This post is part of my attempt to grapple with the connection between money and value - especially how money reflects our attempt to put a numeric value on virtually everything. The idea here is to replace one-dimensional value (like money) with a multi-dimensional concept. In the end, I abandoned this effort in favor of a dynamic model of value (IOUTopia). The task of the "dimensional" view was to avoid the need to trade one kind of value for another, yet this is perhaps the core idea of an "economy". The issue then becomes how to envision how we trade one thing of value for another. But here are the initial ramblings about "dimension" ... Land is perhaps the oldest and most recognized form of wealth. A big chunk of land is called "territory" and wars are fought over it. Land poses a problem for money=debt theory. Land seems to sit outside this equation, even though land can be turned into money by using it as security on a loan. Of co

One basic claim of "Dimensions of Value" is that money is a poor yardstick for measuring value. Unfortunately is the language we use to speak about value. Even so, money itself is not as "real" as it seems, even when we look at it all on its own. How is it that we, as individuals, see money to have value? Money appears to be simple. It obeys the rules of arithmetic. You can add or subtract money to money, divide or multiply money by a number, multiply. This tends to give money an extra aura of "reality", hiding what it stands for, namely debt. With its mask off, money can be obtained by accumulating debt. Money can be used to pay a debt. Money can be used to pay or collect "interest" on a loan. Money is a way to create, buy, sell and ultimately eliminate debt. According to capitalist economics, every single thing is "worth" the amount of debt the buyer is willing to incur to "own" it. This may seem to be a crazy way of pu

After writing it, I felt that this post was a bit "over the top". I thought of deleting it, but decided to leave it in, since it actually does connect to many of other ideas. It's just that I don't think our situation is quite this dark. I've got to stay away from Russian novels ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs We really should give a nod to Maslow's attempt to visualize the human situation in terms of "needs", which are almost the same thing as "values". Let's discuss Maslow's ideas - assuming that we somehow manage to "value" what we "need". My general impression is that Maslow's summary is somewhat misleading. It tempts us to over-simplify human motivation and overlook the fantastic complexity of these "needs". Once we shift to "values" and unpack the "

In a previous post, I mentioned how our world view - especially our perceived system of values - comes into our politics . At the same time, political players tend to misrepresent their own value system and the value system of their opponents to gain power. Power itself is a value worth looking into. In fact, "political" power seems to show up in all the "social great apes" and many other species. My aim here is simply to visualize this dimension - to come up with a visual metaphor that helps us think of this type of value. There are many values similar to "political power". I chose to talk about "influence" as a representative of this class of values. These networks are essential to understanding one of the themes of this entire blog: the superorganism. Networks of value play a role similar to the nervous system of the individuals who make up these organisms. They account for "why" these organisms value what they value and do what the

Glen Adamson caught my eye with  this Aeon article caught my eye . He expands this view in his book: " Fewer, Better Things ... ". Adamson's views are relevant to this blog in a number of ways: The disconnect between value and cost. How the way we manufacture things makes this matter- in detail; The man-made world of the "matrix" we live in; Insight into the structure of modern society - where "things" come from, who makes them, how they become "ours"

Socialism and Capitalism are both ways of combining theories of value with practices "on the ground" which purportedly reflect these perceived values. SOCIALISM It seems that Socialism pays special attention to three value-related concepts: "Fairness" in the system of allocating things of value . This needs to be unpacked a bit since there is a different concept, also called "fairness" in capitalism. The two concepts are so different that we can see part of the dispute as encouraged by a problem of language. The same word used in opposite senses, as in " newspeak ". Equal influence on public policy. The "government" should act on behalf of all citizens and not be dominated by a certain segment. Being "rich" should not equate to being politically powerful. One person, one vote, not one dollar one vote. Since "Socialism" is fundamentally a political world view , "socialists" are, of course, willing

I have written a lot in the past about what I called "The Zen of Value". The "Zen" idea refers to the concept of sitting back, clearing your mind of preconceptions and seeing things as they really are. Another title that occurs to me is "Dimensions of Value". It turns out that this metaphor is quite fruitful and worth exploring. It grows out of a previous post: " Human Welfare And the Four Economies ". Upon thinking of it, there are more than four and the mental picture of "dimensions" is helpful. The "dimensional" aspect promises to add some rigor to the underlying subject. The "royal road" to the "Zen" view of this subject is the realization that "money" is a poor measure of "value".  You already know in your bones that this is wrong but you have never wondered how, in detail, it's wrong and how, specifically you could see things better in a way to make better decisions for yourse

We all know what we are saying when we talk about what is meaningful to us. These are first-person statements. If the Universe is imagined as "outside" and the mind is "inside", meaning is on the "inside". Einstein remarked that he was amazed that the fundamental laws of nature are discoverable and, by the way, beautiful. There is something behind this observation that seems almost spiritual - in fact, people talk about " Einstein's God ". Wilczek asks the same question on " A Beautiful Question ". He's noting the same deep beauty Einstein is talking about and asking the subtle question - is the Universe "really" beautiful? So here's a possible road to a "solution" to the hard problem: How do we experience meaning in the Universe? How does it feel to find meaning? Damasio builds his account of "mind" on this very question. This is not merely an "outside" mechanical idea. It