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:
Showing posts with label alternative economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alternative economics. Show all posts
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Friday, April 17, 2009
Oh Thesis Question!!
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",
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Community Currencies - From von Hayek to Linton and back again
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....
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....
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
The Local In Alternative Currencies
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.
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.
Friday, November 28, 2008
San Francisco Green Festival
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Comment on openmoney.ning
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.
"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.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Incentives
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)