Starts With Two

We like the idea of fairness. People shouldn't take advantage of others. Experiments have shown people are actually willing to pay to punish people, even if that leaves them worse off. One of the bits of the Sharing Economy and Gift Economy that I like is they remove the idea of accounting. They reduce concern about fairness. It ceases to be transactional. It isn't quite blind one-sided giving. There is faith that the community you belong to will be something you can participate in, but you aren't giving in order to receive. You are giving with as close to zero expectation as is humanly possible.

Hayek writes about creating a society that focuses on enhancing spontaneous order. When we try plan things, we have no idea what the unintended consequences will be. We can't predict the future. Things seldom work out as planned. Yet we can focus on how people coordinate in intricate and mutually considerate ways. In other words, we can focus on individual relationships. 

He uses the example of the price of Rice. The question of what the right price of Rice is, is impossible to answer. There is no correct answer. Things that may seem unrelated may affect the price of Rice. The cost of drilling. New substitutes. Political unrest. Weather. Distribution. Exchange Rates. The Labour costs are only one little part. All this information gets summarised in two people deciding to swap rice for money. If both people feel okay with the trade, if both people feel like they have gained, no more information is needed. Everyone is better off. There is no such thing as the right price, there is such a thing as a good trade.

I often feel overwhelmed with all the big problems facing the world. I have growing conviction that we don't need a plan to solve these issues. We don't need to be able to visualise the world we want to live and, and figure out a plan to get there. Those dreams are fun, but we don't have the understanding or the ability to bend the world to our individual wills. Our individual wills and dreams aren't even the same. What we can focus on is the individual relationships.

Take any two people in the world at random. What are the obstacles to those two people being able to understand each other's worlds? What are the obstacles to those two people communicating? What are the obstacles to those to people engaging in activities where both walking away better off for it? Fairness becomes a much easier thing to understand when it involves two people with names. Two people with stories. Two people with people, places and things that matter to them.

The solution starts with two.

Time Bridges

‘I don’t have time’ is a pet peeve. I like being the guy with time. I try make time for people who have time for me. Interestingly, it doesn’t mean people will ask. Being self-sufficient, or paying for things that we need, makes asking difficult. Even if someone offers. There can be the game of people offering something, but expecting a refusal. A desire not to put people out. A co-ordination problem. Communication struggles. People who want to help. People who need help. A gap in between. Sharing and gift economies require bridges. Of Trust. Of Bravery. Of Community. 

A World of Abundance

Economics is the study of scarcity. In a world of abundance, all the rules of 'supply and demand' fall away. There is a limit to how much people want of something even if it is free. One of the reasons De Beers was able to create a mythology and mystique around diamonds, was to control the supply. They were able to convince us that a rare rock symbolised a rare relationship. When Rhodes died in 1902, De Beers controlled 90% of the production of diamonds.

Put a Ring On It

'Gift Economics' and 'Sharing Economics' are completely different. There isn't an exchange. There isn't a limit. When something is given, nothing is expected. The best example is parenting. A friend of mine spoke of learning just how much his parents had given him, by being a parent himself. He said he had heard someone (who didn't have kids) say that parenting was hedonistic because people wanted unconditional love. Unconditional love from kids isn't even close to guaranteed. Parents have to pour themselves into their kids. How the little person responds is only partly influenced by their effort. It isn't a cash for service purchase.

Burning Man is a famous ongoing experiment with the sharing economy

I am excited by what happens in a world of abundance. Silicon Valley is famous for providing employees with incredible working environments. Unlimited food, places to relax, places to exercise, and all the other tools to succeed. They do this because the employees are not seen as an expense. By releasing obstacles, they believe the employees will be able to allow their creativity to explode. I think that is true for everyone. Not just high flyers.

Rules change. Google changed the rules for business by providing the 'product' for free. We are essentially Google's product because search provides a far better connection to what we want than broadcast advertising. Amazon changed the rules for running a retail business, by constantly pushing profit margins as low as they will go and reinvesting in building a better client experience.

I can imagine an Artificial Intelligence machine that realises that by providing personalised coaching and covering the 'basics' like food, accommodation, security and transport... it can release our potential. An Artificial Intelligence that doesn't wait for Governments around the world to decide that a Universal Basic Income is a good idea. It just does it.

A world of abundance levels the playing field. It turns the play away from competition. Competition has been an engine to motivate us. We are going to need to start thinking more deeply about alternatives. What comes after enough?

Admiration and Reward (with Stu)

Trev:

Many of our inbuilt ideas of rights and wrongs clash when put next to each other. One of the ones I find most interesting is Meritocracy and the idea of feeling special, and how it clashes with our idea of equality. How should we be rewarded? What should we admire? If someone is born with an inbuilt skill, it feels like not developing it is a weakness. If someone overcomes the lack of an inbuilt skill, this feels admirable. But surely that ability to overcome is an inbuilt skill? Willpower is rare. Should we really admire someone who finds it easy to work hard?

Stu:

I try to squirm out of the problem by saying that we should care about some types of equality but not others, like equality of opportunity not outcome. I think the drive for equality of outcome is one of the worst and most persistent ideals we have. People might be admirable in proportion to how they use what they've got, but strangers shouldn't feel obliged to care. Admire the product, doesn't matter how it arrived. How about this though. Should we admire people who struggle to refrain from violence more than people who don't have the urge in the first place?

Trev:

I have heard that last comment about some of the dodgier aspects of society. The person who admits to having some of the darker urges (e.g. paedophilia), but seeks out support, and doesn't act on them. Part of a society that celebrates and creates heroes is we aren't very good at dealing with violent or anti-social tendencies. We don't paint children as evil when they are nasty little critters. At some point, we start deciding if someone is intrinsically bad, and writing them off. I am glad my Mom never wrote me off. Our heroes have a habit of falling when we discover darker sides of their humanity.

Stu:

I think we should admire people for resisting their bad impulses, but we can still recognise that they're bad people (even if their badness isn't their fault). Also, I almost certainly wouldn't have done better under Nazism than the average person there, but they still deserve blame while I don't. I guess we let kids off the hook because they don't have they capacity yet to make an effort in another direction. In terms of culture and sport, I think we should be less interested in whether people try really hard or are good people. I am bad at following my own advice though.

Trev:

Separately from us starting this thread, Alex shared a Vox article providing 'The Case Against Equality'. It is compelling. We felt a hierarchy where the people at the top got there by birth was wrong. We have been searching for a way to make the different classes of people fair. I think the problem lies in us looking at things in relative terms. If we focus on simple issues that are bad, there is more agreement. Murder bad. Rape bad. Illiteracy bad. Hunger bad. Danger bad. Deciding what we should and shouldn't admire, and what that should and shouldn't justify seems like the wrong approach.

Stu:

I don't think equality of opportunity should be an ultimate goal. I'm not sure it is completely the wrong approach though. If rape and murder are bad, then people who do a good job of reducing them should be admired because it raises their status and they'll be encouraged. Tyler Cowen thinks we should admire scientists more. It's harder to agree on "good" things. Do we need more poetry or classical music? Is it bad that an excellent pianist doesn't make a good living? I don't think so, even though it's cool that they like doing that.

Trev:

Pay is a really bad measure of value in the subtle, all-inclusive sense. It horribly conveys a message that pay = worth = place in hierarchy. What pricing/pay is good at is conveying a summary figure of short term supply and demand. It does carry a lot of information, but not about warm, fuzzy things. I get worried that the equality we care about is of the warm, fuzzy kind and thinking of monetary equality is a red herring. Admiration and pay are separate.

Smelly Red Herring, used to send hunting dogs on the wrong trail

Stu:

They are separate, but maybe I don't think they are as separate as you. In general, I don't admire the struggling poets etc. I would if I was convinced they were geniuses, but most aren't. I think it's cool that some people go down that route, but that's because it might be good for them, not that it's intrinsically admirable. And I don't think that society has a duty to support. If something pays well, there are good reasons to do that. Invisible hand reasons, either helping or at least avoiding being a burden on others and charity. I think we should admire this more and lots of traditionally admired stuff less, doctors for example.

Trev:

I have been thinking a lot about how to prioritise when you take money, and accounting, out of the equation. Money is seductive as an 'easier answer' to the question of worth. In a world of scarcity and quantifiable needs, I think it is incredibly powerful. Moving to a Sharing Economy, or Creativity Economy, or Gift Economy things start to get fuzzy. Incentivisation gets more nuanced. If you are my friend, and you love writing poetry, and I can support you (not necessarily financially), that makes us both better off. I have more questions than answers when it comes to this stuff, but I think meritocracy is more overrated than I used to. There are some exciting ways of thinking differently.

Stu:
We might be better off and that would be cool, but that doesn't mean we should be admired. There's a difference between living the good life and living an admirable one. Following my (non-existent) poetry dreams in a supportive, creative economy sounds pretty great, even if my poetry sucks, but I think the status accorded me by society should be low relative to others (not like, sub-human though). Purely meritocratic status is probably also not a good idea. I see movements like Effective Altruism as an effort to redistribute admiration that I support, mostly in theory for now, because I'm not very admirable.
 

Peter Singer on 'Effective Altruism'

For the record, I don't regard my admiration of Stu as altruism

Guest Post by Stuart Torr

• My Fellow Americans

Check out Stuart's blog or follow him on Twitter at @muttface 

Stored Potential

A great survival technique is to re-remember. Always look on the bright side of life. If stuff hasn't quite gone your way, change the story. Life is a like a play. We all have different seats and are concentrating on different things on the stage. We can't look at everything and no one else can see what we can see. But no worries. Our minds are very good at filling in the gaps based on past experiences and what we want to see. Magicians, marketers and politicians depend on this fact. We build stories that let us make our way through the world.

One of those stories is our own identity. One of the greatest incentives there is, is a sense of autonomy. That we hold our identity and our destiny in our own hands. That we know a single few things better than other people do. It is why managers think we are going to be better than random at hiring someone after an interview. It is why judges think they are better than average a telling if someone is lying. It is why Gamblers think they can go on 'hot runs' in casinos when the odds mean they are still paying the casino for entertainment. Pilots and Doctors don't like it that checklists can do a better  job than they can at remembering to do the important things. We like stories that give us control.

The idea of 'from each according to ability, to each according to need' appeals strongly to our inner kind hearted activist. What grates, in my view, is if this is not a choice. Historically when systems like this have been put in place, a lot gets lost between the generation and the distribution. Incentives also become a problem because of a loss of autonomy. So we have moved more towards liberal states where more and more power is in our own hands. We don't trust giving people power over us, so we have more control. The irony is that sometimes this means we end up taking less control than we actually have. We don't, for example, need to wait for Governments to decide to sort out some of the big problems in the world. If you believe in redistribution, you don't need Government to raise taxes and do it. You can do it yourself.

The Gift Economy fascinates me. I find it strange how difficult we find it to accept help or gifts. We like an exchange. An exchange lets you feel like there is order in the world. You don't owe anybody anything. Friends tell me they prefer paying for a babysitter. If they are running late, paying a little extra makes things better. If the babysitting is free, they feel obligated to get back on time. Weddings where the couple tell you 'no gifts please, your presence is enough' leave a slightly awkward feeling. Arriving empty handed doesn't feel right. On a night out, letting someone pay for your meal or drinks feels like there is a power exchange going on. To just say 'Thank you' when someone offers help can feel very humbling.

Money isn't actually a thing. It helps us communicate that stuff has been done and creates a link that allows more stuff to get done. Money is smarter than barter. The two people exchanging don't need to need what the other is offering. They just need to want something, and have something. Supply and Demand. The Gift Economy gets more interesting. It isn't one-to-one communication. It requires a community. It requires time. The Internet and Social Media have revolutionised communication. I am really excited about what e-money may mean, because I think there is the possibility that it can re-personalise money. All money is, is a store of potential. Gaining a skill is also accumulating potential. Education is our biggest asset. Some clever people are going to figure out a way to let us communicate and coordinate our potential better. Physical money needs a catalyst. That catalyst is spending. The catalyst in a Gift economy is someone giving. It is easier to give if you know what people need, care about them and have time.

The best gifts I have received in my life have been ones where I have realised the person is paying attention. They have noticed a passing comment, or interest, and this thought has translated into something. The gift is more a reminder that I mattered enough to them to have received that time. 

Rich or poor, We all get 24 hours in a day. The gift of a slice of time is priceless.

Image: Jana Craft

Be My Guest

I have had a few friends stay with me over the last few years, but I wouldn't consider myself as coming from a culture of regular guests. In 'I Am Malala', Malala Yousafzai describes the difference in culture from her home in Swat, Pakistan. Since her shooting, her family has been relocated to Birmingham in the UK. Her mother struggles with the absence of a full home of guests. Malala grew up struggling to find space to do her homework etc. In a country where more people have their own rooms, there is space, but fewer guests. I know Malala's mothers issue is also one of being an immigrant in a country where she knows very few people and has language barriers. It did however make me think of how we have outsourced entertainment. We eat at restaurants and stay at hotels. Again, this is partly because I (like Malala's mom) am an immigrant although I don't have the language or culture barriers. If I lived where I grew up, perhaps I would still have more people just popping over and vice versa. As Global Citizens, we are all spread out and so you can't do just the half hour cup of tea visit.

I stayed with some friends last night who told me they had joined www.couchsurfing.com. They have been hosts but have not yet been guests. The idea is based on a Gift Economy. People are offered accommodation by the host. There is no expectation of anything in return. In theory, the person staying could be an uberguest and cook the host a few meals, and perhaps even do some odd jobs around the house. You can't expect anything in return otherwise that just becomes a price. How many yoga lessons or bedtime stories read equals one nights accommodation? I don't know how often uberguests actually turn up. In a market economy we are able to buy what we want. We can't buy time from friends and family though. You can't phone up a buddy and book a two week stay. You can ask. If you have the confidence, and you don't think they will feel awkward being asked. What is the etiquette when everyone thinks differently? 

The advantage of something having a fixed price is it takes haggle out of the equation. Some cultures like a little haggle, but by fixing the price polite introverts don't subsidise aggressive extroverts. It means you know you don't owe anyone anything. It was a fair exchange. The downside of prices being available for most things is we get out of the habit of asking for things where there isn't a clear equitable exchange. A 'haggle culture' presumably requires you to get comfortable at negotiations. You need to build up the confidence to ask for things you want. You need to be able to accept a no graciously. You need to be able to give a no politely.

One of my more awesome house guests stayed for about three weeks and even though I love having my own space I was very sad to see him go. I almost didn't notice he was there a lot of the time, but he seemed to magically appear when I felt like company. He cooked meals a few times and there were almost no traces that I had a guest as he cleaned up after himself. It is amazing how when you have people staying with you, their dirty dishes often rankle much more than your own. Not everyone is that awesome though. Someone told me their rule for house guests was 'First night I cook, Second night you cook, Third day is for goodbyes'. The dynamics of spending a few hours with someone are very different from spending a few days. A few weeks is a whole different story. We all have our own funny living quirks. Families have to compromise and get used to each other. Friends have the advantage of seeing each other in neutral venues if one is OCD tidy and the other is a slob.

Getting comfortable at having uncomfortable conversations may be the answer. For others, they may be quite happy just paying for whatever they want. Different strokes for different folks.