Yrittäjät ovat luonnollisia ongelmanratkojia

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.

Time as a Form of Equity

To build my economic and political philosophy further, I am committing to holding an opinion of the concept of time as being a form of equity. To hold an opinion of something, I must be able to understand it first, which required quite a bit of thought work in putting myself into time and allowing myself to explore what it is. Having gone through the motions of forming myself an understanding of time, I’ve realised just how important a concept it is to understand. My purpose with this paper is to share an introduction to the main idea of how to use time equity as a tool for thought.


How I think about time

I find the most economical path to understanding time is to consider it a form of equity. Considering my time as a form of equity that I invest, to create my own life experience as I best see fit, is a very practical way to think about time. It gives me control over the concept and allows me to consider what life would be like with full control or no control of it.

In the realm of the business sciences, from where I draw the concept of equity, there also exists an accepted term called “opportunity cost”. Opportunity cost is required to allow us to explain our time investment decision with economic rationale, by means of the relativity of the two concepts of equity (something to invest) and cost (required equity investment into another form of equity – worthiness of two things in relative terms). One goes hand in hand with the requirement of the other.

Considering time as a form of investable equity allows me to realize that, whilst doing any consciously chosen act, I have made a decision to invest my time into doing that activity, because I have decided to not invest time into another opportunity, since it came at higher cost. There is always the other opportunity to whatever you are doing, which is actualized when you stop whatever it is that you are doing and do something else than what it is that you were doing.

At minimum, the alternative opportunity is always defined as not doing (the absolute logical negation of) what it is that you are doing. Given the control of one’s time equity, the option to stop always exists.

The alternative opportunity comes with, at minimum, a time cost but perhaps also a financial cost – in total sum, an estimated investment decision price, a required equity investment.

If you are doing an activity, and if you knew there was an alternative activity but decided to do the activity you are doing anyway, then you have calculated the price of “not doing the activity you are doing” and realised it was high enough to prevent you from not doing the activity you are doing. Hence you find yourself doing the activity.

Utility can be maximized without financial equity. Control of time equity is all that is ultimately required to maximize utility in any given moment. This is a big thought in that the removal of financial equity from utility considerations reduces all decisions to a desired emotional outcome experienced in time – at minimum, is it better to be doing what I am doing now, or to not be doing it?

By considering time a form of equity that I am (theoretically) deciding to invest at all moments in time, I am taking control of my own actions. It allows me to consider my ultimate motivations in creating my own experience of life. Considering that there is a well-defined average life expectancy for humans across different societies, then I can roughly estimate what amount of time equity I still have remaining to invest, and what kind of experiences I’m looking for down the road. I can consider my time equity portfolio allocation.

Continuous time allocation

To paint the idea into a broader context, being able to look at the finite amount of time equity I have allows me to form further opinions on systemic societal issues that are impacting my life experience, regardless of my singular ability to control the emergence of these issues as part of my life experience. Put plainly, if the system is outsourcing negative externalities to me, I need to primarily understand how it is impacting my ability to control my own experience of time in order to be able to take action against the externalities.

In realizing time as a form of equity that I have, and control over which might be limited by societal circumstances, my consideration of the externalities society makes me pay for changes completely. I am much less forgiving of negative externalities present in society when I discretely realize that I only have a finite amount of time equity available, and its potential value is being eaten by circumstances not created by me – such as climate change and war-mongering politicians.

Time, considered as a form of equity, is a very powerful way of conducting one’s thinking.


The fundamental importance of the logic of the financial mechanism

Does the option of not doing an activity have a higher cost because what you’re doing is something that you enjoy, and not doing it would come with a cost in the form of a loss of a moment of joy that outweighs any equitable benefits of not doing the activity?

Through an equity lens of examination, the experience of time becomes a fundamental form that we can use, via the concept of a financial mechanism, to examine the nature of time itself and its inherent potential value to actualize desired emotions. The concept of potential and actual, from Aristoteles’ metaphysics, is an almost exact metaphor for time equity.

In utilizing the financial mechanism with time equity inputs, we can remove the need for the usage of any financial equity component in examining the potential emotional utility value of a time allocation decision. In other words, using the concept of a financial mechanism purely with time equity inputs allows us to completely focus our potential decision-value analysis on the desired future emotions from time allocation, with no need to account for any extrinsic financial motivations whatsoever. Simply put, we can focus our analysis purely on the desired emotional impact of a decision, and radically simplify the economic consideration of the logic of everyday decision-making.

The concept of a financial mechanism forces us to examine desired future emotions, resultant from allocations of time equity, from the perspective of mathematically representable risks and opportunities. Mathematical representation brings a layer of objectivity to the analysis of subjective motivations, inherent to the markets, no matter how simple the representation.

The symbolic language of mathematics brings discreteness to the otherwise definitively subjective discussion of human aspirations – what we hope to be able to invest our time into. The mathematical representations can be at an extremely simple level, such as an expected pure good emotion outcome (+) or a pure bad emotion outcome (-) from a potential time equity investment decision – at minimum the comparison of continuing to do whatever you are doing now versus stopping (eg. reading this text versus not reading it. Don’t stop now! You’ve already got this far!).

Despite the simplicity, the mathematical representations of opposite emotional polarities fit the minimum for objectively discussing the subjective decision of time allocation and why certain decisions are or aren’t made. Delving into the subjective rationale for a decision is possible, and this might involve financial argumentation with profits and losses, but the objectivity of any time equity investment decision is already maintained with a simple denotation of emotional polarity – an expected good outcome (+) or a bad one (-).

For example, a + or – answer could be used to answer the question “why am I continuing to do what I am doing? Why am I investing time equity into continuing to carry out this operation as opposed to not carrying it out? Do I want to or need to keep doing it, or not?”

If continuing is a better expected outcome, then the decision gets a + and the other alternative gets a -. Or vice versa. Furthermore, whilst in consideration, both + and -, according to quantum probability logic, are in play at the same time on both sides of the calculation. You can even give both sides a “-“ (“life sucks”) or a “+” (“everything is awesome!”) – it simply depends on the story you want to tell about your motivations in maximizing utility, your return on time equity investment. At best, you get to experience maximum utility. What maximum utility is in practice is not relevant, and completely down to the subjective definition of the observer.


Transforming time

The logic of the financial mechanism is also very important in allowing for the transformation of different experiences in time between two or more parties. At minimum, there is always a supplier and a consumer in the market, which trade experiences in supplying in and demanding. One makes the other possible. The value of those experiences in time are quantified by the financial mechanism, and the exchange of the actual product or service is conducted with money. Money, in turn, helps the supplier live longer to serve the experience to subsequent customers. A piece of the consumer’s ever-decreasing time equity has been put to work in preserving the experience in the market, as shown by increased money in the supplier’s bank account.

For example, a supplier is experiencing the production of a product, whereas a consumer is experiencing the product’s consumption. Both see the product as worthy of their time on different sides of the table. The interchange mechanism of financial paper allows for the transformation of these two experiences in time to provide “unanchored value potential” (money) for the supplier, which can malleably be transformed, via the marketplace, into whatever subsequent forms of experiences in time the supplier wishes to invest into. This could be anything from investing in new tools to paying bigger dividends to reap the rewards of being a business owner.

In turn, the consumer gets the experience of receipt of the product and everything that having experienced the product will lead to. The ever-decreasing time equity of the consumer is, for the time of the experience, transferred to the supplying organization, which has the potential to keep the experience going as long as there is demand in the market. The additional cash on their account, from the consumer’s purchase, gives them more time to keep the demand going with good marketing.

It’s like, when you buy coffee regularly from a local coffee shop, giving a piece of your soul to the place to help keep it alive as long as possible. I find that that is a way of thinking that helps time as equity to sink in as a thought.

Suppliers live and die by consumer review
Two sides of an experientially-motivated transaction

Taking a financial component into account, usage of a financial mechanism will also require the assignment of ownership between at least two parties, as any transfer of equity will, firstly, require another party and then

  1. potential – internal motion of time equity investment to match motivations from both parties, to approve the transfer in the first place, taking ownership of the decision to move time equity towards the other party


  1. actualization – the resulting external motion of financial equity (the product, the cash) from one party to another

Ownership is a very important concept the financial mechanism forces into existence. Ownership is seen in who is assessed to hold financial equity after an equity transfer – the basis of property rights is built on the existence of a financial mechanism and the concept of equity (something to own/control) itself. Its importance would also be seen in ownership of both parties’ commitment to the decision that approved the transfer in the first place.

In other words, ownership of time equity is seen as taking responsibility for one’s own decisions, which will actualize into reality through financial equity. In turn, ownership of financial equity is seen as taking responsibility for the resultant maintenance of an actualization – such as making sure that the delivered product fulfills promises made in marketing, whatever that might mean in practice (eg. maintaining a rental apartment).

These examples of the importance of the financial mechanism in creating the concept of ownership truly bring Aristoteles’ metaphysics to life, and reaffirm the logic of considering time as a form of equity that is naturally owned and controlled by every individual. Should Aristoteles’ block of wood be turned into a table or a bowl depends on what future experience in time is desired – what kind of an outcome is the time investor “ready to own”?

As can be seen, the assignment of time as a form of equity allows for the birth of a very powerful, new realm of logic. The new time equity-based methods to examine the path of internal human thought rationalization and external interaction would be very useful for increasing our scientific understanding of conscious experience and real-world societal outcomes. Only upon understanding something, can we improve it to the next level.

Absent the usage of a financial equity component as a factor in a time allocation decision, realising the existence and our natural control of time equity allows us to look at the purely emotional risks and opportunities of making a time allocation decision. In other words, money isn’t fundamentally necessary to consider the potential value of decisions, but time and the emotions it comes with are.

Regardless, considering time as equity forces time to function upon the logic of a financial mechanism. Because of the logical link to finance, it could be said that “time is (an ultimate, experiential form of) money”.

Desired emotions, the concept of aspirational experiences of being, will always be measured and dictated by time equity investment decisions, since time is definitively how experiences will be experienced. As the Stockholm-based creative strategy agency, Pond, has said: “You can’t experience an experience until you’ve experienced it.” The potential is not equivalent to the actual.

In summary, time equity investments conceptually utilize a financial mechanism and, potentially, a financial equity component (such as money) to actualize the potential of an experience in time into reality. Money and other subsequent forms of financial equity are but interim products towards the inevitable emotional end goal – the desired emotional experience of time.


Putting my opinion back into practice

Abiding by my own opinions of investment decisions in time, the first practical step in putting my opinion to work is to build an investment proposal for it. Why should anyone care about starting to consider time as a form of equity?

The primary value of considering time as a form of equity is that it allows for the starting point of a broader practical definition of time across philosophical disciplines, because time equity would become accessible as a practical tool for philosophical argumentation concerning the human experience (that is to say, all philosophy). The key idea is accessibility to real-world examples, based on the market-proven functionality of the concept of the financial investment logic mechanism, which dictate our daily “to buy or not to buy” decisions and, as per observation out the window, design the world as it is.

For example, philosophies of politics could consider what fundamental rights to the control of a citizen’s own time should exist as compared to having absolute control or no control, and investigate how much control people feel they currently have. Philosophies of mathematics could engineer numerical and graphical tools for better understanding consumers’ allocation of time equity in the markets.

Both of these discussions should help make our planet a better place through increased understanding of society’s aspirational experiences of being, and further controlled enablement of those experiences. Economics could put utility front and center in the discussion of value instead of growth, profit, or any other interim measure of value. Utility should become a household word and, I believe, it is in the moral interests of economics to make it so.

All that the concept of time equity needs to survive is a growing academic understanding of its logic. Should there arise an academic understanding that everyone has fundamental time equity handed to them every day when they wake up, the outcomes upon society would be, to a certain extent, uncertain. It is indeed true that most everything about the functionality of the world we live in would have to be re-examined at a philosophical level, to allow for the consideration of the impacts of the inception of the concept of time equity into the conceptual base of our academic, legal, and political systems.

If we start defining time as a form of equity that we naturally control, then there is no choice but to integrate that realization into our societal systems and put our (time equity) where our mouth is. It is not certain, yet, as to what that would mean in practice but, based on previous positive experiences of societal progress based on scientific discovery, the inception of the concept of time equity into our societal systems should be researched.

Perhaps it would be beneficial to start by answering the question: “How much time should society be allowed to draw upon from the individual to maintain and develop it further?” Considering this question for a few minutes will enlighten the reader as to how significant of a shift in political thought this would potentially lead to, and how the societal system might end up being optimized differently to maximize freedom – not through investments in defence spending, but through maintaining individual control of time allocation, which might not be as possible in today’s society as we think.

The research into the concept of time equity will likely be very time-consuming (definitely pun intended). With the proper groundwork, however, inception of the concept should end up becoming a significant victory for the progress of society. It would allow for the scalability of respecting each other as human beings, in that it would provide systemic affirmation (and, thus, acceleration) for the cultural opinion, already widely held amongst the public, that everyone is different and has the fundamental right to be so.

That right, put into practice, is exercised by way of having the capacity to control one’s own allocation of time in life. American and French revolutionary ideas about the furtherment of liberty were likely calls for increased control of citizens’ right to control their own time equity and its allocation – they simply didn’t have the societal conditions in place where it would be said in these words. Needless to say, the right to control one’s time equity links directly into the legal considerations of human rights and the global societal definition of “who is working for who in society?”

We are all human, but we live our human lives differently, as seen in our different experiences of the time we are given each day that we wake up, and the different experiences of our ability to control its allocation across the day. Understanding each other’s differences and respecting them is the first step towards global teamwork, which is needed for the next phases of human societal progress.

Climate change, world peace and heading to Mars are just a single triplet of the steps ahead that are already taking place in our time in history, and many see them as experiences in time worth fighting for (or against, in the case of climate change). Given time equity and its finiteness, many more might realize said value, as well.

Teamwork is worth working for. Through a research-based understanding of the potential of time equity and its impact on human consciousness, we would likely realise more reliable paths to states of societal balance – an untimely goal in and of itself, but especially timely in today’s world.

Time is equity. It fundamentally belongs to us, and I look forward to start research on what applying this thought at scale would potentially look like.

My first and final response to a terrorist attack

This is all that I will ever have to say about terrorism. The only way to talk about terrorism with a clean conscience is to talk about permanently ending it. That is it.

Now: watch the responses to the London attack and notice how no one is talking about getting to the root of the Islamic terrorism problem, which would be to seriously rebuild the Middle East, and even out inequality in Europe. The goal is as simple as increasing the opportunity cost of terrorism to the point where it just doesn’t make sense to a potential attacker to give up on life.

It is plain and simple investment economics. If life is good (enough), then extremist religion has to make a much harder sell to get anyone to give up on life. The only way to solve terrorism is to give those at risk of succumbing to carrying out the acts better investment options for their time.

Even if there was just an attack in Manchester, and even if there have been plenty of attacks around Europe across the past 30 months in particular, we are not hearing politicians talk about real, lasting solutions. As long as we don’t hear discussion about solving the root causes of terrorism – which have only very little to do with extremism – we are only hearing ways of further feeding the existence of the problem.

In turn, there will be a lot of talk about “increasing security” and “getting our law enforcement officials access to the information they need.” A lot of condemnation and calls for unity on the way to strengthen the Police State – which is what I’m listening to on France24 as I write.

You make the call, but it is worth analyzing whether you think politicians are selling you fear (never-ending problems) or hope (lasting solutions).

It really is this easy to get that most politicians are not up to par in facing facts and actually working towards solutions. They are responsively intelligent people – ready at all times to be aghast – but they seem to have no predictive intelligence of any sort, since they’re not ready to work towards permanent prevention. The behavior of the media, unfortunately, only amplifies the short-termism.

The only politician I’ve heard openly talk about the long-term root solutions to ending terrorism is Jeremy Corbyn (last week’s election debate), so all the best to him.

Designing a framework for thinking about society

For my own intellectual development as a free thinker and politician, it has become extremely important to understand the context of societal decision-making across an extended time horizon. What things are fundamental to maintaining and developing a modern standard of living? How do our decisions regarding matters of the day relate to the structures of a civilization that are not dependent on the context of the time in history that we currently inhabit?

How should a politician think about the structures that will always be around? Why is it important?

Though these are heavy questions, they all boil down to this: how do we define a standard of living at its simplest, and how do we go about making it real?

This is a very important pair of questions that will always be at the core of operating a society. If we cannot define a clear goal for a standard of living, it is impossible to devise a clear strategy for striving towards it. The purpose of this text is to convey my thoughts on measuring the standard of living of a society, on how to approach the design of a society at its simplest, and on how to consider the question of what services a society should provide at minimum.

With a clear definition of a goal, and how reaching it is measured, problems in societal leadership and management can be solved with more ease.


Considering what the world looks like now

To start, let’s take a step back.

Thanks to the rapid increase in media consumption that our modern society has faced during the past decade or so, ranging from the spread of smartphones to the services and content built on top of them, the skill of slowing down and taking a step back from the day-to-day has become more relevant than ever before in history. We’ve been washed away with real-time news and twitter-chatter, which has, in my view, led to the forgoing of political responsibilities to think across extended time periods.

This is not to say that it isn’t important to keep building a responsive working culture in politics and bureaucracy to serve our citizens better every day – quite the contrary, that is what we should be focusing on fully. However, responsiveness is hard to build efficiently into an organisation if clear priorities aren’t set on what to respond to in what order. Recent years have seen politicians fall prey to focusing on whoever is yelling loudest at them.

With a clear separation of duties between politicians and bureaucrats, and an understanding of why both play an equally important role in moving society forwards, we can be both long-term stable and short-term responsive. The separation of duties comes down to one of leadership and management, where politicians are the architects leading the design of a society, and bureaucrats are the managers in charge of building it.

Keeping this co-operation between politics and bureaucracy under control requires the design of a societal blueprint that can stand firmly across the test of time. Such a blueprint would allow politicians and bureaucrats to slow down, look at a common understanding of where society stands, and where it should be going. What would that design look like, and how would we go about framing it?

To design something, we need to give it a goal and build a strategy for how to commonly understand said goal, so that we can end up with a proposal of a design. In the next section, I present my thoughts on how to define a service level measure for a standard of living for a society, a pair of clear societal goals.

Afterwards, I present my design for a strategic blueprint for how a society could start going about making the pair of societal goals commonly understandable, and what services to start focusing on with full gusto. In time, that would allow for the construction of a political and financial strategy to fulfil promises made around those services, and meet the success measures they would be assessed by.


Redefining societal goals around clear measurement

In order for us to be able to draw out a design for a society that can stand the test of time, we have to consider how the moment we are living in now is similar to where we are from and where we are going. This thinking unveils the fundamentals of civilization – the parts of its operating mechanisms that will always be around in one form of another. It gives us something concrete to zoom back in upon when things get complicated in the day-to-day, and we need to focus our thoughts back on what’s important.

Fundamentals are important so that we have something to measure against across generations. If we can’t measure society, we have no way to define where we are in terms of standard of living compared to times of the past and the future.

They say GDP is outdated as a measure of a standard of living – and I agree. If we can define a fundamentally simple way of measuring a standard of living, one that actually makes sense in the context of the real life of a citizen, then we can start considering ways to strive towards better results from the present moment.

In my view, the functionality and service level of a civilization, my simplest definition of a standard of living, can be reduced down to two measurable factors:

  1. The financial sustainability of the supply-demand chain – the “time is money” argument: the supply time and accuracy of a good or service relative to when it was demanded and when it was demanded for
    • Example: a citizen is sick with a standard disease. How quickly is that disease cured?
    • Example: a citizen needs to get somewhere. How effectively does the national transportation infrastructure allow that to happen?
    • Example with an added quality measure: a citizen wants to invest time into an education. How quickly is a diploma constructed, and what is its worth in the job market?
  1. The moral sustainability of the supply-demand chain – the “money should be clean” argument: maintaining a net positive balance of externalities for society such that all costs are internalized by their creators, unless agreed upon separately as part of the political process, whereupon the cost is internalized by society
    • Example: an organisation gains a competitive advantage by illicitly bending environmental law. How fully are the costs allocated to shareholders?
    • Example: a municipality underutilizes the construction capacity it is provided by national infrastructure, such as a main railroad or highway cutting through town. How is the municipality charged by the higher governing body for access to infrastructure it is underutilizing, or is the municipality allowed to freeride on common goods? (this is happening at a cost of tens of millions of euros in Kirkkonummi, Finland, where I’ve been an elected council representative)
    • Example: an industry is protected for national security reasons, to preserve operative knowhow within a nation’s borders. How explicitly is this argument made in public by the politician in charge, and what is the cost-sharing agreement between society and the industry? Do the people agree with this protection, or would they rather trust neighboring states to provide a more efficient specialization of labor?


For me, a civilization is this simple. A standard of living is about removing the annoyance of needlessly laggard supply and not paying for the unsustainable actions of others. For me, Rawls’ justice as fairness in a society is realized through leadership focus on these two factors. In a society where I have reasonable delivery times for my reasonable demands, and am not unduly paying for the externalities of others, I believe I am being served justly and fairly by the state.

Once a citizen doesn’t have to live in uncertainty about the supply schedule for their reasonable life demands, and once a citizen can be confident that they are not responsible for the undue costs of others, then conditions exist for an individual citizen to take responsibility for their own life, again a goal of Rawls’ philosophy. For example, If we look at the rapid growth in demand of digital services across the past few years, then citizens seem to very naturally seek the removal of unnecessary friction in operating their lives, so that they can focus their time on what matters to them.

By looking at the world we live in today, the leap of faith to claiming that a society should optimize for service delivery time is not a huge one to make. In such a society, the societal machine is fully focused on working for the citizens as a whole, as it will be measured on how well it is actually serving them and what it is making them pay for. The individual citizen has no excuses when the system is running cleanly – providing what is needed for an egalitarian starting point in life and not misallocating costs. Initial definitions of what these needs are is discussed in the next section.

What makes a logistical philosophy of societal measurement so appealing is that the bureaucrats, the societal engineers who actually have to build politicians’ promises into reality, would end up having the final say on how they are measured. Politicians can always discuss what a reasonable time for service delivery is, because they listen to their constituents opinion, but bureaucrats know how delivering the service actually works. The co-operation between political leadership and bureaucratic management would have perfect conditions to blossom in.

Time is the least subjective opinion available as a measurement criteria, the easiest to compare relative to what a citizen was promised, and the most relevant for determining citizen satisfaction levels (no one wants to deal with a system any longer than necessary). Simultaneously, service delivery time can always be objectively compared with other societies.

Time will always be objective, once the definition of a reasonable time has been subjectively agreed by contract.

In short – time-based measurement allows for the co-operation of subjective opinions and objective comparison. It is metaphorical to the product engineers at the IT company my girlfriend works at, where the engineers count out their own estimates of engineering time for a client proposal, instead of having to work to a schedule sold by a salesman or project manager. Co-operation in determining delivery measurement criteria between sales and engineering is exactly the same as the co-operation of politicians and bureaucrats.


A design framework for society

What are reasonable, minimum-level demands for a citizen, and how quickly should they be supplied? How is individual sovereignty, the right to not pay for the unsustainable actions of others, unless otherwise agreed upon, maximized across time?

These are deep, underlying questions, the answers to which govern the progress of a nation – they are the underlying drivers providing the measurements for a determination of a standard of living, as discussed in the previous section. By considering the minimum building blocks of a civilization, we can begin to scope out a fair service level of a society towards its citizens:

At its most basic, a civilization is not too complex a system to consider. It starts with the obvious realization that the state of a society is the sum of its citizens and their perceptions of their standards of living, and how they project those perceptions in the decisions they make every day.

In the reality of today, perceptions of standards of living are as varied as the population – with no commonly understood scale of measurement, everyone is free to build their opinions of how good or bad life is according to whatever measure guides their thinking the most.

The capacity of individuals to logically project political and financial arguments across time varies greatly. Furthermore, the mix between learned and believed understanding of how a society works, and the capacity to see how an individual and a society are related as a function of each other, probably varies even more. The individuals that compose society are a full spectrum of capacity to make informed decisions, but all decisions will have an impact on the whole.

For this reason, it is imperative to simplify how we talk about a society so that it is understandable by a significant majority, but still functional for practical usage by the leading minority. At the end of the day, satisfaction will be determined by how objectively those serving and those being served can discuss measurement. This goal of shared understanding, in my view, centrally reflects Rawls’ opinion that it is the work of political philosophy to describe workable political arrangements that can gain support from real people.

The ultimate goal of this design for a societal blueprint is to begin working to create a common language for such a shared understanding between the leaders of society and those being led as part of it. What should be provided at minimum, and at what service level? Though it will likely take some time, I personally do not see it as too difficult of a job, rather as one that simply requires perseverance.


Introducing the components of the framework

The individuals that compose society will make decisions in financial life and in political elections that end up forming the following fundamental components. The goal is to show how a certain set of fundamental, existential markets rest on top of the foundations of society, and how those markets are a minimum baseline for a sustainable, fear-free life for any individual citizen.

Background processing: an individual is always part of a societal moral and academic “legal system” that governs the operative status of how the society thinks – what is the present state of the collective’s thinking from a moral and scientific point-of-view? This is coded in law and academia, which set the fundamental contractual conditions for how society as a whole thinks and operates.

Everyone comes from a cultural background that defines their morality and beliefs of right and wrong, and everyone has some educational background that defines their knowledge and learnings of what is sustainable and what isn’t, which guides whether they want more or less of that in society. Moral beliefs have been codified into the existing legal system of a nation and, to the extent of the capacity of the level of societal education in the past, this legal system, founded on morality, has been further balanced with educational knowledge. We will come back to how background processing works later.

Balance challenge number 1: Morality drives perceptions of what should be considered a reasonable demand and what shouldn’t. Knowledge drives perceptions of what can be considered realistic and what can’t. The existing background processing system is always based on a past-state analysis of balance, which needs to constantly be updated. How are beliefs and knowledge balanced in the system? What should be updated and what should be conserved in the background legal system that runs society?

Foreground processing: To work on balance challenge number one, a political and financial power system appears on top of the background processing system with the task of constantly updating the background processing system with new beliefs and knowledge. What is the probable future state of a society?

This can be seen via the exertion of political and financial power happening in the markets for media airtime and financial assets of whatever form. The political and financial media carry a huge amount of responsibility as to what ideas have the capacity to spread throughout society, and how political and financial debates are framed. We will come back to how foreground processing works later.

Balance challenge number 2: Politics drives perceptions of an ideal society, and finance drives perceptions of an ideal operation. The operating state of the foreground processing system can always be measured by looking at the media and the financial markets, and by considering what narratives and ideas are receiving airtime and investments. Measuring the operating state of the foreground processing system is important, since it has the power to mold the future of the background processing system that we all fall back on. How are differing viewpoints balanced in the media, and what are the markets funding?

Individuals will always be impacted by the flow of mainstream ideas, and these will impact their decision-making. For further reading on this topic, I heartily recommend Social Physics, a book by MIT professor Alex Pentland.

The fundamental functional markets for existential needs: This is the end game for an individual citizen. As part of a pre-existent background processing system, with political and financial influence on the foreground processing system, an individual will always end up relying on the markets for existential needs. These will define what could, potentially, be considered as fundamental societal service level rights for citizens. These markets come in two forms:

  1. Functional markets for individual needs: no matter who you are or where you are from, you will always need the following from the marketplace: housing (construction), food and water (nourishment), the opportunity to increase your understanding (education), and the opportunity to be at your physical best (healthcare). After this, you don’t really need anything, but you will still be motivated to work, since we all want more in life – we aspire to experience all that life has to offer, be it in the form of travel, culture, sport – you name it. But aspirations have to wait for the basics to be in order.
  2. Functional markets for societal needs: no matter what the society, it will always need the following to allow the individual to function on top of it: the power to put things in motion (energy), a pathway to move things in (infrastructure), trustworthy domicile within society (security), and the building blocks of everything a society contains (raw materials).

There is rarely any reason to not invest into these markets, as the knowhow they require will be required generation after generation, and there will always be other societies in need of help with them. Indeed, it is absolutely silly that a highly-educated nation such as Finland is not investing heavily into all of these industries. But that’s a story for another time.

The main thing to note about the fundamental functional markets is that they are fully co-dependent on each other. A society is nothing without its individuals, and an individual is nothing without a society. At a core level, the supplies and demands that criss-cross these two pools of markets drive the economy and shape our reality, since we will never be able to escape the fundamental systemic nature of a civilization – as individuals, we will always be part of the whole. All the profit that these industries generate flow into the free market, where we all spend money on silly stuff like watching cat videos on YouTube and other things the free market generates.

Finally, considering the fact that the functional markets will always be around, they are industries that are likely to consolidate quite naturally. With a fair amount of competition, and a high amount of operative oversight, it would not take long for a certain standard of realistic delivery times to be set, and for the ethical standards of the industries to be set in stone. This would make sure that the existential markets would become the standard bearers for how industries measure themselves and how they operate without unduly externalizing costs – role model industries for those operating in the free markets.


How are the components led?

If we accept the nature of the fundamental functional markets as given – that is to say, we agree that they must always be around – then we must consider one step further about how those are operated in practice. That requires taking a step back and reobserving the background and foreground processing systems – in other words, that requires considering the main roles that these systems have in leading the operation of the eight fundamental functional markets, which will in turn be serving citizens.

To do so, we need to identify a final set of three fundamental functional markets that, essentially, govern the operation of the eight functional markets for individual and societal needs. The movement of supplies and demands of these eight markets will naturally be mediated by three fundamental interchange markets – logistics (operative prioritization, providing schedules for movement of goods and services), finance (investment prioritization, providing initial power for movement), and media (information prioritization, setting direction of movement). At their core, the interchange markets are time allocation markets – logistics considers what stuff moves first. Finance considers what investment proposal gets money first. Media considers what information the markets or the public need to know first about what will be happening, or what has already happened.

The power to prioritize, which the interchange markets control, will end up guiding the real-world operations of the eight functional markets that serve citizens and set their standard of living. Thus, it is clear, for obvious reasons, that the interchange markets should be governed through significant levels of societal transparency and understanding. There is a rumored secret, fourth market – the black market – but that is, by definition, not “officially” a part of society. We’ll leave the black market as a randomizing factor in a societal system.

I mentioned that we would return to the functioning of the foreground and background processing systems. Earlier, we considered their impact on the eight functional markets that directly serve citizens. Now, we can see that these eight markets are governed in practice by the functioning of the three interchange markets that prioritize the movement of goods and services, information, and investment finance. The interchange markets can be likened to the foreground processing system. 

In other words, the financial and political decisions that citizens make will, primarily, guide the functioning of the interchange markets, which will only secondarily impact the eight functional markets that serve the citizens directly. To reiterate, transparency of the interchange markets is really, really important.

So – what about the background processing system then? When the determination of transparency in the interchange markets requires more clarification, then unsolved issues will fall back on the background processing system. In other words, situations requiring further determination of transparency in the interchange markets will fall back on the judicial and ethical governing systems to answer the question: is this allowed or not, and are we pointing the finger in the right direction?

If one wishes to stretch their thinking a bit, then it is possible to see a conceptual link between a societal background/foreground processing system and Daniel Kahneman’s System-1/System-2 types of thinking. A society is a collective of individual thinking – is it not? – so it makes sense to theorize that a society’s way of thinking would, conceptually, look similar to that of an individual.

Just to note the obvious: the need for transparency is the foundation required for any legal investigation, criminal or civil – was whatever happened allowed or not, and are we pointing the finger in the right direction to assert potential blame? That’s what the courts are all about, at the end of the day. Here, we’re just keeping our focus on considering society through a market-oriented view.

Tying together a common blueprint

From the original design framework, we can now tie together a common blueprint for how an individual citizen’s decisions end up affecting the societal services that end up serving them directly. In practice, we’re looking at four levels of operation of how demands and supplies work together to eventually provide services for citizens:

A citizen has a demand, the legal system assesses whether it is allowed and reasonable, the interchange markets determine how to prioritize the demand, and the functional markets end up supplying it – either directly or through the auxiliary free market for non-essential goods and services. Finally, the citizen’s demand is met with a supply, and the difference in expected delivery time and realized delivery time will, primarily, guide citizen satisfaction.


Moving forward with a common blueprint

Early on in this text, I mentioned the separation of duties between politicians and bureaucrats. At the end of the day, if these two groups of people operating society are able to share a common blueprint of what they are doing, what system they are running, and how they are measured, then it should not be too far-fetched to assume that society would run much smoother, and that standards of living would increase when focus is shifted towards service delivery time for the citizen.

Just to put things in perspective, this is what the business world would call “customer-centric thought”. I am, in many ways, not presenting anything new – just focusing on the societal customer, an individual citizen.

Leadership and management of the societal system would breathe more freely when every leader and manager understands what their role is as part of society, why it’s important, and how it is measured. That begins with understanding how a society works, which is what the blueprint above is for.

In a world with such shared understanding, bureaucrats would primarily be working to ensure the transparent and sustainable operation of the interchange markets and the functional markets, setting realistic service level goals related to them, keeping in line with the development of modern technology. Because of the importance of the provision of their services, the interchange and functional markets would have clear service level goals directly aligned with the citizens they are serving.

Politicians, on the other hand, would be working to ensure that the background processing system is stable, and that “outdated code” is being removed at a steady pace, keeping in line with the development of modern beliefs and scientific understanding. Politicians would also spend more time with the citizens they’re meant to be serving as, with a shared societal blueprint, there would be a significant increase in inter-party understanding and a corresponding decrease in the need for childish politicking. This frees up politicians’ time to focus on the citizen.

Politicians and bureaucrats would meet in public discourse, in conjunction with representatives of the economy and the media, to form a four-way “societal leadership team” that discusses who is doing what in the foreground processing system, and how their actions are helping progress towards common goals – the measurement of which everyone would understand. The societal public discourse would become goal-oriented towards the service level granted to every citizen, what it should be and how well it should function, as measured by delivery time and positive net externalities.


Defining service levels

So what are the common societal goals? The well-being of an individual citizen, ultimately, rests on the operation of the fundamental functional markets. They would become the logical place to deduce a minimum service level from, designing services based on these basic needs, and assessing whether things that go beyond the basics should be an internalized cost of society, or should they be left to the free market. Ensuring transparency of the interchange markets, and understanding what that means, would become a citizen’s duty.

This is what is happening today – this is, pretty much, how the world works behind the scenes – we’re just missing a common map, a mutual design blueprint, to compare our thoughts against.

Setting the definitions of an acceptable service level should become the talk of politics, and the concept of what is reasonable or not could be compared to the design framework. Does an individual really need some societal service, or is some existing service just nice to have, or perhaps even destructive to citizen motivation? Is the current level of transparency in the interchange markets acceptable? So on, and so forth.

Just some other new twists to the societal discourse: measuring based on time has an added benefit – only time is comparable across time! Future generations would be able to look at how their delivery times for fundamental services compare to those of previous generations, and maintain full objectivity. Is society slipping in time, or gaining in it? For me as a huge Formula 1 fan, time-based measurement comes very naturally – I’d love to see it applied to the functional measurement of a society.

With a common design for a societal framework that the majority would have no trouble understanding, society would start focusing on more concrete definitions of the things it actually seeks, with the goal of enabling its citizens to live happy and peaceful lives. I would posit that everyone would probably be quite quick to realize obvious things such as, just for example:

Everyone should have a home that is healthy to live in (within six months of becoming homeless)

Everyone should have access to physical and intellectual self-improvement (within a week of demand)

Everyone should have access to healthy food (within a matter of hours of demand)

Society should have reliable, speedy, modern infrastructure (to enable a set level of travel times)

Society should run on sustainable energy sources (to stop time running out on raw materials)

Society should feel secure (to start a time measurement of “days since last death in international conflict”)

And so on.


Why would everyone find these things obvious? What’s the point with making society as understandable as possible with a common framework?

Simple. The more someone has to lose, the less they’ll be willing to lash out at society and cause unrest. The higher the opportunity cost of setting out on a path of destruction in one’s life, the less likely it is to happen. All this requires is an understanding what one is part of as a citizen – if a citizen understands how society should look, and how that would be of personal benefit, then work towards that vision is infinitely more likely than without said understanding.

What’s the best strategy for ending terrorism, for example? Really easy. Invest heavily into the development and modernization of the existential markets in the Middle East, so that everyone can live a secure life. Make the opportunity cost as high as possible.

If we can agree on the basic necessities for living a life free from fear of one’s personal sustainability, then we can start working together on making it happen. All we need is a common map, a common way of measurement, and a shared societal design that we can all agree upon.

We need a blueprint for the future. We have all the data from history that we need to draw it out and start talking about it.

My proposal lies in communicating via the design framework above, so that we have something to point at and start comparing our thoughts against. Let the 21st century political debate begin!

Leadership in the 21st Century

This is my story about how I think about leadership in the 21st century. This is, at its essence, a story about the importance of the art and science of telling a story. The importance of this skill is particularly visible in leadership, where one is in a defined position of influence over others’ well-being. So, in short, I guess you could call this my Philosophy of Leadership and Why I Think It’s Important.

Organizations of the 21st century shouldn’t be led by either emotional, philosophical intelligence (words), or rational, scientific intelligence (numbers), alone. They should be led by both. They should be led by biological intelligence. As human beings, since we’re able to comprehend both languages , we are able to get a fuller picture should we choose to tell the full story of both sides of our thinking. This choice is in the hands of the leader.

Let’s start with the architecture of the thought guiding this text:

The intelligence of biology, life, is exquisite. On one hand, evolution forces biological intelligence to optimize for sustainability at maximum effectiveness – using the simplest equation for maintaining existence, “f(x) = x”. Fundamentally, biological intelligence is perpetually driven by the emotionally told story of “it is what it is”, y = x. Maintaining existence is a really boring story – we’ll return to the concept of a story in stasis (maintaining existence) and a story in motion (explaining why) in just a bit.

Cyanobacteria, the oldest living thing on the planet, originated 2.8 billion years ago and is still just hanging out. Talk about a sustainable organisation! They started the story of life on our planet and figured out how to fight to survive, just enough, in order to watch the story unfold – by being just intelligent enough to not go extinct. They realised that, by sticking with the optimizing equation f(x) = x, they are their own, linearly predictable, reproductive fuel at all times, no matter what variable x (a conscious state of their being) is.

They accept everything, as long as it means they still exist. When you only have one success factor – existence – you either have to control the entire operating environment to remove randomizing factors, surprises (complete influencing power), or be willing to submit to and be capable of withstanding any destructive outside pressure that you might encounter (complete chaos resistance). Consider this paragraph in the context of the organisations of authoritarian regimes, for example, and you’ll start to slowly see how dangerous simply optimizing for existence can be.

Optimizing for maintaining existence is the equivalent of being the Supreme Leader of Cyanobacteria. If the Supreme Leader was a chaos resistor, then the message would be: “Accept everything that is. Don’t change things proactively – the less surprises, the easier this is. Exert just enough effort to not die.” If the Supreme Leader was a complete influencer, then the message would be: “Destroy all threats to existence.” It does seem like a good thing that we have bacteria in our bodies doing this kind of optimization to maintain our existence, but it does not seem a very good train of thought at the scale of global organisations, for example. 

Indeed, the only mathematically practical way to optimize for an existence maintenance strategy over time is to work in removing all surprises from the equation, no matter which mentality you do it with – chaos resistance (resistive power) or complete influence (influential power). This strategy will leave you with a one-dimensional story of maintaining existence. A boring story of digging towards zero waste, or remaining at just above zero.

Human beings will, generally, not be too motivated by this message – the question in the background function f(x) is “do we still exist?” and the binary success measure is simply “yes (x = 1)/no (x = 0)”.

In financial terms, this is the exact same thing as simply looking at the bottom line and not giving a damn about anything else. It’s simple, binary intelligence. That’s what the financial industry mostly does (so it is refreshing to see big funds, like the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund take an ethically active role).

The main point is this: if an organisation can’t communicate more than a story of how it is simply maintaining its existence, then it is a symptom that the organisation is fighting to survive. It doesn’t sound like a very fun or inspiring place to work, when the why part of “(why) an organisation is maintaining its existence” isn’t communicated. Stories without a why are in stasis – “an organisation is maintaining its existence” – but, with a why, the story is in motion – “why an organisation is maintaining its existence” followed by an explanation, with the explanation providing the motion.

Symptoms of stories in stasis, non-motivational stories, can be seen all around us. Just look at the companies whose level of leadership aspires no further than for increasing production efficiency and minimizing costs. They’ve lost philosophical intelligence and fallen back on one-dimensional, existence maintaining thought. That’s a sign of impending industry consolidation and a preparatory move for an organisation that has no idea what will happen next, signaling that it is starting to become defensive. It starts to argue towards simply maintaining existence – its story stops for as long as it takes for it to figure out what will happen next.

Organisations can, and should, understand their own acceptable conditions for maintaining existence. If the push for industrial efficiency is high, then an organisation should have pre-defined value-based backstops beyond which it won’t accept going, such as how it treats employees or the environment. It should awaken itself and its employees, as early as possible, if their industry seems to be heading into an existential war – and whether that is acceptable (a product being commoditized) or not (a competitor using unhealthy amounts of market power and becoming a monopoly).

It should also talk about the potential of its own death. If an industry operates ethically (removing societal arguments about externally caused price wars), and an incumbent simply can’t keep up, then it needs to talk openly to its employees, early on, about their options: fighting harder, being bought up, or entering controlled liquidation. No one benefits from being held on a pre-death leash of “Everything’s fine! We’re just going through a rough patch.” When confronted with realities, organisations might even strengthen and rebound out a love for the team – the brand.

From existential to aspirational stories

So, our hope for motivating employees towards the future lies at the other extreme end of the scale of intelligence, the aspirational end. To reiterate, the first extreme was optimizing organisational thought for remaining in existence. 

At the other extreme of intelligence lies the most advanced form of life on the planet – us, human beings. We have aspirations.

Let’s consider ourselves as evolutionary descendants of cyanobacteria. Let’s assume our story is, well, quite a bit different (to put it mildly):

“At our core, we as humans are just highly evolved cyanobacteria optimizing to stay alive. As bacteria, we quickly learned to reproduce, so that we could begin striving to last across generations in perpetuity. It’s just so simple why we made this learning investment: existence is just so worth it as compared to not existing. But we had to de-risk the organisation, because we were on the cutting edge all the time, and it was starting to become a pretty heavy burden. So, back in the day, when the planet was young, we figured out that it was a lot less risky to invest into existence as more complex species than it is as cyanobacteria. As more complex species, and especially now as humans, we can exert so much more influence over our operating environment. So, we continued making learning investments and, over time, learned to guide ourselves more and more effectively towards our aspirations – seeking to free ourselves from the heavy existential pressure of staying alive as bacteria, and learning to aspire towards becoming our true, individual selves (we really had to standardize as bacteria, so that we could work together at maximum efficiency. Individualism is much more fun – when everyone’s weird, you get to be weird as well!).

We really have to give a big up to our bacterial ancestors for showing up and starting to tell us the story of life and existence. They went through a lot of pressure to get us to where we are today!”

This is what’s so amazing and remarkable about human intelligence. It is our ability to tap into both extremes of existence – existential and aspirational – and flip the cyanobacteria story from “fighting to survive (don’t ask questions)” (existential story) to “figuring out how to live (and why)” (aspirational story, based on an existential story that respects past accomplishments and learns from them).

We can take stories in stasis and, utilizing our aspirations, set them in motion again.

Our aspirations, and how we talk about them in the modern age, shows that most of the younger generation has an aspirational mind-set – an existence in motion, as compared to accepting all that is and remaining in stasis.

Instead of just continuing the fight to survive as a group, to simply maintain existence, we’ve started to individualize and begun to aspire towards figuring out how to live our best possible lives and be our best possible selves, according to our own terms – not (only) those of societal norms. When fear of existence is no longer a relevant issue, humans begin to shift perception and optimize towards our aspirational motivations of being, towards the infinite range equation of emotional outcomes “f(x) = ?”

Our dreams are always, once experienced, ultimately defined for ourselves by the experienced emotional outcome. What does one need to do to experience the simultaneous emotion of peace and pride? Perhaps, as an example, lead a big project at work that led to organisational success (pride from accomplishment) and a significant bonus for the executing team (peace from financial security). In practice, we aspire to experience an emotion or a set of emotions.

There is value in your experience for others, as well. The value is defined by the story we live to tell, and the learnings we convey that can perpetuate to start new stories for those listening. Progress is all about setting goals, striving for them, and living to tell the tale of learning. Learning is the key word to ingest.

Note: if you understand this, you’ll realise that you get to define the guiding equation to avoid zero – say, for example, f(x) = x+1 – and the aspirationally variable goal ‘x’ in your life – say, for example, the ultimate choice of labeling existence with a “fight-to-survive burden” or with “an aspirational goal adventure”. Things don’t have to be as they are for you, as they do for a cyanobacteria that can’t influence its surroundings much. That one label is pretty heavy, but I’d personally prefer to consciously label existence with both, so that I’m left with the emotional outcome of feeling logical – of course work is sometimes a burden, but it’s all worth it when you’re working towards your goals and learning on the way. Leaders should really focus on that last sentence, and think about what they should be communicating to their organisations, and their individual employees.

Here’s the beef on leadership:

To speak to the new generation, of which I consider myself a front-runner, organisational leaders need to recognize their responsibility in communicating both sides of the story. At work, we naturally aspire to exist and ensure our paycheck, and the financial numbers depicting how we’re doing need to support that. But, even more importantly, we aspire to exist as better versions of ourselves and strive for pre-defined emotional outcomes – we want to be given the tools and potential to learn to someday take full charge of our own destinies.

So, we seek to become members of organisations projecting levered power to build a better, more sustainable world. Our employer-selection criteria are exceedingly high in comparison to those of previous generations.

In other words: the most forward-looking ones amongst us realize that large organisations need to actively do their part in building a better world, and we won’t settle for anything less than commitment to sustainable values. We respect the employee base that maintains our current existence, but only want them to hold us back by the necessary amount so as to not become a risk to organisational existence – such as allowing for over-investment into a risky new venture.

So, on the one hand, it is accurate to say that it is rational to talk about the numbers and ensure a baseline of sustainability, a financially optimized existence for the organisation. A leader must communicate an existential story of what the organisation must do to stay alive in the now and near future, and that boils down to the bottom line. Being alive is a prerequisite for changing the world for the better, so it’s good to not get ahead of oneself based on the purity of idealism – this is a lesson eager youths need to, and undoubtedly will, learnBut it needs to be said out loud – otherwise, eagerness will turn into cynicism and improved maintenance will turn into normal operations as opportunity-seeking eagerness begins to fade from the organisation’s emotional map.

So, on the other hand, organisational leaders must remember that it is important to talk about the emotions an organisation faces and our words explaining them, and ensure motivation towards a potential, aspirationally optimized existence for the organisation – even in the toughest of times. Cynicism is a cancer that will arrive and remain until an opposing force, aspirational eagerness, returns.

Leaders must communicate an aspirational story about the future, which the younger generation will one day have to lead. So the older generation does need to understand that, yes, the up-and-comers do need to have an ever-strengthening say in what direction an organisation is going in as time progresses, because the younger generation will have to take over one day and deal with whatever state things are left for them in.

The co-operation between elder realism and youth idealism will balance out as a “relatively understandable set of existential demands and aspirational goals”, if an organisation has good interpowerful and interfunctional internal communications. Interpowerful depicts relative influencing power of an employee within an organisation (on an organisational power scale) and interfunctional of functioning position within an organisation (in an organisational matrix)

So, to put it simply, communication needs to be ensured between leaders and subordinates – interpowerful internal communications – and between the different functions like marketing and finance of an organisation – interfunctional internal communications. Only a communications-network that integrates an organisation into one will be able to balance the existential demands and aspirational goals of the whole team.

This is what makes some organisations great to work in – everyone understands what’s going on and why. Understanding common knowledge provides an emotion of belonging – perhaps the most fundamental emotional derivative of existence. When people feel like they belong, they feel like they exist – a strong prerequisite for aspirational motivation, as discussed above. I can definitely recommend Emily Esfahani Smith’s “The Power of Meaning” as a book to introduce the “four pillars of meaning” and what they mean to organisational leadership in practice.

Optimize for teamwork between and amongst organisational layers, across all necessary function and power positions and relationships.

That’s the mantra of a 21st century leader. To set up an organisation as what is effectively a communications network, optimizing for an exchange of information that aims to balance between reaching the rational existential demand goals and the emotionally aspirational supply goals of the organisation. “Why we need to stay alive and learn to work as a team, now and in the near future, so that we can start becoming what we want to be as an organisation, and begin projecting our aspirations into reality.”

Once employees are able to understand both stories, existential demand goals (how the world works) and aspirational supply goals (how we want it to work), and their own function’s contributory role to the organisation’s goal and their personal power position within reaching it, the organisation will have the opportunity to strive towards balance. This will allow employees to build the ability to self-navigate as their organisational role grows over time.

Over time, balance between the now (executing current strategy numbers to stay in existence) and the future (using aspirations to guide word choice of future strategy), based on understanding the past (learning and telling the story), is sought for.

A note on that last point: moving towards the future requires understanding the past, meaning you need to understand how your strategies have worked in the past (how and why their outcomes materialized) and be capable of telling the story to others of what you’ve learned (to reiterate, recount stories about your past strategies and convey understanding about why they did or did not work). If you can systemically learn to tell the story of what you’ve learned (and are learning) within an organisation, then your ability, as a team, to build forward-looking strategy, is greatly strengthened. You then understand your organisational strengths and weaknesses based on historical (and real-time) fact – something most can’t do! It is possible to measure organisational well-being much more accurately than it used to be – so do it. Again, learning is the key word to ingest.

To conclude:

The 21st century leader sees that it’s great to aspire to set just the right level of difficulty into a strategy. Success in outsmarting oneself, successfully executing on a more difficult strategy than what’s been done before, is a source of great pride. The leader will project a more evolved version of leadership and intellect to the world, and build the organisation’s reputational equity – it’s trusted brand.

Moreover, considering the potential societal externalities of an organisation’s functioning, and striving to remove all the negative ones, will allow a leader to take their pride to the next level. The challenge is great, but so are the rewards. Indeed, the possibility to tell a story of success with a societally clean conscience, a societally trusted brand, is the key to building the sustainability of an organisation – a true “hero of a leader” level goal to aspire towards. 

If the art and science of sustainable leadership, telling a new story about what it means to be a leader, promulgates throughout society, it would not surprise me if the first corporate organisations to last a millennium are already amongst us. Religious organisations have lasted millenia, political organisations are starting to reach the age of a millennium, and some family-owned companies are already centuries old. Needless to say, these are all aspirationally-led organisations.

Why not try to be your own hero at work and be part of building a sustainably-led organisation? Be a 21st century leader and start building the big picture story – the potential success stories of yourself and your teams, of the balance between your emotions and your rationality, of your current existential realities and the proposed paths towards aspirational goals. There is no reason not to, except the excuses you’re telling yourself about why it isn’t possible.

Of course it is – nature is bad-ass in how awesome it can be with the right amount of self-confidence.

Welcome to the gates of the organisation of the future. Start building your organisation’s collective, biologically intelligent, story.

Pormestari Kirkkonummelle

Suomalainen pormestarimalli on ollut näkyvästi esillä kuntavaalien alla sen myötä, että Helsinki on siirtymässä vaalien jälkeen pormestarin johdettavaksi. Oli pormestari sitten Anni Sinnemäki, Jan Vapaavuori tai Paavo Arhinmäki, niin pääkaupungin pormestarin valinta on merkittävä suunnannäyttäjä muulle maalle. Helsingin pormestarilla on tärkeä tehtävä sekä pääkaupunkimme johtajana, että pormestari-instituution vahvistamisessa koko Suomessa.

Kirkkonummenkin tulisi pikimmiten aloittaa selvitystyö pormestarimalliin siirtymiseksi. Maaliskuun kunnanvaltuuston kokouksessa tein ehdotuksen selvitystyön aloittamisesta, joka kumottiin äänin 31-18. Orastava kannatus pormestarille on siis olemassa, kummuten etenkin Vihreiden ja SDP:n riveistä. Myyntityötä on vielä paljon edessä.

Suomalaisen kunnanjohtajan vetovastuuseen pohjautuva johtamisjärjestelmä on poikkeuksellinen, sillä se sekoittaa virkamiesten jatkuvuusvastuun ja poliittisen kehittämisvastuun keskenään. Eläkevirassa toimeaan suorittava kunnanjohtaja käyttää merkittävää valtaa johtaessaan kunnan virkamiesorganisaatiota jatkuvuuden edustajana ja toimiessaan kunnanhallituksen esittelijänä tulevaisuuden kehittämisen edustajana. Tulevaisuuden pitäisi olla vankasti politiikan käsissä, jotta demokraattinen valta ei valu liikaa byrokratialle.

Jatkuvuuden ja kehittämisen erottaminen toisistaan on olennaisen tärkeätä. Vastuut kunnan ongelmista ja kunnia mahdollisuuksien hyödyntämisestä on mahdotonta kohdistaa oikein, kun poliitikot vaihtuvat mutta kunnanjohtaja pysyy – aina voi syyttää toista virheistä ja omia kunniaa itselleen onnistumisista. On oltava hyvin selkeätä kuka johtaa kehitystyötä ja kuka jatkuvuutta.

Nykyään, kehittäminen ja jatkuvuus ovat täysin sekaisin keskenään Kirkkonummella. Kunnan poliittisen verkoston sisällä ei ole kenellekään uutinen, että kunnanjohtajan asemaa ja johtamiskykyä on kyseenalaistettu kaikissa puolueissa jo vuosia. Kenellekään ei ole tullut yllätyksenä kunnan johtavien ja nousevien virkamiesten vuoto muihin töihin. Samalla epäluottamus johtaviin poliitikkoihin on vahvaa virkamiesorganisaation puolelta. Ristiin syyttämisen kierto vahvistuu vuosi toisensa jälkeen, kun vastuu ja kunnia on mahdotonta kohdistaa läpinäkyvästi.

Todellisuudessa on enää hyvin vähän kunniaa ja erittäin monen ongelman vastuut jaettavissa. Vastuita joita kenenkään ei tarvitse omia, kun voi aina syyttää toista ja jatkaa samaan malliin.

Pormestarimalliin siirtyminen Kirkkonummella olisi ensimmäinen askel kunnan ytimen – sen johtajiston – läpinäkyvyyden lisäämisessä. Kunnan kehittämisen vastuunkanto kirkastuu, kun pormestarin pesti on katkolla joka neljäs vuosi vaalien yhteydessä ja ”tulos tai ulos” mentaliteetti pesiytyy johtamiskulttuuriimme. Jatkuvuuden varmistaminen siirtyy selkeämmin hallintojohtajalle ja muulle virkamiesjohdolle, kuten sen kuuluukin. Sen takia virkatyöt on keksitty.

Mikä tärkeintä, poliittisen ajattelutyön vaatimustaso nousee, kun puolueiden on otettava vastuu selkeiden tulevaisuuden suunnitelmien viestimisestä äänestäjille jo ennen vaaleja. Tyhjät korulauseet eivät enää riitä, ja vaalikauden aikaista kehittymättömyyttä ei voi enää sysätä virkamiesjohdon syyksi, kun kehittämisvastuu kuuluu pormestarille.

Tätä keskusteluympäristöä on hyssytelty aivan liian pitkään kuntamme johtavien poliitikkojen toimesta. On aika aloittaa julkinen ja avoimesti argumentoitu keskustelu Kirkkonummen johtamisen tulevaisuudesta. Hyvin johdettuna, Kirkkonummella on kaikki avaimet poikkeukselliseen menestykseen tulevalla vuosikymmenellä.

Maaliskuun 22. Päivä, 2017

Jens J. Sørensen (vihr.)

Thinking About Stars

OK, so, I’m watching Cosmos on Netflix. Neil deGrasse Tyson, the narrator, is pretty much, like, one step away from Morgan Freeman. That’s how awesome it is to watch this show (go watch the show).

Anyway – at the start of an episode about stars, the narrator says “every time you look at the stars you look into the past.” Because it takes light a whole bunch of time to get here from however far it comes from.

Then I realised how important a thought that is. I thought for a second and realized that you can use stars as a metaphor to think about the most visible people (the real MVPs aka the stars) our society produces – celebrities and other people in the public eye like politicians and business people. Just like stars are the most visible objects nature produces in the night sky.

So, when we look at these people (the stars), we are looking at the past. Because the past is what produced them. Thanks to cultural evolution, the stars are, effectively, clearly visible data on what history and evolution are producing as those most deserving of visibility – both naturally due to demand factors and systemically due to supply factors.

It’s really important to ask the question: Are we creating, listening to, or being told stories about the past (rhetoric eliciting eg. past fears or dreams) or about the future (rhetoric eliciting eg. current anxieties or hopes)?

Which direction do we think we’re going towards relative to the answer to the previous question? Think about, for example, the story Donald Trump is selling Americans right now – and the fact that a lot of people believe it and are moving towards making it a reality. The story always leads.

This is an interesting area of thought. Who gets the most attention from you – who are your stars? What’re their values? How well do you think they understand them(selves)? What’s their reflection of (or influence on) you?

Who’s in your media mix? Why?

Science is cool.

Ps. Everything isn’t driven by pure, untouched demand – in real life, supply has an opinional impact on demand in all transactions (it’s called sales and marketing). When you stop and think about that, you realize how important the media & entertainment industries are in both reflecting the nature of the masses and influencing them. They’re giving us data on what we are like as a society by nature – and by control. This is, pretty much, the ultimate argument for news transparency and ethically diverse (also ethnically diverse) and all-around balanced reporting.

Oh, transparency and ethics goes for entertainment media, as well.

Suomen tarinasta

Suomi aloitti eilen 100. vuotensa itsenäisenä, omista asioistaan päättävänä kansana. Pääasiallisesti kansa kantaa vastuun siitä päätöksestä, mitä tarinaa se itselleen päättää kertoa. Itsenäisyyden läpikantava tarina määrittää kansan psyykkeen perustukset, joten kyse ei ole pienestä asiasta.

Kaikki kansat kertovat itselleen tarinaa siitä, kuinka heidän olemassaolonsa on kunniallinen ja oikeutettu. Suomen itsenäisyyspäivänä oli tärkeätä huomata, että tuntuva osa kansasta keskittyy edelleen sodan ja sotasankareiden kunnioittamisen kautta sodan arvista toipumiseen. Itsenäisyyspäivämme assosioituu vielä erittäin vahvasti siihen äärimmäiseen hintaan, joka rintamalla on itsenäisyyden säilymisestä jouduttu maksamaan.

Sodassa maksetun hinnan kautta määrittyy monelle iso osa olemassaolomme oikeutuksesta. Menneisyyden kautta haettu oikeutus omalle olemassaololleen itsenäisenä kansana on luonnollista silloin, kun ei nähdä nykypäivän työn merkitystä tulevaisuuden olemassaolon oikeutukseen. Tämä on puhtaasti tarinallinen puute – kun ei tajuta mitä ollaan tekemässä nyt, keskitytään siihen, mitä tehtiin ennen.

Tarinallinen puutteemme on merkittävä. Nykyään todellisuutemme on se, että katsoessa Suomea ulkopuolelta meistä kerrotaan tarinaa maailman tilastoja johtavana maana, joka näyttää monella saralla esimerkkiä muille. Ketään muuta eivät sotamme kiinnosta.

Onko jokin muuttumassa meidänkin ajattelussamme omasta tarinastamme? Tulevaisuuteen katsovaa, maailmasta vastuuta ottavaa tarinaa tuotiin eilisissä Linnan Juhlissa esille esimerkiksi Madventuresin Rikun ja Tunnan, Tasavallan Presidentti Tarja Halosen ja toimittaja Anu Partasen toimesta.

Olemmeko vihdoinkin tajuamassa, että jumalauta – mehän ollaan aika tajutonta jengiä ihan tänäkin päivänä? Veteraanimme tekivät korkeimman tason sankarityötä asettamalla henkensä uhatuksi rintamalla, mutta ei Suomen itsenäisyyttä sotien loppuessa sementoitu. Ei työ loppunut silloin, kun hengenvaara oli ohitse.

Silloin päästiin vasta vauhtiin.

Sodat mahdollistivat sen, että seuraavat vuosikymmenet päästiin matkalle kohti maailmantilastojen huippua rakentamalla yksi maailman johtavimmista hyvinvointivaltioista. Onko olemassa parempaa ja kunnioittavampaa lahjaa menneen historiamme sankareille kuin se, että hyväksymme itsemme sellaisena kuin olemme ja sisäistämme ymmärryksen siitä, että Suomi edustaa nykyään maailman paratiisia? Eikä vain omasta mielestämme?

Eikö ole aika päivittää tarinamme fokuspiste menneisyydestä tulevaisuuteen?

Kuka kertoo tarinaamme - vanhat vai nuoret?
Kuka kertoo tarinaamme – vanhat vai nuoret?

Valtava määrä kansainvälisiä tutkimuksia sijoittaa maamme kärkikastiin asioissa, jolla on tuntuvaa merkitystä kun tehdään esimerkiksi sijoituspäätöksiä – muun muassa yhteiskuntarauhassa ja turvallisuudessa, instituutioiden toimivuudessa, koulutuksessa ja elämän laadussa. Kaikki tämä siitä huolimatta, että itsenäisen elämämme ensimmäiset vuosikymmenet sisälsivät sisällissotaa, ääriliikkeiden kumoamista, Neuvostoliittoa vastaan sotimista ja hyvinvointivaltion rakentamista agraariyhteiskunnan lähtökuopista. Sotien jälkeinen aika ei ole järin pitkä kun tarkastelee historian aikajanaa.

Jos ajattelee Suomen tarinaa kokonaisvaltaisesti, niin sehän on ihan totaalisen kreisi. Eihän meissä ole monessa mielessä niinkuin yhtikäs mitään järkeä.

Kovimmat uhraukset on uhrattu eikä kunnioitus sotia kohtaan ikinä katoa. Mutta onko enään niin tarpeellista, tai edes perusteltua, keskittää tuntuva osa kansallisesta tarinastamme siihen, että nykypäivään päästääkseen edellisten sukupolvien piti tehdä suuria uhrauksia? Eikö olisi ihan yhtä perusteltua alkaa rakentaa poliittisen johdon toimesta tarinaa siitä, mitä nykypäivän lähtökuopista on mahdollista saada aikaan tulevaisuudessa?

Muistakaa tilastot – en puhu pehmeitä. Rakentamamme yhteiskunnan arvo maailmalle on kylmää, todellista faktaa. Me edustamme valtaosalle maailman kansasta tulevaisuutta, sillä he pyrkivät samoissa tilastoissa samoille sijoille kuin missä me olemme jo.

Me edustamme heille rauhaa. Luottamusta yhteiskuntaan. Älykkyyttä olla aidosti huolissaan heikoimmistamme. Todellista “American Dreamia”, jossa kaikilla on mahdollisuus edetä elämässä – ainakin suhteutettuna vastaaviin mahdollisuuksiin muualla. Tottakai meilläkin on vielä paljon töitä, mutta vertaamalla itseämme muihin voimme huomata, että olemme jo pitkällä etumatkalla.

Hyvinvointiyhteiskunta on tuote, jota meidän pitäisi antaumuksella antaa muiden kopioida. Tehtävämme on sijoittaa Suomen ykköstuotteeseen, hyvinvointiyhteiskuntaan, jotta sitä voidaan alkaa viedä maailmalle kovemmalla painolla kuin koskaan ennen historiassamme. Samalla oma yksityinen sektorimme saa entistäkin paremmat edellytykset omalle pitkän aikavälin menestykselleen, kun tarjolla oleva työvoima on maailman parasta ja elämäänsä luottavaisinta.

Kun elämään voi luottaa, kukaan ei lähde sotimaan. Sijoitukset hyvinvointiyhteiskuntaan ovat pitkän aikavälin sijoituksia maailmanrauhaan.

Sotatarinat ovat todella arvokkaita jotta muistamme, miksi menneeseen ei ole syytä palata. Niiden tarinoiden ansiosta maksan tänään mielelläni valtionlainan korkoja järkevistä hyvinvointiyhteiskuntasijoituksista. Vaihtoehto olisi se, että otan tietoisen tulevaisuusriskin maailman valumisesta takaisin sotaan kun maailman kärkijoukot päättivät tulevaisuuden menneisyydessä (tänään) olla edistämättä rauhan työtä.

Me olemme nuo kärkijoukot. Maailmanrauhan sissit, jos vielä hetken leikitään sotatarinoilla. Me lennämme Top Gunia.

Tarinamme rakennuspalikat ovat meidän. On meistä kiinni, mitä tarinaa itsellemme kerromme, ja on sen myötä meistä itsestämme kiinni, miten näemme itsemme osana koko maailman yhteiskuntaa nyt ja tulevaisuudessa. Eikö meidän ole juuri nyt, tilastojen huipulla, suurempi syy kuin koskaan ennen luottaa itseemme täysin?

Itsenäiset kansat päättävät omasta tarinastaan. Minä haluan päättää tarinasta, jossa hyvinvointivaltion kehittämisen ja viennin kautta edistämme maailmanrauhaa. Se on minun tulevaisuuden Suomen tarina.

Mikä on sinun?


ps. Rakastan sinua Veera <3 Kiitos kun autoit minua löytämään tämän ajatuksen ja kirjoittamaan sen auki.

Kirkkonummen parkkinormi on päivitettävä

Kirkkonummella on pitkä, kunniallinen historia, jota on viime vuosikymmeninä leimannut tietynlainen maaseutuidylli kaupungin kyljessä. Mielikuvat kunnastamme ovat omakotitalo- ja yksityisautokeskeisiä ja moni on päässyt toteuttamaan asumisunelmaansa kunnassamme onnistuneesti – ja pääsee jatkossakin.

Aika, jossa elämme on tuomassa merkittäviä uusia ainesosia asumisen vaihtoehtoihin, emmekä Kirkkonummellakaan ole enää pitkään eläneet yhden idyllin mukaisesti. Kaavoitustyö Masalan ja Kirkkonummen keskustoissa on kovassa vauhdissa ja vahvistaa tuntuvaa kaupungistumisen trendiä kunnassamme – tiiviimpää asumista hyvien julkisten liikenneyhteyksien varrella.

Erinomainen liikenneinfrastuktuuri vajaakäytöllä?

Yhteiskuntarakenteen selkäranka on liikenneinfrastruktuuri, jota meille on suotu Kirkkonummella kuin hopealautasella. Meillä on valmiina hyödynnettäväksi Länsiväylä, Kehä 3, rantarata sekä kilometrin päähän tuleva Länsimetro – rakennuspalikoita jonka vuoksi moni muu kuntapäättäjä myisi yhden munuaisistaan.

Runkoväylien ympärille kehittyy luonnollisesti tuntuvimmat talous- ja elämiskeskittymät, sillä kokonaisuus toimii logistisesti parhaiten. Tottakai toimii. On järjetöntä kuvitella toisin. Liikenneinfrastruktuurista pitää siis ottaa kaikki irti, sillä investoinnit ja ylläpitokulut ovat niitä kalleimpia, joita yhteisesti verovaroin teemme.

Siitä huolimatta, että runkoväylämme ovat kunnassa hyvin tiiviillä alueella suhteessa koko kunnan pinta-alaan, on Kirkkonummella edelleen koko kuntaa samalla tavalla kohteleva parkkipaikkojen rakentamisnormi. Tämä tarkoittaa sitä, että rakennuttajien pitää rakentaa vähintään yksi autopaikka jokaista 85 kerrosneliömetriyksikköä kohden riippumatta siitä, sijaitseeko talo Porkkalanniemellä vai Masalan Ratavallissa kunnan parhaiden julkisten liikenneyhteyksien varrella. Tämä määräys on myös sama riippumatta siitä, onko rakennuttajien mielestä alueilla kysyntää autopaikoille tai ei. Useimmissa kunnissa parkkinormi joustaa alueen sijainnin ja julkisen liikenteen saavutettavuuden mukaan. Vertailun vuoksi Espoon aluekeskuksissa vastaava mitoitus on 1 / 120 ja esikaupunkialueillakin 1 / 95.



Autopaikkojen piilotetut kustannukset

Autopaikat ovat yksi yhteiskuntarakenteen suurimmista piilotetuista kustannuksista. Sillä autopaikkoja on pakko rakentaa riippumatta kysynnästä, niin tämä “pakkotarjonta” laskee autopaikkojen käyttökustannuksia niitä tarvitseville. Kustannukset eivät suinkaan häviä minnekään – ne vain siirtyvät kaikkien muiden maksettaviksi. Kustannukset näkyvät epäsuorasti kun tonttimaata käytetään epätehokkaasti, nostaen esimerkiksi asumiskustannuksia ja yrittäjien investointikuluja kuntaan.

“Mikäli sääntely ei korjaa mitään erityistä markkinoiden epäonnistumista, ja sääntelyn taso poikkeaa yhteiskunnan kannalta tehokkaimmasta mahdollisesta tuotannon tasosta, sääntelyn olemassaolo on haitallista kokonaishyvinvoinnille. Autopaikkoja rakennetaan, vaikkei kuluttajia kiinnosta ostaa niitä rakennuskustannusten mukaisilla hinnoilla – tämähän on taloudellisesti tehotonta eli kokonaishyvinvointi laskee,” sanoo gradututkija Tuuli Vanhapelto Aalto-yliopistosta, joka tutkii parkkipaikkanormien yhteiskunnallisia kustannuksia Helsingin Kaupunkisuunnittelu- ja Kiinteistöviraston toimeksiantamana.

Autoilun kustannuksia jaetaan siis nykyisellään kaikkien maksettavaksi. Parkkipaikat laskevat maankäytön tehokkuutta ja nostavat kustannuksia, etenkin keskustoissa hyvien liikenneyhteyksien varrella, jossa rakennusmaa on kalliimpaa. Kysyntä hyvien julkisten liikenneyhteyksien varrelle nousee koko ajan samalla, kun autoilun kysyntä laskee nuorempien sukupolvien varttuessa. Samanlainen ilmiö syntyy kun iän karttuessa muutetaan omakotitalosta keskusta-alueille lähelle julkisia palveluita.

Parkkipaikoille matalampi minimi ja loput markkinoiden määriteltäväksi

Kirkkonummen kunnan virkamiehistö on ansiokkaasti valmistellut parkkipaikkanormin päivittämistä siten, että eri alueilla on erilaiset määräykset. Normi toimii siten, että kunta määrittää minimitason – vähän kuten työehtosopimukset minimipalkan – jonka tosin saa ylittää mikäli kysyntää on. Aivan samalla tavalla, kun korkeampaa palkkaa saa maksaa. Kauempana lähiössä autopaikkoja tarvitaan enemmän, ja keskustoissa (kadunvarsipysäköintiä lukuun ottamatta) vähemmän, ja tämä tasapaino jätetään markkinamekanismin hoidettavaksi. Markkinat hoitavat kustannusten kohdentamista enemmän sitä mukaa mitä matalampi minimi asetetaan.

Kyseessä on siis minimi. Mikään ei siis estä parkkipaikkojen syntymistä, jos niille on kysyntää. On siis hyvä kysyä – onko?

Masalan Ratavalli on Kirkkonummella poikkeuksellisen hyvien ja nopeiden liikenneyhteyksien varrella. Alueella on pääosin nelikerroksisia kerrostaloja ja valtaosa jalanjäljestä on maantasopysäköintiä nykyisten parkkipaikkanormien mukaisesti rakennettuna. Aluetta on pääosin rakentanut YIT, joka on pitänyt asunto-osakkeiden hintaa matalampana erottamalla autopaikat osakekaupalla myytäväksi niiden käyttäjille – asuntoyhtiöt eivät siis pääsääntöisesti omista parkkipaikkoja, vaan jokainen autoilija on ostanut paikan itselleen markkinoilta.

Onko mennyt kaupaksi? Vuosien myyntiponnistelujen jälkeen, Ratavallin aluepysäköintitontilla on edelleen myynnissä neljä katoksen alla olevaa auton ulkopaikkaa mietoon 7.500€ kappalehintaan. Autoilu ei kiinnosta yhtä paljoa, kun kustannukset pitääkin maksaa täysin itse. Julkisten yhteyksien myötä alueella on myös autottomia talouksia.

Emme väitä, että autoilu pitäisi kieltää tai tehdä kohtuuttoman vaikeaksi. Kaikilla on omat tapansa elää ja yhteiskunnan on tehtävä se mahdolliseksi. Jos kuitenkin valitsee autoilun osaksi omaa elämäntyyliään, etenkin jos tämän yhdistää haluun asua lähellä keskustoja hyvien julkisten liikenneyhteyksien varrella, pyydämme vain sen, että käyttäjä maksaa omat kustannuksensa, eikä toimi kustannusten vapaamatkustajana.

Parkkipaikkanormien kehityssuunta Kirkkonummen virkamiehistön toimesta on aivan oikea. Väitämme, että se voisi keskeisimmillä keskusta-alueilla olla ehdotettuakin kunnianhimoisempi, sillä tulevaisuuden kehitystrendien ennakointi asettaa vahvat paineet hyödyntää keskusta-alueet niin elävän urbaanisti kuin mahdollista.

Metropoliseudun liikenneinfrastruktuurin täysimittaisen hyödyntämisen myötä itäisen Kirkkonummen aluepoliittinen tärkeys on jo nyt koko Suomen taloudelle merkittävä, puhumattakaan oman kuntamme ontuvasta taloudesta. Kun venyttää aikahorisontin maankäytölle 2100-luvulle asti, joka on oikea lähtökohta kun puhutaan runkoväylistä, nousee merkittävyys jo ilmiselväksi metropoliseudun kasvaessa.

Taloudelliset argumentit puoltavat parkkipaikkanormiston kehittämistä

Argumentointi parkkipaikkanormien suhteen on puhtaasti taloudellinen ja kunnioittaa markkinamekanismin toimimista kustannusten kohdentamisessa. Tutkimustulokset ovat UCLA:n legendatutkija Donald Shoupin myötä alkaneet tulla esille jo 1970-luvulla, joten tarvetta lisäselvittelylle tai vitkuttelulle ei ole.

On loppuun hyvä todeta, että Kokoomus puhuu itsestään nimenomaan talouspuolueena. Mitä Kirkkonummen johtavat kokoomuspoliitikot ovat mieltä parkkipaikkanormiston kehittämisestä ja yhteiskuntarakenteemme kalleimman ja tärkeimmän osan, liikenneinfrastruktuurin, täydellisestä hyödyntämisestä?

Nyt ollaan suoraan ja keskellä heidän väitettyä tiedollista osaamisaluetta – taloutta.

Monille ei välttämättä tule yllätyksenä se, että oman elämäntyylin tukeminen muiden varoilla auttaakin yhtäkkiä unohtamaan oman markkinauskon. Haaste järkevän talous- ja rakentamispolitiikan kohdalla on selkeä, ja tässä tekstissä heitetty kehiin Kirkkonummen julkisessa keskustelussa.

Jens Sørensen
Kirkkonummen Vihreät

Julkaistu Kirkkonummen Sanomissa 9.10.2016


Infrastructural Healthcare
Infrastructural Healthcare