"A World of Three Zeros" a plan for a better world

We in the rich part of the world don't usually seek advice from poorer parts of the world, but Mohammad Yunnus, the Nobel Peace prize winner from Bangladesh has good credentials.   To some he might seem naive, but in fact he has operated under very difficult circumstances and accomplished what some feel are miracles.

Yunnus was educated in Bangladesh and the United States becoming  a teacher and at one point saw the need of poor women in rural Bangladesh.  Using his resources he started loaning small amounts of money with no collateral.  He established the Grameen Bank in 1983 and it has been replicated in over 100 countries  Surprisingly the rate of re-payment was over 97%.  It turned around local economies and over time got global attention.

Capitalism is worshipped by many people, but if we are honest it has problems.  Under its frame it is inevitable that despite all efforts to restrain it, it leads to income inequality.  It is not hard to see why when you consider that rich people tend to set the rules, a process you can witness with the United States Congress.  It is true that in general most people are better off than people of a century ago, but the gains have been very uneven and many would argue not as closely linked to merit as would be ideal.  Yunnus doesn't think the problem is so much distribution as underlying premises.

One of the academic foundations of capitalism is "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith, written in 1776.  It rationalizes capitalism declaring it is only by catering to the will of what people want that gives us the beauty of free market business.  Not noted as much is another book by the same Adam Smith, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments."  Yunnus quotes Smith, "How selfish soever man may be supposed there are evidence some principles in his nature which interest him in the fortunes of others and render them happiness necessary to him though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it."  Self interest is too often interpreted to mean profit or selfishness, but could be expanded to include our long term collective happiness.

The three zeros that form the author's goal are zero poverty, zero unemployment and zero net carbon emissions.  Might seem the goals are in conflict, the author maintains they reinforce one another.

Social business is defined as meeting a need, developing sustainability, but not great profits.  Sustainability is necessary and Yunnus discusses some examples of how has worked.  One project was Haiti Forest to remedy the great need for forestation.  Money was brought in by the Clinton foundation and Branson Virgin Unite, but is generating benefits through jobs and an improved environment.  They plant one million trees per year.

Another project was in Colombia and involved McCain noted for potatoes in Canada.  One concern was the number of potatoes that were misshapen and ended up being wasted.  Researchers looked for ways to turn these ugly vegetables into something useful  One solution was to use them for soup.

Good governance is essential.  One function Yunnus feels is credible elections.  Criteria should be set up and might be enforced by the United Nations.  Some nations have already sought the services of groups such as the one started by Jimmy Carter that give their election greater acceptance.

Corruption is identified as a critical obstacle.  Yunnus posits that transparency engineered with technology is one tool and another is education.  I think both ideas have merit, but corruption is very basic to humans.  A movie has dealt with the inevitably of corruption and also one hero's solution. You might want to explore the notion: http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2017/02/madaari-open-movie-about-government.html

Yunnus feels the future will be shaped by today's youth, many of whom reject both capitalism and socialism.  They are better educated, diverse and globally connected.  The poor will have to be involved.  Almost always they are at the end of technological developments

The purpose of life on this planet is not merely to survive, but live in it with grace, beauty and happiness.  It is up to us to make it happen.  We ca create a new civilization based not on greed, button the full range of human values.  Let's begin to-day."

John Maynard Keynes once said that the only purpose (of economics) is so that people could live "wisely, agreeably and well." He didn't restrict that to the rich, but felt income inequality was part of the problem. One of his most famous quotes is "..in the long run we are all dead."  Read more about Keyes at: http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/04/book-on-john-maynard-keynes.html

To me an economic system has to be based on human nature and human aspirations.

Ayn Rand is often thought of as the high priestess of selfishness, but she did make one point I agree with which is that we should think long term more than short term of our interests.  Unfortunately I don't believe she thought about it in enough depth.   http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2012/08/some-thoughts-on-ayn-rand.html

I do recommend the book. There are lots of ideas and experiences to ponder.   If such ideas are not examined and discussed there is little hope for humankind.

GREED--WILL IT DO US IN?

There are scientists who believe there are other life forms in the unfathomable universe.  Some are concerned that although they believe there has to be intelligent life it is suspicious that nothing has reached our attention.  Some speculation is that when a civilization reaches a certain point they self-destruct.  Who knows?

Our problem is right now on the one planet we are living in.  To many observant people it seems there is a self-destructive mechanism in effect.

Mankind (together with women) has progressed in scientific awareness and in wealth, but is there a limit?

Greed is a problem we can all point to in others.   Most of us in the 99% think that if those greedy rich people weren't so selfish and dishonest the rest of us would enjoy life a lot more.  We hear the rich denigrating the laziness and entitled feelings of the rest of the population.  Could there be truth in both assertions?  I think so.

At our core the goal of all humans is to seek pleasure and avoid pain.  This has been necessary for survival and to be fruitful.  Having climbed up from the brutal realities of our primitive beginnings we still retain our core.  Now we have different tools, different awarenesses and very definitely different circumstances.

It is true the world can be divided between leaders.  In the early days there were more constraints on the leaders.  What is a leader, but someone who gets other people to do things that the leader wants and that pleases them.  What is a follower but someone who delegates some responsibilities to a leader so that they as followers are free to enjoy what they can and avoid what they don't want.  Another perspective on leaders and followers:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2014/07/selected.html

Despite all the individual freedoms we value we have attained progress through groups.  Controlling the groups has been by definition a skill developed by a limited number of people.  But in essence the leaders are those who have been best at harnessing the skills and labours of the group.  Now we have been evolving towards a global village.

Inequalities have always been with us, but the Global Village is more unequal than in any one country.  At the same time global threats are more serious than ever.  The Global leaders are more powerful than ever and have their own agenda.  Power is more complicated in modern times  The leaders are by no means totally united and in fact there are extremists who are able to threaten the rest of us.  The invention of the inter-net has given power to the billions who have access to it.  The power of information flows across the globe and secrets that were easily hidden from the hoi polloi are very accessible so that people can make more informed decisions.  But technology and psychology enable those in power to manipulate opinions in many ways.

It does boil down to a mix of power and greed that is threatening our future.  Nuclear weapons mean that a small number of people by a mistake or deliberation can obliterate the rest of us--certainly put any survivors into a new Dark Age.  There are other weapons of violence including chemical, biological and technological.  Ideologues, vain and egotistical are eying these weapons or the threat of these weapons as a way to impose their will on the rest of us.  But we are doing other things by neglect--is climate change a threat--scientists overwhelmingly say it is so, but those whose power is based on fossil fuels use their resources to assert otherwise.  Pollution is tolerated because it helps a few rich people.  Poisoning our food supply is accepted as fewer and fewer control this vital resource.

Capital is globalized in that investment money can be shifted in seconds, factories can be relocated easily, workers easily replaced to get the lowest wages and avoid stifling regulations.  Workers for the most part are not globalized--it is true many can move if they have a lot of talent, but if they are relatively unskilled they are hampered by the expense of re locating, and legal barriers.  Politically the average voter has little power even in their own jurisdiction.

The desire to amass more money than any one person could spend in a lifetime appears to have more power than the long range interest of the vast majority.  At the same time as they are using psychology and technology to manipulate people into spending more than is prudent, Business owners are trying to lower costs of goods and services.  It seems like the purpose of the majority is to enrich the few.  An irony is the necessity of an income source to spend.

Those who have power use that power to maintain and boost their position in life.  Power and wealth doesn't end with one life, but is passed on in as controlled a fashion as the leaders can arrange.

Followers seem to value their own comfort more than protecting the rights of others. It is true that either in the voting booth or with armed combat the followers could displace corrupt greedy leaders, but there is a lot of risk.  Risk of failure is perhaps not as high as risk of embarrassment or jeopardizing their own comfort levels

The problems of the future do not just affect the 99%, they also affect the 1%.  What I see to be necessary if our civilization is to last long enough to communicate with another enlightened civilization in the universe is a shift from short term thinking to long term thinking.

I remember reading Ayn Rand who argued the virtues of selfishness, and went on to suggest that long term thinking is really more self serving than short term.  As one example of a problem is the tendency for investors to value quarterly results is that manipulation is increased at the expense of long term strategies.  We (as investors or followers) aren't valuing long term thinkers so in effect the leaders see an opportunity to manipulate us for their benefit.  You cannot legislate greed away, but hopefully more people can be induced to long term thinking.

The whole world seems to have been on a credit card binge.  At the lower end we find ourselves wanting things we had never thought of before and finding our fantasies can be fulfilled.  At the top end politicians learn to get elected they have to make lots of enticing promises.  Owners of businesses find that in order to be competitive to the consumer  they use automation, outsourcing and disrupting union efforts.  We get trapped by our short term thinking.

When things go out of whack and the logical thing is to make cuts, we can't bear it. We think someone else should bear the pain.  Humans can accept some sacrifice as long as they aren't the only ones suffering.

When we all realize we are inter-connected we can better co-ordinate our efforts to solve problems.

The greatest danger might be weapons of mass destruction.  We need leaders that can work together. We need to understand and tolerate a much wider range of views in the world.  Choices made at the lowest levels do impact higher levels.

Unlike our cave dwelling ancestors we can no longer take the environment for granted.  Now that there are billions of people inhabiting the planet and generating previously unimagined amounts of waste we need to realize we are impacting the environment and making it a less healthy bubble. Followers can lead by example and leaders can study in greater depth and set examples as well. Reaching across and understanding differing attitudes we can make improvements for all our benefit.

A core problem relating to the environment is over population.  A delicate issue to be sure.  We have learned  key factors include education of women and urbanization.  These two factors have proved themselves so powerful that we have to be concerned about declining population in some parts of the world.  This issue requires study and monitoring.  There is danger of unexpected consequences such as gender based abortions, policies with underlying racist motivation etc.

A planet teeming with billions of pleasure seeking hedonists is not my goal or purpose nor do I favour a few at the top treating the rest of us as slaves.  The most critical goal is for everyone to have a sense of purpose that can be synergistic.  Traditionally that goal has been attempted through employment.  We work to make useful things or provide helpful services for other people and are rewarded.  Automation and technology have been used to reduce the need for human labour and thereby limiting the number of opportunities for a sense of purpose. Violent revolutions occur when enough people lose their sense of purpose.

To make life meaningful for more people (which is a higher goal than just creating wealth) everyone has to rethink our past.  Work as we have known it is not likely to disappear, but with fewer man hours required it might make sense to spread it around.  There has been a trend from making things to providing services that has been recognized by tax authorities.  This trend can be accelerated if we would acknowledge a few things.  Knowledge of all kinds is desirable so one possibility is to turn more of us into teachers not just learning job skills, but also life skills.  Ignorance of the world is still profound and tourism if it could be made easier could provide more employment.  A big opportunity would be organic farming.  Get away from factory production of food with chemicals, heavy equipment and forced low wages--it would be more expensive, but that means more people could have a more significant income and we would all eat healthier food and live in a more sustainable environment.  Green jobs in general lead to healthier people and are often more desirable jobs.

Each individual has to realize they do have power.  They need to understand the long range consequences of their decisions.  Education is part of the solution.

Some thoughts on Ayn Rand

The recent nomination of Paul Ryan as the Republican candidate for Vice President has reminded me of one of my youthful literary escapades.  In my twenties I bought a copy of Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness."

I read it a few times, underlining many passages.  I was quite struck by many of her arguments and have retained some respect even today.  Essentially she argues that if everyone pursues their selfish interests it is best for society.  For instance, my example, if enough people with enough money want to drive a car then there will be jobs for people making cars.  The system falls down when someone decides that we have too many cars and people should buy bicycles instead.  This causes unhappiness:  those making a living making cars lose their jobs and those who want to drive cars are frustrated.   I am reminded of a quote of Zig Ziglar:  " You can get whatever you want if you help enough people get what they want."

One point I still agree with whole heartedly is that to really follow your selfish interests it is best to take a long term view rather than a short term view.  To me this is one of the biggest issues of society today, impatience to get what we want.

The decision boils down to individualism vs. collectivism as how I read it recently.  Like many dichotomies there is merit to both sides, but there is also danger should either one dominate.

Balancing her contentions in some ways is Stephen R Covey.  In essence his book, "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People" is a guide to how an individual can be more effective, that is get more of what they want.  But the thinking is more all encompassing.  One of the habits is to understand deeply what the other person thinks and feels.  Another habit is to look for a win-win solution, very strongly stating that if only one side wins it is not the best solution.  Covey believes that society is inter-dependent and if you want to be effective (ie. succeed) you need to work within that framework.

Civilization did not get to where it is by constantly re-starting from scratch.  Isaac Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants who came before him.  Over eons of time a lot of good ideas were gradually discovered by individuals and even more slowly accepted by others.  All individuals are totally dependent on the good will of others when born, but as they matured were able to contribute to the good of others.  As we mature our feeling of independence grows, but some of us never really realize we are always dependent on others.

Peer pressure is not always for the benefit of individuals or even of the group.  Most people, most of the time like to keep things the way they are and resist any change (including who makes different decisions for different concerns).  Change is how we progress.  Just as we want and need freedom to express ourselves and to contribute so do others.  We need to give them the room and the opportunity.

Implicit in these discussions are judgments on other people.  Ayn Rand contends they deserve what they get because they made a lot of decisions that put them there.  It is true that we are where we are not only because of decisions we made, but also because of decisions made by others.  If we are honest most of us have made bad decisions.  Sometimes we learned from them, sometimes we got locked in.  Sometimes we realized other people had been confronted by the same problem and learning how they handled it could be helpful.  Often someone else' decision created obstacles. It is true that some people are better than others at over coming obstacles, but it is also true that some people have more difficult obstacles to overcome.

Can we say all decisions are rational?  I would say too many decisions are emotional and that includes intellectuals.

As a society we will all suffer the consequences of poor decisions.  We all lose when the best person doesn't get the job, when talent gets wasted, when anyone suffers unjustly, when deserving people don't get a chance, when greed wins over justice.  Every individual in many ways got their power with the help of many other individuals and of circumstances.  How they exercise their power affects everyone.

Another set of thoughts that enter my thinking is from Bertrand Russell who wrote an essay, "In Praise of Idleness."  There are many people it seems to me who are quick to criticize those who apparently are not doing anything "useful" or who are not pursuing a normal path. They are just enjoying something.  We look down on such people, but we should respect what they want out of life as long as it doesn't hurt others.  If you cannot enjoy life what is the point?

Human nature should be the basis of how we organize ourselves.  We have many commendable traits, but unfortunately most look out for ourselves most of the time.  Some of us are talented at getting more than our share in relation to what we contribute.  A few are very adept at bending the rules for their own advantage.  When we get a little power we almost immediately try to figure out how we can increase our power and it is usually at the expense of someone else.  If this is just extrapolating my own nature I apologize, but believe there is some rational basis for my thoughts..

We need to find more effective ways to co-operate or we will all suffer, but at the same time we need to encourage individuals to fully use their talents and find their own solutions.  Problems like avoiding war, especially nuclear war, climate change, energy and food shortages, contagious disease, terrorism., etc require wide spread co-operation.   We cannot leave these decisions to powerful people with narrow interests.  There is merit in people speaking up for individualism, but there needs to be those advocating intelligent co-operation to help unleash individual talent.