Where is all the wealth?

A healthy world would undoubtedly have sufficient resources to feed every person, to provide health care and to give each individual a decent living. But success continues to elude the global community.

The situation of poverty in many countries is deplorable and expecting impoverished countries to get themselves out of poverty is an extremely unlikely scenario simply because there is a causal loop. Poverty removes the possiblity of adequate education, health care and proper nutrition for billions. Each of these factors reduces the probability that children of the next generation will have incomes sufficient to allow them to pay taxes. WIthout taxes, the governments are unable to pay back billions in loans that have accumulated over the years. While they strive to provide security and a minimal form of governance, they are saddled with crippling  interest payments on loans of prior generations.

How should wealth be re-distributed?

Many, throughout decades have called upon the World Bank to cancel the loans and the World Bank has refused arguing that it could not based on its own  laws. If the World Bank is unable to cancel the loans, and donor nations seriously want to help, they must give sufficient amounts to help the countries pay off their loans. But donor nations themselves are also struggling with debt, leading back to the original question, where is all the wealth?

It occurred to me that the one place where wealth accumulates is with families in the upper echelon of society. When we think about the reality that being born into this life is a random process, there is no one individual who deserves to be born into wealth any more than another. As such, the passing of wealth to new generations gives an unfair advantage to those who were lucky enough to be born into wealthy families. While ensuring the future of our children is a reasonable goal, it is in no one’s best interest to have vast accumulations for some while other starve.

Some families recognize this injustice and choose to create trusts through which the money is redistributed to charitable causes. This is laudable and a reasonable form of monetary redistribution. However, for those that choose to keep the money in their families, the following generations continue to be advantaged in every way and the money and wealth continues to accumulate in the form of stocks, bonds, businesses and properties. But children of the wealthy aren’t any more deserving than the poorest child.

Should extreme amounts wealth be allowed to pass from one generation to the next? Is this fair?

While it may not be politically popular with the few that have unearned wealth passed to them, or those who have vast amounts that they wish to pass to their children through inheritances, it seems fitting that some share of inherited wealth should be used to create a more equitable life for all children. Redistribution through higher estate taxes would be one of the fairest forms of taxation to raise money. Once a person has lived their life and has had a fair and reasonable opportunity to use the wealth they’ve earned, it seems only fair that more of the money should be re-distributed after their passing.  Funds raised in this way could then be used to meet current donor commitments to impoverished nations.

This would benefit the greater good both within a country and and globally.

While I’m not necessarily suggesting that every family be subject to the same percentage tax, it would be reasonable in the case of estates in the billions to be heavily taxed after each generation has passed. Exemptions could be made in the event that a Charitable Trust has been formed, provided that such trust are confirmed to be genuine. By passing more of the assets of wealthy individuals back to the state, a redistribution of wealth would be possible and donor countries could then begin to look at increasing their commitments to impoverished states to the degree necesssary to meet the Millenium Development Goals. Similarly, it would also be reasonable to formalize legal liabilities for nations to ensure the redistribution from one nation to another to ensure that no country suffers excessive poverty while others benefit.

At very least, it would be interesting to model this approach of wealth redistribution to see how it might impact society as a whole. Far from making countries or people worse off, it is has been proven that equitable wealth distribution benefits rich and poor alike. (Click to see a TED video on inequity)

One might look at donor money as priming the pump of an economy. As long as there is insufficient money in the economy, it is unable to effectively create its own wealth. Insisting on payments of past debt cuts off the priming impact of donor money.

Other possibilities exist.

If the World Bank is unable to cancel the loans, then perhaps they might at least consider cancelling all interest and payments for several generations, long enough for these societies to recover. Once an economy is producing sufficient income through taxation it may be able to pay its debt.

Assessments have also identified tax evation by multinationals as being a major drain on poor nations. Global regulation of multinatoinals needs to ensure proper distribution of taxes to the various countries as well as maintaining standards for environmental sustainability and the rights of workers. (Click here for more information)

The issue of Governance and Corruption

While it may be true that impoverished nations have governance challenges, one might question the source of such challenges. If a police officer, responsible for enforcing laws, is unable to earn a living wage, how can they be expected to do their job? If they are hungry, how will they be able to make sound decisions and keep their emotions in check? While corruption is far from desirable, its likelihood increases when survival is threatened. The sooner the underlying causes of poverty are addressed, the more likely that corruption will be minimized.

Trickle Down Economics isn’t working the way it was intended and never did.

What’s really happening is more like the separation of Oil and Vinegar. The more you let an economy stagnate, the more the wealth floats to the top like Oil and ends up in the hand of the rich with less in the hands of the poor. But having all the oil on top makes terrible salad dressing. Separation continues until someone creatively does something about it.

There are two scenarios that we are seeing playing out (and a third scenario that could make a difference):
1) The poor can shake up the economy or,
2) The rich can shake up the economy or,
3) (The government can shake the economy)

The Solution of the Oppressed

Occupy Wall Street, riots in the Eurozone, and North Africa’s Arab Spring are all examples of how the oppressed tend to shake things up. Since their resources are limited, they use whatever means they have available to them. Rioting and demonstration is one tool. Their other tool, if they are lucky enough to live in a democracy, and wise enough to recognize myths of the economy, is to vote for representatives that actually support their interests. Here is an article that accurately dispels one of those myths and which also supports the Salad Dressing Theory of economics.

A Rich American Destroys The Fiction That Rich People Create The Jobs

(A note to be added. After attending a conference on Social and Economic Development, I am learning about a few other concepts which have been working for impoverished people particularly in the global south where many groups of women have been encouraged to work together to save small amounts of money each week (0.15cents/each) and gradually they learn business skills to be able to take this small amount of collective money and begin their own businesses and their own community lending programs without the benefit of micro-finance organizations. Although such efforts should be unnecessary in the global north, whether such collective efforts might help the poor in our communities to advance and have a greater voice is an interesting question. During their collective community meetings, the women learn not only to address financial needs of the community but also designate a part of their meetings for addressing social needs. In some of these groups, men have been allowed to participate as long as they don’t attempt to subvert the power of the women. )

Solution by the Wealthy

If the wealthy recognize the fundamentals of this principle (i.e. that the wealth always rises through the instrument of profit), they should have no fear in shaking things up.

In order for the economy to be revitalized by the rich, it has to be shaken to mix the wealth into the poverty just as oil into vinegar in salad dressing. Since, wealth naturally floats back to the top, there has to be a way of continuously pumping the wealth to the bottom members of society. Only then will they have enough money to spend to keep the economy moving.  The article above rightly points out that Henry Ford realized this principle and ensured that he always paid his workers enough to become his customers.

Another way, however, is through investments in the poorest sectors of society that benefit the poor in tangible ways. The following article is another example of that kind of mixing. Adidas is planning to sell a kind of Reebok running shoes in India for $1.00 using local labor and materials. At first, they may loose money but it will come back to them in the form of social capital and eventually profitable business.

What, Why: How can Rebook sell trainers for $1

(Note: One of my classmates rightly pointed out an interesting environmental issue with this, namely that if the trainers are built too cheaply or with non-recyclable materials, billions of used trainers will clutter-up land fills. Good point Greg, lets hope that Adidas contemplates plans for recycling, provided incentives for returning them, and thus reduces their material costs.)

Similar to the Ford example, the Tata Nano, a $2000 car, built for the masses in India, helps get families off dangerous motorcycles and into cars and is another great example of making products that the masses can afford.

(Note: The concept of having individual transportation driven by gas is ultimately not sustainable, so while I cite this as an example of creative economic stimulation that helps the masses, I actually hope that India and all other counties for that matter very quickly recognize the need for better designed communities that limit transportation requirements, improve public sector transportation systems, engage renewable power and utilize electric vs. gas vehicles. Are there any creative electric bus builder out there that wants to step up to the challenge with a solar powered transportation solution?)

If we want to look at solutions to many of the economic problems, the wealthier countries, companies and individuals need to create vital and thriving partnerships with the poorer nations and people to provide opportunties, goods and services which genuinely benefit the poor. As the poor benefit from wealth, the rich will also benefit.

The Government Solution

Government can play a role by building sustainable infrastructures, developing renewable energy powered transportation systems, investing in education and research and through taxation of wealth, wherever it is hiding, to redistribute some of it to the majority of the people in the world who are becoming poorer.  Higher taxation is  necessary especially if the wealthy are unwilling or lack the creativity to shake things up.

Sharing Ideas

If you agree with the Salad Dressing theory of Economics, please feel free to Share this article in whatever way you would like. Post the link, share through facebook, linked in, or Twitter or add to your bookmarking site.

Wishing you all good health and happiness,

Garth

Whenever I see the news about the demonstrations on Wall Street, commentators ask questions about demands and conclude with statements like ”the demonstrators have no clear demands” but frequently point out that they share common frustrations.

The challenge lies in the complexity of the situation which has several underlying and intertwined causes. Although they perceive an injustice somewhere in the economic structure, they don’t know exactly where to place the blame, and they don’t appear to know what to do about it other than voicing their anger. I have yet to hear any suggestion on what they want done or who they expect should do it.

In this article, my attempt is to articulate what I believe are some of the underlying issues and a few potential solutions along with who should take action.

The problem with Wall Street arguments

The Wall Street supporters have an equal sense of outrage. They argue that the people in the streets have no legitimate argument, that they are asking for something they don’t deserve. They justify their actions by arguing that they’re doing the best they can to create jobs and they conclude that the government is ultimately at fault for imposing taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals.

While it is true that businesses must have sufficient revenues in order to cover their expenses, and that excessive taxation could, theoretically, stifle business and investment, that fact alone does not guarantee that lower taxes will result in more employment. And simply accepting this solution without examining empirical evidence would be just as foolish as bowing to unclear demands of demonstrators.

So who’s right and how do we know?

The situation involves complex social relationships between investors (business owners), executives, employees, management, politicians, government employees and ultimately everyone else in our global society, each of whom has their own personal story and their own motivations. But it also involves other factors like advances in technology, changes in education systems, credit crunches, global infrastructures, governmental relations, international trade, global inequities, environmental degradation and a lack of hope.

Each group feels they are being unfairly targeted. And ironically all are partly right but for very different reasons.

The demonstrators are right because many are in a no win situation. In order to get jobs, they must be able to fill the roles that are being generated. In order to fill those roles, they must be able to afford the education that will close the knowledge and experience gap. In order to pay for that education they must take a substantial risk in taking student loans without any guarentee of a job that will help them to pay for the loan. But here’s the kicker. In many cases, the education they are getting will prepare them for job opportunities which are being automated or outsourced. This leads to debt that they cannot pay for, jobs that they do not want, or unemployment, and a deteriorating standard of living.

Investors are right in the sense that they should also have an opportunity to earn money from the risks they are taking with their invested money. Otherwise, why bother? They also deserve to live with a reasonable standard of living. In addition, we shouldn’t think that all investors are rich. Those of us who have mutual funds, pension funds or 401k’s are also investors. The problem for investors is that they blindly put their money in the hands of investment managers with only one mandate, which is ultimately to earn a profit. Investment managers with that mandate vote their shares in favor of executives that use every available tool to increase profits including automation, mergers, productivity tools, salary reduction, and outsourcing. Each of these has a consequence on the living standards and working conditions for workers.

Executives are right in the sense that making profits is their mandate. In addition, it is necessary to make profits in order to keep the interest of the investment community. Business realities require profit, or at least, no sustained losses, in order to continually pay employees and production expenses. Executives are also justified in wanting to earn a reasonable living. However, some also believe that they are justified in receiving salaries which are reflective of a status which outranks kings and rulers. They fail to realize that the ability to control wealth is a priviledge that is granted by current norms of society. It is not an absolute right. The achievements they have made on behalf of their shareholders may, in fact, not be in the best interest of the society at large. That they run their corporations in order to generate profits is reasonable, but the means by which they do this should reflect the needs of the broader community.

But, if the system isn’t working, who needs to make changes? Are the societal issues the sole responsibility of CEOs or investors? I would argue that they are partly responsible but that the brunt of the responsibility lies elsewhere.

So who has the power to make changes?

Contrary to the popular belief of demonstrators, the power in a democratic society is ultimately held by the voters, not by the CEOs. The demonstrators may, in fact, be better served by learning more about what influences the economy, by finding good unbiased research, by presenting their research to their local representatives, and by sharing their findings with the rest of society. In order to exercise the power of democracy, voters first need to become educated.

Voters would be wise to learn how to distinguish between reality and marketing during election campaigns.

Using your vote to make a better society

A review of recent corporate and employment trends will highlight some of the societal issues and provide a few ideas that might help to improve the situation.

Trend 1) Computers and Technology are advancing at the rate commensurate with Moores law, roughly doubling capability of automation every year.

If you’re not sure this is true, I would be happy to provide additional references. And to be fair, it would be worth doing some additional empirical research on the number of roles automated each year, however, it seems evident that research in the fields of robotics, nanotechnology, computing, miniaturization, communications, Artificial Intelligence and other technologies is being relentlessly pursued and it is unlikely that this trend will change. As each of these fields advance, the ability to automate more and more complex roles is inevitable.

Suggestion: Vote for candidates who recognize this technological trend and who understand the implications.

Implication 1) Automation can replace more people at higher skill levels every year.

Automation in itself is not a bad thing. It can provide an easier life for all of us. The challenge of increasing productivity becomes one of figuring out how to distribute less and less work amongst more and more people.

It is true that increasing technology provides new opportunities, but gradually, as more and more needs are met by technological solutions, less actual work is required by humans in order to meet our basic needs. The question remains, will there ever be a sufficient number of roles for everyone to play and will those roles pay enough money for them to live a dignified life? The simple answer lies in knowing what is required in order for people to live a dignified life. They must feel that they are contributing in some meaningful way to others, they must continue to learn from life experience, they must have access to basic needs such as shelter, safety, health, food and clean water, they must have the right and ability to make conscious and beneficial decisions, and they must have time to enjoy some leisure with friends and loved ones.

People do not need to work every hour of the week and they do not need to be rich to be happy. But without these basics, life becomes difficult and, at times, unbearable.

Suggestion: Vote for candidates who will provide tax incentives to companies who promote successful job sharing schemes to increase the number of jobs and decrease working hours.

Implication 2) Unemployed workers cannot advance as quickly as automation.

Technology has the tendency to roughly double in capability each year. Accordingly, technology is more likely to fill a role than education. Here are a few examples:

1) Supposing a job has the requirement of reading out loud. To train a person to read takes many years. To develop software to perform that same function also takes many years of research and development. However, in order to duplicate that capability in another person, one needs to train another individual over many more years. In order to duplicate that capability in a computer, one only needs to copy the software. (Free Natural Reader and Odigio, the software used on this web-site, are example). How does this and voice recognition software affect jobs? The need for executive assistants is becoming less and less because each individual can do more than previously possible wit.h the help of their mobile devices and computers. Soon, booking rooms and airlines simply by talking to your phone without intervention of booking agents will be common place. What will happen to higher level roles in the travel industry?

2) In order to learn the skills of translating a language, many years of training are required. But once the translation process is developed in software, it becomes completely automated and it is now becoming completely portable. Many web-browsers and phones already have the capability to instantaneously translate from many languages to many other languages and every year the translations are becoming more accurate. What will be the long term implication for translators who now play a crucial role in communications? Bear in mind that there are many positive impacts to this technology, but from a jobs perspective, that is less clear.

3) To drive a car well takes years of experience. And safety is dependent on things like emotional stability, wakefulness, awareness and other factors. But already, many companies have vehicles that can drive themselves. These vehicles are not subject to human failings such as distraction and sleepiness, and these technologies can be built into any new vehicle thus eliminating the need for human drivers. Google as, as example has self driving cars that have logged more than 40,000 miles. Nevada is the first state in the US that has agreed to allow policy development for self driving vehicles. Once the technology has been proven and has been determined safe for moving small vehicles, what happens to the Taxi industry that as been the fallback of so many immigrants? What happens to transport vehicles around the country and what might happen to truck or bus drivers? While it is true that these technologies are still not licensed, it is only a matter of time before such technologies take their place in cities of the future. It would be nice to put many of those taxi driving doctors back to work as doctors but only if they can be upgraded and re-licensed. Will that happen? Only if they are given the opportunity and the necessary funding.

The simple fact is that every year, new technologies will displace more workers and retraining them for higher roles will become more difficult, so will require more effort.

Suggestion: Vote for candidates who support reasonable minimal living standards for everyone, who encourage incentives for education and for work, and who promote a sufficient level of taxation to balance the budget (no matter how high it needs to get), especially collecting higher taxes from companies that generate higher profits while eliminating workers and from those who already have sufficient wealth.

Trend 2) Free educational materials are becoming more available but recognized education costs more than before.

Automation and technology is providing us an opportunity to create more and better educational on-line programs that are affordable for the masses and, in some cases, even free. Examples of free educational material are available on the Internet. The Khan Academy is one example, but there are others. However, most free courses do not allow for evaluation or certification.

Research dollars spent on automating education of all kinds could benefit learning and development. However, successful implementation still requires a collaborative effort from researchers, educators, technologists, linguists, student participants and others, in order to create materials that will meet the needs of a global audience. Such learning materials would ideally include instructional videos suitable for playback on portable devices and would provide a means for interactive discussion and testing.

In addition, digital education should focus on development of skills that are most necessary in creating a dignified life for everyone. These include topics such as sustainable housing and infrastructure,  health care, agriculture and food research, sustainable energy development and implementation, logistics, transportation, business skills, political science, human rights, social sciences and arts. While there is not necessarily a shortage in needs, there is a mismatch between current levels of education and current needs.

Educational automation for the masses is possible through collaboration and would benefit at all levels in all languages. Less developed countries would benefit by creating more educated consumers, a more knowledgeable workforce and stronger economies. Our local economy would benefit by having alternate consumer bases.

Will this make Teaching obsolete? Not necessarily. Human society will progress only as we do research and create educational material based on that research. Therefore, a much higher portion of society should be involved in research of all types, and teaching of all types where it concerns research.

Suggestion: Vote for candidates who 1) encourage incentives for automating educational instruction and accreditation where appropriate in order to lower education costs, 2) include broad based development of translation technologies for global applications thus lowering the cost of education for developing countries and 3) see education as a universal right thereby supporting the development of infrastructure and communications for education globally.

Trend 3) Corporations are having more difficulty in finding people with sufficient skill levels.

To say that jobs are not available is not exactly right. Many jobs are not being filled. However, part of this is due to trends related to automation.

A simple example of this is corporate administrative assistants. Managers in the 1950s had secretaries who specialized in typing their letters and memos and arranging their travel. This function was eventually replaced by managers who could type on their own using highly flexible word processing and analysis software (e.g. MS Word and MS Excel) and who had access to travel agents and travel web-sites. It is increasingly being replaced by voice recognition software, mobile devices, Artificial Intelligence, and interconnected systems. Apple’s latest release of the iPhone 4S, for example, has a built-in personal assistant that connects to e-mail, messaging, GPS and the Internet for various functions.

While an executive assistant may be re-trained to take on higher skills jobs such as software design, technology improvements eventually enable more people to design and develop their own web-sites, thus leading to less need for generic software developers and the need for even more specialized skills such as knowledge of Artificial Intelligence and robotics. The trend is always towards greater productivity by more automation and fewer people.

Here’s another example. Mail delivery has been largely replaced by e-mail. What do the mail delivery people get re-trained for? Assembly line workers have been replaced by robots. What do the assembly line workers retrain for?

Corporate executives are given incentives to generate profits, not jobs. If automation can lead to greater profits, the casualty is employment. As more complex work is demanded, technology is increasingly able to deliver solutions. Companies that are able to successfully automate tend to dominate in the market. So if we limit our thinking and believe that corporations provide the only solution to economic stability, we will find ourselves in a downward spiral.

Suggestion: Vote for candidates who consistently strive to make high level education available, ideally at a very low cost on-line or free for countries that can’t afford to pay, and who encourage funding for general research roles including those related to both private and public sector work.

Trend 4) As more people are replaced through automation, or unseated by broken economies, more profits are currently shared by fewer people.

Corporate profits under the current laws benefit only those who have control over them, namely, the shareholders, the executives and the specialists. The long term outcome of this approach to ownership and control is obvious. Those who have power will continue to gain and those who do not, will continue to lose.

There is a choice that must be made by the vast majority of voters in democracy. Do we stick with the current model of ownership which is leading to further declines in wealth for the majority, or do we decide that ownership of this planet and it’s vast wealth must be equitably shared by all of its inhabitants. In order to accomplish the latter scenario, a decision must be made by voters to change the rules of the game, where ownership is not an absolute entitlement, rather it is a priviledge, and it is given only when it leads to equitable sharing.

There are several models of wealth distribution. Experience tells us that voluntary wealth distribution by the generosity of individuals only works some of the time and still leaves the control and decision making in the hands of a few individuals. It is clear also that many people hoard wealth and need reminders that properity is not necessarily an absolute right. Considering that much of their wealth was given to them purely by good fortune, they are not as deserving of it as they might think.

The re-distribution of wealth needs to address four questions.

• First, how much wealth is there in the world?
• Second, how much can we create on an on-going basis?
• Third, how do we want wealth to be generated?
• Fourth, how much wealth is each person entitled to and how do we ensure maximum benefit for the greater good?

Only when these questions have been answered will we be able to come up with tax policies that meet the needs of everyone. However, a starting place is a recognition that universal human rights are not being met by the current system. A second step is in recognizing that no system is perfect but that only unbiased research will provide the optimal solutions to questions about proper levels of taxation. Eliminating bias in research is a key. Once the question of basic entitlement has been answered, taxes can be designed to start the process of re-distributing wealth accordingly for our long term needs.

Suggestion: Vote for candidates who recognize the need for better wealth distribution policies and who are willing to look at all options.

Trend 5) Corporate executives receive incentives to make profits so they invest many millions in marketing campaigns which encourage behaviours that increase profitability.

We know that executives act in ways that are consistent with shareholder directives and their personal goals. Their goal is to increase revenues and decrease expenses in order to maximize profit.

Part of this effort involves creating products more competatively. The other part involves using psychology in advertising to optimize messages which encourage people to take actions that increase their profitibility. But advertising isn’t limited to products. Advertising is also used to increase brand strength and company reputation, whether it is deserved or not. In addition, corporations increase profits by contributing money to political campaigns that advertise in favour their agenda (namely to increase profits by lowering taxes). But they don’t attach their names to these campaigns. Instead, they support candidates that will tell you that lowering corporate taxes will benefit you because it will create jobs. By taking a hands off position, they are free to cut jobs while also getting tax cuts.

Marketing messages are carefully designed to make us believe that we will be happier if we listen to them. Unfortunately, marketing is not factual knowledge, it is highly motivated communication. And the question that we must always ask is what is the motivation? In the case of corporate sponsored politicians the motivation is always profit or control.

The question is, how do we get better and more unbiased information about the outcome of government policy so we know how to vote? The only way to do this is to elect someone who is willing to support the elimination of corporate sponsorship of candidates during elections. Each candidate should have equal funding provided by taxation. Elections are no place for corporate influence.

Suggestion: Vote for candidates who will support the elimination of corporate lobbies and corporate sponsorship of election campaigns and who support public only funding for campaigning and policy research.

Trend 6) Elected representatives do as they have promised based on a platform even if it’s contrary to public good.

Especially if a candidate is supported by a corporation, they will do their best to cut taxes for the rich and for corporations if they have received money from those corporations or private donors. Why? Because, whether they believe it is the right thing to do or not, they have allowed themselves to be influenced by those contributions.

Suggestion: Vote for candidates who refuse corporate donations, who are willing do what they believe is right, who demonstrate the ability to reason with other representatives across political party lines, who are willing to change their mind if they are proven wrong, who act on moral conviction, thoughtfulness, and truthfulness rather than according to a set political platform.

Conclusion

In a democracy, the power ultimately lies with each individual voter, and the first step in making a permanent change is by educating the voters.

Millionaire business leaders proclaim the current personal tax rates too high at a marginal rate of 25% and yet, the marginal tax rate was 90% and when reduced to 71% produced many new jobs. The employment rate has not returned as a result of moving the tax rate from 70% to 25%. So let’s question the assumption that lower taxes leads to more jobs. Some studies point out that higher taxes leads to lower tax revenue per GDP. But this fails to take into account the fact that higher taxes also lead to greater GDP contributions from the public sector, which naturally leads to this conclusion.  However, does not mean that there are more jobs with lower taxes. It only implies a different distribution of jobs between public and private sector.

Voters are not ignorant people. Rather, they are dealing with an extremely complex situation and a very powerful advocate (i.e. the corporate community). People all have similar needs, they want good jobs, they a dignified life, health, security and happiness. They all have the capacity to learn and develop. And it natural to vote for those who claim that they will help you achieve your goals.

But we also have human failings and limitations. Our humanness makes us susceptible to well devised marketing messages. So we need to understand the difference between marketing and reality. We need to clearly understand that the corporate agenda is profit, not jobs, and we must understand the implications in terms of our voting decisions.

Feel free to make constructive comments, even if you don’t necessarily agree.

Prior to 1971, as a result of US money being backed by gold, all other countries followed the US dollar. The US had an obligation to try not to allow themselves to get too far out of alignment. However, as the US continued to allow their trade deficit to grow, being the only country with the right to print US currency, they eventually found themselves with a substantial trade deficit. So much US currency was in the hands of other countries that they could not be able to pay it back in Gold without bankrupting or substantially depleting their gold reserves. As a result the US dollar was sharply devalued against gold and the price of gold has continued to rise ever since.

By abandoning the gold standard, the US opened the doors to printing as much money as they wanted giving themselves unlimited credit and an unlimited trade deficit. Now that severe trade imbalances are showing up everywhere, it is becoming more and more difficult to reconcile accounts without extreme devaluation of certain currencies and getting hold of trade imbalances.

What Mike Sheldock and others are advocating is a return to the gold standard. The problem with the gold standard is that it would still be essentially controlled by one country and the temptation for that country to print money would still be more than it could bare. Would he advocate that standard if Chinese currency was the central currency? Probably not.

Gold in fact, is nothing more than a mineral, no more meaningful than any other mineral except in the meaning that has been ascribed to it by mere mortals. The solution, in my perspective is not returning to the gold standard, but rather, a solution that was proposed by Russia and China during the financial crisis of 2008, (i.e. to move to a Global Currency), as I also suggested in an earlier article Global Economics, the G20 and a call from the past.

Some might argue that the problems in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy are as a result of their inability to fluctuate their currency against the Euro. I would suggest that their former ability to fluctuate currency caused a negative trajectory that finally became apparent after taking on the Euro as their standard.  Now, as a result of not being able to fluctuate their currency, they are having to address internal issues that exist long before the current crisis. However, that will eventually be straightened out. True it will require painful austerity measures to make the necessary social adjustments but after having done so, they will resume their course of living more sustainably.

Similarly, others would argue that the trade imbalance in China is because they won’t allow their currency to fluctuate against the US dollar. To some degree this is true. However, the introduction of an international currency would cause this problem to disappear altogether because a day’s work is a day’s work, irrespective of where it is done. The simple fact is that growing unemployment is as a result of unrealistic expectations on the part of some citizens in some parts of the world expecting that they can be better off than the rest of the world forever without equivalent productivity. It’s simply not a reasonable assumption. China’s growth in wealth is actually a good thing for the US because it implies that the process of equalization is beginning. It’s not that I would want anyone to suffer. Rather, in order for all of us to prosper, we need to prosper together and to do that, we have to be on more equal footing. The suffering in some parts of the world is simply unjust. The wealth that is being gained by a few very rich in the world is also unjust.

Imposition of a Global Currency would be a painful proposition and not something that should be done over night. I would propose that a timeline be set whereby the gold standard would be re-introduced for an agreed period, that all currencies be allowed to fluctuate within that period to allow for reasonable adjustments to the current trade imbalances, and with the understanding that after that agreed period, a global currency would be introduced.

Once there is a global monetary policy that recognizes currency based on human productive value, all of the nonsense trading, the artificial value of Gold, the unbridled credit given by the US to itself, and the unreasonable expectations of countries, disappear entirely. This would also bring about a more sustainable level of growth based on true exchange of value for value. Everyone would need to learn to live on a more level playing field. Also much of the world’s no-value trading (i.e. the forex) would become a thing of the past, taking away a tool that has allowed the rich to get richer and forcing traders who are providing no real value to anyone to something more valuable.

A radical thought perhaps but one that I believe will take the world much closer to solving some of it’s financial woes.

Until Next time,

Garth Schmalenberg

Please feel free to share this article with other by e-mail or by other means.

To date, the program has been fascinating and it had a great cohort comprised of Diplomatic, Disaster Management and Business Consultants, Military Officers, NGO leaders and a few recent graduates all of whom were delightful people. What they share most in common is that they all deeply care what happens to other people in the world and they all share very unique perspectives on the world, born of their unique experiences. I’m looking forward to working with each of them in the field of action and learning.

What did we cover? Dr. Hrach Gregorian took us through topics such as Globalization in it’s many dimensions, Economic, Logistics, Global Security and the Right to Protect (R2P), Food Distribution, Global Financial Institutions, Civil Society Institutions, NGO’s, the UN, World Bank, G8, G20, IMF, Businesses and others, outlining the theme of how interconnected the world is. We looked at how even the best laid plans to make things better have unintended consequences on Human Security due to the complexity of linkages.

We looked at how Aid sometimes did more harm than good, and at the various examples of Truth and Reconciliation commissions, the history leading up to them, how they did their work, and the outcomes.

An invited guest speaker Ambassador Jeremy Kinsman, shared with us a glimpse of his deep understanding and knowledge of civil society, the impact of democracy, how democracies are formed, and a few of the  requisites of democracy such as minimum standards of per capita average income and a basis of experience in civil society.

We looked at the definition of Human Security and how some countries regarded it in its’ very simplest form (i.e. ensuring adequate food, physical security and shelter) while the UNDP in its’ 1994 statement outlined Human Security in terms which made it much broader and more difficult to contain, and which forms a basis of society that looks beyond nationalistic borders.

And we looked at differing views on military spending and the strength of the military industrial complex. Some papers argued that it was a necessary deterrent and that it was supported by democratic votes, and, others argued, that military spending, especially on nuclear deterrents, but also on the build up of conventional weaponry, is both a flagrant and immoral use of huge sums of money which usurp the development of civil society; efforts to educate, feed and assist the masses of suffering souls. It undermines the support that would binds nations together in mutual security efforts.

If you’re interested in where I stand on the issue, I found the latter argument to be much stronger and better researched. Rather, than creating a more secure world, military spending assures the continuation of power struggles that keep nations apart. To be sure, some reasonable semblance of physical security and military strength must be maintained at the international level and R2P is a reasonable concept given that there are some ruthless rulers willing to destroy their own people in order to maintain power, but it is hard to argue that any one nation should maintain a constant threat over others, and, at very least, an effort should be made to begin reducing the military industrial complex in favor of increased research and development on other issues. Even a reduction of 10% of the world’s military budget if redirected to development efforts would solve most of the funding issues facing humanities efforts to develop civil society and ensure an adequate measure of other dimensions of Human Security for all nations. And the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) enforced through possession of nuclear weapons makes no sense. No world leader, however outraged they may be, by an attack on their country, could ever morally drop a nuclear weapon on hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent people, most of whom don’t even support the aggressive governments who profess to represent them. Such an action could only be regarded as a war-crime. The military complex that continuously builds weapons and sells them to under developed nations only serves to assure the continued suffering of innocent people and guarantees the continuation of militaristic domination by the few. Those who would argue that militarization is brought about by democratic votes haven’t bothered to consult the countless billions who suffer as a result. (so much for my rant)

We also talked about the types of democracies such as representative democracies, each method of which has its’ strong points and flaws, as well as direct democracy, such as the California approach, where the state has been decimated by referendums, where the people can vote for increased spending with a 50% +1 vote, whereas additional taxation must pass by a 2/3rds (66.6%) vote. Imagine a system that allows the citizens to vote for spending increases far in excess of tax increases and allows the state to go broke and destroyed its’ own educational system, subjecting it to even greater challenges in the future.

We also looked at examples of the world in conflict and ways that we can contribute to reparation through the development of the economy through major industrial investments, micro-finance, and through commercial partnerships which provide agricultural and tourism based incentives to less favorable industries such as growing opium poppies, through anti-corruption programs for polices forces, through human rights training for army leaders,  and by the use of sports and other educational programs for developing skills and cooperation.

Dr. Robin Cox lead us through the process of gaining understanding of the world of being, Ontology, and of our own way of knowing and various ways of making meaning of the world, our Epistemology. And we looked methodology and the various methods used for doing both Quantitative and Qualitative research.  We also learned how to review scholarly works, to do a proper research proposal, to do literature reviews, to write research questions.

Colleen Hoppins gave a wonderful and very entertaining presentation on research Ethics that still has me chuckling when I think back on it.

And Retired Rear Admiral Roger Girouard shared his unique perspectives and challenged our thinking on other elements of Human Security as a precursor to the course he will be teaching later in the program.

Dr. Kenneth Christie, Head of the program, provided both the program overview and some insights into our second overseas residency in a post conflict country and our major project work which will require us to do six months of work overseas.

My personal project goal is to work with diplomatic or civil leaders on developing methods of principle based consultation, responding to civil input,  and developing  policies for engendering economic development as well as the development of civil society, food security, peace and sustainability. (Wow can you do all that in six months?) If any of my readers know of a contact in a country looking for this kind of assistance, please have them call me.

All in all, a very powerful immersion into the world that is Human Security and Peacebuilding. I’m looking forward to the rest of the program.

All the best,

Garth Schmalenberg
1-250-815-5323

garth@hbi-leadership.com
garth@partnersforprosperity.org

As always, if you liked the article, please share with your friends and contacts, whether representing businesses, political organizations, religious groups or NGOs, by e-mail, the share button, or any other way that works for you. I’m happy to respond to all requests for collaboration or if you are looking for a speaker for an event.

Although most of my past articles have been addressed in some way to Business leaders who aspire to create sustainable value in their organizations, my readers have come from a wide array of people, some business leaders, some professionals in various fields, and many others.  I wanted to acknowledge all of you and hope that you continue to enjoy reading.

In my last article, I talked briefly about an organization called Partners for Prosperity. You may remember a Remington Shaver commercial where the President came on the television and said “I liked the product so much I bought the company”.  Well, in my case, I didn’t “buy the company” but when I understood what Partners for Prosperity was striving to achieve I “bought” the message and when they found themselves with an opening, they invited me to join them as their Executive Director and I accepted.

Does that mean the end of my coaching practice? Well, no. There are still individuals and organizations that can benefit from my coaching right here in the Cowichan Valley or in Vancouver or other locations and as long as some of my time is available, I’m still willing to serve those needs. Having said that, I’m very much looking forward to my work with Partners for Prosperity.

Since I’ve started with them, I’ve had a lot of questions about what Partners for Prosperity does and what it stands for. In order to explain that, it’s worth getting an understanding of what we mean when we talk about prosperity.

In the traditional sense, prosperity has been based on an economic perspective. When you run a business, prosperity is usually tied to making money. It means having assets or financial ability and that in turn translates into having the freedom to do whatever one chooses.

For us, prosperity is a little different. It’s still about freedom and the ability to choose but not quite so much in an economic sense. It is more about freedom to express culture diversity, to have food security, descent housing and infrastructure, gender equality, availability to education, fundamental freedom of choice with regard to religious belief (or not) without persecution, freedom to investigate and learn, and freedom to develop and share arts and culture.

While economics does play an important role, there is a much greater emphasis on development of the the higher human nature, the virtues which make us what we are, and building of capacity from within a community itself rather than having one community trying to develop another. When we talk about “developing” vs. “developed” countries, it has the potential to belittle the contribution of the inhabitants of the so-called “developing” country to their own success. Prosperity for us involves recognizing diversity as a positive element of life that contributes to the whole, rather than holding to the belief that our way is the best way. It also recognizes the historical impact of certain cultures dominating others and seeks to heal those relationships through love and respect of all people. It strives to root out influences which have bred dependency on aid, recognizes individual and community rights to self-determination, and believes in our growing, albeit early, collective maturity. True prosperity seeks to demonstrate our collective ability to get beyond the historical abuses of power on the part of individuals, groups or governments which have so often lead to hopelessness for those who have suffered oppression and have likewise destroyed the humanity of those who oppress.

Partners for Prosperity’s goal is not to create development projects independently. Rather, it is to listen deeply to communities that are wanting to develop in their own capacity and in their own way. It seeks to partner with them to understand the environment necessary for that development to take place and it engages participants to facilitate the creation of that environment in ways that are respectful of the capacity of the community to develop itself and to contribute back to the greater good of society.

Our goal in Partners for Prosperity is to work closely with Volunteers to help them to develop new understandings of Social and Economic development which take into account the higher nature of humanity and accompanies them in their own development. When we help others to develop, they also help to develop us. When we look around, we find literally millions of people who are willing to serve others, to give of their time and energies, to try to make the world better place for those who follow in their footsteps, but who lack the skills or the means to apply their generosity of spirit. There are also many organizations who have successfully operated in the realm of Social and Economic Development who have valuable skills but who have limited capacity to replicate their successes. Partners seeks to play a role in creating partnerships with these various participants by developing a systematic approach to learning and expansion through research, outreaching to communities, reflecting, planning and applying our collective learning through action. We are developing a systematic approach for sharing and accompanying new Volunteers, for attracting new partnerships with NGO’s, Governmental groups and Businesses, and to make it easier to establish new programs of development lead directly by the communities we are working with.

I’m inviting everyone to participate, whether you are a:

• Business Leader who wants to develop a socially active business or are willing to contribute financially or through your resource pool,
• Volunteer who is willing to take on a development role while adopting an attitude of humble learning,
• Student who seeks to expend your energies while learning new skills, developing deeper insights and creating your own future world,
• Community member or leader wanting to celebrate and share your culture and uniqueness, while developing new capacities and sharing with us,
• An NGO already working toward a better society and have skills or partnerships to contribute,
• Friend willing to share this message with others and you believe that we can create a prosperous world together,

Initially, we are aiming to maintain and develop our projects and capacities in Haiti and Ghana, to maintain existing partnerships such as OUR Ecovillage and others, and to establish or share in other projects on Vancouver Island using these as our learning ground. But we also need to expand and have many connections elsewhere. As we further establish our methodology, we will have many opportunities to help facilitators across the globe in assisting groups of Volunteers in their own locations to establish their own Social and Economic development projects, all of which will be designed to develop the richness and capacity of the communities and individuals involved.

Please take the time to share your interested in helping us or learning more about Partners for Prosperity. Please contact me at  garth@partnersforprosperity.org . Share your vision, your experience, your learning, your hopes and your offers of time, resources or even money and please, share your name and phone number so I can call you back. I look forward to sharing our goals and working with you directly.

All the best,

Garth Schmalenberg

Since arriving here, I have also had the great privilege of participating with and offering my assistance to a wonderful organization called Partners for Prosperity which I’ll speak more about later and provide a link to for those who are interested in learning more.

It is said that when you set an intention, pray to God, and put your intention out to the world, in some mysterious way it the world assists you to achieve your goals. For me, my personal goal in life is this; that in my work and in my personal activities, in my building of relationships with people of capacity (and all have capacity), in my prayers and in the depths of my soul, that my focus may continue to be on bridging gaps in understanding; between people and organizations, between countries and leadership, between those who find themselves in conflict who are unable to resolve issues on their own, between those who are privileged in the material sense and those who, though needing assistance, share their own wisdom and the hope of a peaceful and prosperous world, between those who believe the world is crashing down with issues related to sustainability and those who see the marvelous possibilities of the future. My efforts to connect with business, community and religious leaders, my personal studies which range from social and economic development to research papers on practical application of high tech solutions to current human challenges, my future aspirations of a Masters Degree in Human Security and Peace building, my recent visit to Vietnam and my earlier visit to India to develop business relations and link foreign opportunities with North American businesses, my keynote presentations to various organizations on developing a culture of Sustainability, my service on various Non-Profit boards aimed at building business, spiritual and community capacity, my aspirations of sharing knowledge and learning through my services, my work with organizations aimed at building a culture of learning and development of leadership capacity, my continued goal of linking those who are involved in business and community leadership and those who are involved in social development, my desire to connect good hearted privileged individuals with those who would benefit from their assistance; all these efforts are aimed at developing human capacity and building a more peaceful and prosperous world. 

My intention is to continue learning, growing and sharing by offer my services (keynotes, workshops, facilitation, training, building connections and coaching) to business, community and social development leaders, or anyone else who would like better understand the forces that are shifting a rapidly evolving world, whether they share in this vision of the world or are simply curious and want to gain a greater understanding from my experience and the experience of the many people that I’ve met along the way.

Now that my own intentions are “out there”, I’ll say a little more about Partners for Prosperity.

Partners for Prosperity is an organization the is in the business of building partnerships. Whenever a need is perceived, be they local or overseas, Partners for Prosperity begins the process of engaging their growing list of partners who are able to share expertise, learning, experience, material goods, and, in some cases, funding. Partners for Prosperity isn’t just another NGO or Charity. They are somehow a little different than any organization I’ve seen before. They’re like glue to Social Development in the world.

They see a very specific need in development. There are literally hundreds of thousands of aid organizations in the world who are spending billions of dollars; funds which are provided by government and business partnerships, but which often end up in “traditional” aid efforts. In other words, the organizations fly in, do their work, consume their funds and eventually leave. As much as their work is necessary and valued by the recipients, it often leaves the beneficiaries in a situation, which though better off than before, have little in the means of capacity for creating a sustainable future. They end up dependent on future aid.

Partners for Prosperity seeks to build capacity of the aid recipients so that they are able to support themselves.

How do they do this? They find organizations who have a very specific approach which are already building capacity on the ground, who have specific experience in developing the local skills and talents. These organizations are deeply involved in educating people not only from a material perspective but from a whole life perspective, building intellectual, spiritual, emotional and material capacities used in community development and infrastructure, agricultural development, commerce and business development. Once they find organizations who are successfully building the capacities of local people and communities, they find out what their needs are and then look for other partners who might benefit from supporting them and who will also benefit by learning from them. They facilitate the conversation, share knowledge through providing direct connections, hold conferences on building capacity and venture out to find new projects, new partnerships and new opportunities for sharing experience. Partners for Prosperity is like glue that helps social development organizations to become less necessary and more beneficial by helping the local communities to become more self sufficient. If you want to contribute to a long lasting solution, either financially or by offering skills, services, expertise or material goods, Partners for Prosperity may be one of your best choices.

Please share this article and blog site with friends, family, business associates, community members and others you feel might benefit.

All the best,

Garth Schmalenberg
http://hbi-leadership.com

While we could have predicted the reduction in price of laptops anyway, as a result of continued exponential advances in technology, targeting $100 was, at the time, aggressive to say the least. Having said that, the only real question was “how long will it take”? At long last, several computer makers are building $100 laptops (netbooks) including Cherrypal and others albeit generally on an Android platform rather than Windows. 

After, more or less achieving the initial goals of OLPC, Negroponte is targeting a new $75 price point for OLPC based on a tough, ultra low energy, solar powered tablet computer with an 8GHz processor by 2012. Immediately critics of his goal cry foul stating the obvious, that he isn’t a technology expert and that an ultra low power 8GHz processer will likely not be available at such a low price by 2012. But they are forgetting the fact that this is a paradigm setting goal and, for Negroponte, I suspect it is more about setting the target than it is about his personal success at reaching the goal.  If anyone reaches the goal, the children and youth of the world are still the beneficiaries and Negroponte wins.

And, not to worry, at the same time Negroponte is announcing his goal, the  Indian Institute of Technology has already announced its’ intention of developing a $35 (about 1500 rupees) solar powered tablet which will be available for Indian students along with wideband networking at it’s 22000 universities. This goal is from a country with a 63% literacy rate and success in developing a $2000 car for the masses. What is beginning to emerge is radical life changing technologies that will not only revolutionize the fortunes of India, but of the rest of the world. Computing power and access to information will soon be in the hands of every child and every person who wants it and, I for one, couldn’t be happier.

What are the impacts on the world?

Access to technology has been life changing for all of us. It has made our lives easier and more interesting. It has connected us and given us collective capabilities never before possible. It has allowed the disadvantaged to access information that they might never have otherwise had and it has given a voice to everyone. It will continue to change the world that we live in in ways that we are currently unable to comprehend or imagine. Translation devices which bridge the communication gap and nano-technologies are only beginning to make their impact felt. And more technologies are distributed to developing nations, knowledge and consequently the power of knowledge will also become more available to each individual. Our collective and collaborative capacities will only continue to increase. As individuals become empowered through greater access to knowledge, the global playing field of capability will rapidly begin to level. Education will become available for virtually all those who seek it.  And once the information is available, the deployment of solutions to many of humanity’s greatest challenges is not far away. Deployment of solutions also means expansion of the global market.

What does it all mean for Global Business?

Agility is the key for tomorrow’s organizations. Recognizing that profits will continue to flow to companies that either lead in research and development, or those that excel in the mass production of newer, smaller and less expensive products that meet the needs of a global market of more than 7 billion people where most will eventually participate due the shrinking cost of being connected to the rest of the world. In countries which are working seriously towards the UN Millennium Development Goals, poverty is being reduced, global commerce is increasing and education levels are rising, at least partly due the introduction of less expensive mobile communications.

The attraction to outsourcing will continue until salaries around the world are much closer to being equivalent and that will only happen when all people globally enjoy a similar standard of living. When I used to predict this more than 15 years ago, many people I knew rejected the fairness of outsourcing, and when I told my Indian counterparts that I encouraged outsourcing and supported their efforts, it seemed at that time that equalization was at least a century away. But with continued globalization and the introduction of extremely inexpensive electronic devices, I believe these goals are now within the grasp of this generation. 

Although part of this equalization process may be as a result of stagnant North American and European economy along with stagnant salaries, the other part is through the introduction of cheap electronics and affordable communication devices which improves not only the living conditions of our developing neighbors but also our own. It continues to introduce both educational and entertainment value into our lives, improves our collective capacities and expands our collaborative initiatives. In addition, the salaries in Asian countries, especially for educated workers, continues to increase as work continues to be outsourced. Countries such as China, India, Vietnam and some of the other ASEAN nations continue to experience unprecedented growth in GDP of between 7 and 9% annually. Currency fluctuation will only stabilize when the outsourcing trend begins to wane or when the need for international currency is eventually recognized and accepted.

In the face of the expanding introduction of technologies, new power demands will arise, and we might question the efficacy of growth in the face of continued use of fossil fuels, but it will happen regardless. No one or no nation can hold back the potential of it’s people once they begin understand what is available to them. The best we can do is to continue to encourage countries, including our own, to become leaders in the research and development of clean technologies.

For now, I have incredible hope for the future of humanity. Though we can always find bad in the world, there are so many positive developments that we only need to look for them to feel optimistic. It is also true that we have many challenges to overcome but I have faith in the nobility of the human spirit and the capacity of human heart and mind to overcome these challenges. Irrespective of our current situation, the education of the minds, the development of virtues, and our growing connectedness as a human race is slowly unlocking the door to our humanity and our collective potential.

If you like these ideas of find them helpful, please share them with others by whatever means you find easiest.

All the best,
Garth Schmalenberg

Among the many brilliant presenters was a young lady who is working on her PhD thesis whose presentation was entitled “What Can Justify Duties of Global Economic Justice? Individual Responsibility, Human Consciousness, and the Oneness of Humankind”. Her name is Shahrzad Sabet. In asking the question, she began by sharing with us the globally accepted UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights. She the began to dissect the responsibilities for the implementation of these rights. To be fair to Shahrzad, I will state that the remaining text is my perhaps feeble understanding of the arguments she so simply and brilliantly presented and perhaps, at some point, I will have a chance to speak with her further to clarify or to refer on-line to her thesis work, but I can only say that after hearing what she had to say, I was completely overwhelmed by her convincing arguments recognizing that there really isn’t a minute to lose in beginning to bring this argument forward on a wide basis, and I am also quite convinced that someday this young lady will be amongst the Nobel Peace Prize winners because these same arguments will force all nations and all people of conscience to take action. Such action will come in the form of adopting laws and practices which will require all citizens of the world (or at least those who have the freedom to vote or make buying decisions), all business leaders and all government leaders to act forcefully in upholding these Human Rights by taking practical, direct and personal responsibility for implementing Global Economic Justice through their votes for responsible government representatives, those who will make the necessary revisions in government institutions, and in turn, through laws which will require all people to make these Human Rights a reality.

In nations such as Pakistan, Haiti, India, Indonesia and many others, billions suffer under the oppression of poverty, the lack of a suitable infrastructure, and through catastophic environmental impacts, while much of the world continues to enjoy their freedoms without paying much attention and governments pay immense amounts of money towards military spending and the expansion of environmentally destructive practices which only serve to further human suffering.

Her arguement goes something like this:

The majority of all nations on earth have accepted the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

A “Right” as opposed to something else (e.g. an idea or a privilege) is essentially the entrenched global and national liability of society to provide something to each individual. As the majority of nations, and their electorate, having elected their representatives, have accepted that this right exists, then the responsibility to implement this right also exists.

She then asks the question “whose responsibility is it to implement these Human Rights?”

Since it is ultimately the responsibility of global agreement and therefore global and national institutions, including national, (as well as regional and local governments) and global (as well as national and local) businesses, and since those government and business institutions are made up of individuals who have power to vote, to make their voices heard, to individually make decisions within businesses, and to take actions such as deciding what goods to purchase and what institutions to purchase from, thereby supporting and upholding these institutions, we also must understand that as individuals we have a legal liability to make decisions which support Global Human Rights (including our own).

While I may not do full justice to her argument, it was too powerful to ignore. And, while it would certainly be better to hear this argument directly from her, owing to the fact that, while my statement of the argument probably has holes in it, she covered off these holes masterfully and it is a message that needs to be heard by everyone and it needs to be heard now, especially by business and government leaders who have yet to act on this responsibility. Any human being who enjoys these essential Human Rights must also acknowledge that if, for some reason, they lost the benefits which are bestowed by these fundamental Rights, they would very quickly be calling for own government to impose laws and regulations to restore them. Since these institutions are the result of our personal choices, we also have the legal and ethical responsibility to make the appropriates choices on behalf of those who have not had the benefit of these Human Rights.

Practical Applications

In writing this article, I am making an appeal that all readers contemplate what they are reading to the depths of their heart, with full consiousness, to recognize their own nobility of spirit and to understand the very real obligation it imposes on them. The responsibility for Global Human Justice is as much yours as it is mine.

What might our actions be?

For one, we can all be making these responsibilities known to every elected government official that we know by writing to them, by speaking to them, by holding sessions with them and by educating them. We can tell them that we expect them to implement these rights Globally. How otherwise can we truely protect our own Human Rights? We can simply present the same arguments to them as were presented to us. The implication of this responsiblity is profound. It would require that all Governments meet together, not just about global economics and not just about global security as in G8 and G20 meetings, but about informing all citizens of the world about their legal responsibilities. Our Government officials would be morally obliged tell the world’s electorate that they are also ethically responsible to vote for those who are best suited to implement these Human Rights regardless of which party affiliation they may hold. The elected officials might in-turn, take efforts to share these concepts with their fellow officials, and to encourage the position of their respective governements to also begin making these Global Human Right their top priority and to initiate a global discussion on how to most effectively implement them.

We might also invite our neighbors to share this message so that each person has the opportunity to deeply understand the implications and to begin to take action on addressing this liability and acting with ethical responsibility. We can do so using all our resources, in our homes, our schools, our government council halls, our churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and other centres of faith.

For those who have the skills to do so, we can speak in public or in business gatherings inviting consultation on the implications for each of us individually and collectively. For those who have the skill to invite, we can invite others and host meetings. We can call upon our business leaders to invite speakers to speak about this approach to every employee.

We might begin to insist that our tax dollars be spent on the reconstruction of our global society by first addressing the most serious Global Human Rights infringements. After all, some day those infringements may be against us. As I am currently sitting on Vancouver Island, which is beautiful but which at some point is destined to experience a severe earth quake, I can only contemplate the rights which have been denied the people of Haiti as a result of a similar force or, perhaps more potently, the Human Rights denied the millions that have suffered at the hands of climate change, and for which we all share the burden of responsibility. What would it mean if all the world’s available resources were spent in solving the most grievious problems first? How quickly would we be able to address our relatively minor local concerns if the world’s government and business leaders would learn how to work together? And at the same time, rather than placing the responsiblity of our relatively minor local concerns on our elected officials, we could work together as neighbors to begin to address our local concerns in service of each other, and encourage our elected leaders to think globally to address the most serious of our personal legal liabilities (i.e. the oppression and poverty of countless millions) on our behalf.

We might insist that our elected officials vote on laws that require our countries’ taxes to be diverted away from military spending, to require that military only serve the purpose of implementing Global Human Rights rather than causing violations of Human Rights. Imagine, for example, that only 50% of global military expenditures went directly into implementation of these legal responsiblities to relieve Human suffering, provide education, protection of personal rights, provide the right to work and to provide adequate food and shelter. How quickly would things change? And in finding global agreement on our personal resposibilities, how quickly would governments be able to jointly resolve issues such as terrorism?

We might ensure that, until these rights are imparted in action to every citizen in the world, we would continue to insist that this be top priority for all governments and businesses that we support.

We might take some time to educate ourselves on the causes and sources of these violations and expose sources that we are aware of (e.g. environmental and other violators of human rights), not for the purpose of condemning them, but for the purpose of raising the awareness of those involved in either actions or through neglect of action, that they (and we) are responsible and help them to make the necessary decisions, providing all assistance we can muster, to rapidly revise their course of action. It is not so much that people wish to do harm, rather that due to human weaknesses, a lack of awareness of the harm we cause, and a lack of discipline (i.e. the lower part of human nature), that we fail to make the efforts required of our higher nature (read that again, it is “required” of our higher nature for what is is after all to be “Human”?)

This is a very deep topic and, I can only hope that others will go deeper than I have and present this arguement with more accuteness and more forcefully than me. I am deeply hopeful and recognize that inside each of us is seed of a higher nature which can grow and which through our collective efforts will grow into a fruitful and beautiful tree bearing many fruits.

I’d love to hear your comments and questions.

Please spread this message in any way you can, by e-mail, by your voice, by inviting people, by speaking on it, by letters, by referal.
Please call if you have any questions.
Please invite me to speak to your group or organization on this vital subject.
Please keep your eyes open for the brilliant potential of the higher human nature wherever it may arise.

My best wishes to you all,
Garth Schmalenberg

http://hbi-leadership.com
http://twitter.com/gschmalenberg
Ph: 416-919-6598

Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren developed a formula for examining environmental impact stating that I = f(PAT) where I is impact, P is Population, A is Affluence, T is Technology. In other words, if we increase global population, which is inevitable, in order to maintain environmental impact, we must reduce either the Affluence, or create Technologies that reduce individual and collective impact. Brown and Garver changed the formula to I = f(PATE) and added the influence of Ethics. They also conclude that each of these variables have an influence on the others. Without going into a deeper description of the variables, we can generally agree that from a world population view, this view of human impact of the planet seems fatalistic because we know that the planet is already stressed beyond limits and on average, Population and Affluence are both increasing.

This would seemingly leave the entire hope of humanity resting upon the ability of Technology or a sudden swell of Ethics to decrease our net impact on the planet. Recent flooding in Pakistan disrupting the lives of 12 million people and leaving 4 million with food shortages, the worst in 80 years, mudslides in China, and a massive block of ice (260 square km and half the height of the empire state building) which recently fell off the ice shelf in Iceland into the water suggest that our climate is still shifting in uncontrolable and potentially dire directions. Ice falling off a land based shelf, by the way, does contribute to elevated ocean levels, cooling of oceans in the immediate vacinity of the ice, and vast amounts of fresh water (i.e. desalination) being dumped into the ocean and affecting ocean flows.

So here’s the question: Can we solve the issues facing us with only Technology and Ethics before our planet is irrepairably damaged and forces our hand on the factors of Affluence and Population?

The short answer is “probably not”! But there are ways in which Technology and Ethics can have an a positive impact on affluence and ethics and here’s how one idea of how a solution could unfold from an individual, business and global perspective.

The Influence of Technology and Ethics

Can technology alone solve the complex issues of planetary degradation? At first glance technology does not seem to have the answers to our current dilemma. We know that technology has vastly improved our ability to communicate, upgraded efficiencies of business through applications like ERP and supply chain management, improved our ability to service customers, enhanced our quality control systems leading to more durable goods and provided the ability to reduce travel costs through collaborative software. Our ability to harness more power from less fuel is also benefitting our automotive technologies and air travel per mile is benefiting from lighter materials, advanced engines and cleaner fuels. But have we actually used these technologies to reduce our net power consumption and CO2 production per capita? Well, perhaps just a little.

Technologies such as “LED” televisions for example, which at first glance might seem much seem more efficient than older CRT technologies, actually use about twice the power for the same screen size or three times for plasma TVs ( although these too are improving with the latest generation of Energy Star ratings). In addition, brighter more beautiful pictures, the requirement for digital boxes, the addition of channels and the larger screen sizes (which also require more power) might tend to increase viewing hours. The power consumption due to newer technologies, in some respects is going up, not down, thus increasing our impact on all fronts. And the effect of having more perceived efficieny leads us to use power more freely.

And let’s face it, if all the other three factors are creating a greater impact on the environment, we would have a  tough time claiming that our ethics are improving.

I = f(PATE) suggests that we currently have a failing grade.

Having said that, many companies have made concerted efforts to implement colaborative technologies. I have personally worked with many individuals and some companies who use skype or conference call technologies to meet rather than meeting face to face thus reducing travel and CO2 emissions. At this stage in technological evolution, meeting in person is still far better, but technology, according to Ray Kurzweil, is continually growing in it’s capability, power and scope of application and, at some point in the not too distant future, meeting virtually may provide an experience which is close to that of meeting in person. The fact that virtually all technologies have continued to advance exponentially and appear to be continuing on this path (despite suggestions of those that hold that Moore’s law will break down) might suggest that solutions are closer than we currently perceive.

Simple examples of recent advances in solar technologies include panels which can catalyze hydrogen from water using only sunlight and CO2, essentially mimicking photosynthesis, as well as new coatings that allow heat to be used advantageously in the generation of solar photovoltaic energy rather than wasting it, making solar cells cost competative with energy developed through burning oil. Carbon nanotubes have proven valuable for many applications including storage of energy and high speed computing, and wireless signals. Communications using quantum attributes such as quantum entanglement are leading to smaller and virtually instantaneous communication approaches. AI (Artificial Intelligence) approaches constantly advance our abilities to understand each other and share information (e.g. through automated language translation devices) and new applications of context based search enable us to more rapidly find relavent information for expanded research sharing. Neural interfaces are already being used for some applications which could theoretically make our ability to access an ever expanding ocean of knowledge almost instantaneous. Google’s CEO reported that in two days we now produce as much information as we previously did through all of recorded history up till 2003. And our ability to mine this information is also rapidly advancing. Although many of these more recent technologies are not yet at their production phases, they are making their way to practical applications through the advanced business practices and through the internet which allows for rapid prototyping and less-expensive mass implementation.

Our challenge is to use technology in an ethical way that recognizes the global environment as the foundation for all of our business and commercial advances and for human life in general. No amount of technology will help if we use it only to mine marketing data to market more products and encourage more consumption. How to use information is an ethical issue which companies like Google and Yahoo are struggling with. Just because you have the information doesn’t mean you should use it for marketing every product. CEO’s of major corporations will need to make major strategic decisions to take global ethics into account and to take an oath similar to the medical oath “do no harm”.

As greener technologies make their way through the business world, production expenses can be “theoretically” reduced through lower resource needs and using renewable energy devices. By lowering consumer prices of green technologies and communication technologies, business leaders can put tools in the hands of consumers which will help them to save energy and resources (e.g. faster implementation of technologically advanced solar cells, electric cars, etc.), thereby encouraging less resource consumption and a greater focus on services. Business leaders who have adopted good ethical practices see the benefit of sharing profits with their workers because it encourages them to become promoters of their products and services. Good economic practices suggest that well paid workers help the economy by providing customers.

Naturally, some problems with new technologies can be anticipated, but according to Kurweil, as more and more of our daily lives become technology and information related and as the power of technology continues to advance expoentially, our ability to become more green through technology could begin to take the same exponential path that other technologies are already benefiting from.

Another trend in technology that may lead to greener outcomes is that of convergence, where cellphones and other mobile technologies begin to occupy more and more of our time, thereby reducing the need for other devices in our lives. Convergence of devices can theoretically reduce our production and energy needs. This, however, also depends somewhat on our ethics and our awareness that reducing production and resource usage is actually a desirable end result. If all we do is continue to add more devices to our already vast collection, we will have gained little.

The implications of exponential technological growth are not well understood by most people. Kurzweil argues that most of us tend to think linearly, not exponentially. If you double capabilities each year, in 10 years you get a 1000 fold increase in capability. If we can make most technologies energy neutral and begin to use the exponential growth capability of new technologies, especially those that are specifically designed to reduce our energy requirements and to supply our energy needs, a 1000 fold improvement in our green technologies over the next ten years may not be out of the question. Technological paradigms such as nanotechnologies which will help us to put more power into smaller devices, artificial intelligence will enhance context based search capabilities, and continued enhancements in solar power collection will benefit from both our growing ability to rapidly market and implement green technologies through mass communication. 

In addition, each year the number of social justice organizations and businesses leaders that support positive social change is growing. As the cost of technology decreases, it also provides new capabilities and a means for educating developing nations, which incidentally has an impact on reducing population. Educating women especially tends to help them set up a family support system that doesn’t depend on having large families to provide for future security.  Technologically advanced devices can lead to vast increases in affluence and education without an enourmous demand on planetary resources.

While Ethics and Technology aren’t the only factors that will play a part in the solution, they are an important component. And if we are to use the technology to reduce our consumption, we must also change our values and elevate our ethical conscience to include global as well as local concerns so we don’t just add capability without changing our ways.

All the best,

Garth Schmalenberg

If you enjoy this article, please share it by clicking on the share link, e-mail, by telling someone about this site or by calling and arranging a speaking engagement.