I have been encouraged and inspired this week on two counts.
First by the Obama presidential address but perhaps more importantly by the consequential thought processes that this address has caused.
It is as if Obama has been the spark to a flame and if this keeps going the flame will become an inferno.
John Campbell, president of the Global Leadership Alliance, wrote The Obama Effect - radical change in a recession, focussing on Obama's consistent reference to hope, opportunity, change and "yes we can".
He spoke about the need for paradigm shift, referring also to Einstein's famous comment that the significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking that created them.
This got me thinking about the nature of our current economic difficulties, what caused them and what can be done about them.
At a very simple level, let's acknowledge the natural order.
First, economic well being goes in cycles.
We cannot have boom without bust.
There are no highs without lows.
There is no light without shade.
For everything that prospers in this world, something else dies.
So perhaps the critics of Gordon Brown and others on this front should not be too harsh.
Let's just take that thought on prosperity and death.
Could it be that we need the death of a few of our less viable businesses in order that, from their decay, the rich resources (their people) can rise again to form a new system for life and vibrancy.
Isn't this exactly what happens when a tree dies? Taking that analogy just one step further perhaps the same can be said for economic systems, when an over-reliance on credit has outlived its natural use, perhaps it should be allowed to die without losing the nutrition in its component parts.
For example, we could (and probably will) over-react with regard to our view of credit.
Man and other living things have always needed to borrow.
At its most basic level, when someone is in difficulty we "lend them a hand".
Of course the best attitude is to do this with no expectation of repayment or reward.
When I was young, good advice seemed to be never lend what you can't afford to lose.
Like all sayings there is some wisdom and folly in this.
At the most fundamental material level we can afford to lose anything, for we are not primarily material, we are consciousness.
But let's not go there in this article.
Back to credit.
Then, there's the situation where someone is not in difficulty but rather is facing an exceptional opportunity.
Two examples spring to mind.
The first is the person with the amazing idea who needs money or other resources to make it happen.
Their community clubs together to finance the venture.
Without the finance, the venture would not happen.
My second is the example of the young couple starting their life together in partnership.
Of course we want to give them a good start.
In days of old, neighbours would probably pull together to physically build and furnish their new home.
Without this credit, the new life of the young couple would have a less favourable start.
The same logic, I guess, is the root of our mortgage system.
The challenge with credit is when it becomes the norm rather than the exception.
For someone to borrow, there simply must be someone to lend.
For someone to receive, someone must give.
Perhaps our over-reliance on credit has detracted on our potential and inherent ability to give.
In most so-called third-world countries, giving without expectation is more prevalent than credit.
Someone else is in difficulty or has a need, we give and we celebrate the results.
Simple.
So what lessons can be drawn from these thoughts:
For without it, the life of tomorrow would never happen.
First by the Obama presidential address but perhaps more importantly by the consequential thought processes that this address has caused.
It is as if Obama has been the spark to a flame and if this keeps going the flame will become an inferno.
John Campbell, president of the Global Leadership Alliance, wrote The Obama Effect - radical change in a recession, focussing on Obama's consistent reference to hope, opportunity, change and "yes we can".
He spoke about the need for paradigm shift, referring also to Einstein's famous comment that the significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking that created them.
This got me thinking about the nature of our current economic difficulties, what caused them and what can be done about them.
At a very simple level, let's acknowledge the natural order.
First, economic well being goes in cycles.
We cannot have boom without bust.
There are no highs without lows.
There is no light without shade.
For everything that prospers in this world, something else dies.
So perhaps the critics of Gordon Brown and others on this front should not be too harsh.
Let's just take that thought on prosperity and death.
Could it be that we need the death of a few of our less viable businesses in order that, from their decay, the rich resources (their people) can rise again to form a new system for life and vibrancy.
Isn't this exactly what happens when a tree dies? Taking that analogy just one step further perhaps the same can be said for economic systems, when an over-reliance on credit has outlived its natural use, perhaps it should be allowed to die without losing the nutrition in its component parts.
For example, we could (and probably will) over-react with regard to our view of credit.
Man and other living things have always needed to borrow.
At its most basic level, when someone is in difficulty we "lend them a hand".
Of course the best attitude is to do this with no expectation of repayment or reward.
When I was young, good advice seemed to be never lend what you can't afford to lose.
Like all sayings there is some wisdom and folly in this.
At the most fundamental material level we can afford to lose anything, for we are not primarily material, we are consciousness.
But let's not go there in this article.
Back to credit.
Then, there's the situation where someone is not in difficulty but rather is facing an exceptional opportunity.
Two examples spring to mind.
The first is the person with the amazing idea who needs money or other resources to make it happen.
Their community clubs together to finance the venture.
Without the finance, the venture would not happen.
My second is the example of the young couple starting their life together in partnership.
Of course we want to give them a good start.
In days of old, neighbours would probably pull together to physically build and furnish their new home.
Without this credit, the new life of the young couple would have a less favourable start.
The same logic, I guess, is the root of our mortgage system.
The challenge with credit is when it becomes the norm rather than the exception.
For someone to borrow, there simply must be someone to lend.
For someone to receive, someone must give.
Perhaps our over-reliance on credit has detracted on our potential and inherent ability to give.
In most so-called third-world countries, giving without expectation is more prevalent than credit.
Someone else is in difficulty or has a need, we give and we celebrate the results.
Simple.
So what lessons can be drawn from these thoughts:
- When systems die they provide the resource for new systems, there truly is hope and opportunity for positive change.
- When Obama says "Yes we can", perhaps he might be even bolder and say "Yes we will".
It is the natural order of things. - Credit has its place as the exception rather than the rule and should be used to fund need and opportunity with the good will and conscious involvement and celebration of the lender.
- We should not neglect giving as an alternative to credit.
Releasing the burden of debt from those that can least afford it will free up the resources for new growth. - All living things are part of a natural order.
If we want to see how this works, we should just take a look around, walk in the countryside, observe the death, decay, green shoots and new growth.
For without it, the life of tomorrow would never happen.
Source...