THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN ABUNDANCE AND SUFFICIENCY (Part I)

(Originally posted in Spanish October 2016)

Come with me in this story. A story that can be read in several ways. From the inner economy of self to the outside world economics. From what I call microeconomics: the economy of our own house, the economy of what is close and immediate to our life. And from what I call macroeconomics: the global economy of our big home the Earth, and how we take care of her.

************

Alice Abundance is a beautiful woman. So beautiful. She knows very well how beautiful she is. Just like a flower, her petals open as love freely, unboundedly. Seeing her open you would know for a fact that she would never accept someone or something to tie her down, to lock her up, nor to restrain her.

Some people could confuse with vanity what in truth is a profound love for herself. Only as a consequence of this primary love, it is natural for Alice to give away much love to everyone who knows her. What she wants the most is to love one another. She does not need gratitude for her gift to be dignified. Alice just wants to give more and more. That is her passion, permanently in love.

This woman will always give the best to her loved ones, to her friends, to life itself. No matter how much money she has, or how much food she has stored at home, she will always give the best and all she has to whomever visits her. She will want her children to be well dressed, and if there be any doubt that a piece of clothing is not fully clean, she would right away put it in the laundry basket.

How lucky I am to know Alice in person! Hopefully everybody can meet her closely, because she does nothing but gift you, and gift you, and gift you the very best. If she was to invite you for dinner, she would invite you to the best restaurant in Paris. Suppose that by chance you pass by her place, having met her even that very same day, and she has two chocolate bars: an industrial piece, and a handmade piece of chocolate made in Belgium. Which chocolate bar do you think she will share with you? We are talking about Alice Abundance.

Alice would never allow, because of self-love and love for life, to have in her kitchen plates and silverware that are not in a fully immaculate condition. Nor would she allow a refrigerator that is not working 100% well and that doesn’t honor the space with neatness. By her nature she gets rid of all those things, and simply replaces them instead with new ones. She would only get a second-hand piece of appliance if it has been honored and cared for in such a way, that it radiates a special beauty much more profound and subtle that a new object could ever produce.

Alice has heard about environmental problems, and of course she is aware that her refrigerator is becoming obsolete rapidly, unlike yesteryear. She is aware, too, that when she gets rid of it, the recycling of its pieces will be partial at best. And that the production of a brand new refrigerator is necessarily destructive, from the very source of the required supplies in mines, use of chemicals in the process, workers who do not love their job, several carbon producing transports, so on and so forth. However, her innate pull will be to honor her life, her home and family, her friends and visitors, with a refrigerator in perfect conditions. Alice knows in her heart, in her guts, that the spirit of life is abundance, is openness, is generosity. It is not restriction. She intuits that the force of life will take care of everything. It is not in her nature to make calculations about how often to replace her refrigerator is least damaging. If no matter what the refrigerator will be discarded sooner or later, what difference does it make, cosmically, to replace it in 5 years or in one hundred years? If looked at from a neighboring star, this is completely irrelevant.

Alice is very loved, even famous. Oh, so many people desperate want to get close to her. But what they ignore is that to be able to get close to her they need to be like her, or similar to her.

Her cousin Elsie Abundance always wanted to be like Alice. But Elsie went to school for too long, and it got into her head that in order to give you have to demand to receive in exchange. They told her at school that this was a law of the universe, and so therefore its fulfillment needs to be required just like all other laws and norms of control of the nation. Elsie wanted to give with the same love she admired in Alice: an abundant, wonderful love, which delighted everybody. Except that, at the moment of giving to someone, Elsie made sure that she would receive in exchange something equally valuable, that is, according to the law. Because everything she gave was appropriately paid for, Elsie’s life was fully in order and according to norms. Elsie was very well adapted to the modern system, in fact she was quite successful and in time she was able to accumulate a small fortune of money and assets.

However, there was something that was getting lost in what Elsie gave. Something subtle. Something of the immense love that was in Alice was less and less present in what Elsie delivered. She would tell herself: “if I am much more successful than Alice, it must be that I am doing it right, and that is why life is rewarding me like that”… What Elsie offered no longer was unique and special. It became homogeneous, anonymous, indifferent. Elsie’s Gift stop being Flower, no longer did it have the infinite openness of the womb of our Cosmic Mother. They might have taught Elsie many valuable things at school, but they did not teach her what Krishnamurti said: “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society”.

Alice on the other hand, somebody said she never went to school. I think she did go to school, but what they taught in that place never penetrated her heart. I imagine her in the classroom gazing through the window at a butterfly dancing in the air with no purpose. She was never interested in laws, neither the laws of human society nor the supposed laws of the universe (interpreted by men). What law could possibly interest that butterfly?

Well, I’ve said enough about Alice Abundance already, but I haven’t even mentioned her husband, Vincent Sufficient. Much less it is talked about Vincent. Because he is not a well-known character, he has been misinterpreted. (See Towards a Gift Culture for a discussion about how it is possible to mistake sufficiency for a mentality of scarcity, which are two different things). Some people think that Vincent is not necessary in this story, that with Alice and her wonderful love we already have everything we could possibly dream of. But it was Alice herself who picked up Vincent as her lover and as the father of her children. It was Alice who dreamt, with all her heart, to fall in love with someone exactly like Vincent. Vincent and his surprises ended up fascinating her to the point that she fully gave herself in love.

 Photography: Piece by Pina Bausch, German choreographer

I think Alice knew how to listen to the word in Vincent’s soul. That word was a promise of peace, a promise of hope. Because Alice, who never stopped giving and giving, began to realize that most people took and took what she gave, but were not truly receiving what she was giving. They were not capable of realizing what she was giving. She became concerned that no matter how much love she gave (and she gave huge love), it was never enough. As a result, what grew in the world was fear and separation, rather than love. Men were blindly destroying life. But in her nature she could not stop to “analyze the situation”. Her nature was to trust in Life, so she continued giving with more love.

If you believe Alice was making a mistake because she did not enforce the law of Giving and Receiving, please reconsider!. She never stopped receiving. Glorious and huge waves of love and life strength rushed into her being from the Very Source of the Universe. Only in a more mysterious, more subtle way, less reachable by human rationality. That is right, this universal Law of giving and receiving is true, and Alice knew about it all along in her guts, not in her mind. Except that there was never a need for man to control this law. In the cosmic mystery of the infinite love of life there is no creature deprived from receiving something wonderful, permanently.

In any case, Alice naturally and without any effort generated love towards others from no other place than the ability to love herself, that is to say, from her innate openness to receive. Thus, who could possibly accuse her of not knowing how to receive? Only those who went to school for too long, and got programmed to control laws and norms, programmed to expect “concrete results”. Where the concept of “concrete” always left outside the mysterious and constantly moving spirit of life.

And yes, as human as she is, she eventually doubted. She felt incomplete. She considered that maybe she was doing something wrong because there were so many people that criticize her. When she was getting tired Vincent appeared in her life. All the love she had for herself was nothing compared to the love she received from Vincent. Then she was able to rest. Then she was overflowed with love.

Vincent is, by the way, a good man, who’s been training to give the best of himself. He has for centuries wandered in search of the beauty of the infinite feminine love. On his path he discovered that to be a complete man, he needed to learn not to complaint. He went and search with all his heart how to cultivate peace in his being. He understood that peace is here and now, and decided that no matter what is going on, everything is fine just the way it is. Vincent realized his bet was the correct one: cold was not as cold as before, heat was not as hot, he was not as hungry anymore, he was not as thirsty, he no longer had that many human needs. He continued to love the pleasures of life, but not anymore from the complaint that “there is something missing”, or “something that needs to be changed”. His nature is to be content and fulfilled with whatever there is. I am saying truly content, not only on the surface.

Vincent is quite capable of fully enjoying a simple and humble meal under a tree, as if it was way better than eating at the best restaurant in Paris, because he knows how to appreciate certain details. Because he knows how to see beyond. Because he knows how to be with no complaint, and to be free of complaint is to know how to appreciate with the heart. To him, the here and now is sufficient just the way it is. When Alice invited him to eat at the best restaurant in Paris, he readily accepted the invitation definitely not because of the promise of magnificent food, but because he was captivated by Alice and the love he felt in her invitation. Nonetheless, Vincent discovered he not only appreciated but was delighted by the food they enjoyed that day. Alice was capable of bringing enjoyment to that place in his heart that was already at peace. A place where nothing was needed but where there was still a vastness of room for love and sweetness.

Then, Vincent and Alice felt in love passionately. They began dancing. Vincent understood it was not his task to change Alice, to balance her with some sufficiency so that she would not be “so abundant”. Alice understood, likewise, that she did not need to teach Vincent to be more abundant. Then they learnt to dance. Alice became more abundant. By being loved in such a way her love and her capacity to give herself grew beyond any measure. And Vincent melted in her love. He became more sufficient, he filled himself up with peace, and suddenly he no longer needed anything. Not even money, not even to pay for the clothes, violin and soccer that their children attended. They discovered that from their love dance something new was being born. Vincent Sufficient already knew, this immense Secret of Life: there is no need of money in order to live. The linear sum of numbers definitely has nothing to do with the unlinear mystery of life. The mysterious spirit of life is present too in what we call money, in our bills, in the so-called need to pay the rent, etc.

There being so much peace, Alice wanted to be yet more abundant, she wished to share even more. Vincent finally understood, he fully gave himself out to life and no longer stopped her. At that moment Love began, as if It had never existed before, and at the same time as if It had always been there. In an eternal instant, Time vanished.

**********

Some time before they learnt to dance, Vincent and Alice lived through other experiences. Alice thought that all conceivable love already existed, she did not know that it was possible to create new love. So she thought that Vincent had to be abundant like the love she was already familiar with. It was difficult for her to understand him.

It was hard to understand that Vincent’s heart contained a profound love for life, a profound love for our big home Pachamama, and a deep call to do everything he could to stop the destruction of life and beauty and to engage in the urgent restoration. Vincent, having a commitment with truth, could not avoid the reality of misery that millions of humans endure. He could not remain blind to the reality of destruction of forests, rivers and seas in the name of progress, so that a few people could comfortably enjoy abundance. Vincent painfully faced the truth: abundance is too often equivalent to the destruction of life. Said in a different way, economic progress is mathematically linked to the misery of the many, and specially linked to the fact that we are leaving our grandchildren as a legacy a severely damaged world.

His enormous sense of responsibility and commitment made him realize the reality of these equations. For example, the equation where we renew our refrigerator every 5 or 10 years, and its real consequences. Or the equation where we face what our debt issued currency system really means for Life.

Faced with the truth, how can one comfortably dedicate one's human energy to generating more money, however much enjoying abundance be a beautiful promise? Money which, even with the most sincere and ethical intentions, will always be linked to the transformation of the beauty and health of life into ugliness and destruction (see Understanding Money to delve deeper into this subject).

Thus, in every simple thing in life. How could Vincent be satisfied washing his children's clothes very often, if in his heart of sufficiency he longs to use less water, less electricity, less detergent (however biodegradable it may be, anyways it is harmful)? His heart of sufficiency, and of love for Life on the planet, longs LESS, instead of more, of all these things.

But all that was looked at from the point of view of equations... Only Alicia's love could remind him of what he had forgotten in his heart, that the universe can never be contained in equations. That there is no exit to the labyrinth, but rather a surrender to the labyrinth that vanishes the walls of every equation. His responsibility for life continued to be manifested with or without equations. His feeling of wanting to do something for life became more loving, more peaceful. He began to understand that there is nothing to change, thanks to Alicia's love. And that, however, he can continue to do the same, he can continue to be the same Vincent Sufficient, with his heart of sufficiency and his commitment to life.

How happy Alicia was when Vincent left her alone to do all the laundry she wanted, all the sheets and towels and blankets in the washing machine! He loved her wholeheartedly. He loved her fully when he was able to be at peace with himself, which is what he always wanted from the beginning. Whatever it is, that's enough.

That's how Vincent and Alicia went on with their mysterious dance of love. For several years they lived with very little or almost no money, and yet even when they had less money they still lived in Abundance and Sufficiency. They did not need to adapt to the system (they never got a paid job for example), nor did they need to change the system. It was perfect just as it was.

And then came another time when they began to live with a lot, a lot of money, which allowed them to fulfill all their dreams. They traveled to remote places such as the Temple of Sufficiency in Kumbaktu, the Abundance Pyramid in Chechelén, and the Tree of Love in Ankermein. They had their own home and a large field full of trees and life and special places where they served and shared their Abundance and Sufficiency and their Dance of Love with all the friends who visited them. They nurtured their children's unlikely dreams without limits. They came to have so much money that they were finally able to start all their restoration projects for the Beauty of Life. They began by buying a huge tract of land to preserve in the Amazon Rainforest. But I will tell you more about that in Part II of this story.

In Part III of this story, I will tell you about what happened when the world really changed. I still don't know if in the future there was a different kind of money, apart from all the new loves and new spaces of Being that were born from this dance of Alice and Vincent.

**************

Abundance connects with enjoying life, with feeling legitimately worthy of the best of life. It is knowing that the feminine love of life has no limits. Sufficiency connects with being at peace in the here and now, as it is, free from all internal complaints, without any need to change anything. In a story like this, abundance and sufficiency dance together. They are not balanced on a scale as our linearly programmed mentality would like to force. They dance, love each other, let themselves be free.

In our family microeconomy, I feel at peace and at ease with this marriage between abundance and sufficiency, where we do not make any major calculations, where we do not separate the money between me and my wife, and where we have never calculated how much money we need to live as we live. Nor have we ever calculated what kind of life is enough for us with the money we generate. We simply live, free, without salary for more than 6 years, and MANY times it seems that it will not be enough but it has always been enough.

In my house, masculine financial mathematics are just a reference, and no more. They are not a guide nor a determinant in our life. That is, for example, if we have $1,000 available, that does not mean that we can only spend 10 times 100, or twice 500. It doesn't add up like that in our house. I say this responsibly, with all my heart. If the universe is not linear, why should we demand linearity from that piece of the universe that is our money, our accounts, our income?

What we do know is that if we adopt a scarcity mentality, that's what we generate around us. If I think that I'm a separate being with a $1,000 credit and that if I spend part of it, I'm left with less, well that's the reality I generate. "If I spend $400, I am left with $600," even that's false! If I adopt that mentality, what happens is that when I spend $400, I am left with about $300 (and 300 are lost out there who knows how). Our mind is so powerful to generate realities. See The Beautiful Labyrinth of Abundance to delve deeper into this theme.

Abundance and Sufficiency. Vincent and Alice, may they dance freely, may they learn to love each other fully, and may new realities emerge.

CLOSING CAMPAIGN

The campaign is now closed. GRACIAS. Know that your gifts of support for this vision and my work are always welcome, I receive them with both hands, responsibly. The gofundme will continue to run for a few days, and when we launch the new page you will find new ways to support.  

We certainly exceeded the goal. We have gathered $2,489 so far and I think other donations will come in yet. But what we've GATHERED, what we have REUNITED, is far more valuable than money or dimensions. Seeds of deep generosity were sown here that will replicate many times. Generosity that GENERATES. We reunited, we gathered a dream, I dare say, that many of us dream but that dreaming it alone deeply hurts because it is impossible. (Impossible for the cultural paradigm of the possible). To dream it together is something else.

I share with you that all this energy of the heart GATHERED is a very strong energy, it has stirred me a lot... It remains to observe how it will continue to move. How interesting! and how curious I am!

Among several other things, I realized that in a hidden, valuable, kind part of me, I did not believe that it was possible for every human being to have abundance in their lives... I am talking about the people, the majority of people in reality, who live in anguish, pressured by scarcity; the people, too, who are downright suffering from misery. I kept that deep pain, that impotence that it was not possible to dream of freedom for all... that now I feel releasing from myself.  

The abundance that decides the heart is not the same as conventional abundance. An idea of our reductionist culture of reality, conventional abundance is the measurable one, which depends on the economic system, and as such can never be achieved by everyone (see UNDERSTANDINGMONEY).  A system where "the only way to make money is to take it from others", where the most successful are the most skilled at taking money from others. 

The abundance that decides the heart (see The Amazing Labyrinth of Abundance), on the other hand, is the abundance that emanates from our divine center, which depends entirely on oneself and on nothing external, nobody can take it away from you, nobody can harm it, it is unbreakable, divine... It is elusive and paradoxical, it grows when love grows, it grows when we REUNITE. It doesn't really grow with learning, with understanding. In the same way, no one can use it as a reason to justify people's poverty. No one can use it to judge.

I used to keep that deep pain, that impotence that it was not possible to dream of freedom for all... that now I feel being liberated.

ECONOMIA SAGRADA’s COMING OF AGE

https://www.gofundme.com/economiasagrada

On a day like today I feel intensely frightened, like a child who is becoming an adult.

www.economiasagrada.com was born as a blog in December 2015. It's time to become an adult, and move on to a complete and well-designed website. I'm inviting you to support this. Becoming a website has the deepest and most emblematic meaning. To become a website is to acknowledge this work as part of the mysterious and wonderful web of life.

In the conventional paradigm of patriarchy, becoming an adult is linked to becoming independent. It means to conform to the norms of society, it means to submit to the establishment, it means to adapt to "reality" (a "reality" which is cultural!). It means accepting that the Boa in The Little Prince was just the drawing of a hat.

In a new paradigm of oneness and trust in life, becoming an adult means breaking free from the provisional shell of protection that the train of conventional life used to offer, when it no longer does. It means to fully receive the support that the sacred movement of life offers you when you dedicate yourself to something you love with your whole being. It means to let go of the illusion of independence, the effort for personal merit, and to rest on the support of knowing you are one with all. It means choosing freedom. It means remembering the eyes of the purest human soul, those of a child, who never forgot that the drawing is a Boa that swallowed an Elephant.

At least this is what I choose to live for. Do you know why? Because, being myself an economist from the gut down to my heart and intellect, I took what is happening on the planet seriously and came to the conclusion that there is no alternative. That's right, deciding to trust life is not a matter of romanticism, it's not a matter of courage or heroic mysticism. In fact, on a day like today I feel intensely afraid. Beautiful fear! There's nothing else but to trust in life, there's just nothing else. That is the beauty of the urgency we face.

On a day like today, I am reaching out to everyone who reads me, listens to me, has been in my workshops or talks, who somehow knows or intuits that I am at the service of this vision of sacred economics, to ask you to support us with money to take this step. I appeal to those who feel called to support this vision.

Our goal is to raise US$2,100 (until December 6th, 2017) for the company Mighty Nonprofits to design and rebuild the economía sagrada website. This is not about numbers, it's about exercising the support of life. That is why your contribution is meaningful, emblematic, sacred with all the property of the word. It is a seed of the new world that we dream, that we can co-create.

Within the conventional paradigm of patriarchy, it is assumed that if the work one does is valuable, then one can appropriate it into something saleable. Design a product or service that can be traded. It is supposed that if one wants to help someone to get ahead in life, one should encourage this person to earn a living, to become self-sustaining by adapting to the markets. But the one who really knows our economic system deeply understands that this is an illusion, the same that every day that passes is crumbling for more and more people (see Understanding Money - Story of a Village and Introduction to Sacred Economics).

How is the economy of sacredness, the economy of trust? Unconditional. Radically different from what we imagine possible. How is it discovered, how is it built? It is discovered by deconstructing our cultural beliefs unconsciously rooted in our neuronal habits.

I am at the service of accompanying the birth of a new economy. The only possible economy (which is impossible within the current cultural constructs) is the economy of trust, the economy of oneness. For me to offer what I have to share, I simply cannot charge, I cannot demand a given quantity in return. I can't, but really I don't want to, with all my being. I work in the gift economy, I offer my work as a gift and receive gifts in return (see Towards the Culture of Gift I and II). In addition, a large part of the people who come to my workshops are people who are legitimately distressed by the scarcity of money, and who long for a world of freedom. To them I want to serve.

A new website is a coming of age for sacred economics. It means a quantum declaration of oneness, of being supported by life without any need of personal merit. Personally, it means a sincere declaration of unconditional service, aligned with the vision itself of sacred economics. How could it be any other way?

Your gift towards this initiative is firstly meaningful in a sacred way, because it is a step towards an economy of oneness. From now on, all of our work, essays, talks, workshops will carry these seeds of unconditional oneness, so that from the inside out, little by little, we can all construct an economy where we simply gift each other our best, in freedom. Out there, there is a lot of anguish, misery, hunger, stress, surviving trauma, destruction of beauty, lack of freedom, proliferation of ugliness, all the way to the point where the continuity of life on this planet is threatened. For all these situations, the vision of sacred economics takes responsibility, with compassion and true hope.

Your gift will give me the strength (yes, this too), to continue offering my work as a gift, knowing that one way or the other life will support me and my family. Yes, I do need, I do want, I do ask to receive support. Sacred economics workshops cannot be plentifully shared under the condition that attendees need to fulfill a given payment back for the gift they receive.

In addition, your gift is helpful in carrying this vision towards the Spanish speaking people in Latin America and elsewhere (where most people cannot access the work of Charles Eisenstein).

Of course it is an immense honor for me to receive your monetary gifts in these terms. I will receive them as a treasure of seeds of hope. I thank you from the depths of my soul on behalf of my family and our most true dreams for all life.

Can you imagine the new website? Can you imagine the consequences, the seeds of something new being born? In this campaign, we set up the beginning.

To donate, please follow this link:
https://www.gofundme.com/economiasagrada

THE AMAZING LABYRINTH OF ABUNDANCE

(originally posted in Spanish July 2016)

-Accept everything as it is so that it can change-.

Many friends, many people everywhere are simply very interested, very worried, and often very distressed about having more money than what they have. Everywhere in Latin America, for example, pyramid schemes like “Women's Gifting Circles” or “The Flower of Abundance” have become very popular (see post Regarding the'Flower of Abundance' by myself and Gifting Circles and the Monetization of Everything by Charles Eisenstein). There is an eagerness for abundance, for money in particular, which is not well directed.

I'm also interested in having more money than I have. In recent years, I would say that I have less and less money, less and less anguish about it, and I live more and more in abundance (one of so many paradoxes). But sometimes I still have anguish. How could I not have it, if the message I have to give is a tremendous paradox: on the one hand, the current system is necessarily mathematically incompatible with monetary wealth for everyone (what a depressing thing to hear, right?). And at the same time: the message that life IS abundance. Both truths coexist.

The message that money is associated with the destruction of beauty: IT IS TRUE! (in case you wondered). See posts Introduction to Sacred Economics and Understanding Money for an introductory understanding of the current money institution. It's natural to feel guilt, disgust or shame about money. Having felt the truth of all that money means, one is freed and can open oneself to receive all the abundance of life, including money, without guilt. That's right, today I'm going to talk about paradoxes.

I said I'm interested in having more money, but I wonder do I really want it? Do I really need it? What do I want it for? Questions that go long ways. Do I really love money? Well, the truth is that I don't love it right now. How can I love it if one fundamental part of the message I share is that the institution of money has to change... To love it would mean in my heart to love the narrative of progress that is extinguishing the Northern White Rhino (see In a Rhino, Everything), which is exhausting the Amazon Rainforest, which is leaving the Jaguar without habitat, which is leaving my children with fewer and fewer clean beaches, fewer moments of silence, less pure water springs... (See post When Do We Stop The Destruction of Nature?).

Or, can I accept money just as it is for it to change?

-Accept everything as it is so that it can change-.

To fully accept money is to me exactly the same as accepting everything as it is. And I declare strongly that I will make absolutely no effort to accept everything as it is. Trying to "improve myself" was what caused me the most suffering in my life. The only thing I want to "accept as it is" is myself. At this moment I embrace this paradox, this contradiction with much joy in my heart, without any need for solution. And, strangely enough, unintentionally, I feel a little closer to accepting everything as it is.

There are multiple reflexes of this collective yearning for more money. Several people who come to my sacred economy workshops have as their main motivation the question "How do I get more money? And I ask myself: how can I answer this question? That's exactly why I'm writing this essay.

That's how I found out about Mr. Fernando Blanco, very popular in California, who is basically teaching how to make more money. On his website "Curso Blanco Para Prosperar", he says that "every human being is obliged to have one of these two things: either he has money, or he has excuses why he has no money". In this kind of view, the lack of money is due to a lack of attitude (actually wanting it), and specifically to a lack of technical knowledge that one must have if one wants to earn money (knowledge that it is indeed possible to acquire by taking his course). Clearly, this view is part of the narrative of the Old Story, where it is knowledge, education, science, control over oneself and the forces of nature and adversity that solve our problems. That is clearly no longer the case.

If one really understands the current economic system, one understands that it is mathematically equivalent to the game of musical chairs, where every time music stops someone is left without a chair. And "music" is coming to a halt more and more often in these times: financial crises are becoming more frequent. Every time there is a financial crisis, someone (person, institution or country) falls into bankruptcy. For example, someone looses their home. The bank auctions it and another buys it. The result: fewer and fewer people now own their own homes (most of them rent and the proportion is increasing), and properties are accumulating in fewer and fewer hands. In other words, a few are getting richer. Problem of greed? NO!, the underlying problem is that money is issued as debt and this requires economic growth (see Understanding Money), and today it simply remains less and less possibility of economic growth on the planet.

It is true, poverty and inequality are endemic in the system. They cannot be solved with public policies, nor is it a matter of correcting intentions, attitude or knowledge.

And at the same time there is a magic of life, an abundance that is above the measure of linear logic. There is giving, giving from trust in the generosity of life. There is an openness to receive, which is to be filled with love for oneself. There is that mystery, I am living it myself with my family. As I said before, I have less and less money and I live with more and more abundance: I have new shoes, we have a car, we drink imported mate, and we share more and more without noticing the "justice" of our sharing, that is, each time a little more relaxed and unconditional in what we receive in return. It is my wife Javiera who has encouraged me to open myself up to give and receive with both hands, simply because as a woman she knows what is beautiful and what is ugly (thanks to my love).

A curiosity. While writing the previous paragraph, where I mention the abundance that little by little, day by day, we live in my family, I imagined the people who come to my workshops sometimes. I imagined them saying, "Oh well, Felipe already lives in abundance. What a relief. So that means I can make a smaller contribution to the sacred economics workshop". I almost deleted the previous paragraph for this reason. We tend to think that our personal abundance depends on giving less: that if I give less to others I have more left for myself. Do you see how the notion of abundance based on the conception of being separated is contrary to sharing? The separated being has a given credit available, and when he gives he is left with less. The notion of abundance in the conception of the inter being is not about what and how much I have, but what we co-have, what we all have and share. Deeper, I feel that our notions of abundance can change in many unimaginable ways.

Accept everything as it is so that it can change.

I recently watched the video "Orders of Abundance", where Brigitte Champetier des Ribes is interviewed about abundance from the perspective of family constellations. Although the view of Sacred Economics is quite different from that of Brigitte Champetier des Ribes, I decided to listen, open up and ask myself what I can learn. I have realized that if I move to the place where someone else is looking, I can understand why they see things the way they do. Every human being has something very valuable to contribute. Brigitte's gaze and the constellations seem to me to be very interesting, very healing, and I also think that she is representative of a wide spectrum of looks at economics from consciousness. That's why I wanted to share some reflections, moving through my own internal searches.

Allow me to pick up some of the things that Brigitte Champetier des Ribes says. First of all, Brigitte says that money is an energy of gratitude, which comes to us when we serve others, when we give, when we love those who are difficult to love. Money represents for her an exchange that occurs in proportion to a service. Abundance comes in a climate of gratitude; if one is displeased with life there can be no response from the universe.

Problems with money or abundance are, in this view, a reflection of something from the past that has not been assumed. For example, a debt is a systemic way of paying for an unassumed fault of an ancestor (maybe ours). This generates an attitude that does not allow the universe to be generous with us.

She adds that people with money difficulties have abandoned gratitude to life, they have no respect or love for money, so money simply goes away. If, on the other hand, I accept life as it is and I am grateful for whatever it is that concerns me and be able to serve, then life itself is grateful to me: I am in the enjoyment of life.

Brigitte Champetier des Ribes acknowledges that there is a belief that "money is bad". However, from the viewpoint that money is simply an energy exchange, eliminating money does not mean eliminating energy exchange. In other words, it doesn't matter if it's called money or otherwise: it's still the energy of exchange.

Well, first of all, I feel that it has its importance, it has its place, to see money as Brigitte says, as an energy, from peace, from gratitude. The truth of the matter is it is worth looking at all things, including garbage, nuclear bombs and the ego itself, from pure peace and pure gratitude. I was touched deep down, being an activist for the radical change of our civilization and economic system, to hear the phrase: "Accept everything as it is so that it can change", as the fundamental paradox. A phrase that is not new, and generally applies to the very intimate. In my experience, when I have seen something of myself that I didn't like, and I wanted to change it with my will and effort, the result hasn't been as expected: the remedy is worse than the disease. Deep changes don't really happen through the effort to "get better," but through love, peace, acceptance.

So, dear Brigitte, thank you because from your words of your heart, I feel a call that reaches to my being, to accept money as it is. It's not a little call you make. Because for me it is the same call, without any difference, to accept the extinction of the White Rhinoceros of the North, to accept the destruction of the Amazon and a series of things that make me very sad. A series of things with which I am very attached, at the same time, like all my urgencies for the system to change, for our culture of separation to change. Imagine how absurd I am, when I unfold my flag that "we have to build a culture of inter being that replaces our culture of separation". What could be ‘more separate’ than trying to change a culture of separation?

Accept everything as it is so that it can change.

Back to sacred economics, money is not just an energy or form of exchange. It is also a social institution, born from a narrative of progress. It is a reflection of an internal culture or collective neural arrangement. It is not only a form of exchange because every official currency is issued as debt, and as such, it forces economic growth. Therefore, stopping the destruction of the beauty of life is incompatible with the institution of money we have today. I will repeat it so that it will be heard well: Stopping the destruction of the beauty of life is incompatible with the institution of money that we have today (See the posts Introduction to sacred economics and when will we stop thedestruction of nature? to understand this fundamental point). This is the great paradox, which we must accept.

And, by the way, a different institution of exchange - a different kind of money: it is not an issue of improving the engineering of its design. It's not just about printing money without debt. First of all, a change of culture is needed, an internal arrangement of neurons, to replace the concept of "progress" as a permanent goal of humanity. It is necessary an expansion from the separated being to the inter being: an expansion of our mind and heart. A new money institution could only be born from such an expansion, an external reflection of a new internal reality. Because we are only capable of creating what we are on the inside. What we create reflects our inner state and not our intentions. That's why I insist so much that it is not an issue of improving our intentions.

Accept everything as it is so that it can change.

In reality, I have often felt very absurd, very utopian, talking about the need for a new institution of money, which could only be born from a new internal reality. How convincing can it sound to speak of a reality that we have never lived as humanity? So, I am calling at this moment on the antipoetry: to love money and the current system as it is. A love that is born with little sincerity but with much need, with a lot of passion. With a sensual hug, yes.

Thank you to all the people who, from consciousness, are called to accept money as it is. I only ask you, I beg you then, to open up your acceptance to a future of cement and pig crap (see In The Rhino, Everything), because you cannot accept one without the other. For my children, so that what we accept can change, without asking it to change.

To all those who have difficulty with money, whether it makes them sick, rejected, ashamed or guilty. I would like to tell you that perhaps your sentiment is totally legitimate, and not a part of your being that needs to be "improved". [And why not? Check out what old patterns or issues in our past have not been taken up, which may be blocking us.]

To all those who feel inadequate or maladjusted because they cannot make enough money, I would like to say: "It is not a measure of health to be well adapted to a deeply ill system" (Krishnamurti). I would like to say to you: that IS the way it is, it is the reality that we are all living: it is easier to make money by participating in ugliness, in the commercial inertia that already exists, than by co-creating a new reality of beauty.

The natural movement that money should have at this moment in human history is to return to its origin. Money was born and accumulated for centuries from transforming forests into cellulose and human communities into networks of impersonal commercial transactions. In other words, the natural purpose of money today is to restore the Commons (our natural, social, cultural and spiritual heritage). It's very simple: it is not possible to make money by cleaning up a polluted river. Why do you think so many people who dream of a different world have so much difficulty making money?

And another question: do we really need more money? If one decides to accept money as it is, having as a goal that accepting it will bring more money, then there is a small trap: one is not in the acceptance that the collective reality is a reality of little money. That possibility must also be accepted.

It is assumed that if one speaks of economy and spirituality, the correct word is abundance. The possibility of scarcity, on the other hand, is like a taboo, as if it were a betrayal of the Divine towards creation... But in nature there have always been deserts and the little plants and animals that live in the desert do not seem to complain. In nature there have always been times of drought, for example. What if this stage in human history is a drought stage, in which there will be less money in our pockets? What if there is another abundance hidden within the apparent scarcity? By changing mindsets, our notions of abundance and scarcity can change completely, unthinkably. If I am prepared to accept money as it is, as well as the extinction of the Northern White Rhinoceros, why should I not accept the scarcity? In fact, it doesn't seem so hard to accept! In fact, I feel that by accepting it, it has already changed, and a new abundance has arisen behind the scarcity that is not measured with the same metric, which is not understood in the same words.

Dear friend Brigitte, thank you again. I dream the same as you do, a world where cooperation takes precedence over competition, so that we all improve and not just one. All my support and respect for your work. From this collaborative virtual meeting, I stay with 2 things. First of all, the call to accept everything as it is so that it can change. I will continue to open myself to this call that I sense is most valuable. And secondly, that improving does not necessarily mean having more money (or having more money does not necessarily mean improving). Perhaps improving means embracing what we thought was scarcity and in that embrace discovering a new, less linear, more mysterious abundance.

To avoid misunderstandings, I am not making an apology for scarcity. To improve also doesn't mean to have less money, nor does having less money mean to improve. Let's say things as they are. Whoever believes that having less money has the merit of participating less in the corruption of the system is living an illusion, because in the first place, he or she continues to participate just as much as anyone else. And secondly, he is living the trap of pseudo-loving himself through a story where he claims merit, but in the deepest truth while one rejects something external (the system), one is rejecting oneself.

The only improvement I can identify is the one that has to do with breaking down our concepts of improvement, our distinctions of scarcity and abundance, to let a new mentality emerge. Embrace the mystery.

Economics Nobel 2017 for Thaler

Returning from a workshop in Uruapan, I found this interesting news. Thaler, another professor at the university where I studied, receives the Nobel Prize in Economics, one of the founders of Behavioral Economics. The interesting thing is that this view emerges from allowing people's non-rational behaviour in economic models. According to the Royal Academy of Swedish Sciences, Thaler "has incorporated psychologically realistic assumptions into the analyses of economic decision-making".  And one of the main criticisms of conventional economics is the assumption of rationality! 

Is it a good sign that economists are finally opening up to another discipline like psychology?

Does the fact that these ideas reach the mainstream means a "breakthrough" in economic science?

NO! Not at all! In a fundamental sense, I am going to argue that it is not.

I recommend this link to anyone who wants to investigate a little more about this field. Thaler's award note at the University of Chicago here.

In a sense, it is an extremely attractive field because it invites you to reflect on the systematic ways in which human behavior tends to be non-rational; and at the same time it invites you to consider what exactly is rational behavior.

As an introduction to the subject, I briefly mention two examples of non-rational behaviour.

(1) People suffer more when they lose what they already have than what they enjoy gaining something of equal value that they did not have before. It may be called an aversion to losing, or a bias in the willingness to lose, versus the willingness to win. Hypothetically, if someone with an aversion to loss competes with someone who does not have this bias, the unbiased person will have a better chance of winning in the long run. That's why it's considered non-rational behavior.

(2) Inconsistencies between the long-term decisions one makes (e. g. quitting smoking), and short-term decisions. Neuroeconomic models, for example, explain that one part of the brain is responsible for long-term planning, and another different part faces immediate decisions, in the here and now. Mathematically, these models consider hyperbolic intertemporal discount rates, which in simple English means a disproportionate bias towards the immediate versus the distant future. So that decisions you plan ahead, when the time comes you change them systematically, generating inconsistencies of an irrational nature in behavior.

It is worth mentioning that whenever there is irrational behavior, within the narrative of our modern science, there is something to correct at the same time. That is to say, the look that if it were possible to rectify your behavior to the rational, you yourself would be happier. For example, in the second example above, if there were an external force, some authority that would compel you to maintain your long-term decisions so as not to succumb to the temptations of the short term, you would be happier. (Of course, that means that happiness has more to do with the mind that plans than with immediate satisfaction, something that is of course debatable).

A series of implications are very interesting to reflect on.

A first fundamental point is that non-rational behavior is seen, throughout this field of economics, as a weakness, as something to overcome; and that as humanity progresses in its intelligence, our behavior will become closer and closer to rational behavior. “R. Thaler was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for clarifying how human weaknesses such as lack of rationality and self-control can affect markets "(elfinanciero. com. mx, the bold is mine). Rational behaviour is therefore an ideal.

A second fundamental point is that rational behaviour is presumed to exist, which is at least questionable. If you pause a little, you realize that it's just an abstraction, something that is intellectually conversated while having a cup of coffee with cookies in a seminar, and that makes sense only within a narrative about reality. What narrative? The reductionist narrative that assumes that there is an objective reality. This is just a cultural belief. Extremely heavy indeed, but it's still a cultural belief. It's not a truth of life. The truth of life is far more elusive and irreducible to mere intellectual understanding. Just as objective reality does not exist, neither does fully rational behavior exist, not even as an ideal. (This topic is a big deal and I may have to write more about it later; for now I hope to express a panorama, a look that liberates. For a deeper understanding see the related post Human Reason).

Under the idealization of rational behaviour, it is justifiable to apply public policies that rectify people's behaviour. The logic would be that people need mechanisms to correct their behavior in order to bring them to their own greater happiness, which they do not achieve on their own because of their limited intelligence. Naturally, here is born the ethical suspicion (and further justified by the bad reputation of governments), of allowing a governing authority to "improve" the free decisions of people, no matter how much they may be against their own good. In any case, this is already happening! For example, in policies that require cigarette packets to show the terrifying effects on health. This may help people who actually decide not to smoke any more, but it is very difficult for them to maintain their decision.

Similarly, with or without specific knowledge of economics and psychology, private companies are already explicitly or implicitly addressing the irrational weaknesses of consumers with their marketing strategies. This is nothing new, the novelty would be that they now have more precise engineering for their marketing programs thanks to Thaler (I don't think this is his intention). Perhaps some reader is thinking at the moment: "we have to improve the rationality of people so that marketing strategists don't take advantage of their weakness". Nothing further from what I want to express!

In the example (1) I mentioned above, about the aversion to losing, I would like to make an interesting observation, which I hope will tear down schemes. If you have an aversion to losing, you have two possible routes. One is intensively studying the rational paradigm, and behavioral economics, (I "recommend" to enroll in a phd program in economics for it), so that you develop so much your understanding of your rationality and your irrationality that by exerting control over yourself you "overcome" all irrationality in yourself.

A second possible route is as follows. Perhaps you have an exaggerated longing for security, and therefore you miss opportunities to be happier. Maybe you have a low tolerance for change. You're just scared. You can choose to feel your fear, and release it through feeling. Which way do you prefer? The first of reason and control over yourself? Or the second of freedom and sincerity to feel what you feel? In my experience, the second route takes you further.

An even more profound and thought-provoking observation is the fact that scientists who observe and model the irrational behaviour of people are (ilusory) fully rational in their observation. Their observations, hypotheses, theories, their way of writing, their manner of conversation, their contemplation per se, are fully situated within the idealized rational paradigm. (While drinking coffee and eating cookies at seminars). Note the size of this contradiction: to observe the irrationality of the real world, from an abstract rational narrative, i. e. unreal. It would be more "reasonable" to observe the irrational from an irrational yet realistic narrative.

Thaler told the award committee (theguardian. com) that he "planned to spend the prize money irrationally". What an interesting joke. I don't know if Thaler really meant this, but anyone would be happy to receive a gift of a lot of money that was indeed so unexpected, that it would give you license to be irrational. Permission to not make any calculations, to relax, to rest. To celebrate life. Because, on the other hand, in the conventional culture we live under the weight, under the exigency of being rational. With our salary we have to be rational and plan for the long term, to ensure our old age and the future of our children, etc. Things that give you peace of mind, true, but that take such an effort of cold reason, that if we were honest with our human soul, we detest. If we "had permission," we would never want to live life rationally. I know this has many implications for discussion and reflection. I'd love to cover them all, but I'd have to write all week.

For this fundamental reason, the 2017 Swedish Academy economics Award is NOT good news: the idealization of rational behaviour has not been questioned, but rather strengthened. Recognizing the lack of rationality in people, is done only with the programming that someday human behavior becomes rational. At the cultural level, it only reinforces people's efforts to improve the rationality of their behaviour.  It is even attractive, thanks to the observations of behavioral economists like Thaler, to realize the various ways in which our behavior is weak, irrational, and devote ourselves to becoming more rational in life. A grave mistake for those who are interested in freedom and happiness.

Certain characteristics of behavioral economists as researchers are very interesting indeed. In this respect, yes, this Nobel Prize is good news. Characteristics typical of children, and very rare in conventional economists: their ability to distract themselves from the assigned task, a sense of wonder, a tendency to ask embarrassing questions, and a distrust of adults' ideas about which issues are worth thinking about and which are not (bloomberg. com). This is undoubtedly the way to enjoy the beauty of the mind, to think the unknown. The only problem with this is that when the thinker becomes very full of thoughts that fascinate him, he no longer admits a profound questioning. Rather, in the face of such fascination, he easily forgets what thoughts are at the base of all the rest of his thinking. So that it becomes very difficult for him to consider new understandings, new avenues of thought, new stories of life (truly new).

My deepest passion is to question the validity of the rational paradigm. Not just because of his falsehood or how absurd it is. But more than anything else because of the unhappiness that permeates our lives as we place our soul's trust in reason. On the other hand, I enjoy the beauty of thinking like everyone else, and the surprises that life has in store for us no matter what path we choose. For example, I hope that behavioral economics will help people quit smoking. It is welcome to include in electricity bills, the value of your neighbours' average electricity consumption, so that it induces people who consume a lot to consume less (this is an example of a positive idea from this field of economics).

It is also welcome that thinkers think too much, and become fascinated and glorified in their intelectual achievements. No problem and no criticism to them. Sooner or later, when your intellect has been satiated, your own soul will ask for a more sublime wisdom.

UNDERSTANDING MONEY

Money is generally understood as a means of exchange. In alternative contexts where the awakening of consciousness is known, it is common to understand money as an energy of exchange that has to do with our attitude of gratitude towards life and our mentality of abundance or scarcity. In the Post The Amazing Labyrinth of Abundance I reflect deeply on why understanding money solely as an energy of exchange is a limited understanding. Why should a child go hungry, because of his mentality of scarcity? Evidently that explanation is not sufficient. Nor is it enough to blame it all on the ambition and corruption of big corporations, politicians and businessmen: when you understand the economic system you realize that even if we were to eliminate all ambition and corruption the problem would remain. Moreover, it goes without saying that many people today are fully convinced of their intention to adopt a mentality of abundance and gratitude towards life, yet that does not produce the expected result in terms of money flow. Rather, those who do well with money are those who adapt well to the conventional economic system (such as Elsy Abundance in the Post Marriage Between Abundance and Sufficiency). 

In reality, money, more than an energy of exchange, is a social institution that (like all our institutions) reflects the cultural mentality of separation: a specific collective neurological organization. If what I have just said sounds very strange, don't worry, here is a very simple explanation that will help you understand this.

Consider the following story (original idea taken from Charles Eisenstein’s book Sacred Economics). Imagine a small village where there is no money. Let’s say people barter with basic goods. 20 families live in the village. Alice produces beans, Peter produces corn, Kimberley has some chickens, Steven is a carpenter. They all do what they with the most basic technologies, of course their agriculture is fully organic (in their world that word makes no sense). When Alice wants some corn and Peter wants some beans, things are very easy: Alice takes some corn from Peter, Peter takes some beans from Alice. Everybody is happy.

Another day Alice wants some corn but Peter doesn’t want any beans. Luckily, Peter does want some eggs, and Kimberley wants some beans. So the exchange goes: Alice gets her corn, Peter gets his eggs, and Kimberley gets her beans. Everybody happy.
Next week, Peter doesn’t want beans nor eggs, he wants to build his house. That would probably take a lot of corn, however Steven doesn’t want that much corn. He actually wants beans but today Alice doesn’t want any corn. So on and so forth. The point is, bartering without a currency can get complicated.
So, one sunny day a Banker arrives to the village. He is actually an honest banker, one who believes people in the village can do better and simply wants to help them. I am not being sarcastic here, I do not want the reader to get distracted by the stereotype of a greedy banker. Anyways, in the vision of sacred economics greed is not a problem but simply a symptom (and by the way a symptom that is present often but not always; there is in my opinion an exaggeration or an obsession in blaming greed or ambition for our civilization’s imminent collapse). Mr. Banker tells the villagers they can do better by having a currency. “You can exchange more efficiently if you have a currency. Not only that, but you can have your economy grow: produce more, and have access to new goods and services. Let me help you. Get me a cow hide and I will cut it in small pieces (standard size). Then I will give each family 10 pieces of hide. The only condition is when I come back next year, each family has to give me back 11 pieces of hide”. The villagers accept the proposal.

Dear reader, don’t jump to conclusions too fast. Let me guide you. First, a total of 200 hide pieces are circulating in the economy, so there is no way all 20 families can pay back 11 pieces because that will take 220 hide pieces. Thus, this would mean at least 2 families have to go bankrupt (unless Mr. Bank issues new hide pieces in the middle of the year). But let’s go step by step. First thing that happens is that indeed exchange is easier now (nothing at all wrong with that). The second thing that happens, is that together with this new technology of exchange something else came into the village: a new mentality of “we can do better”. A very healthy realization that one can improve upon whatever one is doing. For example, at a very low cost Kimberley can get some leftovers from Alice’s corn field and have her chickens produce more eggs. Likewise, Alice can get the chicken’s manure and improve corn yields. If Alice’s corn does better, she will be able to pay back her debt and presumably even keep a profit for herself. With the extra hide pieces, she can increase her family’s consumption, let’s say build a bigger house, perhaps buy a refrigerator, and/or make new investments, innovations in her corn field.

Now, one thing that is intuitive to see is that at the beginning of the monetization of the village, innovations are very easy to implement. At the very beginning, innovations have very low cost and very high payoff, generally speaking. So we can imagine the whole village doing better, innovating, having higher yields, producing more and new goods. When that is the case (increase in economic activity), simply what happens is that before the term is over, some villagers will be calling Mr. Banker to borrow more hide pieces. So physically that is what happens, basically more hide pieces are “printed by the central bank (federal reserve)”, and these are used to pay back the entire debt at the end of the first period. So the economy can in principle grow in a very healthy way, increasing consumption and wellbeing for all villagers and fully servicing the debt. In fact, what’s needed for a healthy economic growth is that the rate of increase in economic activity be the same or higher than the interest rate in the currency (in this example 10%).

A healthy growth like this can happen for several years indeed (maybe a couple centuries?). But the problem is that money (hide pieces) is always issued as debt. So no matter what you do economic activity must always increase. Put simply, no matter what yield you had last year, you have to improve it this year. Think about it biologically for the case of the corn field. When you add the first natural fertilizer yield will do much better. If you keep adding more and more the response in terms of higher yield is less and less to the point that it doesn’t make a difference. So you innovate again: you make a more detailed study of what nutrients the plant need and when, and you move to chemical fertilizers that allow you to provide the plant with the precise dosages that optimize yield (strictly speaking, that maximize profits). (And by the way, the crop is no longer organic as it used to be). Up to the point where you can’t do any better. So you innovate again: you bring in pesticides. Same process. So you innovate again: you get GMO seeds. So on and so forth. 

Economic growth can be sustained by increasing the profitability of what is already being produced, or by transforming some aspect of the gift of life into commercial activity. For example, a mountain that becomes a mining operation. For example, a social relationship such as childcare that was initially a free or reciprocal relationship, and becomes a business relationship.

More than anything the point I want to make is to reach a place in your heart that knows a few things: (1) growth cannot go on forever; (2) while it does go on, it does at an increasing cost for nature and for the wellbeing, health and beauty of all life; and (3) that we have already reached the point where further economic growth is disastrous for the wellbeing and for the beauty of life.

But let’s go back to the village. The economy grows in a healthy way for several years, while Mr. Banker issues more hide pieces. As soon as growing is no longer as easy and as common sense as it was at the beginning, competition naturally arises. That is, the force that leads you to try to do better than others. You can compete for supplies, for customers, for the property rights of new innovations, etc. From one point of view, competition can be healthy, if it is taken as a positive force that simply makes you do whatever you do better; for example if it leads you to healthy and harmless even costless innovations. But pretty soon we know this ceases to be the case. Competition and growth start hurting. Please notice that this is a truth in my heart, perhaps also a truth in your heart. But THIS IS NOT a scientific truth, an intellectual truth. Very legitimately, say an innovator in Silicon Valley might inhabit a different story, a story where healthy innovations can go on forever. All I am saying his is not my truth, and that alternate truths inhabit different stories and become true only in the heart, not in reasoning.

So, at this point, not every family is capable of paying back her debt. This means bankruptcy. This is the moment when the game of musical chairs begin. Every time the music stops, someone goes bankrupt – is left with no chair. The bank auctions the collateral property and the person that naturally buys it is the person that is already doing well, that has the capital for buying properties. So quite naturally economic inequality starts building up. Properties and money will begin accumulating in few hands while more and more families cease to be owners of their land and means of life, and become wage-earners and rent-payers. So you see, economic inequality is endemic to the system, it is not the result of right wing policies nor greedy rich people. As long as money is issued as debt, the pressure for economic growth continually produces inequality as a result.

Not only produces inequality, but it hurts the beauty of the very gift of life in many ways.

I might say this is where the vision of sacred economics begins. By that I am trying to say that there is so much more to be said, and if you’re feeling full of screaming questions inside, you are on the right track. (Many of such questions I can address on the workshops I facilitate, where the conditions are met to dive deeply into these issues with the heart).

The main and most obvious question is probably: why can’t we have an economic system where money is issued at zero interest rate? The answer is that such economic system is not compatible with our deep and not at all obvious culture of separation. Rather than figuring it out ("engineering the correct economic system"), a healthy economic system will arise naturally from a culture of interbeing. Again, this is only 1% of what there is to be said.

It is worth mentioning, if one were to decree the cessation of economic growth, we would necessarily have to accept bankruptcy (which hits the poor hardest), accept widespread unemployment, accept that many families are left on the street, accept a rise in the suicide rate (as happened in the case of Greece), accept that you do not have a budget for social programs such as health and education, etc. What I mean by this is that there is no political or intellectual solution, which is why being realistic means stepping into the mystery. "Let's be realistic: let's do the impossible." 

In a culture, in a collective neuronal arrangement of Separation, if all that surrounds me is Otherness, it is natural that I very easily adopt the (deep and perpetual) belief that it is necessary to improve upon the already existing. (I am referring to the improvement that has to do with control, with exerting the force of reductionist reasoning). We need to increase production, we need to store for the next year, we need to improve our technologies until we become independent of hostile or at best indifferent forces of nature. Note that this belief is present in part in the narrative of sustainable development, not only in the narrative of predatory capitalism (i. e., it is not an ethical or good intentions issue). The alternative by the way is an economy born of trust in life. In a culture of distrust in life, who would lend money without interest, knowing that the person who uses it can make it grow without you taking advantage of it? Which bank would lend money at a zero interest rate, as long as there is a risk of non-payment?

The alternative of believing in the perpetual controlled improvement of what already exists is to rediscover the multiple, elusive, uncontrollable mysteries of happiness in life that lie hidden, latent.


A personal note

In a system that endemically produces inequality and destroys nature, not by lack of good intentions but the very fact of the need of economic growth, it is very difficult to feel comfortable with money. If you want it and don’t want it at the same time how can the universe help you out? 

If I live and let die my emotions I know I am free of guilt and shame. I can make friends with the system, accept it, plan and control my monthly budget, charge for my services, do marketing to convince clients, turn ideas into opportunities to extract money....

But still, being free from all shame and guilt about money I still simply don’t want to reproduce scarcity and the lack of trust. I just can’t feel good doing that. How can I do marketing of my services if it is not from the generosity of actually serving? It is not an issue of reaching a higher standard of virtue, of improving myself to become a better person; it is a matter of feeling good! I want to live generosity. Am I getting it “wrong” still? Just let me know mystery of life, I am listening.

I want to share I have a need to clearly see the vision of an economic system trusted on the generosity of life, where naturally everybody is free. I can’t sleep at night so graciously without this complete vision in my heart. All I can barely see is the freedom to be generous, to trust in life, to know nobody is doing it wrong because they don’t fit or can’t adapt to the current system. After writing today I feel a step closer to live in such a way with the money institution just as it is now. However paradoxical it may be, I welcome it. Wondering over and over if that’s it…  I want to live generosity, and I want to open my eyes and realize there were always so many people already doing that, and I was never alone.