The challenge is. as Jerome says, the "sustainability" of the growth enabled by this revolution in terms of minimising the calls upon finite resources. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
It's possible to imagine a world in which industrial production is steady-state, or nearly so, and on a replacement only basis, and most of the value comes from culture.
You could then have continuous growth, literally only limited by people's imaginations.
This issue is more complicated than it looks, because the real reason 'growth' is necessary is because capitalism relies on deferred gratification and the promise that things will be better tomorrow - in the sense of better everything, from faster cars and computers to less time spent on chores.
Of course the promise is a lie, because the cost is excessive. When you spend 8-16 hours a day working and another couple of hours commuting, an iPhone is a poor consolation prize.
If culture and deep inventiveness became core values, replacing the idea of accumulation as 'progress', that would certainly be revolutionary.
By deep inventiveness I mean the creativity needed to produce Maxwell's equations or relativity, rather than the creativity needed to produce an iPhone.
Currently we're wasting bright people by making them to do pointless and often silly things. Freeing up people from the work -> consume treadmill might create some unexpected results.
I doubt that matching the Industrial Revolution in significance is possible: After all, what happened then was the disassociation between production and physical labour. The 'information revolution' is so far 'merely' a revolution in the speed and capacity of bulk transmission of information. Important? Yes. A match for mechanisation, in terms of social, political and economic consequences? No, definitely not.
The information revolution has the capacity of extracting hugely greater value from a given set of resources. It take very little materials to build amobile phone and transmision network, but think of the amount of time and materials saved by having say (a delivery van) contactable at all times.
PCs are becoming more powerful by orders of magnitude but often take less physical materials to build. The bigger problem is that all consumer durables are becoming non-durable, and you have to throw away your v=car, phone, PC after shorter and shorter intervals. We have to do something radical about making manufacturers 100% responsible for the maintenance/recycling costs of their wares to break that cycle.
So it IS conceivable that we can achieve sustainable growth from diminishing resources - and at a micro level we already are in many industries. This is partly why more recent Oil price shocks have had less impact that the previous ones. The problem is whole economies are still becoming more resource dependent and so hugely incremental efficiencies will be required to ofset resource depletion all the time. Index of Frank's Diaries
Without these three advances, you'd die from diseases that are today considered trivial (at least in the developed world) and every citizen not working as a bureaucrat, soldier or parasite (nobility, clergy, etc.) would be tied up producing foodstuffs and very basic commodities.
The ability to efficiently produce basic things like food and clothes in bulk quantities, combined with the industrialised distribution systems for these goods (as well as for clean water) are quite simply the underpinning of every creature comfort you or I currently enjoy.
Ultimately, satisfaction of basic human demands - heat, air, water, food, shelter - must surely rank as more important than any other advance. And industrialisation, for the first time in human history, provided the tools to ensure that those demands are reliably met for the vast majority of the population (notwithstanding the fact that the world lacks the political will to use the tools in this fashion).
Praxis informs information; building a steam engine teaches one how to build a better steam engine.
In the first iteration, Society was decentralised but disconnected, and "market presence" was "physical" ie buyers and sellers met physically in a market forum.
In this current second iteration, Society has become centralised, but connected, and market presence has been through (increasing consolidated) intermediaries.
The next, probably final, iteration - "Society 3.0" - will be decentralised but connected, and market presence will be a "network presence".
The transition to Society 3.0 manifested itself most memorably in Napster, the out-rider of the "peer to peer" markets to come.
I give banks (ie credit intermediaries) between 2 and 5 years before they are "Napsterised" and after this happens, progress to a fairer society will be rapid. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
I give banks (ie credit intermediaries) between 2 and 5 years before they are "Napsterised" and after this happens, progress to a fairer society will be rapid.
Except that the parties to the credit transaction (which may be settled in money or even "money's worth") will be members of the "third party".
ie a form of mutualised credit I call a "Guarantee Society".
Investments are something else, and distinct IMHO from credit (= time to pay").
Here I see investors in productive assets (eg property renewable energy) connected "peer to peer" with people who need investment. The difference being that the investment vehicle would no longer be the existing sub-optimal "Corporation".
This will be superseded by partnership based forms such as US LLC's and UK LLP's. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
Except that the parties to the credit transaction (which may be settled in money or even "money's worth") will be members of the "third party". ie a form of mutualised credit I call a "Guarantee Society".
Credit Unions create no credit "ex nihilo", as a bank does, based upon the amount of capital set by the Basel-based BIS.
www.zopa.com and www.prosper.com essentially disintermediate/ Napsterise credit unions, but lack a guarantee function.
The idea of a "Guarantee Society" is that bilateral "trade" credit - ie from seller to buyer - is subject to a mutual guarantee by members of the GS collectively in respect of which the users of the guarantee pay an amount into a "default pool".
Settlement of the credit granted may be either in conventional money, or, if the seller agrees, in "money's worth" (ie barter).
The result is of banking without the bank as intermediary, although there is a requirement for a service provider to manage the system, allocate "guarantee limits" manage defaults etc.
ie the bank becomes a service provider.
But note that this model facilitates the creation and circulation of wealth through "mutualising" credit creation.
Equitable investment of existing wealth is another matter entirely. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
But local groupds will be able to link together to form "pools of pools" and so on...
Conventional "microcredit" Grameen Bank style relies upon small groups of guarantors.
And when you think about it, all that credit derivatives are is a form of time limited guarantee, but not exactly a transparent one... "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
We are talking "bottom up" community based groups here, probably both geographical and functional. ie any group of individuals with a "common bond". But local groupds will be able to link together to form "pools of pools" and so on...
Sounds like the credit union movement to me.... Index of Frank's Diaries
Existing credit unions would manage the process and the default "pool", and handle accounting and defaults etc as "service providers". "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
What has happened since - automation, miniturisation, nanotechnology, electronics, digitisation, bioengineering and computerisation etc. are largely about "the knowledge" revolution - doing totally new and previously unimaginable things - didn't really get going until the middle of the last century - is ungoing, and is qualitatively different. I don't think we are even beginning to see its potential yet. Index of Frank's Diaries
To build on some ideas in earlier replies, here is a parallel:
You quite properly count agriculture as a great revolution, and count as one aspect of the greatness of the industrial revolution the emergence of industrialised agriculture.
Likewise, however, one can regard much of modern physical technology (both production and products) as a sort of "informationalised industry", made possible only by the explosion in information technology. The information revolution thus gets an increment of credit as a part of the industrial revolution, in addition to its other revolutionary aspects. Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
The 'information revolution' is so far 'merely' a revolution in the speed and capacity of bulk transmission of information.
To the extent that it has happened yet, the Information Revolution is a revolution in the speed and capacity of the customized transmission of information.
And if we are going to move from a paradigm of throwing material and energy at the inefficiency of one-size-fits-all designs to a paradigm of mass roll-out of designs customized to be efficient matches to their context, the "Information Revolution Thus Far" would seem to be an essential pre-requisite. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
