The
Tool that Became a God |
Note:
I wrote this piece in 2004 when a friend, who is a financial planner, asked me what I thought about money. I think it may have disturbed him a little.
I did some editing for clarity, today, and added some links as I think these ideas are relevant to the “sudden” problems in the global economy.
My friend, I am afraid, thought that I was a hopeless case. When I asked him what he thought about the piece he said: “Interesting.” “Interesting” is a term that any writer or designer knows usually means “I don’t want to tell you what I really think about it.” I expect that today he and his many wealthy clients feel they are about half as well off as they would have said four years ago. I do not see it that way. I would say that reality has just cleared the fog a little. I wish them well.
As for me, things are much the same, personally, and MG Taylor is doing somewhat better. It is not clear what impact, if any, the present “situation” will have on us. We are now entering - and getting some recognition for it - the times for which we were invented. Perhaps this will see us continuing to grow despite everything - and perhaps we also, along with many others, will be set back in our Mission and in our personal economy. In the end, these things are not factors in the outcome, merely aspects of the challenge.
From my perspective, all the wailing and moaning going on still totally misses the point. We are at the end of an era and have to reinvent our global society from stem to stern. The sooner we get on with it the better off we will be. It can be a great adventure. Think of all the fun we had over the last several hundred years compressed into a single generation! There is plenty to do and plenty of potential wealth - to be created by doing it - to go around.
It is my passionate hope we take advantage of this present condition - it is not yet progressed to the dignity and utility of a useful problem - and make good use of the hand which we have dealt ourselves.
Matt Taylor
November 21, 2008 |
|
|
| Bucky
Fuller once said that a tool is the extension
of a natural human metabolic function [future link].
Cupped hands become a cup; a fist, a hammer; a nervous
system and a personal network of relationships,
the Internet; and so on. He said that there were
two kinds of tools which he called craft
tools and industrial tools. Craft tools are those
tools an
individual can invent, build and use, personally.
Industrial tools are tools that only a large group
can invent,
build and use. He cited the hammer as a craft tool,
the Queen Mary as an industrial tool. In Fuller’s definition money and a global economy are industrial tools - an invention of the Human Enterprise. |
In
1975, in my ReCreating the Future lectures,
I told the story of the Monkey’s Paw which
is the parable
of the dangers of using a tool, craft or industrial,
when you do not understand its nature and the consequences
of its
use. It is
worth reviewing that story today because it was,
sadly, predictive of the situation we now find
ourselves in today and will increasingly be placed in the future if we fail to pay attention to the consequences of our actions.
link:
The Monkey’s Paw |
In
1985, writing in my Notebook, I outlined the algorithm
of why the assumption of fundamental scarcity and the upside down use of money, the tool,
logically
leads to war. At Rutgers University in 1999, I presented
an
alternative
kind of money and alternative uses of
it. On the eve of the dot.com blow out, I wrote
a
web-page
critic
on
the misuse of money
and its greater expression, an economy; and, followed
this with a polemic which outlined the 12 bad habits embedded in our present economic practices and, as far as I can see, rarely changed. These
pieces are also worth reviewing as a context for what is written below.
link:
UpSideDown Economics • link:
Rutgers Presentation • link:
Hype vrs. Anti-Hype • Link:
UpSideDown Ecomoncs 12 Aspects |
| I
have been, after being infected by Ann Rand in the 50s, Nathaniel Brandon and Allen Greenspan in the 60s and remain, a supporter of free enterprise.
I no longer use the word Capitalism, in a positive
sense, because the abuses in its name have gone on
too long, for any possible short term social redemption. Our practice of Capitalism has become the
very thing its critics long claimed is its essential nature. The term Shock Capitalism is, unfortunately very accurate and - after having practicing it globally for many decades - the U.S. has recently turned it loose on itself, one of the major reasons for the recent meltdown and a great example of eating your own lunch. To try
and
argue that, in theory, there is a form of
Capitalism that does not do these things which now blackens
its
name,
is
a futile gesture. Besides, the word has become historically
irrelevant; it is knowledge formation not
capital formation that is important now and this
requires
free enterprise even more than did the emergence of historical Capitalism. FREEDOM has
always been the core issue and the issue is freedom
for all with equal terms for all [future link]. This will be a degree of freedom far greater than any of the liberal democracies have achieved to date. The paradox is that the case can be easily made that we abused the freedoms we had in almost every possible way imaginable. We pride ourselves about our freedoms even as we destroy them. To say that this is not the case today is either a bold face lie or a monumental display of ignorance. |
| Economists,
throughout the ages, have always debated two core issues: what is the most effective way
to create wealth? And, what is the most moral way
to share and distribute it? Adam Smith held the chair of moral philosophy at Edinburgh University at the peak of the Scotch Enlightenment. The modern liberal Democracies
and
their semi-free market economies have the best track
record
in history on both counts. They have, however, three
black eyes: the first is they do not regard peoples
outside their borders with the same respect and rights
as those inside [future link];
the second is, while providing the most level playing
field in known history, there
are still major biases that protect entrenched wealth
which is held by a few by political favoritism; the third is the
devastation of the environment
and the slaughter of other life forms as the consequence
of human economic activity. It should be noted that
the record of the freer economies,
in
this regard,
is
superior to the more controlled ones. The Soviet Union and China being exemplars in widespread ecological devastation. And, it should
also
be noted that people within the existing systems
could have made better market choices as
they are beginning
to do so [future link]. Consumers - a horrible designation - are not without blame.
I do not believe that a free economy and a balanced
ecology are mutually exclusive. This will
take, however, far more discriminating players: governments, customers,
investors and producers alike, then dominate the
Human game today. |
| A
MARKET is one of the most efficient sorting
algorithms ever devised. So much so that markets are beginning
to be used to forecast the future [future link] and
to also used as a design strategy within organizations,
as well as, at the level that makes the environment
of organizations: in systems and networks [future link].
I know of no means as efficient as a market to sort
out differences and arrive at effective judgments
among relative values even when they are made up
of minute shades of gray. Whenever I am doing work
with a large and complex organization and they are
struggling to understand and make decisions when
dealing with “impossibly” complex situations, I
tell them to “make a market of it.” This can be done
as simply as doing a simulation in a NavCenter at on
the scale of reordering their enterprise away from
divisions and levels toward autonomous networks which interact
as a market. |
what_is_money_functionally |
| Money,
from an engineering point of view, performs three
critical functions in support of the exchange of
goods: it is
INFORMATION; it is FEEDBACK; and,
it is a COMMODITY -
although some argue that money as a commodity
is a corruption of its basic
social function and value. As information,
money is a means of knowing the relative value of
goods (which includes services). An
interesting word, “goods,” because this concept shows
a very old social bias; no one was interested in
trading
“bads.” In today’s complex economy, however, this
is what many of us are doing without knowledge or
direct feedback. With money in my pocket, I do not
have to carry around five tons of pig iron hoping
I can trade it off for the correct number of perishable
eggs. The reason that money replaced the barter economy
is
obvious
although two things should be considered. As late
as the mid 1980s, the monetary economy still only
accounted for 50% of the exchange of goods on a planetary
scale and, now, with computers and networks, it is
possible to create a much smarter system as I have
suggested [link] and
patented [link].
As many are beginning to discover, our present monetary
system is too simple and too dumb to “describe” the
complexity and variety of options which exist within
our global economy. Smart people are beginning to
make “stupid” economic decisions because of this
deficiency.
Money
as information is failing and the information
systems we have piled on top of money are becoming a
further burden to understanding. They impose complexity and overhead and the further opportunity for misinformation and corruption - this not an aid, it is dangerous window dressing. For
this reason, money as feedback is becoming
compromised. The state of money used to
contain information in regards understanding the state of
the economy. This is no longer nearly as true as
it once was.
The economy is too complex and the money too simple
and too often manipulated for political
reasons. This later fact is like shooting the messenger
rather than allowing the information to govern people’s
choices. A modern jet liner has three independent yet interlocking
guidance control systems which add up to the equivalent
of six - a prudent piece of engineering given that
lives are at stake. We try to run a sophisticated
economy with one form of money. Based on this data,
we make collective decisions that kill large numbers
of people on an annual basis - more than we find
acceptable in a modern war. If you find this a wild
statement think about the consequences to older people
of air pollution the standards of which are decided
in terms of what is considered affordable. Or, Medicare
legislation. Or, perhaps a car company that decides
it is better economics
to
pay
off law
suits rather than fix dangerous faults inherent
in a high volume platform. This kind of
simple economic feedback, without the all the costs
factored
in, is
what Nolan wrote about a generation ago in TANSTASAFL.
A book [future link] still
ignored. Someday, the exchange of value will be facilitated
by a “money” that will be
an
audit trail, a performance contract, a robust analysis
of specific and systemic consequences, as well as,
a vehicle for the transaction.
It is unlikely that this kind of money will be allowed
to be a commodity, in itself, as its integrity will
have to be beyond reproach. It is unlikely it will
be required because it will provide many more efficient
ways to factor wealth and create leverage over time
than the present system of credit provides [link].
It is also true that this kind of monetary system
will
make
all kinds
of markets
efficient which will wipe out the present
value of hard-to-find and
privileged-based information. Most professionals
will lose their present lofty status based on an
information monopoly and will have to provide (as
is already
the trend) ever greater value-add based on judgment
and design abilities. For this reason, the switch
to ubiquitous smart money will
be resisted for as long as possible, however, this
short term, self-serving attitude will ultimately
fail. In the end, markets do win. |
| With
all of the above as context, I will now get down
to what money means to me, how I personally think
about
wealth, and what I will do and not do to get it,
keep it and employ it. In order to do this, two concepts: profit and wealth first
have to be explored. In my view, profit is a biological
necessity. All living things have to function at
a profit - or die. This means, they have to take
more in than they spend. When they do die these
compounded earnings are then disbursed back into
the larger
system that makes up their ecological framework.
This is true for a plant, an animal or a human in
a social-economy. The amount of profit that a creature
has to make, in order to prosper, is set by their
ecological-economic circumstances. Animals, generally,
work on much tighter
margins than humans do today, as we are somewhat insulated
by the invention of our social-economies. You can know, however, when you hear about the percent of alleged “profits” being pulled out of some companies and markets that it is a matter of time before there will be a collapse. Nature abhors and vacuum and does not allow great margins for long. Bumble
bees, for example work on a temperature economy
and have to keep their hives, summer and winter -
“good”
times and “bad” in regards weather, seasons and cycles
of draught and wet - within a one degree temperature
range. They have several strategies for doing this
including rotating themselves inward and outward
using their own body temperature to insulate a hive
in winter while keeping their own individual temperature
within an acceptable range. They demonstrate, in
doing this, the principle of common-wealth and individual
wealth integration as both are necessary to the proper
functioning of any successful society. Generally,
on the biological
level, the storage capacity (the ability to hold
“profit”), of any system or sub-system, has to match
the
general time-distance between resources. A human’s
ability to store fat, hold water or breath, for example,
is ‘sized” based on the average distribution of these
“goods” in the natural economy of our physical environment
called Earth. In our case a few weeks for food, a
few days for water, a few minutes for air. When we
wish to or have to operate outside of these ranges,
we employ
technology.
A
human, who
had to store several months food as fat, or weeks
of water, or days of air (as some
animals do) would look very different than your typical
Hollywood star or world class body builder who, to
be competitive, have to exist on a much lower fat
margin than the average human. Generally, plants
and animals match their needs against the factors
of their innate
capacities and design strategies (which determine
their degrees of freedom) and the resources in the
environment by means of migration.
This is
why what we are doing to the the planet is so devastating
to them. We disrupt their habitat on a evolutionary
short time-scale while simultaneously cutting off
their ability to migrate
by the witless construction of our own infrastructure.
There is plenty of space, it is just too chopped
up. Migration paths to scattered
reserves
have been suggested as a solution to this problem
[future link]. If you think that technology breaks us out of our natural constraints I offer a word of caution. The margins are not as good as they look. Add up all the time you spend earning money to buy and maintain your car and build that - along with some portion of the U.S. military budget [future link] - into you analysis and see what your average miles per hour gain over walking actually is. You will be surprised. Ivan Illich did a study on this decades ago [future link]. What you do get with the car is useful: on demand, weather protected, increased payload, radically increased speed over distance. In effect, you get to make an investment and have a greater choice in how you expend your energy-time-work accomplished equation. Done right, you can yield a good profit. Just don’t fool yourself about the real costs some of which your grandchildren - because of our present crude technology and social-slight-of hand - will be paying off. Technology is good. It is just not for free. Remember the Monkey’s Paw. |
biomickry_orgainic_housekeeping |
| Thinking
about the concepts ecology, economy (both come from
the same root “housekeeping”), money,
markets, commonwealth, individual wealth in this way
suggests, by the rules of of Fuller’s tool-making [link] and
Wright’s (and my) definition of “organic design”
[link] a certain
approach to the design of a political economy and
the proper conduct of individuals within it. In
other words, we should employ BIOMICKRY [rbtfBook] standards
and processes as we design and use this “industrial”
tool. |
two_responses_to_mixed_economy |
| It
can be pointed out that we do not yet exist in the
“ideal” ecology/economy implied by this approach
and I acknowledge this. It is often advocated, then,
a “every man for himself” attitude should be used.
The problem with this is the obvious damage this
causes
other humans and now plants, animals and Planet
Earth, the largest system we are presently engaged
with. This is nest fouling at the extreme and not
very intelligent
behavior; it is behavior that will lead to extinction,
first other’s, in time, ours. Also, there is considerable
evidence to suggest that
this
approach
is beginning
to turn
the
enormous
creative
engine of our economic system, itself (which we created
over centuries of effort), into the creature of its
own
destruction [link] I wonder if anyone has noticed that the periodic economic crises - which we we try to fix as if they were isolated events - are come at higher frequencies and greater magnitudes with shorter stable, productive periods in between. Play this out and it is clear we are a few short years away from passing critical thresholds and blowing our semi-global system up.
I deal with this situation in two ways,
one corporate
and one personal. On the corporate level, I have invented
ValueWebs [link] which
I believe offer a transition path from
the existing social economic system to the next level
of human social evolution. Individual and social transformation
is the business that MG Taylor is in [link].
Even if we show a profit, we are not successful if
we fail to fulfill our mission. If we are “successful”
in our work and do not produce a profit, we are not successful [link].
Personally, I practice the “precautionary principe”
in my own economic
practices. I live a basic middle class life with the
aim of doing as little harm as possible; I seek to
to stay within narrow margins in terms of my personal
economics; I base all of my decisions on that which
produces the most value for me, my “tribe” and the
system-as-a-whole (which includes others, even “competitors”)
as the application of intellectual diligence leads
me to understand it. I pay for my mistakes.
The two (ValueWeb architecture and the personal precautionary
principle) together, along with the
quest of building an innovative corporation
and
personal
practice
around
these economic and social convictions, has lead me,
at this point in my life, to have performed
a bit
more poorly than the bumble bees. As a business, MG
Taylor (within the skin of the legal entity which we
“own”) is running a deficient of 10 percentage points
(debt to accumulative revenues). As a systems
integrator
of
a
ValueWeb (the aggregate of the businesses and individuals
we have served), we have
failed, based on the measurable results the last 15
years (by the measure of our
corporate debt factored by the new capital created
within the web), to pay ourselves
adequately by the additional amount of .001 percent.
During this now going on 30 year journey, I have lived
the mentioned
solid middle
class
American life as have the vast majority of those who
have worked with MG Taylor. Many of us have failed
so far, however,
to
adequately fund our retirement which is a form of profit/storage
necessary in our society. So, we, as individuals,
are also running a deficit. And, despite our stringent
efforts, I believe the goods and services of MG Taylor
are too expensive and that this is slowing their needed
distribution throughout our society. I function as
a CEO of a company however I consider my real work
to be the facilitator of a ValueWeb of individuals
and companies - finding the balance between the economy
of this nascent web and that of MG Taylor, the corporation,
has been a challenge. So far, my errors in judgment
have been to the detriment of the corporation. However,
I firmly believe that the actual harm of this has
been minimal compared to the benefit and the potential
of the Enterprise. Never-the-less, there is
work to do; the etymology of the work “sin” is to miss
the mark. We have missed the mark and
it is my duty to repair the systemic organizational
reasons why this is so. We have
a small pricing problem which we have to fix and
we
have
a
longer term capital formation problem which we have
to overcome to create the efficiencies necessary to
take our work, economically, to the next scale of use.
Our Business Model [link],
in theory, deals with both of these issues. The next
24 months (mid 2004 to mid 2006) will demonstrate if
this is so. It should be pointed out, however, that on the level of recursion of the end users - including clients and those who practice our Method - millions and billions of profit have been made. Our economic problem is not one of value creation. It is a small imbalance in distribution between the greater ValueWeb membership and those of us who invented, promoted and shared our System and Method. |
| Considering
all these things, the conduct of MG Taylor’s business
and my personal life imposes an additional burden
and higher standard then usual in regards the task
of “earning
a living” which, by my way of thinking, is a bizarre
notion anyway [link: wage slavery]. There is no question that in the short
term this “burdon” makes
the task more difficult. It holds out the promise,
however, of finding a more sustainable approach and
the satisfaction of having done more good than harm
- which is not easy in today’s world. Paying attention
to all these aspects of the system is a necessary
integrity of anyone who would aspire to the role
(at any scale) of systems integrator. Building an
organization that can do this, and not becoming corrupted
in the process - at the scale suggested in my writings
and demanded by
the
work
that I advocate [link] -
is an extremely ambitious and daunting task. I did
not start out to do this - I evolved
to it. The things
I wanted to do, and that which I perceived as failures
of the existing order, drove me to it [link].
Personally, I
have
never desired
great amounts of wealth nor fame. I am perfectly
happy
to live more or less as I always have (which, by
the way is in the very top few percentage points
of the entire human population - making
me a very successful social predator or creator depending
on the net results of my actions) with the
caveat that I would like a few more degrees
of freedom, tooling level and social
access.
I like money. I consider it a brilliant social hack.
A great tool. But I do not worship it anymore
than I would a drafting board or a hammer [link].
I will not knowingly kill or compromise values for
it and I see no reason not to take calculated risks
in regards
it.
Money
is important, and it is a social fabrication
that has great utility, but this does not qualify
it for the level of
religious worship it receives today. Money does
have its own rules - as does any technology - which should be prudently obeyed and these rules should be followed
as long as one realizes these rules are both intrinsic
to the nature of the tool and a social contract
that
can and should be
renegotiated when
necessary. |
personal_money_public_goals |
| My
interest and requirement for money is not personal.
At my present billing rate, I can live far better than
I now do by working one month a year. At the moment,
I would be far better off without MG Taylor which costs me
(and the other core staff members), directly and indirectly,
enormous amounts of money. However, it is unlikely
that you will ever see a Xanadu [link],
or a Wilderness Mega City [link],
or a Crystal Cave [link],
the Master Planning Process [link] ,
a global network of NavCenters [link],
nor the wide spread deployment of the postUsonian house
[link] based
on any level of personal wealth that can be honestly
earned in today’s economy in a single life-time. You will not see these without
the successful development
of MG Taylor and what will evolve out of this ENTERPRISE.
MG Taylor, itself, will never bring into being these
projects
and make
them a reality beyond the proof-of-concept stage. It
can, however,
facilitate the creation of organizations and
networks that can. What can I tell you? You can see
why I am relatively
indifferent
to personal wealth beyond a basic level of personal
comfort and tooling necessary to do my work, and promote adequate social
access. Remember, I grew up on Air Force bases with
B-29s as my personal
playthings [link: 1947].
I learned then what a society of mission dedicated
individuals and a global network architecture can accomplish.
I am a commonwealth and
big-systems kind of guy who wants to make good change
on a global
scale
and have some pleasure in the doing of it. The
pursuit
of making lots of personal wealth, while intriguing
and fun, is like playing sports to me. A good thing
to do when you are young and practicing to become a
human but ultimately boring [link].
What to do with
wealth, both individual and common, is a far more interesting
question
- particularity
in a
world where there is some much of it and so few good
places where it can be put to really useful work. I
have no problem at all with those few people who think
about
money
making
as I do about architecture and make it their creative
life’s work. These are true wealth-makers.
Myself, I make a means of wealth-making and
I create a means for spending it, for individual and
social benefit, specifically in the realm of habitats
that
facilitate life, learning and human creativity. To each his/her own passion. |
| I
titled this discourse MONEY - The Tool That Became
a God because that is certainly what it has
become in our society. I am afraid this will turn
out to
be a vengeful god. A 600 pound person has amassed
too much profit and will certainly live poorer and
most likely die sooner for the accomplishment. How
one thinks about money and decides to act or not
in its name is one of the most important decisions
anyone makes in their lifetime. How one sorts through
the often posed but false conflict between individual
wealth and commonwealth is a critical discrimination,
the sum of which, in a greatly amplified economy,
will effect nations, billions of people and, ultimately,
the survival of our own species. What one determines
is “enough” in terms of their personal wealth (and
I think there is a wide range here that can be considered
legitimate under all circumstances) is of great
personal importance because this is, in really, a
decision about what you will pay attention to -
or not. What
one buys in the marketplace of ideas and goods (or
bads) is the ultimate expression of freedom
and provides a
critical values-based feedback to producers - this
“vote”
is never neutral nor trivial. The awareness - and
balance - one brings to the use of personal and industrial
tooling,
including modern organization, is extremely
important. These amplify human action. They do so
for good and
for bad - usually, a little of both. How we individually
and collectively sort out these trade-offs will be the
design of our future world [link]. |
freedom_and_personal_franchise |
| Un-manipulated
money in a free marketplace, with a government that
cannot be bought, is the essential tool of the ultimate
democracy. Thoughtful use of this augmented freedom
is the exercise of civic dignity. Matching one’s economic
choices to one’s values and lifestyle is an exercise
in personal franchise. These are the conditions of
creativity free of unreasonable coercion, stress, risk
and distorted consequences. A society of this kind
of creativity, exercised by
billions
according to their own muse, will produce all the sustainable
wealth ever needed. It will produce a society that
can create
without destroying. It will make a planet that is a
work of ART [link]. |
| What
is new to the HUMAN CONDITION, is that for
the first time in our evolution we have the power
to destroy
completely. We can do this in one big bang or by
the slow death of a billion poor decisions. What
is new is that, in this regard, we are not constrained
in any kind of a practical way. We can destroy before
the feedback [link] loops
regulate us to act otherwise. What is new is that
how we act, individually, in the conduct of our personal
economy, actually counts on a global scale. For the
first time in history what we do not do
is as important as what we do. We have reached the
power of gods with the wisdom of children. The global
industrial economy has become the most brilliant
and dangerous artifact ever created in the known
history of the human race. I cannot tell people how
to live. That would be worse than presumptuous. I
can offer alternatives and I can seek to live those
alternatives at the highest fiduciary standard possible.
This is what I have chosen to do and this choice
sets the framework of my economics. |
| This
is what money, the tool, means to me. |
|
| In closing, I address directly the title of the piece MONEY: the Tool that became a God. In the documented 10,000 years of civilization there is no period which even begins to approach the dominance, we see today, of money over human thought and actions. To our ancestors, I think, this fanaticism would be considered bizarre - made more so given that we have so successfully accomplished nearly everything we need to live a decent, honorable and creative life. I believe future generations, if they exist, will look back on our time and proclaim that humanity suffered a mass hysteria which was profoundly clinical in nature. A Hysteria which makes the periods in the Dark and Middle Ages looks health by comparison. |
| The strongest clinical terms almost fail to describe the level of collective insanity involved. The term “worship” in Hebrew means “to work for.” To work for money is to worship it. To worship money is to give it god-like status. Money is a tool. It actually is a very good tool. It promotes autonomy and freedom in how one exercises economic choices. If the monetary system is honest, stable and robust it insulates individuals from the arbitrary actions of others. It is remarkably better at facilitating the many ways humanity has organized work, and the creation and distribution of wealth, than many other methods which have been tried. |
|
Matt
Taylor
Nashville
May 1, 2004 |
|
SolutionBox
voice of this document:
INSIGHT • POLICY • PROGRAM
|
click on graphic for explanation of SolutionBox |
posted
May 1, 2004
revised
Novvenber 21, 2008
• 20040401.123159.mt • 20040507.300992.mt •
• 20040510.999900.mt •
20040621.456610.mt •
• 20081121. 111101.mt •
(note:
this document is about 95% finished)
Copyright© 2004, 2008
Matt Taylor
|
|
