Showing posts with label Wealth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wealth. Show all posts

1. Faint Road

1. A Faint Road
Bob Komives
::
updated 2021 ::


I found a faint road through a vast field
where genius, fool, and charlatan must ply.
As hard as the road is to follow,
harder still is to know who am I.
On The Art Of Synthesis


I am a wealthy pattern in my young, abundant biosphere. I am a thread in the net of life that threatens to encircle the universe. I seek a science to incorporate both the elusive abundance that builds what I have and the apparent scarcity that every day shows me what I have not. Through a vast field I follow a faint road along which I see landscapes that are impenetrable to traditional machinery of national and international finance. I see a distant village of mainstream economics barred from these exciting landscapes by its own walls and by the militant forces of pseudo-economics that interpose quaint, mirage-landscapes for mainstream society to fancy. In the same light that bathes the backs of those who once argued for a flat earth, I see proud, hoping, and helpless faces of those who argue for this week's popular economics —balance-the-national-budget-or-die. I see victim and perpetrator of quaint fancy. 

I also see hope in the emergent work of others more learned than I.

Perhaps one fancy can replace another. Perhaps I can point through patches of scarcity in a field of abundance to a faint road that you fancy to explore. I did most of my own exploration in the 20th Century. Since 1980, for myself and few others, I have set forth my fancy on paper and electron clouds. In the 21st century I have returned a few times to my  words to find poetry and alternate formats within my conjectures on the Economics of Abundance.


:: Bob Komives, Fort Collins © 1980-2021 ::
With attribution these words may be freely shared, but permission
is required if quoted in an item for sale or rent

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

10. Buckminster Fuller's Elegant Law



Buckminster Fuller's Elegant Law
Bob Komives
::

Growth studies are integral to physiology. Construction is integral to architecture. Economic development should be integral to economics. Yet, economic developers and economists share little common ground. At least one economist, Paul Romer, works to change that by convincing other economists that knowledge and technology are part of economic growth. This seems obvious to a person on the street but revolutionary to most macroeconomists.

Depending on where I run into it, economic development still seems to be more in the kit bag of real estate developers, promoters, and financiers, as well as thought provoking generalists. Confusion among economists makes me no more comfortable with the developers and promoters who play on a simpler stage:

" I create jobs.
You want jobs.
Jobs make community rich.
Give me break.
I will make money.
Then, I will make you
a nice, rich community."

||

Pending some coherent understanding of economic development such a monologue plays well to many audiences.

I find more comfort with the generalist synthesizers who try to comprehend the complex world and take us along for the trial. They look beyond their narrow window on the universe to an ever-expansive view. This is not frivolous pursuit leading to nowhere. Some, such as da Vinci and Einstein left obvious legacies. Others do no less than help us think, create, and pursue our own synthesis. They are skilled people who are generalists and designers.

Generalists:
see pattern
where others see spots,
see hypothesis
where others struggle to see the experiment.
Designers:
see opportunities
where others see problems.

||

One generalist designer got me onto this economic tangent. R. Buckminster Fuller formulated the fundamental law of macroeconomics. Wealth is a function of the knowledge and the energy in the universe.

wealth = function of (knowledge & energy)

The amount of energy in the universe is constant. The amount of that energy that we can call wealth, however, is not constant. It varies as the biosphere grows and changes. According to Fuller's Law, then, knowledge is the only component of wealth that can cause wealth to grow or shrink. This makes sense if we adopt a broad concept of knowledge.

We know something about
food, clothing, shelter,
art, and human rights.
They know some things about us.
Each and all is wealth.
Food is energy
made palatable.
Clothing and shelter are energy
reformed into protection and image.
Art controls and molds energy
to please our senses.
Human rights let us control our own energy
(including our own bodies).
Lacking such energy,
and the knowledge to use it,
we are poor.

||

Buckminster Fuller's formulation for wealth lead him to make a simple prescription for economic development: Increase knowledge! Since the quantity of energy in the universe is fixed, we create wealth only by increasing knowledge. More important, when we increase our knowledge we cannot fail to increase our wealth.

My own formulation is incidentally different, but it leads to the same conclusions:

wealth = knowledge

On this alone I would like to rest my case. What else I have to say is not so clean and simple. I too need more designer synthesis. However, I believe I can argue well that economic development is inseparable from economics. I can lay down some of the bases for a conscious economic development strategy that equates with a sane use of the biosphere and discards the popular conception of a balanced national budget. The knowledge we need is within us, around us, and ahead of us.


:: Bob Komives, Fort Collins © 2006 :: Plum Local IV :: 10. Buckminster Fuller's Elegant Law ::
With attribution these words may be freely shared, but permission
is required if quoted in an item for sale or rent

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

11. Classes of Knowledge, Uses of Wealth



Classes of Knowledge, Uses of Wealth
Bob Komives
::

Knowledge is just an abstract concept
until we tie it to the energy that it harnesses.

The wealth potential of the biosphere
is to have useful knowledge
of all the energy in the universe.

We have reached but the tiniest fraction of that potential,
but take note:

for billions of years the total was zero.

Knowledge makes wealth. Wealth is energy --that energy that is of value because we know how to use it to our benefit. Even when ignorant in our brains of value, something in our body, our society, or our environment knows how to harness the energy of wealth to our benefit. One can benefit from electricity knowing little of its physics and mechanics. Nor is it necessary to know how our immune systems work to benefit from their protection.

As our knowledge increases, our species' wealth increases. As long as our knowledge increases faster than our population, wealth per person increases. Buckminster Fuller saw that if we understand the principles of knowledge formation we understand the principles of economic development. With such understanding we might avoid extinction and continue to partake in evolution's gift of growing prosperity.

Fuller saw energy as physical, yet saw knowledge as metaphysical. Since knowledge is the only variable in his conception of wealth, if it is metaphysical it does not lend itself to measurement. (At least I do not know any metaphysical measurements to apply.) Convinced that Fuller's Law held much more promise than the collection of theories that were passing for macroeconomics, I looked for a way to reformulate the law so that we might test it alongside other physical laws that we reveal through science. There should be notation that can express Fuller's Law in physical terms. Knowledge could then be discussed as a quantity even if measurement were still impractical.

After an enjoyable, but long, struggle with this measurement problem I saw that it simplifies if we think of one instant in time and ignore any complications from the relativity of time across the vastness of the universe. At one instant as seen from one point in the universe, knowledge is not metaphysical. It acts upon discrete units of energy. At that instant all of the energy of the universe can be divided into three classes.

Class-w energy is the knowledge (wealth) of a particular species, ecosystem, community, or other subordinate part of the biosphere. Human wealth is class-whuman.

Class-W energy is biospheric knowledge. It includes all class-w energy.

Class-U energy is all the energy in the universe, including class-W.

Since knowledge and energy are inseparable at this instant, we can measure knowledge by measuring the energy to which it has attached. Our human wealth equation becomes a summation of this attached energy:


∑wealth = ∑knowledge = ∑class-whuman energy

When life appeared the amount of the energy in the universe devoted to life went from zero to a tiny amount. As life multiplies that amount stays tiny relative to the universe but steadily increases. Life's invasion of the inanimate universe has begun. Earth has become a biosphere. Life captures inanimate energy and organizes it into its systems. Some newly captured universal energy gets bound into living creatures. A larger amount --still inanimate-- serves as storehouse of energy for life support. Life exploits this storehouse as food and as supportive environment in which to survive and prosper. This captured, organized energy is life's wealth. It includes the growing amount of energy that actually knows how to live and the expanding reservoir of inanimate energy that life knows how to exploit. So it is for our species. Our class-whuman energy is the energy that knows how to be we, plus other biospheric energy that we know how to use to our benefit.

That part of Class-W biospheric energy that we cannot count in our class-whuman wealth is quite important. It measures our ignorance.


:: Bob Komives, Fort Collins © 2006 :: Plum Local IV :: 11. Classes of Knowledge, Uses of Wealth ::
With attribution these words may be freely shared, but permission
is required if quoted in an item for sale or rent

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

14. Biosphere: A First-Class Wealth Organization






Biosphere: A First-Class Wealth Organization
Bob Komives
::

In setting forth his Critical Path for humankind R. Buckminster Fuller made a distinction between class-one and class-two evolution. Class-two evolution assumes humankind runs the universe. It includes the events that seem to us to come from human initiative and control. We like class-two evolution.

I planted a seed

here somewhere, where
today there should be
(by my rights)
a seedling-

here on time, when
the packet guaranteed
(to my sight)
a sprouting-

if not now, then
it had better be
(as I hope)
by morning-

here somewhere, where
it might have been seen
tomorrow
(by evening).

Seeds And Rights

Class-one evolution transcends our vision, and (as one finds out waiting for seeds to grow) it often voids our class-two-right to have things happen as we told ourselves they should. Class-one evolution came first and will leave last. It put humankind on Earth. It is typified by "ephemeralization," by which we do more and more with less and less, and by "acceleration," by which the time between changes gets less and less.

The biosphere and humankind continually organize and reorganize. Life grew in complexity and robustness by organizing itself. Simple forms of life organized themselves into cells. Some cells organized their reproduction so that instead of creating totally new and independent creatures they created specialized organs within a multiple cell creature. The invention of organs exemplifies ephemeralization, because cells working in a multi-cell and multi-organ individual can often do more with available resources than can the same number of single-celled creatures.

Since we need old fashioned cell-into-cell reproduction to make and sustain our organs, we multi-celled creatures need some enhancement to reproduce our entire organized selves. Class-one evolution gave some of us sex. Sex became an unwitting accelerator of evolution as we mix and re-mix the gene pool (inclined as we are to attract strange mates). New species and communities of species could now evolve faster. Evolution is subject to its own class-one evolution. It accelerates as the gene pool diversifies.

I wish to emphasize the obvious; the word, organization, comes from the root-word, organ. We say that people get organized (into committees and such) while their bodies have organs (heart, lung, foot, skin). It sounds fine to say that the human body is organized, and it sounds only a little strange to say that the police department is an organ of the city government. At the edges of evolution, then, organs and organizations form. Through class-one organization the biosphere develops, reproduces, modifies, and discards patterned interactions.

Class-one organization,
first-class organization,
is biospheric economic development.
Unwittingly,
we participate.
Wittingly,
but ignorantly,
our second class efforts
often retard or threaten our wealth,
our biosphere's wealth.
Our species is organ to the biosphere.
We are organs to our species.
Looking inward,
we see our organs
as their cells and genes organize them.
Looking outward,
we see ourselves
as parts in several organizations:
. family,
. neighborhood,
. team,
. school,
. country,
. ecosystem,
. bioregion,
. species,
. biosphere.
Organs work neither perfectly nor forever.
(Such is the trial-and-error of evolution.)
Organized, imperfect, timed interaction
among species,
between species and their environment;
call it ecosystem.
Around the planet
call it biosphere.
Across space,
someday call it bio-universe.

Biosphere sustains life and culture,
changes as inanimate environment changes,
changes as life alters itself.
Energy captured by biosphere,
organized into life,
organized to support life,
reorganized by life,
this energy is biospheric knowledge.
Biosphere knows
to preserve,
create,
re-create,
to continue a habit of change.
Without such knowing,
life
into lifeless ignorance,

will end.
||


:: Bob Komives, Fort Collins © 2006 :: Plum Local IV :: 14. Biosphere: A First Class Wealth Organization ::
With attribution these words may be freely shared, but permission
is required if quoted in an item for sale or rent

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

15. Capture, Distribute, And Recirculate Wealth


Capture, Distribute, and Recirculate Wealth
Bob Komives
::


I divide wealth development into three processes that interconnect in an evolving spiral. The three processes are: capture, distribution, and recirculation. The following diagrams help me see how wealth of biosphere and its parts can grow. Among the casualties of simplicity, I ignore backward steps such as death and disorganization.

I will describe these diagrams as starting at the origin of the biosphere, but, with simple changes in vocabulary, they could start today and look at one person, a tidal pond, a human community, an ant hill, a business, or a watershed. As the diagrams progress, more energy of the universe serves life, and life becomes more complex.












The number of creatures increased tenfold between diagrams 8 and 12. The amount of energy in the biosphere increased more than tenfold because energy captured from the universe gets distributed and recirculated before leaving the biosphere at a rate somewhat slower than it enters.


:: Bob Komives, Fort Collins © 2006 :: Plum Local IV :: 14. Capture, Distribute And Recirculate Wealth ::
With attribution these words may be freely shared, but permission
is required if quoted in an item for sale or rent

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

16. Biology, Brain, Artifact: Our Wealth Stores


Biology, Brain, Artifact: Our Wealth Stores

Bob Komives
::


Where do we store our wealth of knowledge?
Evolution gave us a nervous system,
a brain, wherein we learn our environment
and attempt to respond to change.
Our brain holds memory
wherein we store our learning for later use.
We learned to create artifacts,
utilitarian and coded,
that, once made,
hold our knowledge.
Nests and tools,
paintings and hearths,
books and buildings
may survive our death
to be inherited by following generations
that may use and build upon this heritage.
Our life-time learning,
our artifacts,
and our biological heritage
combine to organize our culture.
||
We can classify human knowledge by where we store it. Carl Sagan wrote of genetic and extragenetic locations.

Genetic knowledge is written in the nucleotides in the chromosomal DNA molecules. As life evolved its forms became ever more complex. Genetic code had to contain more information. Humankind has more genetic information than most other mammals, which have more than amphibians, which have more than protozoa. Depending on mutations and natural selection, this genetic form of knowledge grows slowly and is limited by its container, the chromosome.

Extragenetic knowledge resides outside of our chromosomes. Much is written during our lifetime in the memory of our brain. Because we can learn and be taught, our species can adapt quickly to problems and opportunities presented by our environment. But brain knowledge dies with each individual unless she has somehow passed it on to someone else. It is still sharply limited by the capacity of a brain to learn and apply information during one lifetime.

Some extragenetic knowledge, however, is also extrasomatic; it is stored in artifacts outside our bodies. Utilitarian objects and coded messages augment our ability to capture and use energy. Humankind does not have exclusive access to such knowledge, but we are the experts. Libraries are obvious examples, but tools, houses, and other useful objects contain knowledge. These inanimate objects may have a usefulness that is independent of the life span of the people who create them. The objects tend to accumulate, offering each successive generation an opportunity to be more knowledgeable (wealthier) than the previous one. Nor is it necessary for the user to know as much as the creator.


To use our hammer of steel and wood
we must know to grow and manage arm and hand.
We must learn how and why to wield our hammer.
Yet, we need not know how
to make or shape steel,
to select wood
nor make a handle.
Someone put this into our hammer,
so we can use without knowing.
Someone Put This Into Our Hammer

I classify knowledge by location as: biological knowledge, brain knowledge, and artifactual knowledge.

Biological Knowledge. It includes the genetic codes, most of the living tissue of each living creature, and any energy immediately at the disposal of this knowledge. For an earthworm it includes himself, the soil that surrounds him, that is about to be consumed, and that that is being consumed. For the biosphere, it includes the biomass plus most of the inanimate materials and gases just above and below the Earth's surface, and beneficial energy arriving at Earth from the sun and elsewhere.

Brain Knowledge. It includes information and skills learned by individuals from their environment during their lifetime as well as any energy immediately at the disposal of this knowledge. For the human who has learned to swim and dive for clams, it includes the water supporting her and the clam she is about to grasp. For the biosphere, it includes any increase in biomass or captured energy that is due to brain knowledge -for example, the fish stocked and propagating in a natural lake that had no fish until knowledgeable humans intervened.

Artifactual Knowledge. It includes knowledge outside our bodies, and any energy immediately at the disposal of this knowledge. For a cold human it includes his stove that incorporates brain knowledge of metallurgy and the science of burning. It includes the firewood in and immediately nearby his stove, as well as the food he is about to cook, and his cookbook. For the biosphere, it includes a man-made fish pond, the solar panels on a space vehicle, and the energy that each captures.

Knowledge organizes and reorganizes the world. Biological knowledge sustains basic processes and carries the fundamental codes of life. Brain knowledge augments the amount of energy that an individual, a group, an ecosystem, a species, or biosphere can put to beneficial use. Artifactual knowledge can harness and release vast quantities of energy that the body and mind cannot manage directly.

Brain knowledge increases rapidly for each new individual. An ignorant baby becomes a knowledgeable adult. We organize ourselves so that we can pass much wealth from individual to individual and from generation to generation through example, oral tradition, ceremony, song, dance, and vocabulary. Much brain knowledge also comes from direct personal experience. This wealth accumulates much faster than does genetic change, but it is inefficient. It usually passes to only a small group before the teacher dies. It may be forgotten or misunderstood. Much brain wealth dies with each individual.

Artifactual knowledge increased slowly in the early millennia of mankind. One generation left simple hand tools in wood, stone or bronze for the next generation. Supplemented by a transfer of brain knowledge through teaching and demonstration, these artifacts often retained their usefulness over generations. Each new generation could not only make new tools but use those accumulated by earlier generations. When nomadic groups converted to stationary communities they could keep more of the tools made by past generations. We still use simple hand tools. They often help us build complex machinery and electronic equipment that in turn we can use to manufacture better, less-costly simple hand tools. Our artifactual culture builds upon itself.

Written language is itself an artifact (in code) that helps us store instructions for using and building other artifacts. Instructions might otherwise be forgotten or severely limited in distribution. Using this coded artifact, our brain knowledge can quickly and temporarily grow to suit the need at hand. We only need to know how to read the language.

I illustrate the interworking of the forms of knowledge with a simplified view of the ancient Egyptians and their culture that flourished along the Nile River. They relied without thinking about it upon their biological knowledge to keep their bodies functioning long enough to reproduce themselves and to accumulate and transfer brain knowledge. With their brain knowledge they could understand the seasons, the floods, the principles of agriculture and mechanics. Combining biological and brain knowledge, specialized engineers could build dikes and irrigation systems. These artifacts enabled many who knew nothing of engineering to increase their food and fiber production. In the process, Egyptians developed new strains of plants by selecting seeds from those plants that took best advantage of this man-altered growing system. These plants, though having their own genetic wealth, were living artifacts storing extrasomatic knowledge for the ancient Egyptians and we who follow. A complex system of biological, brain, and artifactual knowledge built an increasingly productive culture that gathered ever more energy unto itself.

In a purist sense, the three forms of knowledge are downwardly dependent. Biological knowledge came first; it can exist without the more advanced forms of knowledge. Brain knowledge evolved with increasingly sophisticated nervous systems. It obviously depends upon the genetic code of the body that hosts it. Artifactual knowledge exists outside the body. However, without brain knowledge and biological knowledge there would be no one to take advantage of it. It would cease to be wealth.

This hierarchy of dependence is valid, but difficult to apply. Much biological wealth depends on brain knowledge or artifactual knowledge. Pigeons can exist without humankind, but their population would be much lower without the artifacts of man, city buildings. Holstein cattle owe their unique characteristics to careful breeding by humans. They are living artifacts for humankind, but biological wealth for themselves. Astronomy is mostly brain knowledge, but much of it depends upon artifacts such as telescopes. In our complex patterned biosphere the forms of knowledge interact and interdepend.


:: Bob Komives, Fort Collins © 2006 :: Plum Local IV :: 61. Biology, Brain, Artifact: Our Wealth Stores ::
With attribution these words may be freely shared, but permission
is required if quoted in an item for sale or rent

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

18. Exploitation's Deceitful Attraction


Exploitation's Deceitful Attraction

Bob Komives
::

We know from experience that, despite all the good it does for us, at times Adam Smith's "invisible hand" needs to be slapped. We rise again and again in fits of moral outrage to knock down those who sacrifice common good to disparity—promote our loss for their gain. Do we do so often enough? We discuss that question frequently. Here is another question that we should discuss: do such struggles and knock downs pit morality against economics? To this second question I answer, no. Morality need not fight economics unless you equate economics with pursuit of personal gain. You should not. I do see these struggles as contests between good and bad; but between (good) morality and bad economics, between common good and bad science. Great disparity is a great clot in the arteries of development.

Great disparity between us,
great impediment among us.
Moral justice asserts
that our wealthy must distribute wealth
onward to our poor.
Economic development just begs
that wealthy just act
knowing their dependence upon the poor
—and upon more.
More wealth distributed
brings back more wealth recirculated;
today distributed,
tomorrow shared.
In abstract we speak
of wealthy and poor.
In concrete we speak
of butcher, baker, banker,
slave, master,
pitcher, raker, candlestick maker.
We distribute,
recirculate,
compete,
cooperate,
evolve,
to survive
to prosper
together.

||
Consider the economics of exploitation. Take an extreme example; consider the economics of
slavery. As species, as group, our wealth grows biologically with each birth; it decreases with each death—usually. Simply having more people may decrease our group wealth. Our increased population may overwhelm brain knowledge and artifactual knowledge that we use to harness resources. While this negative outcome may not be as likely as doomsayers often say, more people do not by their presence alone make the individuals in their group more wealthy. Yet, mistaken actions by fellow humans seem to stem from a belief that greater population brings wealth—if it is more of the right kind of population, the kind that makes us rich. When powerful individuals and groups enslave other people they increase the population that works at their service. A slaveholder feels wealthier holding more slaves.

We can exploit others in ways more subtle than slavery, but in all ways exploiters believe (if they are honest with themselves) that they become wealthier if they subjugate more people. Usually they do not try to increase overall population, just their controlled population. Unfortunately, history shows that from their narrow and short-sighted viewpoints they are usually right. Since we see our world having static resources, we find it selfishly attractive to exploit the minds and bodies of our brothers and sisters. These harnessed minds and bodies know how to gather wealth for us.

 
From the broad viewpoint of humankind exploitation is not attractive. It reduces opportunities for the exploited. That reduction inhibits the growth of brain knowledge and artifactual knowledge for our species, reducing species wealth and average per-person wealth. To the exploited it is painfully obvious that they suffer the burden of their exploiters. 


Unfortunately, exploiters are painfully ignorant that they suffer under the burden of their exploitation. This becomes tragically obvious when a lethal microbe flourishes in the impoverished ecology of the exploited and surges forth to kill exploited and exploiter alike. Yet the lesson is not learned. Here, economics has, first, much to learn and, second, much to teach.

Exploiter dreads that exploited would self-organize.
Old culture that slave might keep,
and new culture that slave might create,
destroyed, discouraged, undone.
Exploiter simplifies—
in
simple
organization
finds
control.
Biosphere complicates—
for in our complexity, it finds resilience;
for in its resilience, we find wealth.

||



:: Bob Komives, Fort Collins © 2006 :: Plum Local IV :: 18. Exploitation's Deceitful Attraction ::
With attribution these words may be freely shared, but permission
is required if quoted in an item for sale or rent

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

23. We Tax Ourselves When We Play Our Roles.


We Tax Ourselves When We Play Our Roles

Bob Komives
::

We cooperate; we compete. In both modes we exhibit freedom. At least, that is a view we can choose. In another view, we just play our inherited roles. "Role playing," "role differentiation," these are terms frequently heard among social scientists. They are also better and more general terms for what we and our economists call "taxation."

Role playing (1) distributes wealth among individuals, and (2) creates wealth when the roles are mutually beneficial. Number one is well understood by both charitable and exploitive people, by our tax collectors, and by other species--the more I get from you, the better off I am. Attribute number two is at the frontier of our understanding of macroeconomics.

During the dawn of life separate organisms that were accidentally different accidentally contributed to each other's chances for survival. Some produced offspring that had a tendency to organize themselves to reënact the ritual. As they did, role playing became part of the biosphere; taxation became part of the biosphere.

Each particle of DNA, each species, each individual, each group depends upon and is depended upon by other elements of the biosphere. Each taxes others and is taxed in turn within an intricately organized web of roles. On occasion, the quantity of life traumatically decreased. Despite such setbacks, life incorporated an increasing portion of universal energy into itself and into its complex support systems. As life grew, so did the complexity of the roles played by the organs and organisms that sustained it. Had we been there, at some point the complexity would have become too much for our great brains to comprehend. We would have to develop concepts of freedom, intention, randomness, in our attempt to understand cause-and-effect in what we saw. We would find words for cooperation and competition. In some order (perhaps simultaneously) science, pseudoscience, religion, and philosophy would follow.

As life flourished, new roles emerged, old roles changed. Through its organized role playing the biosphere learned not only how to prevent a net loss of biological energy (absent great trauma), but also how to capture more energy. In terms of biosphere economics, wealth steadily increased. While some species lost all wealth and became extinct, humankind prospered. Human economic history, when read from a distance, records changing patterns of roles that were adequate to keep us around and increase our wealth.

Role playing works because it distributes resources among individuals to the benefit of the group. An infant needs nurture, so it taxes its family to supply energy and skills to survive. Given survival, the infant can go on to contribute to the welfare of the family and to help produce another generation. Our tendency to nurture others lets us help individuals become scholars, artists, scientists and administrators. It causes us to make an effort to preserve life and opportunities for less fortunate people even when we seem to loose wealth in the process. We harvest and create food, education and security. Then we tax ourselves. We cooperate and compete so that we distribute these products and services among us. History is too full of examples of exploitation and persecution. We live with the guilt that comes with our unfortunately large margin for error. Nevertheless, so far, we tend to tax ourselves well enough to survive and occasionally flourish.


:: Bob Komives, Fort Collins © 2006 :: Plum Local IV :: 23. We Tax Ourselves When We Play Our Roles ::
With attribution these words may be freely shared, but permission
is required if quoted in an item for sale or rent

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

27. Confusion Over Capital and Ownership



Confusion Over Capital and Ownership
Bob Komives
::

During the Cold War which pitted U. S. America and its capitalist allies against the Soviet Union and its communist allies, capitalists confused economic communism with totalitarianism, egalitarianism, and atheism. Communists confused economic capitalism with colonialism, elitism, and self-righteous exploitation. Each group confused itself with values such as freedom, hope, and progress. Both relied, in part, on the classic definition that makes socialism the opposite of capitalism.

According to this classic definition, under socialism society should own the means of production (that is capital); under capitalism, private individuals and companies should own the means of production. Means of production usually include resources such as fuel, minerals, and lumber, as well as key industries that process and transport these resources. The definitions seem simple and intuitive, but only if we ignore some obvious questions.

How about eyesight and the opposable thumb? Where would most human production be without them?

How about the mind, the body, libraries, air, organization, and rights-of-way across space we do not own? We cannot produce without them.

We cannot produce without many forms of knowledge found in biology, brain, and artifact. Necessary resources get ignored in lists of means of production. Society cannot own mind or eyesight. Yet, to practice socialism under the classic definition, it must. For society to be truly capitalistic, private enterprise must own my body and our air.

Knowledge is our means of production.
Woven into nature, ourselves, and our creations,
knowledge converts energy of the universe
into nature's wealth,
our wealth.
Much knowledge cannot be grasped
or held by monopoly,
be it public,
be it private.
Yes, socialism and capitalism differ.
No, we cannot have one without the other.
Our "means of production" is nothing less
than the knowledge which helps us maintain our species —to survive.
Art and government belong in the lists of means.
What do we say in saying:
own them?
socialize them?
capitalize them?
We say only confusion.
||
We should not mistake capital in an ephemeral industry for fundamental means of wealth production in our biosphere, species, and society. The petroleum industry combines petroleum (the energy knowledge it contains) with some capital (knowledge of how to find and process the petroleum). In a socialist country, government should operate this industry; under capitalism, a private company should. However, neither government nor private company can hope to take total ownership of our knowledge of how to use petroleum, including cruising downtown on Saturday night, beauty treatments, ... , pyrotechnics. Without society's use-knowledge, the petroleum industry produces no wealth. Humankind had wealth before the petroleum industry came into existence, and it should have more wealth after the industry fades in importance. A change in human knowledge made petroleum part of wealth. Further changes in knowledge can reduce its importance long before we exhaust the supply.

In this dynamic world we often raise questions as to who has and who should have the knowledge and the tools for change. The answers vary and may often confuse. Yet, fixed commitments to the traditional dichotomy between socialism and capitalism are worse. They compound confusion by pretending it does not exist.
:: Bob Komives, Fort Collins © 2006 :: Plum Local IV :: 27. Confusion Over Capital and Ownership ::
With attribution these words may be freely shared, but permission
is required if quoted in an item for sale or rent
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

28. Center and Edge




Center and Edge
Bob Komives
::

Socialism is the part of our economy in which our group distributes wealth according to values set communally. The process need not resemble consensus. The group may be active, passive, enthusiastic or bitter about delegating the distribution authority. Marketplace is the part of our economy in which we trade wealth according to values set by many people responding to supply and demand. Marketplace and socialism are distinct, but they help each other. Neither can replace the other. Neither can manage all of our capital. Socialism flourishes at our centers. Marketplace flourishes at our edges.

I hold these truths to be self-evident:
Lake without shore is no lake;
Lake-shore without lake is no shore.
||
In the zealots for socialism and the zealots for marketplace we have among us those whose views of economics are akin to saying: "My sacred lake shall have no shore;" and " my sacred shore shall have no lake."

Socialism and marketplace differ because of the societal space each occupies. We organize ourselves into overlapping groups. Each group has edges. At the edge it must interact with other groups and with its natural environment. Among other options at the edge, it may trade wealth according to rules of marketplace. Each group has a center. There it distributes wealth through a communal system that may include tradition and rules.

A typical family administers its resources communally. Children do not buy food from parents. Tradition says that children have a right to food, clothing and shelter. They have a right to be wealth consumers. Wealth producers in the family pool their resources to support the family. Authority figures establish and enforce codes of conduct. The family typically divides tasks among members according to tradition, authority and volunteerism. There may be great competition among family members, but ultimately the traditional communal authority structure decides who wins and who loses.

At its edges, a family competes and cooperates in a larger society with other families, individuals, and institutions. As a producer in modern marketplace economies, the family may compete against the rest of the community for jobs and sales. As consumer, the family probably enters the marketplace to bargain for the goods and services that it does not produce internally. The marketplace, not a communal system of decision and authority, decides the prices the family will pay and receive.

Family members find themselves at the center of other institutions -a club, a church, a government, a corporation, a school, a clan, a tribe. At these higher-level centers interactions are communal, because larger institutions also practice socialism. Many participate in marketplace at their edges as well.



:: Bob Komives, Fort Collins © 2006 :: Plum Local IV :: 28. Center and Edge ::
With attribution these words may be freely shared, but permission
is required if quoted in an item for sale or rent

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

29. From Amoeba to Market



From Amoeba to Market

Bob Komives
::


We can, I suppose,
think of a chemical reaction
at the nucleus of a tiny amoeba
as but one reaction
in
.... a
........chain
..................that
..........................extends
from this amoebic nucleus
to the farthest reach of the biosphere.
We should rather, I propose,
notice this amoeba has a surface,
its working edge,
where universe divides in two;
where biosphere divides into
what-is-this-amoeba
---and-----------
what-this-amoeba-is-not.
Where Universe Divides In Two

Early creatures had centers and edges. Evolution gave them ways to move energy around the center, from edge to center and from center to edge. Communal biological wealth in the amoeba keeps its primitive power and control systems functioning. At its edges, the amoeba uses genetically coded knowledge to capture food. However, one amoeba has no control over the likelihood that food will be there to capture.

There is friction. One amoeba may find itself in competition for food with other amoeba, other creatures. Lacking the sophistication to sign treaties or to create a marketplace the amoeba relies on programmed gathering techniques to bring fuel into itself. At its edge the amoeba competes and cooperates with its surroundings to overcome friction, to transfer wealth from the larger biosphere into its one-cell body.

As life forms become more complex, so do the options for wealth transfer at edges, and for wealth distribution and recirculation at centers. Humankind has experimented with a variety of methods to organize its centers. At some scale we call these experiments family. At other scales we call them government. We have a propensity to form governments and never seem satisfied with our results.

As family met family, group met group, and nation met nation, we experimented with government-type solutions at our edges also. As alternative to war, raids, walls, and moats, the marketplace was such an experiment. Participants agreed upon marketplace rules in order to minimize risk to themselves and their goods. These rules and their enforcement were the government of the moment, the communal base for marketplace.

Fringe trading deals with new goods and services more readily than does communal tradition. We need only a willing buyer, a willing seller, a place to bargain, and security for the individuals, their goods and services. Traditional distribution may create successful investment, but that same tradition may be inadequate to guide the distribution of new types and quantities of wealth produced by the investment. With or without the sanction of traditional leaders, individuals might resort to edge-type trading to distribute these new goods and services.

Some governments came to approve of this internal trading, but also took control -setting and enforcing the rules. Thus, government became communal sponsor of free enterprise. Internal edge-economies became important. Marketplace society was born.




:: Bob Komives, Fort Collins © 2006 :: Plum Local IV :: 29. From Amoeba to Market ::
With attribution these words may be freely shared, but permission
is required if quoted in an item for sale or rent

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

33. Ignorance and Confession

 
Ignorance and Confession
Bob Komives
::


A society that emphasizes marketplace will tend not to see the socialism that makes marketplace possible. A socialist society will tend not to see the adaptive potential of marketplace. I believe what I see: we can have neither a socialist nor a capitalist world.

We cannot survive without socialism; it evolved with our species. It is at the center of everything living. Theoretically, we could have a world without marketplace; it is a relatively new product of evolution.

There are alternatives to marketplace in edge economics. To organize the exchange of wealth at their edges, groups can compete through war, thievery, conquest, or isolation; they can cooperate through peace, contracts, treaties, compatible but independent traditions, or through intergroup (international) law. Contracts, treaties, traditions, and intergroup law can control interchange. Thievery can also bring in wealth (such as when an immigrant smuggled the secrets of England's looms to the American continent, or when a Native American stole from another group the first horses for his own group). Conquest can bring in all the wealth of another group. Isolation can put up real or de facto walls that prohibit interchange. However, humankind's accelerating introduction of new forms of wealth makes marketplaces almost inevitable, even if illegal in an avowed communal state. We can foster the marketplace, as we do in avowed capitalist nations, but let us remember that fostering is a communal activity.

We can neither totally delegate to individuals nor totally socialize to a group the means to produce and maintain humankind's wealth. If the Soviet Union had believed that the state should own the means of production, it should not have gone into the international marketplace to buy computers and wheat. It should have bought Nebraska and IBM -people included. If U.S. America believes that people should individually own the means of production, it should eliminate the state of Nebraska and the IBM corporation because these are strictly communal structures.

I make these absurd proposals only to point out the absurdity of labeling political and economic rivalries as a dichotomy of capitalism versus socialism. The wealth production potential of the USA suffers when it ignores the fundamental dependence of marketplace on communal control over the policies of wealth distribution. Because in the last twenty years of the twentieth century marketplace was in political ascendance, so was our ignorance of our communal center. Socialism was descendent. During these twenty years, socialist leaders tended to confess that their nations suffer when they ignore the vitality, flexibility, and healthy complexity that marketplace can bring to an economy. As times change so will the loci of ignorance and confession.



:: Bob Komives, Fort Collins © 2006 :: Plum Local IV :: 33. Ignorance and Confession ::
With attribution these words may be freely shared, but permission
is required if quoted in an item for sale or rent 
 
 
 
 
https://www.indiebound.org/book/9781733884150
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

35. To Suggest a Framework



To Suggest a Framework
Bob Komives
::

What I have worked
is just forgotten.
What I have wrought
is but forgot.
Ought To The Participle

I end Part I suggesting that we might re-subdivide the science of economics. In the first Plum Local, I saw a need for a new name to cover an expanded economics -perhaps, "biosphere economics" or "world economics." Change in name, however, is less important than change in substance. The substantial changes I describe rely on distinctions between abundance and scarcity, between centers and edges. Here, I propose a framework to accommodate these distinctions. I propose to unite similar areas of study within economics and to help economics connect itself with the rest of science through a redefined macroeconomics.

Macroeconomics covers the broad scope of economics, its important connections with the rest of science, and the interrelationships among the centers and edges of microeconomics. It describes the work by nature and humankind that creates wealth. It describes the general rules of abundance and economic development. Some traditional macro and microeconomics belongs here, as does economic history. For the most part it is a new economic umbrella synthesized from other parts of science.

Microeconomics describes the work of wealth distribution and maintenance. It describes the special rules of scarcity. Microeconomics can be divided into two parts:

  • Central Economics covers socialism, law, tradition, treaty, peaceful cooperation, money, stock issues, internal borrowing, corruption, and like subjects. Most of traditional macroeconomics belongs here, together with studies that have not traditionally fallen under economics.

  • Edge Economics covers marketplace, trade, war, peaceful isolation, external borrowing, thievery, and like subjects. Most of traditional microeconomics belongs here, together with work from other social sciences.

War and marketplace are moral near-opposites. However, both belong under edge economics because they try to bring wealth across the friction of the edge between groups. A treaty does the same, however a treaty usually belongs under central economics because it can form the core of a new group. It is the center of a higher level communal system.

Corruption and thievery are moral kin. But corruption is central while thievery is edge. In corruption, a small group at the center of a larger group finds its communal way to subvert the larger communal wealth ethic. In thievery, an individual or group imports wealth snatched from others.

Socialism and marketplace fall in different divisions of microeconomics, not because they are rivals, but because they solve different problems in the way hub and rim of a bicycle wheel solve different problems.

I prefer this framework, but I believe that names and frameworks can be both problem and solution. I seek a framework that works better, but we should avoid excess concentration on the classification of fields of study. After all, subdivisions are artificial; there is only one science. We need only make sure that economics be an integral part.

I trim my beard;
you notice my hair.
You cut your hair;
I ask, "since when the beard?"
On sight of a dirty bath,
together we throw out the baby.
My,
what able eyes for change
and lame brains for attribution
have you and I, sir,
and Little Red Ridinghood.
You and I, Sir


:: Bob Komives, Fort Collins © 2006 :: Plum Local IV :: 35. To Suggest a Framework ::
With attribution these words may be freely shared, but permission
is required if quoted in an item for sale or rent

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::