The purpose of economy is to serve life. The purpose of life is not to serve nor make economy [link]. The old economic model - too narrow even to remain useful as a narrow economic model let alone a social model - has been stretched far beyond any useful utility. It is out of proportion in consideration of the other factors necessary for a healthy view and practice of human society and life. This economic model is so strong that few even realize they are trapped in it or that it is a recent human-created social artifact. It is taken as a given. It has become a social paradigm. It is not challenged because it cannot be seen. To challenge it, these days, is to be un-American. I am not talking about the idea of a free market economy. I am talking about the mixed economy we have and how we, as a society, have chosen to employ it [link].

This worn out concept of an economy seems to no longer inspire even those that make up it’s greatest adherents. Our economy - driven so long by it’s own dynamic - is slowing from fatigue and inattention - there is little reason to buy. How often does the latest improved thing really make your life significantly better? Consumers - a horrible term - are exhausted. This likely to be a short pause until some new IDEA captures people and drives a new economic cycle - off we will go again in search of a mindless-materialist utopia. The notion of a “consumer” economy, however is not sustainable and will ultimately give way to another framework. Sooner cannot be too soon.

The social and ecological consequences of this paradigm (the consumer economy) run amuck are devastating [link]. We are destroying life on this planet - our own included. LIFE has become lifestyle - a commodity - something to manipulate and exploit. Something to make, buy and sell.

The measures by which we judge and run this economy (itself an illusion) are contradictory and dangerous. On one hand we extoll the “brand called you” on the other take a raise in unemployment as confirmation of recession (a decline in the rate of growth measured over an incredible short period of time). After a period of rampant growth we arrive at an “energy crisis” - which is the result of totally careless development practices - and use this crises to roll back the few life-serving gains that have been made in regards ecological standards [link]. Next year, it will be a water crises. Then, something else. All unrelated, of course. Each time, the amenity of life will be sacrificed a little more. As economy grows, life suffers a slow death. It should not be this way. There is no intrinsic contest between economy and life - only the consequences of bad design [link].

Where is the quality of life index? What are the measures of true, sustainable gain? What are the reasonable expectations of the economy, as a system, and what are the appropriate standards for the companies that compete within it?

This last year has seen one of the most remarkable economic shifts in recent memory. And, it is not just in the economic arena. World politics has also radically changed focus. We, so far, seem to be reacting in conventional terms: a new set of problems to “fix.” What if something new is going on? What if this is not a business-as-usual cycle?

What if the dot bubble collapse [link] is not the cause of an economy in the doldrums - what if fatigue lead to the end of this most recent tulip buying craze. Have we been building an economy or growing a cancer? Is there some nascent awareness of this? Are people beginning to run out of reasons to work and buy?

What seems to be left is fear. Fear of losing recent perceived gains. What is not present is the positive energies that come from the sense of building something. It is a morning-after economy - a slight hangover with a mild sense of guilt.

This is a market lacking definition on both the producer and buyer sides. It has no reason to exist other than it does not want to die.

Boredom alone, at some time, will fill this vacuum. The question is with what? And, if what fills it is a step towards greater long-term health or a new maniac period leading to an even greater crash at the end of another wild cycle. If our economy were a person we would say it is manic-depressive in it’s behavior. Legally, we could lock it up for it’s own protection and ours. Instead, we call the maniac phase “good” and the depressive phase “bad.” We treat the symptoms but not the basic condition.

Buying has become a reflex habit for a whole generation of people and we have a huge numbers of companies drunk on it. Now, maybe people are wondering if the bigger (bloated?) house will make the family functional, if the new computer - with another 30% gain in processor speed - will make the work go better, if the next new car will really make the traffic jambs more endurable.

What might be some characteristics of the next economic phase? I think it will be more experienced based. The recent phenomena of design driving successful products (and soon, services) will continue. Hopefully, some portion of the economy will be devoted to making long term investments. Someday people will realize that the economy is just a measure of economic activities and cleaning up things will make just as may people rich as creating the mess did in the first place. It is a matter of what people choose to buy. A 50 years ago it may have seemed strange to buy bottled water that cost more than some wines. I expect - if we continue down our present road - it will not be too much longer when fresh, unpolluted air will be sold at profit.

Maybe that is what the next economic period can be about. Choices. Choices that bring material and spiritual benefit to people. An economy of GOODS... and experiences.

What if people invest some of the incredible wealth that has been created in themselves instead of buying another round of the same old sheep dressed up new wolf’s clothing? What if truly energy efficient products were rewarded in the marketplace? Software products that really made the work go better not another round of feature glut? What if incessant tourism and travel gave way to exploration and education? Housing developments of oversized houses to sustainable architecture? Entertainment to a positive and healthier art? Too much drinking and over eating to exercise and healthy food? What if community development became popular?

What if we actually made the social investments necessary to build a sustainable infrastructure, develop space habitats [link] and restore [link] our planet’s viability?

What if we stopped treating people as economic units [link]?

I suppose it would be called a depression.

It might be a new economy.

A market economy is the most efficient way we humans have ever created to sort out multiple choices offered to millions of people. Economies are not good or bad - they ARE. They express the results of the choices that have been made. Today’s economic pause is best interpreted as a question not a prescription. It may be one of the best opportunities in a long time for business to think through it’s function and for individual businesses to rethink their basic market strategies. It may be a time for users to think deeply about the consequences of their purchases - maybe that is what is happening.

If a knowledge-based economy is emerging, we have to understand what knowledge IS. We have to answer “knowledge about WHAT? If it is to be a knowledge worker economy, we have to understand the values and motives of knowledge workers. Where are the signs of this? Are we building a knowledge economy or are we using the latest knowledge to pump the old economy into a frenzied state? These are important questions. Questions that each of us has to answer. The existing industrial economy is a tremendous tool [link]. It amplifies individual human capability. It is not something removed from human action - it is not a given. It is a TOOL that we are building - and using. It can create and uplift - or destroy.

Every purchase is a vote in the most democratic system ever devised. How do you VOTE? Polls indicate a great gap between the values people say they want and what the actually “vote” for in their isolated economic decisions. Why is this? Is there some greater wisdom, not clear to us, working it’s way or is this merely the expression of the old soul/body dichotomy?

There are two interwoven but essentially different kinds of questions to be considered. First where is this economy going (the sum of all the present choices being made), and secondly, what definition can be made that will give awareness and direction to the economy (the context of future choices). An economy cannot be controlled. It can be given a model, a name, a sense of “awareness” that provides a measure of coherence to it. The economy, at any given time, is made up of facts. These facts, however, do not predict nor totally constrain the path going forward. People’s sense of the future is a major aspect of the choices they make and, therefore, how the economy sums it all up. The resulting economy, then, effects how people think about the future. How people think about the future has profound impact on the economy via the way they vote day-by-day. This is a much deeper cycle than is commonly understood. It forms one of the major dynamics of a modern economy.

This social dynamic is an extended dialog we all have together. At any given time, it is important to look at the messages we are sending ourselves. These are Meta-Programming messages. Social leadership be it from government, business, media, the universities or religion helps shape this feedback. Now, the Internet, itself, plays an increasingly larger role. There does not seem to be great awareness of how this process plays out.

So the question is what MEMES are important to the facilitation of a more healthy economic environment. “It’s the economy, stupid!” is certainly not one of them. What messages are businesses putting out - not only by what they are doing - but by how they frame their actions by their public statements? And, is there integrity in this - or, merely PR? A large California energy utility handing out large executive bonuses one day then declaring bankruptcy the next is certainly not the kind of message that is required - unless, of course, you support a social policy of grab what you can get no matter the consequences.