Open Future©

Why the Occupy Movement?

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 04:34:00 +0000

I've spent some time with the young people participating in Occupy Christchurch. We need to ask what are they want, and why young people are involved. I believe they are responding to a deep knowledge that what the culture tells them about their future, and the reality of their situation, don't match. They are responding to what they see as injustice and the certain knowledge what the system is doing cannot be sustained and will collapse in their working lives. They are asking good questions. They do not pretend to have the answers.

Occupy Christchurch, October 2011

After WWII in the developed world there was an optimistic belief that, we could control our economic future. We would be as rich as we chose, we would work shorter weeks, retire early, and live long lives. Because of economic management, education and innovation, unemployment would be a problem of the past. As President Ronald Reagan said so well, "It's always morning in America." When I was a teenager, that feeling was widespread in New Zealand too. That culture is full of optimism. "You can do anything." "A good education is the foundation of a good career." "Economic growth is the key to our future prosperity." These ideas come out of the post WWII era, out of the industrial age, out of a time when we were ignorant of new knowledge like peak oil, over-fishing of the oceans, the melting of glaciers and icecaps, and the threats of human caused climate disruption.

In the last 40 years, even with "economic growth" there never seems to be enough money to do what we want to achieve. In addition, unemployment became a problem, beginning in the 1970's almost unseen, and rising into the 1980's; at that time mostly affecting older men. During this time we were steadily adding women to the full time work force. This lifted the income of the average family, but it also had the effect of vastly increasing the price of houses. The wealth effect of that might be seen as positive, but the social effect was certainly negative. Families suffered. Some of today's economists are now talking about "uneconomic growth".

I began to study economics in the 1970's. I wanted to reduce unemployment and to increase innovation. I discovered in an intuitive way that the system doesn't work in the way economic theory claims, but I was also indoctrinated, so I've struggled to explain how an economy works, even to myself. It's clear to me that economists want to be paid. Like politicians, economists are also servants of the paymaster. Economic theory justifies the wealth and power of the wealthy. Economists claim that the market system is the best possible way to ensure that scarce resources are well used. If as the result of markets, some people get very rich while others remain poor, that's a problem for governments to worry about. That's social policy, not economics.

Those who have wealth, buy political power. Political power is used to create law that favours the already powerful, police and military power is used to enforce that position. The law is used to ensure market domination. Free markets only exist at the village level. The major companies of the world control markets where there are few players. They operate trans-nationally to minimise their costs and maximise their revenues. The fact that the wealthy get more wealthy, is a function of politics, not a natural principle of economics.

During WWII, the USA wanted to rapidly increase production for the war effort. They looked for an quick and easy measuring tool that they could use to monitor the growth of production. They chose total cash transactions as that tool, what we now call Gross Domestic Product. This was introduced as a temporary measure only, for the war effort. Economists said at the time that it was a poor measure of what was important in the economy. After the war, politicians liked GDP so much that we've become stuck with it. It's a simple tool and it does relate directly to taxation, especially to taxation on wages. Even so, using GDP as the measure remains a very bad idea because it distorts every economic decision governments make. To understand that, let's try an analogy, football.

In the football league games are played every week and points are awarded for win, lose or draw results. There may be bonus points for high scoring games, but those are hard to earn. In every team there is focus on both attack and defence. It's perhaps even more important to stop the other team scoring than to score for your own team. At least keeping the "against" points as low as possible increases your chance of winning.

What would happen if the league management said that they were not interested in game results any more. From now on each team would be judged only on the total points scored against the opposition. The team scoring the most points at the end of the season would be the winner. So here's the new idea; the points we score count, and points scored against us don't matter. Does that change the nature of the game? Of course it does. All consideration of defence goes out the window. Now the only thing that matters is attack. How quickly can we score.

That's pretty much what we've done with using GDP as an economic tool. We chose to ignore the negative side of business activity, the points scored against the community or the environment, and only to count all the money points scored from whatever activities are undertaken. This bias affects all our decision making especially at government level. Guided by the false signal from increasing the GDP, we make bad decision heaped on bad decision, and tell ourselves we are doing well. We've learnt to pay ourselves by destroying the future, which is the opposite idea to the theme of this blog.

I've been writing about this for several years now. I usually say that the direction we are choosing is stealing the chance of living a successful life from our grandchildren. I'm going to change that call. The young people in the Occupy Movement, who are camped in parks and squares across the world are saying; "Today's bad decision making is already stealing my future. Evidence that the way we have organised the world is not sustainable is coming from all quarters, but the system chooses to ignore that new information." For occupiers the words "not sustainable" mean, few jobs and less opportunity; living in a depleted and hostile environment, probably leading to ongoing wars over resources, which will continue as everyone gets poorer and poorer. There is no good end to the current system. We are destroying our world, knowing what we do, and we seem completely unable to stop that process. We badly need a system wide reset. To achieve that without a long lasting economic depression or a world war is the preferred option.

Alvin Toffler wrote about this problem 30 years ago. He said (1980) that, "Nowhere is obsolescence more advanced or more dangerous than in our political life." Since the political system is incapable of change, the responsibility for change comes back to you and me. It means understanding that a revolution in the way we do things is necessary. We must fight for the freedom to openly discuss what's happening in the world and to organise ourselves so that change becomes possible.

To that end the last 30 years have been wasted. There is a steadfast refusal to acknowledge the need for change. The old industrial world mentality is still formally holding the reins of power. As things get worse protests move into the streets. The example of the Arab Spring, has demonstrated the power of peaceful occupations. The response from Bahrain and Syria on how to deal with occupations is sobering. There is a crisis of leadership here. The public must generate social permission for change, but if the established powers resist that call, as they usually do, violence is inevitable.

The Occupy Movement is protesting are about inequality. They point to the obvious inequality of wealth that the market system is delivering. However the key inequality is political inequality, clearly represented by the dictatorships of the Middle East that are slowly being cast aside, and by the corrupted, gerrymandered, and cash soaked political system in the USA. The USA is an open demonstration of political mismanagement, a joke, in which the ruling elite pretend to be a democracy. Russia has abandoned the pretence of free elections, and China is many things, but mostly authoritarian. Political inequality is the rule almost everywhere.

I should note here that under New Zealand's relatively new voting system, MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) that political privilege has been seriously damaged. Our system is not perfect, but it's delivered some surprising innovation in legislation, and there is plenty of room to improve how it works. My personal idea is a campaign for Two Strong Votes which would increase voter power over the electorate seats by using preferential voting for the local MP.

Alvin Toffler wrote 32 years ago about the unwillingness of the worlds elites, to see and accept the need for change. The time is up. Further pretence that protecting the status of our elite class is good for the nation, can no longer be supported. Access to better information via the Internet allows us all to see that my problem, is your problem, and that across the world most of us face very similar problems. We can stand united against corruption and unfairness wherever we live.

Sadly the political systems of most counties that claim to be democracies are similarly controlled by elites, in such a way that effective democracy is denied. The United Kingdom, Canada and India are clear examples. Better information exposes the systematic corruption of the business/political alliance that seems to be universal. Young people are saying "take the money out of politics." That's a good start. Changing the voting method to abolish first past the post elections would also help. We need to appreciate that failure to create a sustainable system kills people. Today's businessmen and politicians talk about "sustainable development" when what they mean is applying greenwash to the same old destructive practices.

Here is the message:
Droughts are more common and more severe.
Floods are more common and more intense.
Biodiversity is declining everywhere. Deforestation is a particular concern.
The over fishing of the oceans continues. Our oceans are polluted.
Lakes and rivers are polluted with chemical wastes and farm waste.
Ground water is polluted, by drilling activities for oil and gas, and by surface residues seeping into the aquifer.
Soil erosion and the loss of soil structure. Excessive irrigation is also poisoning soils.
Persistent organic chemicals are found in the flesh of Canadian Salmon.
We are all Canadian Salmon, the same chemicals are also now found in human tissues.
Rising human cancer rates and other sicknesses are triggered by chemical pollution and lifestyle choices.
The ice caps and glaciers are retreating.

And for the Future?:
The human population of the world continues to expand: A die off event should be expected.
The coming high price for oil will destroy many "profitable" markets.
Higher oil prices will create food shortages, and that will cause riots in many countries.
Famine in multiple places at once is likely, with no chance of providing adequate food aid.
Water shortages are likely to make the oil crisis look like a children's game.
Resource wars can be expected. That's what desperate and doomed people do.

Can you read that message? We've been refusing to read it since President Jimmy Carter first told the USA about it in 1979. James Gustave Speth was the team leader who advised President Carter, and his current proposals for change, The Eight Necessary Transitions, make interesting reading. The reaction of the American public was to vote Carter out of office. We see what we want to see. Some people, most people in the past, can only see the benefit from what we are doing. They choose to be blind to the real cost of human behaviour. Real costs, cannot be avoided. No law can abolish real costs. No cash payment can stop the effect of a real cost. If by our actions we close our future options, that damage is done. Death will be the result. You, your children your grandchildren? Perhaps. Other people certainly.

The young people involved in the Occupy Movement, understand that message at least vaguely. They know that the new knowledge in the message concerns them, that these crises will play out in this lifetime. Their children will be left to do the best they can with the depleted sort of world this generation creates. The ability to read the message distinguishes a 21st Century person from a 20th Century person. Which of those do you choose to be?

Please use the comments tag below to ask questions and to make further suggestions.

John S Veitch
The Network Ambassador

http://johnsveitch.blogspot.com/2011/10/why-occupy-movement.html

Occupy Christchurch

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 23:48:00 +0000

On Saturday morning, I went to South Hagley Park, to meet with the Occupy Christchurch Group.

What I found was quiet disorganisation. Nobody was sure who was coming and what to plan was. There was a hope that the day would evolve, and whatever happened would be OK.

I watched as three people became 30 by lunch time, and by 2pm there were about 100. At this time they held an open mike session. I was impressed by the number of young people who came forward to speak with passion about why they were here. Depending on your political viewpoint you might argue about how practical some of these ideas are, but you can't fault the goodwill and the seriousness of the people expressing those ideas.

This meeting on 15th October, was a direct response to the world wide call for supporting demonstrations at Occupy Wall Street. As I said in the previous post I'm fully supportive of that. I've been strongly connected to many people in the USA, via the Internet for fifteen years now. Five years ago, when GW Bush was president, I was predicting street riots and city burnings in the USA. I think the only thing that prevented that was the feeling that "we're at war, so we have to be united".

The "democratic" system in the USA is not democratic. Yes, they do have elections, but the elections are like the elections in the old Soviet Union, they are pointless exercises, designed to spread propaganda, and to change nothing. Things in the USA will get very bad before that get better. The collapse of the economy is what I expect to happen.

Given the sort of predictions I've been making, Occupy Wall Street is a blessing. Using the example to successful major changes of the Arab Spring, protesters are trying to raise awareness and promote change without violence and city burnings. I wish them well. Those city administrations which are embarrassed and frustrated by the disruption of traffic and the ongoing cost of extra policing, should be pleased they are not facing much more serious problems. Mass arrests, to break the occupations, are foolish.

I marched down Riccarton Road on Saturday afternoon. I carried a Canterbury Flag, (One of four) and I was very pleased with the way the flag was appreciated by people who had never seen it before. The flag felt completely in place in this environment. The march was led by members of the Unite Trade Union, who had some experience in organising crowds and getting large numbers of people across intersections. They did a good job in moving 200 people down a city footpath without appearing threatening to other people who were also using the footpath.

The Canterbury Flag: "Confident Canterbury" Designed by Patrick Leeming Winner of the Canterbury Flag Contest 1993

I was not quite so impressed by some of the trade union slogans they used to encourage the marchers. Appropriate perhaps the 15th October, to support the OWS campaign against corporate greed, but not representative of myself, nor of what many of the young people in the march believe. Some of these calls to action, are at least 50 years old, and probably older. They represent part of the problem. We need NEW solutions to very difficult problems. It's very hard to develop new thinking when the ideas of the past are so easy to revive, and reuse. I'll speak about this at length in a future post.

On Sunday night beginning at 8pm and during the rugby match, Occupy Christchurch was having a General Assembly. I attended for about an hour.

They selected a moderator, and they talked about rules for an open forum. They dealt with an issue, of importance to them. They felt that someone had written to an online publication, Scoop, about Occupy Christchurch, but misrepresenting who they were. I think the article in question was always intended to be a personal viewpoint, and maybe Scoop made a mistake in calling it a "Press Release". It's understandable that the group felt misrepresented, and were concerned to get control over who can speak for them all.

I wanted the group to discuss three or four issues that I feel are important to Christchurch and the future of Occupy Christchurch. But that wasn't going to happen on Sunday night. Perhaps not for the next week. They were involved in much more important issues. Who are we? How do we organise ourselves? How do we keep everyone healthy? How do we keep the park clean and how do we protect the grass? How do we ensure that every visitor to the site is made welcome?

Boy oh boy; I'm taken back 40 years to Invercargill and the beginning of the Values Party, in 1972. At that time a group of us met in a community house organised by a young tearaway called Neil Boniface. It's really inspiring to see that happening again. People (mostly young) with strong ideas, meeting with each other and testing their ideas in public for the first time. I'm looking forward to the time when they talk to the whole of Christchurch. What they have to say is worth hearing, but it's too soon for that, they are not ready. A few hundred hours of talking and development and redevelopment of their ideas is necessary. If they are to succeed they need time, lots of time. A few weeks now, but it takes years to really develop the ideas and skills they need. They have to do it their own way.

What I can tell you is that this is the cream of Christchurch's youth. Some of our best young leaders in business and community action and politics, are earning their first stripes at Occupy Christchurch. They might make some mistakes, but they'll get it sorted. What they are doing today will be transformative for them. They will go on to take up leadership roles in their future lives. Neil Boniface, who was far more radical and impassioned than anyone else back in 1972, went on to a successful career in city politics. I helped him get elected on the Invercargill City Council, in the mid 1970's. He went on the be Deputy Mayor of Invercargill for many years. Cr Neil Boniface is still a respected member of the Invercargill City Council. Many others from that group have gone on to lead successful lives, and to offer considerable service to their communities.

Please use the comments below to ask questions and to make further suggestions.

John S Veitch

The Network Ambassador

http://johnsveitch.blogspot.com/2011/10/occupy-christchurch.html

Technorati Tags -
Occupy Wall Street Occupy Christchurch Christchurch's youth Arab Spring Canterbury Flag Unite Trade Union,Values Party Neil Boniface John Stephen Veitch

Occupy New Zealand

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Sun, 16 Oct 2011 22:54:00 +0000

I fully understand why "Occupy Wall Street" is a sensible strategy, in the USA. As I say in the October Newsletter, the failure of successive Republican and Democratic administrations to govern in the interests of the citizens of the USA, is a disgrace. Too much money in politics. Both administrations purchased by the corporate sector, long before the election.

That applies only to some extent in New Zealand. Money buys influence but doesn't steer the ship of state. Public influence is felt, mostly I must add, because of the benefits of MMP.

So what is behind, Occupy Auckland and Occupy Christchurch, both starting in Saturday 15th October? I'm not sure. Our problems are different.

I'm happy to support the demonstrations in the USA. The system is not democratic and looking to the existing power structure for reform is pointless. Things will get very bad before that get better. The "democratic" political system doesn't work, and hasn't worked for 40 years. It doesn't work because it's not democratic, voting changes nothing.

I'm happy to support Occupy Christchurch: To me that also has a point.
The Canterbury Regional Council was dismissed by the National Party government in 2010, because they were "inefficient" so far as I can tell. The Council was replaced by seven Commissioners. Since then "blackout" we get told what's happening occasionally but we have no real information about what's happening, so we can't judge if current events are good or bad. We are entirely dependent on what the authorities choose to tell us.

I'm concerned about the recovery from the earthquake and the operation of CERA. Same story I'm afraid. Blackout. Only good news stories come out of the system. Ratepayers are protesting in the streets, and are being mostly ignored. CERA is a radio station without a talkback programme. The public is kept ignorant and powerless. There are very good reasons for anger here.

The government has just approved exploratory well drilling for natural gas in Canterbury. Apparently, they intend to extract gas by "fracking"; hydraulic fracturing of the underground rock structures. Environmentalists here are deeply concerned about the future of the freshwater aquifer under the Canterbury plain. It's one of the treasures of Canterbury.

So; I'll attend Occupy Christchurch. I'll try to sign people up for the 25 neighbourhood lists we've established. We need to talk a lot more about what we need to do. The problems are many. Some of them can't be fixed now, by anybody.

As for Occupy Anywhere Else; it's an opportunity to MEET, with other people, and to see if you have any common ground. Clay Shirky, in his book "Here Comes Everybody" makes the point that "change happens when people come together".

In the September Kiwi Scrum Newsletter I wrote about the advantages of being in a "hothouse", for generating new ideas, innovation and change. The Occupy principle puts all those who participate in such a hothouse. Much of the time in New York, had been spent talking, educating each other. There are regular caucuses for the various groups present. There is also a daily General Assembly. They are not allowed to use loud hailers, so they play a game called Echo. It becomes a big community education session.

We can't know what these NZ meetings will deliver. It depends a lot on who turns up.
I do suggest that you wander along, and spend a couple of hours talking quietly to people and see if what they have to say resonates with you in any way.

[Originally publish on LinkedIn, for the Kiwi Scrum Group, on 13th October, 2011.}

Please use the comments below to ask questions and to make further suggestions.

John S Veitch
The Network Ambassador

http://johnsveitch.blogspot.com/2011/10/occupy-new-zealand.html

Technorati Tags -
Occupy Wall Street New Zealand Occupy Auckland Occupy Christchurch political system Canterbury Regional Council CERA natural gas Clay Shirky Here Comes Everybody Kiwi Scrum John Stephen Veitch

To Be "This" or To be "That" is our problem

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Fri, 06 May 2011 03:31:00 +0000

Because of acts of nature, two significant earthquakes, Christchurch, New Zealand, is in a process of re-creation. It's a classic problem. Parts of our city are open for complete renewal, and some of the standing city calls us to re-make what we knew and loved before.

There is no consensus on what we should do next. The Mayor, Bob Parker, and the politicians in general have promised to rebuild Christchurch, but it's a promise made in hope, and without any real knowledge about how that will be done. I don't blame anyone for that, nor do I think such promises can be honoured.

Whatever we do with Christchurch will be done by a coalition of the willing. There is real power in the ability of individuals with strong ideas, and that can be either good or bad for the future. A few people are highly motivated with big plans, and that is causing some resentment.

Most people feel exhausted by the extra effort needed to get anything done. Just living a normal life for many isn't possible. There's no energy for thinking in an imaginative way about how the new Christchurch might be renewed. People are confused and passive. Behaving like "stunned mullet" Peter Townsend, of the Canterbury Development Corporation, said.

Each of us, is also the home of double standards. We want contradictory things. The most obvious ideas are that we should build a true garden city, a city that's much greener and sustainable. Then we want better roads for the cars and cycle tracks that are independent of roadways and a low rise city, but with accommodation in the central business district, and a rebuilt retail shopping area, and a new sewerage system. We need 10,000 or more new houses, and to repair 100,000 others. People want the insurance company to pay out on their claims, assuming the money will "fix things", but it may not. We need to re-establish a few thousand businesses and create employment for some 30,000 people. You can be sure that some of our wish list is going to become a disappointment list.

I'm particularly concerned, as an economist, by training and interest, about the effect of many people having money to spend on rebuilding or on doing repairs, on the cost of the work done. I have a feeling that the hourly rate for tradesmen is already up over 50% and perhaps double in some cases. I expect we'll pay more for materials and fittings too. What will happen to land prices? On what is apparently the "better" side of town, the value of building sites for new houses will rise considerably. People trying to relocate from the East side of town are likely to find the cost to build in the West is prohibitive. I have some ideas about this, but I can't discuss them here.

What we can do, is engage in lots of talking and seek out the advice of experts. As we open conversations with each other what to do becomes clearer. We don't ourselves need to be experts, we simply need to soak up the reality of our situation, and to make sensible decisions about where we go from here. We need to find allies who will join with us in doing useful things. One of the best ways to find such people might be to form a Street Group in your local street. CanCERN is doing that, and having some success. They are working face to face and using text messaging as a communication tool. There is some use of email. None of the CanCERN Street Groups are yet using the email forums I can offer at Street Groups Limited, but I guess that will begin to happen one day. Those groups also have another option, to become Neighbourhood Support Groups.

There are Residents Associations across Christchurch. Most of them are in a pretty sorry state. They are inward looking, often badly led by some individual with a pet project, and seldom do they really represent the area where they are based. I've tried to communicate with Residents Associations in the last two months. It's like talking to a brick wall.

That said, there is some excellent work going on, behind some of those brick walls. Special mention here for four groups: the Lyttelton Project, The St Albans Residents Association, The Cashmere Residents Association and The New Brighton Project. I can't know of all the activity these groups are doing, but as an example The St Albans Residents Association has invited to Jarrod Coburn from the Draco Foundation to assist Canterbury residents’ associations to play an active role in rebuilding our communities. (Mr. Coburn is working with the Newlands Paparangi Progressive Association (PDF).) The Cashmere Residents Association has already communicated with their people and produced a written plan for the area Cashmere Vision and Values (PDF).

There's the principle we need to follow. Don't sit about and wait for the City Council or CERA, or someone else to come and tell you what the plan is. Make a plan of your own. Try to put your plan into action. If that comes up against resistance of some kind, or some immovable barriers, you are still better off with a plan than without one.

A community development process I'm familiar with is "ABCD", or "Asset Based Community Development". Each community has to find within itself it's own resources for development. The first cry is, "but we have nothing", but that's never true. ABCD, says you have to identify the assets you have, and you build or make available those first. That process identifies new resources and new directions in which the work can continue. Simple tools like asset mapping, or even listing who the contacts are and what resources are available. Sandra James of the Waimakariri District Council has used the consultant Peter Kenyon to help her with a community recovery programme for Kaiapoi, based on "ABCD".

I've written previously about the need to begin with the basics. The natural environment is basic. I've written about that in this blog "There's no such Place as Away".

The next layer of basic building blocks is in the community itself. We must build the community before we think about building the economy. For all of my life, we've been making a basic mistake there. I began to study economics because there was never enough money to do the things every community needs. I asked why? My studies didn't answer the question, because the solution is not about economics, it's about community. A flourishing economy is never rich enough to buy a community. The community supports the economy. Basic cause and effect, is at play, and we've been getting them back to front. Economic "development" without consideration for community needs, destroys community. The evidence for that is in every New Zealand street.

For community development to begin, there must be an idea or a plan, and a group of local people who want to make it work. They then need to work face to face with people in the community, door to door and in small meetings and in public gatherings. Consensus and a mandate to act needs to be built. People make promises they don't keep. There is good-will on the surface but distrust underneath. It takes time and effort to bring people into the community as real members.

Resilient communities are those where street members walking down the street can name at least the family that occupies several of the houses, and knows someone to talk to in most of them. People in strong communities know they can call and visit without feeling like strangers, and can ask for a favour on occasions. In a strong community much more than occasional favours can cross the back fence. People can help each other in many ways. Street Groups are one way to give this type of local community action some structure.

At a community level, residents associations, or community development agencies can initiate local planning and action. That might involve helping to develop the local shopping centre, or the school, or providing facilities for youth, or road safety work, or crime prevention, building cycle tracks or walking tracks. There is much every community can do for itself.

Sadly, in two and perhaps three Christchurch communities, residents groups are required to oversee the relocation of their communities. That's going to be hard, and it needs to be fully funded by the Christchurch City Council and EQC. My worry for the future of Christchurch is that the political courage to do this doesn't exist. We have evidence from other disaster zones that delay adds to the cost. If the land is seriously at risk of repeated flooding it shouldn't be built on: end of story. If it is built on and doesn't need extensive repair that's fine, we should make the best use of existing resources. But notice must be issued now, that if and when that house is seriously damaged at some future time, it will be demolished. For those houses that need replacement now, they should be built elsewhere, preferably by moving the whole community.

PS. I am aware that in the Netherlands they have given up on dykes as the main defence against the sea. They are building land based houses that float in a flood. I doubt if we'll choose that technical solution in Christchurch.

Please use the comments below to ask questions and to make further suggestions.

John S Veitch
The Network Ambassador

http://johnsveitch.blogspot.com/2011/05/to-be-this-or-to-be-that-is-our-problem.html

Technorati Tags - John Stephen Veitch Christchurch Bob Parker earthquake garden city Street Group CanCERN Neighbourhood Support St Albans Residents Association Jarrod Coburn Cashmere Residents Association CERA ABCD Asset Based Community Development Peter Kenyon economic development resilient communities strong communities Christchurch City Council

Stop the Big Machines

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 02:37:00 +0000

Officially, the clean up from the Christchurch earthquakes is proceeding quickly and is under good control. There has been some theft, and some unwarranted destruction, but the Civil Defence process has been a big success, if we are to believe Mayor Bob Parker and The Press.

Some people don't agree with that. From my point of view, I think the Civil Defence Controller, and the police, were put in an extraordinary situation. I accept that they did their best. We have to thank them for the effort while acknowledging that in the process some of the things that happened might not have been ideal. None of that can be changed now.


There's a clear reason for using big machines on a task like the dangerous St Elmo Courts building.	On buildings like those at the rear much can be done to deconstruct the buildings and recover materials using simple tools. That should be done.

Two things alerted me to a serious situation we can do something about, and something we need to act on immediately. I attended the conference, Resilient Futures: Supporting Recovery in Greater Christchurch (18 April). Key ideas from the Conference, were that the earthquake is a social disaster, even more than a physical disaster. The damage we can't see will be a bigger problem than all the physical damage we can see. The public needs to be actively engaged in the clean up, and in the planning of the rebuild, and in the rebuilding of the city. The clean-up and the rebuild can help to heal that social damage, if we do it right.

I also attended the Green Recovery Workshop at Lincoln University run by Charles Kelly (4th Video) (20 April). Charles Kelly showed the Conference a graphic of the management structure under CERA. He asked; "Where is concern for the environment here?" There is nothing in the Act that creates CERA, nor in the regulations controlling normal demolition of buildings in Christchurch that actively protects the environment. The CCC for instance, requires site owners to get permission to demolish the building, but the stated concerns are to safely disconnect from power, gas, water and waste disposal systems. There is no requirement to minimise debris creation. In normal times that might have been a minor concern, but if the waste stream is twenty times normal, that's no longer true.

I've spent quite a lot of time on my bicycle, riding slowly through the ruins. Everywhere I see powerful machines smashing down buildings, and clearing the rubble away by loading it onto big trucks. I've thought that this was completely "normal" given the massive clean up that's needed. It never occurred to me to question what was being done. That's just my own ignorance. I expect that same ignorance is shared by most people in Christchurch. Building demolition and cleanup is in the hands of people who know what to do and it's getting done as quickly as possible. Three cheers for success in adversity.


This is the only site in the city (Papanui) where I have seen any on site effort to recover materials.	Here's what's left after the big machines have taken a building down. There are still recoverable materials there, but much has been destroyed.

It was reported on Thursday 21st April that Christchurch is to dump 20 years of rubble in this year. Already that is starting to pose a serious problem. I've also been told that strenuous effort is being made to recycle the rubble. - I've been a bit slow about this, but alarm bells are starting to ring. Now I go back to the documents supplied online by the WWF and the American Red Cross, that Charles Kelly used as a text for his Green Recovery Workshop. There are texts about disaster debris in module five and a little in module six. There are 75 Accredited Demolition Companies registered on the Canterbury Earthquake site (27 April).

Module Five - GRRT

One of the most easy environmentally sustainable things to do, is to think carefully about how to make debris a resource, rather than a problem. This process begins on the site. What can be picked out of this site, that can be stored and reused at some later stage? Roofing iron and roofing tiles for instance, if removed by hand, they are easily recycled. There is one easy lesson, is what we should be trying to do, with all building sites and with all debris. On most sites there is only a small role for the big machines we now see active everywhere. Once a machine has smashed down a building most of the iron and tiles have lost all their manufactured value, to become scrap metal and hardfill. That's both an environmental disaster and a deliberate waste of economic potential. It's not true that "insurance pays for it" so it doesn't matter. The unnecessary continued destruction of real wealth, by unthinking deconstruction, is simply a failure to do what best practice demands.

Asphalt can be stored and eventually reused on the roads. Concrete can be crushed and reused in construction. There is a ready market for recycled metals. Roofing iron is more valuable in usable sheets than as crushed steel. There is a demand for used timber, especially large beams, but also for smaller timbers which furniture makers can use. Electrical wiring is recoverable. Everything we can recover, restore or reuse is to our advantage.

The environmental and wealth preservation task is to send as little material to landfill as possible. The social task is to create employment and to give people an active part in the cleanup and reconstruction of their city. So what can we do?

We need to look at each site. High heavy masonry might need to be taken down to a moderate level by a big machine, but once a site is sensibly made safe, people should enter with hand tools and remove what they can. Pilot studies in the USA after hurricane Katrina showed that in a week 40% of the materials in a building can be removed and entered into the recycling stream, instead of the waste stream. The place to begin that work is on the original site, and the materials should be separated and sorted and denailed and packed on site. As much as possible the soil, dust and small rubble on the site, should remain on the site, rather than collected and concentrated at a recycling centre.


All these buildings are likely to go. About half the materials in the buildings can be recycled if they are taken down with some thought about reuse.	This old home is probably going to come down too. Imagine how much quality timber and fittings it contains. Too good to turn into firewood.

The message from module five, is to rescue materials from the site in the best possible useable condition. That requires the careful deconstruction of the site, mostly using hand tools, and avoiding as much as possible creating a pile of "rubble".

Module Six - GRRT

Module six talks about what happens to the rubble. The inappropriate dumping of debris can cause more environmental damage than the disaster itself. Neither the normal rules for demolition in Christchurch nor the new rules under which CERA is operating, make any reference to concerns about environmental damage created by debris disposal.

In particular, the dumping of debris in the sea, or in rivers, or in low lying swamp land will contaminate water and cause future problems. Such activities should be avoided.

Disaster sites themselves are a source of water contamination during the clean up. Perimeter controls and daily site cleaning should be used to keep oil, chemicals and silt out of the drains.

Repairing the Social Damage

The conference and workshop talk about and hint at, massive social damage in the community that is unseen. To try and flush that out, we are talking about depressed business conditions, high unemployment, loss of certainty, loss of confidence, loss of wealth, psychological depression, increased abuse of drugs and alcohol, increased family violence, and more suicides. Knowing that we are going to have these problems gives us good reason to take active preventive steps.

Why, do we have 50,000 plus unemployed in the city? Look at the place. Are you telling me there's nothing to be done? Our problem is to mobilize these people in a way that makes them useful, and that allows them to make a real contribution to the clean up and the rebuilding. There is Mr Brownlee's real challenge. How can building owners utilize the labour of those people, under supervision, with simple tools, extracting the best materials out of buildings that are being deconstructed. How can we turn a process of demolition into a process of deconstruction and reuse?

Working on the cleanup, is therapeutic. Working on the cleanup will help people to come to terms with what has happened to them and to other people, and to see their own troubles in perspective. Working on the clean up will help people to think about and to become involved in the recovery and rebuilding.

We have a couple of other potential problems here too. One is too much loose money, in a market that is already over-capacity. That will force up the price of land and labour and of everything that Christchurch needs for recovery. As a result insurance payments that might look quite generous of the surface, will end up being unable to buy anything like the same sort of property here in Christchurch. People might be better off to buy elsewhere. A "boom" in building might be "nice" for some, but it has it's cost too.

If the rebuild is too rapid, particularly if the planning for it is not well considered, strategic mistakes will be made that the city will struggle to correct later. A too rapid rebuild, will severely inflate prices, limiting what Christchurch gets for each dollar spent, and at the end of the process, there is a depression in the city. In Kobe, after a two year boom, the depression lasted for five years.

There's a lot to think about. There is no prefect reconstruction process. Everything has a cost and a benefit. There is no place called "away" where we can dump our debris. There is no place called "source" where whatever we need, will appear at no environmental or monetary cost. There is no "vacant place" where we can build emergency housing. There is no "safe" place in terms of being 100% sure of protection against natural disasters. The loss of wealth we have suffered cannot be "fixed" by insurance money nor by government money, even if the amount of money was much more than will actually be paid. The social losses of the community can best be reestablished by actively creating Street Groups and Residents Associations, and engaging in community activities.

Lots to think about, and much to do. There are no perfect solutions here.

John Stephen Veitch
The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form, or comment publicly using the Blogger "comment" tag below.
http://johnsveitch.blogspot.com/2011/04/stop-big-machines.html

Technorati Tags - Christchurch earthquake Bob Parker Resilient Futures Charles Kelly CERA building demolition rubble Green Recovery sustainable employment deconstruction GRRT reconstruction John Stephen Veitch

A Sustainable City with a Creative Focus

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 12:28:00 +0000

On the web site Reimagine Christchurch people are demanding a much greener, sustainable city. There is an online petition started Lou Warren of Diamond Harbour, which now has 4174 signatures (17 April, 2011) calling for that sort of planning. How serious about this are we? Will we follow Bolivia and write the rights of nature, as equal to the rights of man, into our legislation? Will we adopt the principles, of the new science, behind ecological economics?

"This is an opportunity to establish Christchurch in the long term as an international destination synonymous with green living, environmental sensitivity and a great quality of life – a Garden City that Kiwis the world over can be truly proud of. " I have a friend, Stephen, who spoke passionately about this at a dance only last evening. How widely spread is that idea?

I agree with the general objective, but it takes more than planning, to make a city. The sort of city we will build depends on what people choose to do. We need in New Zealand, what James Gustave Speth calls "a new culture of consciousness" if we are going to make a sustainable city called Christchurch. That means we have to change who we are and become different people, with really modern outlooks and ideas. We have to invent and install a new form of open governance. We have to learn to live with much less material consumption and perhaps with much less money. We are probably going to create a knowledge Society, although on the face of it that seems unlikely. Second best in my view is the concept of a creative society, which seems easier and less exacting. We have the opportunity to address our own contribution to climate change, or we can ignore it.

What we need is a new Christchurch. The people who live here are slowly beginning to understand that, even if we see it dimly. However, rebuilding Christchurch has been taken over by the government, who have appointed Gerry Brownlee and CERA, to carry the responsibility for the rebuild, over the next five years. The powers Mr Brownlee and CERA have, are likened to wartime powers, and are deemed "necessary". Historians know that in wartime, well meaning authorities made horrendously wrong decisions, sometimes following a misguided strategy, and sometimes because they believed their own propaganda. That's the danger, to be led by people trapped in their old minds, who think they are "being progressive".

My concern is that the National Party of New Zealand and the New Zealand Labour Party, both think they are back in the late 1970's. Economic policy is focused on growing the Gross National Product, and giving as much freedom to market forces as possible. Thirty years ago I was in favour of that policy. It didn't make New Zealand "rich" as promised, (In fact, we lost 10 years "growth" compared with Australia.) but it did make the economy much more diverse, and it made New Zealanders much more outward looking. Those factors we can now use to our advantage. I can't see how the present leadership with such a moribund economic outlook, can possibly create the new Christchurch we so badly need. We have a deliberately blinded government, leading a partially sighted Christchurch public. That's a recipe for another botch-up. The government is certain that it's chosen direction will be good for Christchurch and the nation. I see them building too much of the past, with no vision of the future, because to succeed quickly, that's the only option they see available. There is no quick fix, but this leadership intends to find one.

Far too many of the people of Christchurch are silent on this issue. We don't feel well enough informed. There are too many people telling us what they are going to do, and the subject matter is "us". We mutter to each other in private, but not may people have tried to put those mutterings into print as I am doing now. Deep down, we all have ideas and opinions, but we may not be able to give voice to that yet. For that reason, I put a considerable effort into building the base membership for twenty five suburban Neighbour's Forums, using email. Those forums if they were strongly populated would allow us to have the conversation we need about the future of the city. So far, I've found not a single person who will stand with me on a street corner and sign people up. That's an opportunity to create an open forum, that exists for us, so far not taken up.

Each of us is human. We can't get our act together because even as individuals want contradictory things. We want a greener city, and a sustainable city, and jobs that pay well, and the right to do what we choose, not forgetting our annual overseas holidays. We acknowledge at some level that with rising future oil prices, realising some of our contradictory wants may not be possible. As the New Zealand economist Gareth Morgan said of himself, "The home of double standards is me". That's where we all are, and we have to negotiate what's possible, and in the process find a better way to live our lives. We have partial vision. To gain our sight we need to talk more, lots more, in truly open forums. There needs to be broad public participation. People are far too passive, because they see no purpose in having an opinion. "Nobody will listen". Gerry Brownlee is noted for the quality of his "tin ear".

Successive earthquakes have destroyed our wealth. No amount of insurance money or government funding can restore what we've lost. Think of that like the death of a loved grandparent, now gone. You may have insurance money, and the proceeds from assets sold, but the person lost cannot be restored. That's our situation. We can buy some things with the money we have available, while it lasts, but we have to buy a new future, not the old one. For some people, the value they once held in their land and building is gone. Restoration of that value on the same site may not be possible, nor even desirable. If we build slowly and spend wisely, we should be able to create a new city that's much better adapted to the future than the old city was. In the new Christchurch, it should be cheaper to live, and easier to move about, and our lives might be less dominated by commercial concerns and more bountiful in other ways. We might buy less and grow more. We might spend less time working and more time dancing.

Oil prices have doubled recently, and the International Monetary Fund has recently predicted that they will remain high. We can expect an 800% rise in oil prices by 2030. (Think $4.00 a litre quite soon, and $16.00 a litre by about 2030) If that is our future, the car dominated Christchurch of the past is not what we need. If you read what people are saying in Re-imagine Christchurch, many people understand that. What we can't entirely grasp is what else is likely to change. We need not be entirely blind sided here. Think back to the 1920's. There were substantial little towns outside the cities, with schools with 50 or more pupils, and three or four shops and several houses. With easy access to cheap fuel and good cars, they all vanished. Expect them to come back. The city may become smaller. The amount of hard manual labour might increase. However, we'll be less wealthy in dollar terms, so we will grow our own food again, people will walk and cycle more, and "do it yourself" will once again become a trait of New Zealanders.

I expect that to solve the problems of the future we'll need to rethink what we mean by social justice, and how we distribute the work and the wealth of the community. What does it mean to be a member of this community? What combination of rights and responsibilities do we have? How can the ability of each person to contribute to the community be recognised? Individuals have real power if they choose to use it. Very often they choose not to, because, as Marilyn Waring said 30 years ago, their contribution "counts for nothing". Excessive focus on G.D.P. is producing a "munted" economy; an economy completely unsuited to the future we are moving into. What does it take to encourage all our citizens to come alive, to be self motivated, to be active participants in the future? Nothing on the lips of any New Zealand politician I've heard in the last 30 years, is close to inspiring.

The single most important issue facing the planet is probably global climate instability. Governments are competing with each other to be the last to move seriously to do something effective. The rebuilding of Christchurch can set in place strong new building codes that address the need for buildings to use less energy from the grid. We can design the new Christchurch so the requirement for travel around the city is greatly reduced, and we can make a low cost public transport system that really works. Christchurch can be a city that leads, or we can decline that challenge, and make ourselves second rate by design.

We can build a community that is much more connected. People need to join more groups, to network more effectively, to learn from each other. In open forums, we need to be able to name issues of concern and find allies and seek better ways of doing things in communities of practice. We can make Christchurch a delightful place to live that attracts the best minds and the most creative people. We can make Christchurch a hub of innovation and creativity. If we are really courageous we could even become committed to the principles of scientific practice and respect for the truth, but that would be a step too far for many.

What people choose to do is critical. Modern people can't be ordered about like privates in the army. They all expect to be part of the leadership team. So what each on of them chooses to do counts. The product of the new Christchurch will be what the people who live here decide to do with their lives. That is a test we face today, and again tomorrow. Wisdom exercised today will open the future options we will have tomorrow. That's what I mean when I talk about having an "Open Future", and why this blog exists.

John Stephen Veitch
The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch here:

http://johnsveitch.blogspot.com/2011/04/sustainable-city-with-creative-focus.html

Technorati Tags - John Stephen Veitch garden city New Zealand knowledge society Gerry Brownlee CERA community neighbours forums Gareth Morgan earthquakes International Monetary Fund GDP open future Christchurch

No Such Place as Away

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 08:33:00 +0000

Today I will discuss how Christchurch should respond to the recent earthquakes, with particular regard to the environment. In New Zealand, we take the beauty of the environment for granted while at the same time we neglectfully trash it. This is not just a local issue. Mankind is trashing planet Earth. If we are to act with vision and knowledge in Christchurch, we must apply the sort of principles we anticipate will one day apply everywhere. For today's purpose I want to offer two sources of excellent advice.

First Professor James Gustave Speth, and his book "The Bridge at the Edge of the World". After 40 years of advising both Republican and Democrat Presidents about the necessary changes the USA must make, to save the environment in the USA, and across the planet, and Speth admits failure. The predictions Speth's team made in 1982 about the harm being done and the cost to the nation have proven valid. Professor Speth recommends Eight Necessary Transitions, that need immediate action at the highest level. There is a brief review of those recommendations here at my Street Groups website. I've also provided a four page summary of the key aspects of "The Bridge at the Edge of the World" here.

The second source is a paper called "Strong Sustainability for New Zealand" produced by Sustainable Aotearoa New Zealand, a think tank with twelve distinguished authors and eight perhaps even more well known reviewers. You can download this 50 page document from the Phase² website. This New Zealand source is valuable because it squarely addresses our very aggressive and destructive relationship with the land, and is clear about what we need to do.

The people of Christchurch already know what sort of environment they need to create. These are the same objectives I remember talking about in Invercargill in 1972. They are very prominent in the Re-imagine Christchurch website. I'm going to quote them now from the Cashmere Residents Association's new publication "Cashmere Vision and Values".

"Residents told us they want Christchurch to become a city that:

Develops a viable city centre and has smaller village centres where people connect not just to shop. A city which has limited the growth of malls.

Is renowned for it's architecture, including it's architectural heritage.

Has good public transport services, including cycle ways on most roads, effective commuter transport and sustainable public transport.

Is sustainable and environmentally friendly and has pollution controls, water conservation measures, sustainable forms of heating and insulation for all new buildings and houses, clean rivers and streams and leading the country in air quality and water quality."

That sounds very progressive, but the values expressed there are not well supported by what people in Christchurch have been doing. These ideas are well understood an entrenched in the public mind, but they are old ideas that we've failed to act upon in the past. In the public Re-imagine Christchurch Forum, about half the responses (over 150) broadly advocate; "Sustainable city, cycle lanes, community, lots of green space, rain water collection, solar, and wind energy". That's certainly the right direction we need to more in, but without new thinking about how we organise ourselves socially, and how we choose to govern ourselves, and how we rebuild the economy of the city, that new direction is unlikely to be achieved. As Professor Speth discovered in the USA, having the right ideas, and good evidence to support the case, isn't enough to ensure action is taken.

Cantabrians do not tread lightly on the landscape, we devour it and overuse the natural services it provides. We are not the sort of people we imagine ourselves to be, and in that, perhaps, there is hope for changes in thinking and behaviour.

The first principle is that we all live on the planet Earth, and are dependent on the Earth for eco-system services. Some people who have their values all mixed up make statements like this. "You deserve to be wealthy and prosperous and the universe will supply all your needs if you simply ask". These people equate wealth and prosperity, with financial power, and the concept in my view, strongly identifies what's wrong in the world. However, viewed another way, they are right, the planet, Earth, has already made us wealthy and prosperous. The problem is we're not happy with that, we've decided that we want more. The laws of physics and biology tell us that there are strict limits to what the Earth can provide. Only economists, caught in some mysterious time warp, seem to believe not only in perpetual motion, but in perpetually increasing motion. The failure of economic theory is plain to see, for all who care to look. We need to rethink what we are doing.

We consume too much of the Earth's resources, and we need to learn to live in ways that are more full of "life" and less full of "stuff". We can do that, but we need new and different economic and social objectives. We have to stop measuring GDP, which is misleading anyway, and focus on measuring things that tell us about the environment and our children and our own lives. Simply, by changing what we choose to measure, we'll get new insights into what we should be doing.

We need a new understanding of who we are, and how what we do influences the natural environment, the social environment and the market economy. The idea of a master set containing subsets is useful. The environment (The Earth) is the master set. Human communities, the social structure and our governance is a subset. Within our human communities we build a system of production and exchange, which is currently out of control because of faulty economics and bad governance. Nothing there that can't be fixed, once we understand that the success of the "economy" can never buy good government, better communities or a desirable environment. If we get cause and effect back to front, our problems simply compound. Speth says that we need, "A new culture of consciousness, in an open and transparent community".

It's now obvious to everyone that some of the land use changes people have made, in building the old city of Christchurch, have produced heart-break and unexpected expense to the current owners. For all of this land there was a previous loss of use, of the natural process that land was part of. Swampy land has a natural purpose. We can drain it, but it will always tend to return to it's natural state. We should convert land to alternative uses with caution.

We need to significantly change the pattern of urban living, concentrating housing, reducing urban sprawl and providing for safe and pleasant walking, cycling and public transport as priorities. Converting much of the inner city to roads and parking buildings is faulty thinking. We need to house more people in the inner city, and restrict the number of cars.

There is no place called "away" where our personal waste, our domestic waste and our industrial waste should go. Our new consciousness tells us that the easy way to stop the flow of "rubbish" is not to produce it in the first place. The second way to minimise waste is to recycle it. Often the best place to recycle it, is right where it is produced. Think about business and residential properties that attempt to discharge nothing from the property. No sewerage, no storm water, no green rubbish and nothing for landfill. Probably with some flow of materials to external recycling.

That immediately raises the question of the "need" to rebuild or repair many kilometres of broken sewerage lines in Christchurch. Composting toilets are well tried and practical. Chemical toilets are a continuation of the environmental nightmare. Why can't we in some areas, stop building sewers and focus on giving every house a composting toilet? The barrier here is not technical or financial. It's about having a new attitude to our own waste.

In the same way, we should be moving towards each house, retaining a substantial amount of storm water on the property, and recycling grey water on the property. One of the worst things humans do to a landscape, is to turn it into a monoculture. Monocultures of grass are bad, but monocultures of asphalt, and concrete, or galvanised iron, are worse.

The next ten years will bring about major changes to how we work and live in the city. Changes in lifestyle and opportunity, will encourage more local gardening, more face to face community contact, and more walking and cycling. Improved general health and improved mental health can be anticipated.

To a large extent, it's now becoming possible to use passive solar construction and insulation, to reduce the heating and cooling load on the power supply. There is some possibility for producing local power on site, and as the economics for that improves, it should be done.

I also expect that in the future many more people will do a substantial part of their work from home, often working with information and communication with other people online.

The last 40 years have been a time when governments and business interests have strongly opposed the ideals of the green movement as unrealistic "until we get a better economy". We should now understand that this is the result of bad economics and poor governance. Cause and effect work the other way. You protect the environment to get a better economy. Human activities that make a profit by degrading or depleting the environment are taking a subsidy from nature in the form of externalised costs. Governments have a responsibility to ensure that can't happen. There are several ways to moderate the situation. The key principle is that when all resources are priced correctly, excess usage will be avoided and essential used provided for. Environmentally honest prices are another step in Professor Speth's Eight Necessary Transitions.

The people of Christchurch understand what sort of city they need. We should try to achieve that within a strong sustainability framework. That can't be done without changing what we hope for, and how we choose to organise ourselves. I will talk about that another time.

John Stephen Veitch
The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch here:

http://johnsveitch.blogspot.com/2011/04/no-such-place-as-away.html

Technorati Tags - John Stephen Veitch Christchurch James Gustave Speth strong sustainability New Zealand Cashmere Vision and Values Reimagine Christchurch environment composting toilets urban living sewerage better economy environmentally honest prices

Earthquake Reflections

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 03:17:00 +0000

The previous entry in this blog was on 20th February, 2011. On 22nd February, my home city Christchurch suffered a severe earthquake. In Christchurch, things online stopped. For some people there was no electricity, for others, computers were damaged, and a few had no access to the building their computers were in. Even if we had working systems, most of us had other priorities, for the next several days, and being online wasn't one of them.

On the Canterbury Transition News blog, six days later, on 28 Feb 2011, I posted: "Possible online 'Neighbours Forums' across Christchurch to assist community recovery. Based on initial local interest on the existing regional forum Canterbury Issues, we are exploring the rapid creation of 10 to 20 Neighbours Forums for Christchurch." It's important to note that these forums were suggested by Steven Clift, in Minnesota, USA. An outsiders view can be very useful, sometimes. I got involved in that work, which now boasts 25 small but active online Neighbours Forums.

The next entry in Canterbury Transition News, was on 14 March, when John Adams and Cristoph Hensch began to post news items again. They posted 10 items for the month, mostly about energy policy but four were about the earthquake.

Sustainable Otautahi Christchurch, has not been functioning online since the second earthquake.

Project Lyttelton is based in the centre of the earthquake damage. Their web site was running again in 27th February and there were twenty-eight posts until the end of March. Of particular interest is the functioning of the Time-Bank over that period, a topic I want to learn more about.

The New Brighton Project Blog posted four detailed weekly posts in March. I think that was a very commendable effort.

On 25th February, three days after the second earthquake the St Albans Residents Association got their web site functioning again. It had been down for several months since the previous earthquake in September, 2010. Sixty-five news items have been published since the opening date. That's a grand effort.

The Addington Community Blog organised by Nate Cull, is very active. Mike Peters is also running a blog about the recovery from the earthquake called Addington Action.

The Roimata Community has posted earthquake information for members.

The Avonside Blog has been very active particularly posting many amazing pictures. Of all the local online local neighbourhood efforts I've seen, this is easily the most readable. Well done Lawrence Roberts.

Another group that has got the idea of the importance of local communities firmly in focus is canCERN who have a new web site here.

Finally there is Rebuild Christchurch, which is mostly the effort of Deon Swiggs, and is a credit to his hard work and skills. Deon deserves community recognition and support for his effort.

Sadly, many of these groups fail to connect with each other. On the Internet that's one of the most easy things to do. There is value therefore in not being an island to yourself but in actively linking to other web sites, even if they don't have enough Internet sense at the other end of that connection to link back. Websites are useful for many things, but they are passive tools. Web sites work best when activated by active tools like an email list. On the Internet, email (not Facebook) is still the killer application. There is particular value for web site owners to join relevant email lists and to encourage their users to join those lists too. Appropriate mail will bring quality traffic to your web site, not just more hits, which count for very little, but visits from real people who are interested in what you are doing.

The same thing applies to the members of Residents Associations and particularly to the officials of those societies. One way to get your message out is to engage with other people online. That has been the theme of the previous three posts in this blog. "Does the web change everything?" My conclusion was "Yes" for people who know how to use it; and "No" for people who have not yet worked out the potential for the web to change everything. There is a digital divide; and that's where it is, between people's ears.

Four posts back I wrote about the "whole economy" making the case that any economy is a three legged stool, the legs being the environment, the social community and the market economy.

I've spent much of the last month trying to work out how that thinking can be applied to the recovery of Christchurch. The way the NZ government is thinking, and trying to work, the problem of the recovery of Christchurch, despite all the promises made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, is unaffordable. It's impossible to BUY, a solution. Especially impossible to buy a quick solutions. It is possible to spend a great deal of money buying the wrong solutions, which will simply add to the long term costs. Many people feel that this senario is exactly what will happen. We'll get a "solution" but not the one we need.

Christchurch has suffered a loss of WEALTH. We've lost building and infrastructure, yes, but also people who've moved away, tools and equipment, business records, customer bases, supply bases, and important intangibles like personal and community confidence. Money and wealth are not equivalent. I've talked to over 1000 people about this. Many are concerned about the likelihood of making early decisions that we later regret because there has not been enough consultation about the issues.

My "whole economy" model makes some decisions relatively easy. The environment has sent us a clear message. Some parts of the city should not be rebuilt. That decision can be made quickly. Even if we get that wrong in the first case, we can reconsider that again, later. The new city needs to be build on sustainability principles. The rebuilding of the old Christchurch isn't desirable because it never was going to be sustainable. This is a wonderful new opportunity, if our old minds can deal with it.

There is going to be massive unemployment and relocation and disruption that will go on for years. We need to make a commitment to social justice, to treating the MEMBERS of our community fairly. I don't know how to do that, but forming street Groups, Neighbourhood Associations, Neighbourhood Support Groups, and the like would be useful. Creating a strong open forum where lots of public discussion can occur would be an excellent contribution to the future. The twenty-five new Christchurch Neighbours Forums are a starting place. We have to find social solutions for the problems money can't fix. How do we engage 100,000 volunteers in the rebuilding of Christchurch?

Yes, there is also a huge financial cost. Too much money too quickly will simply push land prices and building costs very high and for that reason, money alone, no matter how much, cannot fix the problem. Those who've been promised a "new home" paid out in full based on their old valuations will find it impossible to get a replacement home of similar standard with the money they have. There will be many angry people out there who will feel ripped off by the system. Government can't solve that issue, nor can insurance companies, nor can the Christchurch City Council.

In the process of thinking this through, I've realised that the concept of the "whole economy" really needs a fourth leg; Government. We are used to thinking about the government as being something separate, especially if we think of the "government, the law, the courts, and the media" as a fourth leg.

In some future posts I have partly planned, I want to talk about how the "whole economy" can help us remake Christchurch as a city with a modern future. Our biggest challenge is to quickly rebuild and build community networks, so we can utilize voluntary work and engage effectively in community purposes. We need to develop processes of informal public education and non-market exchange systems, like The Lyttelton Time Bank. We need to recognise the value of open space discussion forums and ensure that they are widely used in the development of policy decisions. We need to create a new process of participatory democratic action, and city-wide governance. I don't know how we do that, but I do know that's something we need.

Please use the comments button below to ask questions and to make further suggestions.

John S Veitch
The Network Ambassador

http://johnsveitch.blogspot.com/2011/04/earthquake-reflections.html

Does the web change everything? (3)

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 06:47:00 +0000

When the Internet generally began to be available in New Zealand, I thought there was an opportunity for me to start a business. I'd kept a journal for about 20 years at that stage. My journal was in recent times chock full of the best knowledge I could find on what the digital revolution would mean, and how it would develop.

We knew nothing about what we were doing, but we felt secure in our "knowledge". We had a "vision", and that was enough. We talked about the digital super-highway and the knowledge society. In our view, the Internet would become an open platform for publishing community information, and it would be financed by banner advertising. Our heads were still in paper space. We were publishing "pages" and page design seemed to be an important topic. We didn't understand what we were attempting.

In late 1995 I began to build a web site called NZDances, which was supposed to unite the dance community in New Zealand. The site serviced over 20 types of dancing, there were "pages" allocated for all the major towns and districts in New Zealand. I was surprised. 80% of the traffic was international and very soon the site was catering for international dance too.

NZDances grew to be the most used regional dance site in the world. After five years, it was something like the 5th or 8th most popular dance site on the Internet. In the process I had built a network of over 700 people who helped me build the site. The early Internet was populated with pioneers, people who were always willing to share with fellow travellers, highly cooperative, very honest, and completely uncommercial. They helped me build very large and active letters forum, divided into topics. These people enriched my life, with knowledge and friendship, and that was my first experience of building an extensive online network.

Despite lots of success, it was impossible to find financial support for the web site. In 2000, I closed it down.

I was confused. What was happening here that I didn't understand? How was the Internet we were building, different from the Internet I had imagined five years earlier? I spent a couple of years licking my wounds. In the process I had become one of the people with a solid knowledge of the change that was happening. But, I was like an embedded journalist in a war zone, too close to the battle to understand it in the context of the larger world. I needed time. I wrote quite a lot on the Adapt to Experience web site, especially about Using the Internet, and later about Networking.

In 2002, I was invited to join Ryze, one of the first successful social networks. I looked, thought it would be a complete waste of time and didn't see the opportunity. This is the sort of mistake we all make. Ryze was to become very important to me for about six years. The discussion forums on Ryze were excellent. Over the period of six years the personal development and increase in confidence of people who contributed regularly was remarkable. I was one of many who benefited. Like anything else, you get out of it what you contribute. You become good at doing the things you practise doing.

My use of Online Social Networks has changed the way I keep my journal. I write a lot less in my journal, and much more in the social networks. The value in doing that, is the feedback you might get from others.

Not wanting to make the same mistake twice, I became active on LinkedIn when it opened, and I built a very large network there with the intention of using it for business purposes. I also joined about 20 other social networks. All of them are doing similar work in slightly different ways. You learn though that there's no point in being thinly spread in lots of places.

To what extent has the web changed everything?

No matter how much you think you know, you've probably still got it wrong. That's the beginning of wisdom. Being online is an immersion process. You learn slowly, but surely as much from the example of the people you communicate with, as from anything in particular they say. You'll find both quality and the lack of it everywhere. Choose to join groups, stay connected to those groups where the quality of conversation is high. What happens on any list or group, over time comes to reflect the qualities of the leader. The Internet needs a million quality leaders. Immerse yourself today; one day you will be one of those leaders. Play your part.

You "know" a great deal that you don't fully understand. It takes years to learn new things, especially if you need to unlearn some old entrenched indoctrination first. In the process of discussion with other people, slowly a better understanding develops. If you are doing practical things yourself, to develop a new concept or ability, the learning is quicker. Join groups, which are committed to a similar direction, to the one you need to travel.

The Useful Common, is a river we all use. It's impossible to see what's coming down from upstream. Take what you need as the river passes. Take responsibility for the little part of the river you are creating. Put that into the river as your gift to the world. Share the bounty of the river with others. Do what you can to build the Useful Common.

Facebook is the killer application of the moment, but Facebook too will pass into history. For most people in New Zealand Facebook is a tool for connecting Grandma with the grandchildren, even the adult grandchildren overseas. For most of us Facebook is a family focused network.

There are people who desperately need Facebook to serve some other purpose. Businesses that are trying to use Facebook to drive sales, or artists who are seeking to increase their public profile. I may be wrong, but I see that as a misuse of Facebook and that activity will potentially kill the platform.

Thank you to the Facebook generation of young Egyptians

On the other hand, the use of Facebook by people who are organising groups to educate themselves and to form organisations and to campaign for issues of vital importance opens another side of a versatile platform. In Egypt the "Facebook generation" was instrumental in the transformation of public attitudes and reorganizing the expected future. Facebook may not have been the ideal platform to do that, but you use what you have.

Being involved on the Internet changes everything, as it has for me, or nothing, depending on what you choose to do. If you choose to immerse yourself, you begin a spiral of activity that includes finding other people, exchanging ideas, doing new things, and evaluating what's happening. This is a continually expanding spiral of learning, that is never quite under control. If you expect to get instant wisdom or instant riches, you'll be disappointed, but if you take the ten year journey, you'll be pleased with the depth of your new knowledge and enriched by the friends you've made.

John Stephen Veitch
The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch here:

http://johnsveitch.blogspot.com/2011/02/does-web-change-everything-3.html

Technorati Tags - John Stephen Veitch Internet Ryze NZDances Social Networks Adapt to Experience Egypt my journal Useful Common join groups knowledge LinkedIn networking Facebook online discussion Grandma

Does the web change everything? (2)

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 04:42:00 +0000

In the previous entry I talked about people who were DRIVEN to use the Internet in an intensive way. For these people, the Internet can quite quickly become an important part of their everyday lives and alter the possible future in significant ways.

In 1996, I spoke on Internet Relay Chat, to a young Canadian who had been brain injured in an oil well accident. Ten years after the accident, he was typing quite well, but with occasional spelling mistakes. He told me that when he started on the keyboard, brain to finger time was very long, every keystroke was an effort. He had a horrifying story about how he was treated by his employers, how his medical treatment was inadequate, how his after care failed completely. He lost his family and friends, had no chance of employment and still suffered from bursts of anger he couldn't always control.

Over several hours he explained this in detail for me. I asked his permission to write his story from the IRC chat text. He agreed. Two weeks later having struggled for several hours to make sense of a very disjointed conversation I sent Brian a copy of his story. He didn't respond.

Weeks went by. I spoke to Brian several times but he never mentioned the story, and I didn't like to bring it up. One day I did have the courage to ask him about it. "Oh yes, I remember. Sorry, brain injury you know. I forget. It was wonderful to see that all written down."

We decided to publish his story on one of the free web sites available then, and to make it part of a Brain Injury Web-Ring. (Back in the days before effective search engines.) Websites in the web-ring were usually written by family members, and didn't tell first hand stories. Brian's story, in his own words, was the first of many. For Brian and all the people involved there, being online and sharing their stories was highly empowering.

Young people in Egypt are apparently among the most active users of Facebook. I suggest they are there, because like the brain injured people, the Internet is a way to escape from "imprisonment". Their use of Facebook is driven by personal needs.

In my time 15 years online I've met many people from unlikely countries. I particularly remember the first contacts I had with people from China, Sierra Leone, Bulgaria, Ghana, Cote D'Ivoire, Bangladesh and Pakistan. In the very early days if the Internet, all of these contacts were with people with extraordinary will to be online, and often a burning ambition frustrated by the limitations of where they lived. Connections were slow, and in local currency very expensive. The desire to connect to the wider world was a driving force, regardless of the cost.

Today from some of these countries the new connection may be to people like that, a business person, or a social activist, or someone seeking an opportunity to emigrate to a new country, or more disturbingly, to a member of a criminal group, or a government agent. The Internet has many users and uses.

I have 9200+ direct connections on LinkedIn. I can use those links to get a rough measure of Internet use in various countries. See what you make of these tables. I'm searching for the connections of my direct connections in various countries. I show the population of the country, and I've ordered the countries according to the number of connections, my search produced, per million people. If the number of connections is low, that might be repression, or it might be poverty, or it might be something else.

LinkedIn Use Indicator - Connections of my Connections

North Africa and Middle East (Most Connected)
Country	Pop. (mill)	Con. of my Con.
UAE	5	21295
Bahrain	1	1541
Lebanon	4	1540
Kuwait	3	1566
Jordan	5	1582
Oman	3	899
Saudi Arabia	25	6284
Tunisia	10	1225
Egypt	74	4538
Morocco	30	1671

North Africa and Middle East (Least Connected)
Country	Pop. (mill)	Con. of my Con.
Libya	6	180
Palestinian Ter.	4	121
Algeria	33	697
Syria	19	233
Iraq	32	308
Israel	7	63
Yemen	21	117
Qatar	1	5
Sudan	36	50
Iran	68	1

We see above a huge variation of Internet use. Countries where demonstrations are currently happening are on both sides of the center. That suggests that Internet use is NOT a key factor in the current troubles. I suggest that Television, especially Al Jazzera, and Cell Phones are much more important. Of course the way each country is run is also critical.

Iran at the bottom of the table, with a large educated population, has to be a stand out. I find it difficult to understand why Israel is so low on the scale too.

Repressive Countries (Most Connected)
Country	Pop. (mill)	Con. of my Con.
Belarus	10	380
Libya	6	180
Zimbabwe	13	169
Cote D'Ivoire	18	198
Laos	6	49
Rwanda	9	66
Uzbekistan	27	132
Somalia	8	13

Repressive Countries (Least Connected)
Country	Pop. (mill)	Con. of my Con.
Sudan	36	50
Eritrea	4	4
Myanmar	50	48
Cuba	11	6
North Korea	23	5
Turkmenistan	5	0
Iran	68	1
Tibet	??	0

The stand out here is Belarus, because it's in Eastern Europe. Iran, with it's large educated population, is almost not present on LinkedIn.

Very Poor countries (Most Repressive Removed)
Country	Pop. (mill)	Con. of my Con.
Congo	4	52
Uganda	29	352
Liberia	3	33

Very Poor countries (Most Repressive Removed)
Country	Pop. (mill)	Con. of my Con.
Sierra Leone	6	44
Dem. Rep. Congo	58	177
Ethiopia	71	132

The six countries above are poor but not listed in the 10 most repressive countries in the world. These countries are marginally better connected.

My argument is that if you live in a poor or repressive country, access to the Internet is likely be be vital to you, if you think of yourself as a community or business leader. Especially if you are young and disadvantaged, you will make every effort to connect to the center of events. You'll work hard to be part of the network, to make your own contribution and to learn what you can.

Young people will use social networks like Facebook, rather than LinkedIn to connect to the wider world. In June 2010, Khaled Said was beaten to death by Eqyptian policemen. This attracted considerable interest on Facebook, where the page "We are all Khaled Said" was created. It's in activities like this that people learn that they have common experiences and that their own stories are not isolated events. Once people meet others with whom they share and interest, it's reassuring to keep in touch with them. After demonstrations began the Egyptian Government decided to cut off Facebook access. When that happend, people found ways to get around the blocking firewall.

In an effort to take out the leaders, Egyptian authorities arrested Wael Ghonim, an internet activist and blogger. Wael Ghonim was kept blindfolded and roughed up a bit over the next 12 days in prison. He was then released. Taking out a few presumed leaders doesn't work.

For individuals facebook and blogging may be important, but the CAUSE of the unrest in North Africa is the corruption and lack of opportunity, a consequence bad governance. Quality information, knowing that even when the news media says nothing, that other people besides you are feeling put upon and used, is important.

Lybia has just jammed the Al Jazeera broadcast into the country. (4pm 19th February, NZ Time.) Al Jazeera, is reporting increasing demonstrations in the East and West of the country.

In Bahrain, the death toll rose again last night. The military fired live rounds at a funeral march that turrned into a demonstration. Protests continue in Yemen and in Jordan. Clearly the news of successful demonstrations in other places has the effect of encouraging more demonstrations. Being able to connect to other people online has helped people to create and organise the demonstrations. But the Internet is a passive player. It's how people choose to use it that counts.

John Stephen Veitch
The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch here:

http://johnsveitch.blogspot.com/2011/02/does-web-change-everything-2.html

Technorati Tags - John Stephen Veitch Egypt connection brain injured head injured Iran LinkedIn Internet Facebook Al Jazeera Khaled Said Wael Ghonim Yemen Bahrain

Does the web change everything? (1)

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:17:00 +0000

On his blog The Obvious? Euan Semple asks; Does the web change everything? In the light of the events of the last month in the Middle East, I'd like to comment about that in three posts to this blog. This debate has been fed by the revelations on WikiLeaks, and by the book The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate The World by Evgeny Morozov.

Euan Semple says; "I guess my own feeling is that the web will change nothing until we use it for that propose but the way it enables us to do so is new. What matters is that people understand it and use it. Take it seriously to shape the world. Not just see it as another channel to consume."

Euan is saying, "It depends how you use it. "

To which I would say, "It depends on who you are and on what DRIVES you."

In 1996, I met online a small group of about 50 brain injured people, most of whom will never work again, many, more or less confined to their homes or hospitals, and all were driven to get a better deal for themselves, and for other brain injured people. They were using 14bps or 28bps dial up connections, Internet Relay Chat, email and the new tool the web page, to create a revolution in the care of head injured people. The passion and committment and the community spirit of these people was amazing. The Internet changed everything for them.

On the other hand, in late 1995 I began to build a web site called NZDances, which was supposed to have that sort of effect on the dance community in New Zealand. That failed. The dance community doesn't care about the Internet. It's nice to have, but it not in any way essential to their lives. I was driven to be heavily connected, but my potential audience wasn't.

In July, 2009, I surveyed over 100 New Zealand homes, and I tried to get reliable data from 100 of those, which were Internet connected. Eventually 10 homes didn't cooperate at all and three others provided numbers that are a bit suspect, but I'm happy, having spoken personally to all of these people, that the data they gave me is reliable. (I've been involved in a lot of surveying. My data is highly reliable compared with most.) The sample is of course small. I'd need to survey over 700 houses to improve the quality to the first standard that would counter that claim. Resources to do that don't exist.

My data shows clearly that people do use the Internet, for email, and online banking and in New Zealand for buying bargains on Trade Me. They do not join groups, they do not participate in discussions, and they don't write blogs or do anything else that might be called publishing online. They don't even use the web too much. 2-3 Goggle searches a month they tell me. Less that half the group were in any online social networks. Those that were had joined Facebook, and a tiny number were in one or two other social networks.

Two respondents were interested in music and had tried to put video on YouTube, and one started a blog that he no longer keeps.

Does the web change everything? Not for about 80% of these people.

However if you look at the people in the top 20% you begin to see something quite different. These people get a lot of email and they write quite a lot of email too. They have joined several email lists. Some of them contribute occasionally. There are about six who maintain web sites for business or professional purposes. Many of them would say that the Internet is essential to their work.

Does the web change everything? For some of these people, clearly yes. For the others, when they've been active online for more that ten years, especially after they have begun to publish their own ideas and to involve themselves in online discussions, the Internet will change who they are and what they imagine is possible. Once that transition occurs in your life, a great deal becomes changeable.

John Stephen Veitch
The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch here:

http://johnsveitch.blogspot.com/2011/02/does-web-change-everything-1.html

Technorati Tags - John Stephen Veitch The Obvious Euan Semple brain injured head injured NZDances Trade Me online banking Facebook active online online discussion publish

The Whole Economy

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 01:40:00 +0000

I'm going to explain a 40 year journey towards a new understanding of economics. I hope that somewhere in this journey you'll recognise yourself and your own struggle for economic knowledge.

Most economists still talk about the "economy" only in terms of Gross Domestic Product, or GDP. But the GDP only includes things produced for financial gain; it ignores all the value that nature provides to humans free of charge. It also ignores all of the valuable productive work that humans do for each other outside the marketplace. 20 years ago the social production of community members was reluctantly acknowledged. Until about ten years ago the environment was ignored by economists. We should now know that the root of standard economic theory is wrong. That error is being corrected by economists. Sadly policy makers and politicians have not yet adjusted to this new thinking.

I'm a long time student of economics. In the early 1970's I was concerned about the way our society was developing. I saw much that needed doing, that apparently couldn't be done because the economy wouldn't allow that. In the late 1970's I went to Massey University and got a very standard professional education with an Economics focus. I graduated as an adult, (38 years) and seriously considered continuing. That would have been into more economic model building and econometric theory. I knew in my instinct, but didn't understand why, that was a fools mission.

I wrote a paper for a business finance class about the trade-off between family life and study and the economic justification for completing my university degree. It wasn't a big deal. I didn't understand the issues, but I recognised that economic growth wasn't built only on innovation and investment. Education also took resources from the lives of individuals, families and communities.

I began to realise, that one of the major economic changes in my lifetime was the shift of women from the domestic front into the workforce. The effect of this must have been studied, but I don't know of that work. In my own view, the broad effect has been to double the price of real estate, and to decease the quality of family and social life. Importantly that has also opened career opportunities for women. What's happened isn't all bad, but it is badly out of balance because there is excessive focus on monetary values.

In 1988 a New Zealand academic, and feminist, Marilyn Waring, published a book called "Counting for Nothing". "Counting for Nothing", documented the fact that national accounts don't acknowledge the work of women in the home, the domestic care of children and the infirm, nor any other voluntary work in the community. In places like Africa, the work of women, who are the farmers who feed their families, is not "production". None of this work is recorded in the GDP of the country, because there is no monetary transaction. That has devastating effects, because in government planning, that work is invisible, and doesn't become part of any policy decision. According to the official record in the National Accounts, that production doesn't exist. What people choose to do with their time, makes an important contribution to the quality of our lives.

This message was popular with the public, especially in Canada, and Marilyn Waring worked there for some time. Her book was re-published in 1980 by Macmillan, under the title "If Women Counted".

In 1995 the National Film Board of Canada made a film about Waring's work. The documentary, Who's Counting? Marilyn Waring on Sex, Lies and Global Economics (94 min) was well received. Waring has spoken with authority on the failure of GDP, as a measure of economic activity. This work gave substance to my idea that there was a trade-off between the market activity of the community and the non-market activity of the community. Marilyn Waring said that the non-market work of every community was a least as big as and probably much larger than the market economy.

In recent years, I've been aware of a similar disquieting understanding, that the environment is discounted in economics in the same way that community production is discounted. However, I'm trapped in my indoctrination. I know there's a problem, but I can't explain it. I tried to read Prof. Herman Daly, on the Internet. He didn't penetrate my indoctrination. Dr Geoff Davies, is an Australian geophysicist, who was led to study economics by the non-scientific features he discovered when he was introduced to the topic. He wrote a book called "Economia, New economic systems to empower people and support the living world" (2004). Davies has some interesting ideas, many of which made sense to me, but my indoctrination is still winning. It wasn't until I came across the work of Dr Robert Costanza, Director of the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, that the penny finally began to drop. The economy is a subset of the environment. The Economy is fully dependent on the environment, not the reverse, as all my training told me. Learn to see with new eyes, John. A subset can never dominate the set that it's part of. The economy can never sustain a better environment. Thinking that way get's cause and effect back to front, and that's the mistake we make all the time.

I'm indebted to the Australian Conservation Foundation for giving me some up-to date numbers to give the size of the environmental input to the economy, some understandable measure. They have studied the market economy, the community economy and the natural economy. They say that based on conservative estimates, that community production equals or is greater than the market economy, and that the economic contribution of the natural economy is only slightly less.

You can download a PDF of this image by clicking on the image.

What would our economy look like if we included in it all of the valuable contributions of our social and ecological systems? ACF's new tool "The Whole Economy" will help paint a picture of this broader and more meaningful economy. What we have is a three legged stool, "The Whole Economy", with each leg having similar contribution to make. When we focus entirely on the market economy, and try to make it "grow" the easy short route to success is to convert part of the community, or the environment into market values. For all of my life that's what we've been doing. I think there has been enormous cost to the community, and we are all aware (I hope) that the environmental cost has been unacceptable.

I've set a personal objective to make public the foolishness of governments focusing on growing the GDP of a country, while ignoring community and environmental production. The GDP is a wrong policy target and the narrow focus on that objective causes the misdirection of both government and community resources. Once we understand that The Whole Economy, has three substantial legs, and not just one, the folly of present government policy is obvious.

Here is Chuck Berger talking at TedX in Melbourne. He tells us that The Whole Economy has three parts. The monetary economy, the social economy and the natural economy.

If this really interests you, in 140 minutes, Dr Philip Lawn. Senior Lecturer in Ecological Economics, Flinders University. South Australia, delivers a very informative lecture. It's called "Doctor, there's a growth in my economy!"

Please help me. First by making sure you understand the principles of The Whole Economy, as described above. Second by writing a short comment below, so I can gauge reaction to this essay. And third, by talking to other people about this enlarged idea of what "The Whole Economy" is, and how we can use it.

John Stephen Veitch
The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch here:

http://johnsveitch.blogspot.com/2011/01/whole-economy.html

Technorati Tags - The Whole Economy Phillip Lawn Chuck Berger Australian Conservation Foundation Gund Institute Robert Costanza Geoff Davies Herman Daly Who's Counting Counting for Nothing Marilyn Waring workforce GDP Gross Domestic Product economic knowledge John Stephen Veitch

On being a Professional

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Sun, 09 Jan 2011 12:48:00 +0000

When I was a young man one of the dreams I had, was to become a professional. The idea of being someone who had knowledge and expertise and the ability to be really effective in the world was important to me.

In the previous post, I ended with these words.

[quote] We've used our very best minds in politics, economics, business and science to create a self made disaster that threatens to destroy much of human life on earth. To quote the Club of Rome again: "The classical models and strategies of development are destroying the environment, overusing resources, generation widening disparities and leaving billions excluded from the benefits of progress. ... We are facing a social transformation and level of upheaval that is historic in it's proportions and uncertain in it's outcomes." [end quote]

This threat to the future of humanity is almost entirely the combined effort of the professionals in the world, people like me. Capable, able people, doing their best, but focused on inappropriate objectives, often for the most "professional" reasons. So what went wrong here? How do we fix it?

In 1980 Alvin Toffler writing in "The Third Wave" spoke of the urgent need to rebuild our existing political and business systems. I wrote about Toffler's views, in "We Need to Initiate Change Ourselves" in 2007. The problem is that once professionals have been trained, as Gregory Bateson pointed out, it becomes almost impossible to retrain them to adopt new ways of thinking and new practices. All our thinking tends to become circular and self validating. Our minds congratulate us for our own brilliance precisely when we are making basic and simple errors of judgment. Even in science where proof by experimental evidence is respected, the speed at which new ideas are adopted is determined largely by the death rate of the established scientific leaders. See the work of Thomas Kuhn in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".

The root of this essay was this paper by Robert Jensen, "The Myth of the Neutral Professional" (2006). In particular he claims that journalists and university professors, along with many other professionals, would claim that their professional opinion is neutral, but Jensen says that the mere fact of claiming to be professional in your work, means that you have already chosen sides. Professionals by their training and their commitment to "high standards" are members of the establishment, committed to the existing system, and responsible for it's maintenance. "There is no neutral ground on which to stand", claims Jensen, we all articulate values and assumptions that are part of our professional status.

Jensen refers to an insight from historian Howard Zinn. Howard Zinn used the metaphor where the whole society is a train which has momentum and rides on a track that has direction. We are passengers on that train. You can't sit there enjoying the ride and pretending that you have no part in what's happening, especially if you are a professional. In fact, as a professional your advice is supposed to make the train grow bigger and travel faster. All of my own formal training was intended to have that purpose.

When I was entering the work force in the 1960's the world was full of optimism about how that future would be. Economists now knew how to prevent depressions and moderate the business cycle. Development economists were confident, after the success of the Marshall Plan in Europe, that the economic development of third world counties was not only possible, but would soon be a reality. People would live to 80 years of age, after 30 years of retirement. With automation people should expect in future to work a 20 hour week. The world was a great sheet of white paper on which humanity would write the words, PEACE, PROSPERITY, and FREEDOM. Even more exciting, I was going to help make that dream come true.

I remember when I was about 27, having a blazing row with my father, based on the failures of his generation to use the years between 1945 and 1968 to make the world a better place. (Dad must have been only 52 himself.) Despite economic progress we had used the "peace", to recreate war, and that seemed to me then (probably correctly) that the cause originated in the USA. The folly of Vietnam concerned me. Surely, we don't have to repeat that mistake. Sadly, we have. I now use my father's defense. The ideals by which I've tried to live my life also lie in the dust of recent history.

Your world view dictates what you think is important, what questions you can ask, and what you imagine is reliable evidence. In the mid 1970's I first began to have serious doubts about the quality of the "knowledge" I had. That drove me to university as an adult, and for a few years, what I learned there seemed to be reliable. Slowly, however, the cracks appeared. Small problems that don't resolve themselves. Things that are promised that never get done. Efforts to improve things that actually make things worse. Not just one or two cases, this problem is everywhere. The value of keeping a journal, is that over 10 years or so this repeated failure at the core of our society, becomes obvious and you can't ignore it anymore.

I was impressed by the story of Dr. Andrew H. Wyllie, who discovered a mysterious process called apoptosis, which is a natural mechanism in body cells, that turns them off and leads to cell death. The process is driven by a signaling system, like the cells in the body constantly offering a handshake to each other. If that handshake is available the cell continues to live. If that handshake is absent the cell turns off and dies. In a healthy body, this process maintains good health. Failure of the process causes problems like cancer.

I think something like that happens in society too. And in companies. And in professional groups. There is a continuous signaling process we might call "I'm OK: You're OK". If the group is too small, or too focused on thinking only positive thoughts, or too focused on growth or any other single objective, they are liable to be trapped into group think. The signaling system doesn't work because some types of signals are blocked by a mental firewall that we all use. We can be blinded by our indoctrination.

It's essential to penetrate the facade of polite agreement around the professional table to get at the real issues we need to face. To discover in midlife as many of us do, that much of what we've been taught and willingly believed since childhood is simply false is a difficult pill to swallow. A story too horrifying to be true. We reject that notion. It can't be so. We deny the evidence. This is what Waldo Salt talks about when he uses the term "searching for truth". That's the path less followed because it's so difficult. Most people take the path of least resistance. They take the ride on the "train" Howard Zinn spoke of, and hope for the best.

An open future is possible, but it demands more than of us, than going along for the ride.

John Stephen Veitch
The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch here:
http://johnsveitch.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-being-professional.html

Technorati Tags - professional expertise objectives Alvin Toffler Robert Jensen neutral professional Howard Zinn development economist knowledge keeping a journal apoptosis Andrew Wyllie positive thinking indoctrination Waldo Salt effort to improve John Stephen Veitch

Trying to Understand the World

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 11:20:00 +0000

The planet Earth has it's own system. People have never understood it. Once upon a time it was so mysterious that people used to have all sorts of superstitious understandings and ritual behaviours to make the Gods look with favour on their activities.

In modern times with science to guide us, we understand about much more about volcanoes and earthquakes and weather patterns and epidemic diseases. We no longer view such events as God's punishment for us, and requiring human penance.

The Club of Rome has tried to understand the whole system for more than 40 years. They commissioned MIT to study the problem and the report about that was produced in 1972. It was called "Limits to Growth", and was written by Dennis and Donella Meadows. The book so challenged traditional thinking that it was rejected, even minimised by the Club of Rome. In the view of the Club of Rome, these limits to growth need not apply, because forewarned, human designed business and political systems would find ways to overcome the problems as they appeared. This is a very simple representation of the problem. Dr Michael Woolcock has some interesting views on this topic too, he calls it "The Big Stuck" and there is a link to his lectures at the bottom of that page.

There is another representation of "The Problématique Humaine" here: linked to James Gustave Speth's, Eight Necessary Transitions.

The Club of Rome now states; "The global issues which were the focus of the 1972 Report, "Limits to Growth" are even more severe and urgent today." For the past three years the Club of Rome has been preparing "A New Path for World Development" which is to be published soon. Ian Johnson, Secretary General of the Club of Rome writes: "We are living at a time of radical transformation in the structure of the world economy. ... A major overhaul is now required. We cannot continue with business as usual. We need to change quickly. The world is facing major financial, ecological and social crises driven by failed policies, failed economics, and failed political systems."

The planet Earth has it's own system. That system is self organising and has it's own processes for dealing with changes in the condition of, or the state of, the planet. Human communities and the political/economic system man has devised, is a subsystem only, within the larger planetary environment. Thanks to fractal geometry we can make an equation that draws a pattern that can represent the whole system at the planetary level. Our problem begins with our inability to see the whole picture. What we "see" and try to understand are merely small parts of the whole. We have to imagine the rest.

In the picture to the left, I want to interpret the colour blue as representing the environment and the colour white representing the human activity within the system. So the pattern is predominantly the environment, but with significant human activity. In the past, it's been thought that the environment was so vast and so dominant, that human activity could not upset the pattern. Perhaps we can imagine above that the human activity is also highly significant.

This diagram represents how humans have traditionally seen the world problem. We have these various human activities we are engaged in. We play our development game on a vast limitless plain were our task is to expand human activities as much as we can. We know that there are environmental concerns but we think they are small (eg. 6 small blocks representing nature) and when we've become strong enough and rich enough, we'll attend to the environment. In my imagination, this is the problem as we've seen it for the last 200 years. We have tried to use the best knowledge and wisdom available to "develop" the limitless world, with much apparent success, and suddenly, then all sorts of unexpected problems arise. The unpaid servant, which cleans our water and rejuvenates the air and stocks the seas with fish, is refusing to "work". The unpaid servant, which maintained the climate for us, is grossly overburdened and is now "on strike". The unpaid servant Water, is too often in flood or in drought, and is proving unreliable. The underpaid servant Oil, now expects a premium for scarcity. The Club of Rome again: "We are now heading into a perfect storm of an interconnected financial, ecological and social crisis driven by failed policies, failed economics, and failed political systems."

As I was taught in both economics and science, the world offers mankind limitless opportunity for development and the creation of wealth. My forefathers going back at least six generations have always become richer. My father with a high school education was richer than his father with only primary education. With a university degree I would be much richer than my father. It's a bit hard to say, since things have changed so much, but I'm not sure my father's real wealth and mine are so much different. I fully expect the next generation to be poorer (Although in lucky New Zealand, most of them seem fine right now.) , and the generation to follow will be poorer again.

Prof. Tom Wessels in "The Myth of Progress", reminds us that all processes have both positive and negative feedbacks when they are under control. The behaviour of complex systems, can't be predicted with any certainty. Complex systems contain "nested" sub-systems. The more diverse any sub-system is, the more stable it's likely to be. Human activities are tending to make sub-systems less diverse and more unstable. When we try to "fix" problems we usually succeed in making them worse.

The reality is that in all the empty spaces in the representation above, there is no "empty space" for further human activity and growth. That space is already occupied by the environment, or by other people. We can grow human activities, but only at the expense of natural systems, or indeed by other human activity - the indigenous people, for instance. There is no free lunch as economists like to point out. So the world we should try to imagine more realistically is something like this. We know quite a lot about parts of it, we now understand that what we don't know about isn't "empty" but is occupied by other people or by nature, and that we can't expand our activities there without displacement. The ability of any one mind or any group of minds to understand the system is very limited compared with the vastness and complexity of what's really there. Human political and economic systems can never grow big enough to control the system at the planetary level. But human activity can get out of control and cause immense damage to the planetary system.

Prof. Tom Wessels says that there are three general rules:
1. There are limits to the growth of any sub-system and for the system as a whole.
2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, can't by be avoided. (Energy flows away: Order tends to become disorder.)
3. All complex systems are self organising. (Our efforts to re-organised the Earth to suit us, often blowback on us. )

We've used our very best minds in politics, economics, business and science to create a self made disaster that threatens to destroy much of human life on earth. To quote the Club of Rome again: "The classical models and strategies of development are destroying the environment, overusing resources, generation widening disparities and leaving billions excluded from the benefits of progress. ... We are facing a social transformation and level of upheaval that is historic in it's proportions and uncertain in it's outcomes.

I still believe we have a choice. A more "open future" is possible, but to get there we have to choose to live in a different way.

John Stephen Veitch
The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch here:
http://johnsveitch.blogspot.com/2011/01/trying-to-understand-world.html

Technorati Tags - John Stephen Veitch limitless opportunity education progress natural systems human activities Tom Wessels economics complex systems self organising open future human life Club of Rome Limits to Growth world development

The Fractile Nature of Information

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 06:27:00 +0000

No entries here for eight months. What happened?

At the end of the previous post I said: "You can't KNOW what your goals should be, because you don't know and you can't know "what comes next". So it's like playing a jazz band, you have to let other people play a verse, you join in a refrain, and then you get to improvise your own verse." It's a conversation, and any conversation can take a completely new direction at any time, at the whim of one of the participants.

I did have a plan. I was going to go on and explain how the principles of fractal geometry apply to the many major problems that afflict the world. I went off to better research the topic and got completely lost. There is another story too. In February 2010, I was introduced to Four Years.Go. The organisation was just beginning to get going. I liked what they were trying to do. I was particularly impressed by the people who were already supporting the Four Years.Go. initiative.

Following my instinct I kept meeting new people, connecting to their blogs and reading furiously. I was introduced to some new knowledge management experts. I was re-introduced to economic theory and to the environmental school of economic theory. My RSS Reader grew from 40 feeds to over 150. The amount of paper I was printing grew substantially.

For the last eight months I've been feeding myself and building my knowledge base. I think in the process I've come back to the same place, but now I know the territory, because I've personally explored it. What did I learn?

Here is some of the work I've done with Four Years.Go. In particular there is good deal of video about Environmental Economics. I've added my own notes to much of it. The Club of Rome becomes important again. I've been aware of their Problematique Problem for 30 years, and I'm pleased to see they are making progress with it. If you've got 80 minutes, Dr Michael Woolcock has some interesting views on what he calls "The Big Stuck", the trap modern economies seem to have developed. (The cul-de-sac idea revisited if you like.)

That's one of the lessons. New ideas are NOT quickly acquired. If an idea is really new to you, it's not useful when you first encounter it. Any new idea has to be integrated with who you are and with all the other things you know, before you can use it. That takes time, and active effort to work with, and reflect on, what you are learning. New knowledge and understanding doesn't come easy. For all modern people our REAL WORK is in this learning process. It's essential at work in all but the most menial jobs and it's essential in your community life.

Some hints for using an RSS Reader. A lesson from 20 years ago first. There is always more water in the ocean. When I was journal writing I had short times when I tried to capture too much of what was around me. I had to learn that you cannot drink the ocean dry. So it is with an RSS Reader. You can access far more interesting material than you can ever read. It doesn't matter. What you can see in any 24 hours is almost exactly the same as in any other 24 hour period. Take in what you can. If you miss a few days, ignore what went by. Start with the most recent 24 hours. If something really important went by, someone else will refer to it, that idea will come back, it will find you if it's important. That's simply the principle of fractal geometry again.

I've collected perhaps 2000 pages of printed materials, roughly sorted into topics. I've written about 400 handwritten pages in two of my exercise book journals. Somewhere in there is what I intend to share with you in the next few months. I expect to post to this blog once a week in 2011. We'll see how I go.

John Stephen Veitch
The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch here:
http://johnsveitch.blogspot.com/2010/12/fractile-nature-of-information.html

Technorati Tags - John Stephen Veitch What comes next Four Years.Go. learning economic theory environmental economics knowledge new ideas active effort learning process RSS Reader journal writing fractal geometry

Personal Space - Fractal Geometry

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:55:00 +0000

Previous post "Some Simple Principles - Fractal Geometry"

The previous post noted that we all live somewhere, and wherever that place is, it has the nature of a cull-de-sac. In particular there is an "inside your home" and an "outside your home" and a clear barrier between the two. Just as there is a clear barrier between your property and other properties, and your street and other streets. These barriers are quite important. They allow us to privacy, and freedom, yet when we cross those boundaries we can have community and open dialogue.

The suburb, the city, the region, the state, the country, are all larger and larger cul-de-sacs. Eventually the Earth itself is a cul-de-sac too, a small blue dot in space, Spaceship Earth. Today I want to talk about what you can personally control.

Personal example

You live in your room. You have to have a "place" and your room is one of your places. But to be effective in the world you can't stay in your room, you must engage with your family, with your neighbour's, with the community beyond the cul-de-sac you live in. Engagement requires that you reach out beyond the cul-de-sac where you live, to work,to contribute to the social life of the community.

Each cul-de-sac has it's own limits. What exists can only change if something NEW is introduced. In the process of going out and coming into the cul-de-sac where you live, the residents remove from and carry into the cul-de-sac the things they need to live their lives.

You have to begin where you are, and with who you are. Step one is to make the best use of what you have. Think about yourself and your skills and ability, and how you lead your life, from your place. You change your life prospects by what you choose to do each day.

You seek to make the best of your life. Most people try to keep some acceptable balance of work and hobbies and family commitments and social obligations. I know in my life I find making time for enough exercise is a problem. A key reason for that is the amount of time I spend on the Internet. I'm not making any money on the Internet, but I am becoming well informed, and I do have a good feel for where I'm going, and therefore why I'm writing this blog.

You learn skills, you seek to apply those skills both in your home and in the community. In the process you bring the "new" back to your room. If you seek to better yourself, to improve your income or your life-style, you need to add something you didn't have before. Whatever that is, came from somewhere. You needed to be active to find it, and make it your own.

In the modern world, because we drive from the home garage to some outside destination we frequently know very little about the neighbours who share our cul-de-sac. One easy way to improve what's happening about you is to visit your neighbour's. Understand what's happening here, you are crossing a boundary, and transferring ideas, goods, favours, and sometimes people across that boundary. In the process you add something of value to your life.

In the same way most of us leave home every day, travelling out of our home cul-de-sac into a new work related one. For most of us this is the main way we win resources to take back to our home base. Some people are able to engage in commerce from home. Occasionally people are able to use the Internet to avoid a trip to the office. This sort of work is developing, but it depends on you having specialist knowledge, and sometimes specialist training.

It could be that the skill set you have is no longer in demand. If the cul-de-sac where you work can no longer offer employment you will need to find another place to be. However painful the process, you need to find new skills, to change direction, in effect to reposition yourself in a new skills cul-de-sac.

I know about this transition, because it's one that I'm currently making myself. For me it hasn't been easy. I began 15 years ago, and I'm still not where I expect be, even now. I've been both blessed and handicapped by the immaturity of the Internet and the tools with which I've been able to work with. I was present when everyone was a newbie, and none of us understood what we were doing. We had some strange very foolish ideas back then. Few of those ideas were valid. But the understanding that something important was happening online was valid. It was our ability to say what it was, that we were involved in, that failed. Here's a link to what I was writing about the Internet in 2004-2005.

The routine is to climb back on the learning curve, each and every day. It's been a wild ride, and it's still like that. for me, today. When newbies come online. They come either very timid and unsure of themselves, or they come all fired up with enthusiasm and hype, and ready to take on the world. Both groups have much to learn. Getting involved is the only sensible way to begin.

The Internet offers you a new way to get information across the boundary between your place and other places around the world. While it may be true that potentially I can talk to anyone - from a practical point of view I can only engage with a few people - I get to choose who I pay attention too. They get to choose if they are want to engage with me.

Take time to learn about the Internet by joining some online social networks and engaging with more experienced people. Remember that it's not about "you", you are entering an ongoing conversation, and the first step is to discover what that conversation is about. When your knowledge improves you will be less certain about what you know, but also more likely to know what to do next, and to do that successfully. That's a huge departure from everything most of us have been taught about how to be successful in life. The S.M.A.R.T. goals approach to being successful. It's nonsense. You can't KNOW what your goals should be, because you don't know and you can't know "what comes next". So it's like playing a jazz band, you have to let other people play a verse, you join in a refrain, and then you get to improvise your own verse. This approach to "success" might be useful to you.

John Stephen Veitch
The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch here:

Technorati Tags - John Stephen Veitch cul-de-sac engagement your skills your life change your life commitments social obligations modern world neighbour Internet newbie

Some Simple Principles - Fractal Geometry

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 06:58:00 +0000

I want to explain a principle to you that I believe is helpful. If you draw a circle on a piece of paper, you can always draw a bigger circle around it. A set of any size can always be part of a larger, more powerful set.

In mathematics this is explained most beautifully by the principles of fractal geometry. This pattern repeats over and over, getting both larger and smaller infinitely. Each curl is like a self contained cul-de-sac, and each part of every curl forms a smaller cul-de-sac. This type of fractal pattern is a key principle in mathematics, and it's common in all of nature.

It's not true that "we can do anything", and there is a reason why we are limited. We must be somewhere. We live or work in a cul-de-sac somewhere. That somewhere has both advantages and disadvantages, which are characteristic of the geometry of the pattern we are describing.

I want to use this analogy to talk about your own prospects, the industry you work in, the city you live in, and the national economy you are part of. But first I want to be sure you appreciate what a cul-de-sac is like.

We have been living in a cul-de-sac world. Look at a residential cul-de-sac, a pattern you know well. When you are driving along a cul-de-sac, before you reach the end, it looks like an open roadway. But there is no way out, except that you go back the way you came in. Each house is it's own cul-de-sac. There is a driveway leading to a dead end. The house itself repeats the pattern. A hallway leading to individual rooms.

Extending to the larger and larger, for the company you work for, to the industry you work in, to the city or region in which you live, to the nation, to the Earth itself. Each of these larger organizational units still retain their cul-de-sac nature. I'll post three additional posts on this theme. Let me explain where I'm trying to go.

Personal example

You live in a home. The position of that home, the neighbour's, the distance to work, to services to places you need to live your life, both enhance and limit what you can do.

There are things you can do to improve what comes in and what goes out of that space that will influence the quality of your life.

Life work example

Whatever you choose to do as work, there is every chance that change is coming. Your field may be expanding or contracting. The cul-de-sac in which you work, may not be a satisfactory place. You may need to move.

One of the features of modern employment is that each of us will have many different professional lives. We change and develop, the world is changing and the employment landscape is changing. The job we will do in ten years time may not exist yet. The job I move into next is likely to related in some way to experience I'm currently getting, either at work or in my leisure activities.

Country Example

Each country is also a cul-de-sac, there are resource issues, community traditions, political governance, and external trade and social influences, that are unique to wherever you live.

Governments also suffer from "old mind" problems. Political parties, all institutions, have rules witch date back many years, and were meant to be unchanging. Those rules are often nonsensical in the context of the modern world.

Overall Principle

Whatever place or region we are talking about, it can be thought of as a cul-de-sac. In the first case you are limited by what is already there. The cul-de-sac can be improved if you bring in the things you need. Often that involves leaving the cul-de-sac to "find new stuff". Sometimes, improving the cul-de-sac requires removing something, waste products, or bad behaviours.

The Internet offers the opportunity to bring into your cul-de-sac new ideas and knowledge. No matter where your cul-de-sac is, in the scheme of things, position is less limiting than it was. Potentially that changes everything. The information age, or the knowledge wave, should be here. But it's not. At least not yet.

Failure to use the Internet

The Internet has been with us for 30 years, and in practical terms it's been available to homes in all developed countries for 15 years. But people don't use it, much, even when they have broadband in their homes. I know what I'm saying is the opposite of everything else you are reading, so what's wrong here? Good Data is the secret of having good knowledge. I work in market research. Market research companies ask questions about internet use, but the questions asked are controlled by our old minds. Surveys still ask nonsensical questions like, "Do you surf the Internet?" Daily: Weekly; Monthly: Less Often. Nobody has surfed the Internet for the last 8 years. The sort of links that encouraged surfing, no longer exist in most web sites, Today people "search". Survey data is plagued by the wrong questions asked. What's being offered is changing every two years, and out behaviour is changing faster than our surveys can adapt.

When blogging became more common, survey questions appeared like, "Do you ever read blogs?" To which almost everyone can now answer "Yes". So that question is meaningless, today. I asked people if they had read a blog in the last 7 days. Of 90 people asked, 3 replied positively. When asked who was keeping a blog, there was only ONE person, and he wasn't currently updating it.

My data required people to count the number of entries per week or each day as recorded on their computer. How many email's are you getting? How much of your mail is list mail, or notices from retailers or groups you've joined? How many email's do your write. The results are surprising. Here is the data from my last small survey.

You can see that the top 10% of people are getting more than 20 email's a day. Most of that mail is not personal, it doesn't need to be read, and no reply is required. You will notice that the mean number of email's a day is only THREE.

There is a lot of talk about the growth of Social Networks. I'm deeply involved, I'm a member of about 20 and I'm active on at least 6. But of the 90 people surveyed, Facebook was the only network many people were on, and for most people, that was the only online social network they were on.

There is lot of talk about the move towards video on demand. But once again my data is confounding. About 60% of my sample NEVER watched video online during the survey week.

John Stephen Veitch
The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch here:

Technorati Tags - fractal geometry cul-de-sac world quality of life modern employment information age Social Networks Facebook video on demand John Stephen Veitch

Finding the Energy to Understand

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 02:44:00 +0000

It's been five months since I've posted to this Open Future Blog. I've been engaged in a battle against the forces of ignorance and the bully-boy tactics of some people online. In an effort not to dismiss these people from my network I tried to understand what they were saying and to understand their point of view. That was a mistake. However, it's a mistake I can learn from; a mistake I did learn from.

We need to go back 15 months to January 2009, when I first started to write about depression economics. It was then clear to me that a process I'd seen coming for a long time was happening in front of me like a long slow (many months) train wreck. Since then, governments around the world have pumped money into the system, and prevented a depression, but they've also created a zero growth future. Here in the beginning of April 2010, while people are talking about a "recovery" there is little to be happy about. The old corrupt system is "restored", so the problems remain and the opportunity to solve fundamental problems was lost.

In my previous entry, I wrote about how the "Divine Right of Kings" is restored, and the promises that will be broken are made, and remade, to keep us all committed to the cause. In particular I wrote this about Climate Change.

Climate Change: And so to the issue of the moment, climate change. The economic recession was good news for the climate change statistics. Global business in the old way, especially in the richest countries is exactly the driving force behind environmental destruction and climate change. A return to business as normal doesn't fix the problem, it makes it worse. The economic crisis was a perfect opportunity to change attitudes in business, and to give carbon pricing and energy conservation some strong backing. But now it won't happen. Everything is returning to "normal" and it's "normal" that's killing the planet, and it's also killing us.

In my Innovation Network on Ryze, a small group of very committed people began posting a series of articles challenging the scientific claims about climate change. My intuitive response was that this attack was an orchestrated nonsense, but my personal commitment is also to give everyone a fair hearing. Consequently, I spent hours and hours, reading stuff that was supposed to be from reputable sources, but turned out to be complete rubbish.

This wasn't entirely a waste of my time. As with all issues, following Steven Covey: "Seek first to Understand". I was not up to speed, even as an interested member of the public on the in's and out's of climate change science. Nor am I now. But today, I'm much better informed, and I don't hesitate to challenge directly statements of deliberate falsehood on the issue, when I see them. As late as January and February this year, I was still reluctant to do that.

I don't believe in the hard form of the statement; "Seek the truth, and the truth shall set you free." But without "truth" we face very long odds indeed. The trouble is, "How do you recognise the truth?" I concluded in my journal over 30 years ago, that the truth, and lies, and other myths, all look the same. That's partly why my journal became such a big project. Knowing I couldn't recognise "truth" when I saw it, I collected many claims, and allowed the test of time to evaluate them. As a personal tactic that's worked rather well. I write in my journal what's interesting and claiming to be factual, or true, or wise, or valid. With the benefit of hindsight, five, ten or twenty years later, some of those claims look very shallow indeed. So slowly we learn.

There are many kinds of "truth". The truth of a story, even though it be fiction. Or the truth of myth's which are stories told because they contain truth's. Of course there is scientific truth, which recently has been challenged, and as near as I can tell that challenge comes from "Political Truth" and/or "Religious Truth".

Political Truth: Political truth often has two forms, a hard form and a soft form. The hard form is almost never valid, but the soft form can almost always be seen to contain at least a grain of "truth". Political truth is often class based, it speaks to who you are, or want to be, and to what motivates you as an individual. "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" is a good example. "True" because it suited both the Republicans and the Democrats in the USA, and later on, Tony Blair, to "decide" this was "true". We all now know that it wasn't "true". I at least believe that this particular political lie, led to a war that the USA and Britain could have easily avoided. That war was either legal or illegal, depending on which political truth you choose to believe. But it was a war at least some people in the West wanted. Political truth makes GW Bush and Tony Blair "war criminals" or not, again dependent on the choices you make. Another political truth trotted out at every election is that "Taxes are too high." Or that, "Prison sentences for criminals are too light." When people become over committed to political truth's, they sometimes lose a sense of perspective, and do things they live to regret. Good people can do bad things, and even convince themselves that they did the right thing.

Religious Truth: The motivation behind religious beliefs is usually deeply rooted. I know when I walked away from the Christian Church I was quite frightened, it felt like something essential to who I was, was missing. For me the belief structure that supported my membership had crumbled away. I couldn't sit there and say words and participate in rituals that for me had lost meaning. I have friends in the USA, (and a couple in NZ) who strongly cling to Biblical texts as "God's Word". So they often get themselves into strife, coping with the modern world. The religious thinker I most admire, Rev. Prof. Lloyd Geering, says that, "Christians must accept the responsibility of stewardship over the whole of nature." In his view the church must become the hand of God that saves the Earth. My fundamentalist friends believe that, "Only God can create and only God can destroy" so that mankind is too puny and powerless to "change the climate", and that we cannot therefore, cause our own demise by destroying the environment.

You have to choose what you believe is "true" or not. As I said earlier, this isn't easy. I have very little faith in my ability to accurately make those choices, at least in the short term. But in the long term, the picture always becomes more certain. There are many passages in my journal written 20 or 30 years ago that I deeply believed, that I now "know" to be false. The ability to identify beliefs that stop you from understanding the world and adapting to change in a smooth and pragmatic way is one of the keys to successful living.

John Stephen Veitch
The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form, or comment publicly using the Blogger "comment" tag below.

Technorati Tags - Open Future Blog forces of ignorance depression economics zero growth Divine Rights Climate Change business as usual scientific claims Lloyd Geering Political Truth Religious Truth John Stephen Veitch

Returning to Normal the Divine Rights Restored

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:33:00 +0000

I have to keep reminding myself what this blog is about. Sir Karl Popper understood it, and so does Alvin Toffler.

Sir Karl Popper: "We must relentlessly search for errors in our own thinking. The readiness to discover errors in our thinking is essential if we are to learn from experience. ... Free criticism and discussion is essential not only in science but also in the life of the nation. ... Any policy, blueprint or political theory will always have unintended consequences. ... There is always much room for improvement."

Earl Mardle, one of the premier bloggers in New Zealand, prompted me to think about the word "normal" in his "A Networked World" blog he wrote "Towards a New Normal", arguing that global managerial attitudes, revert to "manager knows best" and that necessary change is avoided, hence the mistakes of the past will be repeated.

The "Divine Right of Kings" has often been challenged. Here in New Zealand we were taught that the Magna Carta; The Great Charter of English liberty, granted (under considerable duress) by King John at Runnymede on June 15, 1215, began an inevitable march towards democracy, that led to the British Commonwealth of Nations and to the creation of free and democratic societies across the globe. Importantly, the Magna Carta established in law, that the King himself was subject to the law, and was not above it, nor immune from prosecution.

As a measure of democracy the Magna Carta was insignificant, it gave Bishops and Barons legal status and protection against the precipitous action of the King. One source suggests that was protection for only 24 people, the tenants-in-chief. In future; English Kings who lie and steal and cheat or levy unjust taxes against the tenants-in-chief, would be held to account.

Today we are told that economic recovery is on the way, that because of quick and united global political action to support the banking system. The world economy is returning to normal. So what does that mean?

It seems to me that something very close to the divine right of kings still exists. The medieval Church has lost it's power, but Bishops have been replaced by bankers, and the barons by corporate interests and government is purchased to serve the interests of a modern group who know they are "tenants-in-chief". This capture of the system by insiders is "normal". The financial sector of the economy is parasitic on the real economy, and that process mis-allocates capital funds and political power and makes our economies dysfunctional.

The key problems facing the world that refuse solution are global. Issues beyond the ability of any one nation to resolve no matter how powerful. Protecting the fish in the sea from over-fishing for instance. Or control of nuclear weapons and weapons grade materials. Or what to do about the millions of economic refugees travelling around the world looking for a home, where there is some chance of a desirable life.

Four Broken Promises - Despite the fine words, nothing changes

Species Extinction: At the Earth Summit in 1992 commitments were made to reverse the accelerating extinction of species. In 2003 ministers from 123 countries pledged to reduce the rate of bio diversity loss by 2010. Nothing happens. Empty words on paper. It's now predicted that freshwater ecosystems in many countries will collapse in the next few years. It's already happening, some rivers no longer reach the sea except in flood. The loss of habitat is of course closely related to changes of climate.

Millennium Development Goals: In September 2000, at the United Nations 147 political leaders, 3 crown princes and 8 deputy leaders, committed their countries to some solemn development goals.

For instance Clause 19 resolves that by 2015 they would:

Reduce the number of people living on $1 a day, and those who are hungry by 50%.
Provide primary education for every child in the world, and equal access the education for boys and girls at all levels.
To reduce maternal mortality by 75% and death of children under 5 by 66%.
To halt the spread of HIV-aids malaria and other major diseases.
To provide special assistance to children orphaned by HIV-aids.
By 2020 to have significantly improved the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers as proposed in the "Cities Without Slums" initiative.

These are important goals, much more important than providing people with computers. Where’s the progress? Who’s making the investment? There has been progress in a few countries. But the political commitment to get this work done doesn't exist.

The United Nations :The divine right of Kings lives on in the United Nations. The idea that every country should have one vote isn't democratic at all. Nor is the idea that the five countries which were the "winners" of WWII should have a super vote, the power to veto any decision of the Security Council. The recently retired President of the General Assembly, Father Miguel d'Escoto, worked very hard in the past year to make the United Nations more democratic. He blames the world's most powerful nations for a complete lack of progress on that front. According to d'Escoto the United Nations finds it impossible to do the two things most central to it's charter, the prevention of war and the elimination of poverty, because real progress of that sort would impede the freedom of action of the big powers. Like King John, the big powers don't want to agree that they too should also be subject to the law. The USA and Great Britain don't want to know that the war on Iraq was illegal. G.W. Bush and Tony Blair don't expect to spend 20 years in prison for war crimes. Israel will not accept, with the support of the USA, that Operation Glass Lead involved war crimes for which both political and military personal should expect to be charged. Why? Because the rules that applied to Germany in 1945 don't apply to "us". "We" are apparently above the law.

Climate Change: And so to the issue of the moment, climate change. The economic recession was good news for the climate change statistics. Global business in the old way, especially in the richest countries is exactly the driving force behind environmental destruction and climate change. A return to business as normal doesn't fix the problem, it makes it worse. The economic crisis was a perfect opportunity to change attitudes in business, and to give carbon pricing and energy conservation some strong backing. But now it won't happen. Everything is returning to "normal" and it's normal that's killing the planet, and it's also killing us.

The Lesson?

This is the "Open Future Blog", I believe we can have a future that's worthy of humanity. We can reach for goals that are the best we can imagine. But we won't, unless the principle of the "divine right" of some people to make rules for other people, which they themselves do not need to obey, is challenged and reversed.

There can be no justice, there can be no rule of law, there can be no peace, there can be no effective international agreements about trade, civil rights, self defense, fishing rights, nuclear weapons or anything else, if any one of five countries, or if any one country, is above and apart from the agreement. So we need a new Magna Carta, one that places Britain, France, Russia, China and the USA is the situation King John faced. A revolt of the tenants-in-chief against the broken promises, the lies and falsehoods, the unfair taxes and the discrimination used by the big five to maintain their power. If that was possible, perhaps there is hope for mankind. But since few people even understand the problem, and since the big five don't want to know about it, it will take a major disaster to cause the sort of change we need. A disaster? Yes, lots of unnecessary deaths. Six million here and six million there does nothing. The system rolls on unchecked.

WWI was the war to end all wars. After WWII there was "never" going to be another war. I grew up in the 1950's and our hope for the United Nations and for peace was very strong and confident. What happened? The divine right of Kings returned. That's what we need to change.

John Stephen Veitch
The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form. Or publicly using the Blogger comment tag below.

Technorati Tags Alvin Toffler Sir Karl Popper Earl Mardle world economy Magna Carta normal Earth Summit extinction Development Goals United Nations climate change war crimes Operation Glass Lead John Stephen Veitch

PBEFEY4U94AY

833bb65f6249d44a3b17aa6c71957f07

The Tragedy of Our Indoctrination

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 12:45:00 +0000

This topic arises from "The Tragedy of the Commons" an essay by Garrett Hardin written in 1968. In the USA, the "The Tragedy of the Commons" has been misrepresented as proof that private ownership and free markets are the only way to protect a nations assets. This was not at all the view that Hardin took. What concerns me here is the deliberate mis-construction of Hardin's essay to make an invalid argument. The incident I refer to is simply propaganda speak.

This is the perfect example of what a commons is, and why every commons needs protection. If you begin to look for them, examples of commons exist everywhere. On the street, in a bus, in a classroom, in any shop. Usually social, cultural or religious rules, standards of expected public behaviour maintain a high degree of control over the public space. It's very rare for anyone to break the code. When people do break the code, and social sanctions don't stop them, legal sanctions may be necessary. If that doesn't work, the commons may be under serious threat.

All our learning is social. We learn first from people like ourselves, our family. Throughout our lives it's always easier to learn from people who share our culture and origins. We can and do learn from other people, but that's always harder to do. As a result, we tend in our lives to reinforce the knowledge of our childhood training, the original indoctrination of family, school, church and neighbourhood is a very powerful force in our lives. It prepares us to live in that local world, and not in the modern global world. Hence my title, "The Tragedy of our Indoctrination". Our indoctrination limits what we choose to pay attention to. Our indoctrination limits the questions we can ask and the people we talk to, who we see as an expert, and who we see as trustworthy.

While Garrett Hardin was talking about the misuse of common land, of fisheries of water resources and the like, the common I want to address is the public information common. In our adult lives the content of the public information common flows over us every day. If that information is relatively free of misinformation and distortion, it's a benefit to us. If on the other hand this public information is contaminated by faulty data offered as facts, and by deliberate falsehoods, the information common becomes destructive in our lives.

The USA prides itself on free speech. Justly so. But free speech creates public information, which is a COMMONS. According to Hardin, there MUST be effective rules that support the existence of the commons, and people everywhere (In that common space) need to understand and respect the rules. Otherwise the public information becomes corrupted and polluted with misinformation and people can no longer make sensible decisions based on their "common knowledge". The information common can be destroyed if misinformation becomes the main topic of conversation and is promoted and supported by important social personalities. A clear example is the effort of G.W. Bush's administration to shut down the debate on global warming.

Just as in a theatre you can't shout "FIRE" when there is none, and claim a "free speech" defense. In the public information space, politicians, the press and commentators and even people on social networks and blogs, need to accept responsibility for the "truth" of their words. When we neglect that fundamental rule, and find we can't get voluntary compliance, and we can't enforce it either, the commons is destroyed.

If our loyalty to our local community, our church or our political party, driven by our childhood indoctrination, is too strong, we are unable to see who we really are in this new global world. We see ourselves as being good and loyal and true, while we support actions that betray our values. There's no use pretending that we don't know that. But we play the three monkeys game, we choose not to see, not to hear and not to speak up. We tell ourselves that we have the best intention, and pure motives. But our action or the lack of action betrays the values we hold most precious. That's the tragedy or our indoctrination.

John Stephen Veitch
The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags conversation information common learning is social public behaviour propaganda The Tragedy of the Commons Garrett Hardin the commons common knowledge free speech global world indoctrination public information John Stephen Veitch

Where Does Motivation Come From?

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:09:00 +0000

Motivation is a very personal thing. Let me talk about my motivation.

I'm a business owner, and I'm motivated by the pain of the last 15 years. Ever since the Internet became available I've seen the potential for great reward and change for the better. But my own experience has been to climb a huge learning curve, for little reward. An experience I share with many people.

There is huge value in all this negative experience. I was hyped up with the inevitable success of online money making by creating web sites, and that lasted for five years before I realised, "there's something wrong here." There is no greater blindness than the one we create, when we choose, not to see. I carry the responsibility to be the change that's needed. That is my motivation.

My web site "Adapt to Experience" is about taking off the personal blinkers and learning from reality. Along the way, I discovered networking. The Internet allows us to find our peers, people who share our interests and who face similar problems. We are each of us capable of blindness. We are as a group capable of group-think. However, in a sufficiently diverse group there is some protection against the herd's instinct to blindly follow the leader.

This web site "Adapt to Experience" is about a five year journey in discovering what's really happening online.

I'm incredibly optimistic about the future, but only if we approach it with the right attitude. We need to be humble. We need to be driven by real data and by the best "truth" we can find. We need to be driven by values more important than the "bottom line". If we make good decisions NOW, as individuals, as companies and as a nation, over the next 20 to 50 years our future will progressively open.

Sadly, overpowered by our old minds, by outdated concepts and by the inability to learn, most people, most companies, and every nation I know of, is still running in the wrong direction. All our institutions are founded on the principles of having unchangiing ideals. In a world where "change" is at the heart of what we need to do, that's a problem.

As a business owner I'd like to say, "I've got the answer", but I haven't.

What I can offer is this. Listen more, collect more quality data, find out what's real. Improve YOUR OWN ability to learn, and make your company into a learning organisation. Get closer to your customers. Stop shouting at them, listen to them. Somewhere inside what I've just described is a pearl of wisdom or insight or information on which your future depends. That's what I'm looking for, too.

The Internet is extracting value out of many businesses. Prices are falling. The "lowest price" is potentially on every desk-top. There's no future in the race to the bottom. There's no future in selling off the environment or your children for a quick dollar now. We have to learn to be smarter, that's our challenge. Innovation and the ability to change to allow innovation, has to be a critical part of what we do in the near future. Rebuilding the old style economy, for instance is reordering a closed future. That's the easy thing to do, but it's the wrong answer.

Better answers are a 1000 things we need to talk about and decide as we seek to have a future that is more open and less closed. Creating good questions, open questions that challenge us and demand action should be a priority. To have the right question is big step towards a practical solution. There is no simple way forward. There is much to do, all of it involves work. The "Open Future" website points to some directions.

John Stephen Veitch
The Network Ambassador
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags motivation business owner we choose blindness Adapt to Experience networking right attitude old minds learning organisation environment good questions innovation Open Future John Stephen Veitch

Free Markets and Success?

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:45:00 +0000

For the past 60 years, in New Zealand at least, the unquestioned economic philosophy of choice, has been that capitalism with free markets, is how a successful economic system works.

I did study the Soviet and the Chinese economic models many years ago. It's impossible for the central planners to predict what's likely to be needed. The Soviet economy suffered from unpredicted shortages that frustrated the best will of the planners. But it's also impossible to do that in a free market economy too. In a market economy, overproduction is the rule. Go into the local mall and see for yourself the abundance that is there, but there are needs the market doesn't meet, and that's a problem when market forces are too dominant. After 30 years of strong market leadership, and especially now as we enter a depression, it's so much easier for me to see that BOTH systems are deeply flawed.

For instance I've been laughing for about 5 years over the great hallabsloo on Ryze, because Kofi Annan was supposed to be directly involved in a Food for Oil scandal at the United Nations. Millions of dollars were supposed to be involved, and the controversy went on for months. Why? Because it suited the USA to cripple the United Nations, and make it completely ineffective. Eventually there were some irregularities found involving Annan's son, the amount of money involved was comparatively small.

In contrast the USA in Iraq has been involved in scams and rip-offs involving millions of real dollars that are for the most part not even investigated. Much of this is directly related to the Republican Party decision to give contracts to friends of the party on a cost plus basis. In at least one case I know about on a "no competition" basis.

One of the big jokes in International Economics was the Soviet incentive system. For instance on the railway bonuses were paid for the tonnage that passed down the line. Annual traffic data showed that the scheme was massively successful. Yet Russian businesses could never find rolling stock on which to transport their goods. Complaints were widespread. In fact much of the rolling stock was filled with rocks that were shipped across the Soviet Union and back repeatedly. It was a great way to increase the tonnage and their productivity bonuses. .

In Iraq under cost plus contracts there are reports of trucks that are never unloaded, simply driven across Iraq and back to clock up the cost, which is then billed at 100% mark-up. And the stories about the building paid for and never started, and the meals never delivered and the training that was done by people who were never employed, and the financial auditing that was done by two men with no accounting skills and no staff.

This is not a few bad apples, it's a whole rotten system. The mortgage crisis proves it. For Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be so deeply underwater, thousands of real estate agents, valuers, lawyers, accountants, bankers, buyers and sellers all had to WANT these fraudulent transactions to be made. Every one of them is crooked, but they all claim to be innocent. If you choose not to see, it's amazing how blind you can become.

So the "free market" system has failed very badly.

The "centralised market" system has failed very badly.

Perhaps the failure in both cases tells us some truth about people that we prefer to not know.

So now it's time to discover the "truth" if we have the courage. Which brings me back tho this central message from film-maker Waldo Salt, who wrote in his journal “To search for truth you must first have lost it”.

For Americans in the near future, there is going to be a lot of discovery about "missing truth". That lesson applies to the truth about "free markets", and to "democracy" and to "American exceptionalism" and "racism" and "the success formula" and to what the terms “Republican” and “Democrat” really mean. Much else about American life, and the lives of people all over the world is currently being challenged.. The Depression will be a great bullshit detector.

John Stephen Veitch
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags New Zealand capitalism free markets depression cost plus fraudulent transactions Waldo Salt missing truth bullshit detector Republican Party Oil for Food productivity bonuses market leadership John Stephen Veitch

Depression 2009

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:42:00 +0000

In the New Zealand version of the Open Future web site, I've written 12 short essays about the Depression of 2009. There's a month of hard work in those essays. My wife, Carolyn, kept asking why I did it at all. I can't answer her question, except that I needed to understand what was happening myself, and the work was my method of getting satisfactory answers. In addition to 40 years of thinking about economics, these essays were backed with 600 pages of other people's essays on the economy, collected from the Useful Common over the last three or four years.

I do have a training in Economics, but it's largely useless, because much of what we were taught is a tidy theory that isn't related to how the real world works. You've heard politicians and economists say over and over, "We need to increase our efficiency, to improve the economic growth rate, so we can, protect the environment, improve education, alleviate poverty, or improve the health system. I used to believe that. It's rubbish. Such thinking is based on the idea that everything you want can be PURCHASED, if you just had enough money. It's not true, it never was true. To create an Open Future, we have to get the basic social structures of our community right, we have to live in a way that respects the natural environment around us. When we do that, most of the things we really need are available from the Useful Common. Then our money can be focused on the things we do need to buy, like hip replacements.

The economic fallacy in the urgency of the "growth" imperative is well illustrated by the USA. Since the 1970's the USA has been trying to grow the economy so people could be richer. But in fact over a period of more than 30 years, real wages in the USA have actually been falling. So what's wrong here?

New Zealand provides another example. In the 1970's New Zealand's protectionist economic principles came under attack. In the 1980's we were one of the most advanced nations in the process of deregulation and the removal of subsidies and embracing free trade. There was more than 10 years of economic hardship, but we did adapt, and we did find new ways to earn an income without subsidies, and without tariff protection. But the economic growth we were promised, has NOT, been our reward. So again I ask, what's wrong here?

My conclusion is that all developed countries come up against natural resource limits, that make economic growth very marginal. You can get inflationary "growth" easily, but real growth is strongly constrained. Economic theory tells us that this need not be so. But look at the real world and restraint on growth is what you see everywhere. Why is that?

You can grow debt, or any non-physical asset easily. But the growth of REAL assets has limits. Real assets have bulk, they take up space, they need to be housed, they need to be maintained, they come from somewhere and after you've finished using them they need to be disposed of. Real assets are not like ideas.

20 years ago I was very impressed by the concept of tapping an unlimited resource as we became a knowledge society. The human brain was a mine that would produce unlimited richness, we were told. I believed that message. But I misunderstood it. I was thinking in terms of money and the things money can buy. I was thinking about physical assets.

The human brain is a source of unlimited richness, but it's a richness of ideas, of imagination, and there are limits to our ability to make any of that available as a real object.

When I try to find the cause of the 2009 Depression, I list as the first cause the unsuccessful attempt to get rich by deregulation and by excessive focus on financial transactions. The main result was concentrate "wealth" more and more, while 90% of the population quietly got poorer and poorer. The expectation of "high returns" led people to over-promise and to take exceptional risks in order to make the promise seem to be achievable. Many people became involved in magical thinking, believing that by belief and willpower, any chosen objective was achievable. Those same people are now saying, "there is no depression". When too much money is in too few hands, there is not enough spending power in the economy to keep it running. Pouring in more money into the market doesn't work, because very quickly it accumulates again in those same few pockets.

The 2009 Depression is being driven by two or three other forces besides an unequal distribution of wealth. One of those is an over built housing sector that now can't be paid for. There is the problem of over dependence on oil as a transport fuel, and the exponential growth of that demand if Brazil, China and India were to experience economic development using the American model of "development". Economic development for really large populations based on petrol powered cars, isn't possible. Added to that, there is the very serious background problem of global warming. People are not stupid, they do understand that the climate is changing, and that we MUST, change the way we live in two ways. First we have to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses we ourselves produce. Secondly, since climate change damage affecting the next 50 years has already been done, we have to live with the changes that brings.

I'm picking that the 2009 Depression will continue for at least 10 years. It will take two years to fix the financial problems. Banks will be nationalized, but the most important thing will be a International Financial Agreement, coming out of the G20 Summit meetings and the United Nations. World finance can't be under the control of any one nation, as it has been for the last 70 years.

It will take at least five years for the problem of excess demand for oil to decline in importance. And at least 10 years before we can be sure that progress on global warming is really being made. Then perhaps people will be able to imagine a better future or their children and grandchildren. That will give them a reason for living and a propper purpose in investing.

John Stephen Veitch

Reader Comments:

John. who left a faulty email writes:

Your blog says that; "economics is largely useless because much of what we were taught is a tidy theory that isn't related to how the real world works".

I thought I'd just pass on something I read recently (I think it was in the NZ Future Times newsletter), that physicsts are becoming used to their world view being uprooted regularly as new discoveries are constantly rewriting their assumption. In contrast economists aren't getting that real world feedback. Economists need to learn to act more like physicsts.

Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags Open Future 2009 Depression useful common economic growth wealth depression recession G20 BRIC development New Zealand economics hardship John Stephen Veitch

Knowledge Denied

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:57:00 +0000

We, as individuals, as nations, and as a global community have huge problems to solve. Satisfactory solutions will require a high degree of understanding, cooperation and trust. We've read a lot recently about how private firms have "cooked the books" to mislead either investors or the authorities. Governments are doing the same thing. The measurement of GDP, inflation rates, and unemployment rates for instance are often deliberately "measured" in ways that obscure what's really happening. This allows politicians to use delusional numbers to back up their claims that the "economy is strong" or that the outlook for jobs is "positive'.

When a government and it's supporters strongly support a "story" about "who we are" and what our policy should be, that tends to become the background for all public discussions. The debate becomes especially difficult if as with the war in Iraq, the official policy is based on "political truth" rather than facts. Once the quality of the debate is destroyed by dysinformation the flow of all ideas is impeded. The USA deserves better debate than was possible in the GW Bush years.

I'm also disappointed to see how willing people are to take sides - to form tribal groups - based on some perception of the need to be loyal to "my group" rather than to seek understanding and knowledge of the truth. We do live in a global world. Of necessity we carry with us the ideals of family, district, religion, politics and other cultural baggage of our upbringing into our global debates. At first we may find it difficult to engage, because "they" seem to be talking about something else, not the topic that we understand. Often the ideas we've grown up with, that have proven reliable and useful in the local context prove to be narrow and self serving and inappropriate in the larger international context.

John Stephen Veitch
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags Depression inflation rates unemployment political truth John Stephen Veitch

Allowing Sunlight and Taking Responsibility

noreply@blogger.com (John S Veitch) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:46:00 +0000

The previous post was about the "men of honour" the Cosa Nostra, and how loyalty constructed in a narrow sense can be destructive to the community in which that "loyalty group" operates. What was once a virtue, becomes misdirected and threatens the community.

Now I want to enlarge the argument. To talk about political parties, government agencies, religous groups and business units.

The most powerful force operating in your life is the social connection that offers you membership. Membership of your family determines what your first lessons are and who becomes your first teacher. Long before you learn to speak you know how to play your role. How to get attention, how to say no and how to say yes. You learn how to say "da da da da" and understand that this is something that your father responds to very well. although you cannot know why. Throughout your life, you apply the rules you are learning here, to school groups, sports teams, community clubs and work groups.

Each group you join only exists because it has distinct boundaries. Members of your family meet strict criteria for recognition. Churches, clubs and businesses might be quite open to enlarging their membership, but they also have strong rules about who can qualify as a member and strong expectations about how members behave. Sometimes, these expectations are written down in a document (Constitution?) that's never read. But you only need to be with most groups for a short period of time to "know" which people are respected and what social rules apply to one's behaviour here. There is a code: much of it unwritten, that is passed from member to member that both enables the function of the group and forbids certain other actions.

Loyalty to the group is always highly admired. Working for and cheering on the success of colleagues is an exemplar of behaviour. Recognizing and endorsing the good qualities in fellow members, is an ideal way to have them appreciate the value that you too bring to the group.

So what happens when someone in the group finds a new innovative way to be "very successful". Of course everyone cheers. And they try to emulate that success. Mind you the "secret" of the success is retained by the group. We don't want "everyone" to get into the act. Making sure that other people can't get in on the business, or can't do it as well as "we can" is a way to increase our success.

Now if the new activity is of questionable legality, or if the profits depend on taking unfair advantage of unknowing customers, who's going to object? Self regulation should be effective, but in professional organizations, lawyers, doctors, police and accountants, time after time we know from experience that self regulation doesn't work. Some people say that "regulation by third parties" is a solution, but you don't have to look very far to see that the "regulator" very soon ends up "in bed" with the people they should be regulating and again the system becomes corrupted. It's a problem.

It's especially a problem in politics. Political parties are necessary instruments of effective democracies. Political parties need funding, and in an ideal world that funding would come from a strong support base of ordinary "members". But that's hard work. There are lots of people with money who are keen to fund political parties. Of course they make donations out of "good will" and "without influence". Yet strangely it's these people who are invited in for a private "chat" and get invited to make submissions and who's opinions are listened to with enthusiasm. They protest that they are not "buying influence" but of course they lie. In the USA, corporate money has "bought the government" for many years. For more than the last 30 years government in the USA has bent over backwards to be friendly to the corporate interests that "feed it". As a result the economic system has got badly out of balance, as demonstrated by who's become wealthy and where the poverty exists. Today when the NYSE index is below 9000, we can see where the process of corporate friendly co-operation between government and business has led the USA.

What's the real difference between merchant bankers who take advantage of client ignorance, and governments that work to do "favours" for their friends, and lawyers who obstruct the justice system so that the victims of fraud never get their case heard, and the Cosa Nostra? Don't they all play the same game?

As I see it the only solution is "sunlight". There are "commercial reasons" for making sure that sunlight doesn't exist. Profitability often depends on that lack of transparency. So we allow this "excuse" to permit all sort of shady deals that would never occur if people knew that the facts would be openly exposed. I think that the issue is too important to be dismissed so easily. Cleaning up the world banking system might be one place to start. Let's outlaw, tax haven banking, and off the record accounts. Let's work to get all the donations made to political parties openly declared, and make it illegal to hide the source of the donation behind a blind trust or some other device to obscure the "sunlight". The principle is simple. If you are engaged in business, politics or public activities, the light of full disclosure should be able to shine into your activity. If that's not the case, why should your potentially dodgy dealing be tolerated?

John Stephen Veitch
Open Future Limited - You may comment privately to John S Veitch using this form.

Technorati Tags Cosa Nostra ladder of success political parties client ignorance self regulation family loyalty profits without influence legitimate businesses tax haven merchant banker membership sunlight John Stephen Veitch