So what makes systems resilient? Simply the ability to bounce back from a shock or unexpected event. Generally this is applied to ecosystem shocks: the ability of ecosystems to regenerate. But people can be resilient, in the way they respond to shocks such as the loss of a loved one. Communities can also be described a resilient if they can recover from an event which effects the whole community. More and more resilience will become a major part of any community planning scenario. Christchurch has done well in this area and I am sure lessons will be learnt from recent events.

When we look at building resilience into our systems it’s worth looking at the key stress points. During the earthquake a couple of these stressors became clear: one was money and the other was the exchange of  services. People needed to buy stuff yet with power down there was no way of paying via the usual channels and many people didn’t have cash on them. Also people needed to exchange goods and services but again there were problems with communication, power and availability.

It’s at a time like this that we see the promise of local community currencies come to the fore. One such system was the Lyttleton Timebank which operates in a small and geographically constrained community. This is a perfect setup for a successful community system. More and more these type of systems will become part of the fabric of a successful and resilient communities. Watch a story about them here

As I’ve discussed before there is a major shift underway in the way the global market is structured. Not just in terms of currencies but also trade and influence. The BRICs have a powerful case to make: 40% of global currency reserves and almost half the world’s population (though Russia’s population is declining, a somewhat serious issue).

There is a strong feeling that the US has acted recklessly overt he last 30 years in flooding the world with $ and creating huge imbalances which have caused such chaos in global markets. So whilst there is always plenty of posturing and grandstanding, especially from the Russians, there is a real case for the US to answer:

- Global trade imbalances.

- Cowboy capitalism.

- Turbo boosted monetary expansion.

- Instability in global financial markets.

It’s also interesting that the meeting of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) was held at the same tim and the US was not invited even though it wanted to attend. There is a strong argument that there is no real alternative to the $ but that doesn’t excuse the facts. One dominant currency has not helped create a stable system. It has simply allowed to issuer to experience huge profits from seigniorage and wield extraordinary political and economic power.

And can we really take the rating agencies seriously? They are all US based organisations. Ultimately whether the $ loses influence or not depends on the alternatives. I still believe a commodity backed currency is a likely development, given the nations involved.

At the same time the development of local currencies will help create a more stable and complex system. For now though expect more talk about a $ alternative and expect it to be driven by the BRIC crew starting with the upcoming G8 summit in Italy.

So when it comes to managing our money we are faced with the same questions: who am I and what is my intention?

It seems to me that we have 3 ways of using our money: Giving, Lending or Buying.

Giving is the simple act of directing one’s money to somone else with no expectation of financial return inclduing the original gift. But there is a clear intention that the gift should have some kind of impact. Simply this can be regarded as giving money to charity or a fundraising appeal. Your return is hopeful, that some positive outcome or impact will be achieved by way of your contribution. This is a powerful way of expressing your intention. Of course one can also give your time, goods and services for no financial return and this is a more hands on approach.

Lending, otherwise known as saving, is also a powerful tool. When you deposit your cash in the bank you are in effect lending to the bank. In legal terms you are an unsecured creditor of the bank. There is little intention here as we tend to see the process as the bank doing us a favour. But when it comes to peer to peer lending, microfinance or simply lending money directly to friends, the process takes on a deeper signifiance. There is a more direct energy involved and a desire to participate in an outcome. The personal connection to borrowers helps create this possibility. Another form of lending is to large business via corporate bonds. This is akin to saving in the bank except again there is a directness involved. A large business wants to raise $100m and I lend it $20,000. I’m a small piece of that but I’m essentialy helping to fund the business. But there is still some distance there as I’ve probably dealt through a boker or investment advisor. What I am keen to see is more peer to small business in developed countries. We’ve seen Kiva open up loans into the US now and soom we will see more acceptance in people lending larger sums to small businesses. Not so much microfinance as peer finance. What better way to create strong and trusted communities than people lending to businesses they buy from.

The third form of intentional money is the process of buying. This is two parts: buying for ownership in a business and buying for personal consumption. The latter is the world of ethical and values based purchasing. It’s a well developed market and I won’t got into that. But actually directing your money into businesses through ownership is another way to direct the flow of your financial intention. Whether it’s ethical investing at the macro level (buying into ethical funds) or at the micro level (investing in start ups that share your goals and values). The micro level is more interesting because the impact of your investment is greater. In the macro world of stock markets and large companies your investment is not so influential because of the way institutional investors control so much of the market.

We have many choices when it comes to dealing with our money. Each time we make a financial decision we have an opportunity to express our intention. Its a very powerful force. The more we align our choices with who we are, the more powerful our impact becomes. We become an efficient intentional system

As they say money talks.

The catastrophic implosion of the US financial system in the last year has merely emphasised this change in the balance of monetary might.

So when Kiva, that beacon of social entreprenuership, decided to offer loans in the US itself, there was a huge intake of breath. The US needs microloans??!!!

Of course it does. How do small businesses get funded? Normally by people taking out second mortgages, borrowing from friends or ramping up credit cards. In fact I’m told many businesses fund cashflows problems using personal credit cards. Why?

Because banks have a model where they lend on housing as collateral…oh yeah that worked well…not.

The old fashioned approach to banking (one my father was involved in for 42 years) was lending to small business people and supporting them through the ups and downs of the business cycle. Investing in people and creating relationships of trust.

I think we are headed back to this and it’s peer to peer lending that is making this happen. The web itself has allowed these bonds to be built, that’s what networks are after all. Lots and lots of micro connections. Isn’t that the amazing thing about the web? It’s so huge and vast yet it’s simply a conglomeration of molecules connected together.

I know I’ve been bagning on about this for ages but banking, like media, will be forced to change. The micro world is causing new networks to be created, new bonds to be formed and new efficiencies to be found.

Harnessing the power of the web is allowing this to happen.

Microfinance has shaken up the banking world. I enjoyed reading Matt Flannery’s piece on the Kiva story.

Microjustice will no doubt change the legal world in due course.

We already have microrelationships, micromedicine surely on the way.

And the biggest prize of all………..microgovernment.

The change is coming, the inexorable march of system reorganisation is humming away in the background. It’s not top down, it’s an unseen mass movement with no control function. A pure chaotic system in action, free to develop and receive feedbacks in real time.

Who would have thought a lender from Domenica would be funding a borrower in the US.

Yes times are changing.

You can read it here if you haven’t read the old version.

The key theme is that we must control what we take out of the earth rather trying to control emissions after use. It also stresses the need for a global carbon budget.

Nothing has happened in recent years to change my thoughts on it. It is a large canvas with many themes to explore. If anyone wants to take on some of those themes in a new piece of research just let me know.

The reason I mention this is because of the highway robbery some currency exchange outlets are carrying out. To give you an example:

Last week I took a trip to Sydney. I bought some A$ at Christchurch airport through the BNZ. Their rates are always very good usually a spread of around 2-2.5%. Now that’s still pretty big but remember these rates are change maybe once a day max and the markets can be moving as much as that. I bought some US$ at 0.7929 knowing the market was actually trading at 0.7945 so i was getting an almost at market rate.

But when I arrived in Sydney I checked out the rates available at Travelex. These guys are offering outrageous prices (unfortunately they are at Auckland airport also).

Their spreads on A$ to NZ$, US$ and GBP were 20%, 15.6% and 22.4%.

Who are these guys kidding. In market vernacular I could drive a bus through that spread (more like a fleet of them).

So what to do? Well we have P2P lending now established in many commonwealth countries. So how about extending that to provide a currency service within the new distributed network.

It’s food for thought.

There was Kaing Guek Eav, better known as Duch, who processed thousands through S-21, a prison and torture centre. As he tells it he simply followed orders and after a time realised either he carried on or he and his family would be killed like all the others. This is a common theme: the chance of survival at any cost or certain death. Once you’ve killed a few another hundred or thousand is just numbers.

What about Joseph “Zig Zag” Marzah, a “lieutenant” of Charles Taylor, Liberian warlord. He recalls a culture of fear and severe repression within which there was no escape. Henchman who failed to carry through vicious killings were dispatched in similar fashion, on one occasion completely dismembering a former rebel leader and eating his liver. Cannibalism was encouraged as a weapon of fear.

Anyone who has seen “Blood Diamond” or even the new “Rambo” film will have seen theatrical glimpses of the way ordinary civilians are routinely tortured and killed in various parts of the world.

Never mind the 20th century as the bloodiest on record the 21st is shaping up to be pretty wet also.

Branton posted recently on the film “Beowulf” and how the myth demonstrates that we manifest what we truly believe about ourselves. The birthing of monsters is something we see all the time today. Did the US not support and fund the Khmer Rouge initially? Did they not fund Saddam initially as well as the Taliban?

So what can we learn from all this? Not that there is somehow a solution to genocide or that, as was said post-Holocaust, it will never happen again. It will happen again, somewhere and somehow. Sure we can make changes to the system that generates conflicts and doesn’t provide for all but really it’s ourselves that need to change. What we believe about ourselves is what comes out into the world. Will we continue to be like Hrothgar or will we be like Beowulf? Will we unite with the source or continue to separate ourselves and descend into a world of monsters?

The choice is ours.

Forget about the behaviour of small firms or the slope of the IS/LM curve. Think about why people get out of bed in the morning, pay silly prices for a cup of coffee and can’t build a business on Cameroon. Think about how China has grown so fast. How did it happen? Why?

I was lucky enough to attend a lunch last Friday in Wellington (thanks Jim for the head’s up) and hear Tim talk about his new book “The Logic of Life”. I’m looking forward to reading it. It crosses back and forth across the social science spectrum which i believe is incredibly important for an economist to do.

It’s not just about numbers and graphs. As Tim says, it’s about people and the things they do, resources they use and how and why they do it. When I studied economics (University of Manchester 1987!) we lived in a faculty of social science with the option to major in one of 11 different topics as diverse as social anthropology to accounting and finance. These days you’re likely to find economics buried in the commerce faculty.

This approach has failed the student as it presents economics as being about business and numbers. It isn’t at all. Those are merely outcomes and outputs. How people allocate scare resources is a combination of anthropology, psychology, politics, finance, geography , history and so on.

The silo approach that many universities have taken goes counter to the understanding we have developed of systems and the extra efficiencies that coherence or consilience brings.

Economists like Tim Harford will bring new interest to this critical subject and hopefully widen the lens that it is viewed through. After all any economist who can discuss the market for blow jobs with a straight face has to be on to something

But with the $ swift decline into obscurity the fans of something more solid than the US Treasurer’s signature on a piece of paper are clamoring fro the return of the Gold Standard as a way of preserving the value of paper and controlling the impulse of bankers to keep printing the stuff.

Well yes that does seem to be a problem. I’ve touched on this before when looking at how the Bank of England experienced several runs just after it was formed. Why? Because they printed way more paper than they had in reserves of gold. So gold or no gold, there is nothing to stop authorities or private banks printing paper or more accurately filling up spreadsheets with lots of numbers.

I’m ambivalent on this gold business. Storage issues, never mind the horrendous process of digging the stuff out of the ground, present problems as do the ability to carry it safely but really its a confidence thing.

Readers of this blog should hopefully know by now that money is an artificial construct. We can make it anyway we like. It’s created into existence in some form in order that we can exchange goods, services and labour in an efficient manner.

It is subject to the laws of supply and demand like any other product or service.

William Rees-Mogg makes some interesting points about it here but the reality is still the same gold or no gold. We must control the supply of money. 1:1 exchange for gold is a way to do that but its so last century. Surely we can come up with a smarter way of doing it.

My favoured approach is for a central monetary authority to issue interest free new money into the system directly. that supply of money (the only supply) could be controlled on an annual basis responding to set limits, constraints and changes in demand, population etc.

Goodbye interest, goodbye inflation and goodbye financial markets as we know them.

Gold bugs or not, we have to do something about the current system before it blows up and makes the 1930s depression look like an afternoon tea party.

One proposal is Ripple. It’s been around for a few years and there is some good information on the site including the initial paper from Ryan which I have posted up in the research section. There’s plenty of commentary around about it which is worth a look at. Essentially it proposes to replace bank created debt money with personally created credit through a fully distributed network based system. What is good about this proposal is that it takes the concept of local currency systems to its logical conclusion which is a globally based one with servers finding the right path to the appropriate relationship or network.

The most important part of this is identifying that most of what we think of as money is in fact simply an IOU. So why should banks create this? Well the main reason is trust. What Ripple proposes is the creation of that trust through networks, which as we know are already widely in use.

Jamesey proposes a further layer on top of this adding in microfinance structures and leveraging off the Paypal system.

We also have very well embedded and established credit card systems (Amex and Visa) who already have the distribution systems. So the trust system is going to be a key issue. Who is in your network? Who can you trust? I’d suggest and I hope that VortexDNA will play a role in helping this kind of global protocol to develop.

The main problem is the control of supply. One would like to think that a complex system, such as proposed, would regulate itself constantly adjusting to feedback. We know that the current system is close to imploding because of rampant money creation. So cculd it be any worse? Could governments participate also?

It’s open season and anything is possible.