My previous two articles introduced an off-the-cuff idea and expanded upon it, that the true measure of an economy has less to do with money and more to do with resource transformation. I introduced a lot of terms so I want to take a moment to pin down what I mean by these terms so that I can remain consistent as I continue to think about this idea. Next, I would like to state as simply as possible the model I’m thinking of and see if it’s logic still holds up.
First, let’s talk about terms.
MONEY – A highly (perfectly) liquid instrument for transferring value.
RESOURCE – An illiquid instrument for storing value over time
NATURAL RESOURCE – A resource which is produced and distributed according to nature.
RAW MATERIAL – A natural resource which serves as the object of the transformation process.
VALUE – The desirability of a thing to some party (an individual, organization, society).
POTENTIAL VALUE – The possible future value of a thing after it has been transformed
ACTUAL VALUE – The value of a thing that can be realized in exchange or storage.
FACE VALUE – The stated measure of value of a thing.
WORTH – The perceived value of a thing.
TRANSFORMATION – The conversion of Raw Materials into Products through the application of Work
WORK – The specific means of transformation
MANUFACTURING – The species of work where labor is applied to resources to transform raw materials into products
SERVICES – The species of work where labor is applied to problems to transform those problems into solutions.
PRODUCT – A Raw Material which has been transformed into something useful and/or desirable.
TRANSFER – The one-way movement of Money, Resources, or Value from an owner to a buyer, or from one place to another place.
STORE – The ability for a thing to retain value over time.
EXCHANGE – The sum of two transfers, one from owner to buyer, the other from buyer to owner.
LIQUIDITY – Measures the ease that stored value can be transferred.
Lets look at some examples. A friend of mine worked as an engineer in a metals mine. His company would extract the raw materials, transform them into some product, and exchange the product for money. His company was able to exchange the product for money because the product was valuable to the counterparty.
The United States has a strategic oil reserve. This oil was in part taken from raw materials extracted domestically, and transformed into usable product-forms of oil. The strategic reserve has several varieties of these oil products just in case–it is far better to store the actual oil than their cash equivalent because the oil stores value longer than cash does.
In the colonial period, the Belgian Congo was known for it’s plentiful natural resource of Rubber. Congans would do the work of extracting the raw material and transforming it into some product. Belgians would then transfer that product to other parts of the world, where it would be exchanged for money.
Lets make a simplistic example. You and three friends have 10 blocks of wood. I have a knife which I can use for whittling. I agree to pay you $1 for one block of wood. I whittle it into a gnome, and I sell the gnome for $2. The end result of this series of transaction is that you and your three friends have one fewer block of wood, you are up by one dollar, and I am up by one dollar. Everyone exchanged goods for an agreed upon price, so economics is working as designed.
However: If our frame of reference is just you and your three friends, your collection of ten blocks has been depleted by one, and income inequality between you has grown by one. In real world examples, what tends to happen is those with money in developing countries leave and go to developed countries. So lets say the same thing happens here. Now there are only your three friends, 9 blocks of wood, and me with my whittling knife.
Any skills that you originally had, left. Any income you earned, you took with you out of your group of friends, and the resource has been transformed and so cannot be returned.
I am suggesting that a better way of going about things would be for me to sell you my whittling knife, and teach you how to carve gnomes. One of your friends sells you the block for $1. You carve it into a gnome. You sell it to another friend for $2. The resource and the product stay in the group, and the economic activity remains as well. The full life cycle is preserved. After the fact, the friend with the gnome could sell it internationally–at that point, the resource has left but the economic gains relating to it have already been preserved.
So the principle appears to be that the first exchange of transformed resources must be within the host country. After that the end product can go anywhere, but the economic benefit of extracting, transforming, and exchanging a resource and product remains in the same place.
I don’t have a good segue for this next bit, it’s the result of an earlier draft the substance of which I didn’t want to keep except for this one point:
Lets take a moment to talk about services. Service is the species of work wherein not resources but problems are transformed from problems to solutions. The solutions to problems are valuable, so Solutions are a species of actual value, while Problems are a species of potential value. This is why Entrepreneurship can generate value from creative problem solving.
More to come on this whole topic!
AMDG
