Sacred Economics

I'm reading the Sacred Economics right now and the timing couldn't be more perfect because I've been feeling very discouraged about our future -- the time will soon come when the planet will no longer be able to support all 7 billion of us.  I'm troubled because I am complicit to this system of unfettered growth, exploitation,  over consumption and resource depletion.  And the only option that seems viable to me right now is to check-out of the system altogether -- homestead and become self-sustaining.  But without electricity how could we realistically survive?  I have no life skills.  I have office skills FFS.  I am not resilient either.  Nor do I feel that separateness is the solution. So instead I just throw up my arms and resolve to wait for my families eventual demise.

But then I started reading this book and it put forth some solutions that 'could' work.  Today's problems were created from growth which is necessary to keep money in circulation. I'm finally beginning to see the problem -- money is created from debt, so that there is always more debt than actual money in circulation.  Repayment of debt (principal + interest) means that more goods and services need to be created, regardless if we truly need it.  Hense the need for growth.  Today we live in a world where everything is for sale.  Resources have been sucked dry, chemicals have been pumped into our water and air, people have been exploited .... and yet we are not happier.  How ironic is it that more 'goods' don't actually mean more 'goodness'. Externalities, such as the environment, our health, safety and freedom are not built into the cost of anything we consume.  Corporates take their profits and everyone else pays for the mess.  This book proposes embedding the things we hold sacred into the price of goods and services.  For example, the price of strawberries from California would reflect the transportation costs (including road maintenance) to bring them here, the cost of depleting their acquifers and eroding their soil to grow them, and the emissions cost to plant and harvest them such that they would be way more expensive then local produce.  Companies would have an economic incentive to not pollute or exploit.  We would buy less things because products would be built to last, healthy food would be more affordable than junk food and people everywhere would earn a living wage.  Bliss!  A carbon tax/cap and trade system is similar, but only looks at one facet.  This system would factor in multiple externalities. It sounds complicated to implement, but it's the right thing to do.  I believe people want to know the effects of their actions, and want to take responsibility for them.  This system simply makes producers pay for what they currently take from 'the commons', thereby contributing to future sustainability.  It's kind of like an indirect tax -- you pay for what you take, not for what you earn.

The other concept is of negative interest.  Money is the only resource that grows by doing nothing.  Everything else decays.  The author's example:  if I have 12 loaves of bread, I will give you some because I can't possible use it all before it goes stale.  If in the future, you  have extra loaves, you would most likely give them to me.  This is how a gift economy works.  But with money, we have a liquidity preference to hold on to more money (hoard) and not share.  This book proposes negative interest such that money would lose it's value by holding on to it -- kind of like a depositor's tax.  Imagine having to pay to affix postage-style stamps to your money to keep it's value up.  You'd want to spend it on what you need and not accumulate what you don't need. This is a huge mind shift from the current system and sadly I can't see it ever taking hold because those with accumulated wealth stand to lose the most.  I'm just starting to read the details of such a system and have many qs.  For starters, how would the financial system work?  The author explains that banks would make money by lending at zero or negative rates which would be less than the rate of depletion (e.g. loans at -5% interest is better than -7% depletion).  Borrowing money would not create more money and growth would occur naturally rather than out of necessity (to pay down debt).  It's kind of an out-there concept, but one that's starting to make sense for me.

Looking forward to see if other share these ideas and if they have any hope of becoming a reality.  Because our current system is not working and will not last.

I'm better than you

Has parenting, environmentalism and spirituality become my new religion? My mind is always a buzz trying to think of how I can improve in all of these areas -- "I should be doing more" is my mantra. But what does this say about my own sense of self? Is this just my ego screaming out for more? Am I sending out the message that I am better than everyone else who does not make these things a priority? A psychologist friend of mine sees the pressure in perfectionist parenting as people's way of seeking an identity, one they feel is superior to others. She says that it takes having a strong sense of self to not fall into the rat race.

I condone my old man for falling prey to religious zealots, but maybe I'm doing the same thing with my own beliefs? A friend of mine tries not to cling to opinions or become too emotionally attached to anything he thinks. After that happens, you are defending your own dogma. EVERYTHING should be up for questioning and debate -- when proven wrong, simply appreciate that you are better informed.

I think this goes back to intent. How often do I brag about what I am doing? How often do I try to convince others that I am right and they are wrong? How often do I judge people by their choices rather than by who they are as people? What about when I fail to see that it's a matter of choice and compromise -- every one's circumstances are different afterall. I may do x, y and z but at the expense of a, b and c. Respect for others is key!

Tele-working future

Is the idea of a self-sustaining neighbourhood a pipe dream? What would it take to transform my city into a collection of thriving communities where everyone could go to work where they lived? It seems so simple really, especially in a government town. I work at my nearest satellite office alongside other feds; some of my team are there with me and the rest are scattered about other generic GC office buildings -- no HQ required. Rush hour would be history. All of the pressure to 'densify' the core beyond what is sustainable would suddenly disappear.

So why is this not happening? Or is it? Proponents will say that a decentralized work force is unmanageable. However, does sharing the same office space really make us a team? A change like this requires that we redefine our concepts of work and management. Today, we pay people to sit at their desks for a fixed number of hours a day and we pay managers to supervise their productivity. The easiest way to do this is to make sure your employee is physically present. Sadly, this is where management begins and ends in the public service. Since there is no real accountability, there is no planning. Work just falls from the sky and gets doled out as it happens. Ask most managers if they know exactly what their staff is working on, when they expect to have it completed and what it will look like when it's done and I doubt they'd be able to give an honest answer. You start moving employees across the city and all of a sudden you have less of a need to manage staff in the traditional way.

 

In order for any kind of teleworking arrangement to work, you need to believe that your people will continue to work even when no one is physically watching them. Trust is key. The lack of trust between employees and management is ingrained in the culture of some organizations. When a bus strike brought my city to its knees a few years ago, I sat in a meeting and heard my peers express their serious 'concerns' with permitting teleworking for some employees. It really angered me to hear them speak of their staff this way -- the problem was not teleworking -- it was a lack of trust (and clearly a lack of leadership ).

In order to motivate employees, you need to inspire them -- remind them of the team's purpose and show them how their work is contributing to that end. You also have to understand the results you expect to attain and be able to measure if your team is making the grade. Again, if there's no accountability then why bother measuring results? K -- this is turning into another one of my leadership rants, so I better sign off. What I meant to do was document a particularly fruitful discussion I had this week that started with urban intesntification and eventually evolved to leadership in the public service. Love making all those connections. Any longer and I'm sure it would've ended with campaign finance reform! I hope that my generation makes this a reality -- we stand so much to gain from tele-working -- more productive employees, happier families, healthier environment ... the future is bright and I'm excited about it!