The ultimate mental power is that of ownership. Ownership allows for the suppression of anarchy, as it allows us to have trust in the control of our assets, and bring stability into societal life. Indeed, ownership is the highest political power, as it is our right to own our voice in a vote, which we use to collectively build the legal system, that secures our right to own everything else that we own, individually and collectively. By realizing that we are at the liberty of choosing whether or not to vote, we can see that ownership is always a choice of utilizing potential power, or not.
Collectively, citizens hold the ownership of their nationalities and maintain that ownership through working to defend their nation’s independence. Owning your nationality is the simple concept of being proud of your roots, and working to keep them alive. Everyone is from somewhere, so there is really nothing too special about taking ownership of your own nationality. All it requires is a realization of what, at whatever level, makes you want to own it.
What makes you want to vote? This is a path of thought for giving you a rationale for defending your nation’s sovereignty.
If you consider, for a moment, that ownership is a choice (as opposed to forgoing ownership, and not utilizing potential power), then you will see the apparent link between ownership and recognizing importance. If you choose to own something, then you will, at some level, be recognizing the importance of being able to hold whatever asset is in question. You will have had rationale for utilizing power. The perceived magnitude of the importance of the ownership is completely relative to the situation; owning a chocolate bar is important because you like chocolate, owning an apartment is important because you want to have maximum trust in your housing arrangement.
So, jumping back to nationality, if you find enough “national identity assets” that make you want to take ownership of your nationality (as opposed to not wanting to, forgoing the need to commit to the defence of sovereignty), then you will be recognizing the importance of being able to own your nationality. In practice, you will understand your rationale for wanting to maintain the independent status of your nation for, without independence, there would be no true national identity to own. Your rationale is, effectively, a personal valuation for national independence. You are putting weight behind your national sovereignty, in the form of reasons to defend it.
Of course, you are in full control of the subjective analysis process that is your own reasoning. Thus, to respect the personal control others have, as well, over their own reasoning, matters of national identity should be applied into conversation with maximal caution from above. While it is important, as messengers of and to the people, for politicians to set national brand standards, mostly through their own example of conduct and general habitus, then it is equally important for them to refrain from national brand dictation – the act of telling a population who they are and, worse, telling them who they should be.
The fact that everyone has a nationality should make it apparent that, when it comes to being from somewhere, everyone is on equal ground. Whether or not national identity has deeper meaning or is simply the basis of identification documents for transacting in life, is a matter of consideration that belongs to the citizen.
Everyone has their own thing for why they are proud (or not) of their roots, and everyone is at liberty to choose whether or not they want to take ownership of their nationality (or not). Commiting to national defence is a big choice that should not be imposed – it should be marketed. The best politicians can do is market “potential national identity assets” that might guide a citizen without a national cause to find one, and commit to national defence, but even that marketing should never be forced down someone’s throat – at least in any country calling itself ‘free’.
All activity in the thought space of national brand and identity, all considerations of the meaning of nationality, should be conducted with the utmost skill in diplomacy, respecting the sovereignty of other nationalities and all the individuals around the world making their own choices about whether or not to take ownership (or not) of their national brand.
My personal opinion is that national brands, as self-perceived through nationality, should be striven to be had in a broad ownership of citizens (as opposed to a narrow group), building a collective national identity from the bottom on up. A healthy diversity of positive opinions (those having taken ownership) on a national brand should make the national brand more resilient to external shocks, such as belligerent nations projecting national supremacy over others. If people are cognizant of “what their thing/s of importance is/are” (and respect others’ things) then the national defence mentality will not be easily corruptible by forces seeking to impose other mentalities.
A broad base of national brand ownership is where the construction of a believable national defence begins. A cadre of political leaders with the skills in diplomacy required to refrain from projecting national supremacy over citizens or other nations is beyond important. I think these are topics of consideration that our generation will be dealing with a lot, starting right now.
Watching independence (or not) unfold in Catalonia is a pretty cool experience. I mean, all those years spent in school studying different revolutions in history, loving Les Miserables in all its forms, and now, here we are – watching a revolution happen in a modern, Western country.
I think it’s great to watch. I’ve been following France24 and, in many ways, it’s like watching a sport. I’ve actually been flipping channels between Catalonia and Formula 1. Lying on my couch in my Onepiece on a Friday night, one could say that following a revolution happen is quite comfortable!
I take no real sides, since I really have no deep understanding of what feelings lie behind the whole situation in Catalonia-Spain. Whilst I hope it stays peaceful, I do think it is important that the events in Catalonia be allowed to unfold naturally (without foreign manipulation) so that we can take a good deep look at how a society works. Remember – it’s not like we’ve seen a declaration of independence, in a modern Western country, unfold in real-time with modern media technology before.
Declarations of independence carry a significant economic factor that is most important to keep in mind, and the current events unfolding in Catalonia will provide a lot of soft clues and hard data as to the true, underlying power structures in Catalan and Spanish society.
Declarations of independence are always a forced redistribution of wealth, as control of land ownership is transformed across societies. There is no more fundamental political market than the market for sovereign land, so declaring independence is the same as setting off a societal earthquake.
Shifting sovereignty of land will impact the situation of everything operating on top of it. It is like a fundamental shifting of societal tectonic plates. Those whose interests are at stake and those who are ready to defend their own interests the most will be they key driving factors in how those plates are allowed to settle.
There are many relativities as to how the plates shift, and how people are affected. Within Catalonia, for example, those for and those against independence are a couple whose interests will differ. If Catalonia assumes and holds independence, those who were against it (identifying more as Spanish as compared to Catalan) will have had control of their land transferred to a new owning party against their will.
Please note that, by saying control of land, I am implying the right to set laws that govern the operation of societies operant on that land.
This is an obvious point and, thus, easy to forget to say out loud. Declarations of independence are forced redistributions of wealth. The self-declared capacity and right to set the laws of the land.
Who is ready to hold on the most? We’ll have to wait, watch, and see. In time, it will be down to the Catalans and the Spaniards themselves to settle their moral viewpoints, but it will be for us to know that the entire debate will effectively be revolving around matters of wealth distribution. Wealth begins with its governance.
This brings me to the title of this text: political priorities.
I have to say, first off, that it is good to recognise the importance of nations. Nations, like families of families, preserve the regenerative cultures from which new generations of children are born, and operate the legal systems that allow transactions to take place over their jurisdiction. In the interests of preserving cultural diversity and trade on the planet, conserving cohesive nations, and allowing new ones to be born under conditions of sufficient societal pressure, is of utmost importance.
Catalonia is a great test for current politicians’ strength in defining and holding on to their values, as there is no deeper battle than pitting sovereign ownership of land (Team Spain) against the right to cultural and transactional self-determination (Team Catalonia).
All this said, I don’t think we should get carried away by nations anymore. At least not as much as in history before today.
Whilst nations are important, then ultimately they are society’s middle management that should not take the supreme leadership role, except in times of war against each other (which we shouldn’t be aiming for, anymore).
In times of peace, it is obvious to recognise that all nations share the same planetary system, and thus have to share resources and co-operate to maintain their sustainability. In times of peace the planet’s nature is, thus, of primary importance, as all nations are dependent on it.
Furthermore, nations do not organise life at the practical level. That is what local governments do. Given that there would be practical anarchy without local governments, they must be thought of as having secondary importance, as all nations are dependent on their organisational capability to keep the day-to-day in operation. In bridging the resources of the planet to their users at the local level, nations have tertiary importance in maintaining the systemic markets that allow the flow of information and material to occur.
Of course, all three are definitely needed for anything to make sense. A planet’s resources, generated and used at local levels, moved and secured at national levels, cannot be put to any use without all three layers of societal functioning*.
My personal opinion for an order of political allegiance in the times that we live in: planet, city, country. I personally wouldn’t mind if the relevance of nations faded a bit in the media, and more news time was given to super-national organisations and local governments. This makes sense to me, based on the reasoning above.
As a salesperson, I will definitely be interested to see how Catalonia and Spain start selling their sides of the story and revealing their moral allegiances.
*At work in helping leadership understand their relationship with the world around them, my business partners and I consider the functioning of society with a tool called The Societal Cube, depicted below in a couple of slides from our presentation materials.
The Cube is meant to show how a certain fundamental set of industries is needed for the functionality of day-to-day life. The bottom layer of the cube is primarily a national responsibility, whereas the the top layer of the cube is realised at the local level. To fill the picture presented in the text above, the cube can be thought of as surrounded by a sphere, which would be the planet and its resources.
It makes sense to broaden your thoughts from this post. As I state at the end, it is an introduction: not an endpoint.
The Universe is a large place and often it is hard to put our place in it into perspective. The vastness of the material reality out there can only be wondered at – what are we to make of it?
Back here on our pretty little planet, in a little corner of the Milkyway, the size of Society is often hard to put into perspective, as well. The vastness of the immaterial reality within the planetary border formed by our atmosphere can only be wondered at – what is our place within it?
Society is an immaterial construct, an agreement of order made between peoples. It is there, even though we cannot directly touch it. Society lives in the buildings we build, in the borders we draw, in the manners through which we act. Society is all around us. It is how we feel reality at the largest practically malleable scale.
Society ties us all together, but only because we choose to be part of it, to be able to partake in the modern way of living it has built for us. Society, in practice, exists through all the contracts we’ve made through the centuries that have co-ordinated our efforts to move us forward in time.
As we know, one does not simply observe contracts happen. The participants in a contract exercise the power of decision-making. How are we to consider this very important power in relation to Society?
D = ei²
Decision-making power, equity, ideas. The triumvirate source of thought that provides meaning and purpose to good old energy, mass, and light in the equation E= mc². We are now speaking metaphorically – the only point of showing D as a mathematical equation is to strongly highlight the similarity of the logic operating behind the equations for both D and E: more mass is more energy, more equity is more decision-making power.
As observed in everyday societal nature, in the immaterial realm we mentally inhabit (as opposed to the material realm of the planet we stand upon), the potential energy of equity is what is used to accelerate ideas into the material realm, giving rise to the logical underpinnings of the existence of decision-making power, D. One has an idea, applies it to equity, and (after a continuous working effort) voilá – an idea turns into reality, reflected back to us as some form of light.
In the immaterial realm of society, the more equity one holds in relation to others, the more decision-making power one will be able to exercise over Society. We can consider the notion of decision-making power-equity equivalence.
The material realm is most simply considered through the energy-mass equivalence equation, E = mc², discovered by Albert Einstein. By considering the equation, we can understand how the interplay of mass and light creates the different practical forms of energy that we observe. But, until we apply decision-making power, all our observations are without meaning and purpose. There is simply energy.
The equitable meaning of words and the direction-giving purpose of ideas bring the flesh to the bones of physics. It could be said that psychology is one side of a coin and physics is the other, and both together form conscious reality. If you picture yourself standing in the middle of a city, then physics is seeing the buildings around you (observing the energy), and psychology is understanding what they represent (applying meaning and purpose. For example – the building next to you becomes a movie theatre only once you decide to observe it as such).
This leads me to the conclusion that, when the leading physicists a century ago were actively discussing the notion of a Conscious Universe, they must have been talking about Society providing meaning and purpose to all things in the Unconscious Universe. I believe that they simply didn’t have enough data about Global Society to see it then. We do now. It’s called the Internet (the content of which is a product of Society).
Definitions of equity and ideas
As said, this is but an introduction to the Theory of Societal Relativity. The work around defining equity and ideas is going to be an important part of the philosophical foundations for the stated logic, and will dig into historical perceptions of the terms. The key thing to understand at this point is that thoughts lead the world – how we think will inevitably lead to how we act. The key thoughts that we hold on to – our opinions – are what guide us the most, and form the basis of our personal thought equity.
As a fun anecdote, the Finnish language word for opinion is mielipide. Translated literally, it means mind-hold. We hold on to our key thoughts. We own our opinions. They are an equitable representation of who we are.
These are my first proper run at defining these terms but, as said, broader work needs to be done.
Equity is anything, material or immaterial, from an opinion to an object, that one can use to exert a force on the state of society. Assuming control over equity, over anything, means that taking ownership must always be the first force applied in decision-making. It takes a decision to start making decisions.
As an example of equity in the form of an opinion, a Finance Minister holds decision-making power over a national budget, power that is dependent upon a societal opinion that the position of Finance Minister is to carry out this function, based on pre-existent experience and underlying contracts.
But at a fundamental level, equity in the form of a thought can even be just a word that we have our own definition for. This then grows into the thought of owning something outside of us, be it an object or a position within the societal system. The position of Finance Minister, for example, is always on lease from Society to whoever is holding it. Though society technically “owns the term Finance Minister”, then only one at a time can claim to use it as their own (definition of a lease, by the way).
Ideas are thoughts that, when applied to equity, present an opportunity or a risk as a potential outcome. Whatever motivation one has for proceeding to test the worthiness of an idea will logically have to reduce down to seeking an opportunity or avoiding a risk.
As an example of an idea in the mind of an entrepreneur, a targeted supply to be brought to the market might have been formed from pre-existent experiences in an industry ripe for an operational upgrade. The idea brings inherent opportunities, such as but not limited to financial reward, but also inherent risk, such as but not limited to financial loss.
To remember from the definitions. It is important to stop and consider these two terms as relative metaphors to their physical counterparts of mass and light: mass thought of via the concept of equity provides meaning (definition), such as a word (which is “attached to the mass”, via the concept of equity in practice!).
Consider a table – thought of from a purely physical perspective, it is an observable mass in a certain shape and form. Equity, assignation of the word table to the mass, gives the mass meaning. Light thought of via the concept of an idea provides purpose to mass-equity (which holds meaning), such as “a table can be used to place things upon.” When you are looking at the table, when observing the equitable word table in practice, you can think of its purpose by “shining ideas on it” – what can you use a table for?
For any form of energy, stored in mass and reflected to us as light, to have relevance for us in reality, equity and ideas must bring them meaning (definition) and purpose (direction) through the use of numbers and words.
Whilst energy will always be conserved, it will also always be in a process of transformation, either through natural decay or entrepreneurial vigour. We all know how decay happens and how it is measured through half-life. Eventually, everything fades away.
In turn, we should also all know how entrepreneurial vigour creates things. Nothing really happens without entrepreneurs.
The other side of the coin of everything fading is that everything will inevitably, at least at the scale of the Universe, be growing somewhere (in order for decay to be possible, creation must be as well). The point here is to understand how it takes decision-making power to bring an idea into reality and see how physics provides the raw materials to do so.
To put together a mass m reflecting a light c in the form of a table, which will be equivalent to some amount of energy E, an entrepreneur must first combine equity e with a table idea i, and use decision-making power D to begin transforming raw materials into the end product. Aristoteles’ metaphysics describes this relationship between potential and actual beautifully, even if it has been 2400 years since he grounded the idea in ancient Greece.
Jumping from philosophy into practice, as any entrepreneur will attest to, nothing can happen in reality without a working effort. A budding entrepreneur, with capital equity in a bank account and reputational equity in the minds of a social network (such as potential customers and financiers), pulls upon this potential energy of equity, combines it with an idea, and exercises the power of decision-making to begin a process of creation. When something is then observable in reality, it takes one final decision to decide that the idea is now, finally, real. We see some reflection of light off of some matter as proof.
This process happens at scale around the world, constantly bringing new products and services into our planet’s material existence that either supplement or replace the existing offering in the economy. Creative destruction, as first presented by Joseph Schumpeter, is put into motion when market participants come together to form contracts to be executed upon, exercising the power of decision-making in an attempt to change the real state of Society. D and E interact constantly to shape and reshape what the reality of Society around us is like.
If contracts are executed upon as agreed, value is created in the form of proven trust, fuelling growth in the economy at the most fundamental level. Trust from fulfilled contracts is where money and interest rates are born, but that is a story for another time.
The concept of societal relativity between entities enters the frame when the existence of ownership rights are realised. Catalonia and Spain is a good example of this at a national level, happening right now (updated October 29 2017).
In the interests of avoiding anarchy, ownership rights to equity are allocated through contracts of mutual trust, effectively dividing up control of the common resources of the planet.
In a closed system, such as an interconnected global Society, the more equity one holds as relative to others will determine relative decision-making power between individuals. As we live in a global Society where equity ownership rights are connected through an interconnected financial, legal, and logistical system, this holds true now more than ever before.
Akin to the logic of chaos theory, the impacts of a decision made on one side of a global Society will be felt on the other, at some degree between the infinitely small (the impact of buying a chocolate bar) and the infinitely large (the impact of starting a nuclear war). If all equity control were to be condensed into one person, this one person would be, through the power vested in ownership rights, able to orchestrate all societal actions.
In the name of avoiding anarchy, we should be pleased to have ownership rights. But, to avoid the potential volatility of condensed power distribution, we should pay attention to how they are spread out through all members of society. Societal relativity, decision-making power-equity equivalence, gives us a logical starting point to begin considering societal power allocation at scale. MIT professor Alex Pentland, in his advancement of the science of Social Physics, has already created a solid base of mathematical understanding about how ideas spread within society.
To reiterate, because of ownership rights, holding more equity as relative to others will mean more decision-making power as relative to others. Decision-making power-equity equivalence is a fundamental first principle to understand in matters of societal debate.
What does all this mean in practice?
To be really honest – I have no idea what people will use this thought for. Societal Relativity is a tool for thought that anyone can use to make an argument they are trying to make. This is just a very short introduction meant to spread the word.
What I do know is that, by my own assessment, the Theory of Societal Relativity has broad potential applications in describing the logical underpinnings of co-operation and competition between citizens, from the scale of individuals to the scale of civilisations.
The key takeaway from this early introduction to the theory was to note the relativity of decision-making power and equity. Given that at any moment in time there is a fixed amount of equity in the societal system, it is clear that, if one holds more equity as relative to others, then one will have more decision-making power over others, due to the nature of ownership rights, which dictate control over equity.
But there is another key learning to take away from this early introduction, one that becomes clear when the decision-making power-equity equivalence equation D = ei² is drawn out on a graph:
It can be difficult to consider decision-making power at the largest scales, but in practice it is the same as the global politics conducted by nations, and all the mess that is involved there.
The graph above can be considered through national brands. Denmark. Finland. Germany, and so forth. All nations have some idea of who they want to be as part of the global society that they live in – all nations have some level of a target brand (the accumulated opinions of one’s nationality held within a nation).
Whilst their ideas about themselves may not be strictly defined, nor should we perhaps desire them to be so (who’s up for 1984 in reality?), then we can always consider the relative valuation of a nations ideas about themselves as compared to other nations.
If nations undervalue themselves in relation to others (place their self-valuation into zone A, see graph), they will constantly be accelerating towards a sense of worthlessness, unless corrective action is taken. If nations, in turn, overvalue themselves in relation to others (place their self-valuation into zone B, see graph), they will constantly be accelerating towards visions of grandiosity. As seems to currently be happening, by the way, in more places than just one.
Only if we take the middle road – see our nations as equals in sovereignty – will we avoid the exponential slide in either direction.
It makes perfect economic sense, as well. A perception of equality amongst nations offers the path of least resistance towards maximal self-control of our national sovereignties. If nations, for example, overvalue themselves as compared to other nations, they will need to be spending time selling themselves not only their ideas of themselves, but also why they are better than others – an added time cost of sale for how a nation sits around spending its time.
If you end up using the tools for thought presented here, do let me know in the comments!
Just to clarify on the metaphorical relationship between physics and society, between energy-mass equivalence and decision-making power-equity equivalence: I’ll try and explain it with a simple picture. The logic of the picture is a straight copy from Wikipedia’s page on mass-energy equivalence, found here.
The idea here is really simple, and this depiction is meant to “hook” the existence of societal concepts to those of physical concepts.
One way to think about things is that everything you’re looking at is in the past, because of the speed of light. You ingest the data, and perceive it according to your past history and future desires, and act accordingly. Your perception defines your experience, and vice-versa.
For example, a poor person sees a physical 10€ bill and thinks “food” (a term invented and held by society), whereas a rich person thinks “toilet paper” (another term, another viewpoint). The 10€ bill is the exact same physical object for both (physics is saying “things are as they are”) but completely different when considered through the societal perceptions of the individual’s decision-making power in the moment.
How each decides to act regarding the 10€ bill is completely open – theoretically it would be predictable only with complete information on each individual, but since that would mean a 100% understanding of life history and future preferences (and an assumed future creation capacity), then we can accept that this isn’t practically feasible.
Thus, I just sort of assume that quantum theory has something to do with everything that’s possible in the future, because at least to me it seems like the whole beef around quantum theory is just that all things are uncertain until they happen to you (causing you to observe). Perhaps you’ll get how this paragraph is linked to this little thinker of a post-it:
I’m finding it convenient to practice playing with the thought of societal relativity through metaphorical logic, comparing its life-defining human characters with physical objects. For example:
1.) Projectile:target as messenger:recipient. Consider the relativity.
2.) Projectile force:target reaction as sticker shock:your face. Consider the relativity of the situation for a Finance Minister and someone getting a car repaired.
Before we can understand brand, we must understand its source – equity. To move from equity to brand, equity needs to be separated into two forms, capital (1) and reputational (2), material and immaterial. At the end of the chain, the forms come together again to form brand.
We all traditionally consider equity as something we own, and quickly associate ownership with the material realm – we quickly think in terms of capital equity, money, cars and houses and whatnot.However, we should not be forgetful of the immaterial realm. Indeed, at the end of the day, we also own our reputations as the perceived history of our actions. We own how we perceive our own actions and we must respect how others perceive our actions, in order to guide us to be better in the eyes of society (should we wish to be respectable in the eyes of society).
When discussing equity, we should always remember the immaterial realm and our ownership of reputational equity.
Molding equity with actions
Let’s remember at all times: both forms of equity, capital and reputational, are things that you own because you have the capacity to have an impact upon them.
Say a man and his wife and are laden with cash. By taking action with the cash, they are molding the form that their capital equity takes. They can build a new house, for example, and a pile of cash will have turned into a mansion.
Building a house has an impact on their reputational equity as well, but that is only partly in their control. How neighbors perceive architecture will define their first rating principle of the arriving couple’s reputational equity, as the neighbors will have to look at what the couple have built. Views are a public good that belong to all of society, and having an impact on them (as viewed by others) with a capital allocation decision will no doubt have an impact on reputation.
Of course, to mitigate issues, the couple would strive for co-creation with their neighbors, as they’d want them to be on their side in terms of positive relations. The couple would include their neighbours in the house design process, at least to some extent, and hope that the inclusion would allay the neighbors’ fears of the couple wrecking the scenery (which was probably a factor in the neighbors’ own home purchase decision, the biggest investment most people make).
Having acted in good faith towards the people that their actions have an impact on, the couple would be able to rate their own reputational equity positively. Also, they’d have a higher likelihood of getting positive reviews from their neighbours, as well. Because they have a higher chance of looking good in the eyes of society (the neighbors, to start with), as the couple tried to be good, they can look better in their own eyes, as well, and be more trusting of the future. We can see how reputation is built on memories of previous interactions, which forms a perception.
Alas, through the purchase decision of building a house, we can see how capital allocation flows through to have an impact on our reputational equity, as well. We perceive the capital’s transformation from cash-to-house before our eyes, and we perceive the reputation’s transformation from past-to-present as we assess the result and our interpretation of our own role within the change.
Where brand comes in
How you allocate equity depends on your intentions and the numbers and words you subscribe to them. These form the preconditions for defining a target brand at the end of a brand horizon that extends outwards, as perceived from the source of equity.
If you intend to look good (your brand target), then one realized demonstration of that could be investing into some help from experts on how to define that target. This would be a capital equity allocation decision that will impact reputational equity. For example, as a leader, you’d want to know you were doing your best in reaching your goal, and investing into the best help you can get would be one representative action towards it.
The investment would be a capital demonstration of business intentions, and how that demonstration is explained by the leader to self and others (the investment pitch), in relation to the brand target, would be a reputational demonstration of business intentions.
If the leader can explain why spending money is worth it, then he or she can live with the outcome of what spending the money brings, as there will always be the pitch from before the investment decision. For example, as a leader, you’d be willing to accept that hiring the best help means that they might be better at you at something, which is why you hired them in the first place. So, instead of coming to preach to you what you already know, you realize you’re inviting them over to teach you something you didn’t. Which also means something you thought might have been a smart idea might turn out to not be, and you will end up having to question yourself.
As the demonstrations of capital and reputation collide, brand forms at an impact frontier, which is almost like an atmosphere around a planet, or the borders of a nation. Within the boundary lies everything that that can be attributed to the brand, such as salespersons or products, which are things that can be interacted with. A country, thought of as a brand, contains all the citizens and technologies and built structures that a visitor can interact with on a visit to form her or his assessment of the country’s brand.
We can see how equity has taken a practical form of capital (all materiality within a brand) and reputation (all immateriality within a brand) and, in turn, created a brand. By this definition, brand is an outcome of allocated equity, defined by the equity actions taken and the intentions behind them. Like the atmosphere of a planet or the borders of a nation, we know that brand is there. Even if we cannot really touch brand as anything separate, we interact with it through the people and products associated with it.
Capital and reputational equity are inseparable. Allocating one will always have an impact on the other. These impacts, caused by the actions taken to mold equity, will continuously create brands into the marketplace, impacting you and society on some level – at minimum, on the level of product choices available in the market to purchase. Reallocations of equity – starting with information gleaned from daily purchases made by the masses – will always lead to changes in the market’s aggregate product offering, so brands are always being born, alive, or dying.
The link between equity and brand will always be present, but it will always be mediated by the interplay of capital and reputation in the passage of time. It can be seen that the intentions behind equity allocation decisions are what drive the brand outcome, so it is logical to examine equity intentions in relation to brand when defining operational strategy. It can be seen that, effectively speaking, operational strategy always reduces down to the allocation of equity, making an investment mentality the best attribute of a leader, followed immediately by an eye for assessing the present nature of a brand.
To close, a word on honesty in the marketplace is required. It is extremely easy to present something that is not true – in practice, to lie. Many brands are constructed by marketing departments with the help of good intentions, but if those intentions are not realized in the equity allocation process, then the brand runs the risk of being exposed as fraudulent – a real risk in today’s world of free-flowing information.
In order to ensure brand honesty, and increase the likelihood of matching customer expectations with reality (a significant driver of potential recurring sales), brand should be considered strategically at the very earliest stages of equity allocation. Equity with a targeted brand knows where it is going and why, increasing the likelihood of good operative leadership that conveys purpose for the operative organization that is realizing the equity allocation decisions made by those who hold equity allocation power.
With good leadership, it is easier to respect the equity driving actions in the economy. Focusing on desired brand, at the very earliest stages of equity allocation, can drive transformational change in the economy, should equity investment guidelines and brand construction guidelines come together to guide decision-making.
On a final note
The fields of brand construction and consultation are sure to see strong growth for decades to come, as global equity prepares and rolls out its defence against the onslaught that it is receiving from global media. Hopefully, the brand strategy for global equity will, on an aggregate level, be one of honor and pride of rectifying mistakes from the past, and helping the private and public sector learn from each other in the interplay that makes a citizen’s free life possible.
Global equity should, from a general investment perspective, keep working towards a stable society, which deflates the impact of risk in the market and provides more stable returns. Considering what perception of its brand global equity wants people to take is a first-and-foremost task in preparing to dig out of the current brand hole that wealth is now in. Understanding what a stable society means to people, and how they value corporate and public brands’ roles in creating it, is how the story begins.
How does equity work? I’ll try and explain, in my own pictures and words, how I think about it. For the purposes of this thought, equity is defined as anything, from an object to an opinion (that is owned by a holder), that can be used to exert a force upon the world. It is, thus, important to note the broad, true definition of equity that goes far beyond assets with direct monetary value.
There’s this thing in the world called equity and it is what is used to shape the continuously unfolding story of our planet, as delivered to us in the form of market information (the most detailed information available on the state of society). Equity, and access to it, guides our actual and potential buying and selling behaviour. That pretty much means the same as a significant part of our lives. So, equity is important to understand across society.
Since equity is the single most powerful force driving the formation of the modern world, it is good to understand in as simple terms as possible, to ensure basic logic is communicable across the different groups impacted by the continuous motion of equity in our society.
Equity is quite simple really. It consists of (1) ownership rights to it given by the previous owning generations of the planet’s equity to the current owning generation (the owners), (2) utilisation rights to use owners’ equity to create returns given by the owners to the financiers, and (3) reproductive rights (turning debt into equity returns opportunity) to create products for the marketplace given by the financiers to the entrepreneurs.
It is here that the equity, in the operative hands of an entrepreneur, has taken the form of a product that is presented to the (4) purchasing rights holder at the reputation horizon of solutions to the problem that the consumer has. The purchasing rights holder must, in turn, have access to ownership of equity (liquidity) to have (5) purchasing capability, which usually means some form of employment as part of the functioning of the markets (which move equity back and forth, meaning human labor can be seen as a tax on equity – which is probably a good tax to have).
Supply must always have continuously applied demand to sustain itself over time (a recurring customer base). In practice, this means that major equity owners deploying their equity to finance products into the market will always be dependent on the minor equity owners delivering products to (entrepreneurs) and purchasing products from (consumers) the market. In the name of societal cohesion, it would make sense for the two dependent groups to be able to trust each other, since they will always need each others ideas to stay alive going forward.
We can draw the conclusion of the diagram above to observe the nature of the transactional equity system presented during the impact of an equity allocation shockwave, which brings the system’s parts into motion.
It is prudent to note the importance of understanding the prevalent demand-supplied ideas in society, especially in relation to the prevalent supply-supplied ideas. If either side of equity flow is too much in control of prevalent ideas, the system would run the risk of becoming volatile, as underlying social power structures in society are difficult to predict (you can never know who is running with what agenda).
Hence, the role of the legal system in setting balancing rules to the market game is most important. When equity is controlled well and deployed to the market smoothly, without negative externalities, then the market machine is working for the benefit of all involved. Such market behaviour requires investment against externality formation, but should always lead to a better outcome.
As reference to a continued discussion of the product-creating nature of the economy, products are created in a looping flow as depicted below. Equity allocation is part of the organisational operations phase.
Myynti on lähtökohtaisesti aina positiivinen asia mikäli voidaan olettaa että myyty tuote nostaa kokonaishyvinvointia yhteiskunnassa. Tämä olettaa, että tuotanto ei ulkoista kustannuksia yhteiskunnalle enempää kuin kuluttaja kokee hyötyvänsä tuotteen kuluttamisesta. Sillä tuottavalla yrityksellä on paremmat edellytykset ymmärtää kustannuksiensa ulkoistamisen vaikutuksia verrattuna kuluttajaan, tulisi yritysvastuullisuuden aina lähteä ulkoistettujen kustannuksien ymmärtämisestä.
Mikäli hyvinvointivaikutusten mittari olisi mahdollista rakentaa kustannustehokkaasti tuotetasolle, voisi talouden hyvinvointia lisäävää vaikutusta mitata äärimmäisen tarkasti ostettujen tuotteiden pohjalta laskettuna. Pitäisi vaan ynnätä yhteen kaikkien tuotteiden hyvinvointivaikutusten tulokset. Sillä todellisuudessa on kuitenkin kustannustehokkaampaa seurata tuotteen raaka-aineiden kulun eettisyyttä läpi toimitusketjun, ja luottaa lopputuotteen olevan sen myötä myös eettinen, emme edes pyri taloustieteessä ymmärtämään tuotetason hyvinvointivaikutusta.
Tuotetason hyvinvointivaikutukseen kiteytyy kuitenkin talousjärjestelmän olennaisin lopputulos – ilon potentiaali. Sitä ei kannatakaan pyrkiä ymmärtämään numeerisesti, vaan keskittyä sen moraalisiin perusteisiin. On turvallista olettaa, että ostamme tuotteita nostaakseen omaa hyvinvointia. Jos tuote lisää kuluttajan iloa, ja sen hyvinvointivaikutus yhteiskuntaan nähden on positiivinen (eli tuotanto ei ulkoista kustannuksia), on taloudellinen ostotoimenpide tuottanut tuplasti hyvää maailmaan, sekä yksilö- että ryhmätasolla.
Tuotetason hyvinvointivaikutuksen ymmärtämiseen kiteytyy monilla tavoin koko talousjärjestelmän eettinen perusta. Vaihtoehtojen maailmassa, vaikka emme olisi vielä löytäneet omaa juttuamme, on rutkasti mahdollisuuksia tarjolla, ja se lienee parempi lopputulos kuin ilman mahdollisuuksia oleminen. Jos tuotteen tuotanto ei ulkoista kustannuksia yhteiskunnalle, niin sen myyminen ja myynnin mahdollistaminen ylipäänsä pitäisi olla pyhä asia nykymaailmassa.
Kunhan tuotannon sääntelyn ohella varmistamme kuluttajille pääsyn pääomaan, joiden avulla markkinoiden mahdollisuuksiin voi vasta tarttua, pitäisi markkinatalousjärjestelmän eettinen perusta olla kaikkien perusteltavissa. Myynnin pitäisi aina olla positiivinen asia.
Kulu-ajattelua harrastavien konsulttien kasvu yksityisellä sektorilla ja yritysten markkinointiosastojen resurssien leikkaus selittänee myynnillisen liiketoimintaymmärryksen laskun markkinoiden toiminnassa. On halvempaa, kun viestintä on vain yksisuuntaista, joten kulu-ajatteleva toimija unohtaa tyystin myynnin ensimmäisen tehtävän: kuuntelemisen.
Tämä lienee luonnollista, sillä perinteisesti kulu-ajatteleva toimija on ostamassa, ei myymässä, joten hänen kokemus on pitkälti väärältä puolelta pöytää. Kokemus ostamisesta ajaa minimoimaan kustannuksia. Kokemus myymisestä ajaa kilpailun ajan myötä puhumaan laadusta.
Mitä tästä opimme? Kannattaa ymmärtää sekä rahoittajia (ostajia) että yrittäjiä (myyjiä). Kummankaan ei tosin kannata kokea olevansa toista parempi, sillä loppupeleissä heidän keskeinen luottamus ratkaisee. Jossain vaiheessa rahoittajan kannattaa antaa rahaa yrittäjälle ilman mahdollisuutta varmaan tulosmittaukseen (jos haluaa koittaa uutta ideaa ensimmäistä kertaa). Taas jossain vaiheessa yrittäjän kannattaa luottaa rahoittajan näkemykseen siitä, että kaikki ideat eivät vain toimi (jos haluaa koittaa uusia ideoita jatkossakin).
Markkinointi on aina yrittäjätoimintaa. Markkinointi yrittää aina saada aikaan myyntiä. Se on kaiken liiketoiminnan alku, joten kannattaa aina kysyä – olenko kulujen minimointi vai laadun maksimointi bisneksessä? Miten tämä heijastuu markkinoinnissani?
Jossain pisteessä kannattaa valita, esimerkiksi silloin kun pohdit oman toimintasi maineen vakautta markkinoilla. Älä päästä ketä vain myymään sinulle, kun pohdit liiketoimintasi ydintä – eli myyntiä.
Kokoomus on aloittanut talouskampanjan jossa vedotaan valtionlainan lyhennyshaluihin kansalaisten keskuudessa. Mielestäni ei ole soveliasta, että talouspuolueeksi itseään tituleeraava Kokoomus vetoaa talouskantojensa viestinnässä tavallisen kansalaisen kykenemättömyyteen ymmärtää talouden mekanismien kompleksiteettiä (ollaanpa nyt rehellisiä, kuinka iso osa kansasta pystyy puhumaan valtionvelasta sujuvasti, aiheympäristön tuntien?). Etenkään aikana, jolloin puolue myös johtaa valtiomme taloutta, ei luulisi henkilökohtaisen talouslogiikan sekoittuvan valtiontalouteen.
Iltalehden tekemään kyselyyn nojautuminen oman kantansa muodostamisessa niin tärkeään asiaan, kuin valtiovelka, ja sen änkeminen tweettiin, on äärimmäisen heikkoa talousjohtamista. Luulisi valtiovarainministerin haluavan kansan talouden toiminnan kannalta erittäin tärkeän asian olevan osa merkittävästi älyllisempää keskusteluympäristöä, kuin iltapäivälehden kansalaiskysely.
Talouspuolue tunnistaa tietenkin aina tosiasiat. Kohdistan tämän tekstin täysin itseään talousajattelijoiksi kutsuville ihmisille.
Velka on pääoman muotona kaiken kasvun lähde, sillä se on sopimus yrittäjän ja rahoittajan välisestä luottamuksesta kykyynsä tuottaa jotain tavoiteltavan arvoista asiaa markkinoille, vähintään jälleensijoitettavaa korkotuottoa. Korkotuottojen tuottaminen on osoitus taloudessa elävästä luottamuksesta jossa kokonaispääoman lainakustannuksien, korkojen, maksut ovat merkki taloudessa elävien lainasopimusten pitämisestä.
Korkotuottojen luominen talouteen on pankkijärjestelmän ensisijainen tehtävä, kun taas poliitikot vahtivat sen tasaista jakoa. Ilman korkotuottoja, ei ole todisteita lainasopimusten pitävyydestä globaalissa taloudessa, joten vakaat positiiviset korot ovat hyvin tärkeä asia talouden elinvoiman ylläpitämisessä.
Kaikki tavoitellut asiat jota talous päätyy velanoton myötä tuottamaan saa loppupeleissä kuluttajiltaan arvion, ja arvion ollessa myönteinen (esimerkiksi silloin, kun kuluttaja uskoo ostavansa asian uudelleen) syntyy luottamuskasvua talouden toimijoiden kesken. Kun yrittäjän markkinoimat lupaukset toteutuvat, syntyy uskomusta kaupan uusiutumiseen.
Kaikki velka on luottamukseen pohjautuvaa sen takia, että taloudessa asioita tarjoavien toimijoiden elinvoimaisuus perustuu loppupeleissä kuluttajien keskuudessa vallitsevaan uskomukseen siitä, ostaisivatko he palveluntarjoajiltaan asioita uudelleen vai eivät. Onko kuluttajilla luottamusta palveluntarjoajiin ja rahaa osoittaa ostopäätöksellä tämä luottamus?
Luottamus reaalitaloudessa palaa aina luottamukseen korkojen tuottamisesta pankkijärjestelmässä, jotta taloudessa olevan pääoman arvo kehittyy vakaasti. Luottamus uusiutuvaan ostopäätökseen synnyttää rahoittajalle luottamuksen yrittäjän toiminnan kannattavuudesta, ja antaa velalle positiivisen takaisinmaksunäkymän. Tämä nostaa luottamusta rahoittajan kykyihin rahoittaa uusia yrittäjiä, ja tärkeintä tämä osaaminen on paikallisessa pientaloudessa.
Luottamuksen mahdollistama talouden ostopäätöksien uusiutuminen lähtee aina nimenomaan velasta liikkeelle, sillä ilman rahoittajan luottamusta yrittäjän yritysideaan, ei olisi syntynyt ensimmäistäkään kuluttajan ostopäätöstä.
Päättelyketjun alkuun on erittäin tärkeätä palata kerta toisensa jälkeen. Nimenomaan velka käynnistää rahatalouden ja velkamekanismin käyttömahdollisuus on toivottava asia jotta voi luottaa kykyynsä toteuttaa pitkäjänteisyyttä vaativia sijoituksia. Mikään ei ole rahoituksessa tärkeämpää kuin pääsy pääomaan.
Talouslogiikka pakottaa, että liiketoiminnan synnytys vaatii aina alkukipinän. Oliko se ensimmäisin alkukipinä sitten yrittäjän idea tai rahoittajan pääoma on samantekevää, sillä molemmat edustavat talouden toiminnassa samaa asiaa eli luottamusta. Luottamusta liiketoiminnan käynnistämisen molempiin vaadittuihin osapuoliin eli rahaan ja ideaan.
Velanottaja osoittaa riskinkantokyvyllään uskonsa vahvuuden omaan tuotteeseensa ja sen tuotantokykyyn, ja mielestäni tässä kohtaa Suomi ei vielä oikein ymmärrä velan merkitystä. Velkaa ei saa ellei rahoittaja usko sijoitustarinaan. Suomi on velkamarkkinoilla tarinankertoja ja jos Suomi kertoo tarinaansa onnistuneesti, niin Suomi saa velkaa vaikka kuinka paljon.
Itseensä luottava kansa uskoo velan takaisinmaksukykyynsä. Kun Suomi komeilee erilaisten elintasotilastojen kärjessä ja samalla ylläpitää korkeaa taloudellista tuottopotentiaalia yhteiskunnan koulutus- ja turvallisuustasojen myötä, pitäisi Suomen itseluottamus velkojen takaisinmaksuun olla korkeammalla kuin koskaan. Jos velat maksettiin sotien jälkeisissä olosuhteissa takaisin, niin luulisi Suomen pärjäävän nykyolosuhteissa varsin hyvin.
Suomi yhteiskuntana on tuote joka näyttää esimerkkiä siitä miten globaalien elintasotilastojen kärjessä roikutaan näinä päivinä. Tuotekehityksemme on vienyt meidät muutamassa sukupolvessa agraariyhteiskunnasta moderniksi teknologiataloudeksi jolla on erittäin vahva globaali maine. Maineen arvokkuutta vauhdittaa entisestään Pohjoismaiden yleismaineen vetovoima maailmalla. On siis vaikeata nähdä miksi olla luottamatta Suomen talouden velan korkojen takaisinmaksukykyyn.
Suomen maine ja toiminnalliset todisteet mahdollistaisivat merkittävän uskonosoituksen oman kansamme elinvoimaisuuteen. Maailmanmarkkinat janoaa ratkaisuja ja ne varmasti rahoittavat meitä, jos tarjoamme yhteiskuntavakautta lisääviä mekanismeja ja koulutusta niiden käyttöön, pohjautuen omaan esimerkkiimme.
Suomi on oman yhteiskuntaidyllinsä koelaboratorio, aivan kuten Yhdysvallat itsenäistymisensä jälkeen, jonka esimerkkiä moni maa haluaa seurata eri tavoin. Labratilojen kehittäminen maksaa, ja rahoitusta hakeakseeen tarvitsee aina myyntipuheen, esimerkiksi strategian.
Teoreettisen Suomi200 strategian rahoituksen lähteeksi Suomi voisi helposti nostaa 500 miljardia euroa velkaa sadaksi vuodeksi, jossa rahoittavat yksityispankit saisivat suoran hanan 5 miljardin euron vuosittaisiin verotuloihin lainan lyhentämiseksi ajallaan sekä korot valtion budjetista. Jos korot neuvoteltaisiin 1-1,5% tasolle, olisi sijoitus rahoittajalle suhteellisen riskitön taustasijoitus.
Ainoa sijoitusoletus on se, että Suomen julkinen järjestelmä pystyy leikkaamaan nettona noin 10 miljardin euron edestä vuosittaisia kustannuksia koskematta palvelutason laatuun. Tämä summa kattaisi lainan lyhennykset ja korot, jonka jälkeen Suomen talouskasvu tuottaisi ylijäämää reaalitalouteen ja elintasomme kasvaisi.
Johtavana digitalisaatiokansana tämän luvun saavuttaminen pitäisi olla täysin realistista. Jos alkupääomasta 50 miljardin euron investoinnit saisivat aikaan 10 miljardin euron kassavirtaparannuksen, niin olisi Suomella vielä kokonaiset 450 miljardia euroa käytettävissään tarpeen tullen. Voi olla, että koko summaa ei ikinä edes tarvittaisi (velannosto-optiota ei suinkaan ole pakko käyttää), mutta Suomella olisi vuoteen 2117 asti varma käteisvirta taseessaan tulevaisuuden lamoja varten. On kuitenkin hyvä huomioida, että yhteiskuntaa kehittävät työntekijät pystyisivät varmasti laadukkaampiin ja luovempiin ratkaisuihin mikäli heidän rahoitus toiminnan kehittämiseksi ja tulosten osoittamiseksi olisi varmistettu pitkällä aikavälillä. Yhteiskunta kun on kompleksinen ja hitaasti päivitettävä järjestelmä.
Vuosisadan mahdollisia investointeja varten kerralla kerätty potti säästäisi valtionvelan myyntikustannuksissa ja antaisi tarvittua pitkäjänteisyyttä pistää maailman parhaat valtioinsinöörit (virkahenkilöstömme) yhteiskuntarakennushommiin. Ensimmäinen työ olisi ratkoa miten säätää organisaation toimintaa niin että lainanhoitokulut lyhennyksineen ja korkoineen vähenee operatiivisista kuluista. Sen jälkeen lainainvestointi voi alkaa tuottaa voittoa elintasoomme, kun lainasijoitusten tuoman tuottavuusparannuksen ylijäämä alkaa valua reaalitalouteen.
Kun vielä kaikki sijoituksen tulosten arviointi sidotaan sosiaalisiin lopputuloksiin jota mitataan ympäri yhteiskuntaa jatkuvasti, voidaan kansalaisena luottaa olevamme velanantajan ja velanottajan kanssa samalla puolella pöytää. Kaikki voittavat. Toki oletus on edelleen se, että 10 miljardin euron kassavirtaparannus olisi saavutettavissa, mutta ei se tälle kansalle mikään mahdoton teko olisi esimerkiksi kymmenen vuoden aikajänteellä mitattuna.
Ainoa asia mitä tarvitaan on Suomi200 strategia, jonka rakentamista Sitra voisi hyvin johtaa yhteistyössä puolueiden ja yksityisen sektorin edustajien kanssa. Yhteistyö tarvitsee välillä fasilitaattorin, ja projekti vaatii pysyvän johdon.
Lisäksi tarvitaan myös ymmärrys velkamekanismin uskomattomasta kauneudesta ja mahdollisuuksia luovasta luonteesta. Ilman sitä, valtio ei pysty tekemään työtään riittävällä pitkäjänteisyydellä. Nyt jos koskaan on pitkäjänteisyyden aika.
Any purchase event at any level in the markets always boils down to a realignment of ownership rights. Buy a chocolate bar from the store and, in exchange for money, you get a chocolate bar. As proven by the receipt (a legal document, proof of an event), there is now a prevailing trust in the eyes of society that you hold rights to the chocolate and the store holds rights to the cash.
When supply and demand deal in the markets, they are effectively dealing with the realignment of society’s trust in who owns what. But we should always remember to add the final piece of this sentence to the end, which is “part of the Commons”. Supply and demand deal in the realignment of who owns what part of the Commons.
The Commons are always there, no matter how rarely spoken of these days. All equity is historically deduced from the Commons, and thus all ownership rights to equity are, essentially, on lease from the whole of society (humans as a species) and the planet. There is no arguing with this statement as long as we stretch the consideration of history back to the times when we were all part of a co-operative whole. Which we were.
We should remember that there was a time in history when all resources within a society were shared. All we need to remember is to consider hunter-gatherer families and tribes, the descendants of whom we all are, which behaved co-operatively to stay alive. We thus have no choice but to acknowledge that we have been on the path of increasing wealth inequality for quite some time. Compared to days when resources were equally shared within a family or tribe, ownership rights to equity are now spread much more unevenly.
Certainly there are many arguments as to why we don’t share all of our hedonistic property with others – they are our treasures, not anyone else’s, and we can’t be blamed for picking the fruit of the society we’ve been living in. We should be very thankful for ownership rights to equity and the progress they have brought us in history.
Regardless of the importance of ownership rights to our hedonistic property, there are no moral arguments against why we have to share all of our existential resources with others. We only have one planet, and it only has so much resources to distribute. These are matters of life and death at a planetary scale, and I’m sure no one really wants to have anyone’s death on their hands – regardless of who or where they are on the planet.
Money is an existential resource in today’s world, let’s face it straight up. Having money, or any other form of liquid capital, is equivalent to the potential to have food or water. Without access to capital, as every financier knows, there is no chance for progress. At its most extreme, without money to buy food or water, this means there is no chance to keep on living. At its most extreme, a lack of progress means death.
We only have one global financial system with one amount of global money in it, and it seems to be distributing current and newly-injected money very unevenly.
So, just as we are forced to share one global resource chain to stay alive, we are forced to share one global financial chain for said purpose, as well. If wealth inequality continues to strangle significant parts of the population, as shown by youth unemployment, for example, then it can potentially lead to a devolving global financial chain. Without access to the free markets, brought by having capital, new black markets will begin to form at an increasing rate. Usually, this exacerbates the spread of negative societal outcomes, as shown by the black market for hard drugs (why not do intravenous drugs when there is nothing else affordable to strive for in life?).
More equal and transparent financial co-operation, to balance out the negative externalities caused by wealth inequality, should be striven for with the utmost immediacy across the globe. But it will only be possible if there are no financial black holes in the chain, where money sinks into, never to come out again. If such black holes exist, there will be an unnecessary gap in trust between peoples and nations, slowing co-operation down or preventing it from getting started altogether.
Tax havens are once such form of financial black hole, but what the tax havens have accumulated at the bottom of their black holes – immense private wealth, held mostly by citizens of wealthy nations – are the actual problem. Immense private wealth, regardless of however and over however long a period it has been acquired, is the root bug in the financial system.
Access to capital leads to access to more capital, with the initial capital acting as collateral. Immense private wealth is, thus, constantly sucking liquidity out of the system, storing it at the very bottom of a legally unobtainable hole. New injections of liquidity into the system, bond issues by the central banks, seem to flow rapidly to the exact same places where wealth already is. Those without capital stand absolutely no mathematical chance of ever catching up. Compound interest denies it! The logic of math is unbreakable; the statements in this paragraph are as close to economic facts as one can get without a political debate.
Even money is deduced from the Commons, as money signifies Common Trust in exchange. Money is a quantified, materialised (cash is still King!) form of trust. A dollar is not equally worthy for a poor man and a rich man, as a proportion of their total individual wealth. If the rich man cannot understand the value of a dollar for a poor man, they will have trouble trusting each other.
If a common understanding in the value of money goes, if we lose trust in money itself, we lose all capacity for exchange. Who knows what happens then, but it certainly won’t help the world get better.
As we need money to survive, individually and collectively, it should be spread more evenly. The argument is purely moral and, thus, political. All it takes is a significant, globally co-ordinated hike in the inheritance tax of wealthy nations and the backbone by poorer nations to stare down the arguments by those wealthy nations until such a system is enacted. Famous economic researchers Piketty and Saez, amongst others, have concluded the optimal level of inheritance tax to be 50% or even more. To make it work fairly, however, global co-ordination is necessary. Otherwise, capital would just flow into the tax havens at an increasing pace.
Another option would be for the Bank of International Settlements, under UN co-ordination, to flood global society with new capital, in the form of a new global currency, directly into government budgets. This would decrease the relative wealth of the wealthy and ensure new wealth is being directed to those in more need. This would also be a much more extreme measure, as it would place a lot of sovereign power in the hands of the UN and the BIS. To me, a controlled redistribution via inheritance taxes seems safer.
However it is conducted, the redistribution of the wealth of nations should commence, under leadership of the United Nations. This economic reset, unrivalled in history, would level the playing field for countless future generations of children across the globe. In times such as these, when there is Common reason to invest into bettering societal outcomes significantly, the preconditions in the economy for redistribution are as good as they’ll ever be. If we’re to conduct politics on a scientific basis, we don’t really have a choice; see below.
Remember, all societal outcomes are caused by the economic preconditions set by who owns what part of the Commons, and how they use it. That’s what supply and demand are all about, and it is time for economists to start taking the Commons as seriously as ever so that we, the new generation of parents, can get started on building the future for our children and grandchildren.
Oh, and, the final argument: let’s remember how much people are calling for fact- and science-based politics these days, as alluded to above. If that truly is the case, then there should be no politician avoiding the biological fact that all humans on our planet are of the same species. Somewhere out there, we have a common ancestor. A species is a larger unit consisting of smaller individual components, a generational system. In other words – a larger unit of a family, which consists of, at minimum, smaller components of parents (older) and children (younger).
Politics starts with how power is distributed between kids and their parents – only then does the politics between nations begin. If we’re all family, am I really happy with the way all my distant cousins around the planet are faring right now? Is the right to play with all the toys of Mother Nature’s Commons divided so as to set fair pre-conditions for new generations to continue playing the market game, as well?
Immense pre-existing wealth, cornered into the control of a small population of the whole, sets pretty good pre-conditions for a bad division (for the whole) in the future, as well. There’s some deep-fried food for thought.
Minulta kysytään usein mitä on mahdollistava ajattelu. Vastaan, että mahdollistava ajattelu on sellaista joka, kohdatessaan ongelman, kysyy heti miten ongelman voisi ratkoa. Kysymällä juuri tämän kyseisen kysymyksen, se mahdollistaa ongelman ratkaisemisen. Mahdollistavan ajattelun myötä on siis olemassa mahdollisuus ratkaista ongelma.
Tätä voisi myös kutsua yrittäjähenkiseksi ajatteluksi. Sama looginen tarinan rakenne kun filosofilla yllä, eri kontekstin sanat päällä vaan:
Minulta kysytään usein mitä on yrittäjähenkinen ajattelu. Vastaan, että yrittäjähenkinen ajattelu on sellaista joka, kohdatessaan potentiaalisen kysynnän (tarpeen ongelman ratkomiselle), kysyy heti mitä tarjoaisi potentiaalisena tarjontana (ongelman ratkaisuna) markkinoille. Kysymällä juuri tämän kysymyksen, se mahdollistaa yrityksen synnyn. Yrittäjähenkisen ajattelun myötä on siis mahdollisesti olemassa yritys täyttää kysyntä tarjonnalla.
Loppupeleissä kyse onkin sitten siitä, käyttääkö mahdollisuutta hyväkseen – päättääkö yrittää ongelmanratkontaa?
Ongelmia on kaikkialla, mutta ratkaisuja ei ole ilman yrityksiä ratkaista niitä.