Assets = greater financial resiliency

Definition of Asset building from guest speaker at today's class:

Asset building is the process by which individuals and families gain control of their existing resources, allowing them to build and leverage savings and develop tangible financial assets, leading to greater financial resiliency.

I like this definition. It works in all sorts of economic contexts, as much for a farm or shoeshine gear in the third world as for Individual Development Accounts in the first. Compare this to the definition of asset building offered by the Washington Asset Building Coalition:

Asset building is defined as “engaging in long-term saving and investment behavior as a means to increasing financial independence.”

According to Washington University:

Asset building refers to strategies that increase financial and tangible assets, such as savings, a home, and businesses of all kinds.

Also framed rather narrowly.

From Gene Logsdon's "Living at Nature's Pace"

Jerome developed a formula for self-reliance in his community that his offspring and a a few of his neighbors followed: own a little farm for subsistence and stability, do your own building and repair, operate a small business, and work long hours. He'd get one after another of his own children started on this formula and then he'd step back...
p173

This sounds like the integrated life. The question is: is it still a viable model? It sounds like a model that could survive anything. But if it is resilience perfected, where did all these small farms and businesses go?

This book, Living at Nature's Pace, is perhaps the book I would give to someone to inspire them toward the new farm revolution, which is really the old farm revolution with some new suggestions for economic survival. It does a great job of talking about agricultural policy in America, what traditional 120 acre family farms looked like and how they functioned, Amish farms and Amish economics, not to mention the best rendering of a barn-raising I've read. It also has a few good meditations on farm ecology. An excellent and inspiring read, although I'd say the required reading stops at the end of chapter 16.

Biodynamic Farms in Western Washington (videos)

S&S Homestead on Lopez Island:

Henning Sehmsdorf S & S Homestead from Candice Cosler on Vimeo.

Jubilee Farm in Carnation:

Organics in Thailand

Truth on the ground in Northern Thailand (post):

Since joining in 1999, she has now become the head of the Northern Organic Standard Association, which currently has over 20 member farms in the Chiang Mai region. She told me that only 0.2% of Thailand’s population currently knows and understands the dangers of chemical use. The foreign companies have inundated the radio stations, television, and newspapers with advertisements. According to Nang, they have manipulated governments to promote their poison, and now the soil fertility is decreased, the seed varieties have been lost, the farmers are broke, and the pests are everywhere. I admired her presence. She commanded respect and was definitely the matriarch of this farm. She spoke kindly and softly, “If we grow for the market, we need good yield and appearance to survive. This is why Thai farmers use so many chemicals. When you grow for yourself, you don’t need to use chemicals. If we use organic methods, we become friends with the environment and can survive together..."

I asked about organics here and why more farmers do not try it. Inquiring, “Do they sell for higher prices at the market? “ She replied, “The community here is not very supportive, but the NGO’s are. They help to teach farmers to grow organically, but they can’t compete with the advertising power of the chemical companies. Now the farmers have too much debt to try organics. They are scared and worried about low yields.”

And from this article on the Asok movement:

After a large economic collapse in Thailand six years ago, communities began hosting seminars on organic agriculture and self-reliance. Eventually, these were even funded by the government, in an effort to relieve the debt of poor farmers who had invested too heavily in chemicals and agricultural equipment. This is often felt to be a bit ironic, because it was the government, lobbied by companies, which promoted modern farming practices in the first place.

Tribal Asset Development

A new thread: assets.

What is the difference between assets and capital? Nothing, according to Marieka, except perhaps that assets tend to refer to the less tangible of them.

From a publication on from the First Nations Development Institute, Native American Asset Watch: Rethinking Asset Building in Indian Country:

Marcin's summary of the GVCS project

From a recent post explaining what is desired from a project co-founder:

We are looking for a Co-Founder who is motivated intrinsically by higher purpose – as in Daniel Pink’s TED talk on the surprising science of motivation. This means someone who values: (1) autonomy – desire to drive one’s own life; (2) mastery – getting better at something that matters; and (3), purpose – yearning to do something in service to something much greater than oneself...

I suggest that the Co-Founder be a volunteer position, just like I am a volunteer. At factor e Farm, there are only volunteers – defined as people with intrinsic motivation who are not empoyees, but partners who are generating their own resources while working on a common vision of a post-scarcity society...

I am looking for a candidate nothing short of a movement entrepreneur – someone who uses technology as a digitally-savvy outsider to create new sources of power by mobilizing the voices of many. In our case, that refers to one who facilitates the transition to a distributive economy – by developing a kernel of essential open product design – distilled from the technical contributions of many. This means, first: a person who uses institutional power, but doesn’t get institutionalized. Second, it means someone who builds a movement, not a cult of personality – meaning a movement that distributes power – as opposed to concentrating it in a charismatic leader. Third, it means building for the long term – not creating an ephemeral internet meme.

The Co-Founder must be part of the deeper message that OSE is bringing to the world. We want to live the example – even in the early stages – of what the economy beyond artificial material scarcity would look like. Factor e Farm is such an experiment – and admittedly so – we are only now pulling out of pervasive material scarcity. In essence – the 21st century is a time where with the wise use of technology – people can regain the ability to follow their deepest pursuits – as opposed to trying to put bread on the table – as in today’s mainstream of artificial material scarcity. I clarify that I am not suggesting that the welfare state is the answer – but a state of affairs based on the highest human productivity and responsibility. I am talking about a state that returns to ideals such as those found in the early American experiment – a republic where individuals, their autonomy, responsibility – are respected. America (or fill in any country in which you reside) is losing its productivity on essential items, but creative solutions are around the corner to reinvent the local economy.

Therefore, the Co-Founder must be a generalist who enjoys the DIY ethic and is excited by participation in their own sustenance – by appreciating that such power is key not only to one’s own autonomy – but to autonomy in the greater world. Political implications are significant.

We want to empower individuals to unleash their creative and productive powers, and we want to lead by example. We are making a claim that the best solution to a robust economy comes from an interdisciplinary approach – one of intensifying the economic capacity of any community – by intensifying information density available to and used by any community – via access to open source enterprise. The limit of this is a complete economy – and therefore autonomy on the community scale. This is not free – it comes with individuals being reskilled and reconnected – to nature and their means of survival – as a deepest form of reconnection, as a form of checks-and-balances – between humans and nature – and between humans and other humans. The implication is that individuals, to be truly empowered – not at the cost of others or at the cost of nature – have to be connected as close as possible – to their means of survival.

The cost is not particularly high – as it should take 1-2 hours per day for an individual to provide their needs of survival. This involves mainly food production – as that is the main aspect of our survival that needs constant attention. The rest – housing, energy, and technology – are minor if these are provided by machines that follow lifetime design – and if these amchines are used with wisdom of not wasting resources. Thus, we are not returning to the toil of repetitive labor associated with production. The only remaining barrier to widespread adoption is merely social status – perceptions that physical labor is for peons. We believe instead that real work as such is honorable – as it builds character and provides autonomy.

We thus encourage that a person at Factor e Farm spend 1-2 hours per day on survival, and the rest can be devoted to higher purpose. We want to live this at Factor e Farm, even in our early days of today.

Do we? In a way – yes – in so far as all of us here spend all of our time pursuing higher purpose. At the same time, we are pioneers and startup entrepreneurs , so we ‘work’ all day. And we don’t have food and energy autonomy yet – so we haven’t proved the data point of 1-2 hours of work per day. However, each of us believes that we can achieve the post-scarcity condition rather readily, and that we can demonstrate a widely adaptable pattern that can be adopted by the rest of the world.

We lack the experience to know that this is impossible, and we have the experience that knows that we should try.

The point remains – that in order to be responsible, we want to engage in as much productive activity for survival as possible – and with appropriate tools – the cost of living goes to negligible. It is expected from Factor e Farm participants that they have a DIY ethic of engaging with their means of existence.

By developing further infrastructure tools – we aim to demonstrate that startup – of a productive farm, manufacturing operation, or whole community – would cost, say $100k, as opposed to $1M. And taken to the extreme, with division of labor and metal melting of steel from scrap – this cost goes down to $10k or so – while retaining industrial efficiency that allows for a modern standard of living – and about 10x more free time than the existing economy.

Mainstream beliefs dictate that specialization is a more efficient route, and we are experimenting to prove that flexible fabrication - is more efficient. Pure specialization is more efficient under certain condition of technological capacity and information access of a system in question. At the same time, the efficiency of specialization discounts the inefficiency of large scale at which trade occurs (mainly global geopolitics), and relies on the fallacy of per-capita wealth increase – where the reality is that the actual distribution of wealth is decreasing (ie, there is a larger relative number of destitute people today than at any time in history). Specialization is valid under the assumption of proprietary information and large capitalization costs. Open source reduces these barriers, allowing productive capacity on a smaller scale. How much smaller? We aim to demonstrate that a 200 acre nominal parcel can attain modern civilization (ie, the unprecedented requirement of 1-2 hours per day of labor for the populace, and pursuit of higher purpose in the majority of the time). This is the order of Factor e Farm. As Co-Founder, you are expected to respect this as the prime objective of the Factor e Farm – not in an abstract sense – but as a near-term (~3 year) objective – which includes the smelting of silicon and extraction of aluminum from clay as realistic, on-site processes.

Amish Agricultural Economics

From Amish Farming in Lancaster County

While farming was not an integral tenet of Anabaptism, agriculture has always been a major part of the Amish lifestyle. Believing that practical knowledge, hard work and long hours are the "technological marvels" that make farm life fruitful, the Amish in Lancaster, PA practice impressive levels of thrift and self-sufficiency, which they believe are mandated by the Bible. Farming is not merely a job or career; it is viewed as a way of life anchored in Scripture, blessed by God and handed down over the generations by Amish ancestors. It provides a seedbed for nurturing strong families in the values of hard work, frugality, responsibility, simplicity and family cooperation.

Horses are a trademark identity of the Lancaster Amish and their farming, used to plow, cultivate and harvest crops. Tractors are commonly used on Amish farms in Lancaster, PA, but only for power around the barn - to blow silage to the top of large silos, power feed grinders, spin ventilating fans and the like. They are not used for field work. Why the distinction? Over the decades since the invention of the tractor in the early 1920s, several versions were rejected for field use, most notably because of the fear that their self-propelled, mobile nature would surely lead to cars. Moreover, using horses in the fields helps to limit the size - and corresponding cost - of Amish farms, thereby promoting equality and protecting the small family farm. Horses also maintain a slower farming pace, preserving jobs that are the heartbeat of the Lancaster, PA Amish community.

Over time, additional farm equipment with independent powers sources (such as wagons, corn planters, plows and sprayers) was permitted on the fields to increase productivity, as long as it was adapted for horse-drawn use. Pulling such modern machinery with horses is a compromise that preserves the Lancaster Amish tradition and identity while allowing just enough progress for farmers to remain competitive....
Horse-drawn equipment became increasingly scarce after 1940, as more American farmers began using tractors. Consequently, several Amish mechanics opened machine shops to refurbish horse-drawn implements, and welders and mechanics began producing parts to repair the equipment. Taking a major turn, they also began buying equipment designed for tractors and adapting it for use with horses. Thus, somewhat ironically, the Amish in Lancaster, PA were nudged into business in order to preserve their horse farming in the face of a booming agriculture business enamored with tractors.

By the 1970s, making a living by farming was becoming more difficult. The increasing Amish population, coupled with decreasing farmland and higher prices, made getting started difficult or impossible for some. Others found the payments on the farm, building, loans, mortgages and interest a hardship. One alternative was to move to another area where farmland was available and cheaper. Others looked at ways to supplement their income by having a family member work out for others, sometimes on a carpentry crew, as a farmhand, or as a cleaning lady in homes of non-Amish. But of most concern to the Amish in Lancaster, PA was the concern of known as the "lunch pail" problem - the possible necessity of having to work in a factory. They were concerned about work that involved going outside the family and community for economic survival, fearing it could drive a wedge into the family and cause disruption.

A good compromise between farming and factories came to be in the 70s and 80s - that of Amish manufacturing shops and cottage industries. During this period of explosive business growth, Amish entrepreneurs ventured into industry within the Lancaster Amish community, then to non-Amish neighbors, then to tourists. Over the years, they have found that Amish industry has enriched community life. Work remains near the home, family members often work together, and financial resources are kept within the community. Moreover, Amish control eliminates Sunday sales, fringe benefits, adverse personnel policies and other influences that sometimes accompany factory employment.

Four types of Amish industries in Lancaster, PA consume much of work that is done away from the farm:

1. Cottage industries located on farm or beside home: crafts, repair work, light manufacturing
2. Large shops: farm machinery, lawn furniture, storage sheds, etc.
3. Mobile carpentry and construction crews: contruct homes, install kitchens, build silos
4. Retail stores: sell hardware, appliances, clothing, furniture, quilts and crafts for the PA Amish community, non-Amish neighbors and tourists