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.
If you want to be notified when there is a new article, sign up for email alerts or subscribe to the RSS feed.


A few months back, in a piece discussing crop-based biofuels, I mentioned the correlation between the increased production of these petroleum alternatives and a spike in global food prices. At the time, some experts said they had solid evidence that a significant percentage of the increase was due to biofuel production. Naturally, biofuel advocates pointed to contrasting statistics and quite a debate ensued.
