You've heard of Slow Food, now here's Slow Money. Here are the principles:
I. We must bring money back down to earth.II. There is such a thing as money that is too fast, companies that are too big, finance that is too complex. Therefore, we must slow our money down -- not all of it, of course, but enough to matter.
III. The 20th Century was the era of Buy Low/Sell High and Wealth Now/Philanthropy Later--what one venture capitalist called "the largest legal accumulation of wealth in history." The 21st Century will be the era of nurture capital, built around principles of carrying capacity, care of the commons, sense of place and non-violence.
IV. We must learn to invest as if food, farms and fertility mattered. We must connect investors to the places where they live, creating vital relationships and new sources of capital for small food enterprises.
V. Let us celebrate the new generation of entrepreneurs, consumers and investors who are showing the way from Making A Killing to Making a Living.
VI. Paul Newman said, "I just happen to think that in life we need to be a little like the farmer who puts back into the soil what he takes out." Recognizing the wisdom of these words, let us begin rebuilding our economy from the ground up, asking:
What would the world be like if we invested 50% of our assets within 50 miles of where we live?
What if there were a new generation of companies that gave away 50% of their profits?
What if there were 50% more organic matter in our soil 50 years from now?
Here's more about Slow Money and the Slow Money book from NPR's Planet Money blog. What kind of company gives away 50 percent of its profits, instead of putting it back into the business? Other than that, I like most of this.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Whoa - You have seriously missed the point re: medieval economies and by extension - local economies. Medieval economies were local because there was virtually no transportation network which made non local goods almost impossible to get. What existed of a transport network was rife with brigands who robbed the goods. Ergo - local economies. Furthermore - these local economies were not static or inflexible nor incapable of innovation as has been more than well documented. The point is - medieval economies suited the conditions of the time period.
As markets seek efficiency they become more centralized - and require more centralized government to support them. One of the issues around such centralization of both wealth and power is that wealth and power increasingly become concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer of the populace. While there were certainly disparities in the distribution of wealth throughout human history - we are way up there in terms of the disparity now. This disparity - which at the moment is approx 85% of the wealth in the hands of 20% of the population - threatens stability. And of course capitalism and democracy needs stability.
Your assertion that Africa has too few people to create a modern infrastructure is silly. The existing rail systems in Africa were built during the colonial era when the population of Africa was 1/4 of what it is now. Corruption and chaos more accurately explain the continued poverty of Africa.
If the dire predictions about energy descent are true - then we would see a return of the sorts of conditions which existed in the middle ages and promoted local economies.
I think that while slow money may sound like a nifty idea to some - it defies what we know from our experience about the economic behavior of people. People do not act rationally with regards to money - they behave the same way as regards money as they do everything else. It is unrealistic to expect altruism and enlightened self interest to guide people's economic decisions. Face it - if people were guided by rational thought when making economic decisions - who would buy a mercedes benz or a $2,000 pair of shoes?
Cecelia @ 3:51 PM writes:
"Medieval economies were local because there was virtually no transportation network which made non local goods almost impossible to get. What existed of a transport network was rife with brigands who robbed the goods. Ergo - local economies. Furthermore - these local economies were not static or inflexible nor incapable of innovation as has been more than well documented. The point is - medieval economies suited the conditions of the time period."
I hate to burst the bubble, Cecelia, but there was, in fact, quite a bit of international trade in the period you're talking about. Certainly not as much as in today's travel-manic world, but enough so that the common man could relate to it and enjoy humor about it, particularly after AD 1000. Just consider Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, even though they did not deal with "international" pilgrimages.
Also consider the existence of the Hanseatic League: why would a "common market" of trading cities exist if there was little or no trade ? (There are all kinds of references I could call up on the subject, but I'd really rather not bore all of you to death with them.)
It seems to me that the main obstacle to trade in the Europe of the time was slowness of transportation and relatively backwards technologies of transportation, and that only in certain areas, not no transportation. There's a big difference. Consider, also, that Western Europe was technologically backwards relative to other regions of the globe, particularly China and Asia. Marco Polo's journals reveal travels of thousands of miles across years and great distances---and many times he was astonished at the wide range of goods available in the cities he visited as an agent of Kublai Khan.
Not to mention that governments back then were just as rapacious and clever in finding new ways to levy taxes as they are today.
As to the “slow money” business ? Sorry to burst the bubble again, but international and interregional trade is a net contributor to prosperity, not a detriment to it. Or has someone disproven the Hecksher-Olin theorem ? Or David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage ?
As a moral argument, "slow money" sounds nice. As a real-world plan for action, it leaves a great deal to be desired.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Yes Lord Karth - as I have frequently mentioned in previous posts - there was some global trade during the medieval period. But the basic necessities were met by local tradesmen and most of the economy was local. Goods from far away were expensive and unreliable and only by and large available to the wealthy. Unlike the average person today - the average person in the middle ages got his stuff locally.
The Hanseatic League was actually pretty local - their influence was northern Europe primarily. I also did say "virtually" no transportation. But we do have evidence of trade between the Welsh and Spain as early as 500 and St. Cuthbert was buried with a silk cloth from Byzantium in 700. So some stuff did get around.
You are right about technology in that - ships powered by sail were unreliable and hence goods that were perishable couldn't be shipped any distance so one had to rely on a local economy. But - the middle age folk never the less were very ingenious and invented a lot of technologies- they were primitive from our point of view but they did invent things which improved efficiency etc. It was not a rigid or static society as was claimed.
Perhaps the confusion is over geography - what occurs in regions as opposed to the whole of Europe and dates - what occurs in the early middle ages and the late middle ages. The emergence of the China trade is not until the 1400's.
My point is that the previous writer's assertion that medieval economies were static is wrong. Those middle age folk were very inventive and they changed as times and circumstances required. They developed an economy - largely local - which suited the conditions they lived in and so it is not reasonable to compare how things worked then to how things work now. I bet we can agree on that.
Cecelia @ 12:59 AM writes:
"My point is that the previous writer's assertion that medieval economies were static is wrong. Those middle age folk were very inventive and they changed as times and circumstances required. They developed an economy - largely local - which suited the conditions they lived in and so it is not reasonable to compare how things worked then to how things work now. I bet we can agree on that."
That's twice in a week. Someone notify His Holiness the Pope. The Age of Miracles is not yet ceased ! ;-)
Your servant,
Lord Karth
I have the perfect 'Slow Money' concept which I've had for several years now:
Require people to own any stock they purchase for at least two years, or pay a rather large tax when they sell it. (Yes, yes, with exceptions, like in the case of takeovers and estate sales and gifts and whatnot.)
Instantly, stock prices would revert to actually depending on the healthiness of the company, instead of day trading and each CEO attempting to pump stock prices up so people can sell out to repeat the cycle.(1)
This poor management technique, caring about the stock price, aka, estimated profit over the next quarter instead of actual profit over a period of years, has nearly destroyed our economy's long term prospects. (One needs to look no further than the auto industry, which decided to cut back on research because, well, that would raise the stock prices in the 90s.)
Companies might even start giving out dividends again.
1) In fact, I'd prefer we start paying executives nearly totally in stock...that they can't sell until two years later. Not stock options, actual stock. They need to live some fancy lifestyle and don't have the actual cash, they can find a bank and borrow against their stocks. They blow up the company, well, sucks to be them, and their bank would like words.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.