Over the past week, my comments on value being comparable to energy, in that it cannot be created or destroyed have been questioned. The questions have come primarily from LinkedIn where my previous post has been syndicated. Readers hold energy and value should not be compared at all, and that that value can in fact be destroyed…
That is not true. Worth of particular types of things (including financial assets) can be diminished or even destroyed as they fail to compel relative importance. Obviously there are many qualitative and quantitative measures of importance, but value is an inherent measure of a system of worth. For instance when the equity markets shrink due to a lack of confidence and as a result of short selling of shares of sorts, the value is stored somewhere else (either debt, or liquid, or physical assets of sorts). Value exists intrinsically per the physical being of things. Value is quantifiable or qualify-able at the point that more than 1 individual exists to engage it. Value starts to change form as individuals and groups of individuals (institutions) start to exchange worth based on their ability to identify value. Growth in the population of things does not scale value. It only increases the access to quantify and qualify value.
Similar to energy: value is a property of objects, transferable among them via fundamental interactions, which can be converted into different forms of worth but not created or destroyed. Even if our modern infrastructure (system) of economic worth collapsed, value would remain. The identifiable objects left would carry more value than they do today.
Since the end of the 20th century and after the early economic recessions of the 21st century our ability to indemnify workers for their toiling has not only stagnated from a wage standpoint, but it has also dropped from a jobs creation standpoint. Fewer people are working and for less money, because of the growth of money in the system and its production.
As mentioned in previously and in a recent article, capital is not to blame here, as it is a technology. Capable of distributing values of sorts under a denomination that we call money, capitalism is a system of distributing values and that is all. What we lack as a society or group of societies across the planet are sufficient ways to distribute value.
Value is constant and pervasive, like that of energy. Neither can be created nor destroyed, but can change form, for instance
- Energy: chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite.
- Value: institutional profits can be converted to individual wages, in the remittance from employer to employee.
Specific to values and because we currently have less jobs garnering less wages, it doesn’t mean that the the value is lost. Value still exists in the trillions of dollars in the equity (stocks, futures, forex) and debt (bonds) markets.
Going forward our financial innovations need to be geared around tools and methodologies to attract more people to the markets in order to consume their share of the tangible value in the world. The only realistic method to ensuring that the wealth gap between the haves and the have-nots shrinks is to give everyone the opportunity to accrue: gather and store their value. Further, individuals need to be able to own their value and convert it to wealth in the denomination of a trusted currency over time. Economic engineers and strategists need to focus, not only on the economic benefits of having more participants in the markets, but also the social benefits: added security, buoyancy in market movements, adequate consumption of goods and services.
Copied from my instagram
#Capital in the #21stCentury by #ThomasPiketty is a hot book right now. Great! It’s not new news tho. Capital is a #methodological #Tech, that is all. Social constructivists will always argue that it has #runAmuck because they don’t understand technology as being #deterministic, which it (tech) is. Tech only comes in 3 forms: #methodology, #hardware, #software. Just as #Feudalism (social class) evolved into #Capitalism (economic class), a new system is emerging where we will again expand the distribution of #value.
When #AdamSmith & #KarlMarx wrote about capitalism they wrote about “classes” specifically, but we are now living in the #era of #BigData, a time where we can rigidly identify the #individual. Because of our ability to make such identifications we are starting to define #influence of the individual, by which we can expand the distribution of their value. #Humans #Evolve faster with their Technological Extensions…
In a short concise bullet pointed form, here are the Political Economic Socio-cultural Technological and spiritual stances of Integrationalism
On Feb 6th Lori Gotlieb wrote a article for NYTimes called “does more equal marriage mean less sex?” inspired by life experiences and a correlation study titles “egalitarianism, housework and sexual frequency in marriage“. Note: correlations are not the same causality, and these articles identify correlation. A psychologist friend of mine raised Lori’s question to a group of our friends in a discussion forum that week, to explore what society is actually ready for as women and men become more equal i with regard to the types of work we all do.
Here is vlogger Greg Jacobsen with a quick vlog on ownership in relationships. Lori’s article and Greg’s comments inspire me to consider ownership in sexual relationships and how it relates to Integrationalism.
From an economic standpoint it is necessary to establish separation between the varied ownerships of things and space (whether temporary or permanent) by individuals and institutions. As I elaborated on previously our portable value is derived from our ownership. Its good capitalistic practice to identify all participants when ever possible, as the pool of value is directly connected to the actual monetary values (wealth) measured by economists. Ensuring that separation of roles and responsibilities in any methodological structure is crucial to the expansion of our capitalistic system of value. Intimate and sexual relationships are not safe from this exploration.
Its necessary to understand a few definitions first:
- sexuality is a primal phenomena that occurs in all animals, even the asexuals and gender changing species (e.g. amphibians and now mammals via humans).
- relationships (including marriages) are methodological systems that have benefited human evolution from a political, sociological, and economic standpoint.
- methodologies are a kind of technology. All tech are either: methodological, hardware, or software.
- Technologies are about capturing potential, and control. Our survival is dependent on them until they are rendered obsolete by new designs.
- methodologies are a kind of technology. All tech are either: methodological, hardware, or software.
The correlations that we see in the NYTimes article and corresponding study are results of a breakdown in the modern method of relationships, per the ideal of a successful relationship involving some variance of sexual passion or emotion. In our modern era, which succeeds the hunting-gathering era women have been deemed less equal because of their inability to produce at the same capacity. As we’ve evolved form hunters and gatherers our early tools (hardware tech) required some of the brawn that only sufficient testosterone can create. Methodologically, cultures developed around the work that brought us what we consider modern civilizations, feudalism, the industrial revolution, and women were more or less auxiliary. We’ve come a long way with our tech, so far that women are back in the driver seat as they once were when hunting and gathering was the equalizer of production between genders. Our tech infrastructure is increasingly precious to human-rights.
The frequency of sex in a relationship is not specific to the sexuality (primal), but is specific to the relationship (tech). Our technology is deterministic in how it is dictating our ability 9or inability) to live comfortably within antiquated relationship methods. More plainly I mean to state that, the methodological work of relationships take away from the primal sexual emotional “systems” (as Helen Fisher would call them) and divert our attention to more collaborative efforts with our partner(s). Of course there are anomalies and extraordinary couples out there; however, sex is not about tech, or social norms, or rights/wrongs, or scientific understanding even, its about sight and smells and tastes and sounds and stuff we can touch.
Finally, where is the tech taking us? I’m extrapolating towards polyamory: which allows for relatively uninhibited multi-partnered non-ownership of others. Polyamory, also acknowledges individual’s ability fall in love (and abstraction defined as a system of brain activities by Helen Fisher) with many other individuals. Love, per Fisher’s explanation renders monogamy ill-equipped to accommodate modern (more egalitarian) relationship structures. more to come………
The technologies demonstrated in the video “iDoctor Could a smartphone be the future of medicine” are of the group of sensors that are and will continue to transform our future lives. Of course I’m 100% behind the development of these technologies, per everything that I’ve written in the past. My concerns are around the economic ethics related to the development of technologies in general.
By “economic ethics” I’m meaning to touch on the necessary monitoring of economic transitions that happen as a result of discovering and deploying new technology. The creative class (that discovers and deploys tech) is regularly taking away from the potential of the consumer class via the method of ownership. Often the ownership of technologies is “out-right” and fails to take into account the individuals and institutions that help one of many of the stages of technology coming-to-market. The three stages are: discovery, development, and deployment. At some point in one or all of such stages the creative class is assisted by the consumer class to ensure that products/services are adequate.
Watch the video and listen to the talk about expensive and cheap medical processes: This is where I’m troubled from an economic standpoint…as we leverage tech to reduce costs in industry, the original value still exists. Meaning the revenues have the potential to only go to the product producers and the idea generators. further, as it takes more and more interdisciplinary understanding to produce innovative ideas. This is bad for the non-creative (or consumer) class from an economic standpoint. Such unavoidable happening are why I’m writing this third installment of Integrationalism to touch on ownership and distribution of value.
Thanks to Dr Shellae Versey for sending me this video.
This reminds me of the article I wrote @ieet on the Internet being a “space” and a human right as a result. We must endeavor to protect net neutrality and to compel ISPs from holding users (inhabitants) hostage via access to speed and computing power.