Life snippet - of "sanctuary" and concept of "co"

Two recent thoughts - "sanctuary" and "co"

Two thoughts have popped up in my mind quite a few times over the past week.

The first is "sanctuary", which is almost in response to the huge amount of noise generated by Prime Minster May's Hard Brexit declaration, the run-up to the inauguration of President Trump, and the farcical election campaign for the chief executive position of Hong Kong.

As these controversial events become common occurrence globally, mainly driven by the previous decades' development of libertarian politics and economics and the associated complacency towards addressing the "less prosperous half" in society, lots of commentaries, alternative views, analyses into their root causes, 'magic bullet' solutions etc will emerge and fill up our social media pages. Some may even become inputs in formulating next-generation political and economic theories and frameworks, by virtue of mass-propagation through various platforms leading to popular adoption that cannot be ignored or corrected.

Lots of social media, lots of voices on each one, we are overwhelmed by information, snippets and opinions. We have to be selective and to 'subscribe' (filter) to channels that are similar to our prevalent world view and mindset, deliberating ignoring ideas counter to our preferences. We spend a lot of time updating ourselves with information and patching up our existing view, but what about the enlightening act of being challenged with new frameworks, world views, mindsets and subject areas?

The social media environment enables us to get broader and deeper within fixed dimensions, but doesn't really allow us to open up new dimensions. It also encourages us to satisfy ourselves with frequent but short feeds of easy-to-understand information packets, instead of less frequent but prolonged sessions of self-challenging narrations. Information packets are important and their value should surely be recognised, but perhaps not to the detriment of prolonged narrations? We all enjoy Youtube short videos, but a good movie or TV drama series has its placed as well?

If we have created digital outlets which enables creation & disbursement of information packets, should there also be a balancing act for creation & disbursement of long narrations? Electronic books have opened the way for digital narration materials, but there should be a 'sanctuary-like' digital space for us to take a break from ceaseless info packets and instead interact with narrations and work on them? If we treat the digital books as the ingredients, and a certain 'sanctuary' as a kitchen, then can there be digital tools to work on the ingredients and create outputs as satisfying as writing a Tweet or sharing an article and getting numerous likes and comments? Can this be a digital space that encourages us to take our time to exercise our mind without much noise, but one that also encourages us to 'take', 'give', 'build (own capabilities and profile)' and 'contribute (to the wider community)' just like the prevailing social media?  Just a thought.

Another interesting thought came from an article in BBC - they reported that given the double-act of an ageing society and expensive housing in France, some people have paired old people with the young, such that the young rents from the old at a much reduced rate, but in turn provides 'assisted care' to the old by keeping a watch eye and performing simple tasks (without becoming a de-facto carer even in a part-time capacity).

For a long time, the market economy serves as an efficient clearing house between different demands and supplies, allowing sought-after goods & services to demand a high price and stimulate supply; entrepreneurs and corporates are encouraged through the lure of profits to identify goods & services that could fetch a high price and/or high volume. A good mechanism that brings benefits to both the customers and suppliers.

But like all good mechanisms, when we rely on it more and more to solve the world's problems, somehow it doesn't deliver the benefits we intended. A lot of non-market solutions such as housewife (or househusband) services have given way to both parents working to generate income/GDP, then pouring the incomes back to the economy to procure childcare or domestic services. The national income has increased as services are now routed through the market, but are the parents really better off? And as this market mindset prevails, other services are facing similar market-going pressure.

The result is that the society puts greater emphasis on the market, prices and wealth. In the past, with a range of non-market solutions available such as a community helping each other, wealth and income is not the be-all-and-end-all. You don't need a high income to live a meaningful life. But as non-market solutions disappear and everything costs money, people providing services through the non-market route becomes negatively deemed - not generating income, not able to bring a wider range of goods & services to their homes (you can't bring beef to the table unless you are in a farming household), not saving up to extend goods & services from now to the future, and there is no one to exchange non-market services with (apart from you, few people in the community are still offering non-market services to trade with).

We end up giving more power to wealth and income, and we start to chase income and wealth by putting a price tag on everything - which subject you should study in university has less to do with your interest and capability as the job prospect; where to buy your house has less to do the comfort than ability to sell at a higher profit in the future; people with a bit more income becomes the absolute 'elite' and income & wealth is the only measurement of a person's worth in society. Our human nature is second to money-making nature, and that seems wrong.

Going back to the non-market economy may not be the best solution at this point in time, as its benefits should not be overlooked - earning now for the future is very attractive, as is the ability to attract provision of goods & services which is not produceable in a local community, not to mention the freeing up of certain community constituents (e.g. wives) from almost-mandatory provision of non-market service.

The non-market solutions emphasis a balance within a local community, while the market-based solutions emphasises a 'global solution' which in theory uses money for goods & services to be cleared regardless of geographical distances - if the price is high, the goods & services would be provided. The market solution therefore discourages the formation of a community that has meaning with each other beyond pure demand & supply of a particular good or service (or a range of goods and services). You are either a provider in search of profit, or a customer ready to pay.

This latest BBC article, and indeed some social enterprises that try to get old or disabled people into employment, are refreshing not least because despite adopting a market-based solution in principle, it has included the non-market of "co" concept into the deal. The supplier of housing is also demander of assisted living services and vice versa. It is clear that the housing supplier has the upper hand and could therefore charge money, but it is equally clear regarding the distinctive value introduced by this mode of market-based solution - without this deal, the housing supplier (and assisted living customer) may have to contract service from yet another party who has a very foreign & singular relationship, which would be expensive (need to familiarise with the customer out of any other context and need to carve out time to provide potential out-of-hours services) and not have as high a satisfaction. This market-based solution clears two deals in one go, and this associated nature of the two deals mean this solution not replaceable with a pure market solution.

This associated nature, i.e. the "co" concept, creates a super-local community relationship between two parties with the benefit of a global-based market solution which brings suppliers and customers from afar.

Could this type of modified market-based solution be expanded, so that we are less money-centric amid a market-dominated society? Just a thought.