Capitalism 3.0
What form might commerce take within the new economy we are outlining? A truly sustainable company can only exist in a sustainable Wellbeing economy. This calls for a root and branch upgrading of capitalism’s operating system – what we might call “capitalism 3.0″.
In undertaking this upgrade however we must guard against ever more complexity. Systems theory, from an understanding of ecosystem processes to social and thermo-dynamic interactions, tells us that at a certain point complexity becomes a burden. Indeed, research into the evolution and collapse of societies shows that they often react to impending collapse or tipping points by adding ever more complexity than already pressurised resources cannot afford.
This vision allows corporations to continue making money and delivering to needs, safe in the knowledge that the wider interest of people and planet are being taken care of.
In Peter Barnes’ book Capitalism 3.0, he explains a vision that sees a new “commons sector” as an addition to our current operating system to provide a balance to the corporate sector and virtuous feedback loops and proxies for unrepresented stakeholders such as future generations, and non-human species.
This vision allows corporations to continue making money and delivering to needs, safe in the knowledge that the wider interest of people and planet are being taken care of by the commons sector and governments.
A commons sector would take a more plural and long-term interest into account, protecting the interests of the natural commons on behalf of current and future generations. According to Barnes these commons such as forests, watersheds, aquifers, and rivers are calculated to contribute $2 trillion in ecosystem services to the US economy annually – a contribution that currently is largely given away as free gifts of society to the business sector.
Land, forests, water and other natural resources of value that we wish to protect would be placed into trusts overseen by trustees. This is a form of propertisation without privatisation. Assets would thus be isolated from the short-term interests of business and politicians.
The trusts would be run with both current and future generations as the beneficiaries and would only be allowed to “spend” the income, not the capital of the trust. Such trusts already exist in some forms such as the US Marin County Agricultural Land Trust (MALT) and the Pacific Forest Trust. The Asian Community Trust (ACT) is Japan’s first charitable trust modelled on community foundations in the USA. It is committed to providing support for grassroots, self-help efforts of non-governmental organisations involved in sustainable social and economic development across Asia.
Trusts could be set up for all sorts of things. Community gardens would reclaim land and share assets. New York City now has 700 community gardens while in Seattle 900 families raise food in such gardens and in Philadelphia gardeners save $700 each on food bills. Air trusts would auction permits to limit carbon emissions from local power plants. In the USA the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative covers seven states. Land trusts would shield land from development or degradation, whether rural or urban. In Boston the community in Dudley Street has run one since 1988 and has built 600 low price homes and parks areas. Perhaps this is a logical conclusion of the confluence between the digital age of greater and more effective communication that helps to bring together communities of like-minded people that in turn produces greater Wellbeing for all concerned.
New surface water trusts would protect rivers and lakes as currently happens with the Oregon Water Trust, which works with 300 landowners to put water back into streams and protect aquatic life. Ground water trusts would protect aquifers and give permits for sustainable water use. On an even larger scale, watershed trusts would consider topsoil and flowing waters as a commons to be preserved for future generations. The trusts would hold all rights to introduce fertilisers and pesticides and would reward farmers for proper land stewardship. An annually reducing set of tradable permits for soil inputs would be sold to input manufacturers and the revenue would be recycled to farmers who met stewardship guidelines.
