"The Great Disruption" Leading to A New Yoga

Thomas Friedman is a very successful New York Times columnist, Pulitzer Prize winner and astute socio-political observer.  He is American.  Friedman commented recently: “….we need to get good at changing polls, not reading them.”  Because Friedman, at heart, is a voice for positive transformation, even as he has honed his own special edge of criticism to knife through the madness, we acknowledge him. Thank you, Mr. Friedman.

It may be easier to agree with Friedman that the world is “hot and crowded”—than to rally to his message that social transformation is possible.  What else could be inferred from “we need to get good at changing polls” except Friedman believes transformation is doable? And, if doable, Mr. Friedman must also believe that the nature of man, while complicated and barely rational, is a force majeure—translated—with a capacity to be big.  Does Friedman suspect that a capacity to be big—is a capacity to be great?   In legal parlance a force majeure is often associated with Acts of God.  When Friedman coined the phrase “Great Disruption” he may have suggested a kind of parity between Man and Mother Nature—the Marketplace v. God, implying a capacity to be big.  Such comparisons display chutzpah, for sure.  If all the talk about “too big to fail” and “too big to fix” is not about chutzpah, Friedman’s assertion is no less worth considering.

We are not suggesting Mr. Friedman thinks man is deity.  We are saying, as Thomas L. Friedman’s thinking continues to evolve, he senses that man is a “big” component of the destiny we can and will continue to “own” as the noisiest and most commercial resident of the planet.  (Are we really talking about zoning issues at the end of the day?  Is the planet zoned for man’s commercial pursuits? Are we the messy equivalent of locating a foundry next to a synagogue?)

In his recent book, “Flat, Hot & Crowded” Friedman actually uses the phrase “The Great Disruption” to describe acts of God and acts of Men coming together—as Mother Nature meets the Market. In Chapter 18, Friedman says, “I am coming to the conclusion that the market and Mother Nature both hit the wall here in 2008/2009.”  (Note he does not say “they” hit each other—perhaps the “wall” they hit is yet a third force—like talk radio? Or social media?).

Is it possible to predict an Act of God?  Not by definition.  Is it possible to recognize an Act of God? After it appears. Friedman’s “Great Disruption” implies that man-as-market is measurable—a speed bump (or more) capable of disrupting Mother Nature or the unnamed “wall”. 

 I do not mean to put words into the capable mouth of Mr. Friedman, but I cannot help “hearing” his words in this manner. 

I learned recently that the early Greek philosopher Thales (pronounced Thal-eze  642 BC to 546 BC) while serving in the army of his day, diverted a river in order for it to be passable—the un-diverted river was too deep and too swift for crossing.  A tour de force, if not force majeure.  "Thales Tames a River"--if we let our imagination consider an ancient equivalent of the "tweet".

Friedman may be asking us to ponder if the Market is the “unnatural” equivalent of the engineer’s levy or deepwater oil head as technique for taming Nature?  Probably.

Watching Man attempt systematic agriculture (reducing the need to gather randomly) followed by the domestication of animals (reducing dependence on the hunt) is all about taming, not parity. Taming, in practice, is probably a way to homage Nature not disrupt it—which is why so many aboriginal communities build totem, smoke a pipe, feast, fast, dance and pray before the hunt or planting seasons.  Agriculture is not about dominion, but a special collaboration between Man as observer and Nature as transpersonal a priori fact.  The anxiety of food supply scarcity, therefore, is always just beneath the surface.  The Ego urge that drives all  tool development is simple: satisfy the anxiety (and maybe win the girl or a patent in the process).

Man’s fascination with tools is remarkable.  Taming is all about mastering tools and technique.  Tools, considered alone, do not ramify—tools simply possess the capacity to do work; they cannot consider the nature of the work they perform. This is the job of the scientist, the philosopher and the theologian (capital, a tool for taming  time and resources, is equally ill-equipped to ramify itself.) 

Mastering tools and technique can be satisfying—and in the hands of a maestro, human virtuosity yields the concerto even as it guides the surgeon’s knife.  Technique, in all its forms, well applied, helps to relieve anxiety as it also identifies the heros in our midst, by solving problems with immediacy: from food storage to the flat tire repair.

More than one hundred years ago, Freud postulated the reduction of  anxiety to be one of the primary goals of Ego.

In the intervening century, tools and technique, in every field of human endeavor have exploded.  Ever seriously considered the capability of PhotoShop as a pure display of technique? As such, it may be unbounded. The potential of capital, thoughtfully considered, has a similar propensity. Today's capital designers, on a good day, are the equivalent of the able apprentice en route to journeyman status. 

Anxiety on the personal and collective level of human experience has never been more extreme, more sustained or more disabling (today's political process, to wit).  Here we invoke the prerogative of each new generation to declare the anxiety of its day the new high watermark for anxiety in all human history; a folly, likely. Immodesty and anxiety seem to go hand-in-hand. (If we could only keep in mind the words of de Mello: “History, after all, is the record of appearances, not 
Reality...”)

Today’s political process and the madness it fosters betray a sorry conclusion that more money will soothe the beast.  This is a step, individuals and societies, respectively, must indulge before concluding transformation is not about money—it is about capitalizing awareness (as tool and technique).

The republic we can see unfolding post 2001 (the inflection point of new age anxiety in the West) is the governance of money.  No public office can be bought—this would be a crime.  All public offices, however, are for rent—and campaign reform would be the equivalent of rent control—it may happen in Santa Monica, California but nowhere else.  If anxiety has a proxy--it is the proliferation of high rent “tenant” politics.  If Freud was right about the purposes of Ego—the remarkable levels of anxiety in our midst today may signal a massive collapse of Ego (this is would actually make the history that contains us a great epoch for being alive).

For now, a new and more puerile egotism like we have never seen before (with cable news its new poster child) will add to a general sense of discouragement.   Circus attendance (understood as strip malls and box stores) will fall off.  It is okay--they never were the seat of power to begin with.

Headline: “Human Ego Fails---Consumer Confidence Quits”.

Obama used to talk about “bending” the cost curve of medical care.  Friedman wants us to consider “changing the polls” (instead of merely reading them).  Bending, changing—each seems to imply a flexion that may call for a new yoga.  A new yoga— so that we might be tamed?  Let it begin.

The op-ed material for the Avarice Fellowship is provided by the Share-Capital Foundation, www.share-capital.com.

Keep the faith. We bid you peace.

“Bukowski would want to know: when does one equal zero?”

Let’s pretend we are the patient and we have access to a therapist who is nurturing and supportive.

The therapist begins today’s session by asking the question, “When does one equal zero?”

We don’t have to care about the answer because we believe the therapist is probably guiding us so we can think about something familiar in a new way—this, we assume, is sort of what therapy is all about.

“No idea,” could be our sincere reply.

The therapist might continue, “We know nowhere in Nature does one equal zero.”

“Okay,” we murmur.

“But, emotionally speaking,” the therapist proceeds, “we often act as if ‘nothing’ is the same as ‘something’. If we believe a problem is big, taking small steps to resolve it may be considered futile; we may very likely conclude that our strategy shall be—‘do nothing’—even as we continue to worry about the big problem or large goal.”

We mutter expectantly, “Okay”.

The therapist reminds us:  “last time we met you told me you wanted to buy a house.  Houses are really expensive (even today).  It will take long time to save for this goal. I understand you went out and purchased a home entertainment system with deferred payments and zero interest for six months, is this correct?”

“It is,” comes our admission.

“Does this demonstrate that people are lazy or silly?” asks the therapist, rhetorically, of course.

“Probably”, follows our wimpy reply. 

“No.  It may suggest, however, that our decision-making process leading to self-discovery (our plan to save to meet the goal) is not linear.” 

“Engineers draw straight lines—the mind does not.  The mind imagines and associates cursively, and by so doing, it creates a dynamic sense of self (who we are).  The mind behaves more like a dream—full of content not always accessible to the waking self.”

The therapist pauses, and then closes with: “We might wonder, are we more like Legos or finger painting?”

We are left to ponder something important.

Meanwhile, the therapist changes from soothing nurturer to squawking maven—“don’t forget to leave your check for the session as you leave—oh, and next month my rates will be increasing…” The session must be over.  Were we ever on the therapist’s mind?

After we leave the session we are going to buy some comfort food, return to the apartment, and download a movie on the new entertainment center.

We will never save up for the house.  Now we know why.

If the patient in this post were Charles Bukowski—there would be no entertainment center.  Instead there would be pinched and smoked cigarette butts and empty scotch and wine bottles. Buk (as in puke) might leave the session fuming some choice words in the direction of the therapist as he heads to the nearest package store to buy inexpensive Napa wine en route to the track to bet on the last two races of the day; so he can wake up to an alarm clock the next morning and, for another day, return to a dingy post office somewhere in Los Angeles to sort mail. 

But before losing consciousness he won’t forget to write one more poem. 

Buk lived as if he knew that one is never equal to zero.  This is why, even as a chain-smoking, horse betting, compulsive alcohol imbibing, raving mail sorter, he created a remarkable and lasting body of work.  His mind touched the sun---even as its light sent stabs of pain through his nicotine and alcohol fired brain.

It can be done. 

Nowhere in Nature does one equal zero, especially, not in our dreams.  Living our dreams, therefore, must have everything to do with letting one equal one. 

A Bukowski-style meditation to change the world: consider rinsing an empty can, an empty can of beer, dog food or beans, it does not matter, and place it on a windowsill. Scribble “1 = 1” on the can with a marker.

Start adding to the can.  Each coin becomes its own meditation.  Do not worry what to do with the coins.  This question will answer itself and it will feel like a gift—because a universe that reliably demonstrates that 1 = 1 is no hell, but a remarkable prize.  Each of us, no exceptions, may thereby add to its legacy.

The op-ed material for the Avarice Fellowship blog is provided by the Share-Capital Foundation, www.share-capital.com.

We bid you peace.  

"Okay, Godzilla, meet Cinderella"

We open today’s post with a quote from the home page of www.share-capital.com:  “…power will not take the grassroots voice of individuals seriously until they demonstrate some fluency with the idiom of capital.”

What is the “idiom of capital”?    A simple way to think of the term “idiom” is “language”.   Languages have dialects.  Understanding the “idiom” of a special language requires a level of fluency.  Fluency is most often acquired by immersion—spending time with a given dialect.

If you play an instrument well, you demonstrate this concept:  music is a language and musicians speak this language as idiom. If one shares an interest in the subject of sound, lyric, rhythm and harmony—taking steps to learn the idiom feels quite natural.

Simple terms like, “iPod”, have become symbolic of a powerful idiom—personal music accessed by way of the download.  We invent new language to describe what we really care about.

Capital can be experienced similarly--as both a culture and an idiom.  “Wall Street” is actually the public name for this special culture.  Some of us may have friends who work on “Wall Street”.  In other words, “Wall Street” is about people and their dialect for thinking about resources.  Without knowing its idiom, however—Wall Street is a latter day Godzilla (big and awkward with seemingly unusual powers). 

Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big Agribusiness, as industries, also possess unusual influence--the type of influence that goes with size combined with a perceived power for social dominance (more Godzilla).

But big, by itself, is not the key idea. Something else has to be at work.  There are very big businesses, for example, deploying huge sums of capital in the pursuit of making candy, who do not define the social agenda.  As an industry, the technical term for businesses engaged in candy making is “Confection”.  

Do you recall a cable news program or newspaper talking about “Big Candy” or "Big Confection"?  We could--the Hershey and Mars companies, for example, are as dominant in this world as Exxon and Pfizer are in theirs.  Maybe some day we will think of candy as an idiom or culture.  Before this will occur, however, the industry will first have to be perceived as strategic (not simply pleasant or important) to the culture of men and women everywhere.

As an industry becomes important to society, we begin to sense its power—this often coincides when it begins to foster its own idiom or language, viz. Big Oil or Wall Street.

How else do we think of institutional power today?  Money.  Resources and their control. The State. 

How do we think of grassroots power?  People.  Lots of them.  In this story, grassroots power is Cinderella—one who overcomes (peacefully) the influence exerted by the few.

History teaches us that power always and only consolidates itself among the few (the mean step-sisters-- who wanna be friends with Godzilla).  It has always been so. 

Authorities with the power to tax (the State) and revolutions (grassroots) are the only two ways resources, and their control, are pushed in new directions across history.  In each instance re-pointing the flow of consolidation is difficult, sometimes, even bloody.  Politics alone cannot get it done.

The Share-Capital Foundation is a student of the idioms of big power: grassroots power or people as Cinderella and Godzilla as the power exerted by big capital (viz., Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big Agribusiness and Government).

What Share-Capital would have us consider is this: let’s become familiar with the idiom (language) of capital.  Let’s take steps as individuals (as Cinderella) to participate in capital markets—not as holders of IRA or 401(k) accounts—but as grassroots investors who take positions in public companies in strategic industries: doing so assures that Cinderella will meet Godzilla.

The Share-Capital Foundation is seeking to connect with a whole new culture of people who sense deeply that government is complex, and capital is complex—and the revolution ahead does not have to be bloody. These same folks also sense that neither government nor capital markets will figure it out peacefully, or soon. On a deep level it is also possible to sense that the revolution ahead will take place in the boardroom and with browsers—not on the streets or with petitions. 

The boardroom is a place where one is welcome as an “owner”.   The new grassroots frontier is about ownership, not the American Dream as code for “debt”—but ownership of capital “as equity” with social power. 

The first step to learning about “capital markets” as an idiom, therefore, is about owning—not voting or protesting.  As “people” (citizens) we are learning unless we own shares, we don’t own the profits of companies.  We are also learning, evidently, we do own the downside—with or without shares. An excellent challenge. 

It is time to say, simply—“Okay, Godzilla, meet Cinderella.  Let’s talk.”

You can learn more about the mission of Share-Capital at www.share-captial.com.  Enter a comment or question in the Guestbook if you like to step into the circle. 

The op-ed material for the Avarice Fellowship blog is provided by the Share-Capital Foundation. 

"Do Ideas Have Sex?"

According to author and social observer Matt Ridley, “…at some point in human history, ideas began to meet and mate, to have sex with each other.” 

This is a great…concept (as in conception)?  Warning: if you let your mind go, the erotic content of our ideas and imagining becomes quite apparent—erotic in the sense that we find the language of conjugal love totally adaptable for describing the activities of our left-brain syntactical mind:  even our verbs are conjugal “they even conjugate!”

Mixing and re-mixing ideas—this may be the “marketplace” of our adaptations and our progress as people: ideas, today, more than genes.  If ever we were simple animals--a cell, an ocean dwelling mammal, a primate—it has been some time since our physicality has made any comparable quantum adjustments implied by such lineage.  Growing taller, living longer—may reflect the power of ideas more than anything we might argue as a triumph of biology.

Even ideas, however, like the physically aroused, without some training can lose their way.  The importance of mutuality—to be aware of and open to others (ideas)—is where all the love resides. 

We once met a retired policeman who had a very blunt communication style.  One day, he was asked what he thought of foreplay?  He replied: “Phil, I don’t even kiss them.”  [This horrible is included to make the following point].

So, when you read the title of today’s posting “Do ideas have sex?” it is interesting how most of us presumed the answer to be: “yes, and the sex must be mutual—because it is ideal”.  

Even tough skeptical thinkers are guilty of this naïve assumption. Skeptics “know” people are intrinsically selfish and hedonistic.  Skeptics may not hold “ideas” to a similar standard!  If ideas are capable of sex, ideas may actually be mortal (transitory)!

Meanwhile, let’s run with it—let’s give some room to Ridley’s notion that “ideas [do] meet and mate”. 

Prospective offspring, thus, gestate. And some gestation periods are long.  (This concept of long gestation as it bears upon ideas is one of the reasons why the Phase I agenda of the Share-Capital Foundation is framed as a 200 year phase, FYI.)

We will close today with a few more words about sex and life. 

In the mammalian kingdom of this planet, a mysterious arithmetic is at work:  it takes two to make one. 

In the plant kingdom, same planet, it takes one plant to make 10,000 seeds.  This is a generalization about the propensity for flora to produce many multiples of their kind in order to assure that a few may thrive.

Fish and amphibians and insects, considered this way, may be more like plants than mammals. 

In human terms, one may wonder if anything is more synergetic than the epiphenomenon of producing a child: understood as two people, meeting and mating? 

In human terms it appears it takes two to make one. Synergy, therefore, may actually imply 1 + 1 = 1.   Mysterious: as life and markets are. 

The Share-Capital Foundation believes capital markets understand the metaphysical power of this view of synergy.  Because it takes two to make one—synergy becomes “who knows what will happen?”-- when ideas and people come together.  The unpredictive outcome where 1 + 1 = 1, when it is synergetic, compels all the meeting and mating. 


To consider how 1 + 1 = 3 may be to think more like a fish.

The world is looking for more “sexually aware” people because ideas leading to synergy really matter.

The op-ed material for the Avarice Fellowship blog is provided by the Share-Capital Foundation.  www.share-capital.com

We bid you peace.

Was Charles Keeling a Watermelon?

Green on the outside, red, in--one way to describe a watermelon.  In the context of climate change--the "green" reference is self-explanatory, but the "red"?  Red as in communist?  Yup.  Good to know.  


So, to consider climate change as possibility is to inveigh God, democracy, open society, freedom of travel, assembly and print. Excellent. Global warming as code for latter day Bolshevism--frivolous and off-point--but effectively confusing. Nice.


The honorable senator from Wisconsin, Joseph McCarthy, needed no facts nor measurements to support his invective in the 1950s---he allowed the overhang of doubt to perform his work.  And, like the madness that follows a host once invaded by a pernicious parasite--purging doubt once it takes hold is messy business. (It is also important to remember that McCarthy was no pioneer of fear mongering; his art is an old art, and the preferred motif of the unimaginative and the cheapskate.  It is, moreover, very effective and very low cost).    


The subject of climate change, nevertheless, is interesting to consider:  Google the anecdote of Greenland's massive glacial thawing and you may need to go no further.  If sea levels rise, we will adapt.  It would be remarkably difficult to pro act against such possibility, anyhow. Just because Greenland glacial retreat is remark-able, doesn't mean it is "anthropogenic", to use the vernacular.  If it is man-made, it was not intentional.  This may be the more interesting point.  Unintended consequence is the true stuff of doubt---and the nagging sense that "we missed it" creates a temporary vacuum easily filled by fear mongers in the tradition of McCarthy.  It may be easier to acknowledge global warming as a fact than to agree to its cause.   


If you find the subject of climate change interesting but wonder how to cull through all the input without catching a label--you have company.  Lots of company.   Why is this topic a Share-Capital topic?  Education, for one. Share-Capital tries to identify discrete notional information items that people can add to their tool kit as they develop a point of view on the large topics of our day.  Global warming qualifies.  Considered as a capital event, climate change is a poster child.  It would require heaps of capital that would dwarf as bus fare even the BP escrow of $20 billions. This is another reason why this topic is so daunting to consider--because it exceeds even the imagination of capital markets.  Bingo.


If we could assign a number to capitalize a credible remedy for global warming---we would run out of zeroes quickly.  Capital markets love big opportunity--unless the opportunity is incalculable.  Global warming has to become a  problem comprised of "bite size" ideas before it becomes the stuff of opportunity.   Share-Capital has tried to make clear--looking to public policy makers (politicians) for leadership-- can only be done in arrears.  We will have to spill more oil, devastate more credit systems--before we can fix "yesterday's" problems through regulation and law.  Global warming is all ahead of us--it thereby disqualifies government for any leadership role.  Capital markets will lead once the "opportunity" is perceived to be far less ephemeral.  


Who is Charles Keeling?  He was a prominent scientist (he died in 2005).  In 1957 he started to measure systematically the carbon dioxide content of the Earth's atmosphere.  The baseline measurement in 1958 was recorded at 315 ppm (parts per million).  Today the carbon dioxide concentrations measure at 380ppm.   It is clear that 380 is more than 315.  It may not be clear if this is good?


The "Keeling Curve", named for his work, measures the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  The work he started at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii is ongoing.


The op-ed inputs for this blog entry, are compliments of the Share-Capital Foundation.


We bid you peace.

"How to Capitalize good work..."

The United Way is reported to raise nearly $4.0 billion each year.  


If the United Way were a “company” it would be a large one---with sales of nearly $4.0 billion.   But, the United Way is not a company.  It is an agency that collects and redistributes contributions from millions of generous persons.  Most of the donations to the United Way are made directly through payroll deduction services organized by the United Way in cooperation with employers—with the full permission of participating employees.

How big is $4.0 billion?  If the United Way were a foundation—and it was distributing $4.0 billion each year, it would represent a foundation with assets in excess of $80 billion (this presumes the $4.0 billion represented 5% of invested assets annually). 

This means that the “people” who supply the United Way with “gifts” literally comprise the largest foundation in the world.  Yup.  Average people at work.  


The Share-Capital Foundation is trying to make this compelling fact more apparent to “average people”.  Average folks are a profound economic force for good.

The Foundation Center (www.foundationcenter.org) collects and publishes information about foundations.   The center reports that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation lead the top 100 largest foundations in the U.S. with $29.9 billions in assets, followed by the J. Paul Getty Trust at $10.9 billions.  The famous Ford Family Foundation completes the top 100 foundations with assets of $564 millions.

The United Way, by collecting $4.0 billions each year from individuals—represents the capital muscle of a foundation more than twice the size of the Gates model.  Average folks.

Here are three ideas to consider:  The assets of foundations, big and small, are comprised of investments in companies—stock held in companies with employees.  These very employees, through their generosity and sense of community, represent the largesse of a foundation more than twice as significant as the largest foundation in the U.S.  The foundations of wealthy families--"own" the largest foundation!  It may be time for the largest foundation to "spin off" on its own!

Point two:  if these same employees, instead of making cash gifts, made gifts of shares in companies (Share-Capital would suggest companies involved in energy, pharma and food) the "gifts" of shares, like a foundation, would be ongoing.  Over time these gifts of stock would capitalize a big engine capable of giving over a long period of time--long after the "work" performed by the employee to earn the gift is long past.

Point three:  if the generosity of average employees were expressed as shares of stock and aggregated over time, not only would the gift become sustainable—the relationship with the companies whose shares were held would be transformed.   


Under such a scenario a day would come when whole companies in the pharmaceutical sector, for example, would be “owned” by a foundation built by “average folks”—whose intent is not to mess with management—but whose goal is to begin to participate in the power and trajectory of capital.   And, meanwhile, the "givers" would receive a big gift in return--by owning a company--they would be able to "learn" how pharma really works.  

Last thought: does it deserve mention that churches in the U. S. receive voluntary gifts each year in excess of $125 billions?  It makes the United Way illustration look incidental.  It is.  Average people vote with their dollars—not as consumers—but as metaphysical beings who know at a deep level that community—and what is ultimately transpersonal (not post modern) really matters.

The Share-Capital Foundation provided this op-ed.   www.share-capital.com

"What is at the heart of the BP debacle?"

Recent  media coverage has suggested that the leaders of BP should be held criminally liable for the injury to commerce and the environment resulting from the current deep water spill.  Because the platform was cited many times in the past for violations—the apparent negligence of managers becomes a claim of criminality.  Maybe.   Bernie Madoff is a criminal.  He is in jail.  His victims will never experience recovery.  

Criminalizing BP leaders is an idea supported by some BP shareholders.  Why?  Such an action may minimize the economic burden to the shareholders for the costs to remediate the damage to the Gulf of Mexico.  Yup.  Even the shareholders want fair weather protection from "themselves"--understood as their manager representatives when there is a big problem.  

BP shareholders should hope that there is no legal theory that allows the shareholder to be personally assessed in the event the resources of BP prove to be inadequate during the remediation phase.  This used to be how the “world” worked until theories of limited liability emerged a long time ago.  Yes, there was a time when investor liability was un-limited.  (This was a time when only the really really big boys could play--a topic for another day).

Too big to fail.  Too big to fix.   These ideas have defined the public debate in recent years as it bears upon the institutions of our financial system (investment banks, banks, brokers).   One of the proposed system design remedies for the financial industry is to compel surviving companies to assume the obligations of peer institutions that fail.  (Insurance companies have been doing this, by the way, for decades in many states).

If oil spill disasters had to be shared by the entire energy industry, maybe self-policing of platforms would have a better chance of working.  Maybe. 

If we try to get past the language---“too big to fix”, “criminalizing the managers”, and “too big to fail”—a simpler word that may be really useful is the word “utility”. 

Utilities make profits.  Utilities attract capital quite efficiently (which is to say they reward capital and have sufficient liquidity to support shareholder, bond and debt markets).

Instead of debating if we should “break up” a bank if it gets to big—as a measure currently holding sway in Congress---it might be easier to simply say, ‘when one institution controls more than 10% of all deposits—the industry, in this case all banks, are automatically subject to rules that govern utilities until such time as there is more marketplace diversification (less concentration risk). 

There would be no need to contemplate how to liquidate monster companies in the event of their failure—the financial equivalent of now trying to fix the Deepwater Horizon oil leak real time a mile down. 

When all is going smoothly, and the “big” continue to consolidate themselves until they are ever bigger—we stop “hoping” that everything is okay—that the public interest is somehow safeguarded.  We establish a standard that simply gets triggered when one company exceeds a certain pre-defined market share for several consecutive quarters—bingo—the entire industry, including all public and private companies in the space—converts to rules of governance and the public interest control of a utility.

This is the future. 

The public knows, and is at ease with the fact that it has no claim on company profits.  The public is learning (again) that it seems to have an implicit  “stake” in the downside performance of an industry. The essential nature of the theory of the utility addresses this dynamic. 

Before the downside is externalized to the public—this is the place to be proactive.  The model of the utility is a tested modality.  Even as the culture of capital likes “bigness”---because it likes efficiency, scale and the power of brands--it must be remembered that it also likes unfair advantage—when this can be accomplished.  There is no reason to hope that the culture of capital is going to somehow regulate its native impulse to dominate through competition.  Capital is a culture.  Cultures are irresistible and willful.  

Creating new government oversight or new government agencies—can be tempting to consider but they are largely irrelevant.  Subjecting an industry to the guidance of a utility, as it bears upon pricing and returns earned by capital—may do a lot to help mollify concentration risk (big getting bigger at society's peril).

What is at the heart of the BP debacle?  Two opportunities:  all energy industry members should be made to participate in the remediation of any one failure, for one.  And two, that portion of the energy industry not currently subject to utility rules, converts to a “utility” model as soon as any one member becomes “too big to fail or fix”. 

The Share-Capital Foundation provided this op-ed.  www.share-capital.com

"Is Commerce a Vector for Peace?"

We think the answer is “yes”.  

During the late 1980s and 1990s we had occasion to visit politically and economically unhappy places.  We made trips to South Africa before Mandela was released and visited the townships.  We were guests of Chevron in the Cabinda Province of Angola when we could not leave Luanda for the rioting. We have been in Kinshasa (of former Zaire) to witness the aftermath following one of its nameless pillages.  We visited Croatian refugee camps in Hungary shortly after the Berlin Wall came down and we were in Gaza just after the Hebron massacre in 1994.  The face of human misery is a horror--but none of what we witnessed was "caused" by commerce.  

We have witnessed the suppression of the Indian community in Fiji in the late 1980s, inter-tribal conflict in Papua New Guinea in 1989.  We have tried to conduct business in Peru during the reign of the Shining Path when hyper-inflation was more than 10,000% per annum. 

Much of what is being referenced was scary to behold.  Guess what?  Goods and services continued to move!  Commerce was not easy but it continued in some form or fashion.  People with any form of supply tried to identify and meet demand--no matter how challenging or perilous the circumstance.  A vector for Peace?  

Peace is an ideal.  Commerce is pure materiality.  Peace may be to Commerce what Spirit is to Materialism. These two ideas have been the twin poles of any dialectic defining social and economic progress before and since Engels and Marx. 

Today is different!  Despite all the confusion and anxiety of today’s economic climate—we live in unique times—because of the non-profit sector, the browser and the internet.

Notice the title of this blog: “Is Commerce a Vector for Peace?”  We used the word “commerce” not “big business”. As central banks of Western economies in recent years were being savaged by the draconian effects of derivatives and over-leveraging on a global scale—what else was happening?  A vanguard of new capital as “micro-credit” was in development!  Muhammad Yunus, winner of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize was an early innovator and distributor of micro-credit as the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh (starting around 1976)!  Today there are more than 12,000 micro-credit banks throughout the world.  Some estimates indicate nearly 1 billion people have accessed credit for the first time via micro-credit.  And now, average people committed to taking action can serve as “new bankers” by contributing capital (not donations) for projects in Mongolia to Uzbekistan—at www.KIVA.com.   Capital as credit—not grants, is transformative.  Many people today know the phrase "Grameen Bank".  It is a brand that signals "leadership".  It came to the West from Bangladesh.  The leadership paradigm of the world is changing--because how we access capital is changing.  The new bankers are average people--not suits and corner offices. 

Commerce as grassroots capital is the new vector for Peace.  

Share-Capital is committed to promoting this idea—and to fostering grassroots action by “regular” people everywhere there is a browser--in order to radicalize the face (and effect) of economic activism.  If micro-credit is making a difference at the level of the small entrepreneur in remote places—then the Share-Capital initiative described as People Denominated Capitalization (PDC) will potentially transform worldwide capital markets themselves! 

See if you agree. Visit www.share-capital.com.

We bid you peace, until next time,

“Radicalizing Socially Responsible Economic Activism—according to Share-Capital…”

The Share-Capital Foundation is in the “business” of fostering discussion leading to action in the area of economic activism.

Activism to Share-Capital has only one face: it is the face of volunteerism—economic volunteerism.  And this form of activism is all about volunteer capital—not donation.  Activism and volunteerism—these two ideas go together—and when this combination is supported at a grassroots level—the effect on Managers can be palpable.

Why can’t our politicians lead the activism encouraged by Share-Capital? 

Share-Capital reminds us that public policy has historically been a process that works in arrears.  When we legislate voting rights for everyone as we did in 1964 (after nearly 200 years of history as a nation)—it hardly meets any standard one might describe as proactive.  Public policy is about the insight we glean through hindsight.

The fact that citizens choose to forget that legislation is reactionary—not pro-active, does not make Washington, D.C. more prescient or helpful. Only capital markets and volunteers pro-act.  

When capital volunteers itself—things happen.  Volunteer capital is code for: investment.  Think about it.  To have a chance at fulfilling a mission, no matter how modest or bold the initiative (a family or a big company) resources as capital (opportunity and treasure) must first show up.  The capital necessary for progress and growth comes in many forms—leadership, cash, equipment, facilities, networks, and relationships. 

Economic activism, understood as the investment of volunteer capital, is about leading through ownership—and in the Share-Capital model the ownership position of choice is the ownership currency of the shareholder. 

To what end? 

Watchdog groups, for some time, have purchased a small number of shares of a given company in order to have access to annual meetings where a protest or objection can be formally expressed to Managers.  This form of ownership, by shareholder advocates or watchdog groups, by definition, is adversarial to Managers.   In the Share-Capital model Managers are the change agents.  When the Managers want to change—things happen.

Managers, not always the CEO or the employees, are the “grassroots” engine of a company.  Workers are critical but Managers alone have the ability to deliver change—because they are expected to be able to message concurrently in more than one direction—to employees, customers, suppliers, directors and key shareholders.  Share-Capital holds that Managers are the secret sauce of change within corporations.  The competitive nature of the Manager culture, however, makes it almost impossible for Managers to cooperate among themselves spontaneously.  This is a big problem. This means the tip of the spear must come from outside—enter: Share-Capital as shareholder. 

Share-Capital also seeks to engage the management of companies that appear to be socially IRRESPONSIBLE.  Yup.  The more egregious the Managers are perceived to be, the better.

Really? Think about it.  If one avoids companies who externalize costs, who exploit tax laws, corrupt the lobbying process, defeat environmental codes, and stress labor conditions—they have to be thrilled when the “socially responsible” choose to go elsewhere—to reside among the green, the ethical and the firms with high satisfaction ratings by employees.  The companies with scary Managers are the companies worth engaging.

To change behavior?  Nope! To simply put light on the behavior.  


As shareholder, Share-Capital engages Managers and then reports what it learns by email and web site to its members—who are numerous, located everywhere, and anonymous.  

The goal of Share-Capital is to acknowledge aggressive Managers for aggressing in the name of competition and in the pursuit of creating shareholder value.  These are the two defenses that rationalize so much Manager content.  We all know (or suspect) that shareholder value and the pursuit of value creation does not require Managers to marginalize people or the environment, or to avoid recognizing the social costs of a given process or product.

Share-Capital focuses on three key economic sectors—food, energy and pharma.  These sectors represent basic security issues for people the world-around. The Share-Capital model of socially responsible investing is thereby a grassroots way to consider economic activism with a chance of making a difference. With the focus on Managers, who are not always paragons of social responsibility—the outcome can be transformative. 

To advance your thinking about the Share-Capital message, consider reviewing the concept of People Denominated Capitalization (PDC) as found on the web site www.share-capital.com under the tab “Programs”.

Until next time we post, we bid you peace.

"Why does Share-Capital care about Wisdom Literature and the Western Mystery Tradition?"

Does it indeed care about such matters?

While Share-Capital harbors no interest in competing for a seat at the table of religious institutions, it does hold that the culture of capital—may be best understood by heading towards, not away, from the deep considerations that have captured the imagination of humankind since pre-history: fairness, beauty, delight, duty. (Is Share-Capital suggesting a new secularism?)

The Share-Capital Foundation has written a private monograph (a series it calls “Chores”) suggesting that we may all be marooned to this place. The nagging urge to understand how to consider our source of origins may be explained by it. “We have been put ashore…”

This is a novel place for developing a point of view about capital, capital markets and philanthropy--nonetheless, it is the view held by the Share-Capital Foundation. If Share-Capital believes it is beholding to the legacy and contribution of Wisdom Literature and the Western Mystery Tradition for insight—we might just suspend judgment and watch this play out (Noam Chomsky befriends Joseph Campbell?)

Is this why Share-Capital views “capital” to be a fundamentally metaphysical, and not an industrial, phenomenon? Have you been to the web site, www.share-capital.com? On the home page it declares:

“The Share-Capital Foundation intends to bring together the best of two cultures: the best "value culture" contributions of the non-profit community, conflated with the best "fulfillment culture" of corporate capital and their management teams.

Non-profit meets Corporation. (Cinderella meets Godzilla).”

If there is room for the power of myth at the Share-Capital table (viz. Cinderella meets Godzilla) maybe Share-Capital is trying to remind us that the big issues facing us today are indeed accessible—if not to our leaders—they are accessible to the intuition that connects the vast majority of people as humankind.

In the weeks ahead we will work to provide more insight and nuance to the Share-Capital Foundation message. We understand the Chores series is scheduled to be published in late summer 2010 by Kicker Rock Press, a Share-Capital affiliate. We bid you Peace in the pursuit of grassroots proxy-guided philanthropy!

The Avarice Fellowship helps Share-Capital Foundation

The Avarice Fellowship has been asked to serve as the official blogging resource for the Share-Capital Foundation of Montour Falls, New York. The blog postings will be accessible by way of the www.share-capital.com web site navigation bar.


Jeff Snider writes for the Avarice Fellowship and is one of the early supporters of the Share-Capital Foundation. The Avarice Fellowship will provide ad hoc commentary on current events and economic topics that compliment or expand upon the work of the Share-Capital Foundation.


All ad revenues produced from the Avarice Fellowship blog will directly benefit the work of the Share-Capital Foundation.