Essay Abstract
We explore a complex systems model that links global material and communication resources, distributed laterally rather than hierarchically. Such a robust network ideally has the capacity to create and maintain global economic equilibrium, while helping assure maximal individual freedom, wealth and creativity.
Author Bio
Tom Ray is an independent researcher in the mathematics and philosophy of complex systems science.
Hi Tom,
How much better it would have been had you learned the negative impact of theory. I won't rate this essay. I assume it will be very attractive to many others. I wish you well with it, but only for this contest. One question: Did you heed the leader's 'scientifically based' call for followers to support the Occupy Movement?
James Putnam
Hi James,
I hope to see you back after you've read the essay.
Tom,
I read the essay.
James Putnam
So then, you purposely chose to talk in my forum about something I neither said nor implied?
Tom,
My question was in direct response to a significant part of your essay. Are you saying that you are not familiar with the leader and act referred to in my question?
James Putnam
Tom,
An interesting analysis of the immediate real world issues we need to face. While we frequently disagree, I would like to offer up a point I'm trying to make in these discussions. If you have been following them, you might have seen some of my efforts, but I would like to state it as succinctly as possible;
In our capitalist economy, we treat money as a commodity, in fact one with by far the greatest overall value, given the amount of currencies, bonds, and all the other notational devices and derivatives being traded, not to mention actual commodities, like gold, whose value is largely a function of their use as a currency. Given the power of these markets, it is safe to say we have something of a tail wagging the dog situation.
What I would argue is that money is not a commodity, but a contract and if we understood it as such, it would seriously change the economic dynamic for the better. Originally what became money was specifically contracts, such as clay tablets used as receipts for stored grain in ancient Sumer, up to the gold certificates issued by the Rothschilds in 18th century Europe. They were essentially IOU's backed by a specific item. It then became convenient to trade these contracts around as though they were commodities in their own right. Then such things as futures, bonds, etc, which were backed by promises of future income, came into use. Not to mention all the innumerable devices of notational value since created.
From this commercial convenience arose the use of state currencies. Which were originally minted from precious metals and so presumably had intrinsic value, eventually became notational as well.
Now what backs the value of these notes is essentially the health, wealth and economic productivity of the state issuing them. Essentially they are a contract between the community and its members, that one can count on the overall goodwill of the community in making good on the worth of these notes. "Accepted as legal tender in all transactions."
Yet when we then consider them as commodities, they become personal property and so there is no moral imperative to consider their function and no logical reason to limit their acquisition. Since they possess effective value and manufacturing them is only limited by the insistence on validity of the promises being made, there is a very strong inclination to create as much as possible and ignore the backing. The result is that the entire economy and often much of society becomes focused on the creation and acquisition of these notes, often to the detriment of the actual society and economy on which they are based.
Now if people truly understood these notes really do belong to the agency that issues them, since they hold the copyright, are responsible for guaranteeing the value and can adjust that value at will, possibly then people will start to be far more careful how much they are willing so extract value from interpersonal relations and environmental resources, in order to exchange for these notes. Also, on a more fundamental level, if it is to be understood as a contract between a society and its members, there would naturally also be leeway built into the system in case of emergencies, etc, because this would seriously reduce the need to accumulate excess. On the other side of the bargain, it would mean those who do try to hoard them, or otherwise abuse the relationship, could have the value of their store penalized. This then would encourage people to store value as goodwill, strong personal relations and a healthy environment. It would also create a smaller and more stable monetary system that would be more adapted to the efficient circulation of value around the economy and rather than being the giant tumor that it currently is.
Now I realize in the current situation, this proposal is as far fetched as any here, but given the solution to the last debt crash was to issue trillions more in credit, ignore any improprieties and water down all regulation and enforcement, it is a virtual certainty there will be a much larger and even more systematic crisis, given the effectiveness of the prior solution is likely well watered down, so there likely will be attention given to other models and theories and with the extent to which society is networked, some of these proposals will undoubtfully go viral.
So this idea might well compliment your lateral economic models.
Regards,
John
Damn logouts.
Tom,
I found your paper refreshingly informative toward the end, but I had to wait until page four for some things I think needed stated to be right up front. It was a struggle getting through the first few pages, but if you had an opening paragraph starting something like this, it would have been an easier read. "Research shows there is promise in a system that preserves freedom within a system community and allows cooperation between them. The image of well-maintained fences with open gates, serves to illustrate this principle at work..."
But if the reader is patient to continue reading, there is a gem in the rough to be uncovered in this paper. You have made a brilliant observation, Tom; now if only you could highlight it better. My rating will reflect both my appreciation of your point and the mixed feelings about how it is presented.
Regards,
Jonathan
Tom,
FQXi asked how should humanity steer the future. Didn't you equate humanity too much with the national perspective of U.S.A.?
At least you left the position of those philosophers and physicists who denied causality and the distinction between past and future: Russell, Einstein, ...
Do you hope for reaching more than emotional resonance? I am still fed up with "scientific socialism".
Regards,
Eckard
Hi Tom,
I enjoyed reading your essay. I particularity like the analogies of the fences with open gates and the knife being as important as the cake. You have set out a well argued vision for USA recovery.
I wonder whether climate change and falling oil production in the future will severely affect world trade because of the rising costs and difficulties of transport and logistics.Outsourcing manufacturing and importation of food and goods from all around the world has been cheap. It isn't sustainable though, it is wasting resources. It may be that local production and consumption become once more the most cost cost effective choice and more sustainable too. Then it would be more difficult to get a cut of the wealth by planning and distribution of other countries' 'cakes'. What do you think?
What part are you responding to? What leader?
Jonathan,
I agree. I should have taken more care to present the solution before the problem. Instead I put it all in a too-short abstract. The problem is depressing; I think there are too few, however, who understand what conditions the liberal secular ideal is responding to, why we fought a revolution here against tyrants from afar, and then another bloody war against tyrants at home.
In the news, there is this rancher in Nevada who grazes his cattle for free by stealing government owned land, and calls it his right to profit from the property and labors of others. His motives are clear -- he openly wonders if "the Negro" would be better off picking cotton than being unemployed and hanging out on the porch. Clearly, he feels entitled to own and control others and steal with impunity.
That issue is separate from the issue of fairness in land use laws -- it's a deeper flaw in the American psyche that hangs on to pre-Enlightenment ways of doing things. We can't afford it. The world can't afford it.
The rancher rides around on his horse waving the U.S. flag (this is literally true, for those who haven't seen the story) -- while contradictorily proclaiming that he doesn't recognize the government. He thinks the Constitution supports his right to plunder and exploit. If it were just this one crazy individual who holds these views, one wouldn't worry about it. The sickness and the ignorance has spread much further.
All best,
Tom
Hi John,
Yes, I agree -- we speak of the price of money as if it were goods. That's not in itself the problem, though. Money as capital is indeed a commodity that loses value when not traded -- when we reach the state as we have today, that investors are merely trading among themselves and withholding capital from wealth creators, eventually the value of even that limited trade degrades. Not good for either the investors or the investment, because of overproduction and underconsumption, which are two sides of the same coin.
Best,
Tom
Tom,
One of the main ways of sustaining the value of that excess capital is to have the government, ie. public, borrow it back and fund everything from wars to research with the over-production, then sell off any income producing asset, such as results of the research, to well connected private interests, so while it may not be 'the problem,' it is certainly a problem and one which is shortly going to trigger a crisis and crises are noted as opportune times for change.
I don't see much being withheld from anyone with even a slim idea for wealth creation, but I do see a lot of unsustainable wealth extraction being used to fund this financial production.
Regards,
John
Yes, John. The thing is that, " ... unsustainable wealth extraction ..." is equivalent to wealth reduction. Did you understand my point about eating the seed corn?
Thank you, Georgina. I agree in principle that local production/consumption is cost efficient. However, it leaves the locality vulnerable to economic instability (boom-bust), natural disasters and internal self-destructive feedback.
What I aim to describe is an effective, rather than efficient, global model -- where waste and redundancy are assets. That is, a continually shifting hub of redundant global economic activity is a self-similar, self-reinforcing network that dulls the effects of positive (i.e. out of control) feedback brought on by both internal and external challenges to global stability, while assisting local recovery when needed.
Such a robust network allows network nodes to act independently when they can and cooperatively when they must.
I have done no more than scan your essay -- though it looks delightful! I will comment when I can.
Best,
Tom
Hi Eckard,
Yes, I had a particular reason for focusing on the U.S. For the time being at least, the U.S. leads in the knowledge and technology management requisite to helping create and sustain a globally linked network of resources that can respond quickly and effectively to local economic and natural disasters.
Best,
Tom
Tom,
Very much so. So even though we frequently don't see eye to eye, sometimes that difference of perspective can lead to broader understanding in other subjects.
Regards,
John
Tom,
The American way of consumption did indeed conquer the hearts of many people worldwide and caused the collapse of Soviet Union. I am however not sure whether this temptation will still suffice as to get control over religious conflicts like in Syria, nationalism like between Russia and Ukraine, and the seemingly harmless unlimited growth of population.
When I was a boy, I read a booklet that told me the main center of power and culture was shifting from Greece to Rome, to Eastern Rome, from Spain to France, etc. Maybe, China could get leading in future if mankind will be unable to install an international secular power. I am sure having Nobel correctly understood in that question.
Regards,
Eckard
