and on...

there's something of contribution in it - the quality of measurement that makes it meaningful, and valuable

It needs to contain the totality of human contribution in it.

It needs to be more than a physical object, or not reduced to that either by sloppy mathematical handling.

It needs to represent value - my will and how it is associated with the entirety of all wills.

Objects will then follow, but in more pleasing streams.

Contributing to each other and us, as we begin to identify what we share here on Earth. But the objects are now serving us - people, communities, animals, nature - not dictating how we go about our business - as they have hereftofore done too much.

Martin Buber knew: [quote to follow]

The definition of a values-based economy

Interesting - as one thought follows another - that the measurement of value question should bring back into the fold another concept I have toyed with: the values-based economy.

It seems to me, in these times of unfolding consciousness worldwide - that we are better able to appreciate our place in the world; the objects we use day to day and their place in the world ; the relationships we have; and the place they have in our lives too and yes, co-mingling across the world as well.

You see now the purpose of an economy?

To allow these to flourish to the full and to - serve each other.

The values -based economy to which I have referred is therefore an economy whose participants understand increasingly the relation of objects and people as well as the thoughts and feelings that constitute the same and reflect these values in the choices they make.

Hence - the rise of organic, fair trade, worldwide peace and environment movements - which small fry in themselves constitute a shift of realisation of who we are.

And it is not who we thought.

Peace - maximally,

Fluffy

Measuring value

It's been quite a time away from these walls since I last professed an aim to weave together that will produce the economic models.

This is not surprising, I get easily distracted and have found a variety of projects with which to busy myself.

The ideas, however, are flowing again: much inspired by chance events and the reading of the Economics of Happiness by Mark Anielski

It seems vitally important, after years railing against the conspet of measurement, that we go ahead and do it, but do it right.

The case against measurement is easy- it describes in certain limitations what is really going on. A lot needs to happen before it is illuminating, both in the mind of the observer and the person producing the study.

One of the problems of our age - if I can be so grandiloquent as to name one* - is that measurements dictate our moves and it pains us to admit we have become slaves of the machine:

to produce to specifications, not dreamed by a scientist, philosopher or our own good sense.

But by other numbers. And it is pulling our planet, our society and great civilisations apart.

The rumble you have heard or experienced this last economic year is barely a whisper.

But enough of that. We are people of progress, advancement and resolution on the face of the quake, and the fluffy economist is nothing but an optimist.

So - the measurement chink of light that I saw is that we make our measurements better - so they circumscribe more juicy stats to give us an idea not just of material, nor reduce genuine feelingness or knowingness to a material base.

What is required are measurements that reflect 'real value' of us as beings in the world and our rightful place in it.

It requires a certain trust of our fellow and their impressions and it needs more than soundbite surveys, but questions that listen.

Dear Reader, my thoughts have not got further than this. The next question is:

What qualities does a measurement need in order to reflect real value?

I have an idea the answer will blow apart the question.

Comments please!

Fluffy


* as well as so grandiloquent as to say 'grandiloqient'**
** and then use grandiloquent twice in the same sentence***
***I'll stop there