I am going to make a bold claim. If we want the new modes of economic production we’ve seen thus far in the information age to become deeply ingrained in our cultural fabric, we must apply these modes of production to currency itself.
I take as my starting point for this contention a recent post by a musician who’s music I have long enjoyed: DJ Shadow. For those who don’t read his entire critique of music in the age of file sharing, it basically says musicians need to be reimbursed for their work if they are going to keep making good music. And he is right in this assertion. If we want to have a culture where people can specialize in being musicians, we must develop viable ways for musicians (and other artists) to be valued and supported.
One contention of what I will loosely call the “open movement” (even though that is mostly a misnomer), has been that anything information-based tends towards being free because there is virtually no cost to producing it at a large scale, and because information is a “non-rival” good (meaning that if I have it, I don’t prevent others from having it). I believe this logic is correct when it comes to valuing information-based resources in scarcity-based currencies such as the dollar. However, just because a resource such as music is no longer inherently scarce, doesn’t mean these resources shouldn’t be valued.
I fear that we may be accidentally walking into a trap in the crowd-sourcing / wikipedia age of "open." We are correctly realizing that scarce money cannot measure the value of that which is not scarce, but we haven’t yet collectively adopted currencies that can. If we want anything more interesting than the most mediocre culture to survive this transition, we must develop currencies that can enable our collective support of musicians / artists without the need for scarcity as the measuring stick.
Our money forces us into valuing only that which is scarce. I believe the fact that music has stopped being scarce is a VERY good thing, but if we can’t find ways of valuing musicians (and other content producers) in the post-scarcity era, I fear the cost of “open” will far outweigh the benefits.
Already we are seeing a global backlash to this new “open” culture because producers of content of all kinds aren’t being valued. Douglas Rushkoff at a recent web 2.0 convention contended that this culture of “open” (or "free") was largely a way for Google to profit off of the hard work of content producers. In the context of a scarce money system, I am afraid I must concur.
For me, the principles embedded in the “open movement” represent nothing less than the future of human civilization. If we want to see any of the real benefits of this future, we MUST MUST MUST apply the logic of “open” to currency itself. Only then will society have the tools it needs to appropriately value musicians and other content producers.
Societies are complex adaptive networks, and like all complex adaptive networks, that which provides value to the network MUST be reinforced. This reinforcement does NOT have to be done with a scarce currency that forces us into pathological competition with each other. Nor does this reinforcement even have to be done with a quid-pro-quo kind of monetary currency. But the reinforcement MUST occur if we want to encourage the production of value. The time is now for OPEN CURRENCY.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Monday, December 28, 2009
Currency and Reintegration With Nature
Non-differentiation, differentiation, dissociation, reintegration. These four steps come up again and again in disciplines as diverse psychology, semiotics, philosophy, ecology, and evolution among others. Spiritual teachings from many cultures describe the ONE slowly breaking into MANY, only to ultimately return to the ONE.
There have been three major economic eras (with a fourth emerging now): hunter-gatherer, agrarian, industrial, and now information. Since we are at the beginning of the information age, it might be useful to have a sense of how our economics will change in the coming years. One lens we have been using in the metacurrency world to look at this question has been mapping these four eras to the aforementioned four steps.
Hunter-gatherers might be considered non-differentiated since their main source of economic well-being was derived primarily from Nature (or land) directly. In the Agrarian Age, labor was mixed with land to produce more food, permanent shelter, domesticated animals, etc. By mixing our labor with the land, the land was able to support a much larger population. During this time we begin to see a clear differentiation of human world from the rest of Nature as well as the emergence of written language. In the Industrial Age, the primary mode of production was capital. Capital is the stuff from which other stuff is made (tools, factories, and ultimately money). While we certainly used tools in the two previous eras, the drive to control the means of production was not the primary economic engine. And, it is no coincidence that the human world became almost completely dissociated from Nature during this era. Before we get into how the information age portends a reintegration of the human and natural worlds, let’s take a quick look at one trait that makes the human species unique on the planet.
Humans, more than any other species, are aware of, create and use symbols. What makes a symbol a symbol is that it signifies something other than itself. The alphabet, for instance, signifies phonemes. If you weren’t aware of how the letters are matched to sounds, you wouldn’t be able to guess by just the letters themselves. This is what makes them symbols. Symbols can have complex interrelationships. Natural language is a means of generating highly complex relationships between symbols to communicate a given idea. While other animals may have a rudimentary capacity for making symbols, there is no evidence that they do so on anything even close to the level of complexity we do.
This ability we have to create and use symbols is EXTREMELY powerful. Symbols are a shorthand for making sense of the world. Since the real world is so unbelievably complex, having a dumbed down set of symbols allows us to gain some degree of mastery over it no matter how ultimately illusory that mastery may be. And this is the key point: symbols are not the things they stand for. As the Buddha said, “Don’t mistake my finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself.”
Humans (and especially Industrial Age humans) have a peculiar relationship with their symbols. While having the capacity to manipulate symbols gives us great power, we have become lost in them. And, this is only possible because there is a feedback loop between our symbols and our actions. Put simply, we frequently treat symbols as more real than reality itself, mistaking the finger for the moon.
While there are examples of this kind of folly everywhere in the industrialized world, the so-called Copenhagen Accord really stands out for me. During this two week debacle, we saw how the symbol of money (and the economic growth implied in its design), has become more important to world leaders than the biosphere itself. I could not imagine a more dissociated worldview if I tried.
We tell stories using symbols of all kinds, and the symbols we use to mark flows are what we on this blog refer to as currency. Currencies help us interact with the world around us, and as such are a VERY powerful kind of symbol. Currencies are frequently so powerful that we care more about the symbol than what we are supposedly symbolizing. Because we treat the symbol AS reality, we create a self-perpetuating feedback loop. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing; if we didn’t base our actions on symbols to at least some degree, we would quickly suffer paralysis as the real world is far too complicated to make sense of. If the currency symbols we create allow us to engage in healthy feedback loops, that is positively great!
So what about the Information Age? Some folks who claim to be ecologically minded reject information technology as a further dissociation between the human and natural realms. While I sympathize with the urge to heal our dissociation, I fundamentally disagree with the notion that information technology is an obstacle to achieving this goal. In fact, I think it may be the best way we have to effectively reintegrate the human and natural worlds.
In the hunter-gather world, a tribe created their system of symbols together. Since these cultures usually had no writing, each person co-created the culture through the telling and retelling of stories. Collectively, a system of symbols was co-created that helped the tribe make sense of the world around them. What’s more, this system of symbols was constantly evolving with the natural world. While some of these stories may seem anthropomorphic, magical, or otherwise childish to us now, it is important to realize that when there isn’t much differentiation between the human and natural realms, anthropomorphism is an identification with rather than a imposition on the natural world.
Currencies used in hunter-gatherer culture were largely status oriented. A talisman to signify being a masterful hunter, a gift that got passed from tribe to tribe to signify peaceful relations, and so on. These currencies were probably co-created in much the same way that the tribe’s oral traditions were, and probably evolved accordingly to fit natural circumstances.
Writing came on the scene at about the same time as the Agricultural Revolution. In almost every culture that evolved writing, it was originally a way of keeping accounts. For example, I give you two cows this season and we draw two cows on a cliff to record the transaction. Over time, this became a way recording what was said.
Writing was important for many more reasons than we can get into here, but one of the most important things about early writing was that only a few elites were literate. And these elites had the power to make their system of symbols immortal. Can you imagine how powerful that must have seemed to an oral culture? Agrarian culture tended to be ordered very hierarchically as the sets of socially accepted symbols were controlled by an elite few. However, since most of the population was illiterate and living on the land, these symbols lacked the power to fully dissociate the human and natural realms.
The Agrarian era was also when the first widespread use of money evolved. While, originally, money may have been a product of spontaneous organization in a market setting, these Agrarian Age monetary currencies usually evolved into being declared exclusively by the sovereign (or his proxy) and many times had his picture on them. Monetary currencies were primarily used for quid pro quo trades (and for taxes), which were becoming more necessary as human settlements got large enough to have anonymous interactions between the inhabitants.
The dawn of the Industrial Age more or less coincided with the invention of the printing press in 1440, although industrialism didn’t gain full steam until several centuries later. This era saw the spread of science, democracy, and capitalism. These were all HUGE advances in the complexity of human symbol systems. The realm of human symbols started to become so complex that people could forget that humans had anything to do with the natural realm at all. While science made nature its central focus of inquiry, it was only capable of studying nature from the outside as observer, fully dissociated.
The printing press enabled universal literacy, so the written realm of symbols slowly became the purview of the general population. However, the power to create new symbol systems remained fairly concentrated in the hands of an economic elite. And their power increased as more people began to live their lives almost entirely in the world of symbols. The merchant class took over the creation of monetary currency in this era with the invention of fractional reserve banking. Consequently, the use of money in the general population increased exponentially, and people increasingly depended on these symbols for their very lives.
In the Information Age, we have the growing capacity for everyone to generate and disseminate symbol sets as networks gain primacy over hierarchies. We have already seen the popularity of blogs, social networks, p2p file sharing, and so on. While these phenomena have all had profound cultural ramifications, I believe the reintegration of the human and natural worlds will be primarily made possible by how we create and use currencies.
We are destroying the biosphere by participating in deeply dysfunctional and unhealthy flows. Since currency affords us a chance to consciously interact with flows, I believe this to be one of the most fruitful avenues to pursue as we evolve. And, as we pursue new currencies, we must look to nature for successful patterns of flow to emulate. Nature likes variety. Clearly, we can’t replace one mono-currency with another and hope that will somehow solve our problems. Nature forms ecosystems rather than zoos, so the variety of currencies we create in the coming years will have to be able to form rich spontaneous interrelationships rather than be segregated from each other in fits of xenophobia. And Nature finds opportunities to build collective wealth whenever possible by virtue of being “open” (Nature is a commons). The design principles used in creating these systems will be also be open (as we have explored frequently on this blog).
The less people are dependent on industrial age money for their survival, the more they will be able to experiment with new currency symbol sets. Many of these will engender harmonious flows in and between the human and natural worlds. And, I would also guess that these symbol sets will have a much better chance of survival than those that lead to the wholesale destruction of the biosphere. How many more small family farms would there be with currencies that weren’t exclusively interested in the short-term? How many more forests? How many fewer GMOs?
To reiterate, this is not about going back to being hunter-gatherers or about giving up the comforts of modern life. Our development as a species, while often troubled, has NOT been something we can undo. As we emerge into species-maturity in this remarkable time, I celebrate the development that has led us to where we are.
There have been three major economic eras (with a fourth emerging now): hunter-gatherer, agrarian, industrial, and now information. Since we are at the beginning of the information age, it might be useful to have a sense of how our economics will change in the coming years. One lens we have been using in the metacurrency world to look at this question has been mapping these four eras to the aforementioned four steps.
Hunter-gatherers might be considered non-differentiated since their main source of economic well-being was derived primarily from Nature (or land) directly. In the Agrarian Age, labor was mixed with land to produce more food, permanent shelter, domesticated animals, etc. By mixing our labor with the land, the land was able to support a much larger population. During this time we begin to see a clear differentiation of human world from the rest of Nature as well as the emergence of written language. In the Industrial Age, the primary mode of production was capital. Capital is the stuff from which other stuff is made (tools, factories, and ultimately money). While we certainly used tools in the two previous eras, the drive to control the means of production was not the primary economic engine. And, it is no coincidence that the human world became almost completely dissociated from Nature during this era. Before we get into how the information age portends a reintegration of the human and natural worlds, let’s take a quick look at one trait that makes the human species unique on the planet.
Humans, more than any other species, are aware of, create and use symbols. What makes a symbol a symbol is that it signifies something other than itself. The alphabet, for instance, signifies phonemes. If you weren’t aware of how the letters are matched to sounds, you wouldn’t be able to guess by just the letters themselves. This is what makes them symbols. Symbols can have complex interrelationships. Natural language is a means of generating highly complex relationships between symbols to communicate a given idea. While other animals may have a rudimentary capacity for making symbols, there is no evidence that they do so on anything even close to the level of complexity we do.
This ability we have to create and use symbols is EXTREMELY powerful. Symbols are a shorthand for making sense of the world. Since the real world is so unbelievably complex, having a dumbed down set of symbols allows us to gain some degree of mastery over it no matter how ultimately illusory that mastery may be. And this is the key point: symbols are not the things they stand for. As the Buddha said, “Don’t mistake my finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself.”
Humans (and especially Industrial Age humans) have a peculiar relationship with their symbols. While having the capacity to manipulate symbols gives us great power, we have become lost in them. And, this is only possible because there is a feedback loop between our symbols and our actions. Put simply, we frequently treat symbols as more real than reality itself, mistaking the finger for the moon.
While there are examples of this kind of folly everywhere in the industrialized world, the so-called Copenhagen Accord really stands out for me. During this two week debacle, we saw how the symbol of money (and the economic growth implied in its design), has become more important to world leaders than the biosphere itself. I could not imagine a more dissociated worldview if I tried.
We tell stories using symbols of all kinds, and the symbols we use to mark flows are what we on this blog refer to as currency. Currencies help us interact with the world around us, and as such are a VERY powerful kind of symbol. Currencies are frequently so powerful that we care more about the symbol than what we are supposedly symbolizing. Because we treat the symbol AS reality, we create a self-perpetuating feedback loop. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing; if we didn’t base our actions on symbols to at least some degree, we would quickly suffer paralysis as the real world is far too complicated to make sense of. If the currency symbols we create allow us to engage in healthy feedback loops, that is positively great!
So what about the Information Age? Some folks who claim to be ecologically minded reject information technology as a further dissociation between the human and natural realms. While I sympathize with the urge to heal our dissociation, I fundamentally disagree with the notion that information technology is an obstacle to achieving this goal. In fact, I think it may be the best way we have to effectively reintegrate the human and natural worlds.
In the hunter-gather world, a tribe created their system of symbols together. Since these cultures usually had no writing, each person co-created the culture through the telling and retelling of stories. Collectively, a system of symbols was co-created that helped the tribe make sense of the world around them. What’s more, this system of symbols was constantly evolving with the natural world. While some of these stories may seem anthropomorphic, magical, or otherwise childish to us now, it is important to realize that when there isn’t much differentiation between the human and natural realms, anthropomorphism is an identification with rather than a imposition on the natural world.
Currencies used in hunter-gatherer culture were largely status oriented. A talisman to signify being a masterful hunter, a gift that got passed from tribe to tribe to signify peaceful relations, and so on. These currencies were probably co-created in much the same way that the tribe’s oral traditions were, and probably evolved accordingly to fit natural circumstances.
Writing came on the scene at about the same time as the Agricultural Revolution. In almost every culture that evolved writing, it was originally a way of keeping accounts. For example, I give you two cows this season and we draw two cows on a cliff to record the transaction. Over time, this became a way recording what was said.
Writing was important for many more reasons than we can get into here, but one of the most important things about early writing was that only a few elites were literate. And these elites had the power to make their system of symbols immortal. Can you imagine how powerful that must have seemed to an oral culture? Agrarian culture tended to be ordered very hierarchically as the sets of socially accepted symbols were controlled by an elite few. However, since most of the population was illiterate and living on the land, these symbols lacked the power to fully dissociate the human and natural realms.
The Agrarian era was also when the first widespread use of money evolved. While, originally, money may have been a product of spontaneous organization in a market setting, these Agrarian Age monetary currencies usually evolved into being declared exclusively by the sovereign (or his proxy) and many times had his picture on them. Monetary currencies were primarily used for quid pro quo trades (and for taxes), which were becoming more necessary as human settlements got large enough to have anonymous interactions between the inhabitants.
The dawn of the Industrial Age more or less coincided with the invention of the printing press in 1440, although industrialism didn’t gain full steam until several centuries later. This era saw the spread of science, democracy, and capitalism. These were all HUGE advances in the complexity of human symbol systems. The realm of human symbols started to become so complex that people could forget that humans had anything to do with the natural realm at all. While science made nature its central focus of inquiry, it was only capable of studying nature from the outside as observer, fully dissociated.
The printing press enabled universal literacy, so the written realm of symbols slowly became the purview of the general population. However, the power to create new symbol systems remained fairly concentrated in the hands of an economic elite. And their power increased as more people began to live their lives almost entirely in the world of symbols. The merchant class took over the creation of monetary currency in this era with the invention of fractional reserve banking. Consequently, the use of money in the general population increased exponentially, and people increasingly depended on these symbols for their very lives.
In the Information Age, we have the growing capacity for everyone to generate and disseminate symbol sets as networks gain primacy over hierarchies. We have already seen the popularity of blogs, social networks, p2p file sharing, and so on. While these phenomena have all had profound cultural ramifications, I believe the reintegration of the human and natural worlds will be primarily made possible by how we create and use currencies.
We are destroying the biosphere by participating in deeply dysfunctional and unhealthy flows. Since currency affords us a chance to consciously interact with flows, I believe this to be one of the most fruitful avenues to pursue as we evolve. And, as we pursue new currencies, we must look to nature for successful patterns of flow to emulate. Nature likes variety. Clearly, we can’t replace one mono-currency with another and hope that will somehow solve our problems. Nature forms ecosystems rather than zoos, so the variety of currencies we create in the coming years will have to be able to form rich spontaneous interrelationships rather than be segregated from each other in fits of xenophobia. And Nature finds opportunities to build collective wealth whenever possible by virtue of being “open” (Nature is a commons). The design principles used in creating these systems will be also be open (as we have explored frequently on this blog).
The less people are dependent on industrial age money for their survival, the more they will be able to experiment with new currency symbol sets. Many of these will engender harmonious flows in and between the human and natural worlds. And, I would also guess that these symbol sets will have a much better chance of survival than those that lead to the wholesale destruction of the biosphere. How many more small family farms would there be with currencies that weren’t exclusively interested in the short-term? How many more forests? How many fewer GMOs?
To reiterate, this is not about going back to being hunter-gatherers or about giving up the comforts of modern life. Our development as a species, while often troubled, has NOT been something we can undo. As we emerge into species-maturity in this remarkable time, I celebrate the development that has led us to where we are.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Open POS
On this blog we have spoken much about the design principles that underlie “Open Currencies.” However, there is an aspect of this we haven’t said much about, which I believe has significant implications for on-the-ground currency efforts. So let’s unpack how the principles of Open Currency would apply to the Point-of-Sale (POS).
So what is the primary function of a POS device? A POS device must be able to securely send and receive data to and from a server. Usually this data is in the form of a monetary transaction, and records a customer buying X dollars worth of merchandise from the merchant. It must be noted that the current technological ability of devices to provide this service in a secure manner in such volume is, to say the least, awesome. However, despite my personal awe at what is already possible, I must draw attention to an even more amazing future waiting in the wings.
Right now, these devices require stand alone applications that are capable of talking to one (or a specified group of) server(s). This means that if a start-up currency group wants to get access to the POS, they must develop (or license) and install an application on the device that will talk to your server so transactions in your currency can be recorded.
How we treat the POS is analogous to if Amazon, Facebook, and Netflix all had to develop separate stand alone applications for your computer. Obviously, this approach is incredibly inefficient. Had this been the approach 20 years ago, I am quite sure there wouldn’t have been widespread adoption of the Internet. Widespread adoption of the Internet was enabled by the web, and the web was made possible, in part, by a browser which could talk to ANY server using a common protocol.
What if instead of a stand alone application, we had the equivalent of a browser at the POS? This would mean that ANY currency group that needed access to the POS would be able to do so by simply declaring themselves in the space (like registering a domain). No one’s hands would be on the tap. There would be NO middleman. We heartily support net-neutrality, but incoherently accept the non-neutrality of the POS.
Let’s remember that on this blog we define a currency as being “a formal system that allows a community to perceive and interact with flows.” We have named grades, reputation scores on Ebay, driver’s licenses etc. as included in this expanded definition of currency. Think of the UNBELIEVABLY large variety of currency data that could be gathered at the POS (obviously with the full consent of all participants). Merchants could ask customers if they had received good customer service, allowing them to know more about the performance of employees. An endless variety of loyalty point systems that encouraged various shopping behaviors could be devised and implemented. Customers could track their own carbon footprint. And, of course, monetary currencies that aren’t based on scarcity could finally get the access to the POS they need. The possibilities are literally endless.
For some very strange reason, we haven’t yet approached the POS like this. Having tried to pitch this idea to currency groups of various sorts, here are what I think the mental and emotional barriers to this concept might be.
Each of these hang-ups are, in their own way, remnants of a dying economy. At their root, all of these fears lead back to the fear of scarcity. New business models that leverage the power of networks bypass the threat of scarcity by finding innovative ways to create value through autonomous collaboration. Again, think about what makes open source work so well.
One of the key advantages for any currency group taking this approach in concert with other groups is the ability to cross-market. Right now, each group has to hawk its own proprietary POS technology. If instead these groups were selling an OPEN POS device, they would be helping each other get access rather than forcing businesses to choose a POS technology before they had any experience with the currency. Obviously, this would make marketing the POS technology MUCH easier. Some people got online to buy books from Amazon. Some people got online to rent movies from Netflix. But once they were online, it was pretty easy to find and use other services. By embracing an OPEN POS, other groups could join this effort by simply plugging their currency in. No barriers. Only autonomous co-innovation.
So what can we do now? Let’s start by declaring our intent. I propose that those who represent currency projects that might want to adopt an Open POS approach comment on this blog with your intent. I certainly don't pretend that there is a functioning technology ready to use right now, and the challenges we will face in building this kind of network will be significant. But, it would definitely help build momentum for each of us to see that there were other currency groups ready to jump in. Let’s build a truly functional ecosystem at the POS where we can support each other through autonomous collaboration rather than continue to fight over non-existent territory.
So what is the primary function of a POS device? A POS device must be able to securely send and receive data to and from a server. Usually this data is in the form of a monetary transaction, and records a customer buying X dollars worth of merchandise from the merchant. It must be noted that the current technological ability of devices to provide this service in a secure manner in such volume is, to say the least, awesome. However, despite my personal awe at what is already possible, I must draw attention to an even more amazing future waiting in the wings.
Right now, these devices require stand alone applications that are capable of talking to one (or a specified group of) server(s). This means that if a start-up currency group wants to get access to the POS, they must develop (or license) and install an application on the device that will talk to your server so transactions in your currency can be recorded.
How we treat the POS is analogous to if Amazon, Facebook, and Netflix all had to develop separate stand alone applications for your computer. Obviously, this approach is incredibly inefficient. Had this been the approach 20 years ago, I am quite sure there wouldn’t have been widespread adoption of the Internet. Widespread adoption of the Internet was enabled by the web, and the web was made possible, in part, by a browser which could talk to ANY server using a common protocol.
What if instead of a stand alone application, we had the equivalent of a browser at the POS? This would mean that ANY currency group that needed access to the POS would be able to do so by simply declaring themselves in the space (like registering a domain). No one’s hands would be on the tap. There would be NO middleman. We heartily support net-neutrality, but incoherently accept the non-neutrality of the POS.
Let’s remember that on this blog we define a currency as being “a formal system that allows a community to perceive and interact with flows.” We have named grades, reputation scores on Ebay, driver’s licenses etc. as included in this expanded definition of currency. Think of the UNBELIEVABLY large variety of currency data that could be gathered at the POS (obviously with the full consent of all participants). Merchants could ask customers if they had received good customer service, allowing them to know more about the performance of employees. An endless variety of loyalty point systems that encouraged various shopping behaviors could be devised and implemented. Customers could track their own carbon footprint. And, of course, monetary currencies that aren’t based on scarcity could finally get the access to the POS they need. The possibilities are literally endless.
For some very strange reason, we haven’t yet approached the POS like this. Having tried to pitch this idea to currency groups of various sorts, here are what I think the mental and emotional barriers to this concept might be.
- Scope. Most currency projects have fairly narrowly defined mission statements. While a tightly defined mission can be a good thing to keep focus in a group, in this case it seems to hinder perception of the larger ecosystem. Sometimes it’s good to think outside the mission.
- Competitiveness. Some groups don’t think that spending resources on an application that may be helpful to their perceived competitors is a good idea. While few seem actively focused on keeping their competitors down, many would be loathed to waste their own scare resources in this manner.
- Territorialism. POS providers make most of their profit by being the middlemen. Embracing an Open POS would mean that a large part of their business model would simply be irrelevant. However, I would argue that this evolution is inevitable. The sooner smart merchant services companies embrace it, the sooner they can position themselves as leaders of the next paradigm.
- Fear of the cyber boogie-man. For some reason, upon hearing the word OPEN, some people conjure images of cyber villains lurking in the shadows waiting to pounce on unsuspecting grandmothers. Let’s remember that we do LOTS of transactions over the web, and the web is an OPEN network. In fact, most security breaches happen because of human error. People use their own birthdays as passwords for their bank accounts, yet weirdly think the technology itself is what is making us vulnerable. Of course, security must be considered, but there is nothing inherently less secure about an open network.
- Fear of too many choices. Believe or not, I actually heard this argument recently at a meeting with the City of Portland where we were discussing the possibility of a municipally funded Open POS. A consulting group that was at the table claimed that unless we restricted the number of currency groups with access to the POS, merchants and customers alike would be overwhelmed with choice. Clearly, these people don’t understand the last 20 years of cultural evolution. And, more importantly, this mindset is completely antithetical to both democracy and the free market. I suppose there are those that would have claimed 25 years ago that an open hypertext network would be quickly filled with porn, false claims, and criminality. While they would have been right, they would have completely missed the point as well as the benefit of the web. Taking personal responsibility for your web experience is a learned skill (one that some still struggle with), and the same will be true of any Open Currency network.
Each of these hang-ups are, in their own way, remnants of a dying economy. At their root, all of these fears lead back to the fear of scarcity. New business models that leverage the power of networks bypass the threat of scarcity by finding innovative ways to create value through autonomous collaboration. Again, think about what makes open source work so well.
One of the key advantages for any currency group taking this approach in concert with other groups is the ability to cross-market. Right now, each group has to hawk its own proprietary POS technology. If instead these groups were selling an OPEN POS device, they would be helping each other get access rather than forcing businesses to choose a POS technology before they had any experience with the currency. Obviously, this would make marketing the POS technology MUCH easier. Some people got online to buy books from Amazon. Some people got online to rent movies from Netflix. But once they were online, it was pretty easy to find and use other services. By embracing an OPEN POS, other groups could join this effort by simply plugging their currency in. No barriers. Only autonomous co-innovation.
So what can we do now? Let’s start by declaring our intent. I propose that those who represent currency projects that might want to adopt an Open POS approach comment on this blog with your intent. I certainly don't pretend that there is a functioning technology ready to use right now, and the challenges we will face in building this kind of network will be significant. But, it would definitely help build momentum for each of us to see that there were other currency groups ready to jump in. Let’s build a truly functional ecosystem at the POS where we can support each other through autonomous collaboration rather than continue to fight over non-existent territory.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Membrane Currencies
In the previous post, Arthur talked about expanding the range of how we think about currencies. We are all familiar with trade currencies, and more and more people are becoming comfortable with the term "reputation currency" (a Google search for "reputation currency" reveals almost 4000 hits, many of which point the Whuffie), as well as "loyalty currencies," which are token systems like airline miles, and buy-10-get-1-free cards. Other types of currencies we've talked about include "voting currencies" and "performance metric currencies" like grades/credits/degrees and nobel prizes which incentivize and guide participation.
But today I want to share about one of the hot topics in the meta-currency lab: the membrane currency.
As you probably know if you've been following this blog, we think of a currency around here more as a "current see," i.e. something that lets the social organism see and interact with a current, a flow. When looking at natural systems and the flows that course through them (that in fact are their very essence) there is a completely ubiquitous phenomenon that is often hidden in plain sight: the membrane. Membranes are somewhat tricky to define and understand, because in the end, where the membrane of any particular system starts and where it ends, is a matter of how you choose to look at it. This fact, that the boundaries of a membrane are somewhat fuzzy, is particularly interesting because that's exactly what membranes themselves are: boundaries. They are the component of a system that makes it appear to be a separate, complete, and integral system in the context of some environment. Membranes can be seen as that which creates a context, or environment, in which subsystems can be coordinated to into being an integral whole. This is not-withstanding the fact that all membraned systems are themselves embedded in an context or environment which is itself bounded by a membrane.
Membranes are permeable. One of the most important features of any membrane, is exactly the form and shape that it gives to permeability. This permeability, is clearly a mechanism for regulating flows in and out of a system, of coordinating how the inside of the system will see the outside, of limiting/enhancing/controlling/shaping/transforming what gets in and out. Sound familiar? By our definition of currencies, a membrane certainly is one. In fact, I now suspect that membranes are one of the foundational currency types.
In some living systems it's very easy to see the membranes as they map one-for-one with the very things we see. This is simply because they are the physical boundary that makes those systems "things" to our eyes. Animals have a skin. Cells have a "cell membrane." Without them, they would cease to be integral living things. It's harder for us to see the membrane in other living systems. What's the membrane of a bee-hive or an ant colony? The examples of social insects are an important step to understanding membrane currencies. Social insect colonies build both physical structures, but also have functional/behavioral structures that create the integrity of the colony as whole. Wasps build paper shells around their nests, but also guard them from intruders. Bees and ants, not only have specialized casts to ward off invaders, but also have complex identification systems to recognize bees and ants from other colonies. All of these aspects are part of what make the membrane of the colony.
So what does this have to do with currency? As with many things about currency, I credit Michael Linton with being first into deep insight about this. When I first met Michael in 2004 at the E.F Schumacher Society Local Currencies conference he was describing his vision of a multi-currency open money system that included a concept he was calling "domains." Here's one of the images he showed:
What Michael was describing in that picture was a network of currency systems. The circles are people, and the colored networks are the different currency system used by the people. But the key thing in the picture is that people are grouped in those gray areas: domains. Michael realized that for a self-organizing resilient currency network to form, there had to be a self-declared boundary system by which currencies and accounts in those systems could be declared and named, such that they would be visible and known to the entire network, but also such that any such group had it's own autonomy and control within that domain. This is a profound insight: naming is one of the key elements that creates the membrane of the social organism. Names are part of what creates the boundary that make a social organism distinguishable as an independent whole. And it's related to the identification mechanisms of ants and bees to know if any particular ant or bee they come across is part of "self" or not.
I went on with Michael to build two functional implementations of the open money system one at http://alpha.openmoney.info and another at http://client.openmoney.info, both of which include a naming system to create contexts for currency accounts. The second implementation is described at: http://openmoney.info/techne/overview.html and you can see there how namespaces (which is what I started calling them instead of domains) were even conceived of as one of the fundamental entity types in the "Mesh".
That work has evolved into the meta-currency platform where again we continue grappling with the naming questions for the network. How will entities be made visible to other entities on the network, i.e. what will currency account addresses be? How do you name a currency? How will that namings be delegated? You can see the design document for our early ideas. But this all came to a head in working on the flowplace. The flowplace design included the notion of a "circle," which was a way to group users and currencies. The circles were completely separate from the currency network addresses (which we were now calling wallets). We conceived of circles as providing a context for action. So any group that wanted to use free currencies to build wealth together, could come to the flowplace, and start by creating a circle, and a bunch of currencies that it would use to measure it's wealth. When you have such circles, immediately you need to address the "security" questions of who gets to add new members into the circle. And then also the question of who gets to create currencies in a given circle, and so on. So I sat down to code these "administration" features into the flowplace, when it hit me that the meta-currency infrastructure we were using to create the currencies in the flowplace, was exactly what I needed to implement these permissions structures for the circles.
How is this possible? Lets go back to our definition of currencies: A formal system for shaping, enabling, and measuring currents (or flows). Well, the meta-currency infrastructure provides a language (XGFL) for creating those formal systems, and in the flowplace I'd already used it to create some trade, performance metric, and reputation currencies. I saw that I could use this same language to specify the permissions that participants of the circle have in regards to the currencies that the circle uses, and that that very specification could simultaneously serve as a naming, i.e. a mapping, between people, currencies and roles in the context of the given circle. After talking this through with fellow currency geeks, we realized that the membrane currency also has a broader naming function in that it is also responsible for creating names for all the currencies in use by the circle, be they currencies that are created by circle for internal use only, or be they currencies created externally. The membrane currency brings such currencies "inside" the circle, by virtue of giving them a local name. Arthur came up with the word "namescape" to describe the resulting naming that the membrane currency accomplishes. This reflects the idea that it's not just a static namespace, or direct mapping, that the the membrane currency accomplishes, but rather that for the social organism, the membrane uses a dynamic naming process to create the shape of the relationship between those currencies and processes that "inside" and "outside" of the social organism. Geeks can check out the progress of the developing membrane currency for the flowplace on github.
So let me try to sum this all up: I am engaged in this work because the social organisms that we are embedded in are destructive of us, the planet, and therefore themselves. Thus our social organisms must evolve, they must be radically transformed. I believe that for this to happen, we must come to see the social organism from the point of view of all the myriad flows that literally are what it is made of. But what gives any organism a level integrity, of self, wholeness, and difference from other organisms? It is a membrane, which is the systemic component that both separates and connects the organism from its environment. The membrane is not so much a static physical barrier, as it is an active process that mediates between "inside" and "outside." In the case of social organisms, the central process that accomplishes this is naming by assigning of roles. (Think of all initiatory ceremonies of social bodies where individuals get new names, or formal markings that assign them to roles). This "membranic" process is itself a currency as it a formal system for shaping, enabling, and measuring these flows of participation.
Perhaps we shouldn't call such currencies "membrane currencies" but rather "integrity currencies." The former is a name for the component in the system. The later is a name for what that component accomplishes.
But today I want to share about one of the hot topics in the meta-currency lab: the membrane currency.
As you probably know if you've been following this blog, we think of a currency around here more as a "current see," i.e. something that lets the social organism see and interact with a current, a flow. When looking at natural systems and the flows that course through them (that in fact are their very essence) there is a completely ubiquitous phenomenon that is often hidden in plain sight: the membrane. Membranes are somewhat tricky to define and understand, because in the end, where the membrane of any particular system starts and where it ends, is a matter of how you choose to look at it. This fact, that the boundaries of a membrane are somewhat fuzzy, is particularly interesting because that's exactly what membranes themselves are: boundaries. They are the component of a system that makes it appear to be a separate, complete, and integral system in the context of some environment. Membranes can be seen as that which creates a context, or environment, in which subsystems can be coordinated to into being an integral whole. This is not-withstanding the fact that all membraned systems are themselves embedded in an context or environment which is itself bounded by a membrane.
Membranes are permeable. One of the most important features of any membrane, is exactly the form and shape that it gives to permeability. This permeability, is clearly a mechanism for regulating flows in and out of a system, of coordinating how the inside of the system will see the outside, of limiting/enhancing/controlling/shaping/transforming what gets in and out. Sound familiar? By our definition of currencies, a membrane certainly is one. In fact, I now suspect that membranes are one of the foundational currency types.
In some living systems it's very easy to see the membranes as they map one-for-one with the very things we see. This is simply because they are the physical boundary that makes those systems "things" to our eyes. Animals have a skin. Cells have a "cell membrane." Without them, they would cease to be integral living things. It's harder for us to see the membrane in other living systems. What's the membrane of a bee-hive or an ant colony? The examples of social insects are an important step to understanding membrane currencies. Social insect colonies build both physical structures, but also have functional/behavioral structures that create the integrity of the colony as whole. Wasps build paper shells around their nests, but also guard them from intruders. Bees and ants, not only have specialized casts to ward off invaders, but also have complex identification systems to recognize bees and ants from other colonies. All of these aspects are part of what make the membrane of the colony.
So what does this have to do with currency? As with many things about currency, I credit Michael Linton with being first into deep insight about this. When I first met Michael in 2004 at the E.F Schumacher Society Local Currencies conference he was describing his vision of a multi-currency open money system that included a concept he was calling "domains." Here's one of the images he showed:
What Michael was describing in that picture was a network of currency systems. The circles are people, and the colored networks are the different currency system used by the people. But the key thing in the picture is that people are grouped in those gray areas: domains. Michael realized that for a self-organizing resilient currency network to form, there had to be a self-declared boundary system by which currencies and accounts in those systems could be declared and named, such that they would be visible and known to the entire network, but also such that any such group had it's own autonomy and control within that domain. This is a profound insight: naming is one of the key elements that creates the membrane of the social organism. Names are part of what creates the boundary that make a social organism distinguishable as an independent whole. And it's related to the identification mechanisms of ants and bees to know if any particular ant or bee they come across is part of "self" or not.I went on with Michael to build two functional implementations of the open money system one at http://alpha.openmoney.info and another at http://client.openmoney.info, both of which include a naming system to create contexts for currency accounts. The second implementation is described at: http://openmoney.info/techne/overview.html and you can see there how namespaces (which is what I started calling them instead of domains) were even conceived of as one of the fundamental entity types in the "Mesh".
That work has evolved into the meta-currency platform where again we continue grappling with the naming questions for the network. How will entities be made visible to other entities on the network, i.e. what will currency account addresses be? How do you name a currency? How will that namings be delegated? You can see the design document for our early ideas. But this all came to a head in working on the flowplace. The flowplace design included the notion of a "circle," which was a way to group users and currencies. The circles were completely separate from the currency network addresses (which we were now calling wallets). We conceived of circles as providing a context for action. So any group that wanted to use free currencies to build wealth together, could come to the flowplace, and start by creating a circle, and a bunch of currencies that it would use to measure it's wealth. When you have such circles, immediately you need to address the "security" questions of who gets to add new members into the circle. And then also the question of who gets to create currencies in a given circle, and so on. So I sat down to code these "administration" features into the flowplace, when it hit me that the meta-currency infrastructure we were using to create the currencies in the flowplace, was exactly what I needed to implement these permissions structures for the circles.
How is this possible? Lets go back to our definition of currencies: A formal system for shaping, enabling, and measuring currents (or flows). Well, the meta-currency infrastructure provides a language (XGFL) for creating those formal systems, and in the flowplace I'd already used it to create some trade, performance metric, and reputation currencies. I saw that I could use this same language to specify the permissions that participants of the circle have in regards to the currencies that the circle uses, and that that very specification could simultaneously serve as a naming, i.e. a mapping, between people, currencies and roles in the context of the given circle. After talking this through with fellow currency geeks, we realized that the membrane currency also has a broader naming function in that it is also responsible for creating names for all the currencies in use by the circle, be they currencies that are created by circle for internal use only, or be they currencies created externally. The membrane currency brings such currencies "inside" the circle, by virtue of giving them a local name. Arthur came up with the word "namescape" to describe the resulting naming that the membrane currency accomplishes. This reflects the idea that it's not just a static namespace, or direct mapping, that the the membrane currency accomplishes, but rather that for the social organism, the membrane uses a dynamic naming process to create the shape of the relationship between those currencies and processes that "inside" and "outside" of the social organism. Geeks can check out the progress of the developing membrane currency for the flowplace on github.
So let me try to sum this all up: I am engaged in this work because the social organisms that we are embedded in are destructive of us, the planet, and therefore themselves. Thus our social organisms must evolve, they must be radically transformed. I believe that for this to happen, we must come to see the social organism from the point of view of all the myriad flows that literally are what it is made of. But what gives any organism a level integrity, of self, wholeness, and difference from other organisms? It is a membrane, which is the systemic component that both separates and connects the organism from its environment. The membrane is not so much a static physical barrier, as it is an active process that mediates between "inside" and "outside." In the case of social organisms, the central process that accomplishes this is naming by assigning of roles. (Think of all initiatory ceremonies of social bodies where individuals get new names, or formal markings that assign them to roles). This "membranic" process is itself a currency as it a formal system for shaping, enabling, and measuring these flows of participation.
Perhaps we shouldn't call such currencies "membrane currencies" but rather "integrity currencies." The former is a name for the component in the system. The later is a name for what that component accomplishes.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Critical to expand perception of Currencies
On the Complementary Currency Skype channel we've got going, there was brief but old standard debate going on about fiat vs. mutual credit currencies.
I chimed in with:
Later Ernie asked: “I would like to know what you mean by this: ...if we consider these broader applications they create sharper contrasts and clearer hues so that we can learn which adjustments affect what outcomes.”
After a few days I responded:
Sorry about my delayed response. Let me try using what I think is an apt metaphor. The design of any currency establishes a range of possible behaviors of the individuals participating in it as well as a trajectory for the user community as a whole (as a sort of collective entity or organism).
I think this is very similar to the role that DNA plays in living creatures.
A currency organizes connections and interactions between groups of people into a kind of collective behavior which creates a kind of living social organism. The design of that currency (the rules about issuance, transaction, conversion/co-function, retirement/expiration, participant classes, governance, etc.) are the DNA of this social organism.
DNA doesn’t tell us exactly what each individual biological critter will do, but it does define a particular range of possibilities and tendencies. We know pigs don’t fly, bats don’t “see,” fish must live in water, and most humans develop language capacities. That doesn’t tell us what sentences a particular human will say, just like the design of a currency doesn’t determine exactly what transactions individuals will do.
Suppose you want to understand human DNA – map the human genome. Scientists have found it VERY useful to learn from non-human creatures for many reasons. Simpler combinations of variables (fewer chromosome pairs), easier experimentation (eugenics / experimental breeding of humans is frowned upon), greater variety (difference between different animals create contrasts which help identify patterns that might be harder to see between humans who are so similar), etc.
I’m suggesting that as currency designers (even if what you want most is to understand monetary currencies) that expanding our definition of currencies to include non-monetary configurations helps in the very same ways that considering non-human DNA helps in mapping human DNA.
This is what I meant in prior statement you asked about. I think there are many more reasons to consider these non-monetary currencies (such as gift economies are fundamentally more efficient than market economies).
Getting out of the rut of thinking that new “money” is the only real answer yields many opportunities for us. And yes – these broader “currencies” solve real problems that real people are grappling with every day. Money isn’t the only solution to our problems. And as we all know, it is in fact the source of many of them.
I chimed in with:
When you expand your perspective about currency beyond only medium of exchange / monetary currencies the need for fiat currencies becomes clear.
For example, debiting a University for granting a college degree as reputation currency starts sounding awfully silly. There are quite valid reasons for fiat currencies.
However, if your goal is to create sustained monetary value, that form of issuance tends to be "bad tech." I think we might be able to transcend some of the dogmatic Mac/PC or Fiat/Mutual-Credit posturing if we consider these broader applications they create sharper contrasts and clearer hues so that we can learn which adjustments effect what outcomes.
Imagine analyzing breeds of apples. There are a lot of differences between them, but mostly a lot of similarities when you compare them to all other fruits. It may be that if we want to nourish ourselves effectively, that we shouldn't rule out all other fruits. They each have their own value and there are things to learn from them that may even teach us a few things about apples.
(Yes... You might accuse me of making an apples to oranges comparison here.)
Later Ernie asked: “I would like to know what you mean by this: ...if we consider these broader applications they create sharper contrasts and clearer hues so that we can learn which adjustments affect what outcomes.”
After a few days I responded:
Sorry about my delayed response. Let me try using what I think is an apt metaphor. The design of any currency establishes a range of possible behaviors of the individuals participating in it as well as a trajectory for the user community as a whole (as a sort of collective entity or organism).
I think this is very similar to the role that DNA plays in living creatures.
A currency organizes connections and interactions between groups of people into a kind of collective behavior which creates a kind of living social organism. The design of that currency (the rules about issuance, transaction, conversion/co-function, retirement/expiration, participant classes, governance, etc.) are the DNA of this social organism.
DNA doesn’t tell us exactly what each individual biological critter will do, but it does define a particular range of possibilities and tendencies. We know pigs don’t fly, bats don’t “see,” fish must live in water, and most humans develop language capacities. That doesn’t tell us what sentences a particular human will say, just like the design of a currency doesn’t determine exactly what transactions individuals will do.
Suppose you want to understand human DNA – map the human genome. Scientists have found it VERY useful to learn from non-human creatures for many reasons. Simpler combinations of variables (fewer chromosome pairs), easier experimentation (eugenics / experimental breeding of humans is frowned upon), greater variety (difference between different animals create contrasts which help identify patterns that might be harder to see between humans who are so similar), etc.
I’m suggesting that as currency designers (even if what you want most is to understand monetary currencies) that expanding our definition of currencies to include non-monetary configurations helps in the very same ways that considering non-human DNA helps in mapping human DNA.
- There is greater variety. Contrasts stand out much more starkly. Postage stamps fill a very different niche than grades on tests or bus passes. There are patterns amidst that variety that are direct outcomes of the design of each currency.
- People participate more freely. Consider how many hundreds of millions of people are freely participating in currencies like five-star product ratings, eBay reputation, user participation metrics, certifications, college degrees, performance reviews, stocks, stamps, movie tickets, etc. in contrast to how few are participating in general purpose money substitutes (LETS, Berks, local currencies, and even commercial barter).
- Failures are less costly. The impact on people’s trust, ability to sustain themselves and willingness to participate in another “experimental” community venture are less severe when people don’t expect to make a living from the experiment. With non-monetary currencies, we can experiment without people losing their retirement funds.
- Results can be evaluated faster. One of the things people often expect from a monetary currency is long-term stability as a store of value. But non-monetary alternatives can be used to solve specific problems or meet specific goals then be retired. Even the WIR has barely been running long enough for many to consider it in long-term analysis.
This is what I meant in prior statement you asked about. I think there are many more reasons to consider these non-monetary currencies (such as gift economies are fundamentally more efficient than market economies).
Getting out of the rut of thinking that new “money” is the only real answer yields many opportunities for us. And yes – these broader “currencies” solve real problems that real people are grappling with every day. Money isn’t the only solution to our problems. And as we all know, it is in fact the source of many of them.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Money Simply Facilitates Trade?
Recently I've had some discussions about our MetaCurrency work with folks trained in economics. For some reason it seems particularly hard for some of them to grok what we're up to. More than once I've been told that working on changing the money system "hooey" and is barking up the wrong tree because "money simply facilitates trades," and that's it. Well, here's another statement: "cars simply facilitate moving stuff." Like the idea that "money simply facilitates trades" it is true for a narrow range of inquiry. But for even a slightly broader range of inquiry both of these statements are false. What's so interesting to is how hard it is in the case of money, to see that that statement is being made in a narrow context at all!
In the case of the technology of cars we know that the details of the technology itself has huge systemic implications. The CO2 produced by the internal combustion engines they run on has large consequences to the health of the planet's ecosystems. The specific effects of cars as a facilitator of moving stuff around vs. for example trains & and various other communal methods, or horses and buggies for that matter, have large consequences to the health of human social ecosystems.
You can't ignore the details of the technology in the case of cars, nor can you in the case of money. Both are technologies who's specifics make huge difference. What's weird is that by and large people don't even seem to think that money HAS any specifics. But it does. The currency alphabet that we've talking about (or currency literacy) is about getting the semantic and conceptual tools in our heads to see those specifics re money, so we can actually create forms of them that don't have the pernicious side effects. On top of that we're claiming that the best way to use such an alphabet is in an open, distributed, and democratic context, not a centralized one.
I see this situation is as if we lived in a society where we had invented cars, but we still had absolutely no idea how the production of CO2 by internal combustion could be responsible for climate change. We have created money, but we don't realize that the form of issuance of that money (debt based issuance), has very large side-effects. We don't really know why there isn't money for health care and education, we don't know why fundamentally our financial systems crash all the time. But it turns out that there are lots of other ways of issuing money into circulation (as there are other types of engines for cars), that don't have the same side-effects. My claim is that many, many of the fundamental patterns of our society are largely driven by the systemics that spin out from that basic axiom of debt based central issuance. If you change that one thing, lots of other things change. But it goes further than that too, just like in the case of cars as "facilitators of moving stuff." You can change out the engines to all be fuel cell electrics and thus solve the CO2 problem, but if we keep cars in place as our main way of moving people around we still have a huge range of social problems created by traffic, commuting, segregation of life into bedroom-suburbs and business centers, etc. And it goes even further, we pave over thousands of acres of arable land for cars. There are safety issues in using cars. They kill people and animals in ways that other transportation systems don't. They consume a scarce fuel resources which sets up other dependency relationships. They are built of metals which are getting increasingly scarce. They change the way people not in cars behave while moving around the world, and the list goes on. Just as it does with money, when you start to dig in deeper.
So I can see how all of this would seem to some economists as "hooey." If you are a traffic engineer, then any talk of switching out engines in cars as if it were meaningful is indeed hooey. It doesn't make a difference in that narrow context of getting cars to flow through intersections.
So although it may be true that money "simply facilitates trades," oversimplifying it in this way completely ignores other very real effects which emerge from money and our decisions about how we issue it, manage it and transact it. Different currencies change the rules about those things and although they may still facilitate trades, they can completely change all the ancillary "side-effects."
Intentional design of currencies is about waking up to the fact that these things are indeed not just "side-effects" but "actual systemic effects" and we should be responsible for them in similar ways that we need to be responsible for all those "side-effects" of using cars to move stuff.
We can't ignore those these "side-effects" and have a livable planet, livable economies or livable communities.
Yet looking at money in this way is completely (and possibly intentionally) outside the scope of traditional economics. Traditional economics seems to look at things like this in terms of "externalities," and certainly there is a loud cry from within traditional economics for accounting for externalities and moving them into the system. And some economist seem to get the deeper issue. Here is a great answer by environmental economist Neva Goodwin to a question about externalities in an article in grist:
The problem I have with classical microeconomics is the failure to account for "externalities" that relate to fundamental human and environmental values. What do you propose to do to incorporate the breadth of human activity and resource use into the economist's paradigm and avoid us living out the "tragedy of the commons"? -- David Hohmann, Bexley, Ohio
Many people who are critical of economics say that the problem is that economists don't take account of externalities. In fact, this is one of the most hopeful areas of agreement between economists and environmentalists. Externalities are costs or benefits that are "external" to the market system -- that is, they don't come back to affect the economic actor that caused them. This is very distressing to economists, because the presence of an externality means that the market is not working as theory says it should. Economists used to mostly ignore the prevalence of externalities -- they can justly be criticized for that -- but since environmentalists discovered the word and began to bring examples to the attention of economists, they have been working hard to figure out ways to "internalize the externalities." If this effort could fully succeed, we would have a world in which any polluting firm would bear the full cost of its pollution, rather than leaving individuals to bear the cost in terms of ill health, etc., and every family whose children grow up to be constructive members of society would be fully compensated for the foregone earnings and other costs involved in devoting time and resources to raising children.
That's the positive part. The negative is that, even while mainstream economists are actively (and sometimes successfully) wrestling with efforts to internalize (into the system of market signals) the costs of economic activity that have been externalized to the natural world or onto societies, there's something bigger going on -- which I suspect is behind your question. There are "meta-externalities" -- unwanted side-effects of the whole economic system on its physical and social contexts -- which continue to be invisible to the theory. Critical meta-externalities show up in the impact of the economic system on the social context. Productive enterprises need a workforce that has been socialized to be able to defer gratification, to think independently and sometimes creatively, and to be honest and responsible. Citizens and politicians need to care about the long run, and to be able and willing to address intelligently the myriad highly complex issues that face modern societies. But the sales efforts within modern enterprises are focused on a different set of requirements. From the sales point of view, the self-interest of business is served by a culture of instant gratification and simplified thinking that urges material purchase as the answer to any discomfort. A serious, as yet insufficiently recognized, set of meta-externalities are the selfishness, short-term thinking, cynicism, and impatience with complexity that are cultivated in the populace at large -- even though these are not characteristics that will best contribute to a healthy society or a healthy economy.
The heart of the difficulty in seeing this issue, I think lies is in the fact that traditional economics rests exactly on that "system of market signals" as the central feedback loop necessary for governing flows of goods and services. It's fairly easy to see how pollution is an externality, and how by pricing mechanisms like cap & trade, it can be brought into the market signal system. But as Neva Goodwin says, what about the meta-externalities of the very information signaling system you use to bring those externalities into the system? They will necessarily remain invisible without a level jump.
That's the idea behind the MetaCurrency project. It's a level jump that allows the side-effects of the signaling system itself to be taken into account, by putting the signal system itself into play.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Currencies are Numerical
I am going to make another soft claim about currency. Namely, that all currencies are numerical by nature. Now, having said this, I fully endorse the idea that things like marriage licenses and USDA Organic Certification are currencies through and through. IMHO, both of these instances are numerical since they describe binary states. I either have been certified organic by the USDA or I haven’t. 1 or 0. I either have a marriage license or I don’t. Again, 1 or 0.
With USDA Organic Certification, there is a long and complex process before the currency can be issued. The USDA inspects a variety of things about a given farm /product, and, based on a formula, determines whether what is being inspected deserves the USDA seal. However, the seal itself does not tell the whole story. The USDA seal is a shorthand for the public, so we may efficiently take in information about our food and base our purchasing decisions on it. If the USDA produced a ten page document for every farm / product it inspected detailing the complexities of how that product is produced, we would have much more complete information at our disposal, but most of us would not have time to make sense of it all.
I would assert therefore, that a currency streamlines information into a numerical representation, so sensible decisions can be made on the fly without knowing the whole story. While currency can profoundly increase the coordinative capacity of a group, some of the potential perils should be obvious.
However, before we get deeper into this, let’s take a moment to ponder the nature of counting. What is it about the eggs on my kitchen table that allows me to count three of them? Why do we apply the term “three” to these eggs? I would suggest that counting anything presupposes that we are able to filter for similarity of both pattern and context.
First, these things on my table all match the pattern “egg.” A piece of wood in the shape of an egg does not count since it doesn’t fit several of the key egg criteria. If I had two chicken eggs and an ostrich egg, I would still count three eggs (assuming I knew what the ostrich egg was). The ability to count presupposes my ability to recognize a given pattern as distinct from another pattern. It also presupposes that I can make adjustments to the pattern I am counting to fit my needs. For instance, I want to make a cake, so I am counting chicken eggs and not ostrich eggs.
Second, the eggs I am counting are on my kitchen table. I am not counting all the eggs in my house, in my community, or in the world. I am making a semi-conscious choice about the context of my counting. And that context is also adjustable. If I don’t have the right number of eggs on my table, I can expand my count to my house. If I don’t have the right number of eggs in my house, I can expand my count to the store, and so on.
So a necessary prerequisite of currency is the ability to count instances of a given pattern in a given context, but that is not the only characteristic of a currency. I can count eggs on my table, but how do I communicate that information to my community. Does the community agree on the definition of an egg? On a trusted “egg”spert to determine if what I am counting are really eggs? On whether the egg is on or off the table? And so on. Implicit in a currency therefore is a community agreement on how to count.
In the case of the number of eggs on my table, probably no one cares that much. But in the case of USDA Organic certification, a great many people care. So how to count involves an authorized issuer of the currency, i.e. the farmer can’t issue his own USDA seal. And, hopefully, there is openness about the pattern of what is being counted (i.e. the standards that the USDA has for its seal). And, there is openness about the context (i.e. the USDA is looking at my farm and not my neighbor’s).
Let’s look at one more example of how this numerical definition of currency works. An 18 year old is home for the summer from college and needs some pocket money to go out with his friends. The elderly woman next door needs her lawn mowed and offers to pay him a little to do so. While, the money isn’t very good, he has always liked his neighbor and agrees to do so. After the lawn is mowed, she invites him in for a lemonade. They talk a little about college, life, girls, etc. She gives him a hug, thanks him, and he is on his way. Let’s think about what value is created in this transaction and what currencies we might use to express it.
The most obvious value created is that the lawn is mowed. Our 18 year old does not do as good a job as a landscaper would, so he is paid less for his labor. Using dollars as our only metric, less value is created than would have been with the landscaper. However, a social bond is reinforced that wouldn’t have been otherwise. And, more importantly for the purposes of this discussion, this social bond may have implications for the rest of the community. For instance, the more connections with her neighbors the elderly woman has, the less resources from the community at large may be needed to care for her. She may even be healthier since she is happier. The benefit of our 18 year old having good relations with his elders may also have community benefits. He may be less likely to commit crimes, or more likely to accept helpful suggestions from his elders in other contexts.
So, let’s think about how to encode this important value for the community in a currency. We have already encoded the value of the lawn being mowed through the use of a monetary currency, so let’s look at some of the others. What about the value society receives by having to put up less resources to care for this elderly woman?
Perhaps there is an acknowledgment currency that is issued by the elderly for positive experiences they have with their neighbors. A simple public thank you. We count the number of thank yous received from the elderly, and are able to provide some benefit in return (perhaps a free bus token for x number of thank yous). Perhaps we don’t offer anything in return, other than public acknowledgment. If, later on, the 18 year old tries to get a job working with the elderly, this would be a useful metric to have. In either case there is an authorized issuer: the elderly. And we COUNT the number of thanks issued thereby.
Or perhaps we track the number of hours people put into caring for the elderly. We might be able to use these hours as a partial payment for care of our own parents (Japan currently has a system very similar to this).
Or perhaps we offer tax breaks to those who have amassed a certain number of hours since they have alleviated the public burden of care.
As you can see there are a number of ways to measure the value created in this transaction, but I think you will find that they all involve counting in some way or another. If they didn’t, the elderly woman could simply post a blog entry telling the story of her experience. While that might be a valuable thing to do, I do not believe it is currency until we have counted it using our filter of pattern and context.
In the case of counting thank yous, even though the thank you itself may be subjective, we are counting instances of it in a given context, and so have a number that has some quantitative meaning. We may apply different filters to our counting these thank yous so our data takes on fuller meaning. For instance, we may count only so many thanks yous from a given person a month to prevent cheating. And so on.
How we count what happened gives us the ability to adjust our actions to fit the story being told.
With USDA Organic Certification, there is a long and complex process before the currency can be issued. The USDA inspects a variety of things about a given farm /product, and, based on a formula, determines whether what is being inspected deserves the USDA seal. However, the seal itself does not tell the whole story. The USDA seal is a shorthand for the public, so we may efficiently take in information about our food and base our purchasing decisions on it. If the USDA produced a ten page document for every farm / product it inspected detailing the complexities of how that product is produced, we would have much more complete information at our disposal, but most of us would not have time to make sense of it all.
I would assert therefore, that a currency streamlines information into a numerical representation, so sensible decisions can be made on the fly without knowing the whole story. While currency can profoundly increase the coordinative capacity of a group, some of the potential perils should be obvious.
However, before we get deeper into this, let’s take a moment to ponder the nature of counting. What is it about the eggs on my kitchen table that allows me to count three of them? Why do we apply the term “three” to these eggs? I would suggest that counting anything presupposes that we are able to filter for similarity of both pattern and context.
First, these things on my table all match the pattern “egg.” A piece of wood in the shape of an egg does not count since it doesn’t fit several of the key egg criteria. If I had two chicken eggs and an ostrich egg, I would still count three eggs (assuming I knew what the ostrich egg was). The ability to count presupposes my ability to recognize a given pattern as distinct from another pattern. It also presupposes that I can make adjustments to the pattern I am counting to fit my needs. For instance, I want to make a cake, so I am counting chicken eggs and not ostrich eggs.
Second, the eggs I am counting are on my kitchen table. I am not counting all the eggs in my house, in my community, or in the world. I am making a semi-conscious choice about the context of my counting. And that context is also adjustable. If I don’t have the right number of eggs on my table, I can expand my count to my house. If I don’t have the right number of eggs in my house, I can expand my count to the store, and so on.
So a necessary prerequisite of currency is the ability to count instances of a given pattern in a given context, but that is not the only characteristic of a currency. I can count eggs on my table, but how do I communicate that information to my community. Does the community agree on the definition of an egg? On a trusted “egg”spert to determine if what I am counting are really eggs? On whether the egg is on or off the table? And so on. Implicit in a currency therefore is a community agreement on how to count.
In the case of the number of eggs on my table, probably no one cares that much. But in the case of USDA Organic certification, a great many people care. So how to count involves an authorized issuer of the currency, i.e. the farmer can’t issue his own USDA seal. And, hopefully, there is openness about the pattern of what is being counted (i.e. the standards that the USDA has for its seal). And, there is openness about the context (i.e. the USDA is looking at my farm and not my neighbor’s).
Let’s look at one more example of how this numerical definition of currency works. An 18 year old is home for the summer from college and needs some pocket money to go out with his friends. The elderly woman next door needs her lawn mowed and offers to pay him a little to do so. While, the money isn’t very good, he has always liked his neighbor and agrees to do so. After the lawn is mowed, she invites him in for a lemonade. They talk a little about college, life, girls, etc. She gives him a hug, thanks him, and he is on his way. Let’s think about what value is created in this transaction and what currencies we might use to express it.
The most obvious value created is that the lawn is mowed. Our 18 year old does not do as good a job as a landscaper would, so he is paid less for his labor. Using dollars as our only metric, less value is created than would have been with the landscaper. However, a social bond is reinforced that wouldn’t have been otherwise. And, more importantly for the purposes of this discussion, this social bond may have implications for the rest of the community. For instance, the more connections with her neighbors the elderly woman has, the less resources from the community at large may be needed to care for her. She may even be healthier since she is happier. The benefit of our 18 year old having good relations with his elders may also have community benefits. He may be less likely to commit crimes, or more likely to accept helpful suggestions from his elders in other contexts.
So, let’s think about how to encode this important value for the community in a currency. We have already encoded the value of the lawn being mowed through the use of a monetary currency, so let’s look at some of the others. What about the value society receives by having to put up less resources to care for this elderly woman?
Perhaps there is an acknowledgment currency that is issued by the elderly for positive experiences they have with their neighbors. A simple public thank you. We count the number of thank yous received from the elderly, and are able to provide some benefit in return (perhaps a free bus token for x number of thank yous). Perhaps we don’t offer anything in return, other than public acknowledgment. If, later on, the 18 year old tries to get a job working with the elderly, this would be a useful metric to have. In either case there is an authorized issuer: the elderly. And we COUNT the number of thanks issued thereby.
Or perhaps we track the number of hours people put into caring for the elderly. We might be able to use these hours as a partial payment for care of our own parents (Japan currently has a system very similar to this).
Or perhaps we offer tax breaks to those who have amassed a certain number of hours since they have alleviated the public burden of care.
As you can see there are a number of ways to measure the value created in this transaction, but I think you will find that they all involve counting in some way or another. If they didn’t, the elderly woman could simply post a blog entry telling the story of her experience. While that might be a valuable thing to do, I do not believe it is currency until we have counted it using our filter of pattern and context.
In the case of counting thank yous, even though the thank you itself may be subjective, we are counting instances of it in a given context, and so have a number that has some quantitative meaning. We may apply different filters to our counting these thank yous so our data takes on fuller meaning. For instance, we may count only so many thanks yous from a given person a month to prevent cheating. And so on.
How we count what happened gives us the ability to adjust our actions to fit the story being told.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
