When an unskilled Mexican laborer crosses the border from Mexico into the U.S., a day's worth of his or her hard work increases by a power of 10 - instead of receiving $6 for a day of work, they can receive $60 for a day of work.  While most of us regard $60 as a low wage, the fact to focus on is that they are receiving 10 times as much as they were before.  No wonder they are willing to risk death to come into the U.S.

When a piece of land in the developing world is designated as a free zone, often (it depends on the design, location, and legal structure of the zone) land values increase 10x or more.  Over time this 10x land value increase can become a 100x increase or more as investors become confident that a world class business environment has been created.

I've noted before that the entire developing world regulates business more than does Scandinavia.  The entire developing world also has weaker property rights and contract enforcement than does Scandinavia.  There is abundant evidence that global poverty is caused by "poor institutions" or a "lack of economic freedom" or the absence of a "world class business environment."  These are all different ways to express an underlying truth - if we could install a business environment that was more like the business environment of Finland or Denmark, the U.S. or Hong Kong, in any developing nation, investment dollars would flow into the country, entrepreneurial start-ups would increase, and GDP per capita would increase. 

Despite the dramatic differences in the legal systems of Finland, Denmark, the U.S., Hong Kong, and other nations with high economic freedom rankings, with respect to their power to alleviate poverty their similarities are more important than their differences.  Strong property rights, contract enforcement, rule of law, and minimal regulation are necessary foundations to an entrepreneurial capitalism that alleviates poverty.  The more quickly we can share these institutions with the peoples of other nations, the more quickly they will experience hope and optimism based on the expectation that their children's lives will be significantly better than their own.

In order to avoid a 21st century that turns out to be even bloodier than the 20th century, I am seeking to communicate these understandings so that we can share the institutions of prosperity with people around the world.  Sharing an understanding of these institutions of prosperity is the ultimate act of generosity.

FLOW consists of two core elements:

1.  An unabashed passion for free enterprise
2.  An unabashed passion for doing good

And yet we are continuing to refine exactly what we mean by each of these elements.

In a long conversation with John Mackey yesterday, I proposed two key foundations for the "unabashed passion for doing good,"

1.  Transcending the ego
2.  "Love is the opposite of fear"

There will necessarily also be a rational component of doing good - one needs to figure out what the consequences of one's actions will be, and if the consequences of one's actions will be positive or negative.  That said, in this conversation we were most interested in the more internal, psychological aspects of manifesting good ("spirituality," if you will, though as a scientific materialist the term is unnecessary to me personally).

Transcending the ego is important insofar as much harm and short-sightedness comes from being driven by ego.  Many mindfulness practices, as well as traditional religious practices and philosophical reflection, seeks to help people to transcend their ego.  And yet complete transcendence of ego is rarely possible for most people.  At best we can be reminded that the ego should not be the primary driver of our behavior and identity; it is a part of being human, but to mistake one's ego for one's being is to mistake a partial and misleading portion of one's being for the whole.

The discussion of the role of the ego and the extent to which it can be transcended is an endless conversation.  John and I agreed that the expression, from The Course in Miracles, that "Love is the opposite of fear" is far easier to understand and communicate.  Far more than is realized, fear drives behavior.  If we are coming from a place of love, compassion, and abundance, we are less likely to be graspy and antagonistic in our interactions with others.  Whenever we are not feeling loving and compassion towards others, it is always useful to stop and see if there is an underlying fear interfering with the interaction.

I suppose there are people who regard a stance of love and compassion towards others as, in some sense, unnatural and alien.  They might believe that their lack of love is not motivated by fear.  I don't know about such people.

For me, "love is the opposite of fear" is a very helpful rule of thumb, which I can use to remind myself whenever I am not acting out of love that I must have some underlying fear.  And, of course, I have much such fear - this is why the dictum is useful to me.

Peace,

Michael