Gratitude as an Economic Model
Imagine a way of thinking that would allow you to create a good or provide a service, give it away with no expectation of return, and have the value of the eventual social return be far greater than any monetary value you might otherwise have asked. What if you could have an entire culture where the only currency is thank you, and your social status is based on how much you contribute to the health of the community as a whole. Well that sounds absurd to say the least. But is it?
To provide some context as to why an economy based on gratitude and community sounds so impossible, let's look at a brief snapshot of why we think about money in the way that we do:
The Paper Trail
Mercantilism is an economic model that very basically dictates that a country should export heavily, import very little, and accumulate wealth through one-sided trades to increase the prosperity of one’s country. Digging a little deeper, mercantilism is oriented around hyper-nationalist sentiment and a high volume of trade that is operated from the assumption that one party in any trade is getting a bad deal.
History books tell us that mercantilism spanned from the 16th century to the 18th century and faded as free trade mentality gained popularity. If you recall the Boston Tea Party as a pivotal event in the inception of the United States revolution, that was Britain trying to enforce mercantilist laws and ideology on the colonists. The industrial revolution increased the impact of specialized workforces and made the model of a self-contained national economy less and less viable.
Though the unsophisticated ideology regarding restricted trade faded with industrialization, the mentality of scarcity and zero sum trade in a global economy had seeded itself into the cultures that evolved into the world’s economic superpowers. As a result, the version of “free market” capitalism that is practiced around the world, and especially in the United States, often has hints of neo-mercantilist sentiment.
The concept of an economic model based on gratitude and contribution existing within a global economy that practices an incredibly contradictory mentality certainly seems a bit far-fetched. Naturally, the complexities of scaling something like this could be dissected infinitely by economists. Before we get there, however, this is what happened when I attempted to put this concept into practice on a small scale.
The Test
Hostel Urbano: 2 blocks from the University of Costa Rica, in the capitol city, San Jose. The cost of a bed includes a light breakfast and use of the kitchen for individuals to cook lunch and dinner. I decided to cook for everyone in the hostel and put out a jar simply stating that eating was free and donations to help with food costs were welcome.
Night one: $37.00 USD was spent on food. We cooked for 15 people and ate with 8. About $15.00 was made back to assuage food costs. There were roughly 5 quarts of extra gallo pinto. Of the 8 total people that ate, 5 were actively engaged in the cooking process and more people showed interest in helping or directly contributing food rather than donating to food costs. The dinner was introduced to people in asking if they would like to come eat, and adding after the fact that there was no expectation of any contribution but help with food cost was appreciated. The type of food made, as the other primary variable to be taken into account, was an admirable attempt at the traditional Costa Rican gallo pinto, pupusas, and smashed and fried plantain. Positive feedback all around on the food, even from the one Costa Rican resident that ate with us, though mostly on taste over accuracy in style.
Night two: About $19 USD was spent on food. We again cooked for 15 people, and we ate with 11. About $14.00 was made back for food costs. Leftovers were roughly 2.5 quarts of black beans, and gallo pinto. Of the 11 that ate, 2 were involved in the cooking process. The offer of dinner was introduced later in the game than the previous night. There were also fewer English-speakers in the hostel so the offer of food was primarily made in Spanish. The dinner was comprised of black bean puree with onions, a modified gallo pinto with more bell peppers and onions, mango salsa from scratch, chips, and tortillas. It was absurdly tasty.
Back of the napkin conclusions: In total, $56 USD was spent, $29 came back, so that’s a net loss of $27, right? The catch there is that in total, that $56 USD created 19 dinners, and 14 extra meals in leftovers (32 meals in total). 14 full, hot, meals for $27 and a few hours cooking seems like a decent return by itself. Add the social value: I made a friend in the town I’m moving to, I made friends with a guy living in San Jose who taught me some Spanish (and German), and who guided us through the city later that first evening, and I was given food at other meals in reciprocation.
The Return
For an admittedly far-from-empirical test of gratitude as a kind of economic vehicle, the simple fact is that the greatest return on time and money wound up being more significant in intangible things. There were people at the table from Costa Rica, the U.S., Germany, Ecuador, France, Canada, and Chile, who all shared ideas, broke cultural barriers, learned languages, exchanged contacts, and explained perspectives. The concept of scaling this idea, or others like it, to a global level presents a host of questions—though perhaps the most obtrusive question of who would organize and run a world structured around this kind of thinking could find itself being a tad less resonant in a world where surviving was less often an isolating struggle.
One could potentially bite their tongue from voicing qualms of naive idealism held against math, rationality, and cold hard cash if one were to remember that global economics is still more a regimented philosophy than a science. The summative plea here is not an argument for the trade of hard assets, of utilitarian or traditionalist commerce—it’s simply a proposal that just possibly, $27 USD in exchange for making the whole world just a little closer together could, in the long run, be more than worth it.
