In my previous post on “Planning for Two Economic Futures” I promised to provide some of the names that have been suggested for the next economy. I had gathered a dozen or so title from my NORA talk on the future of the economy, and in the spirit of being more thorough, I did some additional scanning for names. One rich source was the background research we did for the Houston Foresight program’s “After Capitalism Meeting on April 14, 2012. My list rather quickly expanded to the 25 below. Uh oh, I thought, this is expanding beyond a blog post, as I wanted to briefly characterize and source the names. So, I think that piece will turn into an article. For the blog, I’ll provide the raw list as it stands today.

The point I’m hoping to make is that indeed there are [weak or is it now strong?] signals of a new economy emerging. Different researchers and analysts have come at it from different perspectives and typically feature a particular aspect, though some are pretty comprehensive. For now, I hope we can agree that something is, shall we say, brewing….

1. Attention
2. Automated
3. Betterness
4. Capitalism 2.0
5. Circular
6. Co-creation
7. Collaborative
8. Eco-economy
9. Experience
10. Gift
11. Green
12. Knowledge
13. Leisure
14. Open source
15. Post-capitalist
16. Post-Growth
17. Post-industrial
18. Purpose
19. Regenerative
20. Relationship
21. Sharing
22. Soft Path
23. Steady-state
24. Sustainable
25. Wisdom

Next, we’ll explore the transition. Andy Hines

Framework Foresight and other foresight methods suggest that any exploration into the future be accompanied by a look backward into the recent history. So, as part of our ongoing exploring into what’s next, it seemed like some financial history would be relevant. I selected Niall Ferguson’s, The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World, 2008. Ferguson is a renowned historian writing for someone not an expert in the topic, e.g., me. I’m not particularly interested in money (don’t tell my clients), seeing it as a necessary evil. The book is an interesting, enjoyable, and useful read, but I want to focus on ties or implications to our “what’s next” topic.

Make no mistake. You are getting the mainstream view here. Money is “the root of most progress.” The financial crisis of 2007 is in some measure explained by public ignorance not just among the ordinary public but also the “masters of the universe.” There is a bit of hero worship of the great financial minds, who do go a little too far now and then. And that does causes suffering for the masses, but it’s kind of implied that it’s their own fault. Basically, the real problem was the dummies who bought subprime loans, not those who sold them to them. In case it’s not clear: “poverty is not the result of rapacious financiers exploiting the poor.” Perhaps a more balanced view from my perspective: the financial system….reflects what we human beings are like….finance can enrich the lucky and the smart, and impoverish the unlucky and not-so-smart. That’s a pretty baseline view right there,  and one that any alternative future is going to be confronted with.

Ferguson briefly entertains the idea of a world without money. “The Communists and Anarchists dreamt of that.” Yet no communist state has been able to dispense with it. And the others who have done without it, hunter-gathering societies, are not exactly happy places. He notes that money is a belief. In our parlance, it is a social construction. And we know that social constructions can be deconstructed, beliefs can be unbelieved. As we futurists know, paradigms can be amazingly powerful, as if they are the way things have been and always should be. Yet this book shows how our financial system is, historically speaking, a relatively new (and perhaps fleeting?) phenomenon.

I think it is very important for us, as we explore alternative futures, to keep in mind how strong the paradigm around money and capitalism is. Alternative thinking can easily be swept away by many folks in a few paragraphs. “That can’t happen,” or “The Commies” tried that and it failed. End of discussion.

One thing we clearly need to do is have a good response to “it’s communism and communism failed” argument. The basic income may be a useful frame. It’s a bit granular. Post-capitalism is close, but the “post-” is a sorta lazy way of admitting we don’t know what’s next. The three dozen or so concepts have their flaws. Something for us to ponder – suggestions welcome!  — Andy Hines

Save

Save

After five or so years of keeping one eye on concepts for what might follow capitalism, it’s time! The topic is so super interesting to me. I preach to follow your interests and what you love, so…..The last time a “content” topic about the future caught my interest like this was the values stuff, captured in ConsumerShift.I let the cat out of the bag at our Spring Gathering last weekend — nothing like a public commitment to keep one honest!

I plan to use or Framework Foresight process as the research approach. That will also give us another example of how the FF process works. I would be super grateful if you could pass along any tips/articles/book suggestions etc. The good news/bad news is that there is a lot out there right now on the topic. More to come! — Andy Hines

Save

The journey exploring what’s after capitalism keeps getting more interesting. The plot continues to thicken.  Betterness: Economics for Humans, by Umair Haque, provides an inspirational view of how the future might be, or rather ought to be. Futurists should enjoy his style of challenging fundamental assumptions. I found myself shouting out a few amens!

In the tradition of Polak, he argues about the lack of vision. That a negative paradigm has emerged in which we are content to try and make the existing economic system more efficient. But we spend little time creating a vision of where we really want to go. He urges us to build the positive paradigm, which he calls betterness.

He has an interesting take on the flaws in the current system – not creating real value, or adequate returns, or jobs, or fulfillment…..yep, it’s not pretty, but not a surprise either.

One of my favorite ideas: “the economy isn’t an end in itself, but it’s a means to the end of a good life.” We’ve got so caught up in “fixing the economy” that we’ve lost sight of what it is and what it’s for. His Betterness concept is to update the pursuit of prosperity and to ignite human potential. He makes a clever distinction between “business” (today’s focus) and “betterness” (tomorrow’s vision).

Speaking of vision, here’s another gem. He critiques the current practice of creating vision statements – an easy mark there, but had a twist that I never quite saw that separated good from bad, or useful from usefulness. The bad ones are inward-focused, how we can be the best…..; the good ones are outer-focused, how we can help our customers achieve……. It may seem small or subtle, but it really made sense – the inward focus is business; the outward focus is betterness. Bingo!

I won’t give away the plot in terms of the specific components of the Betterness vision. The ideas are familiar, but put together in an interesting way. But for me, the real value in the book was the strong case made for a new vision. And the reminder that it needs to be built. Critique is vital, but we must also build.

In sum, Betterness is of great interest to us in our quest to see what might be next. We know there are lots of ideas out there, but no compelling vision. The ideas in this work are well worth considering; this short book is well worth your time! — Andy Hines

Save

Preparing for a World That Doesn’t Exist – Yet made me think. And for that, I judge it a success. It was interestingly timed, as I was just reviewing Srnicek & Williams Inventing the Future, which presented a masterful critique of the ineffectiveness of the left based on its adherence to “folk politics” (focused on local and the particular at the expense of the global and universal). And here comes Smyre and Richardson, advocating community focus and leading an international movement known as “Communities of the Future” (seeking to marry local and universal).

I agreed pretty strongly with the critique of Srinek & Williams — staying too local ultimately doesn’t move the needle. They also suggest the need for vision, big thinking, and getting the mainstream aboard (as opposed to “sniping” for the sidelines). There is indeed a lot of big thinking in “Preparing for a World…,” although I did not come away with a clear sense of that vision. That may well be by design. My search for a vision of what’s after capitalism may be a trip down the rabbit hole. Maybe “Preparing” is right in identifying general principles and seeing what emerges. That could be where we end up.

My sense, however, is that we will need something more defined and compelling – an image of the future in the sense of Polak, to drive the mobilization. In “Preparing,” the authors do a tremendous job in laying out what needs to happen. Their hope is that community mobilization will be enough to drive the movement. I’m not sure I see it yet. I think most readers of this blog would agree with their principles, but I suspect that they might also agree that this is not enough. The quest continues. I am really grateful for this work in making me pause, and dig at what seems to be missing in all the works I’ve looked at so far. Local is good, but not too local (folk politics trap). Need big thinking, but also need action plans. Yep. But….the compelling image??? Hmmm – Andy Hines

The Shift Commission released a nice report on the future of work looking ahead 10-20 years. Four almost-inevitable forces (predetermineds in our parlance):

1. An aging workforce;
2. The decline of “dynamism,” the movement of people between jobs, firms, and places;
3. A societal shift to non-work income
4. Growing geographic gaps

#2 raised my eyebrow. I might put that in the uncertainty pile. They say: “the decades-long fall in the rates at which Americans start businesses, switch jobs, or move for a new job. It’s unclear whether the culprit is high housing costs in areas with expanding growth, regulatory burdens like occupational licensing requirements that vary across state lines, or that caregiving needs and a sense of community connectedness make people reluctant to leave.” Interesting, but not sure I’m persuaded yet.

The scenarios focused on two uncertainties — whether there would be more or less work in the future and whether work would remain as mostly jobs or shift to more task-based work (everything from short-term full-time contracts, to projects, to “gig economy” roles).

The jobs/tasks focus is an interesting way to think about it. What about automation? “We believe today’s progress in AI is consequential enough to prompt careful consideration of whether this time is different. (We asked our members this question, and 58% agree this time is different.)”

Among the conclusions I found interesting:

• Each of the four scenarios could work out well, or badly, depending on how we respond. (AH: If ever there was an issue to be proactive on…..)
• For workers, it’s about stability (AH: amidst the chaos of change, we ultimately seek stability – not the assumption undergirding America today, but…)
• Employers central role in society needs re-examination (AH: haven’t seen this explicitly stated as such; now there’s a myth-metaphor not easily challenged!)

Two curious things:

• Guaranteed basic income was not in any of the 4 scenarios. It was mentioned as a response to the scenarios. It’s been front-and-center in most work I’ve been looking at. I guess I would view these scenarios as more about the transition to “After Capitalism” than the vision.
• They focused on stability as a key desire, but the data they report actually showed that “enjoying work” was a higher priority, which fits with what I’ve seen.

My favorite quote of 2017 so far: “The whole concept of a 9 to 5 job for life was a historical quirk.”

Susan Lund, McKinsey & Company and McKinsey Global Institute. Right!!! Again, we keep returning to the power of the prevailing paradigm. It seems like it’s always been this way, but it hasn’t been. – Andy Hines

Save

I’ve got a few books to review for the blog for “After Capitalism” that come at what’s next from different perspectives. Abundance from Peter Diamandis of Singularity U believes in tapping into the competitive instinct as they key to moving forward. Indeed he says that “humans are wired to compete.” I’m sure we’ve all seen this or variations suggesting our survival instinct is “survival of the fittest.” And implicitly or explicitly, this is a good thing. Competition weeds out the weak and strengthens the species overall. To restate, this is accepted by many as human nature or wiring. We can’t fight it.

The other book, Think Like a Commoner, which I’m not finished yet, talks about the potential of the commons. It talks about cooperation, and raises questions about the inevitability of selfish humans out to maximize their prospects at the expense of others. I originally titled this piece: “modern values are not wiring” in reaction to the point in Abundance (btw, as you’ll see, I quite like to book even with this disagreement).

So, here’s my take. Those deeply embedded in the modern values paradigm are the core believers in competitive view of human nature. They believe it so strongly that they cite it as inevitable and “hard-wired.” As we’ve explored in the values posts here and in the ConsumerShift book, the developmental view of social change suggests that this high competition stage or phase is just that – a stage. It is not inevitable, hard wired, or human nature. Indeed the transition to postmodern values brings forth a different idea that values the common good. It’s not naive, pie-in-the sky, or utopic, it’s next!

Valuing individual success over the common good is not human nature, but a stage of development.

The idea the our wiring does not prevent us from acting collectively for the common good is a crucial point. So much of the research and thinking on “what’s next” is blinded by this modern values paradigm, and essentially suggests more of the same kinds of solutions. It’s often an excuse for why things can’t be different and why new ideas can’t work. “You can’t fight human nature.” Perhaps that true, but it isn’t human nature – it is a stage of development!

Now, of course, I don’t want to leave the impression that competition is bad or wrong or not useful. We all enjoy winning now and then! Indeed it can be tapped into in quite useful ways (as Diamandis’ Xprize has shown). But let’s not accept it as inevitable. — Andy Hines

Save

One the one hand, “we are at an inflection point—the early stages of a shift as profound as that brought on by the Industrial Revolution.” On the other, “We are also skeptical of efforts to come up with fundamental alternatives to capitalism.” The authors take an even-handed balanced approach in exploring the impact of AI and automation. If you’re looking for a definitive position, you won’t find it here. But I found the evenhandedness a strength of the book, despite my obvious leanings towards need to come up with alternatives to capitalism. They let the reader reach their own conclusions.

The evidence they provide is interesting, engaging, and informative.  They are a bit cautious at times. For instance, on the plausibility of the Singularity or the Terminator? “We honestly don’t know….wise never to say never.” But they also make bold statements where the evidence warrants it. For instance, “technological progress is going to leave behind some people, perhaps even a lot of people. The “perhaps” softens it a bit, but the statement is pretty clear.

Let’s look at another case where it’s left for you to decide:;

• Our second conclusion is that the transformations brought about by digital technology will be profoundly beneficial ones.
• Our third conclusion is less optimistic: digitization is going to bring with it some thorny challenges.

Put another way, they see AI/automation/machines bring about a great bounty, but they also see it contributing to greater spread, or greater inequality. The potential for inequality growth is quite compelling. They suggest superstars will fare very well at the expense of the rest of us. The top 20% of knowledge worker elites will do fine (but nowhere near as well as the superstars). And everyone else, well….I’d characterize it as “fighting for crumbs,” but they are more moderate. Though hardly comforting, I agree with their point: “In the long run, the biggest effect of automation is likely to be on workers not in America and other developed nations, but rather in developing nations that currently rely on low-cost labor for their competitive advantage.”

A couple of nice little nuggets:

• They bring in futurist Kevin Kelly’s quip: “You’ll be paid in the future based on how well you work with robots.”
• They talk about the importance of innovation, and address the school of thought suggesting stagnation is ahead. They neatly characterize it as whether the ‘innovation-as-building-block’ (more and more to come) view versus innovation-as-fruit view (we’ve picked the low-hanging fruit and it’s going to be harder.

Again, depending on your predisposition, you are likely to interpret the evidence they present one way or the other. In today’s increasingly polarized world, I found the balanced approach refreshing, and thoroughly enjoyed the book. – Andy Hines

Save

I have been working through ideas about “what’s after capitalism,” and think about what’s wrong and what could be right, ,and what could be useful/helpful/sensible visions. I keep coming back to the issue of we sapiens* putting our needs front-and-center at the expense of everything else. Literally, we are “apart” from everything else. The more we develop, the more apart we become, thus “apartness.”

It seems to me that a usefulness vision would need to address this apartness (togetherness?). It seems that if we need to re-integrate with nature, other species, and even new species, i.e. robots. As we futurists now, when you start thinking about something, you become sensitized to signals of it. Here are three within the last week that have hit my radar:

• Environmental futurist Dave Bengston tagged this scan hit on the rights of nature “The Symposium will bring together key leaders in the Rights of Nature movement – from Ecuador, Nepal, the United States, and other countries, as well as from local communities and tribal nations. Today, communities, people, and even governments are recognizing that there is a need to make a fundamental shift in humankind’s relationship with the natural world by placing the highest protections on nature through the recognition of legal rights.”
• While animal rights movements have been active for some time, the development of lab-grown meat offers some hope there. Our friends at the Futures Assessment Divisions of the US Marine Corps reported on Richard Branson explaining his interest in and artificial meat startup: “I believe that in 30 years or so we will no longer need to kill any animals and that all meat will either be clean or plant-based, taste the same and also be much healthier for everyone. One day we will look back and think how archaic our grandparents were in killing animals for food.”
• Saudi Arabia Becomes the First Country to Give Citizenship to a Robot. The Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman plans to put Sophia in a forthcoming megacity called Neom—a center for business and tourism. Setting aside the problems it raises given the situation of women there, and that it is a bit of a gimmick, we futurist remember Jim Dator talking about rights of robots decades ago.

So, we have three signals suggesting the notion of expanding the rights of others, and at least in some small way, indicating there is movement away from apartness to integrated — of course, last week in Alternative Perspectives class we did a module on Integral Futures.  – Andy Hines

*See Yuval Noah Harari’s excellent book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

Save

Save

In my emerging scheme for organizing the concepts for what’s next and after capitalism, I am placing the sharing economy and its brothers and sisters in the Horizon Two Zone of Transition (and innovation). To put it simply, it seems to me that these concepts have one foot in the old neoliberal capitalist world (H1), and one in the emerging visions of H3. I found a nice book on sharing: Arun Sundararajan’s The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism that provides us some great ideas to play with.

The sharing family of concepts has some aspects of traditional markets and some aspects of “new” gift ideas. Some is profit-motivated and some is purpose-driven. Airbnb hosts typically join sharing platforms to make money. Couchsurfers do it as a way to meet people or to make new friends, as well finding a place to stay. Of course there is lots of overlap between these two.

Lawrence Lessig notes this dual nature in his 2008 book Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy“ observes that there exists not just the commercial economy, which meters access on the simple metric of price, but also a sharing economy, where access to culture is regulated not by price but by a complex set of social relations.” Botsman and Rogers’ Rise of Collaborative Consumption observes that access in hyper consumption is defined by credit, whereas access in collaborative consumption is driven by reputation.

He also bring in Juliet Schor’s notion of “stranger sharing,” which shift the source of what we value commercially away from traditional corporations and toward a crowd of entrepreneurs we find through a digital marketplace.

Perhaps the shift could be summed up as:

Some questions

There are still lots of questions about how this might work:

• Will the sharing economy ultimately represent the rise of the microentrepreneur—a generation of self-employed workers who are empowered OR will it represent the culmination of the end of broad-based and high standards of living that the United States witnessed in the 1950s and 1960s—a disparaging race to the bottom? For instance, Robert Reich asserts that a better name for the sharing economy would be the “share-the-scraps economy.”
• While there’s clearly tremendous potential efficiency from “access over ownership,” are peer-to-peer rental markets viable at scale for anything other than really expensive assets like homes and cars?
• Might we witness the emergence of new guilds—worker organizations that set their own standards of service?

There are some interesting ideas relating to p2p and Blockchain as well, but let’s save that for part 2. – Andy Hines

This Sunday’s NY Times, alongside a piece chortling about the problems that Roy Moore is causing Republicans, featured five Democratic leaders providing a message for their party. Surely the stunning and devastating defeat put on the party by Trump and the Republicans has prompted Democratic political leaders to do some soul-searching, re-thinking and strategizing? So, what have we got?

• Leaders #1 called for “jobs and economic growth.”  I think we’ve heard that one before.
• Leader #2 suggests going back to JFK and FDR…and “folks in the middle.” Okay, let’s look 50-and 80+ years back….
• Leader #3 recognizes that a high school diploma is no longer a ticket to a good job, but at least acknowledges we can’t turn back the clock.
• Leader #4 talks about the need for a vision of the future, refers to back to Kennedy, and does some cheer-leading.  cheer.
• Leader #5 wants to keep it simple and “return to the center of gravity of lived experience.” I’m not 100% sure what that means, but it seems to have something to do with “sticking up for ordinary people.

Oh my! I apologize for my snarkiness, but this is dreadful. Readers of the After Capitalism series will likely recognize that my tendencies are far to the left of the Democrats. I am much more sympathetic to them than Trump and Republicans. I was [stupidly] hopeful that this zinging defeat might give the Democrats pause, and rethink what the party is about.

Let’s take off our political hats and put our futurist hats back on. A key message becoming increasingly clear in our After Capitalism series is that we lack a compelling vision of the future – despite the plethora of “new economy” concepts we identified and analyzed. We lack a “pull of the future” that a positive and compelling vision provides. That vision must come from looking forward, not backward. We are not going to find the answers to super-intelligent AI, gene splicing, nanobots, climate change, and global terrorism in a context of several generations ago. Sure, there are lessons from the past (I have a history degree – I’m not anti-history), but in effect the Democrats above are playing the same nostalgic tune about going back that simply is not possible.

These backward-looking visions are a response to fear of the future. Since we fear the future, we look back for the “simpler” days. As we futurists know, a trip back is likely to be driven by collapse. So, our work must go on to develop images and visions of the future that are positive and compelling, and offer a better choice than that drivel above.  – Andy Hines

I introduced a new framing of the “After Capitalism” project a few weeks ago in a post on “transition.” Let’s look more closely at this reframing, which often happens several times in a book project, and is key to whether it comes together – or not! The revised simple version of the domain map indicates how we’re re-organizing the scanning.

Revised Domain Map

Let’s briefly recall that the initial idea of tracking After Capitalism began five years ago when I started collecting concepts that seemed to address the next socioeconomic system. When those concepts reached what seemed to me to be a critical mass of 40 – without looking too hard – I put together an initial framework that sorted the concepts into umbrella concepts, sources of new values, sustainability, and drivers/enablers/mechanisms. That framework proved a useful starting point in introducing the ideas to audiences.

But, as happens, further scanning and research (mostly books and reports), and ideas from colleagues, drives a search for next framework based on what’s been learned. A key insight, I believe, is that the Three Horizons framework from Curry, Hodgson, and Sharpe provides a more useful organizing approach moving forward:

Horizon 1. Today’s version neoliberal capitalism has served its purpose as an effective system for economic development and growth that fit the modern context, but is an inadequate fit for the emerging postmodern [and to a lesser degree integral] context.  We identified three primary challenges to the existing order:

• Inequality
• Ecosystem overload
• Reliance on jobs as wealth distribution

There are many other drivers of change to the system, which we are now organizing by STEEP categories in our scanning. [A tricky issue that we’re wrestling with is sorting the drivers into the various horizons – for now we’re putting them all into H1.]

Horizon 3. We lack clear and compelling positive images of transformation, that is, what is after capitalism, but we have some “seeds”

• Sustainability and moral purpose
• Tech-driven Abundance and the Singularity
• A world without work, which we’re calling, the non-workers paradise

Horizon 2. Transition concepts center on sharing, platforms, and collaboration, which have one foot in the old and one in the new; two issues seem particularly thorny for the move to transformation

• Those supporting transformation have so far been ineffective in mobilizing, compared to the forces supporting the existing system
• Can pockets of transformation catalyze change, that is can ideas like basic income and sustainable development take root in a global context of extreme differences in levels of development; put bluntly, one might imagine these being pioneered in affluent postmodern regions; one can also image the modern areas eventually making the transition, but can the destitute areas leapfrog to transformation without passing the modern phase of development

— Andy Hines

Nicholas Eberstadt of American Enterprise Institute provides helpful insight into an issue that “after capitalism” is going to need to address: lack of jobs, or to extend forward, imagining a world without work. He specifically focuses on the current prospects of a significant portion of men in Men Without Work: America’s Invisible Crisis.  The book provides lots of useful data on why many men have essentially given up on finding work. To get a handle on the issue: “Between the early 1950s and today, the work rate for adult men has plummeted by more than eighteen percentage points.”  And “the percent of economically inactive men of prime working age leapt from 3.4% in 1965 to 11.8% in 2015.

Some of the explanations he offers suggest social and structural issues in employment (although he is not making an “after capitalism” case).

• Adult work rates never recovered entirely after the 2001 recession. Interestingly, the recovery after each recession includes a smaller percentage of working males (basically, fewer find their way back to work)
• Another factor is that the upsurge of employment for women disguised the steady decline in work for men. (because it makes overall employment rates look better)
• Educational attainment dramatically affects the odds that a prime-age male in 2015 would be holding down a job or living as an un-worker.
• Having a criminal record is a key missing piece in explaining why work rates have collapsed much more dramatically in America than other affluent Western societies
• Yet another issue is presented by the post-Cold War reduction in the size of the U.S. military.
• The problem perpetuates itself: experiments have found that employers across a wide range of fields and occupations were much more reluctant to offer an interview to a man who had been out of a job more than six months

He suggests they are getting by relying on income from spouses and other family members, disability payments, and forms of welfare.

There is some national “denial” going on. He includes several quotes along these lines suggesting that the men problem is “hidden,” such as:

• “The American economy is in good shape . . . we are essentially at full employment . . . tight labor markets are leading to increases in hourly earnings and in the producer prices of services.” (Martin Feldstein)

The problem of the discouraged worker gets to the heart of this.  People who say they are discouraged are counted as out of the labor force. Steady, ongoing exodus from the labor force, the economically inactive have come to eclipse the unemployed as the main category of men without jobs (p. 41).

The author, to his credit, also includes critiques of the book at the end. One critique in particular makes good sense to me: “As for the causes of the American male’s flight from work—an ancient left/right argument—[the author] believes welfare benefits, disability, and criminal justice factors play critical roles, and gives them more weight than demand-side factors.”

For our project, a primary contribution of this book is that it supports the notion idea that if we probe beneath the surface, we find that the neoliberal capitalist “baseline” future is in more trouble than conventional wisdom suggests. And our tendency will be to pretend things are okay rather than deal with the harsh reality. – Andy Hines

“Social responsibility”….[is a] fundamentally subversive doctrine” in a free society….“there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game (Milton Friedman, A Friedman Doctrine, New York Times, September 13, 1970).

In the foresight method Causal Layered Analysis, futurist Sohail Inayatullah describes four layers of understanding a futures problem or issue. The deepest and most fundamental layer is the myth-metaphor, the fundamental civilizational guiding story(s) around the issue, which are so ingrained that we are not even consciously aware of them.

Friedman’s doctrine noted above is at the core of the neoliberal capitalist baseline: the business of business is business. It is the fundamental myth-metaphor of the modern neocapitalist approach.I recently came across this 1970 piece cited above that succinctly summed up his views. I was a bit surprised that it seemed to be primarily motivated as a response to the idea of “social responsibility,” which is mentioned in scare quotes seven times. His essay is an argument that social responsibility has no place in business. In fairness, he suggests it may have a place elsewhere, but not in the business of running a corporation. The responsibility in that case is not social, but to earn as much profit as possible for the shareholders (within the rules of the game).

Today’s headlines often have roots extending deeply into the past. From today’s vantage point, social responsibility is a mainstream notion that is widely, though certainly not universally, accepted. Yet in the 1970s, it was a subversive notion. Readers who have followed the values thread will recognize the 1970s as the birth of postmodern values, indeed the very subversive counterculture notions of self-expression, participation, sustainability and the like. We might surmise that Friedman foresaw that pernicious impact that these values would have, which he wrapped up in the notion of social responsibility and attacked.

As I say in class when we learn CLA, when a foundational myth-metaphor is under attack,  we must pay strict attention. — Andy Hines

We have made money more important than it should be. The economy is bigger than it should be. Charles Eisenstein in Sacred Economics suggests a new approach to money and the economy – namely, less of both! In short, in our search for economic growth, we continue to monetize more and more things that used to be “free.” The challenge is that there is little room in any highly developed economy for further domestic growth. And the author argues that “official economic statistics have hidden the probability that the Western economies have been in a zero-growth phase for at least twenty years.”

In this light, the idea of shrinking the economy may be less crazy than it seems at first. We could simply de-monetize things that no longer need to be monetized. And we could choose differently regarding consuming more or working less. (Hint: work less).

The sacred idea involves moving away from money and growth as “ends,” and re-situating the properly as “means.” It would move us way from everything having a price. Indeed, the sacred economy builds most closely on gift economy ideas, as well as some from ideas around commons. A key assumption is that giving triggers virtuous circles and win-win dynamics, in contrast to today’s economy fueled by winning and losing. Gift giving and receiving creates an ongoing tie or relationship between the participants, much different from the anonymity of cash and online purchases. He also steers us away from barter economy ideas, noting that “barter, in the strict sense of moneyless exchange, has never been a quantitatively important or dominant model or transaction in any past or present economic system about which we have hard information.” It’s a fine point for sure, whether we call something barter or ritualized gift exchange, but I also see the “back to  barter” idea as a hard sell – not nearly as difficult as something like “communism” but not a winner either.

A really cool idea here is to shift the purpose of money away from “medium of exchange” and “store-of-value” to just “medium-of-exchange.” It’s the store-of-value, based on the fundamental economic assumption of scarcity that has triggered the demise of capitalism and its associated crises. In a world of abundance, store-of-value is less necessary, thus we see the gift economy, the commons, and introduction of concepts such as negative-interest money based on the ideas of the pioneering  theoretician Silvio Gesell. Essentially, it would be a money that, like bread, becomes less valuable over time…that decays in value. This promotes using money rather than accumulating.  In this approach, the only way to maintain wealth is to invest it at risk or, shall we say, to make wise decisions on how to direct the magical flow of human creativity. By making money impermanent, we preserve it as means but not as end.

The author is aware that he is proposing transformation. I liked his characterization of a “co-creative partnership with earth.” I really, really liked this book. There is so much more I could write about. It may be my favorite so far. Very much what we are looking for in terms of Horizon 3 visions, with lots of fresh ideas and hope, but not preachy or overly squishy. Well worth your time! – Andy Hines

A key question that has consistently informed the research and books that I’ve been going through in this “After Capitalism” journey can be summed as: reformation or transformation [of capitalism].

Can we reform capitalism, or must it be transformed? Practically speaking, reforming is “easier.” And as futurists, we say that transformation is fairly rare, and it is very difficult. We do not take on transformation lightly.  I have come to the view that the transformation of capitalism is necessary. I’m reminded of a lecture I had years ago from Edward de Bono, where he talked about our tendency to keep putting bandaids and fixes on a process to avoid having to re-do it. In our Scenario Archtype process, we call this “New Equilibrium,” in which there is a challenge to the existing system, and the system does whatever is necessary to “save itself;” it makes the necessary compromises to save the system, but structurally speaking it’s still the same system. The 2008 financial crisis and Great Recession almost “broke” the existing system. In classic New Equilibrium fashion, the system compromised and bailed out the “too big to fail” organizations, put on a couple of band-aids and was back in business. This is reformation.

Transformation says, no more band-aids, time for a new paradigm, new structure, new rules, and new metrics.

The above was inspired by my reading of the wonderful report on “Regenerative Capitalism.” It grapples with reformation and transformation, and clearly suggests reformation:

“regenerative economies [are] a new stage of capitalism…. reserve and build on the many strengths of our free enterprise system, while addressing its failings head on.”

Even though I have come to believe transformation is necessary, I may, of course, be wrong, and maybe there are a few iterations of capitalism left!

The author, John Fullerton, saw the light and resigned from Wall Street back in 2001 as he saw trouble ahead, and the realized that Wall Street had lost its way. His goal for a regenerative economy is to “create a self-organizing, naturally self-maintaining, highly adaptive Regenerative form of capitalism that produces lasting social and economic vitality for global civilization as a whole. “ He relates his ideas to others we’ve come across, such as natural capitalism, sustainable capitalism, conscious capitalism, doughnut economics, circular economies, sharing economies, steady-state economies, etc.

The report is worth a read and I enjoyed it. The eight principles he suggests are solid: (1)In Right Relationship (2)Views Wealth Holistically (3)Innovative, Adaptive, Responsive (4) Empowered Participation (5)Honors Community and Place (6)Edge Effect Abundance (7)Robust Circulatory Flow (8) Seeks Balance

If you’ve been following along on the journey, I ask you to think about “reformation or transformation,” and it would be great if you could add your thoughts in a reply on the blog.

Fullerton, John Regenerative (2015, April). Capitalism: How Universal Principles and Patterns Will Shape Our New Economy. Greenwich, CT: Capital Institute.

– Andy Hines

The title says it all: Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think. If you’re a true believer in technology (technology will solve our problems), take comfort that “within a generation, we will be able to provide goods and services, once reserved for the wealthy few, to any and all who need them.” Those versed in integral futures are likely to say “not so fast;” our technological capacity development has outstripped our values and cultural development. That is, our abilities to wisely that technology is under-developed.

Regardless of which camp you’re in, let’s be very grateful for what the author Peter Diamandis does for us here. He provides a positive, hopeful, and plausible vision. There ain’t many out there! Abundance is a tale of good news. Yes, there are bumps along the way, but human [and AI-driven] technological ingenuity save the day. Diamandis believes that the greatest tool we have for tackling our grand challenges is the human mind. Some old-timers might remember Julian Simon, who used to horrify audiences in the 1980s — when we were really worried about population growth — by suggesting that the more people, the better (see the doomslayer).

In a nutshell creative ideas are the ultimate resource. Diamandis puts his money where he is mouth is. He founded the X PRIZE Foundation, which is a nonprofit dedicated to bringing about radical breakthroughs for the benefit of humanity through the design and operation of large incentive-prize competitions. And he was a co-founder of the Singularity University, which studies technologies at the core of abundance: biotechnology and bioinformatics; computational systems; networks and sensors; artificial intelligence; robotics; digital manufacturing; medicine; and nanomaterials and nanotechnology.

Sure, one can and should question whether this tech fix approach can work (by 2035, the book says). I think it’s fair to ask what the alternative is? ….thus my own search for after capitalism visions. I am not drinking the whole glass of Abundance Kool-Aid, but I am very glad we have this vision to work with, and it surely is at least part of the solution! – Andy Hines

Small steps forward. It’s helpful in research to step back everyone once in and while and assess or re-assess where you are. I’m happy with this structure (see “reframing”)

• “signals” emanating from Horizon 1
• “transitions emerging in Horizon 2
• “visions” calling from Horizon 3

So far, three visions are taking shape. I’ve been going sources/readings relating to them in hopes of getting a better fix on what the essence of each vision is. In particular, they needed better titles! The hyphenated mixing of two concepts….yuck. So, after much contemplation and caffeine.

• Abundance/Singularity renamed Tech-led Abundance. A struggle here, as the Singularity is often thought of as a vision, but almost by definition it really isn’t – we can’t know what’s on the other side of the Singularity. Not very helpful in terms of vision-building. What’s associated with the Singularity is the high-tech future. Abundance is as well. And Abundance is more of an economic concept. The core idea is that this is the tech-fix scenario (whatever it’s ultimately called).
• Non-workers’ Paradise stays the same. The best title of course is not mine. I started with Workers Paradise as a placeholder for what I was calling the “Reformed Left” concept. A colleague, Christopher Farrow, pointed out that the vision was about “not working,” thus the clever addition of non-
• Sustainability renamed Sustainable Commons. Sustainability is a bit of a mixed bag – on the one hand, it describes current activities and on the other it is very well-known. The works comprising this concept sort into environmentally inclined or morality-based or purpose driven – often combining the two. I have been really influenced by arguments about moving to a more commons-based approach – particularly by Eisenstein’s Sacred Economics. The “commons” idea may be key here.

Let’s also keep in mind that there are visions of collapse that needed to be accounted for. But the emphasis, really the purpose of this work is to identify positive visions.

As I think about refining the visions, I see the rabbit hole of “what are the key components of a transformational vision? – Andy Hines

For those who prefer video, or listening, I’m posting a video summary of my After Capitalism ideas. It was recorded as part of third annual APF Virtual Gathering on September 15, 2017. It’s 24 hours of futures in which the virtual venue shifts across the globe: Americas, Europe, and Asia. I had 30 minutes and used it to tell the After Capitalism story from the comfort of my home office. The link is here: https://vimeo.com/258422017; the password is “foresight.”

Since the video, I have solidified the concept list – it has grown to 54 – and reviewed almost all of them. [I need to kick it into gear over the summer to get it finished]. While the concept list has expanded, the three visions — and their evil dopplegangers — still seem to be representative.  And I’ve update my headshot to more accurately reflect the graying — Andy Hines.

A key question that has consistently informed the research and books that I’ve been going through in this “After Capitalism” journey can be summed as: reformation or transformation [of capitalism].

Can we reform capitalism, or must it be transformed? Practically speaking, reforming is “easier.” And as futurists, we say that transformation is fairly rare, and it is very difficult. We do not take on transformation lightly.  I have come to the view that the transformation of capitalism is necessary. I’m reminded of a lecture I had years ago from Edward de Bono, where he talked about our tendency to keep putting bandaids and fixes on a process to avoid having to re-do it. In our Scenario Archtype process, we call this “New Equilibrium,” in which there is a challenge to the existing system, and the system does whatever is necessary to “save itself;” it makes the necessary compromises to save the system, but structurally speaking it’s still the same system. The 2008 financial crisis and Great Recession almost “broke” the existing system. In classic New Equilibrium fashion, the system compromised and bailed out the “too big to fail” organizations, put on a couple of band-aids and was back in business. This is reformation.

Transformation says, no more band-aids, time for a new paradigm, new structure, new rules, and new metrics.

The above was inspired by my reading of the wonderful report on “Regenerative Capitalism.” It grapples with reformation and transformation, and clearly suggests reformation:

“regenerative economies [are] a new stage of capitalism…. reserve and build on the many strengths of our free enterprise system, while addressing its failings head on.”

Even though I have come to believe transformation is necessary, I may, of course, be wrong, and maybe there are a few iterations of capitalism left!

The author, John Fullerton, saw the light and resigned from Wall Street back in 2001 as he saw trouble ahead, and the realized that Wall Street had lost its way. His goal for a regenerative economy is to “create a self-organizing, naturally self-maintaining, highly adaptive Regenerative form of capitalism that produces lasting social and economic vitality for global civilization as a whole. “ He relates his ideas to others we’ve come across, such as natural capitalism, sustainable capitalism, conscious capitalism, doughnut economics, circular economies, sharing economies, steady-state economies, etc.

The report is worth a read and I enjoyed it. The eight principles he suggests are solid: (1)In Right Relationship (2)Views Wealth Holistically (3)Innovative, Adaptive, Responsive (4) Empowered Participation (5)Honors Community and Place (6)Edge Effect Abundance (7)Robust Circulatory Flow (8) Seeks Balance

If you’ve been following along on the journey, I ask you to think about “reformation or transformation,” and it would be great if you could add your thoughts in a reply on the blog.

Fullerton, John Regenerative (2015, April). Capitalism: How Universal Principles and Patterns Will Shape Our New Economy. Greenwich, CT: Capital Institute.

– Andy Hines