Enormous tidal waves of economic and financial globalization are now crashing over humanity, concentrating wealth, increasing corporate power and disrupting lives and nations. This chapter reviews how we allowed them to propagate, the myths and institutions which continue to support that journey, and what individuals, communities, and societies must do to create a future they define.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Communities "of place" and "of interest" worldwide are defining a new social architecture for the future. As part of a growing global movement, they seek better local economies, healthy environments and a higher quality of life with greater equity. More than 700 grass roots initiatives in US communities now focus on one or more of these issues. They are organized by people who care about these issues and their communities. Their efforts will eventually be linked together by the technology of the Internet and Web, enabling communities to share experiences, learn from each other and create political power based on common human values. In the evolution of human systems, their time is coming.

Antithetical to this community empowerment are the forces of financial globalization now crashing like a tidal wave over humanity, disrupting nations, communities and individual lives in the process. Jobs, incomes and assets are being allocated according to rules few people are aware of and even fewer understand. These financial systems are predatory and defective by definition. They enable people who make no contribution whatsoever to the common good of humanity to reap huge profits at the expense of others. Everything they accomplish could be achieved more effectively, efficiently and fairly by other means.

While each community is different, all face common challenges. One of the most important is understanding the external influences such as financial globalization which define and limit community options. Without this understanding, and an effective strategy to link communities together into a political force to choose differently, the destiny of humanity will be chosen by a select few, leaving people in all nations at the mercy of forces beyond their influence.

Many human systems provide rewards of money and power for activities detrimental to the well being of people and the environmental life support systems on which humanity depends, yet because of their established position, their status is accepted. Many good people are a part of these systems, and the focus should not be on individuals who work at a local bank or even at the transnational corporations causing much of the devastation to communities. It is not "us v. them," because in different circumstances any of us could be in their place. There is no need to pillory individuals or even organizations for past activities within these systems; we need only to understand what is happening and to change the system of rewards to ensure value is added, instead of rewarding activities that are detrimental to society. Framed this way, who could object to this criteria?

Many people believe it is time to ask fundamental questions about the future of humanity. What are the basic assumptions and rules we accept as true? Who should define and control the systems in which we live? By answering these questions, we can take full responsibility for the future we are creating, and we can enter an "Age of Transformation" in which all human systems are redesigned to deliver goals which serve humanity.

This chapter will review the impacts of financial globalization on communities and why current systems are incapable of dealing with them. It will describe American myths which support the status quo and ask fundamental questions about humanity’s future. It will also review positive trends and community opportunities to link together and reverse the concentration of power and wealth now occurring. Finally, it will discuss the Age of Transformation humanity is entering and provide a foundation for the last chapter of this book, Transformation in Action: An Emerging Future Framework.

The Napa Tetrahedron described by Prasad Kaipa in his chapter is an effective three-dimensional model for considering complex issues. For years I had created two dimensional descriptions of elements of sustainability, always ending up with long lists and pages with lines linking concepts, capacities, goals, actions, and outcomes. When Prasad and I first talked about our mutual interests, and he described his tool, I knew it offered the ability to evolve new conceptual frameworks beyond anything I had encountered.

It is not yet clear what a sustainable future will look like, but it seems obvious many of the elements in the tetrahedron will be a part of it. It is also clear many elements now internalized in current systems do not fit. A world and people driven by greed, fear of scarcity, and acquisition of power over others will corrupt any system until these drives prevail.

The face of the tetrahedron most applicable to this chapter has Wisdom as the outcome. Its three strategic intentions, Common Good, Transformation and Generational Sustainability, provide the criteria for understanding the effect of our systems. Do they lead us, or support us, towards these intentions, or not? The decisions/actions of Learning, Investment and Collaboration all have a "future’s context" that supports movement towards the intentions. All of them contrast with the current systems described below.

As the following and many other examples illustrate, there is increasing credible evidence that the benefits of financial globalization accrue to only a very small number of people at the expense of everyone else. As countries suffer from financial speculation worldwide, some "investors" benefit. In the US, hedge funds such as Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) are so large and risky the Federal Reserve facilitated a bailout. In the process of rescuing LTCM from its own mistakes in the "free market," the Fed also rescued everyone from any further myth of a "free market." With an entry price in excess of $1 million, these "investments" are for only the most wealthy, even as their bailout by the public socializes the risk with "welfare for the rich."

Despite promises it would not do so from its supporters, including the President of the United States, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in fact exported US jobs to Mexico and decimated small Mexican farms with cheaper imported US corn. In Asia, financial speculators contributed heavily to the destruction of national economies such as Indonesia, as its currency lost 80% of its value in less than a year. While the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of some of these countries has risen since the crisis, the World Bank reported that the number of people living on less than US $1 per day is rising. In Indonesia alone, 20 million newly poor were created, raising the proportion of people living on less than $1 per day from 11% in 1997 to 20% in 1998. The implication of the Bank report, and other analyses performed over the past two years, was that International Monetary Fund (IMF) policies to raise interest rates, cut government spending on social programs, protect large creditors and socialize the debt of private companies has been a significant cause of this increase in the number of the poor. The effect of IMF policies in many cases has been to transfer obligation for repayment of private debts to the entire country, causing the people of some of the poorest countries to bear responsibility for the mistakes of transnational lenders and other creditors.

Globally, 51 of the top 100 economies are now transnational corporations. With little or no loyalty to any country or community, they locate production facilities where they find cheap labor and low environmental and human standards. Their goal is singular – maximum profits. These corporations are driven by a global financial system that is out of control. The financial economy dwarfs real economies in size, as the volume of foreign exchange markets now exceeds all global trade and foreign direct investment by a multiple of over 60 times. Their primary purpose is no longer financing the real economy with actual future hedges against real economic transactions. They are now the global casinos where one can bet against other players, countries and communities. The tail now wags the dog. A short term focus on quarterly profits disrupts any long-term framework, while "hot money" sloshes around the planet in days or hours, wreaking havoc in its wake.

These forces of globalization are not accidents. They are the direct result of choices humanity has allowed to be made by those who created and/or dominated existing financial systems. Sometimes they agreed in advance to create the systems, and sometimes a common agenda of profit and power has been sufficient to induce participation in systems that concentrate wealth. In either case, they now impact human communities and our common future as never before. It is time to assert a democratic change towards fairness and sustainability. To assume that a sustainable future can be created without restructuring these financial systems is fantasy, for the reasons described below.

Community members are the experts about their community. They know the benefits of living there, what values attract them, and what they would create if they had the power and resources to do so. No outsider can say what they should do, although the larger community of which they are also a part (e.g. local:state) may appropriately prohibit activities such as discrimination or pollution.

In the old days, just a few years ago, there was a hierarchy of levels from the local community to the global. More people now understand that to have meaningful results from policies, we need local commitments to implement them. They view the world more as a web of interrelationships, which requires congruent policies and actions across all levels, than as a hierarchy of authority and control (although that view also exists).

Advocates of "Capitalism" and the "Free Market" say the only responsibility of corporations is to their stockholders, without concern for other stakeholders such as employees and the community in which they operate. It seems Calvin Coolidge and his statement from the 1920s, that the business of America is business rules the day. It hasn’t always been that way.

In 1951 the Chairman of Standard Oil of New Jersey, Frank Abrams, gave a typical speech for the era. The job of management he said, is to maintain "an equitable working balance among the claims of the various directly interested groups … stockholders, employees, customers and the public at large." In the same era, "Engine Charlie," head of General Motors, and "Electric Charlie," head of General Electric, said what was good for America was good for their companies, and vice versa.

As a creation of statutory law, corporations are ultimately empowered and restricted as society deems appropriate. Corporations all once had a limited charter from their states of incorporation. For example, Article 12 of California’s Constitution of 1879 filled several pages with 24 sections of corporate obligations and limitations on power. At the impetus of corporations, all but four have been repealed, the last in 1972. Some of the rights corporations have gained (such as those granted under the Bill of Rights to human beings), were never intended for artificially created entities with a sole purpose of profit.

The pendulum has swung completely. Now what is good for corporations is only what increases stockholder value and pays huge executive salaries. The pendulum needs to swing again, if we choose, to achieve a balance between powerful transnational businesses seeking only profit and the well being of communities. When businesses ask communities to bid against each other in decisions to locate facilities, it causes a "race to the bottom" of wage rates, benefits, labor rules, environmental and safety standards. It is time communities reversed this trend by refusing to mortgage their future for jobs.

There are already initiatives underway to return power to citizens. The first voter referendum to approve a review of corporate power occurred in November 1998 in Arcata, California. Supported by over 60% of voters, it intends to question the role of corporations in the community and the state. Other initiatives are at preliminary stages.

In an increasingly complex and interrelated world, where change occurs at an ever faster rate, the only thing we know for certain about the future is that it will require us to know more, be more capable, adapt more effectively than we do today, and learn continually.

From job markets and careers to understanding the world around us, we are swimming in complexity as the volume of information continues to grow, leaving many of us with large amounts of unread information. This complexity is beyond the capability of any individual or organization to fully comprehend. Complexity brings levels of interrelationship and more opportunity to create the future we want through collaboration, and it also places more demands on people and systems.

As citizens from the future reflect on our era, what will be remembered as the great issues of our time? I believe our generations will be judged by those such as "What future did we leave our children, and theirs?" and "Did we preserve or destroy the biodiversity and web of life on our planet?" Will the future be one of the rich becoming more fabulously wealthy, while millions of people in the world starve to death and billions more are chained to work to meet basic necessities? Ultimately, in my opinion, it becomes a question of whether we accept the challenge to transform our societies. We have choices about which future we create, and I believe it will begin with awareness of what is actually happening and not just parroting the myths we were led to believe. As a society we need to examine what we do not yet know, and even more importantly look for what we do not know that we do not know, a much larger and ultimately more important realm.

It seems as a nation we are adrift. We have only the collective vision of ourselves as consumers with which to begin the 21^st Century. Political leaders from both parties speak of a "bridge to the 21^st Century," but none of them describe what we will or should find there. Certainty and predictability may not be possible, but without a collective vision of what we want, we will either extend current policies described below or experience some breakdown in the life support systems which sustain us, or both.

A recent national Gallup Poll indicated 85% of Americans are satisfied with their personal lives. Minor changes in language or phrasing often change polls. Are things really that good for the average person, or do most people merely believe they are as good as they have a right to expect? Considering the history of humanity, and centuries-long persecution and enslavement of many races and classes of people, the average person lives better from a material perspective today and has more freedom. Still, our level of collective expectation of what it means to live free, full and rewarding lives without fear remains such that approximately 38,000 people starve to death every day and millions more are oppressed. It is reminiscent of the level of self delusion Albert Camus offered in Candide, that this is "the best of all possible worlds." Let us examine what current policies are actually producing to see how good it is.

As a nation based on ultimate power residing in the people, within the framework of a Constitution admired and emulated by humanity for over 200 years, we rarely express what is important to the common good, how to achieve it, or which capacities we need to build for a future that preserves the best of human values. While the US has expressed lofty ideals, when we are honest with ourselves, we must acknowledge hundreds of years of racism, sexism, experiments on unconsenting human beings and other serious shortcomings. Basic human values of love, trust, fairness and interconnectedness have not been congruently applied from rhetoric to actions, campaign promises to policies. Most people expect that our elected representatives should look after the common good, yet increasingly the policies they promote, such as continued tax cuts on capital to be much less than that on wages, serve only the most wealthy.

Our country is driven by its economy and one’s position in it. One of the first questions people in the US tend to ask each other is "what do you do?" It establishes our status with them immediately. And, this economy is not monolithic. Our economy is really three levels of systems, in a hierarchical structure of 1) human needs, satisfied throughout most of human history by barter, 2) a real economy, based on mass production and distribution, and 3) a financial economy, which enables the real economy to operate beyond current stocks of resources by financing operations and expansion.

The global financial economy controls human well being through interest rates and access to credit. Its hugely disproportionate size at 60 times the needs of the real economy now causes it to dominate human existence and future options. Is this how we want to construct the world in which we live? To explore the full implications of this choice, there is a rule of business which can inform us about our choices: "Follow the Money."

Four core issues, all connected in a web of interrelationships, not a hierarchy, are defining and limiting our common future.

We have many significant questions about the long-term sustainability of our life support systems. Planetary warming and ozone depletion are well reported, but loss of biodiversity is perhaps the most significant, and one of the least understood issues important to sustainability. Seven of ten biologists think we are in the midst of one of the fastest mass extinction of living things in the history of the planet. What is so startling is that there are a series of similar reports in other life support systems crucial to life for humanity as we know it. One in eight plants globally are threatened. Global temperatures continue to break records, with 1998 the hottest year on record, and the seven hottest years in this decade alone. Hotter seas are also blamed for the enormous rate of death of coral worldwide. Weather phenomena like El Nino may occur periodically and yet we have continuously increased the emissions of greenhouse gas concentrations for over a century. It is naïve to believe that any system can be altered to such a degree as we have and for so long without producing some major disturbances.

The cumulative impact of human actions is that we are collectively removing elements from the "web of life" which has evolved over millions of years in the Earth’s ecosystems. A delicate but resilient web of life in which everything is connected to everything else is the model of natural ecosystems, and as part of nature, humanity has evolved in the same way. This web provides abundant resources capable of sustainably meeting human needs if we have proper respect and relationships with it.

No one knows for certain what it will take for the Earth’s ecosystems to no longer sustain us, but there is precedent for human activity making an environment unlivable and causing the collapse of a civilization. Should we reach the point that we alter these systems until they no longer sustain us, we will have few clues how to rebuild them, as "genetically engineered tomatoes" will not provide the missing links. Could such a breakdown occur? No one knows for certain what will result, as we are engaged in the biggest experiment in human history, often with inaccurate and biased information to guide us. By the time special interests, and their paid scientists, allow an issue to be addressed, irreparable damage may already be done. One example is the tobacco industry, which provided scientific reports from credentialled professionals in a series of denials that claimed: there was no problem with their products; if any harm was being done to human beings, it was not their fault; the products were not addictive; and if they were, they did not know it; and other claims they knew to be false when they made them.

Few now deny, as many did for years following the publication of Rachel Carson’s seminal work Silent Spring, that much human behavior adversely affects our environment. China’s $24 billion flood loss in 1998 was largely caused by human actions which eroded soil stability and increased damage. Almost every local area has suffered some degradation as a result of economic growth. We can no longer accept a model where the choices of economic growth or environmental preservation are offered. We must do better, and quickly. If we destroy the long-term carrying capacity of the environment to sustain us, we will have defeated ourselves, whatever the statistics say about the GDP.

An increasing concentration of wealth in the top 1% of Americans, and particularly elite billionaires, threatens the fabric of society. Both the wealthiest and the poorest are losing connection to what distinguished the US from other societies and made it vibrant and resilient: a healthy, strong, middle class who believed in the future of our country.

Is there anything wrong with providing something so valuable that others bestow a billion dollars, or more, for the effort? Of course not. There is a problem, however, when rewards are distributed with gross unfairness or nothing of value is received, as with financial speculators.

Concentration of wealth in the US is approaching the level before the 1929 Stock Market Crash preceding the Great Depression, when the top 1% owned 44.2% of the assets of the country. In 1976 the top 1% owned 19% of all US assets, and the top 10% owned 50% of the assets. By 1992 the top 1% owned 37% of US assets, and the top 10% owned 70% of the assets. By 1997 the top 1% owned over 40% of all US assets, more than 94% of all other Americans combined. The bottom 90% of Americans no longer share in the continued prosperity of America. (See Figure 1)

The ownership of stocks is especially instructive as the major media chronicles the rise and fall of stock markets as if they were relevant to most people. Stock valuations have fueled the greatest expansion of wealth in the history of the world, first in Japan and now in the US. According to Federal Reserve statistics, 60% of Americans own no stock at all, individually, in mutual funds, or in any pension plan. The bottom 80% own only 3 percent. While 40% of Americans do own stocks, this ownership is concentrated in the wealthiest 1% of Americans, who own more than 50% of all stock in the nation.

US household debt is also at an all time high by several measures, causing most people to be so busy staying afloat they are swept along in a river of events controlled by others. As an example, the average credit card balance is $7,000, with interest costs of $1,000 per year. This is not accidental, and it is not initiated by consumers. It is good business to extend credit, and numerous studies report the success of massive advertising campaigns to induce purchases on credit, resulting in a heavily-indebted populace. While bank card debt rose 137% in the 1990s, bank mailings rose over 250%. As people are indoctrinated into the consumer society with credit, many never experience having a positive net worth in spite of working all of their lives. Education comes in many forms.

By one calculation now certainly outdated, Bill Gates alone was worth as much as the bottom 40% of all Americans, or more than 100 million people. At the same time, the jobless rate in the U.S. dropped to 4.3%, the lowest since 1970. When record numbers of people are working, and wealth is increasingly being concentrated at the top, there is something fundamentally wrong with the structure of the systems and the policies of rewards. And, these systems have not always produced such unfair results.

Trends illustrating the concentration of income are only slightly less pronounced. Between 1947 and 1976, growth in real family income occurred almost uniformly across all income levels. (See Figure 2)

In contrast, from 1976 to 1994, incomes grew dramatically apart, as virtually all of the income growth went to the top few, while 60% of Americans actually lost ground. (See Figure 3)

Compensation of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of major corporations continues to skyrocket. In 1965, US CEOs made 44 times the average worker. At the 365 largest US corporations, CEO pay in 1998 was 326 times that of the average worker. (See Figure 4)

These results and trends are fundamentally unfair, economically unsustainable, and disastrous for any democracy. Although education and technology correlate to some of the disparities, policies such as tax cuts, subsidies and the failure to account for, or "internalize," all costs (e.g. pollution) seem more powerful factors to explain the disparities. In addition, many activities such as financial speculation have made little net contribution to the well being of humanity.

Adam Smith, author of the economic classic, Wealth of Nations, is often quoted for his support of "free markets," but he assumed large numbers of buyers and sellers, all fully educated. Today, there are often only a few sellers, and mergers are further reducing these numbers. Many consumers have little idea what they are actually buying. They may be aware of the promises of a product from advertising, appearance or their own experience, but few have any idea of the contents or the consequences of its production, distribution or disposal (from child labor to illegal activities). It is time to for us to update our application of Adam Smith’s ideas to a 21^st Century society to ensure fairness in our political economy.

Corporate power globally is enormous and growing. It is hard to imagine that more than half of the top 100 economies in the world are now private businesses. During a 50-year period of enormous income and asset growth, corporations have reduced their responsibilities to society by lobbying for more power, lower taxes and eliminating the original statutory restrictions designed to protect society against abuses. Corporations now pay less than half of the US federal tax burden they paid in the 1940s, with a steady decrease over this period. At the same time, individuals’ share went from 43% to 73%. (See Figure 5).

Corporate power is not only financial; it permeates educational and political realms as well.

With government downsizing, corporations fund significant research and education to universities. Corporations realize solid returns on investments at universities, as they pay lower professional salaries than in the business world and have access to unpaid students to perform work. Cheap labor may be one attraction, but the systemic problem is that there seems to be a direct correlation between funding sources and results. For example, when chemical corporations paid for 43 scientific studies of four chemicals, 74% were favorable and only 14% unfavorable. Of 118 studies paid for by non-industry organizations on the same chemicals, only 23% were favorable, and 71% were unfavorable. What are the limits of academic and scientific independence? Are they too only myths like those described below?

Corporate power also grows significantly through international treaties. Many people are unaware of the World Trade Organization (WTO), yet it makes decisions which affect the future of everyone. Established in 1994 and located in Geneva, the WTO makes rules and regulations about health, safety and environmental standards worldwide. These standards are often based on industry requests, with little, if any, input from consumers.

One example is the area of safety regulations, usually adopted following substantial harm to people. In a typical process, the business involved and then the industry denies there is harm, or that it is their fault, and then claims it will be impossible to protect people without decimating the industry or the economy. Following protracted negotiations and possible legal challenges, in almost every case innovations are technically feasible and cost effective. This resistance is being institutionalized at the WTO, where human safety is seen as an impediment that can "block markets and cause inefficiency." Reducing safety standards for profit continues to be more appealing.

The WTO has final authority over all of its decisions, and is more powerful for trade matters than any nation, including the US. It reaches its decisions in private, away from public input or scrutiny. It recently ruled that a US law to protect sea turtles, an endangered species, was invalid as a restraint on trade when it required a $75 device to protect the turtles. Many people believe this is not the use of power; it is the abuse of power.

All however is not bleak. On the positive side, over 600 non profit organizations worldwide used the Internet to prevent adoption of one of the most offensive treaties, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). Designed to prevent nations and communities from imposing virtually any controls on the influence of foreign corporations, the MAI is the latest attempt to increase corporate power globally. If the MAI (and any substitute) are ultimately defeated, this may be a watershed event in human history, stopping the expansion of corporate power and control.

It is essential to understand that humanity is engaged in a contest over who will determine its future. Will the business and financial world define and dominate human societies and relationships with little consideration for individuals, communities and nations? Even the New York Times reported this is the "inevitable clash between the power of government and the power of markets…In Russia, Malaysia, and even Japan, the United States is insisting on reforms that would essentially give power to investors to move their money across borders at will, instead of to governments seeking to control their own destinies." Let us ask ourselves what kind of "reform" conflicts with the ability of nations and peoples to control their destinies? And, is there a way to rethink how to integrate the needs of governance and the market in a 21^st Century world to provide a balance of values for humankind?

The emerging, complex issues of the 21^st Century will require a higher level of knowledge and wisdom than ever before. Addressing these requires open, honest and transparent processes as few people understand that forces such as those described above are designed to produce concentration of wealth and power.

Can individuals educate themselves about how these financial systems work, who they benefit and how they can be changed? Will the real state of our society continue to be interpreted to obscure these facts by a media largely owned by corporations benefiting from these policies? Can people align with new directions which are more equitable and sustainable by collaborating in their communities? Or will they be only consumers competing for material possessions in advanced technological society? Education may be the only potential to create a direction that empowers people to make a difference for these crucial issues.

In the broadest sense, all of human experience is learning. Self-reflection and inquiry inform about oneself. Contacts with family, peers, and media impart attitudes, skills, knowledge and ways of being as effectively as any formal education. A significant question is whether education develops primarily the ability to discriminate among offered alternatives without questioning them, or does it build the capacity to question basic assumptions and think of new alternatives. The former includes choosing a better performing product or one with less impact on the environment, while the latter includes thinking critically about one’s desires to be satisfied and how to do so, if at all.

Traditional education has focused on skills for jobs or in the case of liberal arts, a broad understanding of the thinking and expression of prior generations. Education for the 21^st Century will require understanding the complexity of the world in which we live and the need to build capacities to deal with as yet undefined issues. It will require individuals internalizing a future’s context for understanding those needs and for making decisions appropriate to the needs of an ever more complex and interrelated future. This focus on the future is so essential because we no longer live in an "empty" world in which actions of individuals and groups do not affect others; we are all in the same nearly "full" world which has become a petri dish for our grand experiment together.

Education offers a wide range of potential outcomes, from enabling individuals to freely define a place in society and constructively fulfilling it, to developing the ability to operate contrary to any definition of a sustainable future. As one example, education can help individuals understand that they are more than consumers or it can make them more discriminating consumers, with increasing desires for more novel goods and services. Education can also stimulate a love of learning and curiosity for what we do not know, or it can cause individuals to believe they are "experts" who know everything, when for example, every scientific field has basic unanswered questions which actually reveal how little we know, particularly about the functioning of the web of life on which we depend. This range of potential outcomes requires that the purposes of education be clearly defined in a framework to that meets the needs of the future. Support from a broad enough base of civilization is essential to ensure congruent policies.

A recent report indicated some educators were pleased that test scores were as high as 20 years ago. No one would accept most products which are 20 years old, and with the level of complexity in our world, our educational learning concepts must adapt to enable individuals to accept these challenges.

Systemic thinking, chaos theory, collaboration skills, and a future’s context for all decisions are minimum requirements needed for informed analysis by future leaders. With projections that humans will live for a hundred or more years, we require an educational capacity which encourages continually upgrading what we know, how we apply it and examining our goals along the way.

Every institution has myths about itself, and the United States is no exception. Some US myths are positive and based on fact. Others are based on false assumptions. The strangest part about many current American myths is how antithetical they are to the foundational myths of our country, the refuge from the tyranny of King George of England.

What is so startling is how these myths have become internalized until people accept and believe them without question. It is like a trance, a hypnosis almost, as we believe what we are told without questioning it. I have found myself also believing some of these (and other) myths. Examining them calls into question what we are doing as a country, and how we are constructing our lives as individuals. What follows are only a few of many examples.

The reported 1998 Federal Budget Surplus is a classic example of smoke and mirrors. There was no surplus in 1998. Without the Social Security Trust Fund, there was approximately a $30 billion deficit in the federal budget. Since by law we can not access Social Security Trust Funds, the federal government must borrow them. Borrowing adds to the federal debt, and the accepted illusion was that "we owe the money to ourselves." We do not owe the money to ourselves; we owe it to the people who paid into the Social Security Trust Fund just as surely as we owe other funds to the bond and note holders who now loan money to the government. Somehow the media has accepted this myth. Headlines announced the surplus and the controversy over what to do with it. The media identified a controversy between "liberals" who want to "spend the surplus" and "conservatives" who want to "cut taxes." As there is no surplus, this should not even be a controversy; it is insanity.

This is a corollary myth to the first one, and the two can only be understood by asking "who benefits" if the myths are believed. How can Social Security be broken if it is running a surplus of almost $100 billion a year, and it will be able to pay 100% of its obligations until 2032? What other organization, public or private, can say that? Sometime in the next two decades, it will begin to have outlays in excess of revenues, and we should of course plan now to keep it healthy, as we should have planned for the year 2000 computer problem, or "Y2K."

It also may be appropriate to have people who worked all their lives share in the long-term profitability of businesses, but why is there such intense rhetoric now about privatizing Social Security? It is actually simple: There is a good reason to privatize Social Security, and it is the same reason it was so important to ensure health care was private. It would be very profitable for the financial advisors, brokers and administrators of all the proposed individual accounts. The biggest benefit will almost surely accrue to the top 1% again, as additional funds compete for investments, supporting the price of the 50% of all US stock holdings concentrated in their hands. So, actually, what we are talking about is "profitizing" Social Security for the benefit of a few at the expense of everyone else.

The myth is the individual who makes it "on his own" and therefore has little responsibility to the rest of society. It supports separateness and a lack of community. While not contemporary, the movie actor familiar to generations of Americans as "The Duke" is an internalized component of the American psyche. Independent, strong, willful (but always fair), he was the perfect myth of the self-reliant individual who did not need others. Although in the movies he never relied on weak "Pilgrims" who could not face challenges he always overcame, in real life he was so successful because he benefited from the efforts of all of the others in the huge web of interdependency necessary to make films. While Marion Motley, his real name, created this self-reliant image of the war hero on celluloid, others actually fought the real wars for him, and for us. In fact, we are all interrelated and our success depends on each other. It is important to understand this is not a personal criticism of Mr. Wayne or his actions; rather, it deconstructs the mythology of the "rugged individualist" who believes he owes nothing to anyone else because he does not understand his relationship to others and the role of society in constructing the systems from which he has benefited.

This is another version of "trickle down" or "supply side" economics, which George Bush correctly called "Voodoo Economics." In the 1980 Presidential campaign, the economic proposals of Ronald Reagan to cut taxes were being promoted as mechanisms of magical economic growth which would reduce the budget deficit. Mr. Bush and his advisors correctly said it was impossible to use Mr. Reagan’s approach and have both tax reduction and a lower deficit, and of course, they were proved accurate as Mr. Reagan’s policies created the largest debt in the history of the world, as well as the intense concentration of wealth described above. We merely forgot to remind Mr. Bush of the accuracy of his perception when he became President, as he more or less continued the same policies. From the incredible concentration of wealth and power described above, this tide has lifted "all yachts."

Markets work exceptionally well for some things such as efficiently distributing goods among potential buyers, and dismally for others such as protecting common resources like the atmosphere, but very little is "free" about our current system. A few years ago, the Cato Institute produced a study which estimated that corporate subsidies cost Americans approximately $150 billion per year, and David Korten has estimated that the true cost of corporate subsides, when all of the costs now paid by society are included, is actually much higher. The recent financial experience in Asia illustrates how our public money is used by the IMF to bail out big lenders and other transnational corporations. Our current version of a "free market" is really not free at all – it is subsidized, manipulated and ultimately unsustainable.

As virtually all markets have some framework, rules and incentives imposed by those other than immediate participants, it might be more appropriate to speak of an "open market." Appropriate activities such as developing consumer products and selling those products can be conducted without the need for subsidies, allowing competition to work in open market settings. In contrast, developing capacity, individual access and infrastructure for effective use of the Internet is one example, like the national highway system of an earlier era, where subsidies can achieve a goal of national strategic importance. In the long run, everyone, including businesses which reengineer to add value, will benefit from distinguishing these two kinds of activities.

Technology does solve many problems, and it also creates many others. The unintended consequences of technology has been adequately illustrated many times. One of the most powerful examples of unintended consequences is the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as refrigerants. Inert at sea level, they reacted in the upper atmosphere in a completely unanticipated way to help create a hole in the ozone layer. During this process manufacturers and other industry supporters denied there was any problem or that their product was responsible for it if there was a problem. Following many years of denial, industry finally relented and allowed country representatives to negotiate the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to gradually eliminate the use of CFCs. Because of the size of the atmospheric system, and the period of phaseout for developing countries, the full extent of the problem continues to unfold even though CFCs are no longer produced in developed countries.

This myth applies to individuals, communities and nations. At the individual level, if someone does not "make it," we believe it is their fault. To be clear, at the individual level, anyone with enough ability, effort and good fortune to not experience disaster can be "successful" in the US. No one can be prevented from achieving that success in some way. And in comparison with many other countries, the US is open, free, and the land of opportunity. There have also been times in history when waves of immigrants came to the US to escape oppression and bettered their lives. Many of the conditions, such as good manufacturing jobs, which existed then are now different. Today, most individuals who are successful must also be exceptional. America has been called "the winner take all society," because this success does not apply to the average family, who for a combination of reasons, lives on the edge, with little security. (See Figure 6)

If this myth were true, more than 40% of the people in the US would own stocks. The remaining 60% of Americans can not all be "defective people, too lazy or inept" to become owners of some stock. Our systems have created these results. We need to rethink these systems to find the appropriate balance between individuality and the common good which will produce a healthy, vital and dynamic interdependent society for the 21^st Century.

At a national level, Asia and Indonesia are important illustrations of the current system as they now suffer the consequences of economic downturns. The myth is that "Crony Capitalism" in Asia protected friends, and underlying corruption produced bad decisions. Nations do bear some responsibility for their vulnerability to the global financial system. Policies such as failure to disclose information or to punish those who provided false information may have caused some investors (and all speculators) to flee more rapidly. These practices however existed for decades while the "Asian Tigers" and their economic miracle were acclaimed by the developed world. In fact, the worst decisions in Asia were made by transnational banks that sought higher profits far from home by marketing loans which were not repaid. The era of "go-go banking" which contributed to the Latin American debt crisis was repeated, as billions of dollars of risky loans were made on information which would have been deemed inadequate in developed countries.

Crony capitalism is also prevalent in the US, with the bailouts of LTCM described above, the Latin America debt crisis in the early 1980s, the US Savings & Loan Scandal in the late 1980s, and the bailout of Mexico in 1994. While arguments can be made that the failure of LTCM could have led to the meltdown of the international financial system, and therefore justified Fed intervention, two questions need to be asked. First, why was a speculative fund able to be in such a position to jeopardize the financial system everyone in the world depends on, and second, why have changes in that system not been actively sought to prevent a recurrence, when many have been proposed?

High real interest costs paid by borrowers have created big profits for banks to help pay for their mistakes. Meanwhile the IMF has become a major component of the US government effort to open foreign markets for US corporate interests, using its lending and rescue policies to force changes in how countries relate to transnational corporations and the international financial system. These activities have been offensive to most countries. The IMF has been called "a battering ram" to open markets and require countries to make concessions, such as allowing foreign ownership of their financial institutions, which they resisted for decades. These activities are well outside the original intent and charter of the IMF. What is important to understand is that together these activities are a concerted effort led by the US government and international organizations such as the IMF and WTO to impose a uniform standard of corporate rights on sovereign nations. It truly is quickly becoming a corporate world. If people do not demand that democracy prevail, the rules and systems will all be in place in a decade or sooner, perhaps irreversibly establishing financial and corporate rule over humanity if something isn’t done.

If this can happen to entire nations and to a whole continent, communities have little chance. An exceptional community, like an exceptional individual, may "succeed," but the nearly zero sum game being played will leave another to bear the consequences.

At one time in the US most independent newspapers were owned locally, and it was likely that journalists and editors were more liberal than the average person, leading to liberal perspectives on many issues. The situation has changed completely. Local newspapers are being bought by transnational corporations, and as described below the concentration of ownership of all media is continuing. Can anyone name a "liberal" transnational corporation? Of course, not. By virtually any standard, such as air time, the number of stations which carry conservative v. liberal shows, and the type of issues covered, the major media in the US is clearly more conservative than liberal. The myth of independent, liberal journalists, editors and publishers has been banished by owners such as arch conservative Rupert Murdoch, who has openly said he clearly expects his media to reflect his values. Employees who want to be successful with those businesses will internalize a way of being, the kinds of stories they select to report, and how they choose to do so. If there is any distortion of issues by the major media in developed countries, it is not liberal.

"This is just the way things are: You can’t fight ‘City Hall’" is actually as untrue as every other myth. One of the best examples of transformation came from the efforts of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD ). Following the deaths of their children and loved ones, they challenged the very basic assumptions about drinking and driving. As a result they changed the laws to provide for severe penalties for drunk driving, and more importantly, they changed the way we think about drinking and driving. We changed our behavior and our belief systems as we evolved. We can in fact change any of the issues underlying these myths if we decide to do so.

Money is so important to our economy and way of life, it deserves special consideration. Its importance requires understanding how fundamental elements of the system work, because the financial economy now controls the destiny of people, and ultimately of humanity.

Money is both a store of value, as in savings accounts, and a medium of exchange, accepted to pay for goods, services and taxes. With electronic funds transfer (EFT), it is much more than the currency and coins in circulation, which represent only a very small part of the monetary systems which themselves are only a part of the global financial system.

While it is true that the Bureau of Engraving of the US Department of Treasury does print currency, it does so for the Federal Reserve system, which pays only the costs of printing. Actually, most money is not created by the US government. It is private money. As we follow the money, we encounter the biggest financial myth of all. To begin, ask why is there a US federal debt.

The myth is we have a federal debt because the federal government has traditionally spent more money than it takes in every year, creating a yearly deficit, which is added to the prior debt. While it is true that expenditures have exceeded receipts for many years, and that a deficit and debt have been calculated, making the elements of the myth true, they are also irrelevant to each other. It is directly analogous to saying "I have borrowed money, so therefore I am insolvent." Absent more information, one is irrelevant to the other. In the example, as a borrower, the money can be either invested in valuable assets which will appreciate to exceed the amount of the debt, or it could be spent frivolously, leaving only the debt. More must be known about the loan, the expenditures and other elements of the situation before the example can be proved or disproved.

The same is true of the monetary system. To illustrate this, look for a "dollar bill." You will be disappointed, as there are no dollar bills. They are all only "Federal Reserve Notes," and as everyone knows, a note is an obligation to pay. This is not currency of our federal government. It belongs to private banks and the Federal Reserve System. It is private money.

So we have this myth about our money and our debt, but the real answer is different. We actually have a federal debt because US money is private money created and owned by private banking corporations which rent it to all of us at interest. There is no reason whatsoever the US government could not issue money to pay its bills in excess of receipts instead of borrowing it. The Fed issues its money to pay its bills by creating it out of nothing. If a primarily private organization, largely owned by banks, can create money to pay its own bills, the US government of all the citizens could do the same.

Money has to be created in some way to support a growing economy. If the money supply were the same amount as say a hundred years ago, it would be inadequate to facilitate commerce, savings and investment today. The question is why should US money be created and issued by private corporations?

As a country, the US now wastes over $200 billion per year on unnecessary interest payments by the federal government that could over time be eliminated. These payments are now part of a system which requires borrowing by the federal government from wealthy bondholders, in effect providing a subsidy to them, when the country could use these funds to reduce taxes, spend them on education, poverty, or other uses, or some combination. It is no surprise that wealth concentration continues.

It is time we wake up to what is happening and adopt a rather simple solution to a large problem of our society: There is no reason the US government should not begin to immediately create its own money to pay the interest on its "obligations," just as the Fed and private banks create money for their own purposes. Over time, a well thought out and flexible plan could gradually reduce the $5.5 trillion federal debt with the same method. The process would free up money for private use, significantly reduce the overall demand for capital (especially foreign capital, a potentially very unstable source of funds over the long term), reduce interest rates and produce an investment and expansionary boom of prosperity for the country as a whole and the average person like never before seen in the history of the world.

The issue with the Fed goes even deeper. Its complex organizational structure conceals that it performs regulatory functions over a peculiar class, the private banks which are the owners of the 12 Regional Federal Reserve Banks. This is an obvious conflict of interest. The Fed is concerned about inflation because it hurts the wealthy, the bond owners, and the banks. Although the argument is made that it hurts people on fixed incomes, those earning the minimum wage are also on fixed incomes, and the Chairman of the Fed has publicly stated that the minimum wage should not be increased, or it should be eliminated altogether. A little inflation actually helps the average person as wages and the value of real assets, such as homes, generally rise also. For the great percentage of people, homes are their largest asset by far. A target of say two or three percent per year inflation could be managed as effectively as policies targeting "zero inflation." The question is not whether to manage the economy and interest rates: it is who benefits and to what extent. Is it only the wealthy or does the average person also benefit?

As an example of an alternative, it would cost $24 billion to raise the minimum wage $1 per hour from $5.15 for the 12 million people who are at the bottom of the wage scale. This class of people has lost ground in the three decades since 1968. (See Figure 7)

Any community and its economy would be healthier if people at the bottom had more money to spend, as they would spend it in their communities, not send it to Japan buying a luxury car, or to an expensive catalog outlet for luxury goods. Increasing the minimum wage would strengthen individuals, families and communities, as would the complementary or community currencies described below. The US Senate defeated a proposal in 1998 to raise the minimum wage by $1/hr., using spurious objections, when exemptions for teenagers or businesses with only a few workers would be easy to define. The $24 billion total cost to society would be only 12% of the $200 billion plus per year the US now wastes on unnecessary interest.

We recognize it would not be easy to save our country $200 billion per year. The power of the nation-wide banking system and those allied with it by circumstance or intent is enormous. The US Senate recently reviewed the Community Reinvestment Act provisions in connection with proposed major changes to banking legislation. Senator Phil Gramm of Texas said that those who support "life-line banking" or reduced fee services to low income customers were "extortionists," likening them to the "Mafia." He also said the rules were "an evil like slavery in the pre-Civil War era."To me, these statements were at best totally irrelevant, unless the following connection is made: Slavery includes servitude, and it also means exclusion from the systems which benefit other members of society. If the example of slavery is to be applied anywhere here, it is in excluding members of society from the banking system, just as African American slaves were excluded from white society.

The power and influence of the financial sector in Congress comes from it being one of the largest contributors to politicians. This $200 billion per year of interest has become an entitlement to bondholders and the large brokerage house that profit from the markets in government securities. They will all resist giving up this largess, using every bad argument available. Because of the tremendous debt, the sector has the power to withdraw funds from the bond markets, with results similar to that in Asia. This power is at an historical high.

This private monetary system builds increasing debt to inevitable consequences that may include an economic collapse such as occurred in Japan. It will require more debt for more people all the time if conventional growth of the economy is to be maintained. Current total US debt is approximately $21 trillion, nearly three times the total domestic production, or GDP, of the entire country. At the same time, the most basic measure of the supply of money in circulation, M1, is less than $1.5 trillion. With virtually all money created from debt, the collective debt can never be paid off, as someone else must borrow to enable the funds to be available for competition in the marketplace. All the while, the "magic of compound interest" increases the wealth of debt holders.

As Art Warmoth and Bernard Lietaer point out in their chapter on Designing Bioregional Economies, some firms and individuals must go bankrupt to feed this system. The banking system creates only enough money to loan the principal; it does not create the interest. Borrowers must compete among themselves to earn the interest in the economy, and some of the losers must go bankrupt. The system inevitability moves towards more bankruptcies, and in fact in only eight years from 1990 to 1998, individual bankruptcies doubled, to 1.4 million per year, while business bankruptcies actually declined. The financial institutions have lobbied vigorously for legislation to make the burden of bankruptcy more onerous for the consumers at the edge who consider it. Analogous to the neutron bomb that kills people and leaves infrastructure intact, their intent is to have many debts survive new bankruptcy rules they favor.

The choice for countries is to become obligated to multilateral lenders such as the IMF if they, or a significant part of their corporate borrowers, can not repay transnational lenders. The only thing worse than being hopelessly in debt to the international financial system is to be excluded from it. The banking system bailouts worldwide all increase public debt and future interest costs, sapping the vitality of economies and the quality of life. In violation of all capitalist ideals and "open market" principles, they socialize bad "free market" loans of private corporations. They require countries to assume previously private debt in the absence of any strategic goal of the country involved, other than to ensure continued access to the international financial system, which would punish it for failing to socialize these debts.

Understanding and rethinking issues of financial structures, monetary control, interdependence, and human relationships underlying these American myths is crucial to the future of our country and the world. As these myths are rethought, the systems and institutions that support them need to be restructured. In fact, traditional assumptions supporting the status quo need to be challenged and transformed to the requirements of a constantly changing, interconnected and increasingly complex world. Values that actually put people first, not the accumulation of wealth by a few, are required to change these systems.

Structurally, these systems are deficient because they do not account for all structures being interrelated. It is my opinion that unless we transform all of our institutions, we will be unable to deal with the complexity and interconnected issues described above. Some examples of current systemic deficiencies include:

• Measuring Systems – Many informed people know we use the wrong indicators to describe the health of our society and economy, yet we continue to do so because it is useful to financial institutions and banks, in the process misleading us about the true health of our society. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was developed during the Depression when we had huge amounts of resources and many people unemployed. The principal concern was to create any kind of activity in the economy. Relying only on GDP now is outmoded and outdated. GDP values prison construction as much as tuition for education. Measuring GDP supports the financial economy, because it reveals if there is enough gross activity to continue to pay the interest on the growing level of outstanding debt. Using GDP alone is like using only a heartbeat rate for medical diagnosis. Much better indicators that include additions for positive contributions and deductions for negative ones (like crime, casualty losses, etc.) are now available. One example is the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), from Redefining Progress in San Francisco. As GDP has continued to grow over the past two decades, subtracting negative costs has actually produced a consistently falling GPI.

• Economic and Political Systems – Economic and political systems concentrating wealth to the extent described above are using the wrong policies by definition. We can design systems that produce equitable and rewarding results for sustainable activities. We can be forever indebted to the people of the former Soviet Union for their failed experiment at communism. We can now move to a post capitalist system as well. Instead of subsidizing transnational corporations and concentrating wealth, we can cut taxes on earnings, tax harmful activities such as pollution, allow nations to issue their own money, and share increases in wealth produced by government research and development for which we all originally paid.

• Social Systems - At least one fifth of children in the US live in poverty, computed as approximately $300/week for a family of four. It is hard to conceive of any justification for this result. Even if one feels no moral concern for children (which itself is unfortunate for both the children and the unfeeling person), children are the future of our country. The State of California, once the vanguard of American life, now spends more money on its prison system than on its system of higher education.

• Educational Systems - While the 21^st Century requires transformed learning concepts and methods to deal with increasing complexity in the world, a major international study reveals that high school completion rates in other industrialized countries have surpassed those in the US. The US devotes a smaller percentage of its national income to teacher salaries than other countries, despite being one of the highest spenders on public education. This study in itself reflects the traditional approach to evaluating education/learning by standardized content. Like new indicators of Measuring Systems for the economy, transformative ideas need to evolve to assess education for the 21^st Century.

• Information and Media Systems - The intense, continuing concentration of corporate control of the major media limits diverse perspectives. Almost 80% of US daily newspapers are now owned by corporate chains, in contrast to 1945, when 80% were independently owned. Seven corporations now own virtually all of the major broadcast media. Is it any wonder the television networks report similar stories each night and policy debates are actually very narrow, representing perspectives that support the status quo in one form or another?

It is time to ask fundamental questions, including whether it is acceptable that:

• Some people become fabulously wealthy while other people work full time for a minimum wage of approximately $10,000 a year?
• Taxpayers pay $200 billion plus per year of unnecessary federal government interest which could be used to reduce taxes or support other goals?
• The financial system produces huge rewards for people who make no contribution to our country or collective well being. (These are not the local banker or mortgage broker, but the managers of huge hedge funds who produce nothing of value, for anyone, except themselves and their super rich investors. The buy-in to some of these "investments" can be a minimum purchase of $10 million.)
• The national financial community and brokerage houses want to "profitize" Social Security?
• The WTO makes laws and treaties (such as the proposed MAI) virtually in secret to continue to expand corporate power at the expense of communities and countries?

These are fundamental questions about our country and its future. Who is in control? Who should be? What legacy will we leave our children if we avoid dealing with these issues? Who do we expect to deal with them if not us?

Values form the basis for decisions, while policies encourage or discourage activities based on what are presented as common values. Present policies often diverge from values that will support the common good in a dynamic 21^st Century society. A few examples are:

• While a number of polls reveal approximately 75% of Americans value a healthy environment, even at some economic cost, huge tradeoffs are made for transnational corporations, as the NAFTA, WTO and other examples illustrate.
• People value peace (I have never heard of any individual express a desire for war), yet our government supports an industry which is the biggest seller of arms in the world.
• People value integrity in their leaders, yet President Clinton lied about his affairs, and Presidents Reagan and Bush both lied about circumventing the Constitution with the Iran Contra Scandal.

Is it possible to bring institutions into alignment with people’s values, or is systemic corruption a permanent condition of humanity? Is the increasing concentration of wealth in fewer hands ultimately lethal to our democracy. Do we want a "winner take all" society? We have allowed these results to happen, and if we really desire, we can change them. Fortunately, a solid foundation is being constructed to do so.

Do individual communities have any chance of self determination in the face of these powerful forces? Alone, they certainly do not, but linked together powerful changes can occur. There are many positive trends in the world which now support community choices and empowerment. No one knows their eventual outcomes, as the world is now in a state of systemic, interrelated change which has recently been understood in theories of non linear chaos/complexity. This is due to a state of evolution based on conditions and circumstances never before present. It is our choice whether to continue to reform past ideas and practices or to rethink and restructure transformed approaches to the future based on new assumptions resulting from community research and development. .

The following trends are indicators on which to build and understand the long-term trajectories of components of human evolution. They are not necessarily momentary events. Most of them include a "new capacity," which develops an ability to move to a higher level of competence and effectiveness at some point in the future as increased complexity of the society evolves.

• Spirituality/Who Are We As Human Beings? – The inherent spirituality of human beings is the most important capacity humanity possesses. It supports all others and is guidance to our true nature and experiencing the full potential of being human. More people all the time are on this path, irrespective of individual spiritual or religious belief systems. While barbarism as in Bosnia and Kosovo remains a part of the human experience, there is also an increased search for meaning beyond power, control and violence which includes a greater tolerance for the opinions of others.

• The Trajectory of Human Evolution – Over time humans have collectively recognized individual rights and personally eliminated individual biases which were mistakenly learned. An example of the former is the creation of the US Constitution. When it was adopted 200 years ago, women could not vote and African Americans were considered as three fifths of a white person. Few if any of us would accept these definitions now, and so we slowly evolve. Our acknowledgement of this evolutionary trajectory is more important than understanding exactly where we are. And, it is time we open a dialogue to plot the trajectory of human evolution and target our goals.

• New Information and Media - The Internet, cellular and other telecommunications are exploding. The Internet is a major, emerging "Alternative Media" for social transformation, as more people have access to more information than ever before. "Communities of interest" are evolving to address specific issues, such as resistance to the WTO policies and the MAI. As decision making processes become more transparent, people will have the opportunity to include their views of sustainability and justice in the processes. There is also more "Alternative Media" and "Civic Journalism" than ever before. In every case, the issue is how to add value and move across the spectrum of:

• Emerging Community Empowerment - Community consensus processes can promote collaboration, common vision and power. Communities of place are becoming linked, as in the example of Lake Tahoe and Cape Cod, discussed below. The Internet is building capacities and linking "best practices" as communities share successes and failures to find what works.

• New Leadership Models - New models of leadership emphasize collaboration and processes to build relationships among people, organizations and new ideas. These connections lead to a dynamic concept that recognizes our interdependence, the necessity of hearing all voices, and the opportunity to have the "dissenter" in the room add value to what the dominant opinions miss. Gaining support to overcome hidden agendas and prevent sabotage of processes is a technique which can be learned. When the process has integrity, the product will live and have it also.

• Learning - Rapid changes in our environment and economy require we continually update our knowledge and how to use it. Embracing life-long learning is a necessary strategy for every individual. Technology now makes distance learning more accessible and enhances a key to successful learning, the willingness to learn. Advanced delivery systems and more user-friendly applications help individuals access and learn about their own motivational needs and passions in life.

• Economic Systems - Although the current national economic system favors large producers and establishes control with a national financial system, alternatives are emerging. Peter Alexander describes how to plug "leaks" to keep money in local economies. Warmoth and Lietaer describe how community, or complementary, currencies are rapidly being introduced. These currencies provide more "money" as a medium of exchange to stimulate local economies and provide the services and goods people need. More about these currencies is described below.

• Political Systems - More people know in their hearts the existing systems do not work. One of the most intriguing and hopeful elements is that the continuing abuse of power by those in control of existing systems contains the seeds of their own demise. Trends towards consensus democracy, public referenda and identifying community leaders with a broad perspective on the common good are examples of these emerging new systems.

• Network Systems - Perhaps most importantly, there is an expanding worldwide meta network of collaborating individuals, communities, regions and organizations. No community or region yet has it all figured out of course, but each has something to contribute. As the inevitable linkages are established, they will create a "whole which is greater than the sum of the parts."

A global network of people, communities and organizations is building a foundation for the future, and it is not difficult to understand much of what to do. There are many good ideas, from campaign finance reform (again rejected by our representatives) to national taxes being adopted in Europe to tax pollution. The restructuring of tax systems is especially valuable because reducing taxes on productive activities such as wages and payrolls provides the incentive to earn and also to stop polluting. There are also many bad ideas which are promoted by self serving interests, with sufficient budgets to advertise and influence opinion. One of our tasks is to build the capacity to distinguish the difference and make appropriate choices.

Although at times we seem to lack the political will as a country to agree on broad goals which value people, many communities are working to develop new ideas which, when connected, create a framework for the future.

If communities build the capacity to make decisions that include a future’s context and link together with other communities, they will have many opportunities to choose individual destinies that they, not others, define. The following are important opportunities as part of that effort:

In the Information Age, economics in the 21^st Century will be built on a "Digital Economy" as telecommunications and Internet usage continue to explode. The explosive growth of the Internet cannot be overemphasized. In only four years from 1997 to 2001 the Internet is projected to grow from 107 million users (62 million in the US) to 500 million users, or 8% of humanity. Will it be only the world’s biggest shopping mall, the best tool for transformation, or both. What do we want it to be? An underlying question is what values will it serve?

The power of technology can benefit community relations within a community and link communities to each other. Andrew Cohill’s chapter on Blacksburg Electronic Village is an excellent example of the power of electronic communications for involving citizens and dealing with local issues. The Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Michael Smith describes in his chapter are one of the key land use planning tools of the 21^st Century. GIS empowers users to ask questions important to them and display a visual, map-based image of the answer and alternative analysis.

Few people have too much money. Every community would be better off if more people had more money to spend and invest. Communities can create money, just like the banking system. As long as the money they create does not directly compete with national currencies, it will not cause inflation, or otherwise disrupt the local economy. The number of these "complementary currencies" has grown by more than 2000%, or 20 times, over the past decade. They work, and they offer another opportunity for collaboration with a local educational institution, which can research monetary options and make recommendations for the community to consider.

Economic initiatives to invest in communities can include:

• Support local financial institutions, and give them a chance to meet competitive pricing
• Buy as many products locally as possible
• Establish business and technology incubators to grow high technology and telecommunications capability. While it takes longer than finding an existing manufacturer, it builds a capacity to meet the needs of the future and adds new value instead of competing for existing value.
• Develop processes and goals which promote individual opportunity and rewards for achieving a common good (e.g. property tax rebates to local concerns for job creation, education and other community needs keep profits in the community and facilitate community goals instead of those of foreign corporations)

Although faced by common challenges, each community and its environment is unique. In spite of these differences, we now use predominantly one indicator of economic well being for everyone, GDP, with all the limitations described above. In order to understand and track their own well being, communities will need to develop relevant indicators of their local economies, environment and quality of life. These indicators are essential to a clear understanding of the true health of our communities. Fortunately, they are rapidly being adopted.

As an example of a strategic alliance, in 1996 the respective regulatory agencies, centers for sustainability, and economic development coalitions of the Lake Tahoe and Cape Cod regions signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to collaborate. These two regions appear very different on the surface, one located in the western mountains and the other situated on an eastern seashore. Actually, they are dealing with exactly the same issues of fragile environments, threatened water quality, tourist-based economies (with seasonal employment and low-wage jobs), traffic problems, and "externalities" which are beyond their control. The regions intend to learn from each other. For example, Tahoe established a wide area network several years ago on the Internet, connecting 27 organizations to exchange information and Cape Cod is now developing sustainability indicators.

By placing the processes each region uses on the Web, each can review the other’s process and adapt it without having to invent everything. This "cross fertilization" differs from the traditional concept of a "model" of what is produced and refers instead to a process by which each community can develop its own unique content. In this new model, the creation of an appropriately designed process is the first product.

As we continue to learn about our web world, we will increasingly focus on the linkages in it and develop a critical mass of political power among communities from the bottom up.

The Industrial Age brought mass produced goods and mass consumption. The Information Age brought wide access to data, information and knowledge. What will humanity do with these gifts? Will access be universally available for fundamental information about the human situation? Will it be used to develop and communicate knowledge based on wisdom? As more becomes known about the consequences of human choices, more equitable and sustainable alternatives can be selected. The opportunity exists for the next era of human society and evolution to be the Age of Transformation.

Peter Drucker wrote about the Age of Social Transformation in 1994, in a retrospective of the 20^th Century positing the futility of politics and looking forward to the emerging knowledge society and increasing importance of education. When reviewing social tasks and community, he described the failure of government and the welfare state to solve problems of people. He stated that increasing social entitlements did not solve the problems of society, and that the business sector often did not support community as some anticipated it would, leaving a void in which he believed the emerging nonprofit sector could take care of social needs in the knowledge society.

This analysis is suggestive of recent voices calling for the "end of history" or the "end of science." They all imply technocratic support of existing systems without questioning the fundamental assumptions on which they are established and operated. It is precisely the success of existing systems which has caused serious global environmental issues, large and growing social inequities among and within countries, extraordinary concentration of wealth, power and influence, and western "over consumption" as a model for developing countries to emulate. More efficient resource extraction may produce cheaper consumer goods, but it also strips resources bare faster, as the examples of ocean fishing and tropical forest harvesting reveal. Many of the social problems to which Mr. Drucker would assign the non profit sector have been caused by the economic and financial systems he accepts as given. They are all interrelated in our web world. Attempting to deal with only one part of the whole system cannot produce sustainable results.

While Mr. Drucker has been rightfully acknowledged for many brilliant contributions to management science for more than half a century, it is difficult to accept a thesis that the 20^th Century involved very much social transformation. When one observes the current state and trends for both humanity and its environment, it is clear a sustainable future requires that we do much better. It is necessary to review the fundamental assumptions on which all of our systems function. We are mandated to reengineer and redefine those systems and institutions which do not meet 21^st Century needs. We can not merely expect to allocate responsibility for improving the social arena to nonprofit organizations. Without the power to tax, a sufficient public consensus of mission, and adequate resources to operate effectively, the size and scope of the problems created by existing financial and economic systems are intractable. Unless these latter systems are changed, the nonprofits will be like the Dutch Boy with his finger in the dike, as other, large holes are created around him. Expecting the non profit sector to solve these problems would be assigning responsibility for solutions to those who did not create the problems and withholding sufficient resources to do so.

Humanity must look forward to what it wants to create, embrace the evolutionary mandate and project the trajectory of social evolution which will take it on a pathway to a sustainable future. This trajectory will require a new synthesis of human relations.

The labels "conservative" and "liberal" are increasingly irrelevant to the quest for a sustainable future. A "conservative" President Reagan allowed the biggest deficits in U.S. history and created the largest public debt in the history of the world, while a "moderate to liberal" President Clinton voted for agreements such as NAFTA which sent U.S. jobs to Mexico. Obviously, these labels are ineffective in an increasingly complex world. An accelerating rate of change continues to make decisions outdated almost as fast as they are reached. As a nation and a global community, it is time to move beyond slogans and labels, to values and sustainable outcomes defined by a broader group of people.

As the networks of community relationships expand and linkages are made, we can try different ideas, often integrating traditional conservative and liberal concepts with totally new approaches. We can then evaluate results fairly for what can be learned, and use what works the best. If we put ideology aside, we can collaborate to be effective, logical, and fair. We can share the results with others and learn from theirs, if we can keep our egos under control so NIH (not invented here) does not form a barrier to human evolution.

Our decisions and choices about our future as the new millenium arrives offer the opportunity for transformation. We can assess where we are on our evolutionary trajectory as a civilization and build new capacities to respond to the challenges of a society in transformation. We can co-create new civilizations based on principles of equity and respect for the life support systems that sustain us. If we choose, we can base our future on the values in our communities, not the values of globalization. We can be clear about our values, educate ourselves about issues and insist on "corporate good citizenship" to serve all stakeholders.

I believe the foundation is individual transformation, the change inside each of us which moves us to a higher level of spiritual awareness. I acknowledge that for me it has been both challenging and rewarding.

Who will define the destiny of humanity? Who will make the choices? Will it be the forces of financial globalization, or will it be people in communities, or can it be an integration of the two in a new framework for the future not presently in existence. If it is only the forces of financial globalization who decide, communities and people will bear the consequences of continued concentration of wealth and environmental degradation. The choices are ours to make, for now, and by design or by default we will choose our future.

Rather than spend time and energy on blame, we need only to change our systems to meet human needs, and invite everyone, including those being most rewarded by existing systems, to co-create a new future together. We can change the criteria by which we evaluate and reward value added. As cigarette smoking impacts society in many ways, so do other activities. We require seat belts and motorcycle helmets not only because we care about the individual consequences, but also because society often bears the burden of the failure to use them. It is time we evaluate other activities with analogous costs and require those responsible to internalize their costs instead of passing them on to the rest of society or future generations. The final chapter, on a Framework for the Future, describes one process and some criteria for bringing people together.

The most innovative and resourceful of us will play a leading role to create a sustainable future if they choose to participate. Those who have benefited from the great increases in wealth have to be willing to redesign systems to provide for more fundamental fairness. They will need to trust that they can have rewarding lives and that they will be supported in the process, which they will if they are a part of contributing to a new and more equitable future. As psychologist and author Arnold Mindell has illustrated, unconscious privilege creates resentment and eventual opposition. History illustrates it has always occurred. Can it be different this time? Those with positions of power and influence still have the privilege to choose.

These are not new ideas. Most have already been successfully applied in some human petri dish. Now the task is to link them together, bring them to scale, and use our intent, resources, and integrity to create the future we want.

A true Age of Transformation does lie ahead with an opportunity to redefine common goals of humanity. Systems and institutions congruent with achieving these goals can be defined and implemented. The nonprofit sector can offer substantial assistance if all systems are congruent with appropriate, agreed goals. Current systems and institutions which are inconsistent will either be transformed or eliminated from strategic roles. The Age of Transformation lies ahead in the 21^st Century, and instead of being well underway, it has just begun.

Jelaluddin Rumi, the 13^th Century Islamic poet’s words offer guidance to this as yet unknown arena: "Out beyond ideas of wrong-doing and right-doing, There is a field. I’ll meet you there."

Joseph Kruth is a Founder and Chair of the Tahoe Center for a Sustainable Future (http://ceres.ca.gov/tcsf) and President of Arete, Inc. His professional career over 30 years includes business, development, investments, finance, and law, with a decade of international business projects in Russia, Hong Kong and South America. More information about him and other publications can be found at http://ceres.ca.gov/tcsf/kruth/. He can be reached at jkruth@Compuserve.com.