Posted By Tim Morgan,
Thursday, December 26, 2019
Updated: Saturday, December 21, 2019
Tim Morgan inspects the ownership of capital in his twelfth blog post for our Emerging Fellows program. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.
Every layer of social organization has a preferred mode of ownership. Each is more complex and abstract than the last. The fundamental layer is ownership of identity and sense of self. Ownership of personal items is informally recognized by our “tribe” of close relationships in the next layer. In the third, property ownership is formally documented and enforced by institutions of government. The fourth ownership mode is market-mediated, consisting of exchanges using a currency or other standard measure of value.
The last ownership mode is the most abstract. Automation creates shared information flows between interconnected participants. Each node can extract knowledge and use it to further augment the value of the shared information. These networked knowledge transformations create a new form of automation-enabled collaborative ownership. It creates value via synthesis and sharing. The ownership mode is in common. Its form is a Nexus.
Each ownership mode uses its matching social organization form to create value. Institutions formally recognize ownership and control, establishing potential value for the owners. Markets add value via exchanges of ownership. Nexuses generate shared value via its connected relationships and transformations of information into knowledge. A Market determines value via competition. A Nexus amplifies value via collaboration.
We see early examples of this new collaborative ownership mode in everything from Creative Commons licenses to Wikipedia. The new Nexus form exists in tension with older ownership forms. Markets use nexus-like search engines and social media to quietly monetize user data. Institutions of government frequently attempt to impose ideological restrictions on networks. Nexus forms of collaborative information ownership are in their infancy but are developing quickly. The dynamics between each form will shift as they do.
By 2050 automation and networks will be ubiquitous. Computing will be ambient. AIs will be vastly more capable, interweaving with all aspects of life. Government institutions and the Public Sector will still exist to establish order, stabilize society, and govern ownership of property. Markets and the Private Sector will still exist to energetically exchange material value. The Civic sector of families and communities will still focus on the local needs of everyday life. Threaded through them all will be a mature Nexus-powered Social Commons sector.
In its healthy form, the Social Commons will seek to transform abundant information to address both common needs and intractable problems. Capital will continue its relentless fusion with automation, embedding flows of Nexus-derived knowledge into its self-management. Cognified capital is unlikely to have human-like consciousness but will be embedded with purpose and autonomy. It will be trusted to act with the same positive-sum values as its creators.
In its unhealthy form, cognified capital will be used to disrupt the Social Commons. Those autonomous agents will be embedded with the zero-sum values of their creators. The goal will be to competitively advance vested interests at the expense of others. The knowledge flows within and between nexuses will be their battlefields.
Who owns cognified capital when it can own itself? We will. We will own the shared benefits of our collaborations by investing our values within their decision-making abilities. What is uncertain is whether we create positive-sum partners or zero-sum weapons. It all depends on what values we choose to instill.
Alex Floate,a member of our Emerging Fellows program believes that the role of finance in the emergent future is made by our choices. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.
2050 – Continued status quo
WNN, the World News Network, announced the closure of the Tokyo, New York, and London exchanges today, citing the owner’s announcement that the exchanges were no longer profitable due to the lack of publicly available stock assets. Finance watchers had been warning for years, even decades of the growing disparity in wealth in all nations, especially those with extensive and politically influential financial systems.
The concentration resulted in privatized holdings that were no longer accountable to public transparency, or hijack by minority investors. Other investment vehicles that the oligarchs could control, and usually skirted many archaic government regulations, were still offered for the masses. The money raised from these token offerings were then used to make the riskiest bets, ones the corporate monopolists and oligarchs did not want to risk their own money on.
The governments overseeing the economy were content with maintaining the status quo of reasonable stability in the broader economy. If the masses were content with meager returns, and a standard of living that allowed them to plug-in to a large selection of neuro-linked content, why not let the rich have their way?
2050 – Transformed by design
WNN, the World News Network, announced the renaming of the Tokyo, New York, and London exchanges. The exchanges now track the true costs and benefits of each company, both private and public, and their social responsibility scores. This allows governments to levy appropriate taxes and gives investors full information on the companies’ ability to create social goods in addition to profits.
Also announced was a unified global taxing and currency structure. This will stop corporations and individuals from using tax havens that reduce tax liabilities in primary markets. The move is aimed at corporations who gain all the benefits of a market without having to bear any of the costs. Additionally, it will restrict the ability to manipulate currency or financial assets in one market for financial advantage in another. These changes deal a blow to the world of ‘paper profits’ and the financialization of markets that enrich a few at the cost of the broader social good.
Present Day – What role do we want finance to play in our future?
The future of finance is dependent on the role we believe it should play in our society and economy. If we decide the status quo is sufficient, we can expect that financial profits will remain the priority of those who earn them, and they will continue to seek power to protect them. We can expect continued attempts to keep profits as private gains, and costs and losses turned into public debt. We can also expect other aspects of life, such as freedom of movement, expression, and privacy, to become luxuries that are priced and sold as commodities. Ultimately, the role of finance in the emergent future is what we make it. It is up to us whether it is our servant or master.
Tim Morgan inspects the concept of Smart Capital in his tenth blog post for our Emerging Fellows program. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.
We are starting to embed automated decision-making into capital itself. We routinely embed automatic control systems into our processing plants and factories ensuring that optimal use is made of those capital investments. Advertising and sales are increasingly given over to algorithmic management. No industry seems to be untouched by automation. We are infusing our intelligence into our capital systems. So how smart can our capital get?
Once upon a time a computer was a job description, not a machine. Human computers did the hard work of accurately calculating everything from astronomical phenomena to tracking weather patterns. That changed with the advent of stored instruction computing machines. Programmed algorithms could be systematically created from a combination of well-defined repeatable steps incorporating not only mathematical operations but conditional (if/then/else) decision-making logic as well.
We have been developing this computational capability for decades. We still are limited by the need to design and transcribe programs most of the time. The logic is still simplistic and rigid compared to human reasoning. But that design limit is quickly giving way to complex machine learning algorithms. Artificial Intelligence has been a field of study since the beginning of the digital computing era. Now the early promises of decades past are rapidly being realized.
A.I. researchers are harnessing our exponentially increasing torrent of data to train machine learning algorithms. This has resulted in A.I. techniques like Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) which use competing Generator and Discriminator neural networks to solve problems based on older human-curated examples. GANs quickly learn tasks like creating human-like art, designing 3D objects, and accurately identifying tumors in X-rays.
Other advanced A.I. techniques are moving beyond the need for human training or big data sets. Google’s AlphaGo A.I. beat world Go champion Lee Sedol by 100 games to 0 in 2016. AlphaGo’s neural network heuristics were initially trained using a database of 30 million moves from 160,000 masters-level games. Yet in 2017 with no access to that database and just three days of self-play AlphaGo Zero beat AlphaGo by the same 100 games to 0 that AlphaGo beat Sedol. Go masters worldwide have begun eagerly studying AlphaGo Zero’s unusual moves to inject new strategies into their sport.
Computing advances will not stop with digital computers and machine learning. Researchers around the world are rapidly developing Quantum Computers to take computing capabilities to a whole new level. A leaked paper recently revealed that Google has demonstrated the theorized principle of “Quantum Supremacy”, or the ability of quantum computers to quickly solve problems that conventional computers cannot. Their quantum computer solved a problem in about 3 minutes that the world’s most powerful supercomputer could not perform in 10,000 years.
The cognification of capital via computing will not stop. It will accelerate. Capital will incorporate computer’s gains in self-training and abilities to solve ever harder problems. Capital will acquire more and more ability to self-manage with less and less need for human decision making. The ultimate endpoint may be that it no longer needs our direction. If that happens, capital will go from being owned to autonomous. If it does, we will need to pay close attention to what it wants.
Alex Floate,a member of our Emerging Fellows program envisions the financial system of Africa by next three decades. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.
2019 – There is a small isolated village in Africa. In this village is a small one-room schoolhouse built by a foreign aid society in the early 1970s and still used for its intended purpose. This school, like the rest of the village, is not electrified, but it does have large windows that allow light to shine on the large slate blackboard at the front of the room. Sticks of chalk fill the tray, and the board is clean except for a small note in the upper right corner; “Please silence your cell phones.”
2049 – A prefabricated multi-purpose building has replaced the one-room schoolhouse. An array of solar panels and small satellite dishes powers the air conditioning and connects the village with the outside world. In one part of the building, students engage in small groups or interact with holographic images. In another, villagers take advantage of the cool air to lounge and discuss village politics, or conduct business over their various networks. A message flashes across the glasses of one of the villagers; FedEx drone inbound, ETA 5 mins.
Even though the ancestors of all of us originated in Africa, the continent was the last place to achieve the post-colonial dream of self-rule and determination. In many places, local strongmen took advantage of colonial structures and culture to exert control over the people and the economy. The promises of freedom and economic prosperity fell mainly to those involved in the corrupt governments or local representatives of foreign resource extraction firms.
There was an advantage for Africa as the 21st Century began. Without large scale legacy infrastructure or deeply entrenched economic systems, Africans were free to begin creating new ones. For electricity generation that meant there were fewer coal plants or outdated nuclear reactors creating environmental and safety issues. For finance, that meant fewer established institutions to dominate the commercial and political landscape.
The first step came with the build-out of cell phone capability. In many places, mobile phone penetration exceeded access to electricity, with users dependent on gas generators or solar panels for recharge. As networks increased in broadband capability, the population became adept users of phone apps. They used local networks focused on creating and marketing businesses, sharing information on resources, banking, education, and news.
New financial products to meet the needs of the population began appearing. With over 50% of the population sub-Saharan Africa previously excluded from the financial system, these new products began offering new opportunities. The ability to save and invest allowed for an accumulation of wealth. Mobile payments allowed for participation in markets outside their local ones. Micro-lending and new insurance products provided farmers and entrepreneurs with increased opportunities. The companies providing these products prospered as well, extending their reach throughout the continent.
African entrepreneurs understood they did not need to industrialize, but to innovate in today's finance and technology markets. The impetus to build finance hubs throughout Africa, and in the process marshal both homegrown and foreign funding, increased both the quantity and quality of financial companies. Initially done at a city level, as the results began to show promise and profits, national governments began to examine how to duplicate the results through investment and policy.
By the 2040s, Africa had built a modern consumer and entrepreneur focused financial system, while creating and tapping new local and global markets. An expanding financial system built for purpose served as an example for the world on how a finance system can serve the needs of people while, in the process, unite a continent.
Paul Tero a member of our Emerging Fellows program discovers the future of digital economy by adding one more piece to a series of blog posts devoted to this topic. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.
Consider the fields of human affairs in which we are experiencing change. There’s environmental change, shifts in international and domestic politics, technological advances and the constant innovation in the health and human services sectors. Let us not neglect the spheres of finance, education, and governance. The list goes on. Trends, change and drivers of change. All threads in the dynamic tapestry of early 21st Century life.
In amongst all of these changes that we are witnessing this article is focusing on one thing. We are examining the unfolding phenomena of the digital economy. In particular, who and what is stymieing the realisation of a fully digital economy in the decades ahead. As we attend to this, we need to be mindful of our own responses to this particular phenomenon. Are we more sanguine, saying: “Yes, bring it on. We will be utterly enmeshed in a fully digital economy by 2050”. Or are we more phlegmatic: “Don’t know. We could be more reliant on the digital economy by 2050!”
However, asking questions is the key to the examination of the digital economy. Questions like: Who benefits from the status quo and who loses if we go fully digital? What are the social, political, economic, legal, environmental or technological barriers to realising a fully digital economy? Are cultural worldviews and belief systems the obstacles in the path to building an economy that is fully digital?
Turning firstly to the status quo. Benefiting from the status quo are those whose influence, power and profit are founded on the world of atoms. If these attributes of prominence do not translate to the world of bits, change is resisted. Remember the retailers of a few years back? To them the internet was but a passing fad. They saw no need to embrace the digital economy.
Our reference point for an examination of the social barriers could be the introduction of Facebook. Once Metcalfe’s law kicked in, ordinary people could see the inherent value in sharing their lives online and overcame their reluctance to enter their personal and private details into the Facebook database. Turning to one potential aspect of life that could be with us in the time ahead: personal artificial intelligence assistants (we do have Alexa, Cortana & Siri now don’t we?). Our uneasiness with being second guessed ahead of time by artificial intelligence may be rendered moot because of the value and ease these new machines bring to our lives, relationships and careers.
And what of the governing class and the way political life is conducted. Is it because of the Machiavellian dictum “never attempt to win by force that can be won by deception” that political barriers will remain? For with this category of barrier the perspective that “a fully digital economy is equivalent to full transparency” may well be the non-negotiable impediment raised by its stakeholders. An anathema to the political class.
And what of legal barriers? Consider the difficulties presented by cryptocurrencies, the machinations we have with privacy in a digital world, and the conundrums with copyright. And let us not forget the implications of RegTech, the jurisdictional challenges faced by taxation authorities in this digital world, and the quagmire at the interface of human bodies and technology.
Finally, there is who we are as individuals, as members of families, communities, tribes and nations. All revealing a rich and complex global panoply of worldviews and belief systems. We can conjure images of dystopia, pockets of doomsday preppers, and activists driving the techlash movement. All as symbols of resistance to a fully digital economy. And similarly we watch the countervailing forces of progressives and conservatives. Progressives seeking a better way, conservatives seeking to only incrementally improve the way things are. And then we have the reactionaries who are bent on impeding any forward movement that the forces of improvement show.
Given all this, is it any wonder that we have so far been able to thread the needle of change. Is it any wonder that the quality of so many parts of our daily life for so many lives is better than what it was decades ago? There is no single “who” or “what” holding us back from a fully digital economy. But there is this: a multitude of challenges that are to be overcome on our collective arc of accumulation.
Alex Floate,a member of our Emerging Fellows program devotes his eighth blog post to the possibility of establishing an alternative finance. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.
Access to information creates an informed populace, makes people’s lives better and democratizes society. That was the idea behind the public library, and the mantra of idealists in the early days of the internet. Twenty plus years into that era we are still waiting on the full promise of a connected world. In the area of personal finance, we have seen small successes as banking, credit scoring, money and investment management have moved online. Increased access and information have been realized in these areas, and in some cases has brought investing and money management opportunities to people who never considered anything but savings account. However, these improvements have not brought life-changing experiences to most, and the economic paradigm we operate under appears to be more of the same, but with apps!
Where the most success has been achieved is with those who previously did not have access to mainstream banking or financial systems. Some of the early players, such as PayPal and Alipay created the means for moving money from one entity to another. Doing so allowed many who did not have conventional accounts to participate in the broader economy by having a cost effective alternative. Personal investing companies like Acorns are bringing saving and investing to the masses by stealthily increasing every transaction you make with your debit or credit card to the nearest dollar, then investing those extra pennies into exchange-traded index funds. The appification of finance is the first and most obvious sign that personal finance is changing, but there are bigger movements ahead.
Open banking is a new concept that relies on networks and the sharing of both personal and financial institution data across these networks. The goal is providing consumers with better information as institutions provide data about their services that conform to an unbiased and transparent standard. This allows for better competition between participating banks and institutions resulting in lower fees and borrowing costs for consumers. Conversely, institutions have access to the history of potential customers and allow them to more accurately configure and offer products based on the risk profile as seen through transactions, and not through 3rd party credit agencies.
As the world becomes a global marketplace for finance, blockchain will be the technology that will facilitate it. Blockchain will be the means by which transactions are secured, trust is established, and value is traded. Currently we use intermediaries to reduce the risk of transacting with third parties, especially when crossing jurisdictions or borders. This raises the cost and complexity of those transactions which blockchain promises to reduce. This may even result in a complete remake of retail import/export chains as people are able to transact directly across borders. Additionally, blockchain coupled with open banking will elevate peer-to-peer lending to a level where nearly anyone with assets can participate in the capital income economy.
Empowering individuals is the promise and goal of personal fintech and alternative finance. However, as with any economic system there are issues and areas that the promise may not cover. How will the average person create value that can be leveraged across fintech and the web? Those with assets, products or services that are in demand will be poised to take the most advantage; those whose only asset is non-skilled labor will be left out. Although technology is just a tool, those tools enable humans to create and build better lives for the creator, owner and user of those tools. There is never any promise that a tool will bring universal prosperity, but we should be aware of the potential effects of any new technology. For these new financial tools and systems, we need to understand will they truly help the greater good, or just create another seemingly insurmountable divide in our society?
Alex Floate,a member of our Emerging Fellows program checks the possibility of changing the world of finance by means of fintech in his seventh blog post. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.
Fintech was coined as a phrase in the early 21st Century that described the internet enabled finance technology that began to appear. Later it came to describe the whole of the financial technology sector, and a buzzword analogous to ‘invest in us – we’re on the cutting edge’. Others then began to see fintech as a gateway to a post-capitalist system in which fintech will democratize finance and save the world in the process. These enthusiasts were literally banking on fintech igniting the forces of creative destruction that would bring down the old order of labor, land and capital and replace it a distributed tech model based on individuals, information and abundance.
Creative destruction is a concept dating back to Marx that capitalism will continually destroy the existing order to create new value and wealth. Creative destruction is caused by innovation which undermines the status quo, and de-values anyone or anything that continues following the old order, including skills, desires, function and capital. During Marx’s time this was the new industrial barons destroying the value and wealth of the landed gentry through commoditization. More recently technology entrepreneurs have unseated the established industrial conglomerates by expansive use of information.
Obsolescence and replacement are not confined to direct replacement of the new technology but can endanger whole systems. For example, the inefficient neighborhood grocery store within walking distance of its customers fell prey to the technology of the auto; it was now easy to drive to efficient and cheaper supermarkets. Now we see even those supermarkets and stores falling prey to the technology of the internet. Creative destruction in action. Is fintech a technological revolution causing the next evolution of capitalism?
That is the hope of those who see fintech as the democratizing influence on finance and capitalism. The use of fintech allows individuals around the globe access to information, platforms, cheaper capital, and stores of value without needing expensive intermediaries or even beholden to any one currency. By breaking the back of the old finance system, the new decentralized one will be distributed across the population. Fans of Austrian economics will rejoice as fintech skirts around regulations and allows individuals to choose where they access and store capital, at what interest rate they want, and in whatever electronic currency that best suits their needs.
But, fintech fans appear to underestimate the reaction that vested interests of governments, financial institutions and current technology leaders have in either blocking, slowing or hijacking this new round of creative destruction. Governments especially will see this new order as a threat that previous iterations of change lacked, as it will challenge their ability to regulate and exercise financial authority over their own economies. We are already hearing the mumblings about regulation of Bitcoin or attempts to thwart Facebook’s plan to create a digital currency. The fintech wars will truly be unleashed once a digital currency appears at enough scale to challenge the largest currencies. That most likely will be the Rubicon that needs to be crossed before governments fully assume a war footing.
Before that occurs though, the most likely scenario is an alliance of current financial powerhouses, tech companies and both groups pocketed lawmakers stepping in to create conditions that allow much of fintech’s promise to be purchased and assimilated. Until then fintech will be a race, not a war, to see how fast it can advance. The race will be to provide people the power of its promise before a behemoth financial Borg assimilates it and leaves the people as powerless as they were before.
Alex Floate,a member of our Emerging Fellows program travels into the future and envisions the coming finance system his sixth blog post. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.
Late in the last century, the movie “Wall Street” introduced us to a world of men in three-piece suits vying for domination in the world of finance. ‘Greed is good’ was their motto and Wall Street was the magnet for the unending supply of MBA’s from elite American universities. With financial knowledge and a thirst for success, they became corporate raiders and white knights keen on dismantling what was left of American industry. They spawned dramatizations in the personas of Gordon Gecko and Edward Lewis in the movies “Wall Street” and “Pretty Woman”. Just like Hollywood at the height of the silver screen, this was a place where dreams come true, even if it was at the expense of blue-collar workers or lesser investors.
By the late 1990’s however, magazines were asking ‘where have the raiders gone’, and the internet was the new kid in town. Tech stocks were the rage and most of the action had moved west to Silicon Valley. It was inevitable, but not widely acknowledged that much of Wall Street would soon be run by computers and algorithms, and the big personalities that formerly would have been leading raids would diminish in size and importance.
MBA mills multiplied during the early part of the 21st Century, but the real action by 2020 was with quantitative analysts, or “quants” as they were called. Blending an understanding of finance with deep knowledge of mathematics and computer science, they were the minds behind the complex models that drove most of the pricing and trading of securities. Even though the suits with MBAs still held the top jobs, the people in white collars felt them slowly tightening around their necks.
The new digital collar belonged to a Millennial or GenWebster (someone born after the internet became widespread) wearing a t-shirt or hoodie, but fully versed in the internet and its ever-evolving abilities and culture. They were quants, cybersecurity experts, app developers, data specialists, and refugees from the banking industry. They had connections and financial knowledge to take on the task before them; bring financial applications and products to their generations without the costs of brokers, agents or physical storefronts.
New words describing finance were entering the lexicon – fintech, blockchain, appification and others that this time did not originate from Wall Street. Finance technology start-ups began popping up in areas such as the Silicon Fen in the U.K., Israeli’s Silicon Wadi, Bangalore India, and Shenzhen in China. Some were being bought up by larger traditional finance and bank companies as they wanted to position themselves for the digital future everyone was predicting. Usually the business siphoned some of the best ideas but neglected to further the primary idea behind it; lower cost, easy access with speed and efficiency.
At first the conventional finance organizations counted on their position in finance system as storehouses of money and trust, with the emphasis on Trust. The men and women with the digital collars kept at it though and advanced the technologies of blockchain and cryptocurrency. As the GenWebsters began to gain in financial clout they embraced the new finance products and eschewed traditional banks, brokerages and insurance companies. The white collars tightened again.
Posted By Charlotte Aguilar-Millan,
Monday, June 3, 2019
Charlotte Aguilar-Millanchecks the possibility ofattracting investment in the Information Age through her sixth blog post for our Emerging Fellows program. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.
The 21st Century has long been coined The Information Age. There has been a dramatic growth in the use of information technologies. A benefit of the new technologies is that there is a lesser need for tangible assets. Companies can now be successful with only the use of a laptop and an innovative idea. However, for most companies, whether they have assets or not, funding is required at some point within their lifecycle. How has funding changed with the rise of companies with no assets? Take Facebook, Alibaba, Uber and Airbnb as an example. They each do not hold on their balance sheets the assets from which they generate revenue.
A small to medium company (SME) can see many routes to growth through funding, but how many of these are open to companies that do not hold assets? The quest for funding of a company with no assets is likely to contain many refusals. The most obvious route for an SME is to take out a bank loan. This, however, requires collateral which a company with no assets does not have. A bank manager cannot reclaim the loan if the SME defaults as there are no assets to sell off. This provides a risky investment for banks. In the US, for example, only 1 in 4 small business loans applied for were accepted in 2018.
The two ways in which a company can raise cash is through debt or equity. Therefore, the next option is to look at listing, be this on the main stock exchanges, FTSE 100 for example, or exchanges designed for smaller companies such as AIM.
However, in order for a company to list on an exchange, they will likely need an appointed Nominated Advisor, financial and legal assistance. All of this requires cash which is what the company with no assets is seeking to find; not what is already has.
An alternative to the company with no assets attracting investment is for their owners to take out personal debt to put into the company. This could be in the form of taking out a mortgage against their personal home. Not only is this route extremely risky; if the company fails then they might end up homeless. This also is only an option when the owner has a home without an existing mortgage. Within the UK, the average age of first-time buyers were 31 years old in 2017 nearly 10 years older than a generation ago.
A final way in which a company with no assets can attract investment is to speaking to that long lost rich Aunt. This itself speaks of rising inequality within the economy. The Information Age has enabled entrepreneurs to discover their vision without the high purchasing costs of tangible assets. However, finance has not kept pace.
Finance is restricting the mobilisation of companies with no assets. If the SME owner is not already established with a pot of savings or a house which the banks are willing to re-mortgage, growth can be limited. To the question, can a company with no assets attract investment, the answer is dependent upon the Company’s socio-economic background. This inequality is limiting innovation.
Alex Floate,a member of our Emerging Fellows program examines the governments’ potency in leading finance futures through his fourth blog post. The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the APF or its other members.
Solving big problems has never evaded the human spirit. Ferocious tigers and bears led to spears and group tactics. Episodes of famine led to granaries for storing against future hunger. Following that came the domestication of the cat to protect against rodents feasting on the stockpiled bounty. In just the last century we have overcome distance with advances in communications, heavier than air flight, and even leaving earth’s atmosphere. As problems have become bigger in scale and cost, we look to our governments to take the lead on solving them. That we can solve big problems and overcome the constraints of our environment is not in doubt; that we have the will to do so is.
Continued financialization may create a dystopian-tinged future of financial feudalistic lords, while nationalistic oriented systems may reverse global gains and destroy the value of national currencies. Fortunately, neither future is set in stone and the opportunity to create a different one is possible, but dependent on current governments choosing a different direction and using the tools at their disposal. The mechanisms available include monetary policy for expanding and contracting money supply, fiscal policy to set taxing and spending priorities, and regulations on financial investment and exchange.
How should they deploy these mechanisms, and for what end? Should the government pursue a policy of continued economic growth, or one that favors renewing the social contract to favor all citizens? Should we create rewards for sustainability and disincentivize consumption? What system best emphasizes personal initiative and innovation, while caring for the least of us? Although this is a political exercise more than a financial one, the answer will determine which mechanisms are put forward as solutions.
If we decide that economic growth and consumption is not as important as sustainability of resources, then systems that favor labor and saving over those that promote investment churn and profit will be needed. However, just as this will call for increased taxes on investment and capital, higher taxes on consumption, which disproportionally affect the poorest, will also be required. Should we decide that social programs, especially in a possible future of large-scale human obsolescence, to ensure an economic floor for all citizens is vitally important, then investment and tax mechanisms will need to be balanced to provide revenue while maintaining risk incentives for growth of capital.
Before we can fully and rationally answer those questions as a society, the greater challenge is confronting the myths of both capitalism and socialism. Believing that free markets and privatization are always the best method for delivery of goods and services ignores that many needs are basic for life, and costs are not always inherent in the price. Conversely, believing that governments are always honest managers that efficiently gauge the needs and wants of their citizens and deliver accordingly is also not supported by history. The answer lies somewhere in between with a need for a new folklore and heroes to provide a basis for a future that tempers the worst of these extremes while balancing the best of them. The question to be answered is whether governments will work to balance these needs and forge a new story for the future, or abjectly acquiesce to the myths of the money changers.