What do our religious traditions suggest? How do we implement their suggestions? Where is wisdom?

On the first page of the Bible (and most, if not all other religions), God gives man "every herb bearing seed." Yet the world's most useful, nutritious, potentially abundant, environmentally beneficial, and globally distributed agricultural resource is prohibited.

If the US ends the prohibition of hemp for fuel, food, paper, cloth, biodegradable plastics, oil, resin and herbal therapeutics, then mankind might have a chance of achieving sustainability on this planet. Being thankful for the harvest is all that's required to move the discussion of Cannabis agriculture under the protection of Article One. Freedom to farm is the first test of religious freedom.

Charles, I trust your book is well on its way to the light of day.

Now to the question you raise here:

There is a world of difference between religious traditions and the truths that inspired their development.

If we are really seeking better economic structures, we are less likely to find them among the religious traditions, because, being traditions, they are merely the products of centuries of dilution, deviation and fragmentation into thousands of variants - from the original pre-religious truths that have inspired them.

Hence, to arrive at better economic structures via religion, it might be more useful to consider the pre-religious truths that inspired the development of these religious traditions.

A close look at the origins of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, and Sikhism show that a very similar truth emerged in different geographic and temporal eras.

This common truth might be expressed as: "Humanity is One" and each human, instead of being motivated by selfishness and acquisitiveness at the expense of the larger ecology of the rest of the species and its Natural environment, must submit to the truth of one's Unity with both the rest of the species, and with the rest of Nature, and feel, think, intend, and act accordingly, as steward of one another and of the rest of Nature.

This truth happens to be consistent with the most recent and advanced developments in macro economic theory, which now recognizes the quality of knowledge being the definitive component in the differences and gaps among the economies of nations.

We must therefore encourage the leadership of nations, especially those of developing nations, and of governmental and non-governmental organizations that are already keen to assist the advancement of these developing nations, to focus on stimulating the transfer of knowledge, and knowhow through widespread public education, and encouraging socio-political policies such as private property and rule of law that have proved to be foundation of the economic growth of the developed nations over the recent two or three centuries.

Ravi, Charles & all

There's a document entitled Letter to a Hindu sent to Gandhi by Leo Tolstoy which Gandhi translated 100 years ago in 1909 in which Tolstoy makes the point that all world faiths have a common morality which contradicts the practice of one man having dominion over another by means of force.

Advocating non-violent resistance, he conveys his perception of a Law of Love which has been described as his faith in a Universal Spirit that lives in men as a whole, and in each one of us. that commands the tree to grow towards the sun, the flower to throw off its seed in autumn, and us to reach out towards God and by so doing become united to each other.

Though I've never read it. I've also been made aware more recently that Fritjof Capra, in his Turning Point raises this concept in a collective consciousness of humanity.

All here understand these things in one way or another it seems.

How to implement into an economic system seems to be the greater problem. My interest was sparked by what Terry had to offer, in a paradigm which modifies the output of traditional capitalism, but I've also taken interest in the funding ideas which Chris Cook delivers in his Shariah compliant Open Corporate.

Jeff

I'll have to agree with Ravi in terms of the difference between the truths and traditions, the former of course being the more important.

Looking for answers in religious traditions is risky, as many have to be taken into historical context, and therefore are open to different interpretations and beliefs.

I think if there are universal truths among our many religions that we can take from

it's love for each other, and simplicity. Alternative banking systems and other social enterprises can be built on these two truths: love or genuine compassion for others; and simplicity -- freedom from greed or the drive for selfish gains.

The best practical solution for me is a REAL separation of church and state, where the church's role is just simply to AFFIRM the human values that the people, government, social entrepreneurs, orgs, etc. already know and practice... nothing more.

This is nice article. For sure , economic system needs restrucring , not sure wthere it needs antibiotic or surgical treatment.

As sociologists, we know how there is interplay of eco-pol-social systmes which determine the thought processes individuals.

We cannot go back. But we can pick of inputs from past :

1) Simple living principles is good. But can we do this ? Can we reduce our energy , luxury demands ? 2) Lending always existed and scriptures therefor talked about non-lending to save the loanee from exploitation. But that is past. Loans have proven ability to help individual.

Why banks failed? 1)They gave over lending to individuals 2) Corporate houses like ENRONs failed 3) Overall recession Thse things can be corrected.

Now the vital question is -whether there has to be some kind of Govt. control and coordination over global economy or let it be truly free economy and left to individual national govts.?

I think the current crisis need not be due to behavior of members of society/ Individuals

but the roles of a) Govt. and their budget b) political parties and their connection with corporate houses for unfair gains to party c) Corporate profit expectations and finance planning d) banks and their portfolio planning 5) WTO / IMF etc

There is need for greater thinking .

No easy solution using Gandhian principles or religious doctrines.

Lalit

Taken holistically, religion as the core of spiritual belief, offers the value of attachment- even Buddhism, with its attachment to nature- but religious traditions as well as economic/societal structures could do with root and branch reform. I agree with Krie and Ravi that truth is more important than religious traditions to motivate people to do good, because it's important for people to understand that fear is at the root of all division.

I think the world has gotten into such economic trouble, because materialistic craving has been a way of filling a spiritual void that religion often leaves open. There are some questions religions can't answer so I don't think people are being selfish when they find their solace in material possessions and pleasure-seeking lifestyles, but I think there's been a disconnect between values. Now, out of necessity as people are being forced into simplicity, an analogical way to look at how religion can help economics create new forms of engagement/structures, is to look at the process of alchemy.

In the quantum mechanical field of life, value gets added where people place their energy, which has been (for society-at-large) money-making. Of course money-making will continue to be where people put their energy - yet like in alchemy where the process changes substance into form- if money gets transmuted in value so its value isn't so over-leveraged, overemphasized and so unbalanced, people won't then place so much emphasis on the value of money as a means to an end and get into terrible trouble with it

I agree with the Dali Lama, "materialistic knowledge can only provide one type of happiness that is dependent on physical conditions." If the value of money dissolves its disproportionate valve as to come into line with other values, then that would help clear the way for new ways of looking at institutional restructure. Another Dali Lama quote - "institutions must establish noble charters to combat anti-social forces." It may be our only hope.

My favorite Dalai Lama quote - ' If you have a particular faith or religion, that is good. But you can survive without it."

I do agree that simplistic life and "being one with the planet" is the way to go from one person's point of view. If you wish to have more perspective on this I recommend Ajahn Brahm's dhamma talk: http://www.blog.tomiastikainen.com/2008/07/how-to-change-the-world/

However, this has nothing to do with the alternative economic structures that is the title of the conversation. See, I live in Finland and although my earthly belongings fit in two banana boxes my carbon footprint is still 10 times higher than it should be. Thus, no matter how simplistic my life was I cannot live sustainably in this current system.

So, winning the game doesn't matter. There's no point in seeking "rules" from one or more religions, as they are all functioning in the current monetary system.

Instead, we should concentrate on changing the rules. As lalit so succintly hinted we need a surgery, not antibiotics. It's not enough if we replace the current monetary system with another monetary system. We need to stop using money.

What is suggested by the Venus Project (www.thevenusproject.com) is a resource-based economy where there would be no money at all. I'm skeptical if it is this particular project that will bring the new solution, but at least the agenda they are suggesting is worth thinking of. Please, read this: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/DesigningtheFuture.pdf

We deserve a world of abundance where everyone is entitled to basic rights of food, shelter, water, medicine, security and so on. And we can do it if we voluntarily start building it together (and in this the venus project guidelines are pretty good).

Once we stop using money, we'll be free.

Paul, Ravi, Jeff, Krie, Lalit, Jo, Tomi...

Okay, let us suppose, let us stipulate, that there is a unifying principle in back of all religions, and that it has to do in some unspecified way with love, equality, justice, truth, and the family of all that lives... The question here is not whether this is so, as what the implications are as that way of thinking and feeling begins to translate itself into the economic sphere.

To my mind, the question of how it might impact me as an individual is one that could have fairly immediate, practical answers. I might want to make more donations to charities, exchange an SUV for a hybrid, share my house with family members or strangers, and so forth.

But if I'm in government, say, and / or in an advisory capacity to decision-makers, what can I do to implement that set of ideas which will avoid harm and ensure long term benefit? I can, perhaps, increase my country's aid to poorer nations. But how should I change tax policy? How should I work towards nuclear non-proliferation and eventual disarmament? Will a particular approach to universal health coverage improve health, or bankrupt the system?

How major a shift can one make in, say, banking policy

without capsizing the continuing ability of those who can, presently, work to earn food and shelter? And to pout that in even more general terms, what will the unintended consequences of a particular policy be?

These questions require answers that are far tougher to answer than "do you think we're all in this together?" or "is love the answer?" - and there are people who must wrestle with them every day. As social entrepreneurs, we are people who (a) care and (b) think in innovative ways - so we are almost be definition among the people who might tackle such questions in fruitful ways.

Nobel prizes in economics are no proof of understanding such things, and it's entirely possible that the system - including human psychologies, beliefs, assumptions, blinders and ingrained habits, along with factories, banks, national characteristics, rust belts, dust bowls, racial and religious biases and affinities etc

is far too complex for any single human or current computer model to get to the heart of it.

So let us start with an appropriate humility, and think together...

*

Bernard Lietaer is an economist who has been asking the tough questions in his own field. I invite you to look at Figure 6 at:

http://www.unisys.com/products/insights/insights__compendium/payment.pdf

• the presentation of demurrage currency, using trees as an example.

What other approaches do you know of, that translate the wisdom of the religions into economic / policy terms, or even begin to think about such a translation?

Let's move our conversation from goodwill to a possible economics of goodwill...

Religion is right, love is the ultimate foundation of life but of how to put this unifying principle into the heart of economics - which puts free-market ideology and unquestioning faith in the private sector first- I think people-centered economics where everyone has equal rights, mutual respect, legal standing and where everyone's welfare is considered, is the way to stop the rationale, under the current system that tells us that economic values supersede all other societal values and maximizing short-term profits at the expense of social and ecological concerns is the only way to make money.

With alternate economic structures, the basic tenets of the current structures need to be challenged. 1) That selfishness and greed are necessary to fuel economic growth. 2) That people are only motivated by self-interest. 3) That the action that creates the most profit is the most beneficial to the individual and society. 4)That competition is better than cooperation and 5) that human progress is best measured by consumption.

If the these tenets were replaced with a more progressive ideology of economics, communities would still be able to exercise economic self-determination but would also be able to attain inner fulfillment, whether religious or not. It would certainly help bring equilibrium back to an unbalanced world.

Jo,

This is what we have to offer:

http://www.p-ced.com/about/background/

Basic tenets being - Capitalism modified for more inclusive output with progress measured in terms of human life.

There's another unconnected advocate for people-centered business who drew up a rather good image of how this should serve the community:

http://www.triplebottomline.com.pk/response.asp?id=1&sub_id=7

Jeff

As always, thanks for the pointers.

Jeff,

I like the post on the link you provided on the p-ced site.

The problem you address appears to be that of measuring value. Our financial systems are built upon the belief people have in the value of a thing. Prices are undefined until a buyer and seller agree on what its worth. So value is the result of a psychological process. I wonder if the gold standard (where one dollar equaled a certain amount of gold) served as a better measure of peoples belief in a thing's value?

But, agree with your final point that capitalism needs to be rethought. It's the rationality that exists behind economic decision-making in our system that causes problems. Over the 200 some years of the capitalist experiment, our societies have developed the norms of self-interest that strongly permeate personal economic decisions such that we forget very obvious and natural things: 1. that human nature is social 2. that social bonds require cooperation 3. that cooperation has ensures survival

Thus, we have a dearth in an ability to recognize the value of "values"

Interesting discussion, thanks. I wanted to post a little comment here to let you all know that I started something called Lend4Health that deals with some of these topics. Similar to Kiva.org, we are collecting online microloans. The loans are interest-free, and they are for health (not poverty alleviation). So far, from what I have gathered, the lenders are not greedy and are hardly interested in receiving "interest" on their loan

at least not in a financial sense. They do, however, receive "interest" in the form of updates on how their loan recipients are faring in their health pursuits. Loans are paid back over time (determined by the recipient), and once repaid, the lenders can re-lend the money if they want. Again, this is all similar to Kiva.org, the difference being that it is for health. The concept is that, at some point, there will be enough money in the collective "pot" that it will just circulate around, getting loaned and repaid, all the while helping people regain (or improve) their health -- which, in turn, helps them be able to earn the traditional monetary "profit." (The Lend4Health "profit" is pursuit of health.)

For me, the interest-free model is important. In Islam I think it is called "qard hassan" or "the benevolent loan." If somebody is able to pay back a loan, they can, but without interest. That is how I understand it, as a very novice student of Islamic finance. It makes perfect sense to me that a family already struggling should not be burdened further with having to pay interest on the loan.

I am not an economist or a student of religion. I consider myself to be an "accidental social entrepreneur" since I had never heard of the term until after I started the site. :) Lend4Health is still very small and very much in an "experimental" stage, but it seems to be working so far, and it might give a glimpse into what a collective, community-based, interest-free system might look like.

Tori Tuncan Founder, Lend4Health http://www.lend4health.org

Thank you, Tori:

Anyone else interested (as I am) in the "benevolent loan" system in Islam might take a look at:

http://www.newhorizon-islamicbanking.com/index.cfm?section=academicarticles&action=view&id=10461

I'd also like to note what I think is a significant remark of yours:

QUOTE: So far, from what I have gathered, the lenders are not greedy and are hardly interested in receiving "interest" on their loan - at least not in a financial sense :UNQUOTE

I think we could host an event just about the benefits and pitfalls of that particular attitude - which is one I favor highly, but suspect may not extend across all human populations < wry grin >.

Thanks again...

Just wanted to thank you for the reply and for the fantastic link re: qard hasan microfinance (QHMF). This is exactly the type of article I need, and it's AMAZING to me that Lend4Health is hitting on (or has plans to hit on) so many of the QHMF principles, yet doing so "organically"

without it being forced or planned. I'm stunned by this. This indicates to me that QH and Islamic Finance are based on very basic human ideals of giving and benevolence and caring for others -- and that Lend4Health might be working because of that.

Thanks again! Tori Tuncan Founder, Lend4Health http://www.lend4health.org

My view on this is that, while many faith traditions offer good advice, religion is part of the problem, not the solution. Organized religion is about money and power - getting it. Religious structures will always distort good economic practices for their benefit while the tell the believers it is for them. Sorry, I am cynic, but studying 3000 years of Christianity, not to mention Hindu, Budhism and other faiths and watching them swindle believers and start wars tells me faith is the problem not the answer.

Hello once more, Patrick:

QUOTE: watching them swindle believers and start wars tells me faith is the problem not the answer :UNQUOTE

On the other hand, you have people like my mentor, Trevor Huddleston, whose faith taught him that skin color made no difference, and who took on the S African apartheid regime as a personal crusade as a result - and lived to see it overthrown. Desmond Tutu said of him, "If you could say that anybody single-handedly made apartheid a world issue then that person was Trevor Huddleston"

To my way of thinking, it's clear that religion "at its best" is one thing, and religion "at its worst" quite another. But just how it pans out on the grand scale across history - that's something I'd love to discuss with you, had we but world enough and time...

And a very important question for the world at large to ask right now, I think.

Hi everyone- great discussion!

I don't think we're at a place where $$ as a means of exchange and investment can go. A key word here is EXCHANGE, which describes a give and take or reciprocal relationship. Also extending that exchange to include others - like "paying it forward" strategies.

One of my "bibles" on economics and the flow of resources is "The Gift" by Lewis Hyde. Check it out. Although it focuses on the arts, the ideas and lessons can extend to any area of life and across all cultures.

So perhaps there's room for currency of all different kinds ranging from actual cash to volunteering to keeping gifts moving. With current economic structures crashing and spinning out of control, there are tremendous opportunities for creativity and developing (reclaiming?) common values - I see it as an upward spiral that's balancing the downward spiral. Hmmmm.

Cheers, Kristine

Hi Kristine:

Just a quick note to welcome you, and say that Lewis Hyde's The Gift is one of my most treasured possessions, too. Did you see the NYT piece on potlach that I posted the link to in my intro to this event?

I'm in the middle of raking out the yard - part of a barter agreement, entered into for reasons of community and sustainability... best get back to it.

Hey All,

I’m a little confused by the range of the conversation here. Loved Jo’s quote from the Dali Lama that, “If you have a particular faith or religion, that is good. But you can survive without it." And appreciate Patrick’s comment about all faiths “and watching them swindle believers and start wars tells me faith is the problem not the answer.” Are we having this discussion, tho, about the traditions of faith, underneath which Charles suggests “there is a unifying principle in back of all,” or are we referencing solutions to be discovered and applied from organized religion? Reading Jo and Patrick (and examining my own personal experience) those are two very different sources for finding wisdom on this topic…and are arguably at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I’d suggest that if we look at those shared principles we could pretty quickly find some ways to translate those into practical economic solutions. Common/cooperative/shared ownership of essential assets seems obvious. How can greed and selfishness feed itself if the opportunity to practice it no longer exists? The cultures I work with date back from 2000 to 5000 years—and operated very much in the Potlatch model (including the modern dysfunctional aspects of it—all of which post-date the arrival of missionaries and western organizational models), and survived quite well within themselves and within their environment.

Another interesting feature they all share in one way or another (this, too, now the eve of collapse from western pressure) is how their organizational structures handled decision-making. Unlike the wonders of democracy where 51 may win but 49 may lose, consensus was required. If we are all in this together, then we all need to be in agreement, or some perspective which has emerged from our culture is being ignored. For those who managed to survive several millennia, it would seem there was some very practical wisdom in that approach.

Mike

Hi Mike:

Thanks for a very insightful post.

QUOTE: Are we having this discussion, tho, about the traditions of faith, underneath which Charles suggests “there is a unifying principle in back of all,” or are we referencing solutions to be discovered and applied from organized religion? :UNQUOTE

I don't actually suggest it

I "stipulated" it, ie said, okay, let's suppose that's true (because several previous posters seemed to be making a point of it) -- what then? If that is the case, is there an economic approach that goes with it? And I'm afraid that "Common/cooperative/shared ownership of essential assets" isn't the level of answer I'm looking for. Marxist economics and Benedictine monastic society and the local food co-op would each "fit" that description. The question is, what forms could a cooperative ownership, or an interest-free banking system, take?

And it's here that the religious traditions of the world may have some specific answers. Islamic banking has developed means of financing that aren't dependent on interest, for instance.

From my POV, it doesn't matter if the "alternative economic structure" derives from a specific religious tradition, or from a worldview that simply views altruism rather than materialism as the starting point

but the religions have been around long enough that they may have some specific answers.

So my hope for this event is that we'll discuss economic structures, rather than altruism or cooperation or goodwill, and that if there are any such structures to be found in the great religious traditions, in shamanism, or in new age spirituality, we'll begin to contrast and compare them.

You write:

The cultures I work with date back from 2000 to 5000 years - and operated very much in the Potlatch model ... and survived quite well within themselves and within their environment.

What would potlatch look like, if we tried to avoid the excesses and institute it on a neighborhood level?

You also mention organizational structures where the decision-making is by consensus:

QUOTE: If we are all in this together, then we all need to be in agreement, or some perspective which has emerged from our culture is being ignored. For those who managed to survive several millennia, it would seem there was some very practical wisdom in that approach.

That's not part of what I was hoping for in setting up this item, but I appreciate your throwing it into the pot - it may very well be essential to rethink decision-making along with economics.

So my take-away from your post is the question: if potlatch were the model for a future economic system, how would it work? - what would individuals, shopkeepers, bankers, economists and governments need to do?

That's the level of answer I'd hope we could explore.

Hi Charles, I'll take 3 stabs at the kind of answer you're after.

1. Rejig capitalism with simple economic tools so that making money is in future aligned with creating rather than destroying non-monetary wealth. (see www.blindspot.org.uk). The systems thinking used to design these tools echoes the simplicity and indivisibility of traditional understandings.
2. Reinflate the economy not with more debt but with the proceeds (plunder?) currently stashed in tax havens. Agree by international treaty that all the asset owners are invited to devote their wealth to the service of society via the kinds of gift or interest-free schemes discussed in this forum, undoing past social and ecological damage. This would provide an opportunity for this class of super-rich to save face and gain a Potlach-style status. Those who opt-out would have full information on their assets and liabilities forwarded to all interested tax and legal authorities. The process of unravelling tax havens has started already so this would be a way to make it happen faster with less resistance from those affected.
3. There is a middle ground with usury. Continue to allow banks to charge interest (and savers to earn it) but phase out money-creation for private profit. No more fractional reserve money supply - see http://MonetaryReformAct.org. This would allow governments to spend/invest money into circulation without creating new public debt. Complementary currencies are another way for regions to supply their own currency as needed, without a private profit. James Greyson

Like Patrick and Mike, I agree history has shown religious traditions to be every bit as brutal and destructive as protectionist economics. It was only 500 years ago that Christianity was burning women at the stake out of ignorance and fear, even now they don't like women or gay men in positions of power, so I don't think religion has the upper hand on all moral insights.

If we want to look at a way of bringing potlatch gift-giving (as a moral insight to be assimilated) into modern economics, we would need to put cooperative rituals in place to strengthen bonds and establish obligations, so that the trickle-down economics of excessive wealth redistributed to the entire community is not seen as an individual's choice but a collective necessity.

An example of restructuring a tradition, is to look at how new age spirituality has been able to successfully mesh both western and eastern values and traditions together into a new religious structure. Lets hope all faiths and traditions can come together to reshape the social fabric for the 21st century so that a potlatch effect could happen for everyone- creating a social force that is able to change the foundations of economics as we know it. Either way, people should never be afraid to break with tradition.

Hey,

I'm pretty sure a new world order is taking place pretty soon. I'm not necessarily referring to the NWO-plot of the powers that be. It might as well be an emerging alternative economy started on a grass-root level.

I came across a book called "The Externalization of the Hierarchy" but I haven't had time to go through it yet. However, I checked the NWO chapter. This is what it proposes:

"Certain major and spiritual premises should lie back of all efforts to formulate the new world order. Let me state some of them:

1. The new world order must meet the immediate need and not be an attempt to satisfy some distant, idealistic vision. 2. The new world order must be appropriate to a world which has passed through a destructive crisis and to a humanity which is badly shattered by the experience. 3. The new world order must lay the foundation for a future world order which will be possible only after a time of recovery, of reconstruction, and of rebuilding. 4. The new world order will be founded on the recognition that all men are equal in origin and goal but that all are at differing stages of evolutionary development; that personal integrity, intelligence, vision and experience, plus a marked goodwill, should indicate leadership. The domination of the proletariat over the aristocracy and bourgeoisie, as in Russia, or the domination of an entrenched aristocracy over the proletariat and middle classes, as has been until lately the case in Great Britain, must disappear. The control of labor by capital or the control of capital by labor must also go. [191] 5. In the new world order, the governing body in any nation should be composed of those who work for the greatest good of the greatest number and who at the same time offer opportunity to all, seeing to it that the individual is left free. Today the men of vision are achieving recognition, thus making possible a right choice of leaders. It was not possible until this century. 6. The new world order will be founded on an active sense of responsibility. The rule will be "all for one and one for all." This attitude among nations will have to be developed. It is not yet present. 7. The new world order will not impose a uniform type of government, a synthetic religion and a system of standardization upon the nations. The sovereign rights of each nation will be recognized and its peculiar genius, individual trends and racial qualities will be permitted full expression. In one particular only should there be an attempt to produce unity, and that will be in the field of education. 8. The new world order will recognize that the produce of the world, the natural resources of the planet and its riches, belong to no one nation but should be shared by all. There will be no nations under the category "haves" and others under the opposite category. A fair and properly organized distribution of the wheat, the oil and the mineral wealth of the world will be developed, based upon the needs of each nation, upon its own internal resources and the requirements of its people. All this will be worked out in relation to the whole. 9. In the preparatory period for the new world order there will be a steady and regulated disarmament. It will not be optional. No nation will be permitted to produce and organize any equipment for destructive purposes or to infringe the security of any other nation. One of the first tasks of any future peace conference will be to regulate this matter and gradually see to the disarming of the nations. [192]" (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/externalisation/exte1082.html)

What do you think? Is it baloney or could there be some steps forward?

This topic is of a particular interest of mine - in particular the intersection of consciousness and social change.

I would start by suggesting we look for wisdom in the mystical traditions that underlie religion, rather than religion itself, which has often distorted these essential truths. Among these wisdoms, the most relevant to this discussion might be the simple premise that we all suffer and also that we are all interconnected. These are, in their simplest forms, the driver of individual behavior and the reason there is an impact of that behavior on the larger eco-system.

By way of a little more explanation from the Buddhist tradition: The cause of our individual suffering is usually because we want things to be different (we want what we don’t have and we don’t want what we have). So, we constantly grasp at things or push away or try to avoid our experiences. This can also be explored through the lens of attachment and detachment.

Attachment is driven by concepts of “me” and “mine”. This leads to greed, defining oneself by an identity or other social construct, seeking power over others or the desire for wealth beyond need. Extreme attachment to a way of life or power can eventually lead to violence. Even in the social change arena, people can experience attachment to their agenda or solution, causing competitiveness between groups with a common purpose who may better able to collaborate.

Detachment is the opposite extreme. This is where people think “this has nothing to do with me” or “that’s not my problem” or “I don’t deserve this”. In these cases, people abdicate any responsibility for others, the greater whole or the common good. In the social change world, this arises in the form of burn-out or disillusionment.

The Middle Way is a path of healthy and conscious engagement. Consciousness is self-awareness. On an individual level, it means cultivating mindfulness to understand the nature of suffering in oneself and others and acting out of a place of compassion that seeks balance. On a collective level, greater consciousness can guide change agents and leaders towards decisions that create change responsibly and effectively in support the optimal health of an interconnected whole.

Now what would an alternative economic system look like in a conscious society? Let me divide this into two posts.

As one part of a larger conscious economic system, I propose employing a mechanism I call social project finance (SPF). SPF is a high-engagement financing method whereby the best social innovations globally are replicated on a project basis with the joint participation and investment of the business sector, civil society and local government.

Quick example. Currently, we leave social value creation primarily up to the citizen sector or government to pursue, often independently. In particular, that leaves value that is enjoyed by the private sector (often with the greatest resources) that is not paid for by those stakeholders. Take HIV/AIDS for example – a disease with wide reaching individual suffering and an interconnected web of global impact. This is not just a social issue. The pandemic has major economic consequences in terms of worker recruitment, retention and productivity, health care costs, the distribution system for drug treatment, etc. Rather than expecting responsibility to fall on the shoulders of any one nation, one drug company, the choices of each individual, and the activities of a network of civil society organizations often competing for the same pool of resources, what if all stakeholders came together to find an optimal solution, with a shared investment for shared gains? This can be done on a very small or very large project basis.

Where possible, an SPF approach would bring together all core stakeholders to negotiate and structure a joint investment that (a) ensures an equitable sharing of the total project cost burden, (b) in proportion to the social and economic value each will gain from the project and (c) facilitates social investment on a scale greater than any one entity could pursue alone.

So, instead of a factory in Cape Town creating its own AIDS program, while foreign aid pours into NGO or government AIDS programs with little accountability, and social entrepreneurs struggle for the resources to scale their innovative solutions… Instead, the most productive and innovative solution should be identified and replicated where needed via a joint-investment of resources from all sectors. Companies invest in proportion to the future benefit they will receive from an increase in factory productivity due to healthier workers. Municipal governments invest in proportion to the fiscal cost savings achieved from a more effective AIDS treatment program. And thus the investment for each stakeholder is structured according to the expected social and economic return.

A somewhat similar approach has been used in the US to create common green space in dark alleyways fraught with violent crime. The municipality issued a bond to raise the funds to convert the space to a beautiful park-like setting. The bonds were repaid via the increase in property taxes that resulted as home values increased when crime went down in the area.

Using mechanisms like SPF more frequently would represent a more conscious and equitable approach to creating social change and economic wellbeing. Importantly, it would incentivize productivity and sustainability as the driver of free market social innovation. It is a model aligned with the perspective that we are all connected as global citizens and thus we should invest our common resources in that same manner. Finally, it would help allocate resources more effectively towards creating the highest common good for the economy, environment and society.

Gretchen, I find what you write very congruent with our own approach. In fact when Terry (above), who coincidentally had also lived in Virginia, presented his paper to President Clinton, both "me first" and a social fund were suggested, as you may see.

This was his "what if" a suggestion that the nonprofit approach might be replaced with a business model to eradicate poverty.

http://www.p-ced.com/about/history/

When the opportunity came to deploy the idea in Russia, it was indeed replicated several times, there and in Georgia.

More recently, following the delivery of the strategy paper on Ukraine to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations just over 2 years ago, the response from US Gov has been to launch a new foundation supporting sustainable community enterprise. The paper had described international collaboration on investing in social enterprise as part of the anti-poverty initiative. There's good reason to believe that since the credit crisis, this may also become part of US domestic policy.

When business itself generates the social fund, then we might have a tipping point such that one socially financed business goes on to invest in the creation of others. In fact, that has already happened in the sense that what P-CED invested to leverage government participation, paid the investment back and created thousands of conventional microfinance assisted businesses, from one woman/man enterprises to SMEs.

Now here's where the replication idea falls apart, in the re-invention of the wheel mentioned above. I suspect it's because few recognise the Zeitgeist which seems to be happening when similar ideas arise around the world, which then reflects as "me first" in philanthropy itself.

Jeff

Jeff,

I think the P-CED concept is a fascinating approach and the paper you provided was very helpful. Delighted to also know that there are case studies of its successful implementation.

I think SPF and P-CED could actually work quite well together. SPF ties the initial investment to the future social and economic value creation, for a proportional sharing of start-up costs based on an expected social and economic return on investment. The goal is to have all sectors participate and all potential social value captured. So if a company will enjoy a 20% cost savings in its health care costs, that is precisely the amount it should invest in replicating the most innovative and efficient health care solution, in partnership with the government and other partners.

SPF can be used to launch a non-profit as well as a social-purpose for-profit endeavor. When it is used to launch a non-profit endeavor, there may be no future revenue streams, only social value - lives saved, healthier people, more educated children, etc. Even still in many of these cases, you can still calculate an economic return to some party - in terms of greater productivity, greater education leading to further economic development, etc. - that can be reinvested on a P-CED basis.

When SPF is used to launch a for-profit endeavor, certainly the profit sharing structure proposed by P-CED would enable a continual investment in the common good. Perhaps structured yet again as a series of multi-sector social project financings.

The challenge of catalyzing the re-invention of the wheel might require a commitment on behalf of government to promote, incentivise and structure foreign aid, development aid and private investments using these models with each subsequent need. I'd love to see some of the renewable energy and green technology investments carried out in this way.

And I agree, the "me first" in philanthropy and citizen sector competition for resources unfortunately detracts from the common purpose. This may require a greater emphasis on hybrid models that support long-term sustainability.

Gretchen

Gretchen's ending comment

"the "me first" in philanthropy and citizen sector competition for resources unfortunately detracts from the common purpose." -- is one of the reasons I am using poverty maps of Chicago to focus attention on all of the places in the city where good, long-term, programs are needed to help youth to careers, and where collaboration of the business, non profit, education and political sectors are needed to assure the needed flow of resources that fuel the growth of great organizations. You can see sample maps at http://mappingforjustice.blogspot.com

While I can post links to my maps, and Jeff and others can post links to articles they have created, I think we're missing a bigger potential of the Internet and of the lessons of organized religions.

Unless we dramatically increase the number of people who look at this information, become passionate about it, and become willing to spend their lives making sure other people look at it and adopt it in their own lives, we're just a small group of people sharing good ideas that too few people will ever see.

Most of the big religions started as ideas of one or a few people. Maybe if we learn from how they grew we can apply those ideas to growing the number of people who look at the ideas posted here? To my knowledge, none of these originators had the benefit of the world wide web to share their ideas so rapidly with so many other people.

I have created a few short pdf essays that illustrate my own vision of how a few people can work together to change the world. You can read these at http://www.tutormentorexchange.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=54&Itemid=103

It's not important that you agree or not with these. What is important is that you and others begin to think through the steps that it would take, and the help you will need, if the ideas you post here are to become reality throughout the world. If you're creating your own "how to" steps, I encourage you to post them on your web sites and share them in future SE forums.

Yes Dan, we need to get back to that somehow. It didn't get very far with the Ecademy network.

Echoing an earlier comment by Terry, if the dialogue is to continue on Social Edge, then it needs a fuller featured platform and perhaps mapping efforts can be a part of that.

As regards evangelism, which doesn't seem to be my forte we could at least do with some effort to get Social Edge content on search engines. There could surely be some resources brought to bear by the Skoll Foundation on this.

Jeff

Is there any collaboration between Skoll and TED?

There's no direct collaboration, Gretchen, but some Skoll people do attend TED - and other important conferences.

Gretchen

"SPF can be used to launch a non-profit as well as a social-purpose for-profit endeavor"

I aim to achieve Dr Yunus's aim of "Not for Loss" Social Businesses.

In order to do that I am taking a fairly novel approach to the use of Limited Liability Companies (LLC's) in the US and LLP's (no relation to US LLP's) in the UK and elsewhere.

I use these not as "Organisations" but as frameworks for "Self Organisation".

Using such partnership frameworks it is possible to finance enterprises of all types - Public, Private; commercial, social or charitable in aims; whatever legal form - simply by "Unitising" revenues or production either into proportional shares ("nth's") or Units redeemable in production eg energy (Kilo Watt Hours); pizza (the Deli Dollars approach) or whatever.

My recent lecture in Dublin toa Think Tank covered the use of Unitisation as a solution for the Credit Crunch - nothing ambitious - but you should get the picture. The complete lecture (a diagnosis of the Credit Crunch, plus Unitisation as the solution) is here

http://www.feasta-multimedia.org/2008/Chris_Cook.mov

and the slides are here

http://www.slideshare.net/ChrisJCook/equity-shares-a-solution-to-the-credit-crash-presentation

The second half - outlining Unitisation - is also on YouTube here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5mgnR5lagI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABFk9kc4_ow&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgd3_34TyW4&feature=related

I have also made other presentations in relation to energy financing using unitisation, in the UK here

http://www.slideshare.net/ChrisJCook/financing-energybeyond-peak-credit-presentation

Hope that gives you an idea.

The connection to Charles' thread is of course that partnership structures are, for instance, Islamically sound at a fundamental level, while the use of a "Custodian" to own the relevant productive asset is a Gandhian approach, and also consistent with the position of most religions that "Commons" such as land may be "owned" only by God.

Best Regards

Chris Cook

Welcome back, Chris, and thanks for your contributions to this conversation. I don't know how applicable your solution is globally, but where I work it appears to have a great fit with the culture. Tried to track you down after your last contribution to a Social Edge forum but never received a reply. If you do happen to check back in, could you contact me directly? ( mreitz@pacbell.net ) Or if any of our fellow contributors here know how to find Chris could you provide me with coordinates???

Many Thanks,

Mike

I would like to answer the question about what does religions suggest.

In Islam, if your assets cross a certain limit, you have to donate 2.5% of the amount to Charity. This is called Zakat and is compulsory on every Muslim (I believe the concept is called Tithing in Christianity & Judaism - but there it is voluntary).

Now, let me put it to you this way. You have 100,000 $ lying around and you know at the end of the year, you have to give away 2,500 $ to charity or in other words your principal is decreasing every year. So wouldn't you like to earn something on your hard earned money, preferably more than 2.5% in order to maintain your principal and save something for your golden years??? And if you want to earn on that principal, you have to invest that in productive assets / activities. You cannot have paper profits (no gold, jewelry, non-productive land, dotbombs, usury etc) and you have to assume risks (no investments with Bernie Madoff).

In this case, the Zakat receiver gets money for his/her needs and hopefully becomes able to sustain him/herself in future (Islam also tries to reduce dependency on handouts). While you are forced to invest your assets to generate economic activity, which in turn brings profits to you and creates employment opportunities for others, creating a virtuous cycle.

The point is that in Islam economic activity is promoted and calculated risk taking is part of the game (we are all VCs - but with our money in the ring also).

Thanks for your input, kmniazi:

As you no doubt remember, Hanniah Tariq hosted a forum on Islam and Corporate Social Responsibility here about six months ago, and if anything the topic has become even more relevant since then:.

Anyon e interested in digging a little deeper into the social antrepreneurial possibilities can read it at:

http://www.socialedge.org/discussions/responsibility/islam-and-corporate-social-responsibility/?searchterm=islam

Do you have any particular resources on Islamic finance you would like to point us to?

On January 15, 2009 the Kuwait Times reported "Small US bank goes Islamic, rides storm" - see the full story at:

http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=NjAxNzI2MTk4

On February 9, 2009, The San Francisco Gateway reported "Muslim investors profit by adhering to faith" - see the full story at:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/09/MN2D15J4HD.DTL

Also posted recently:

February 6,2009, "A revisit to Buddhist economics as a way out" in The Nation, a Thai business daily:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/02/06/opinion/opinion_30095093.php

«Economics of God - in 2002 Jasper Jones discovers that the Jubilee Process time cycle overlays the Recession / Depression Cycle of the World! The Community Rebirth Organization Plan (CROP) - Action Team® Programs of Institutional Guardian - (individual development account trust agreements - [IDATA's]) - transitional bridges to personal prosperity for the individual and society as a whole - contrasts the Worlds' Cycles of Recession - Depression - Business Panic - Wars - "Stock Market Bubble" ruin for the individual and society as a whole! Thus via the IDATA Process we are following the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth (B.I.B.L.E.) and re-introducing to the World God's Plan of Health Wealth Economic and Social Justice for all of his Children! The Community Rebirth Organization Plan (CROP) - Action Team® Programs provide a foundation first step to move from the Worlds' "War Economy" and "Culture-of-Corruption" to a "Peace' and "Culture-of-Economic-And-Social-Justice". The Community Rebirth Organization Plan (CROP) - Action Team® Programs operate to create a "Current Era Jubilee" for the World by Countering the Business Cycle which appears to overlay to the Jubilee Process as written in the holy scriptures! The common family heritage of enslavement and bondage provides some of the demonic fuel for the today's fires of economic and social injustice. The Community Rebirth Organization Plan (CROP) - Action Team® Institutional Guardian - (individual development account trust agreements - [IDATA's]) Program is a "Current Era Jubilee Harvest Ownership Expansion Process" that begins to put the "special holy water of economic and social justice for all" on today's demonic fires of economic and social injustice. In order to help begin bringing Economic Justice with Social Justice, Peace and Prosperity to All of the People of the World! Some Bible References: Leviticus Ch. 11 & 25 - Deuteronomy Ch. 14 & 15 - Ecclesiasticus Ch. 4 to 43 - John's Letters & Revelation

In hindu methologies it is described that there are four achievements for the human being as Religion or sprituality, Economic well being, enjoyment and socialising and finally deattachenet. All these are interrelated and society need to practice these to bring the sustainable living and judicious use of resources provide by the nature.