Matthew Bishop: The World Gen Y Will Inherit

I admire the romanticism of Mr Bishop and the throngs of likeminded people.

I buy into the unfolding financial challenges the developed world faces.

However, this talk about capitalism working against social progress is not empirically defensible. Economically free societies have produced enormous social progress in a just a few generations. A quick objective look at the condition of almost any group of people in 1950 compared to 2010 is conclusive evidence.

Philanthropic capitalism perhaps will provide some marginal improvement in the human condition. It is not likely to do the heavy lifting of improving the lives of large numbers of poor however.

It is not social missionaries that are bringing China, South America, and India into the middle class. It is the vast increase in economic freedom and the (recently) prosperous markets of the developed world.

History waits for neither philosophers nor economists.

Whether a gradual evolution or a radical revolution befalls a civilization will depend on a myriad of factors but all will in some way lead back to this:

Are its systems of decision able to keep up with changing circumstances?

Current mechanisms of both governance and commerce do NOT encourage the citizenship qualities necessary for self-governance either as individuals or groups.

Paradoxically, it's the desire for stability that most assuredly leads to revolution and/or collapse. Stagnation breeds it. Living systems (like civilizations) are healthiest in a state of 'criticality', which is a delicate balance between a stagnant order vs. a chaotic collapse.

Democratic structures are intended as methods for encouraging essentially continuous, peaceful revolution to maintain that delicate balance. But these structures themselves need continual attention. Because inevitably there develop entrenched interests favoring a status-quo who will game whatever system is in place.

In simplest terms, as I stated in a post almost two years ago:

Capability ENABLES Responsibility
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com...nsibility.html

"A Citizen's responsibility in an area is directly proportional to his or her ability to have an effect. Without improvement in mechanisms of meaningful involvement, we will see a continued growth in apathy, frustration and ultimately a resort to less healthy forms of expression."

For political parties or a government to try to convince me that they really want that necessary 'criticality'... that truly creative tumult...

They're going to have to be serious about wanting citizen involvement.

Democracy is Personal.

The fault lies not in our stars... but in ourselves.

Build the tools necessary.
Facilitate the citizen's ability in the public square.

(Enabling networked Citizen lobbying is essential and doable. I'm unclear about what we're waiting for? And its not the only needed step.

e.g. According to the CRP, the finance, insurance, and real estate sectors -- those that would be regulated by the financial reform bill -- showered $2.3 billion onto candidates, leadership PACs, and party committees since 1989...

WOW... that's about $115 million every year!

Well, that works out to about $1 per year per registered voter. Doesn't sound like so much then does it. That's because most people don't comprehend scale very well. It's not that all the voters would get together every year to give $1 to some 'anti-finance' bloc...

Its that technical systems can and must allow for the same kind of scaled response to political issues which organized economic interests enjoy (with much more granularity than our two parties prefer you to involve yourselves with).

This is a central (but not only) root of the critical need for the Individually-controlled / Commons-dedicated Account*.

*A Commons-owned neutral platform for both political and charitable monetary contribution... which for very fundamental scaling reasons must allow a viable micro-transaction (think x-box points for action in the Commons). The resultant network catalyzes additional functionality for co-ordination of other 'social energy' utilization. (P.S. Its the most neutral and ultimately politically viable method for the public finance of elections.)


Evolution requires tools.
Revolution only requires inertia.
(So far inertia is way ahead.)

A couple of recent posts:

Personal Democracy: Disruption as an Enlightenment Essential
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com...uption-as.html

Credit Creation and the Building of Sustainable Economic Ecologies http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com...ilding-of.html

Demo: http://www.Chagora.com

Ironically, my launch was crushed by the loss of my home equity loan in Sept '08 (which caused a lot of other problems)... and now the bankruptcy trustee (for my prime malefactor B of A) now believe the patent, while still provisional may turn out to be important and so he may take on administration of it for the creditors. If that happens it gets interesting.

Money is a technology... a necessary but inherently flawed one.
Civilizations are rather quite literally the product of countless individual and group decisions: Social Energy.

See:
Credit Creation and the Building of Sustainable Economic Ecologies http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com...ilding-of.html