Ed, I like Quantity Theory.
But, this is from the point of redefining the present mixture Money into its constituents - "measure of value" and "medium of exchange". As I've said, these are two entities with opposite characteristics. For example, whatever is used to "measure" should remain pretty stable to maintain its value, whereas the "exchange medium" needs to increase mightily - say at Christmas - and diminish at other times. Put them together and you need something that remains the same in quantity, yet at the same time fluctuates madly. Wow! If you think of Quantity in relation only to the "measure of value" it begins to make sense - but maybe never with equations. Harry ********************************** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ********************************** > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Ed Weick > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 1:40 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Money, money, money? > > I may be revealing my longstanding affinity with dinosaurs here, > but I > remember that a very long time ago I encountered the Quantity > Theory of > Money in Economics 101. The basic formula for the theory is > MV=PT, where M > is the quantity of money in circulation, V is its rate of circulation, P > is > the average price of all transactions, and T is the volume of > transactions > occurring during one period (all according to the very ancient > macroeconomic > textbook I still have on my shelves). > > What may have happened since ancient times(and here I'm > speculating), say > fifty years ago, is that the nature of some of the variables may > have > changed quite radically (or at least very considerably). A long time > ago, T > would have consisted largely of goods and some services. > Nowadays, it would > still consist of goods, but the services part has increased hugely > over > previous volumes. And by services, I don't only mean seeing a > lawyer or a > doctor. I mean a very large increase in the kinds of paper people > are > trading and selling to each other, stocks, bonds, funds of various > kinds, > derivatives, etc. Instead of consisting mostly of the ploddy things > you buy > at the store, T has become a rapidly spinning maelstrom of > investment > certificates and because T is spinning rapidly, so is V. M and P > need not > necessarily increase, but of course they have too. M consists of > something > you can put in your pocket, like coins or paper, and credit. What > seems to > have happened over the last few decades is that the credit part of it > has > increased greatly via instruments such as credit cards, mortgages > and other > methods of borrowing. With increases in M, V and T have come > increases in > P. What has probably not kept pace is something we might call W, > wages or > personal incomes, a matter which, if true, could pose some pretty > big > problems for people that are fulfilling their dreams on credit. > > There, I've said it as plainly as I can, perhaps having revealed that > I'm > nothing more than a dinosaur. > > Ed > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 12:28 PM > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Futurework Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19 > > > > Money, money, money? > > > > I have spent sometime thinking about this. In many ways I don't > think > > money is the root of the problem, rather it is the particular > economic > > system that we have created in the last few hundred years that is > the > > problem - specifically the structure by which we can gain access > to > > money - which is generally selling our labour. > > > > My theory of money - a story of value, a medium of exchange, a > number > > system. > > > > Money used to be a concrete intrinsically valuable thing - gold, > silver > > (other metals). There were cultures/societies that had a form of > money > > that was not intrinsically valuable (wampum, shells, even Gengis > Khan > > developed/extended the use of paper money, etc). But for the > sake of > > brevity this first proposition is accurate enough. > > > > At some point money became a concrete symbol for something > intrinsically > > valuable - coins (worth more than the metal they contained), > paper, etc. > > > > Later money became a concrete symbol for a promise of value > (e.g. paper > > and coin no longer backed by gold). > > > > Now the majority of money is no longer concrete, rather the > majority of > > money is epheral and electronic bits. > > > > The subjective perception of Value > > A beanie babe at $5.99 is the same beanie baby even if it sells > for > > $14.99. What makes the difference? > > > > An Olympic judge holding a score of 7.9 versus one holding up > a score of > > 9.8. We don't actually know if the score of 7.9 is actually a > higher score > > because the judge is a better and more experienced judge, we > overcome the > > inaccessible assessment of the subjective perception of value by > accepting > > the illusion of precision that a number system provides. The > number system > > becomes a means of exchange. > > > > Money is theoretically meant to be a store of value (which is > really meant > > to represent a quantity/quality of labour/work). But since all > value > > inevitable is context dependent - relative to its own niche in its > own > > ecology, it is impossible to fix a particular quantity of anything > as a > > standard measure of value. So we rely on the precision that the > number > > systems provides, which works well enough when scores, values > are > > aggragated. So seven Olympic judges all have different > subjective > > perceptions of value which they choose to represent as a > numerical score > > on a range of 1-10 (or 1-100) and by aggregating/averaging we > end up with > > a good enough measure. > > > > It strikes my that if enough people become assessor than > anything can be > > given a number representing their subjective perceptions of > value and in > > turn those perceptions can be aggregated/average for good- > enough measure > > of the value of the thing(s) perceived. > > > > Anything can be translated (good-enough translated) into a > monetary value. > > > > Now the problem is how to people access the means of > exchange - the task > > is to create an economy where there are more way to access the > means of > > exchange than selling one's labour to an employer. If any > contribution to > > society, local or global, can be assess by enough subjective > perceivers > > than a good enough measure of the value of their contribution > can be made. > > Developing a type of stock market where contributions (art, the > invisible > > work of homemakers and community builders, volunteers, etc) > are valued > > than creating a tax/redistribution systems based on full-cost > accounting > > of commercial activities is possible. This would create a type of > > guaranteed income structure. > > > > The above is just a concept, meant to move outside of the box. > Any > > society/culture of significant size and complexity needs an > economy. A > > market system does not need to be synonymous with capitalism, > or > > completely dominated by an imbalance priviledge of any one or > two of the > > 'three factors of land, labour and capital'. One can conceive of > market > > socialism. > > > > a $0.02 subjective perception of input. :) > > john > > > > John Verdon > > Sr. Strategic HR Analyst > > Directorate Military Personnel Force Development > > Department of National Defence > > Major-General George R. Pearkes Building > > 101 Colonel By Drive. > > Ottawa Ontario > > K1A 0K2 > > voice: 992-6246 > > FAX: 995-5785 > > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > "Searching for the pattern which connects.... and to know the > difference > > that makes a difference" > > Sapare Aude > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, 08 July, 2007 12:00 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Futurework Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19 > > > > > > Send Futurework mailing list submissions to > > futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more > specific > > than "Re: Contents of Futurework digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: Framing Resources (Charles Brass) > > 2. New job title: Usability professional (Cordell, Arthur: ECOM) > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 14:59:36 +1000 > > From: "Charles Brass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Framing Resources > > To: "futurework" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows- > 1252"; > > reply-type=original > > > > Both Gail and Natalia have commented on various aspects of > our current > > economic definitions of "work" and the ecological, social and > human > > consequences of these. > > > > Both bemoan the ways in which we currently organise ourselves > to get done > > what needs doing. Natalia questioning the priorities which > courts and > > governments give when they licence organisations to create > 'work' and Gail > > questions why we seem to like factory models more than family > models. > > > > These are really key questions, and increasingly serious > concerns. > > > > I think both Gail and Natalia agree with me that we have > 'evolved' to the > > point where non-reciprocal exchange based economies are not > conceivably > > part > > of our future. Another way of saying this is that money and > exchange are > > unavoidably part of our future. > > > > I know there are many who would wish this was not the case, > and even some > > who are trying to conceive ways in which it won't be, but I for > one can't > > see us going back to us all providing for our own needs, or > providing in > > very small groups for our collective needs. > > > > Hence, we are stuck with money - and to large measure > therefore stuck with > > economics (though I acknowledge the very good work being > done by a number > > of > > economists to try and modernise economics). > > > > I reached this conclusion some time ago, and hence have spent > much of the > > past few years studying money quite intensively - because I hate > what our > > current money systems are doing to us and to our planet. > > > > This work has lead me to alternative approaches to money, to > community > > currencies based around locally determined value systems. > > > > I am increasingly convinced that a properly constructed (and > connected) > > system of local currencies would complement our current > national and > > international currencies and would allow us to change the way > we work (and > > remunerate our work). > > > > We are by no means the first to come to this conclusion. Tom > Greco and > > Bernard Lietaer (to name just two) have been talking about > community > > currencies for years. And there seems to be some evidence that > these ideas > > are gaining momentum. > > > > We are currently talking with some mainstream financial > services > > organisations about how they might get in at the leading edge of > this > > movement. > > > > This is about the only way I can see to address the issues which > Gail and > > Natalia raise. > > > > > > Charles Brass > > Chairman > > futures foundation > > phone:1300 727328 > > (International 61 3 9459 0244) > > fax: 61 3 9459 0344 > > PO Box 122 > > Fairfield 3078 > > www.futuresfoundation.org.au > > > > the mission of the futures foundation is: > > "...to engage all Australians in creating a better future..." > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Darryl or Natalia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Gail Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "futurework" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 6:15 AM > > Subject: [Futurework] Framing Resources > > > > > > Hi Gail, > > > > You commented: > > > > "We don't seem to be able to develop any better way of > > distributing the means to survival than through processing the > planet's > > resources, having organized ourselves more as a factory than as > family, > > spurred by a vastly exaggerated notion of scarcity and praising > our > > remunerated activity as "work." It seems all such a pity." > > > > > > Well said! > > > > I find that discussing the future of work cannot be realistically > > approached > > without present consideration for how we are using, abusing or > restoring > > what resources we have. Too much of the future of the planet > and life > > thereon is determined by short-term, profit seeking concerns to > whom > > governments and the courts have usually given favour. > > > > We can discuss what manufacturers are going to do, and how > their decisions > > will affect workers and the market, but such focus on short-term > problems > > which usually result in the corporate concerns taking precedent > fails to > > address the root problems we face around our immediate > survival and our > > need > > for a sustainable healthy planet. I believe that if we take a hard > look at > > what we had but a hundred years ago, realize what we've got > left today, > > and > > admit and commit to what we can and cannot do in future, > survival and the > > future of work would become far more clear. Of course, that > would begin > > with > > real leadership, and leadership's acknowledgment that credible - > - as > > opposed > > to Pharma-funded -- science must be consulted and respected > before policy > > decisions are made. > > > > What science means to some may not be what many would > value. Science that > > discredits traditional, centuries old knowledge and common > sense should be > > rigorously scrutinized. That's why government accountability is > not only > > an > > important topic, it is an urgent one. Truth has been suppressed > around > > countless issues that impact our immediate survival, and as long > as the > > focus is still scarcity of affordable goods for primarily N. > American > > consumption, we will not find our way out. Maintaining the > current > > unsustainable system and its mythical competence depends on > pillaging > > resources of our own and other nations. How much time does > that leave us? > > > > There is no future in a world based upon false hope. Far too > many job > > markets being discussed on this list address industries of a dying > breed. > > Everyone unemployed can get a job in the > manufacturing/service/sales > > sectors, but involving what kind of product and what kind of > service? What > > means are employed, and what resources and poisons are > consumed or > > distributed to perform their jobs? How many more of these > 'bright' futures > > are doubly condemned by growing casual work lists and dirt > wages they > > glean? > > > > What a different world the truth would usher in. A world > properly > > dedicated > > to a sustainable future, where everyone's contribution had > value. > > > > Natalia Kuzmyn > > > > > > HUMANS USE ONE QUARTER OF ALL NATURAL > RESOURCES > > > > NEW SCIENTIST - Almost a quarter of nature's resources are > now being > > gobbled up by a single species ? humans. People appropriate > 24% of the > > Earth's production capacity that would otherwise have gone to > nature, > > according to figures for the year 2000, the most recent > available. The > > analysis was performed by Helmut Haberl, of Klagenfurt > University in > > Vienna, Austria, and colleagues using UN Food and Agriculture > > Organisation data on agricultural land use in 161 countries, > covering > > 97.4% of the planet's land surface. > > > > The result is a gradual depletion of species and habitats as we > take > > more of their resources for ourselves. And things could get even > worse, > > they say, if we grow more plants like palm oil and rapeseed for > biofuels > > to ease our reliance on fossil fuels. > > > > By comparing carbon consumption through human activity with > the amount > > of carbon consumed overall, Haberl's team found that humans > use 15.6 > > trillion kilograms of carbon annually. > > > > Half was soaked up by growing crops. Seven per cent went up > in smoke as > > fires lit by humans, and the rest was used up in a variety of > other ways > > related to industrialization, such as transport. > > > > Haberl says that the Earth can just about cope if we meet future > needs > > by producing food more efficiently. This could be done by > intensifying > > production on the land used now. But we are asking for trouble, > he says, > > if we expand production of biofuels, as the only fertile land > available > > is tropical rainforests. > > > > http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12176-humanit y- > gobbles-a-quarter-of-natures-resources.html > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca > > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 11:20:22 -0400 > > From: "Cordell, Arthur: ECOM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: [Futurework] New job title: Usability professional > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Message-ID: > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > mb2.icent.ic.gc.ca> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > "We bridge the gap between what technology is capable of > doing and what > > users want to achieve" > > > > > > NY Times > > July 8, 2007 > > Fresh Starts > > > > Technology's Untanglers: They Make It Really Work > > > > By BARBARA WHITAKER > > > <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people /w/bar > bara_whitaker/index.html?inline=nyt-per> > > > > SOMETIMES there is a huge disconnect between the people > who make a product > > and the people who use it. The creator of a Web site may > assume too much > > knowledge on the part of users, leading to confusion. Software > designers > > may not anticipate user behavior that can unintentionally > destroy an > > entire database. Manufacturers can make equipment that > inadvertently > > increases the likelihood of repetitive stress injuries. > > > > Enter the usability professional, whose work has recently > developed into a > > solid career track, driven mostly by advancements in > technology. > > > > Jobs in the usability industry are varied, as are the backgrounds > of the > > people who hold them. The work can involve testing products in > a > > laboratory, watching people use products in the field or > developing > > testing methods. > > > > When the federal government was creating its informational > Web site (now > > known as usa.gov <http://usa.gov/> ), it brought in usability > experts to > > look for flaws. By watching users, the site's creators found that > people > > were having trouble finding an individual agency's Web site > because they > > did not know which department to look under. > > > > "Even people in the Washington, D.C., area didn't know that," > said Janice > > Redish, a usability consultant who worked on the project in > February 2002. > > "It was an easy fix once we knew it." > > > > Dr. Redish, whose background is in linguistics, is a usability > consultant > > specializing in Web sites and software interfaces. In 1979, she > founded > > the Document Design Center for the American Institutes for > Research to > > examine how the government could make its documents more > understandable. > > By 1985, she had established an independent usability > laboratory and was > > testing software interfaces and documentation for companies > like I.B.M. > > > <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/inte rnatio > nal_business_machines/index.html?inline=nyt-org> > > and Sony > > > <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/sony _cor > poration/index.html?inline=nyt-org> > > . > > > > "It's really a field that has taken off in the last three, four, five > > years," Dr. Redish said. "I think the Web has really made > companies and > > agencies understand they are in a conversation with their > customers." > > > > In some cases, usability research has become very sophisticated, > relying > > on equipment like eye-tracking software to analyze precisely > what users > > are looking at on a computer screen. But in most cases, Dr. > Redish said, > > the work relies on solid observation and interview skills. > > > > Eric Danas, a geophysicist who worked for years in the oil > exploration > > industry, became involved in usability after seeing how > information could > > be tailored to different audiences. He went back to school and > received a > > graduate degree in human factors (the study of how people > interact with > > technology and other things) and advanced interface design. > > > > In 1995, Mr. Danas became a usability expert specializing in > software > > design. Today, he works for Microsoft > > > <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/micr osoft > _corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org> > > , leading a "user experience team" that examines how to make > software more > > accessible. > > > > "The users of our products don't really care about the > technology," Mr. > > Danas said. "They just have a job they're trying to do. We > bridge the gap > > between what technology is capable of doing and what users > want to > > achieve." > > > > Many usability jobs are related to computers and the Web. But > usability > > professionals are also in demand in fields like medicine. > > > > Mary LaLomia, who has a Ph.D. in cognitive psychology, is a > product > > manager who specializes in usability at Philips Medical Systems > in > > Bothell, Wash. As part of the job, she recently surveyed 20 sites > where > > the company's ultrasound system was being used. She helped > examine > > everything from the design of the equipment to avoiding > repetitive stress > > injury to how patient information flows through the system. > > > > In response to a growing demand for usability jobs, schools are > offering > > degrees in areas like human computer interaction, new media > and accessible > > Web design. But much of the training for usability jobs is > happening in > > the workplace. > > > > "People come into it from many different areas," Dr. Redish > said. > > "Anthropology, for example, is a great background for the field > service > > aspect, going out to a customer's workplace or a person's home." > She said > > that linguistics is relevant "because it's all about how people > > communicate." > > > > The Usability Professionals' Association offers tutorials and > holds an > > annual meeting. The Society for Technical Communication also > has a group > > on usability and user experience. > > > > General online job boards are a good resource for usability jobs. > In > > addition, the usability association lists job postings on its Web > site, > > and job placement firms like Bestica Inc. specialize in usability > design > > jobs. > > > > Harvinder Singh, president of Bestica, which is based in San > Antonio, says > > that there is a shortage of people to fill usability jobs. > > > > "We're working with companies like Microsoft and Yahoo > > > <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/yaho o_in > c/index.html?inline=nyt-org> > > and having a lot of trouble finding user-experienced people," he > said. > > > > More companies are dividing the various aspects of the job, he > said. A > > business might want a usability researcher to go out and talk > with users > > and examine what they're comfortable with. Then it might > employ a > > usability design expert to incorporate the researcher's findings > into the > > way a product works. > > > > According to information compiled by the usability association > in 2005, > > annual pay in the field in the United States started at about > $49,000 and > > rose to about $120,000. The average salary was $86,500. > > > > Usability position are receiving more visibility within companies, > and > > high-ranking positions like director of usability are being > created, Mr. > > Danas of Microsoft said. "From a career standpoint I think > there's a lot > > of opportunity, and that's getting broader every day," he said. > > > > Fresh Starts is a monthly column about emerging jobs and job > trends. > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > > > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/private/futurework/attachme nts/20 > 070708/c46f34f8/attachment-0001.html > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca > > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > > > End of Futurework Digest, Vol 44, Issue 19 > > ****************************************** > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca > > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca > http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
