Value Cells and Networks: How to Transform an Economic System

Value Cells and Cell Networks

I’ve been rattling on for a couple of years about the fact that I did not have any idea how the transition to the Post-Financial world could be achieved peacefully.  That alone made it easy to label this set of ideas as pure fantasy.  Herewith, a modest proposal for how the change might done, and how we can start on it now.

The first concept to understand here is the Value Cell.

The cell, of course, is one of the primary building blocks of life.  It’s a simple concept really: a bag that separates the material inside from whatever is on the outside.   It’s also interesting from a systems point of view.

 

Without going into General Systems Theory too deeply, we can conceptualize a System as having three main components: Inputs, Processes, and Outputs.  A System, then, takes inputs and processes them into outputs. The beauty of this approach is that it allows you to view the Processes as Black Boxes. That is, at the top level we can ignore the details of the processing and just look at the inputs and outputs .  Later we can look inside the Process and figure out what systems are inside that.  The Systems approach, allows you to analyze something complex into easier-to-understand layers.

So from that very general context, let’s define a Value Cell (VCell) as something that outputs Value.  A Value could consist of goods or services, anything from pies to lawn service to brain surgery.  Now, out in the larger world, interesting things start happening when we consider interactions with other cells.  The output from one cell may then serve as the input to another one.  Then the value that the second one outputs may be the input to a third.  After that, perhaps the outputs of the first and third cells might be the inputs to a fourth, which might be used by two other cells as inputs, etc, etc. 

Let’s imagine a restaurant as a cell.  The inputs are raw foodstuffs and the outputs are meals.  Customers come in and pay for the meals and leave.  They’ve exchanged one value (money) for another value (meals).  Now notice something over there at the table by the kitchen door.  Employees are eating, too, but they don’t pay money for their food.  Instead they exchange one value (labor) for another value(meals).  So the processes inside a cell may be (and usually are) different from how the cell interacts with the outside. 

Now let’s stretch the idea a little.  Let’s imagine a hospital.  Again, “customers” exchange value (money) for value (health services) and employees get these services for free.  Because this hospital has no preventive care services, they enter into a partnership with a clinic that outputs preventive care.  As part of the agreement, the hospital workers get free preventive care and the preventive care workers get free hospital services.  The hospital makes a similar deal with a physical therapy service, and now each of the three services gets free treatment from the other two. Now we have a Value Cell Network (VCN).

The services don’t even have to be closely related.  For instance, an auto repair shop enters into an agreement with a cleaning service:  the shop gets free cleaning, the cleaning service people get free auto care.  Such a network could expand indefinitely.  That’s a Post-Financial Economy (PFE).

Because of our habitual Malthusian attitude that there isn’t enough to go around, the tendency, even in a PFE, is to try to make sure that we’re always getting a “profitable deal” with these network agreements.  Likely as not, such an agreement will fall apart or never get made in the first place due to perceived inequities.   If instead we adopt a Fullerian view that the problem isn’t scarcity, it’s distribution (and nobody is saying that that’s going to be easy), then we can relax a little bit.

 

Let’s take a look at another example. In this case, it’s a VCell called the Piano Rehabilitation Hospital (PRH) that’s already beginning operations.  The premise of the VCell is to take in ailing pianos, nurse them back to health and either return them to their owners or, if the piano is acquired by the PRH, distribute (output) them at the end.  Here again  there are two forms of distribution.  Inside the VCell or VCN, they are distributed to the workers; outside the VCell or VCN they are sold for cash.  As yet, the VCell has no network connections.  Now let’s say Annie wants to have a piano for herself and her kids to play.  She comes to the PRH, looks over the selection and finds one she likes.  “How much is that piano there”, she asks.

                “It’s $850 cash”, says the helpful salesperson, “Or you can trade labor for it.”

                “How much labor?” asks Annie.

                “We don’t measure it in hours,” says the salesperson, “Let me explain by showing you around.”

The salesperson takes Annie on a tour of the place. At first glance, walking through the shop, it looks like a regular repair shop, but since it’s Monday morning, there’s a meeting going on, and no one is working on the pianos at the moment.  The salesperson opens a door to a brightly-lit room where all the workers are sitting around a conference table.  One worker is standing at a whiteboard explaining some numbers.

The salesperson introduces Annie, and the workers  greet her warmly and show her to a seat. The woman at the whiteboard, Judy, continues her presentation.

                “Last week we finished six pianos and sold two.  We took in $1800 for those two.  We have three bills that need to be paid totaling $475, so that leaves $1325 for distribution.  Also, I’m going to propose that Walter here has worked here long enough to earn his piano.  What do you all think?”

The workers discuss Walter’s contributions during the time he has been there and agree that it seems enough for him to have earned the piano they have set aside for him.  You see, Walter is on a different compensation plan from all the rest of the workers.  He’s not on profit-sharing, he’s been accumulating value towards a piano.  Nobody quantifies this, no hours worked valued against the piano.  The decision is made by his co-workers that he’s contributed enough.

                Judy asks, “How about it, Walter, will you be staying with us after the piano’s delivered?”

                “Yes,” replies Walter, “I’ve really enjoyed working here, so I’d like to stay.”

                “Great!” says Judy.  “If everyone agrees, we’ll convert Walter’s plan to profit-sharing.”

There is applause for Walter, and the meeting breaks up.  Judy walks Annie into the office.

                “Does everyone working here start out working for a piano?” asks Annie as they are sitting down.

                “No.  That’s just one option.  Jake is a saxophone player and doesn’t even want a piano, but he likes the work and the compensation plan and the company, so he’s been here for five years now.”

                “How does the compensation plan work?”

                “It’s pretty simple, actually.  After the outside expenses are taken care of, the profits from any sales are distributed evenly to the workers.”

                “Evenly? So I could come in for 10 minutes one day, turn a couple of screws, and qualify for profit sharing when the week’s done?”

                “Not exactly.  If you don’t spend much time here, the workers won’t vote you in for the week.  It’s cumulative, though.  If you could only work a couple hours a week, you would get voted a share every month or so.  But most of the benefit to working here is going to be the VCN.  Right now we’re finishing up exchange deals with the hospital, a hardware store, and our cleaning service.”

                To be continued….

I hope from this you can see the possibility for enterprises that can bridge between the FW and the PFE, then adapt smoothly to the new way of doing things.

The Post-Financial World: The Next Step in the Evolution of Consciousness

Let's assume for a moment that the idea of a finite ecosystem has finally sunk all the way in. Right now the majority of humanity acknowledges the idea that all of life is an interconnected web, but we put that on a shelf with the rest of our ideas that we don't fully process, that we don't envision how it would apply to us.

Interconnection means that we're not really separate from "others" as our eyes would have us believe. In fact, there are no "others" in any independent sense. Separateness is an illusion, a fiction that we've adopted because it's useful at a stage in the evolution of self-awareness. Knowledge of our interconnectedness points beyond "Us versus Them" to a place where we realize that there is no "Them". There is only "Us". You can find plenty of evidence for that if you approach the facts with an open mind.

1. Your body is a colony of cells, billions of specialized little entities acting in concert in the common enterprise you call "you."

2. Likewise, this thing called our self (small "s") is a colony of ideas (mostly non-original), emotions and behaviors (mostly learned along our life-story's timeline). It appears in the space of pure awareness that we think (because of the evidence of our very limited senses) is a "person" living inside this bag of flesh and bone. The word "person', by the way, comes from the Greek word (transliterated) "personna" which literally means a "mask". It originally meant a theatrical mask with sort of built-in megaphone that the sound ("sonna") came through ("per"). We are not this "personna", this thing that sound (and a lot of other stuff) comes through. We are the pure awareness that's watching this whole performance of the "self". More properly, we are this pure awareness that everything arises in.

3. Again, our history of sensory experiences convinces us that this awareness is inside our heads. The Ghost in the Machine. Very Existential. But how do we know when somebody is staring at us from behind our backs? How do we finish each others sentences when we are in intimate relationships? The world is full of little clues pointing to boundlessness if we are simply willing to suspend our previous notions and really look at what's actually going on.

Now, if we're really not as separate as we appear, how does it make any sense to act as though we were? It takes a lot of energy to hang on to separateness. Here's another clue: we'd much rather relax with our "friends" than defend ourselves against our fears, which we externalize as "other people" who are "strangers." We don't want anything bad to happen to our "friends", the people we have stuff "in common" with. We're not so sure about those "strangers", though! And the "stranger" they are, the more defended we feel, that is until we find out that the "strangers" are really no different from "us" in any fundamental way. We all want to be happy. We all want to feel safe. We all want our kids to be happy and safe. That's just for starters.

Fear and anger (which usually seems to be a defense against fears that we don't want to acknowledge) are the primary causes of feeling separate. When we don't feel so separate, we relax. Hmmm. What could that mean?

So what if we all "got it"? What if we all started treating everybody else as though they were, if not ourselves, at least our family? Probably in the course of this evolutionary change, everybody is not going to wake up one morning with this realization firmly lodged in awareness. I'm guessing it will take some time, but that a tipping point will be reached where consciousness of interconnectedness will outweigh the illusion of separateness. What do you suppose will happen then? My guess is that we'll start taking care of each other as though we were all family members, then as though we were all each other's children. Not that hard to imagine, is it? It's just the logical conclusion of ecology, of the obvious interconnectedness of all life. In fact, it has to extend to what we perceive now as "non-living matter", which supports the seemingly fragile web of life. Mistreat the non-living matter until it stops supporting life, and life disappears. Be grateful for the rocks holding up your house. If they weren't there, you wouldn't be either.

Another thing that the illusion of separateness and the subsequent fear produces is the idea that there Isn't Enough. That idea was formalized by the pioneering economist, Adam Smith (1723? - 1790). Better information convinced another pioneer, R. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983), that the problem wasn't scarcity, it was distribution. A really good introduction to his ideas and the facts that he backs them up with is a little book called "Operating Manual for the Spaceship Earth". Ought to be required reading for everybody.

So if there really is enough, and we start to understand that we need to take care of our world (every body and every thing), wouldn't our first impulse be to try to solve the distribution problems and make sure that everybody gets taken care of? Does that seem so illogical? Right now we're so conditioned by our belief in scarcity that we fear that by helping others, there won't be enough for "ourselves". If there's enough for everybody, wouldn't that fear atrophy away?

Let's take another look at money in this context. We know that it's a convenient way to trade goods and services, but in previous posts, we've made the case that with a scarcity mindset, it's also a convenient way to hoard. Hoarding is a response to perceived scarcity. But if everybody has enough and everybody is taking care of each other, hoarding doesn't make sense. Neither does piling up lots of money. If you translate vast wealth into vast amounts of stuff, you may not have a scarcity problem, but you definitely have a storage problem. Now suppose what you're hoarding is perishable. You either have to defend your wealth, maybe by refrigerating it (which chips away at your wealth), or you watch it perish. The better part of wisdom in a post-financial world would be to acquire only what you actually need and can take care of. We said before that ownership may come to mean not what you've paid for but what you can accept responsibility for.

A Radical Statement

I'm going to make a rather radical statement, so brace yourself.

The reason that Socialism has failed to take hold is because Marx didn't go far enough: his theory did not include the abandonment of money.

I haven't finished reading Marx's Capital yet (it's a very tough read), but there is one other book published in the US that's a lot easier to understand and that takes into account subsequent developments. It's Socialism by Michael Harrington. In fact, it's the only book I could find on Amazon that looked at Socialism in a positive way. Still, the thing is much more complicated to implement if you don't abandon money first.

The two most important maxims in canonical socialism seem to be "The workers control the means of production" and "To each according to his/her needs; from each according to his/her abilities". Of course that's a VAST oversimplification.

Let's look at the first statement. If money is not in the picture and we start from the very basic, pre-technological level, the Workers ARE the means of production. The next level up would be the technology the workers create: one's own tools. The next level up would be machinery, specialized tools or general-purpose ones like computers that would need to be made by specialists. This level is the stumbling block that makes any transition to socialism difficult and why most radical socialists advocate seizing these means of production. Of course, this sort of strategy tends to provoke backlashes. They represent a large investment, whether one sees that as money or as time. In a capitalist system, normally the owners of the company, whether it's privately or publicly held, would be those owners, would view those items as their exclusive property, and would have a considerable stake in retaining ownership.

In some cooperatives, these assets are actually owned by the workers, and it should be noted that usually these owner/workers have strong motivation for the company to succeed as a result--stronger, in fact, than wage-earners, whose only interest in the company's success may be only so that they can keep their jobs.

It's possible, therefore, to envision the beginnings of a money-less society as modeled on the communes that began in the 60s and 70s in this country. Enterprises could be built up by people cohabitating while contributing their skills and assets to the project. The assets would be held in common, but anyone wishing to return to the money economy would be compensated on exit, if those assets are retained by the project. That's only a germ of an idea, but if enterprises could be started this way, a money-less society could be created (without "seizing" anything) in our midst by linking these projects together.

No capitalists were harmed during the making of this society :)

Article on Allvoices.com

I just posted an introductory article on AllVoices.com about this topic. Here's the link:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6008379-abolish-money-movement-reporting-from-the-front .

I don't think we can overstate our case by limiting it to this blog. Don't you agree?

Why Not Barter?

Often when people argue for the abolition of money, they suggest replacing it with barter. The trouble is, barter is based on the same mindset as money: Make Sure You Get Your Fair Share. That is Separation (non-Community) Thinking. What's really being said is "I'm afraid I won't get my fair share, and I'll starve/freeze/insert-fear-here, and I'll DIE!"

Much better is Pay It Forward.
1. Do something for the community or just a member of it.
2. Don't worry about getting paid back.
3. If you need help, ask for it.

That's a summary of the entire Everything Free philosophy, if you will. If you do it enough, as and when you're able, the movement will spread. If we all take care of each other, our real needs will be met.

Other disadvantages of barter include the fact that it's taxable. Any quid pro quo can be assigned a monetary value by the government, and, presto changeo, the receiver got some Income based on what he gave as barter for it!

Barter systems require a lot of tracking--Fair Share Thinking. If you can stop worrying about the Value of what you give because you're certain that you will be taken care of and that you'll get what you need, then fear disappears and community-based giving replaces it.

Nourishment and Protection

I've had some questions from readers about how to make this work. I don't have all the answers, so I'd love to hear from other folks that might have ideas, but there is one thing I know will be an absolute requirement: we have to understand that the entire process runs on Caring.

We have to understand that we really are all in this together. If currency collapses to the point where nobody can afford to buy anything, we'll be forced to start taking care of each other anyway. Why not start now?

A long time ago someone noticed that there are three basic needs: Food, Clothing, and Shelter. I would add medical care to this, but if you think about it, it really falls under the heading of Shelter. In fact, those categories would be better understood if generalized a bit. Let's call them Nourishment and Protection.

If we don't have to earn money, then we don't need "jobs". So if your job involves something that doesn't directly produce something in the above two categories, it probably involves filling up the economy with more non-essential products in order to keep people working, earning, and consuming. You might want to align yourself with one of the two essential needs.

Think about what's included in the two general categories. For instance, Recreation is a form of Nourishment. So are Art, Exercise, Counseling, Education, Entertainment, and many others. Please feel free to suggest some of them.

Million Dollar Watch

A few years ago we had the good fortune to find ourselves in London, and my wife wanted to go to Harrod's, the famous department store.  Once in there we wandered off in different directions, and I, having no particular destination in mind, wandered into the jewelry section.  Now I do have a weakness for watches, mostly because I'm a tool and gadget guy, and there are now watches that can do everything but make toast.  And they can be very beautiful objects as well. 

Harrod's had some gorgeous stuff, but almost immediately I got hit with sticker shock.  Knowing that I wouldn't be buying anything, I decided to find the most expensive watch in the place. I did. With the help of my trusty calculator, I soon figured out that it was selling for a cool million bucks.  Okay, it was pretty.  Lots of diamonds and such.  But I started to wonder what anybody would want with a million-dollar watch.

I came up with two reasons: 1) it was beautiful, and 2) "because I can afford it and you can't".  There it was: another example of how money informs our lives.  Wealth is another way of saying, "I'm better than you.". In a world without money and where we're devoted to working do ensure that everybody has enough, such a watch might still exist, but the value would come from somewhere else, and its message would be different.

Things like diamonds that are scarce and beautiful would still be valued higher than, say, beautiful pieces of quartz, which are relatively plentiful and perhaps less prized as beautiful.  

Now let's say that I've been able, in the absence of money, to persuade some people to undertake the nasty and dangerous business of mining diamonds, perhaps by making it a lot less nasty and dangerous, but that's another whole set of ideas, so I digressed.  At any rate, I now have a quantity of beautiful diamonds and am now in the enviable position of choosing who would be best to receive them.  Am I just going to stand on a street corner and hand them out to passers-by? There's nothing to stop me, but if I value them for their beauty and rarity, I'm probably not.  I'm going to think about giving them to someone who can enhance their beauty.  I'm going to be thinking about people like jewelry makers and watch makers.  In fact, I'm probably going to try to get them into the hands of the best ones I know, people who do high-quality work.  If I've still got a lot of ego, it'll be about bragging rights: "I'm a regular supplier of diamonds to Madam Whoever, the finest watch-maker in the area." How big the "area" is will be directly proportional to the size of my ego.

If I don't have such an ego, I'm stll going to be trying to get them to high-quality workers who will enhance their beauty so I and others can appreciate it. 

So value doesn't disappear along with money, it's just that it's no longer hiding behind the smoke screen of money. It's out in the open pointing to its true sources, beauty and rarity.  Surprised?

Suppose President Beetlebaum held a press conference and said, "Here's the deal. We'll abolish the currency if each one of you will do the following: stay where you are and keep doing whatever work you're doing for the moment--that is unless you're in the financial sector. Those folks can take the week off, since you have nothing to do. If everybody continues to do their jobs, then everybody will be taken care of. If you need food, go to the store, and they'll give you what you need, but please take only what you need. If you work in a food store, your job becomes making sure that people can get what they need. And since there's no money, everything is free!

"If we all take care of each other, everything will work out. Please understand that no one is going to take anything away from you. You now own your house or apartment. Of course, your belongings are still yours."

So here you are, out of work and trained as a stockbroker. What do you do? Well, let's see. You don't have to work, but you have no worries about losing your house or anything else, for that matter. Here in your high-rise New York apartment, you've got a room that you use for your hobby, which is restoring old clocks. So you work on those for a couple of days and since you're not pressed for time, you finish one of the clocks. What to do with it? You can't sell it, so you have three choices: you can keep it, you can trade it for something, or you can give it away. For now, you can't decide. Then you remember your mentor, Sam, who runs a clock shop in Brooklyn, who has been generous with his time and taught you a lot. You decide to go see him and show him the clock.

So you get on the train with the clock and get off in Brooklyn down the street from the clock shop. When you walk in, the owner greets you from behind the desk. You notice that the shop is only about half-full of clocks. Sam says, "A lot of people have come in wanting clocks, so I've been giving them away, but some other folks have also been dropping off clocks. Some are for repair, but some are unwanted. In fact I've got so many that it'll take me a long time to fix them all. Do you want to help?" And you hang your clock in an empty space on Sam's wall.

Suddenly, you're doing what you've been wanting to do for years, what you thought you'd maybe do in retirement to supplement your Social Security. You thought you'd have to move out of New York, back to Poughkeepsie where it's cheaper to live. Now you're doing it with your mentor, living where you like, and having a lot of fun doing it. Your blood pressure drops forty points, and you stop taking that anti-anxiety medicine. Life just got a whole lot better!