an economy is more efficient when its actors take more care of each other
i propose to define transaction costs as the delta between an optimal efficient organisation and the current organisation
a co-creative journey into the new economy
the sun is burning without mercy and reflects in the golden waves of this barren land. i take a closer look at the soil and to my surprise it is not sand that glitters, it is gold that glitters. when i take an even closer look it is golden coins, i am in a valley of shining money! but the heat is unbearable and there is no water for miles.
then in the far distance i see a train of camels. this sign of life might just be my prayer answered. it is a caravan, heading for the next oasis of love.
this caravan of love is departing from the ruins of capitalism, a land full of money but void of care. therefore this caravan is heading for the nearest oasis of love, an economy that we all would love to live in.
here is a compilation of the evening, 7 dec 2017, royal tropical institute, amsterdam:
video by olivier jansen
this evening we followed the travel guide for an inner journey into the sharing economy
to understand the new economy i propose the following twist to monopoly:
play monopoly according to all standard rules, you only change your behaviour, viz all players share their money.
So there are two piles of money in the game: one for the bank and one for the players. When a player passes go his income is moved form the bank to the players pile and when a player receives money from another player this is also deposited in the players pile. When a player wants to buy real estate or has to pay rent he takes money from the pile to pay the bank resp his fellow player
One variant of this setup is to start playing the conventional way and after some time, eg when the first bankruptcy occurs, switch to the new behaviour.
i see many people believing that interest is the stinge in our money system. i want to use a simpel model here to explain where they go wrong. basically the argument is that they use an oversimplified model.
first let me remark that the use of money as a means of exchange is a function that only became widespread in use millenia after money had been invented as a means of recording credit. the oversimplified model(s) used by people that believe that interest is the problem never comprise this credit functionality.
my model consists of three workers: a farmer, a baker and a banker.
now the farmer produces grain enough for three breads.
the baker can bake three breads from the grain produced by the farmer.
the banker runs the money system that the three of them use to interchange their goods.
before i go into the dynamics of this model i’d like to make clear that if the farmer, baker and banker would trust each other there would be no need for money.
the whole idea of (institutionalised) credit is that we don’t trust each other, instead we trust the value of money.
what money (credit) really does here is enabling swapping THROUGH TIME.
it works like this:
the farmer produces grain that the baker would like to bake.
because the farmer doesn’t trust that the baker will give him one of the breads he will bake, the farmer wants the baker to pay him for his grain.
but the baker can only pay after he has sold his bread, not upfront.
now the banker is willing to take this risk.
therefore the banker makes 1 coin.
the banker lends this coin to the baker and makes the baker promise that the baker will pay back this coin twice (so 100% interest).
now the baker buys the grain from the farmer with this 1 coin.
now the baker can bake three breads, keep one for himself and sell the other two.
first the farmer buys one bread for 1 coin.
now the baker can pay the interest to the banker.
consequently now the banker can buy a bread form the baker, again for 1 coin (this is the step that the oversimplified models forget).
so the baker acquires this coin once again and consequntly the baker can pay back his debt to the banker.
so the system started with the farmer having grain and the banker having 1 coin.
at the end of the dynamics each of the farmer, baker and banker have a bread and the coin has returned to the banker.
this is what money is supposed to do, it enabled the farmer and the baker to interact (over a longer period of time) without trusting each other.
as many of us have already tried to bring initiatives together it’s important to understand why nobody has succeeded yet
in a yunity session we identified 6 (groups of) reasons:
– lack of resources
– hostile environment
– lack of critical mass
– no understanding of goal/utopia
– lack of skills
i believe the main thing is the critical mass. without critical mass nothing will work. and once the critical mass has emerged you can’t stop it anymore. all you can do is delay the advent of the new world, and that is what many people will unconsciously do. because they don’t understand or are afraid.
by critical mass i mean a critical mass of people who are free from their ego (to a workable extent at least). it is my belief that the evolution of our consciousness is the driving force behind the advent of the critical mass.
note that once the critical mass is there that doesn’t mean the new world will emerge automatically. on the contrary this will be the result of deliberate, focussed and commited action by those who have gained consciousness. which is what is happening right now.
to make this work several things are needed, here is my list of prerequisites:
– plan/idea/vision, including organisational processes, and this should be clear, concrete or executable and there should be consensus about this plan
– maturity in the sense of consciousness, ego and commitment
eg there are many youngsters wanting to change the world but many of these youngsters are still in the phase of discovering the world (and themselves). there is nothing wrong with that because each one of us has to do that before (s)he can contribute to the evolution of our society but it is not very helpful for the action of changing the world itself.
about the plan/idea/vision: it would be nice to have an image of utopia and the many ways in which this utopia can be adapted to humans. also we need a development strategy: in which steps can we achieve our goal?
disruption is something we find in the old economy, in the new economy we find care
i’m somewhat disturbed by all these people that want to disrupt our economy or our society. basically disruption means that you destruct something that people have been building for years, decades or even centuries and who’s lives depend on this something. that cannot be a goal in the new economy. in the new economy we take care of each other. this means that if something blocks our evolution we will help the people dependent upon this something to move to a sustainable alternative, we don’t let them drown by killing their something.
here i describe how the awareness process can be facilitated.
so what is this awareness process? it is about people becoming aware of their self and our unity. how does it work? there are many ways of becoming aware, many different events can trigger aha-erlebnisse. here i propose to facilitate the verbal part of this process. it consists of locutions uttered by people. and they utter these locutions in response to some trigger. in many cases there is a parent locution triggering a child locution. i propose to record these locutions and their response links.
so our model consists of two primitives:
1. locutions, this can be anything from a sentence, or even just a word, to websites or pages thereof. tweets and whatapps.
2. response links.
this is best understood as a directed graph.
i propose the name: awareness space.
i envision that this awareness space is ubiquitous, can be accessed from all over the world, through many different apps on your phone for example, or a website.
as mentioned before websites are possible locutions and the hyperlinks between them can be understood as response links.
now the (directed) links allow us to follow paths through this awareness space. such a path is called a conversation.
any real world conversation can be recorded as a conversation in the awareness space.
conversations, or more generally any set of locutions can be grouped to form a new locution. obviously a response link also links the locution groups which it forms part of.
the natural form to technically represent these links is using triples in the semantic web, the predicate always being: response.
you can use the awareness space when seeking to achieve some goal. if you are fully aware of your goal you don’t need the awareness space. but in case your’re not entirely sure of what you want or how to formulate that in an operable way you can use the awareness space. it goes like this:
you start by entering a question or a first idea. next you look for a conversation, ie a path through the awareness space. if your entry has been recorded before you can start from the links from this locution, if not you can add your locution to the awareness space. there will be tools facilitating this process of “looking for the next locution”, eg by doing a text based search like google does in websites. each next locution provides a response link. the number of times locutions are used is data used by the tooling to facilitate. the same holds for the number of times response links are used. the aim of this exercise is to find (a conversation ending in) an executable goal. suggestions for links are done both by the tooling and the community.
time for an example: suppose i want to move house. nowadays i would ask my friends to help out. asking would be done by phone or email. in the new economy i would tell search & share (s&s) that i want to move house. the advantage of s&s is multifold. one advantage is that if my friends can’t make it there will be other people available. another advantage is that s&s has learnt that in most cases when somebody wants to move house several questions need to be answered: when, where, what, which car to use, etc, and so s&s poses these questions (s&s doesn’t know they are questions, it just notices that these locutions invariably get followed).
note that the questions suggested by the tooling are not modelled in some relational sense. they are suggested on the basis of having been asked previously. this is a matter of counting.