? Is that all we have? How do you determine relevancy? By the amount of people viewing a site? By how often the person blogs? By how many links are sent into it? I am wondering what would happen if you create a global dewey decimal point system that people could submit their blogs too. Regardless of perceived relevancy. In the end isn't google just acting like any other big publishing house that chooses what it thinks the people want/are interested in?

Lets create a global dewey decimal point system.

Economics of Infinity

2008-04-05T03:44:00.000-07:00

I live in Cape Town, one of the most magnificent cities in the world. The lifestyle is splendid, truly. South Africa is splendid, all my friends know that this is something I say almost daily. Yet, there is a side to living in Africa (or perhaps it is just what happens when you leave Europe or the USA) life becomes so filled with contrasts. Big beautiful homes and shacks, comfort and opulence next to poverty. It is the world in a microcosm. You can't hide from the differences. In America you can. You can forget that people live on a $1 a day, that people don't eat, have no home and suffer in poverty of unknown proportions.
It is somethign that is so strange about my life in America it is so disconnected. Here you are alive you have to be alive, you have to value what splendor you have been given. That what those of us have is somethign to be cherished.
Today I had a man come to my door, dying of Aids, had been stabbed in the arm by young punks in the ghetto that he lives in. He was broken out with a horrible rash of sorts that said kept him up at night. He needed money, money to pay rent in his shack so that he had a place to sleep. His story is long and winding. He wants to go back to Malawi so that he can die in a place where he will be buried.
Can't I give him a R100? Yes, I can, I can give you that money, I can give you more then that. Here, here it is. I am not a rich man, but I am richer then you. I have a home, a family a job, an education a passport and my health. Here, here is some money. Yes, it will not solve it it will not make it better for him any longer then the R100 will last (maybe $15). But, I will give it. I will give it with my heart of sadness for I know I can not help this man, nor the next or the next that comes to my door.
So, what do you do. How do you help, can you help? What is help? What is giving? I don't know the answer to this question. I do know that I want an answer. That I want to know how it is that our societies, everywhere, have people that need to beg to ask to plead, to cry for your help. They see me, they see you, they see all of us. In our homes, our cars, our restaurants. Laughing playing singing. They see our pleasure and our happiness.
I am thankful, I am so thankful for all that I have and I will always be grateful and I will always acknowledge what I have and pray that I am may help, even a little, those that do not have those that beg and those that have some how fallen outside of societies compassion.

the Olympia Bakery

2008-02-18T12:17:00.001-08:00

so - every Thurs., Friday, & Saturday, they offer 3, 4, or 5-course meals (your choice), in the guts of their big bakery.
So, yes, you eat next to the ovens, and the bags of flour.
It's also incredible food.
In all essence, this area (including this restaurant!) is the Bay Area, in a 1-mile strip of antique malls, unique/interesting restaurants, and colorful botiques.
"This area" is: Kalk Bay (if you look at a map, it's in between Muizenberg & Fish Hoek).

Kalky's

2008-02-18T12:16:00.001-08:00

Kalky's:
local fish & chips.
fishermen & grime.
love it!

the Harbor House

2008-02-18T12:15:00.003-08:00

the most beautiful restaurant I've ever been to.
everything's white.
the rest is all windows
it's Right on the sea.
It's incredible food.
lots of fish.
what else to say?
this is where saul wants us to go for our "regular" Friday-night drinks.
fine.
p.s. - this is also where he happened to propose to me!

Penny's

2008-02-18T12:15:00.001-08:00

Penny's: Penny's is our favorite natural food store. It is owned by Penny. It is in the little "village" of Muizenberg. It's essentially a little "farm stall", with a bunch of produce, raw milk, unpasteurized cheese, & meat from a bunch of (or a few?) local, biodynamic farms.
We love it there!
I've since befriended Penny's daughters Caitlyn & Jess!
Caitlyn is ordering eco-diapers, etc. for them, and helping to open up the new "smoothie" section of the store.
They are adding on, and with that is a big "farm table", where people can come in and eat salads, etc.
We barely need to go to any other store.
We love it.
It's like eating out of your own garden - (or, as close as that!).

Our next stop shopping is the Olive Station.
There we get our weekly "veggie box".
It's pretty there.

Tokai Market

2008-02-18T12:14:00.001-08:00

Farmer's Markets:
there are a few.
The most local is the Tokai market.
It's really cute.
You can go for pancakes in the morning, coffee, or smoothies.
"Beware of baboons" as you eat.
They don't have a ton of produce, but do have really nice olive oil, exotic local mushrooms, flowers (we got a bunch of roses with mint last time!), some crafts, & the most gorgeous, artistic cheese I've ever seen!
It all has a nice "chalkboard & wooden stall" look/feel.

Fish Out the Sea

2008-02-18T12:10:00.001-08:00

the fishermen go out in their colorful fishing boats.
We try to spot them at the right time coming in, so that we can go fetch their goods on arrival!
We need to make this more of a daily ritual!
Apparently the fish aren't coming in everyday?
ahh...this must come to an end!
We need our fish in plenty!
*We Finally went & bought our first fresh fish!

Woodstock

2008-02-18T12:09:00.000-08:00

Woodstock is exceptional!
So exceptional that I'm not sure if we'll go again!
It's bumper to bumper in there of gorgeous falafels, wine, specialty ice cream/gelato, other delectable gourmet items, and a fashion show of capetonians in all their nicest summer apparel.
sweet.

Olympia

2008-02-18T06:41:00.000-08:00

Olympia: This is the local cafe/deli that we frequent pretty much daily, be it for breakfast, lunch, or dinner.
We know the staff.
they know our baby.
It's so small-town.
It's loud.
It's local.
It's perfect, in that sense.
We eat things like the most perfect, fluffy eggs there, or goat cheese, salami, & berry salad.
hmmm...
we never eat things like that in the States!
We just don't.
But - it's here, so we're eating it!
And, it's good!
Saul often gets coffee, wine, cookies, creme brulee...
mussels, hamburgers, fish...
*So - we just went there AGAIN, last night. Saul got the most Delicious leg of lamb that just fell off the bone. We walked past the back of the restaurant before we went in this particular evening. We noticed they have their own vineyard right there. The grapes are young, so the wine is not all that yet. And, we know the owner, & know that he only looks for the best quality food.
More & more - I really like this place!
I would describe it as french - buttery & oily, but really done so well.
yum.
And, the staff is some of the best I've ever had - truly.
laid back, yet completely on top of it.
Olympia - our home away from home here...
our 2nd kitchen.

View's from the front yard

2008-02-18T03:52:00.000-08:00

Hey, so I wanted to share this pic of the view from my front "sun-room". Bloody brilliant!!!

Kalky's Valentines 2

2008-02-14T23:29:00.001-08:00

It was Saul's turn to do Valentine's.
He made me breakfast, got me my pick of flower boquets at the store, & got me fish/chips from Kalky's.
really sweet - I liked it!, 'cause we got the same thing last year - (tradition!)...
He got me local, organic red wine (which I haven't had in decades).
I had some, & it was alright!
My view was watching him eat in the sun room, and surfers surf in the background/backyard, in the sea!
He had a bunch of tea light candles lit in the shape of a heart.
It was very nice/somewhat surreal.
The 3 of us sat there & watched the surfers after we ate.

Cafe des Arts

2008-02-14T22:41:00.000-08:00

just down the street.
opened by the former chef of the Olympia.
It's actually my favorite place here.
There's nothing to it.
It's the exact same wood ceilings & floor as our house here.
They have about 8 tables.
They seat them all once per evening, and that's it.
amazingly fresh.