Stirring Thoughts on the Economics of the Future, Part II
leila May 4th, 2009
In a certainly post-communist world, and with many capitalist assumptions crumbling that once held to be true– what might the economics of the future look like?
I asked this in my last post, and since then, I couldn’t help but notice a proliferation of angsty articles that asked: If not capitalism, then what?
There was Newsweek (“We are all Socialists now”), the Financial Times (“The Future of Capitalism”), and Time Magazine (“The End of Excess: Is this Crisis Good for America?”).
You may also note that I wrote my article an embarrassingly long time ago. I could say that it’s because I’ve been busy (which is true), but it also has to do with the fact that I simply couldn’t find an answer to the question I posed.
Well, I still don’t know the answer. But lucky for you all, I had a few “see the light” moments this week.
So I’ve talked about economics– most of us take as fact that economic activity is the central process of social existence. And that knowledge– often labeled as “information”– is useful inasmuch as it’s an input for the production of goods and services. This is reflective of a view of society that is rooted in materialism, one manifestation of which is the belief, held as truth, that economic development lies in economic growth, which is measured by GDP per capita. Indeed, the idea of “economic development” has largely materialistic assumptions underlying the process: that growth and development is characterized by material well-being.
Material well-being is crucial, of course. But is it really the end, or a means to an end? What is the end we’re looking for? Right now, it seems that economic activity and the creation of wealth is being placed at the center of everything. But is the creation and distribution of wealth the end to which we should strive?
The Prosperity of Humankind, the 1995 document that I also quoted from in my last post, makes an interesting assertion:
The tasks entailed in the development of a global society call for levels of capacity far beyond anything the human race has so far been able to muster. Reaching these levels will require an enormous expansion in access to knowledge, on the part of the individuals and social organizations alike. Universal education will be an indispensable contributor to this process of capacity building, but the effort will succeed only as human affairs are so reorganized as to enable both individuals and groups in every sector of society to acquire knowledge and apply it to the shaping of human affairs.
In other words, rather than the creation and distribution of wealth as the center of development (development as the distribution of material wealth), what’s being posited is development as the endowment of the wealth of knowledge: not only the generation and acquisition of knowledge, but its application. Given this, knowledge, rather than material wealth, then becomes the “currency” by which one needs to function, the wealth of a person, in a sense. In this regard, ‘Abdu’l-Baha writes in His treatise to the peoples and rulers of Persia, The Secret of Divine Civilization:
…the happiness and greatness, the rank and station, the pleasure and peace, of an individual have never consisted in his personal wealth, but rather in his excellent character, his high resolve, the breadth of his learning, and his ability to solve difficult problems.
The generation and application of knowledge, then, becomes the center of humanity’s collective existence. What is necessary for this is capacity-building: that all participation of all, that all become the protagonists of their own development. For example, the present state of the world is such that much of humanity are “users of products of science and technology created elsewhere.” But sometimes, these products of science and technology may, at best, not be applicable to the needs of a community or society, or at its worst, be detrimental to its environment, lead to the loss of livelihoods, of land, and so on. But if individuals in a community were raised up with the capacity to examine and address challenges in their communities and societies, and apply the knowledge with which they’ve been endowed, then we’d shift away from a top-down model that, in many respects, has become quite problematic.
So what has started as a conversation on capitalism, communism, and a future models of economic has (rather unintentionally) turned into one that flips the way we look at economic activity– asking us, what if it isn’t the be-all, end-all? If we’re seeking a world in which all have a part to play (as the present state of affairs is not reflective of that, where the materially wealthy holding a seemingly insurmountable advantage over the materially poor), then certainly the paradigm that exists today must undergo a change.
I’m not as confused as I was the night I was sipping borscht in the candlelight, but the fact that I’ve struggled to eke out this post means that we’ve still got a long way to go. Thoughts are most welcome.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
- News & Current Affairs , Society
- Comments(6)
Leila – I also really enjoy thinking about an economic system which reflects Baha’i principles. Its funny that when I get to thinking about it, I also usually end up talking about capacity building through the generation and application of knowledge, I guess because it goes to the root of the issue. However, sometimes is it enjoyable to get into the more technical aspects of economy and wonder what they would look like in a Baha’i context. I have tried this several times in my blog, here is one of them:
http://iguanajournal.blogspot.com/2008/10/currency-debt-and-poverty-for-blog.html
In any case, I really enjoyed this post, thanks. By the way, are you all using twitter yet?
Hi Justin– I agree with you about getting into the “technical aspects of the economy.” Unfortunately, I’m no economist, so these thoughts just barely skim the surface, but I find my ears perking up when I hear anything about reforming capitalism as we know it (and that seems to be happening a lot these days). So, there’s tons more to research and synthesize.
For example, take this, from a recent New York Times article:
“One subtext of the World Economic Forum at Davos in January was the question of whether, amid the derailing of American-style capitalism as we have known it, the European approach, which marries capitalism and social welfare, and which in times of economic crisis seems to offer more stability both to individuals and to society, could suit the United States….
“With the political atmosphere in Washington in flux, there is no saying what kinds of changes will come. But most people seem to agree that something has to happen.”
(Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html?_r=1&em)
I look forward to reading your blog post, too. Thanks for your thoughts!
The post states: “the paradigm that exists today must undergo a change.” …but, IMHO, does not describe what the paradigm is: namely, a super-wealthy collection of oligarchy controls governments, media and banking at the highest levels. These few seek power and wealth, by any means necessary. The present economic crisis has almost nothing to do with fine-tuning one’s favorite economic model, but rather whether or not, in exciting events to come, this illumininist oligarchy (completely devoid of an “rectitude of conduct” per Shoghi Effendi, Promised Day is Come) succeeds in succeeds in creating sufficient chaos to further their objectives stated above. It is more this good vs evil conception that pertains for survival. 1. spiritual solution to economic problems (sound familiar?) –> 2. focus on where the biggest problem lies — the evil cabal bent on confiscating whatever wealth Baha’is (and others) have managed to accumulate.
Anybody knows the similarities and dfiference between Bhaí perspective of economics of future and the Shia perspective of the same?
Please enlighten me with this comparision. Thanks and regards – Hamdani
I enjoyed your post. You seem to me be on the mark. Capitalism has a grand future when it will reflect the principles in “Secrets of Divine Civilization” which is not an ideology but a sophisticated view of individual and collective development, interdependently. Viewed from a perspective of development for all humanity, your idea, that the global, or rather universal, growth of knowledge and capacity to improve life, makes all the sense in the world to me.
The technicalities of socioeconomics in a bahai world have many starting points, i.e. in an economy where betting is not allowed how are companies financed without a stock market?
In examining starting points like the one above we can begin to build a model of understanding of the economy and society of the Bahai world. Apply Bahai principals to the current models and see how they change. This will show us the way.