Can the concept of money help save our planet?

I recently had an interesting #conversation with my 12-year-old son. He has started to receive pocket money. So I have had to familiarize him with the notions of #saving and #spending. The latter was easy. My son immediately wanted to buy FIFA-games and a pair of cool sneakers. That’s were the saving part kicked in. His allowance will by no means cover for all those expenses in the next foreseeable future. And that’s how we ended up having a chat about the #concept of #money and its #characteristics. How it is part of an economic thinking which is still predominantly based on the theory of #Fisher who saw money as an endless #stock which cannot affect the #real #variables in #life. And thus which still largely defines our #economy as a #system which is unrelated to our #environment.?

That’s where I get into trouble. How come there is no factoring in of our #naturalresources? How can I explain to my son that if he wants to calculate the #future #value of 1€ invested today, he mainly needs to take into account the notion of "interest accruing over time" to determine it? Regardless of whether the company he wishes to invest in, will be detrimental to the environment. Or is making future-proof choices when it comes to digitalisation or R&D???

I find that #logic no longer #sustainable. So I would like to propose an updated concept. One that #mirrors the way in which our #language verbalises the world around us. Through past, present and future tenses of verbs. And through its derived forms that range from #imperfectum to #perfectum. From incomplete to complete states of future. Where you only achieve the desired future outcome, by translating that outcome into concrete actions today. Every day. In the present tense.?

So what is our desired outcome when discussing future value? Whether we like it or not, our #planetary resources are #limited. So we need to somehow limit our #unlimited notion of #money. So as to derive a “present future value” (#PFV) which at least allows a comparison between monetary profit and sustainable planetary prosperity. Which somehow takes into account the valid conditions to allow regeneration of our planetary resources. Like a future perfect tense. Or a Futurum Exactum.??????

Okay, so we have a concept now and even an abbreviation. PFV. That’s a good start. Let’s make it more concrete. In order to be able to achieve a perfect future, you need to have followed the steps that will take you to that desired state. But how do you know whether you are taking the right steps in the present? You don’t. I don’t. We do not know for sure. But there is the #natural #lawofattraction (or #Newton’s third law on #motion). The one that states that positive thinking leads to positive choices and thus to positive outcomes. Despite the hurdles along the way. Is there not a way to integrate at least part of such law of attraction in our current definition of present and future value??

I will give it a try. How about integrating a connectivity coefficient? A value that describes the multiplying impact in terms of connectivity with our planetary resources? It would allow my son to compare between companies that make #connecting choices for the future (for example investing in human and natural capital) versus those that don’t.?

?What should such connectivity coefficient be based on? It should reflect the company’s expected future positive impact, based on the choices it makes today. There may be more than one type of connectivity coefficient. One that immediately comes to my mind relates to the type of #technology which a company is investing in. More specifically, some technologies or decisions have a bigger potential to create real-life and sustainable connections than others. Those companies, because of the amplifying effect of positive choices, will have a higher PFV than others. And thus will create not only a stable annuity stream for my son, but also a sustainable contribution to prosperity. In a #mutually #beneficial and #reinforcing way.?

It could look like the below formula, but you may have other ideas?

One key difference in the #logic between monetary resources and planetary resources is that the latter is not endless. There is a #limit. Whereas there is no limit to the stock of money. We can thus continue to get richer so that we can buy more. But the more we buy, the more we deplete our natural resources. And thus the more a company is focused on short-term profit, the more likely it is to make #degenerative choices. And thus not be profitable in the long run. Can we not limit the stock of money then? Or tie it up to a concept like a “Global Natural Product” (GNP)? The higher our GNP, the more abundance of money. Would that not be nice????

Following this conversation with my son, which somehow turned into a mum's monologue, he simply asked for an #increase of his #allowance. That was the one option we had not yet discussed, because I had wisely left it out of our conversation. Which he was quick to understand.?Kids.

Disclaimer: The thoughts expressed in this article are entirely my own. Any resemblance with existing work is entirely coincidental, although I explicitly acknowledge and thank the authors of below works:

• Jacob Goldstein, 2021. From Bronze to Bitcoin, the True Story of a Made-up Thing. Atlantic Books London.
• Karl Deisseroth, 2021. Connections. The new science of emotions. Penguin Books.
• Phurichai Rungcharoenkitkul and Fabian Winkler, 2021. BIS Working Papers No 974. The natural rate of interest through a hall of mirrors.
• David Harrison and Paul Woolley, 2023. ECMI Policy Brief no 33. How to make Capital Markets Union work.
• Leen Gorissen, 2020. Building the Future of Innovation on million years of Natural Intelligence. StudioTransitio.