Rebuilding the Econosphere 2

ABSTRACT :

The proposal is a attempt to add stability on the market economy by applying a concept base on NASA’s experiment on Biosphere 2, which introducing a unconventional / unortadox reorganizing the market chain onto sections which are manageable.

In short Economy in a in a glass box experiment that may involve a community of producers, manufacturers, consumers any yes they have to be assorted in the right mix to reduces or eliminate conflicts.

This is a lateral way of rethinking of how communities should evolve different from the idea of super tall buildings & hyper cities. “When the bubble get really big it should pop some time” so is the community and that the popping sound are the instabilities like crime, corruption, dirty politics, capitalism, etc.

What is a Econosphere 2 and how did it derive from?

Its derive from the concept of the biosphere

Biosphere is the part of the Earth, including air, land, surface rocks, and water, within which life occurs, and which biotic processes in turn alter or transform. From the broadest biophysiological point of view, the biosphere is the global ecological system integrating all living beings and their relationships, including their interaction with the elements of the lithosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere.

Econosphere

This looks at the world market for products and services, gross national product trends, interest

rates, inflation/deflation and financial markets. The econosphere also looks at regional conditions

such as unemployment, energy, monetary policy, and income, skill requirements and new business

formation.

Econosphere 2

is a propose experiment to reorganize the complex system for the benefit of all. And building it off the existing economic environment into a close environment to study.

Why propose to build such a thing?

AS THE GLOBALIZATION PROCESS HAS BEEN ENGINEERED BY CORPORATE ELITES, and serves their interests, they have successfully conveyed the impression that globalization is not only inevitable but has been a great success. This is fallacious. Even ignoring for the moment its distributional effects, globalization has been marked by substantial declines in rates of output, productivity, and investment growth. Under the new regime of enhanced financial mobility and power, with greater volatility of financial markets and increased risk, real interest rates have risen substantially. The average rate of the G-7 countries (U.S., Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Canada and Japan) has gone from 0.4%, 1971-82, to 4.6%, 1983-94. This has discouraged long term investment in new plant and equipment and stimulated spending on the re-equipment of old facilities along with a large volume of essentially financial transactions–mergers, buybacks of stock, financial maneuvers, and speculative activities. This may help explain why overall productivity growth in the countries that are members of the OECD fell from 3.3%, 1960-73 to 0.8%, 1973-95, or by some 75%. Gross fixed investment fell from 6.1%, 1959-1970, to roughly 3.1% thereafter, or by half. OECD country annual rates of growth of real GDP fell from 4.8%, 1959-1970 to 2.8%, 1971-94, or by 42%.

But the elites have done well despite the slackened productivity growth. Because globalization has helped keep wages down, while increasing real interest rates, the upper 5% of households have been able to skim off a large fraction of the reduced productivity gains, thereby permitting elite incomes and stock market values to rise rapidly. But it was a different story for the global majority. Income inequality rose markedly both within and between countries. In the United States, despite a 35% increase in productivity between 1973 and 1995, the median real wage rate was lower in the latter year. Inequality rose to levels of 70 years earlier, and underemployment, job insecurity, benefit loss, and worker speedup under “lean” production systems all increased. Insecurity is functional. As Alan Greenspan complacently explained to Congress in 1997, wage rates were stagnant in this country because worker insecurity was high. That this high insecurity level reduced the well-being of the affected workers did not bother Greenspan, or Congress and the mainstream media.

The gap in incomes between the 20% of the world’s population in the richest and poorest countries has grown from 30 to 1 in 1960 to 82 to 1 in 1995, and Third World conditions have in many respects worsened. Per capita incomes have fallen in more than 70 countries over the past 20 years; some 3 billion

people–half the world’s population, live on under two dollars a day; and 800 million suffer from malnutrition. In the Third World, unemployment and underemployment are rampant, massive poverty exists side-by-side with growing elite affluence, and 75 million people a year or more seeking asylum or employment in the North, as Third World governments allow virtually unrestricted capital flight and seek no options but to attract foreign investment.

The new global order has also been characterized by increased financial volatility, and from the Third World debt crisis of the early 1980s to the Mexican breakdown of 1994-95 to the current Asian debacle, financial crises have become more and more threatening. With increasing privatization and deregulation, the discrepancy between the power of unregulated financial forces and that of governments and regulatory bodies increases and the potential for a global breakdown steadily enlarges.

Only an elite perspective permits this record to be regarded as an economic success.

THE GLOBALIZATION OF RECENT DECADES WAS NEVER A DEMOCRATIC CHOICE by the peoples of the world–the process has been business driven, by business strategies and tactics, for business ends. Governments have helped, by incremental policy actions, and by larger actions that were often taken in secret, without national debate and discussion of where the entire process was taking the community. In the case of some major actions advancing the globalization process, like passing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or joining the European Monetary Union (EMU), publics have been subjected to massive propaganda campaigns by the interested business-media elites. In the United States, public opinion polls showed the general public against NAFTA even after incessant propaganda, but the mass media supported it, and it was passed. In Europe as well, polls have shown persistent majorities opposed to the introduction of the Euro, but a powerful elite supports it, so that it moves forward.

This undemocratic process, carried out within a democratic facade, is consistent with the distribution of benefits and costs of globalization, and the fact that globalization has been a tool serving elite interests. Globalization has also steadily weakened democracy, partly as a result of unplanned effects, but also because the containment of labor costs and scaling down of the welfare state has required the business minority to establish firm control of the state and remove its capacity to respond to the demands of the majority. The mix of deliberate and unplanned elements in globalization’s antidemocratic thrust can be seen in each aspect of the attack process.

ONE OF THE MAIN OBJECTIVES OF TNC MOVEMENT ABROAD HAS BEEN to tap cheaper labor sources. Labor is often cheapest, and least prone to cause employer problems, in authoritarian states that curb unions and enter into virtual joint venture arrangements with foreign capital, as in Suharto’s Indonesia and PRI’s Mexico. Capital moves to such friendly investment climes in an arbitrage process, shifting resources from the more expensive to the less costly locale, in a process that penalizes and thereby weakens democracy.

The actual shift of capital abroad, and the use of the external option to drive hard bargains at home, has weakened labor. Labor has also been weakened by deliberate government policies of tight money and restrictive budget policies to contain inflation, at the expense of high unemployment. These policies, and the incessant focus on labor market “flexibility” as the solution to the unemployment problem, reflect a corporate and antilabor policy agenda, fully institutionalized. There have even been more open and direct attacks on organized labor–both Reagan and Thatcher engaged in union busting, and the latter was quite explicit in her aim to weaken labor as a political force. Democracy, according to pluralistic theory, is said to rest on the existence of intermediate groups, like labor organizations, that can bargain and work on behalf of an otherwise atomized population. The deliberate weakening of such groups is thus an attack on democracy.

What’s the proof?

Globalization and Stock Market Stability
The world stock markets are moving so rapidly towards globalization, and integration of local financial markets to international financial systems and institutions through cross borders transactions. The globalization phenomenon may be a blessing and enhance national economies, or may increase pricing volatility and trading instability, due to the fact that the irrational trading, instability or crises in one market or region may move to other markets and regions as witnessed in the last two decades. Accordingly, this paper aims to discuss the issue; it examined about fifty stock markets practices, laws, and regulations including developed as well as emerging markets, and their movement towards globalization. Other new developments incorporated by the world related organizations and commissions also were considered in the study. The study found that the majority of the world stock markets adopted various aspects of globalization environment; which created new challenges reflected in the stability, and efficiency of the world stock markets, including the inefficient global integration, impairment of market efficiency, less stable market, market fragmentation, adverse effects of new legal changes, and new introduced practices. However, these negative aspects do not exist in all periods of stock trading, but they may be materialized and have adverse impact during periods of deep falling prices and unstable periods of trading. Accordingly, and to avoid the adverse affects that might accompany the world stock markets globalization, several regulations, measures and practices need to be adopted in order to keep the world stock markets work in a relevant environment.

The example

The econosphere 2 is very much similar to the biosphere as what we thought, those where the old days but with globalization the chain has expanded the competition has became fierce. That small / startup companies or business needs to think of innovative strategy even worst the poverty level especially in urban areas could spawn crimes.

Another purpose if the econosphere 2 is the interest of space travel or colonization how citizen of a colonize world would go about their lives.

Diagram of a simple chain

Diagram of a complex chain

Diagram of a single line chain

Diagram of a web chain

The classic way on how market gets its identity by developing trust among consumers some times its hard to get new market of the same products in the line. But in other cases the product usually gets clone just to break in to the market.

What’s with the money

history always offer info. that are relevant to today’s economic, political and social problems?

Because of the difficulties of conducting experiments in the ordinary business of economic life, at the centre of which is money, it is most fortunate that history generously provides us with a proxy laboratory, a guidebook of more or less relevant alternatives. Around the next corner there may be lying in wait apparently quite novel monetary problems which in all probability bear a basic similarity to those that have already been tackled with varying degrees of success or failure in other times and places.

Yet despite the antiquity and ubiquity of money its proper management and control have eluded the rulers of most modern states partly because they have ignored the wide-ranging lessons of the past or have taken too blinkered and narrow a view of money. Economists, and especially monetarists, tend to overestimate the purely economic, narrow and technical functions of money and have placed insufficient emphasis on its wider social, institutional and psychological aspects. However, money originated very largely from non-economic causes: from tribute as well as trade, from blood-money and bride-money as well as from barter, from ceremonial and religious rites as well as from commerce, from ostentatious ornamentation as well as from acting as the common drudge between economic men.

Even in modern circumstances money still yields powerfully important psychic returns such as in an individual’s social rank and standing, or a nation’s position in the GNP league table. Thus money, more than ever in our monetarist era, needs to be widely interpreted to include discussion not only of currency and banking, but also savings banks, building societies, hire purchase finance companies and the fiscal framework on those not infrequent occasions when fiscal policy conflicts with or complements the operation of monetary policy. In this regard, even in medieval and earlier periods these wider aspects were of considerably greater importance than is conventionally believed.

There are therefore many advantages, which can only be obtained by tracing monetary and financial history with a broad brush over the whole period of its long and convoluted development, where primitive and modern moneys have overlapped for centuries and where the logical and chronological progressions have rarely followed strictly parallel paths.

SEE Chronological time line of money

As know by some

Its just numbers, value, exchange items if you put that thing aside we’re just offering goods and services for the good and interest of each other and society. but as you know remote tribes cannot be consider under poverty line because they are far from civilize world they have resources to sustain their own community along we dint alter that community .

Stealing resources is a crime against humanity and we know that , money is not evil but the way its manipulated by others is what makes people evil not the money its self

What’s the plan?

Like the biosphere2 the econosphere 2 is a miniature marketenviroment it its self contain and well balance

The idea of why its small is the notion that when a organization gets ever larger its hard for a governing body to control all aspects of it , “think of it as planet earth is in a civil war in its self” the plan is to move certain groups and isolate them especially those that could not cope up with modern society those small isolated groups can be connected with other isolated groups via trade link.

Other concept have been lying around for some time like the concept of large hyper building or floating city which is a city in its self but the city needs some source of recourse and the mostly it has to get them somewhere because most of the usual plans where commercial , residential and energy related but how does the market evolve around theses community.

In preparation for space travel and colonization the biosphere has always the question of sustainable living but what about our industries we should be able to make stuff while we’re there right? And how it will evolve

But now the econosphere 2

How biosphere 2 looks like

Before we go into that its key to understand how society works, what’s constitutes a economy and how it influence people behavior.

Economic Laws

Consider the economic laws first. Man spends most of his time either using and consuming goods and services or producing them. The function of industry is to organize his working time and skill, together with raw materials and the necessary tools and services, to enable him to produce what ultimately he and his fellows will consume. In this connection there is one very basic law of economics:

1

`GOODS AND SERVICES CANNOT BE USED OR CONSUMED UNLESS THEY HAVE BEEN PRODUCED AND MADE AVAILABLE’

This is so self-evident that it is liable to be brushed aside. Its consequences are not so obvious and indeed are sometimes dismissed or at least resented. Nevertheless, this is a natural law as valid as the physicists’ law that `man can neither create nor destroy energy and matter.’

This leads naturally to Principle 2

`EXCEPT IN TIMES OF SURPLUS, AN INCREASE IN ANY ONE PERSON’S OR GROUP’S CONSUMPTION, IF NOT MATCHED BY INCREASED PRODUCTION, REDUCES THE GOODS AND SERVICES AVAILABLE FOR CONSUMPTION BY ALL OTHER PEOPLE IN THE SAME TRIBUTION AREA BY THE SAME TOTAL AMOUNT’

This, of course, is simply arithmetic when applied to each and every commodity. It is especially relevant to those communities that place a value on the growth of, or at least on the retention of, their material standard of living.

By this standard we mean the average consumption by the people in the community of the goods and services that they want; it is the total production arising from the efforts of the people and their machines, the so-called `national cake’, divided by the total number of people. Sharing has to be brought into the standard but this is dealt with later.

Principles I and 2 state that such a growth can only be achieved by increasing the rate of production of the individual workers and their machines—which we call `productivity’—or by increasing the percentage of the population that is working. Clearly an unemployed person is not adding to the national cake.

The second principle is a severe restraining law and one which can only be be avoided by drawing on stocks so long as they exist. It applies in all countries whatever the political system. It is not always accepted, because people resent restraints and because `common sense’ to some people appears to lead to the opposite conclusion. How often have we heard people say: `If my money income goes up my standard of living goes up. If any of my neighbours’ incomes go up the same happens to them. So I believe income governs the standard of living, not productivity.’ For simplicity the word `goods’ is used here to include `tools’ (that is, investment goods such as buildings and machinery) as well as consumables such as food. Man as an individual or as part of a group has a choice as to what proportion of his total effort and resources he invests in producing new and better tools.

In this respect Principle 3 applies:

3

`OF THE TOTAL EFFORT AND RESOURCES AVAILABLE, A HIGHER PROPORTION CAN BE DEVOTED TO INVESTMENT ONLY IF A LOWER PROPORTION IS DEVOTED TO CONSUMPTION’

People differ widely in what they think is the optimum balance between the requirements of the future and those of the present. Their judgements can only be personal but science can help to clarify their objectives so that the range of views is narrowed.

It has not been necessary so far to introduce the concept of money except to correct one of the misconceptions associated with it. Money is not in itself `goods or services’ but it is a long and well-established device for putting values on goods and services so that they can be more easily exchanged.

Money is also very important as a mechanism of saving. Any individual can reduce or postpone his consumption and accumulate his unused claims on the community (his money) in the form of savings. He can allow someone else to hire or borrow these claims, usually on payment of a hiring charge (interest or dividends)

For example, pension rights are largely derived from savings.

With the concept of money, there is a fourth Principle:

4

`PRICES CANNOT BE HELD BELOW COSTS’

This assumes that costs include not only those of people, materials, taxes, etc. but also the hiring of savings and provision for the future. This is a social principle and it means that attempts to hold prices below costs normally lead to bankruptcy.

A subsidy can lower costs to purchasers of particular goods or services but this merely transfers this part of the cost and price over to the taxpayer or to other people. The make-up of costs for the country as a whole is regularly analysed by the Central Statistical Office. This analysis shows that incomes from employment represent well over half the costs, followed by imports, which represent about one-fifth. A rise of, say, 10% in incomes will directly increase costs by two and a half times as much as would a 10% rise in costs of imports.

These simple facts of arithmetic are frequently contradicted directly or indirectly and alternatives are expressed and sometimes accepted. For example, many people believe that a rise in incomes is caused by a rise in prices. Action based on this belief completes the `vicious spiral’ of inflation. Of the two links in this spiral, the first is the unavoidable Principle 4, whereas the second is simply an expression of man’s expectations and ambitions. A clear realisation of the extent to which these ambitions are in conflict with the interests of others, and with future national interests, is a first essential step towards the co-operation necessary if inflation is to be curbed without abandonment of important policies such as full employment and free collective bargaining. There are, of course, other important factors which influence inflation, such as money supply and taxation.

Due to improved productivity and technological advance, average earnings in the UK have in most years since the war increased faster than prices. This means an increase in the material standard of living. However, this is now being sustained only by heavy borrowing from overseas with all the inevitable problems that this brings.

These four principles apply with the force of a natural law to the economics of any community. But there are no natural laws governing the economic behaviour of individuals. Accordingly, each community lays down legal laws and social principles which can vary widely but only within the limits set by the natural laws. A society usually agrees that some people, for example the young, the old, and the sick, may consume more (in value terms) than they produce, but overall these must be balanced by others consuming less.

Human Behaviour

Now consider human behaviour and choice. The variability of man is enormous; no two individuals have the same assortment of genes (except identical twins) nor the same accumulation of experience. Accordingly, it is more difficult to formulate simple principles of human behaviour that have a universal validity. Nevertheless, the following three principles are statements of general experience. They apply in so far as rationality and logic, rather than emotion, form the basis for individual decisions.

5

`MAN HAS THE CAPACITY TO TAKE IN INFORMATION, ASSESS THIS IN RELATION TO HIS PREVIOUS LEARNING AND CHOOSE A LINE OF ACTION IN THE LIGHT OF HIS RECOGNITION OF THE RELATED RESTRAINTS AND PRESSURES. HIS CHOICE USUALLY INDICATES WHAT HE THINKS WILL BRING AN OUTCOME MOST ADVANTAGEOUS TO HIMSELF’

Individuals vary widely in the values they attach to what they perceive and to the possible outcomes. Indeed they sometimes act to give more advantage to others than to themselves, Nevertheless, a large part of man’s motivation and behaviour is associated with the influence he may attain over those outcomes which appear important to him.

Principle 5 relates mainly to choice, but it also introduces another key word `restraints’ (including pressures). The exercise of one person’s freedom of choice very commonly leads to a restraint on others. A specific example is Principle 2.

Human behaviour also responds to external social pressures:

6

`MEMBERSHIP OF A GROUP IS BOTH A MEANS THROUGH WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVES HIS OBJECTIVES AND ALSO A CONSTRAINT ON HIS CHOICES, IN THAT HE EXPERIENCES PRESSURES TOWARDS CONFORMITY TO GROUP STANDARDS AND TOWARDS CO-OPERATION WITH HIS FELLOWS’

Each individual occupies roles in several different groups (such as family, work groups, social and religious groups) and these are often pursuing objectives that are not consistent with one another. As a result, he may, in his role in one group, support an action which is partly inconsistent with the objectives of other groups to which he belongs. He thus experiences conflicting pressures and loyalties. An important purpose of education is to help the individual to make rational choices in the face of such conflicting pressures.

Similarly, an organisation may pursue multiple goals. It experiences pressures from different parts of its environment, with the result that the behaviour of one sector may be inconsistent with that of another. Again, education can help to identify inconsistencies, so that they may be examined and perhaps eliminated.

This situation is developed further in Principle 7.

7

`INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS AND ORGANISATIONS TEND TO COPE WITH CONFLICT BY DENYING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS AND PASSING ON THE RESPONSIBILITY TO OTHERS’

It follows that to try to understand conflict, it is necessary not only to consider the more obvious issues but also to explore underlying factors, which may lie within and between each party to the conflict. For example, it is a general experience that a group unites in the face of an enemy; if a suitable enemy does not exist, the group may need to invent one.

Sharing the Cake

We have already seen under Principle 2 that the material standard of living of a group is defined as the average consumption of goods and services. This is obviously insufficient and we need to consider how the goods and services and the jobs which produce these can be shared out between the members of the group. Furthermore, this standard of living depends upon the extent to which the goods and services in quality and quantity match the needs and desires of the consumers, both currently and in the future. Experience has shown that in any distribution system it is necessary to take account of Principle 8.

8

`ALL KNOWN SYSTEMS OF DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS AND SERVICES AND OF JOBS ARE COMPOSED OF TWO BASIC SYSTEMS’

(a) The market choice system. (distribution by barter or by the price mechanism: this gives a measure of choice to individuals or production units within the limits of their earnings or costs)

(b) The allocation system (here choice is largely made by decisions of an overriding authority)

Each country can and does decide the balance between the systems, which system is applied to which commodity, and the restraints associated with individual choices.

The major difference between the two systems lies in where and how decisions are made. The first of these, 8(a), operates largely by decisions of each individual as to what he produces and what he consumes. The restraints are put on by what the market (other people) will pay or will charge in respect to alternative actions. However, governments through taxation and the use of subsidies, make or influence decisions on behalf of all individuals covering a substantial part (in the UK over one-third) of total incomes.

The second of these systems, 8(b), operates more by decisions of the group or of its leaders, co-ordinated by planning. Some group decisions, such as those related to differentials and methods of payment, may be influenced by rules or traditions that have grown up over time.

Principle 8 is not a natural law but it is a statement of general experience. Despite numerous attempts no one has yet devised an acceptable and tested system which is other than some combination of (a) and (b). Meanwhile the Principle remains: a group cannot, for example, depart from a market choice system without going more towards an allocation system, and vice versa.

To meet the requirements of Principles I and 2 countries adopting the market choice system generally introduce social rules and money mechanisms to link consumption by individuals to their production. We call that payment by results. For countries adopting the allocation system this link automatically comes out of the planning. At first sight system 8 (a) might appear to be the more natural because it involves the basic Principle 5. If not interfered with it tends to lead to a balance between supply and demand, and thus to a high efficiency in this respect. On the other hand, the actions of large institutions, such as the Bank of England or a powerful trade union, can influence the working of this system in the supply and cost of money and of human effort respectively. Governments as big purchasers can also affect the working of the system and large companies can influence social behaviour to their own advantage. The system has its defects particularly when monopolies are able to corner markets or when the supply of labour substantially exceeds the demand. Without modifications and safeguards, particularly to produce a reasonable distribution of income, it is hardly acceptable today.

One could equally find defects in the allocation system. Without the test of choice it is difficult to reach agreement as to the values that are to form the basis of allocation. It is also difficult to assemble the information necessary for effective planning. To many people the limitation of choice is itself a defect. Indeed, in most countries operating this system (but not in kibbutzim), it has been found necessary to restrain the freedom to opt out of or emigrate from the system.

International Trade

Another important principle follows from Principle I and from the fact that the world is composed of more or less autonomous nations and no international leadership (as yet) exists that can impose allocations as in sub-principle 8(b). International trade is thus mainly influenced by market forces. In addition, it is controlled by Principle 9:

9

`FOR ANY ONE COUNTRY, TOTAL OUTWARD PAYMENTS (SUCH AS FOR IMPORTS, CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND LENDING ABROAD) ALWAYS BALANCE INWARD PAYMENTS (FOR EXPORTS AND FOR BORROWING AND GIFTS)’

The validity of this principle has been seen in the UK in post-war years, yet many commentators express resentment when any country finds itself forced to take unpopular action because of it.

For example, when a British industrialist demands protection from imports, he is ignoring the fact that other countries can only pay for their imports from UK if they earn the required UK currency. In this area many decisions are outside our control—for example, the policy dictated by the OPEC countries has had severe repercussions on our economy, far beyond the cost of producing oil.

Ownership and Power

The subject of ownership of wealth has until recently played only a small part in conventional economics but it always has played a large part in law and politics. The term could usefully be used in a sense which equates it to ability or power to make effective decisions or to exercise choice. In this respect, however, there is a wide spread of power from very little to very substantial. This leads to Principle 10:

0

`MAN FEELS A STRONG NEED TO CONTROL THOSE EVENTS WHICH HAVE MOST EFFECT UPON HIS OWN WELL-BEING AND SOCIETIES USUALLY GIVE HIM SOME DEGREE OF SUCH POWER THROUGH OWNERSHIP’

The actual rules of ownership vary widely. In many countries there is a substantial concentration of ownership in the hands of the few. There is also a wide variation in the use people make of their wealth. Society generally is currently re-examining these rules to see if they can lead to `better fairness.’ The subject has not attracted much interest by analysts except in the political arena; it is included in this study because of the large part it plays in conflict. Much conflict is between the `haves’ and `have nots.’

The origins of ownership by individuals include:
a) rewards of personal effort at work
b) education and training to raise personal knowledge and skill
c) inheritance and gifts
d) nationality or citizenship
e) by assuming or being elected to leadership.

Some of these lead to special kinds of wealth.

Distribution of Wealth

Ownership has one marked characteristic in that it has a strong `positive feedback’. This can be expressed by Principle 11:

11

`THE MORE AN INDIVIDUAL HAS OF MATERIAL THINGS OR POWER THE EASIER IT IS FOR HIM TO GAIN THE NEXT INCREMENT OF HAVING’

This is why inequalities in wealth are often much greater than the range of individual abilities and opportunities. Most market choice societies now reduce this feedback by graded tax systems and death duties, by welfare allowances and by the `one man— one vote’ system. Such countermeasures can reduce the motivation of some individuals to create wealth. This principle also applies to the economic strength of groups such as countries.

The Next Step

These principles have been found to be widely acceptable. But will improved understanding lead to less wasteful conflict and perhaps less violence ? The belief of many is that it will. For example exposure of selfish actions which hurt others (Principles 2 and 5) normally puts a restraint on such actions. The extent to which inflation can be curbed without abandonment of full employment and of free collective bargaining depends on co-operation and this in turn depends on understanding. Principle 7 highlights a weakness in man which, if not recognized, leads to much conflict. People have been led to have expectations that are realizable only by hurting others. There is a place for conflict, and in particular for debate, in every dynamic society but co-operation is essential if common objectives are to be attained.

The next step therefore has the objective of trying to develop the thinking citizen who can distinguish reality from fiction and who can exercise authority in his various roles with wisdom and integrity in the light of a fuller understanding of society. All responsible people, including politicians, educationists, managers, trade unionists and the media are urged to take part in communicating these fundamental principles to the public at large. They are also urged to add to these or build on them while retaining the objectivity of science. A better understanding will reduce conflict and release additional sources of energy to contribute to a more constructive and happier society.

That thinking citizen would play a big part in econosphere 2 away to establish a new organize community

Sociosphere

Lifestyle changes, consumer activism, education, career expectations, demographics, values, role

models and mass communications. As well population growth or decline, family formations,

population shifts, family stability, life expectancy, birth rates, literacy crime and drug use influence

this sphere of human existence.

The Constructive and Happier Society

There is a paradox at the heart of our civilization. Individuals want more income. Yet, as society has got richer, people have not become happier. Over the last 50 years we have got better homes, more clothes, longer holidays, and above all better health. Yet surveys show clearly that happiness has not increased in either the US,

Japan, continental Europe or Britain.

This devastating fact should cause a fundamental rethink of government policy and of how we conduct our lives. Fortunately there is now enough evidence about what actually causes happiness to enable us to make a start.

This evidence covers the nature of happiness, its causes, and the policy implications which follow.

What is happiness?

By happiness I mean feeling good – enjoying life and feeling it is wonderful. And by unhappiness I mean feeling bad and wishing things were different. There are countless sources of happiness, and countless sources of pain and misery. But all our experience has in it a dimension which corresponds to how good or bad we feel. In

fact most people find it easy to say how good they are feeling.

Some modes of enjoyment are of course necessarily short-lived, and what matters is the totality of our experience – something that mainly reflects the more fundamental features of ourselves and our life. Over the days and weeks, our feelings go up and down. Psychologists have studied this, using people’s own reports over one particular day. The study also shows what activities the women like most (sex) and like least (commuting), and confirms how deeply social people are –much happier when they are with other people than alone. But what the study showed most clearly is that, whatever they are doing, many people are happier than others.

However can we really rely on people’s statements about how they feel? Do different people use the words in the same way? With the aid of neuroscience, we now know that they do. For neuroscience enables us to measure in a standard way the level of activity in the relevant parts of the brain and to compare this with what people

say. It turns out that the two measurements are highly correlated. This is so if we take the same person and give him varying experiences: both indicators move together. And it is true if we take different people: again the people who have the ‘happier’ brain readings also say they are happier. The neuroscience here is of course still in its infancy. The easiest method is by electroencephalogram (EEG), where electrodes are placed on the scalp. Electrical

activity behind the left of the forehead measures positive feelings, and activity on the right side measures negative feelings. With EEG, unlike with brain scans where the person must be stationary, it may soon be possible to monitor a person’s happiness throughout a normal day, and thus eventually to check by physical methods the

historical fluctuations of happiness in our society.

So the idea, common among cynics, that we cannot know what other people are feeling is simply false. The idea is absurd since there is also a high concordance between how people say they feel and how their happiness is rated by their friends or by independent observers. Since we can know what people feel, it is entirely practicable that to make their happiness our goal.

Income and happiness

So what is the role of national income in the progress of our society? It is easy to see why people think that income is very important. For, within any society at a particular moment, rich people are on average happier than poorer ones. For example 41% of people in the top quarter of income are “very happy” compared with only

26% of those in the bottom quarter of incomes. The problem is that over time the proportions of each group who are very happy have not changed at all although the real incomes in each group have risen hugely. This is true of all the main Western countries.

So what is going on? Is it possible that people have changed the meaning of the words over time? This is unlikely to have happened separately in every country. We also know from independent studies of depression that unhappiness from that source has, if anything, risen in most countries. I am talking of clinical depression, assessed professionally through population surveys. Most studies in most countries show a secular increase in depression, with some 15% of people now experiencing a clinical depression by their mid-30s. The size of the increase is disputed, but nobody

believes depression has diminished, despite the much greater ease of our material life. Further evidence on income and happiness comes from comparing different countries (see Figure 2). As it shows, extra income per head does help if your income per head is below $15,000 a year, but makes little difference above that level.

Habit and rivalry

Why is this? Clearly people are comparing their income with some norm and this norm is rising all the time. Thus from 1946-86 the US Gallup Poll asked people, “What is the smallest amount of money that a family of four needs to get along in this community?” It turns out that, as actual average incomes rose, so did the income which people felt was needed – and in fact this “needed” income grew in direct proportion to actual income. Likewise when people were asked “Are you satisfied with your financial position?”, the proportion who said they were “pretty well

satisfied” fell, despite massive economic growth. Two things are driving up the norm with which people compare their incomes. One is the income which they themselves have experienced – which habituates them to the higher standard of living. And the other is the income which others get, and which they try to rival or outdo.

Habituation is a basic psychological phenomenon. It works both up and down: you adjust to good things and to bad. The clearest evidence that you adjust to income comes from asking people with different levels of actual income what income they would consider satisfactory. Typically the income that people say is satisfactory

rises by almost 50 pence for every extra pound which they have actually experienced. There is a whole range of studies which show that people adjust their requirements to their recent experience and that they are constantly surprised by this, thinking that the new house or new car will make them happier than it does, once they get used to it. People also adjust their requirements in response to what other people have. This is the phenomenon of keeping up with the Jones’ – or of wishing to outdo them. In a poor society a man proves to his wife that he loves her by giving her a rose, but in a rich society he must give a dozen roses. This effect is shown in many studies of

happiness, which suggest that if a person earns an extra 10% and so does everyone else, he experiences only ⅔ of the extra happiness that would accrue if he alone had had the raise.

The process of social comparison can also be investigated by asking hypothetical questions like those described in the box. This shows that, when it comes to income, people would accept a much lower standard of living provided their relative income improved enough. Fortunately, however, this dog-in-the-manger aspect of human nature does not apply to the private side of life and people are much less rivalrous when it comes to holidays. The rat race is for income and when each of us works more and earns more, this imposes a genuine loss of happiness on others. It

is a form of pollution.

So now we can see why happiness increases so little, when countries get richer. People get hurt as their own experience raises their required income in ways they did not foresee (a form of self-pollution). And they get hurt by the extra income which others are earning (pollution by others).

Taxation and the work-life balance

None of this would matter if income fell like manna from trees. But income is earned by the sacrifice of time with your family and friends. If much of the extra income (say 60 pence in the pound) brings no overall increase in happiness, we should reduce the incentive to acquire it. It would therefore be efficient to have a marginal tax rate of say 60 pence in the pound – corresponding to the 60 pence worth of pollution caused by the extra pound that is earned.

This is the first dramatic policy implication of adopting a happiness-based approach to public policy, and should form an important part of a social democratic agenda that is based on the new social science. Up to now we have apologised for taxation. The standard economic analysis says that taxation reduces work effort, which is true. But it also says that this is inefficient, which our previous analysis shows is false. Indeed taxation is one of the most important institutions we have for preserving a sensible balance between work and leisure. We should be proud of it and stand up for it.

Performance-related pay

And where should we stand on the closely-related issue of performance-related pay? If the output of one individual can be easily measured and valued, it is obviously sensible to pay him for what he produces. The problem arises when these conditions do not hold, and the worker’s performance cannot easily be monitored, except by himself. In this case judgements are typically made about how one worker is performing relative to his mates. This can motivate those who are likely to succeed, but can de-motivate those who are not, by giving constant reminders of the

fact that they are not appreciated.

Of course promotion systems always involve treating people differently at periodic intervals. But promotion is justified by the inevitable need for hierarchy. Performance-related pay is different and, because it is more frequent, it increases the salience of social comparisons. The evidence is that on balance it increases average performance, but reduces average morale. Stress in the public sector has grown markedly, according to the Eurobarometer surveys. This is a cost which has to be set against any resulting gain in performance. Status-consciousness is deeply ingrained in our genes, as in those of our primate ancestors: remarkably, people who win Oscars live 4 years longer than people who are nominated but do not win. But we should not turn every human being into a race-horse jockey. For the goals we want most people to perform are multiple goals and are becoming increasingly so. We should therefore work harder on training and developing professional norms, and less hard on tuning up financial incentives.

Equality

Lastly, on income, what does happiness research say about equality? It confirms the oldest and most obvious argument for redistribution – that it takes a pound from someone who values it little and gives it to someone who values it more.

It is therefore a major way of increasing total happiness – and it is more effective the poorer the recipient. So development aid to the Third World (if well spent) comes high on the list of public spending, as does child poverty at home.

But when all is said, a happy life is about a lot more than money can buy and , besides adequate income, happiness research points to six main factors affecting happiness: mental health, satisfying and secure work, a secure and loving private life, a secure community, freedom, and moral values.

Mental health

It is a complete scandal that we spend so little on mental health. Mental illness causes a half of all the measured disability in our society and even if you add in premature death, mental illness accounts for a quarter of the total impact of disease. Yet only 12% of the NHS budget goes on it. Some 25% of us experience serious

mental illness during our lives, and some 15% experience major depression. Such depression can in most cases be helped by a combination of drugs and cognitive therapy. Yet only a quarter of people now suffering from depression are being treated, and most of them just get pills from a non-specialist GP. If we really wanted to attack

unhappiness, we would totally change all this, and make psychiatry a central high-prestige part of the NHS.

Security

But for most people valued personal relationships with family, colleagues, friends and neighbours are the best guarantee of happiness. This is why unemployment is such a horror. Every happiness study reveals the horrible pain of unemployment, and estimates that the psychic pain from rejection is greater than the pain coming from loss of income. Unemployment offends against a person’s basic need to be needed. Therefore I strongly support the policy of welfare-to-work, even when the job is less than perfect.

But even if you have work, you are much happier if you feel the job is secure. For this reason Continental European laws make it more difficult to sack people than it is in Britain or the USA. Is this a terrible mistake? That is not obvious. Employment protection laws do not cause higher unemployment. (Employment protection is quite high in many European countries with lower unemployment than us, and the high unemployment in France and West Germany is due to a lack of welfare-to-work.) Employment protection may cause lower productivity than

otherwise, but people clearly value it, and it is not a high priority for us to lecture the Europeans on the need for greater flexibility of employment. We should focus much more heavily on wage flexibility, since rigid wages are the main cause of high unemployment in East Germany, Southern Italy and Southern Spain. If wages were

more flexible, work would soon flow to these regions.

This would be much better policy than to have many more people moving around the country, as is often advocated. For geographical mobility has major costs which happiness research has revealed. Crime is directly related to the level of mutual trust in a community, and trust is lower the more people are moving house and the more heterogeneous in origin are the people living in any area. This is a very uncomfortable fact, but highly relevant to the British debate on immigration.

Similarly mental illness is more common if you live where your group is in the minority than where your group is in the majority (highly relevant to policies for dispersing migrants). Migration may also affect the stability of marriage.

So stability is what people like, and it is good for happiness and trust. It should not be denigrated. Yet we Anglo-Americans live where the elite glorify novelty. Civil servants gaily reorganise every public service, oblivious of the fact that each reorganisation destroys a major channel of personal security and trust. We have

a lot to learn from ‘old Europe’, where the ideology of change has taken less hold.

Values

Finally, I want to come to values, because values are largely a social product and a major contributor to happiness. People are happier and better able to function when they feel they can trust other people. Unfortunately in our country there has been a precipitous fall in the proportion of people who say Yes when they are asked “Would you say that most people can be trusted?” – the opposite being that “you can’t be too careful in dealing with people?” The proportion of trusters has fallen steadily from 56% in 1959 to 31% in 1995. A very similar fall has occurred in the US, though not in Continental Europe. But even in Europe there is evidence of moral decline.

People were asked whether they disapproved of people who kept an object they had found. In 1969 only 12% accepted this practice; in 1990 this had risen to 32%. On one view, people always think the world is going to pot. But this view is empirically wrong. Americans have been regularly asked whether they think people

live “as good lives – honest and moral – as they used to”. In 1952 as many thought Yes as No. But by 1998 only a quarter thought Yes. So something has changed.

People now feel less bad about pursuing their own interest, regardless of others. We do not fully understand why this has happened, but it is vital to counteract it. We should discuss it openly and not apologetically, and in schools we should surely offer a structured education in morals. ‘Citizenship’ can certainly cover such issues as voting, but its focus should be the necessity of helping others and the pleasure that can give. It should also cover the necessity of enjoying whatever you have, without obsessing about what you lack.

All of which shows how difficult it is to produce a happier society. This is of course partly because of the strong role which our genes play in determining our temperament. Identical twins reared apart have happiness levels with a correlation as high as 0.5. But there is still plenty of room for nurture as well as nature – just as people are now inches taller than a century ago, despite the strong heritability of height.

The scientific study of happiness is only just beginning. It should become a central topic in social science. But for the moment I would recommend four principles. Don’t apologise for taxes; foster the sense of security; fight glaring evils like depression; and discourage social comparison.

Utilities & communication

No modern economy can run with out it same goes with the economsphere 2.

Quote:

Electric companies, gas heating companies and oil companies would lose half or more of their profits with free energy available. Therefore, these companies then donate millions of dollars to governments (bribing them) to make sure that free energy devices stay out of the public market. Tactics and means of suppression include buying the patent of the free energy device from the inventor or his family, suing the inventor or patent holder and even murdering the inventor in some cases.

Based on the principles of capitalism, free energy cannot be allowed. The traditional economic system contains three aspects: capital, goods and services. Within the aspects of capital are three subcomponents: currency, credit, and natural capital. Natural capital comprises raw material and energy.

This differs considerably from the orthodox definition of capital in economics. Capital is theoretically a fully-controlled component of general economics. Currently, all components are fully monitored and managed. Introducing free energy into the economic equation would have the same economic effect as giving everyone access to the natural capital, which would destroy or severely undermine the entire basis of the capitalist economic system because control over currency and credit would be reduced.

Electricity

Electricity has been studied since antiquity, though scientific advances were not forthcoming until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It would remain however until the late nineteenth century that engineers were able to put electricity to industrial and residential use, a time which witnessed a rapid expansion in the development of electrical technology. Electricity’s extraordinary versatility as a source of energy means it can be put to an almost limitless set of applications, which include transport, heating, lighting, communications, and computation. The backbone of modern industrial society is, and for the foreseeable future can be expected to remain, the use of electrical power.

Main commodity for all modern living, as of now the best candidate for fueling it is renewable and Hydrogen sources. Since it would be cleanest available even during it early stages of development. Therefore it can be made open source for the any one in the community to develop it.

Its production can be made in two ways ether centralize system where a power plant provides the power or individualize power where every structure produces its own power.

Water

Water is a common chemical substance that is essential for the survival of all known forms of life. In typical usage, water refers only to its liquid form or state, but the substance also has a solid state, ice, and a gaseous state, water vapor. About 1.460 petatonnes (Pt) of water covers 71% of the Earth’s surface, mostly in oceans and other large water bodies, with 1.6% of water below ground in aquifers and 0.001% in the air as vapor, clouds (formed of solid and liquid water particles suspended in air), and precipitation. Saltwater oceans hold 97% of surface water, glaciers and polar ice caps 2.4%, and other land surface water such as rivers, lakes and ponds 0.6%. Some of the Earth’s water is contained within water towers, biological bodies, manufactured products, and food stores. Other water is trapped in ice caps, glaciers, aquifers, or in lakes, sometimes providing fresh water for life on land.

“Why would we pollute it? In order make filters and bottled water to sell. FCOL Your sick Bastard!”

“We’re doing the same for the air too so we could sell air tanks and air filter. Create a problem and solve it in the same time to earn a profit what would that give you?”

In one simulation is relative as the city grew and infrastructures age the water gets filthier and maintenance cost goes up along with it.

Communication

“Series of tubes” is an analogy used by United States Senator Ted Stevens (born November 18, 1923) (Republican-Alaska) to describe the Internet in the context of network neutrality. On June 28, 2006, he used this metaphor to criticize a proposed amendment to a committee bill. The amendment would have prohibited Internet service providers from charging fees to give some companies higher priority access to their networks or their customers. This metaphor (along with several other odd choices of words) was widely ridiculed as demonstrating Stevens’ poor understanding of the Internet.

“human in nature are social and has the ability to mass congregate in one area. In the city there are buildings in the building there is a room in that room… wait that’s the forum room.. it can be progressive on congressive type of community”

The communication network neutral in any way and must not be overcharge

Network neutrality (equivalently net neutrality, Internet neutrality or simply NN) is a principle that is applied to residential broadband networks, and potentially to all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the modes of communication allowed, which does not restrict content, sites or platforms, and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.

Generally, a network which blocks some nodes or services for the customers of the network would normally be expected to be less useful to the customers than one that did not. Therefore for a network to remain significantly non neutral requires either that the customers not be concerned about the particular non neutralities or the customers not have any meaningful choice of providers, otherwise they would presumably switch to another provider with fewer restrictions.

Given this, some commentators have suggested that network neutrality violations can be enforced under antitrust/anti-monopoly legislation, and that no specific laws or regulations are needed. Some countries, like the UK make it relatively easy to change ISPs and dozens of options are available, whereas in the U.S. and many other countries only one or two local network providers are available. It would be expected that any network neutrality issues would be more common where monopoly or duopoly providers exist.

Technosphere

This area looks at automation, productivity, the Internet, and World Wide Web, laboratory to

market transfers, federal research and development, patents, international technology transfer and

building code developments.

Off course the technology level plays a big part of the project and ranges from basic to hitech, no economy can evolve to meet the demands of its citizens as the need arise. The use of utilities and communication between , around , and with other econospheres of its kind , because trade would play a major role it its functionality.

Politosphere

The actions and controls on federal, state and local governments, the justice system, environmental

protection, anti trust regulations, tax and employment laws, discrimination, foreign trade

regulations, government stability, federal state balance and international conditions such as

terrorism all fit into this category.

For some of us it’s a dirty word and we get affected by it everyday and do nothing about it. Rallies, demonstration , violence , war ,corruption that may spawn activist or so called terrorist just consume resources if any of them gets around a country they cause mass panic and fear that makes governments spent on defenses that otherwise spent on education or health of the citizens.

but yes there’s a few out there that were still peaceful and unspoiled this project is a chance to renew this topic and get it right this time.

Theres two option that may set an example

Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage and the Amishes community bothe have there own way of sustainability even with some flaws its an attempt to make the dream.

“Utopian maybe a myth but we can at least bring some of it out to realty and send it to those nations that are in trouble”

The concept of sustainability

For some its abit complex but as an experiment if you take a all the issue of environmental, economics and political you can sum into an rethink of community sustainability

Its simple look back and re-think on how we can change the way we do things

Only when the last tree has died

and the last river been poisoned

and the last fish been caught

will we realise we cannot eat money.

Cree Indian saying

Sometime is hard to interpret a none physical structure that relates to econosphere in different levels of society ,So we’d come up a model showing the following base on the tech level but first

“Ok if colonizing space in one thing keeping the moral of every one happy is goanna be another issue”.

LEFT back in 1977, NASA launched two space probes to explore the farthest reaches of our solar system called Voyager 1 and 2. In 1990 NASA instructed Voyager 1 to look back at where it had come from and to take some images. One of them contained a picture of Earth taken from 4 billion miles away. It became known as the Pale Blue Dot picture, because that was all our Earth looked like in the vast expanse of space.

The astronomer and author Carl Sagan gave a talk that year where he said. “Look again at that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader”, every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam”.

RIGHT The picture of Earth, dubbed Blue Marble, was taken from Apollo 17 in 1972 and features Africa and Antarctica. It is thought to be one of the most widely distributed photographs of any kind.

this really puts our delicate existence in the universe into context. When you consider the miracle that is what we call “our everyday life” is us just floating in a vast cosmos of nothingness – why on earth would we waste our time arguing and fighting when we should be appreciating all the amazing things that we have?

Econosphere

This looks at the world market for products and services, gross national product trends, interest

rates, inflation/deflation and financial markets. The econosphere also looks at regional conditions

such as unemployment, energy, monetary policy, and income, skill requirements and new business

formation.

Sociosphere

Lifestyle changes, consumer activism, education, career expectations, demographics, values, role

models and mass communications. As well population growth or decline, family formations,

population shifts, family stability, life expectancy, birth rates, literacy crime and drug use influence

this sphere of human existence.

Technosphere

This area looks at automation, productivity, the Internet, and World Wide Web, laboratory to

market transfers, federal research and development, patents, international technology transfer and

building code developments.

Politosphere

The actions and controls on federal, state and local governments, the justice system, environmental

protection, anti trust regulations, tax and employment laws, discrimination, foreign trade

regulations, government stability, federal state balance and international conditions such as

terrorism all fit into this category.

Biosphere

This focuses on conditions in the natural environment that may limit a community’s freedom of

action such as water and air pollution, depletion of natural resources such as petroleum and

rainforests, global warming, erosion of farm land, endangering species and water shortages.