Here is another very important resource - Steve Keen talking about the Labor Theory of Value, and how he found an important contradiction in Marx's thought about use value/exchange value and the role of machinery.
This is very much in line with my belief that we should embrace “a process theory of value;” as proposed by Robert “Doc” Hall. Hall speaks about "vigorous learning enterprises" that maximize work process performance AND learning effectiveness. Primarily seen as problem-solving networks that are good at absorbing, reacting, studying, adapting, taking appropriate action, and continuing this process as an adaptive cycle that becomes as symbiotic with the natural environment as possible.
Robert "Doc" Hall's "Process Theory of Value" is a significant component of his broader work on compression thinking and the need for organizations to adapt in the face of sustainability challenges. Hall's theory emphasizes the importance of rethinking traditional business practices, focusing on value creation through efficient and sustainable processes, rather than purely on outcomes or financial results. He advocates for a shift in perspective that includes a broader definition of waste, the importance of long-term workforce development, and a critical view of short-term financial controls that may hinder sustainable practices. Hall's work suggests that organizations need to embrace a culture of continuous learning and improvement, not just to survive but to thrive in a future where sustainability and resource efficiency are paramount.
Furthermore, Hall's ideas resonate with lean thinking principles, where the focus is on creating value through efficient processes. Lean thinking encourages organizations to prioritize process improvement, which in turn leads to better results. By valuing processes and continuous improvement, organizations can develop resilience, adaptability, and a deeper capability to address challenges, including those related to sustainability and environmental concerns. This approach is about creating a learning organization that values process over immediate results, which can lead to innovative solutions and long-term success.
For more in-depth exploration of these concepts, you might find it useful to delve into Hall's works and related lean thinking literature, which discuss the practical applications of these theories in organizational management and sustainability practices.
Michel, I hate that you had to use ChatGPT (my arch nemesis) for this, but it is accurate. I'm going primarily off of a home printed 54 page document he put online called "Compression" in 2009. See the Compression Institute website:
thank you for this; fyi, I share your comments via my X account 'mbauwens'; however, I cannot easily find material on robert hall's proposals. Could you help with references for the layperson ?
No, not at first. But we can create a value regime that seamlessly recognizes the wider natural environment that is the condition for human and other life forms. This creates the foundation for ecological health that the first floor of human and social welfare can be built on.
As I read the article, it came across as a swirl of critical ideas that lack a place to settle on. Some one or entity must create the "starting point". That decision creates paralysis in thought - deer in the headlights. As Rittel and Weber stated, "Wicked problems cannot even be known, until a solution has been formulated". In other words, stop thinking about the problem and think about a solution. When a solution is evaluated, it becomes a brief exercise because if you don't see the problem, you haven't found the solution.
The problem is clear to me, and to those you cited in the article - the economic system generates too many positive and negative externalities for the economy to prosper and grow. We think the problem is public and common goods and services. That is not the problem. Goods and services are not categorized as public, private, common, or club goods by their inherent nature - it just seems that way. They are categorized by the institutions and their capability to create excludability and rivalry.
The problem is our institutions inability to create excludability and rivalry for those public and private goods and services. One does not have to commodify to commonify. Goods and services can be commonified under the right accounting and governance model.
What does that accounting system look like? I know what it looks like. In 2010, I developed a fairly crude ecosystem service market to commonify common goods and services using a shared governance model. One cannot achieve Porter's "shared value" without "shared governance".
And this is the entire wall of resistance. No government, corporate, or NGO is willing to give up their governance style because a governance style defines what an organization is. If a government adopts a market style, it no longer functions like a hierarchal entity. If an NGO adopts a market governance style is not longer functions as a networked organizations. If a corporation adopts a network governance style, it can no longer function as a profit-generating entity.
The only solution can be a fourth socio-economic sector that I refer to as the Capital Commons. And it meets the vision of Karatani's "D", he just was not able to provide the details, but more importantly he was not able to provide the "starting point". The only thing we lack is the starting point and the resources to instigate it. We do not need a very wide polity, especially if they have some notion that their governance style is the path forward.
Here is another very important resource - Steve Keen talking about the Labor Theory of Value, and how he found an important contradiction in Marx's thought about use value/exchange value and the role of machinery.
https://youtu.be/1XGiTDWfdpM?si=BKUGK3yf0q7Cc1A7&t=3083
This is very much in line with my belief that we should embrace “a process theory of value;” as proposed by Robert “Doc” Hall. Hall speaks about "vigorous learning enterprises" that maximize work process performance AND learning effectiveness. Primarily seen as problem-solving networks that are good at absorbing, reacting, studying, adapting, taking appropriate action, and continuing this process as an adaptive cycle that becomes as symbiotic with the natural environment as possible.
fyi, ChatGPT replies this:
Robert "Doc" Hall's "Process Theory of Value" is a significant component of his broader work on compression thinking and the need for organizations to adapt in the face of sustainability challenges. Hall's theory emphasizes the importance of rethinking traditional business practices, focusing on value creation through efficient and sustainable processes, rather than purely on outcomes or financial results. He advocates for a shift in perspective that includes a broader definition of waste, the importance of long-term workforce development, and a critical view of short-term financial controls that may hinder sustainable practices. Hall's work suggests that organizations need to embrace a culture of continuous learning and improvement, not just to survive but to thrive in a future where sustainability and resource efficiency are paramount.
Furthermore, Hall's ideas resonate with lean thinking principles, where the focus is on creating value through efficient processes. Lean thinking encourages organizations to prioritize process improvement, which in turn leads to better results. By valuing processes and continuous improvement, organizations can develop resilience, adaptability, and a deeper capability to address challenges, including those related to sustainability and environmental concerns. This approach is about creating a learning organization that values process over immediate results, which can lead to innovative solutions and long-term success.
For more in-depth exploration of these concepts, you might find it useful to delve into Hall's works and related lean thinking literature, which discuss the practical applications of these theories in organizational management and sustainability practices.
Michel, I hate that you had to use ChatGPT (my arch nemesis) for this, but it is accurate. I'm going primarily off of a home printed 54 page document he put online called "Compression" in 2009. See the Compression Institute website:
https://compression.ramapo.edu/aboutci/our-story/
I do it occasionally, in terms of search complex topics, it does save time
thank you for this; fyi, I share your comments via my X account 'mbauwens'; however, I cannot easily find material on robert hall's proposals. Could you help with references for the layperson ?
No, not at first. But we can create a value regime that seamlessly recognizes the wider natural environment that is the condition for human and other life forms. This creates the foundation for ecological health that the first floor of human and social welfare can be built on.
As I read the article, it came across as a swirl of critical ideas that lack a place to settle on. Some one or entity must create the "starting point". That decision creates paralysis in thought - deer in the headlights. As Rittel and Weber stated, "Wicked problems cannot even be known, until a solution has been formulated". In other words, stop thinking about the problem and think about a solution. When a solution is evaluated, it becomes a brief exercise because if you don't see the problem, you haven't found the solution.
The problem is clear to me, and to those you cited in the article - the economic system generates too many positive and negative externalities for the economy to prosper and grow. We think the problem is public and common goods and services. That is not the problem. Goods and services are not categorized as public, private, common, or club goods by their inherent nature - it just seems that way. They are categorized by the institutions and their capability to create excludability and rivalry.
The problem is our institutions inability to create excludability and rivalry for those public and private goods and services. One does not have to commodify to commonify. Goods and services can be commonified under the right accounting and governance model.
What does that accounting system look like? I know what it looks like. In 2010, I developed a fairly crude ecosystem service market to commonify common goods and services using a shared governance model. One cannot achieve Porter's "shared value" without "shared governance".
And this is the entire wall of resistance. No government, corporate, or NGO is willing to give up their governance style because a governance style defines what an organization is. If a government adopts a market style, it no longer functions like a hierarchal entity. If an NGO adopts a market governance style is not longer functions as a networked organizations. If a corporation adopts a network governance style, it can no longer function as a profit-generating entity.
The only solution can be a fourth socio-economic sector that I refer to as the Capital Commons. And it meets the vision of Karatani's "D", he just was not able to provide the details, but more importantly he was not able to provide the "starting point". The only thing we lack is the starting point and the resources to instigate it. We do not need a very wide polity, especially if they have some notion that their governance style is the path forward.