What do you think?
Rate this book
This Could Be Our Future: A Manifesto for a More Generous World
A vision for building a society that looks beyond money and toward maximizing the values that make life worth living, from the cofounder of Kickstarter
Western society is trapped by three assumptions: 1) That the point of life is to maximize your self-interest and wealth, 2) That we're individuals trapped in an adversarial world, and 3) That this is natural and inevitable.
These ideas separate us, keep us powerless, and limit our imagination for the future. We see them as truth. They're not. They're a point of view that previous generations accepted. It's time we replace them with something new.
This Could Be Our Future is about how we got here, and how we change course. While the pursuit of wealth has produced innovation and prosperity, it also established an implicit belief that the right choice in every decision is whichever option makes the most money. This belief in financial maximization has produced dire consequences: environmental collapse, corruption, inequality, and a growing dissatisfaction around the world. The answer isn't to get rid of money; it's to expand our concept of value. By assigning rational value to other values besides money--things like community, purpose, and sustainability--we can refocus our energies to build a society that's generous, fair, and ready for the future. By recalibrating our definition of value, a world of scarcity can become a world of abundance.
Hopeful but firmly grounded, full of concrete solutions and bursting with creativity, This Could Be Our Future brilliantly dissects the world we live in and shows us a road map to the world we are capable of making.
Western society is trapped by three assumptions: 1) That the point of life is to maximize your self-interest and wealth, 2) That we're individuals trapped in an adversarial world, and 3) That this is natural and inevitable.
These ideas separate us, keep us powerless, and limit our imagination for the future. We see them as truth. They're not. They're a point of view that previous generations accepted. It's time we replace them with something new.
This Could Be Our Future is about how we got here, and how we change course. While the pursuit of wealth has produced innovation and prosperity, it also established an implicit belief that the right choice in every decision is whichever option makes the most money. This belief in financial maximization has produced dire consequences: environmental collapse, corruption, inequality, and a growing dissatisfaction around the world. The answer isn't to get rid of money; it's to expand our concept of value. By assigning rational value to other values besides money--things like community, purpose, and sustainability--we can refocus our energies to build a society that's generous, fair, and ready for the future. By recalibrating our definition of value, a world of scarcity can become a world of abundance.
Hopeful but firmly grounded, full of concrete solutions and bursting with creativity, This Could Be Our Future brilliantly dissects the world we live in and shows us a road map to the world we are capable of making.
304 pages, Hardcover
Published October 29, 2019
134 people are currently reading
2671 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 101 reviews
May 21, 2023
Yancey Strickler, the author of this book, is also the co-founder of Kickstarter, and he unabashedly calls his book a manifesto for a new economy. As democratic socialism and a universal basic income are now being seriously discussed in the U.S., I figured his manifesto would be along the same lines, except with a bend toward supporting people’s creativity, which is definitely the kind of economy I’d like to live under. When I was traveling in Israel in the 90’s, I met a young man from the Netherlands who was trying to make it as a photographer – an artsy sort, not a photojournalist. Because the Netherlands is a socialist country, he had free health care and received cash benefits without stigma so he could devote himself to his art full-time. If something like that existed in the U.S., I’d quit my office job and work on my writing. And if I was lucky enough to publish a book and become rich from it, I’d be only too happy to share my success in the form of higher taxes. That would subsidize other future artists to come up with other wealth-creating products.
But here in the States, socialism, even democratic socialism, is demonized. Ayn Rand’s philosophy that selfishness is a virtue has held sway over many prominent government officials since the 1980’s, from Alan Greenspan to Paul Ryan. Strickler pins the blame specifically on a 1970 New York Times op-ed by economist Milton Friedman of the Chicago School. He wrote the then-radical view that a company’s primary responsibility is not to its customers or employees but to its shareholders, and that view took hold. It’s part of the reason so many jobs have been outsourced overseas. If maximizing profit is the only thing that matters, then cutting costs with cheaper labor is the “right” thing to do. That is how the profit motive became falsely equated with morality.
I can’t say whether Milton Friedman bears the main responsibility in the cultural shift from the idealistic 1960’s to the materialistic 1980’s, but as someone who came of age in the 80’s, I lived the transition. If I had to choose an anthem for that period, it would be Peter Gabriel’s “Big Time,” which was a hit in 1986, the year I graduated high school and entered college. It’s meant as a sarcastic song, but most of my peers didn’t seem to realize that. They just sang along to the disco beat and dreamed of making it to the Big Time. Idealists like me were ridiculed. So I found it fascinating that Strickler brought actual statistics that verified life as I remember it. He compared polls of college students in the 50’s through the 80’s. In 1967, students said the main factor in choosing their majors was “to find meaning,” but after Milton Friedman’s article, the goal of making money began rising on the list. In the 1980’s, it hit the top spot, and it’s been there ever since.
Strickler goes on to take down some of the fallacies that have gotten promoted in this age of maximizing capitalism, and many of them have bothered me for years. My personal pet peeve is that competition is good and always yields the best results. I hate that mentality. As another entrepreneurial thinker said: it’s turned business into the human equivalent of the Westminster Dog Show. People are playing to the judges, not truly pursuing creative ideas. The college admissions process is the same. Why does everyone have to “prove” they’re “the best” in order to earn something as basic as an education? It just turns teenagers and their parents a bunch of nervous wrecks. And as we saw recently, even the wealthiest will cheat their way to the top. So is competition really yielding the “best” results?
Another fallacy he takes on is the argument that if you tax the rich too much, they’ll lose their motivation to work as hard as they do. I’ve heard that one every time I’ve argued in favor of Scandinavian-style socialism. But as Strickler correctly states, the rich aren’t working just for money. They’re the lucky ones whose work is about meaning and fulfillment. The current tech giants have more money than they can ever spend. It’s not about wealth anymore for them. It’s probably not even about taking care of their kids and grandkids. It’s about the achievement of creative and entrepreneurial goals.
To this point, Stickler references Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The bottom two are about the basics of life: food, shelter, health, and physical safety. If you don’t have those, you won’t be happy. Once you do have them, you can work toward completing the third level: love and belonging. And once you have friends and family who love and accept you, you can pursue the top two levels, which are all about the achievement of loftier goals, be they creative or spiritual. Strickler argues that the trouble about our world today is that we’ve been overfocused on the bottom needs instead of aiming higher. A society that would provide people’s basic needs so they could pursue their creative ventures would make many people happier and might even create more wealth in the form of scientific, artistic, and entrepreneurial breakthroughs.
The fallacy Strickler takes on for the second half of the book is that pursuing self-interest always results in the best outcomes for everyone overall. He argues that self-interest isn’t even what dominates most people’s decision-making. People think about “we” much more than just “I,” and he doesn’t just mean obvious “we’s” like family members. Remember the Chilean miners who were trapped in 2010? They didn’t survive because everyone acted in rational self-interest. They survived because they were committed to sharing what they had and getting out of danger together.
Now, you may be wondering: if I agree with so much of what this book has to say, why not five stars? It was because of the tone. It’s just a little too much cheerleading for me. He sets one chapter in 2050 and describes an ideal workplace where people are experimenting, kind of like those stories people tell about Google now. It’s a beautiful picture, but a tad too rosy. Utopian thinkers may well point the way toward a better society, but they’re more persuasive when they stick with true stories, like that of the Chilean miners. Futuristic fiction isn't as persuasive. But I absolutely hope that Strickland is right. I hope this will be our future.
But here in the States, socialism, even democratic socialism, is demonized. Ayn Rand’s philosophy that selfishness is a virtue has held sway over many prominent government officials since the 1980’s, from Alan Greenspan to Paul Ryan. Strickler pins the blame specifically on a 1970 New York Times op-ed by economist Milton Friedman of the Chicago School. He wrote the then-radical view that a company’s primary responsibility is not to its customers or employees but to its shareholders, and that view took hold. It’s part of the reason so many jobs have been outsourced overseas. If maximizing profit is the only thing that matters, then cutting costs with cheaper labor is the “right” thing to do. That is how the profit motive became falsely equated with morality.
I can’t say whether Milton Friedman bears the main responsibility in the cultural shift from the idealistic 1960’s to the materialistic 1980’s, but as someone who came of age in the 80’s, I lived the transition. If I had to choose an anthem for that period, it would be Peter Gabriel’s “Big Time,” which was a hit in 1986, the year I graduated high school and entered college. It’s meant as a sarcastic song, but most of my peers didn’t seem to realize that. They just sang along to the disco beat and dreamed of making it to the Big Time. Idealists like me were ridiculed. So I found it fascinating that Strickler brought actual statistics that verified life as I remember it. He compared polls of college students in the 50’s through the 80’s. In 1967, students said the main factor in choosing their majors was “to find meaning,” but after Milton Friedman’s article, the goal of making money began rising on the list. In the 1980’s, it hit the top spot, and it’s been there ever since.
Strickler goes on to take down some of the fallacies that have gotten promoted in this age of maximizing capitalism, and many of them have bothered me for years. My personal pet peeve is that competition is good and always yields the best results. I hate that mentality. As another entrepreneurial thinker said: it’s turned business into the human equivalent of the Westminster Dog Show. People are playing to the judges, not truly pursuing creative ideas. The college admissions process is the same. Why does everyone have to “prove” they’re “the best” in order to earn something as basic as an education? It just turns teenagers and their parents a bunch of nervous wrecks. And as we saw recently, even the wealthiest will cheat their way to the top. So is competition really yielding the “best” results?
Another fallacy he takes on is the argument that if you tax the rich too much, they’ll lose their motivation to work as hard as they do. I’ve heard that one every time I’ve argued in favor of Scandinavian-style socialism. But as Strickler correctly states, the rich aren’t working just for money. They’re the lucky ones whose work is about meaning and fulfillment. The current tech giants have more money than they can ever spend. It’s not about wealth anymore for them. It’s probably not even about taking care of their kids and grandkids. It’s about the achievement of creative and entrepreneurial goals.
To this point, Stickler references Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The bottom two are about the basics of life: food, shelter, health, and physical safety. If you don’t have those, you won’t be happy. Once you do have them, you can work toward completing the third level: love and belonging. And once you have friends and family who love and accept you, you can pursue the top two levels, which are all about the achievement of loftier goals, be they creative or spiritual. Strickler argues that the trouble about our world today is that we’ve been overfocused on the bottom needs instead of aiming higher. A society that would provide people’s basic needs so they could pursue their creative ventures would make many people happier and might even create more wealth in the form of scientific, artistic, and entrepreneurial breakthroughs.
The fallacy Strickler takes on for the second half of the book is that pursuing self-interest always results in the best outcomes for everyone overall. He argues that self-interest isn’t even what dominates most people’s decision-making. People think about “we” much more than just “I,” and he doesn’t just mean obvious “we’s” like family members. Remember the Chilean miners who were trapped in 2010? They didn’t survive because everyone acted in rational self-interest. They survived because they were committed to sharing what they had and getting out of danger together.
Now, you may be wondering: if I agree with so much of what this book has to say, why not five stars? It was because of the tone. It’s just a little too much cheerleading for me. He sets one chapter in 2050 and describes an ideal workplace where people are experimenting, kind of like those stories people tell about Google now. It’s a beautiful picture, but a tad too rosy. Utopian thinkers may well point the way toward a better society, but they’re more persuasive when they stick with true stories, like that of the Chilean miners. Futuristic fiction isn't as persuasive. But I absolutely hope that Strickland is right. I hope this will be our future.
December 13, 2019
He oversimplifies, conflates individual and corporate mindsets, and has a woefully incomplete understanding of economics, but Strickler’s call for us to reject a focus on money as the only measure of value in our society is a message we need.
March 13, 2021
i am limited by so many things i do not know and/or do not understand yet, but it is painfully obvious to me that our current world is malfunctioning in a multitude of ways. this book is a fascinating exploration of some of the things that have gone wrong and the changes that could potentially help us improve literally everything. a must-read for every curious mind!
November 8, 2019
On the measure of GDP in 1968 Robert Kennedy said,
Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.
Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.
If this is true here at home, so it is true elsewhere in world.
============================================
Yancey Strickler's book drives home this key insight for our times.
Modern business has maximized profit as the only measure of impact. It doesn't have to be this way.
Business can be a partner in helping use markets to affect change, while recognizing its more holistic impact on civilization beyond the product.
Be prepared, real change takes time, often decades. 30 years or longer by Yancey's count. Kennedy gave that speech in 1968. Here we are some 50 years later no closer to acting on the insight.
Do what you can today to change tomorrow.
Do it today.
Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.
Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.
If this is true here at home, so it is true elsewhere in world.
============================================
Yancey Strickler's book drives home this key insight for our times.
Modern business has maximized profit as the only measure of impact. It doesn't have to be this way.
Business can be a partner in helping use markets to affect change, while recognizing its more holistic impact on civilization beyond the product.
Be prepared, real change takes time, often decades. 30 years or longer by Yancey's count. Kennedy gave that speech in 1968. Here we are some 50 years later no closer to acting on the insight.
Do what you can today to change tomorrow.
Do it today.
February 15, 2020
It pains me slightly to give this book a negative review because I think his diagnosis is basically correct. He argues that, since the late 1970s (basically in response to Milton Friedman's 1970 New York Times article about maximizing shareholder value) American life has had only a single value: "financial maximization", to the detriment of all of us. He argues that, though it won't be easy or quick, we can and should start working to change that.
The book is broken into two parts: first he tries to convince you that financial maximization is the root of many problems plaguing us today; then he offers his plan for action on how to ensure, 30 years from now, the year 2050 looks very different.
Both parts are weak and unconvincing. Heck, I agree with him and I still thought that. I can only imagine all the positive reviews are due to mood affiliation. They think the underlying idea is correct and are rating the book based on that, rather than the merits and flaws of the book itself.
In the first part, Strickler tries to convince you that his diagnosis is correct. But it is facile and unconvincing. He brings up a baker's dozen of flaws in the modern economy and implies that they are due to financial maximization, rather than making direct arguments. In some cases, as when he talks about the consolidation of radio stations and the subsequent loss of music diversity, it is clearer to see the link he's suggesting. But in others it remains quite murky. Tax deductions on shopping centers? Falling entrepreneurship rates? Recycling? The rise of credit card debt? Stock buy backs?
Strickler specifically calls his book a "manifesto" so it isn't entirely fair to judge it against more detailed and serious books. But all of these topics are well-trod. Heck, one of Karl Marx's critiques of capitalism was that it would inevitably result in having a single value: money. Other books that do a better job of exploring aspects of this are The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public, This Life: Secular Faith and Spiritual Freedom, The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition, The Economists' Hour: False Prophets, Free Markets, and the Fracture of Society, and Transaction Man: The Rise of the Deal and the Decline of the American Dream.
Part of the problem is that Strickler never makes a good distinction between businesses and individuals; most of the book focuses on faceless businesses (but then how do the steps I can take have any realistic impact?) and usually ignores the contributions of individual people. He talks about how when Wal-Mart enters a town, 85% of the business comes from existing local businesses. But that's entirely the fault of individual people, not Wal-Mart! Individual people are saying "paying lower prices is more important than living in a diverse neighborhood." But Strickler never mentions this obvious point.
Not making this distinction between business and private is what also undermines the second half of the book. What are we supposed about it? This is the make or break section of the book and it just doesn't really deliver. He suggests that, when we're faced with a decision we should do a kind of variation of the SWOT analysis. Except he calls it "Bentoism" (like a bento box). There are four quadrants: Now Me, Now Us, Future Me, and Future Us. He argues that financial maximization focuses solely on New Me (a dubious claim that he doesn't even really argue for). By thinking about other things, other values will come to mind: family, friends, institutions, etc. And...that's it. That is literally the only Call To Action he provides.
But...does anyone really think the average family is guilty of financial maximization to any significant degree? Almost every family has children, which can hardly be described as financial maximization. Sure, people do things that are focused on money at the expense of other things. But how much of that is structural (you need a car to get to work everywhere in America, so you need a job that can pay for a car...) or a result of modern precariousness. (How much money do you need to be "safe" when you might be hit with a $50,000 medical bill? Or be subject to age discrimination at age 50 and suddenly find yourself "retired" a decade before you can receive Social Security?) Would you spend more time with family and friends if your job didn't send you email at 10pm? If they didn't change your shift schedule every week?
Throughout the entire book, the only examples of non-businesses "living with values" are....Taylor Swift and Adele. It is hardly a compelling argument. It is just very unclear to me what normal people can do. I don't think we're actually helpless (despite what you think ignoring that 10pm e-mail probably won't get you fired) but I don't think Strickler gives many useful tools to find our way out of the world we currently live in.
The book is broken into two parts: first he tries to convince you that financial maximization is the root of many problems plaguing us today; then he offers his plan for action on how to ensure, 30 years from now, the year 2050 looks very different.
Both parts are weak and unconvincing. Heck, I agree with him and I still thought that. I can only imagine all the positive reviews are due to mood affiliation. They think the underlying idea is correct and are rating the book based on that, rather than the merits and flaws of the book itself.
In the first part, Strickler tries to convince you that his diagnosis is correct. But it is facile and unconvincing. He brings up a baker's dozen of flaws in the modern economy and implies that they are due to financial maximization, rather than making direct arguments. In some cases, as when he talks about the consolidation of radio stations and the subsequent loss of music diversity, it is clearer to see the link he's suggesting. But in others it remains quite murky. Tax deductions on shopping centers? Falling entrepreneurship rates? Recycling? The rise of credit card debt? Stock buy backs?
Strickler specifically calls his book a "manifesto" so it isn't entirely fair to judge it against more detailed and serious books. But all of these topics are well-trod. Heck, one of Karl Marx's critiques of capitalism was that it would inevitably result in having a single value: money. Other books that do a better job of exploring aspects of this are The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public, This Life: Secular Faith and Spiritual Freedom, The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition, The Economists' Hour: False Prophets, Free Markets, and the Fracture of Society, and Transaction Man: The Rise of the Deal and the Decline of the American Dream.
Part of the problem is that Strickler never makes a good distinction between businesses and individuals; most of the book focuses on faceless businesses (but then how do the steps I can take have any realistic impact?) and usually ignores the contributions of individual people. He talks about how when Wal-Mart enters a town, 85% of the business comes from existing local businesses. But that's entirely the fault of individual people, not Wal-Mart! Individual people are saying "paying lower prices is more important than living in a diverse neighborhood." But Strickler never mentions this obvious point.
Not making this distinction between business and private is what also undermines the second half of the book. What are we supposed about it? This is the make or break section of the book and it just doesn't really deliver. He suggests that, when we're faced with a decision we should do a kind of variation of the SWOT analysis. Except he calls it "Bentoism" (like a bento box). There are four quadrants: Now Me, Now Us, Future Me, and Future Us. He argues that financial maximization focuses solely on New Me (a dubious claim that he doesn't even really argue for). By thinking about other things, other values will come to mind: family, friends, institutions, etc. And...that's it. That is literally the only Call To Action he provides.
But...does anyone really think the average family is guilty of financial maximization to any significant degree? Almost every family has children, which can hardly be described as financial maximization. Sure, people do things that are focused on money at the expense of other things. But how much of that is structural (you need a car to get to work everywhere in America, so you need a job that can pay for a car...) or a result of modern precariousness. (How much money do you need to be "safe" when you might be hit with a $50,000 medical bill? Or be subject to age discrimination at age 50 and suddenly find yourself "retired" a decade before you can receive Social Security?) Would you spend more time with family and friends if your job didn't send you email at 10pm? If they didn't change your shift schedule every week?
Throughout the entire book, the only examples of non-businesses "living with values" are....Taylor Swift and Adele. It is hardly a compelling argument. It is just very unclear to me what normal people can do. I don't think we're actually helpless (despite what you think ignoring that 10pm e-mail probably won't get you fired) but I don't think Strickler gives many useful tools to find our way out of the world we currently live in.
February 18, 2020
Why not move away from a complete focus on financial maximization to value based maximization? Think about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:
1. Physiological needs (food, water, shelter)
2. Safety (health, physical, financial)
3. Love (family, friends, belonging)
4. Esteem (the drive to achieve)
5. Self-actualization (to become everything one is capable of becoming)
----
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
----
Money as the basis of life and society sets a ceiling on what we can be. It doesn't aim for the peak of the pyramid.
----
How to have a value based life and business?
Like financial maximization, Bentoism strives for rational and measurable principles. Bentoism seeks to expand some of the tools of financial maximization to a wider set of values. Community, knowledge, purpose, fairness, traditions and the needs of the future are just some of the things a bentoist strives for.
----
How you use Bentoism to weigh your decisions.
1. Now Me is about the here and now. The governing values are security, pleasure and autonomy.
2. Now Us is a space for your relationships. The governing values are community, fairness and tradition.
3. Future Me is about your legacy and personal values. The governing values are mastery, purpose and grit.
4. Future Us is about the world that future generations will experience. The governing values are awareness, sustainability and knowledge.
----
Thanks to @vikingbooks and @ystrickler for this amazing book! I will always apply Bentoism in my life and business. Who knows, 30 years from now everyone might be a Bentoist!
1. Physiological needs (food, water, shelter)
2. Safety (health, physical, financial)
3. Love (family, friends, belonging)
4. Esteem (the drive to achieve)
5. Self-actualization (to become everything one is capable of becoming)
----
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
----
Money as the basis of life and society sets a ceiling on what we can be. It doesn't aim for the peak of the pyramid.
----
How to have a value based life and business?
Like financial maximization, Bentoism strives for rational and measurable principles. Bentoism seeks to expand some of the tools of financial maximization to a wider set of values. Community, knowledge, purpose, fairness, traditions and the needs of the future are just some of the things a bentoist strives for.
----
How you use Bentoism to weigh your decisions.
1. Now Me is about the here and now. The governing values are security, pleasure and autonomy.
2. Now Us is a space for your relationships. The governing values are community, fairness and tradition.
3. Future Me is about your legacy and personal values. The governing values are mastery, purpose and grit.
4. Future Us is about the world that future generations will experience. The governing values are awareness, sustainability and knowledge.
----
Thanks to @vikingbooks and @ystrickler for this amazing book! I will always apply Bentoism in my life and business. Who knows, 30 years from now everyone might be a Bentoist!
December 10, 2019
In a world dominated by big yet meaningless words like ''disrupt'', ''innovate'', ''hustle'', ''go big'', this book is a relief. It brings a new perspective on how we can build a better future, one that makes far more sense than financial maximization.
Generosity should stay at the core of everything we do if we want better businesses, better relationships, better teams, better communities. We need to question our values and search for the ones that help us become the best version of ourselves.
I am beyond grateful I came across this read via Jerry Colonna's podcast — Reboot. It awakens a lot of perspectives and ideas that I might thought are naive, but they are not. They are the driver that will lead us far.
Generosity should stay at the core of everything we do if we want better businesses, better relationships, better teams, better communities. We need to question our values and search for the ones that help us become the best version of ourselves.
I am beyond grateful I came across this read via Jerry Colonna's podcast — Reboot. It awakens a lot of perspectives and ideas that I might thought are naive, but they are not. They are the driver that will lead us far.
November 8, 2020
کتاب در رابطه با این موضوع صحبت میکنه که بجز سود و منفعت در تجارت باید حواسمان را به چه چیزهایی جمع کنیم و چرا امروزه تمام توجهات به سمت تنها سود و کسب درآمد رفته است
البته نتونستم ارتباطی با این کتاب برقرار کنم! یه حالی بود :)
البته نتونستم ارتباطی با این کتاب برقرار کنم! یه حالی بود :)
December 3, 2019
A phenomenal book - a powerful call for positive change and a road map to giving our lives real meaning.
This Could Be Our Future offers a range of invaluable insights from varying examples to prove why the current system of value maximisation is not just counter-productive, it's counterintuitive. From Bentoism to the 3-point shot to the value helix, this book offers an alternative to our 'progress at any costs' mentality.
The life lessons he learned from his time as CEO of Kickstarter have clearly served him well.
This Could Be Our Future offers a range of invaluable insights from varying examples to prove why the current system of value maximisation is not just counter-productive, it's counterintuitive. From Bentoism to the 3-point shot to the value helix, this book offers an alternative to our 'progress at any costs' mentality.
The life lessons he learned from his time as CEO of Kickstarter have clearly served him well.
May 9, 2021
Strickler raises a lot of important criticisms of modern society and has a lot of interesting and correct intuitions. Unfortunately, this book is not rigorous enough to sufficiently grapple with the questions raised.
January 5, 2021
In an attempt to dismantle our default gravitation towards financial maximization, Strickler offers the philosophy of Bentoism as a new approach to decision making. Strickler provides an opportunistic outlook on how our global community can move away from an inhibiting way of life that idolizes money and towards a life full of value, meaning, and purpose. Dramatic change in the way we value money won’t happen overnight but societal values are never static.
August 20, 2021
SO GOOD. So many important ideas // streams of study put in conversation w each other. Loved the history of game theory + importance of language of the game
May 15, 2022
For someone who hasn’t made the shift from shareholder to stakeholder capitalism, especially if they’re burnt out, I think this manifesto would be a breath of fresh air.
At my stage (working on the issue for several years), I’m more curious about the “how” than the “what.” Value exists beyond the financial - absolutely. But how can organizations responsibly / confidently make trade offs between competing needs? The author’s model didn’t say. But he did acknowledge the need to include future stakeholders, which was nice.
What took this from a 3 to a 4 star was a thoughtful appendix, including this passage from American economic philosopher, Elizabeth Anderson:
"There's a great diversity of worthwhile ideals, not all of which can be combined in a single life. Different ideals may require the cultivation of incompatible virtues, or the pursuit of projects which naturally preclude the pursuit of others. Individuals with different talents, temperaments, opportunities, and relations to others rationally adopt or uphold different ideals...there are far more potentially worthy objects of valuation than could occupy any one person's concern."
I spend a lot of time studying what makes meaningful work, and tend to be drawn to black and white ways of thinking about it - in a world of cigarette marketers, some work is prima facie more meaningful than others. But the idea of one life being too small to pursue all worthwhile ideals is interesting…and could save a lot of us from spinning our wheels.
At my stage (working on the issue for several years), I’m more curious about the “how” than the “what.” Value exists beyond the financial - absolutely. But how can organizations responsibly / confidently make trade offs between competing needs? The author’s model didn’t say. But he did acknowledge the need to include future stakeholders, which was nice.
What took this from a 3 to a 4 star was a thoughtful appendix, including this passage from American economic philosopher, Elizabeth Anderson:
"There's a great diversity of worthwhile ideals, not all of which can be combined in a single life. Different ideals may require the cultivation of incompatible virtues, or the pursuit of projects which naturally preclude the pursuit of others. Individuals with different talents, temperaments, opportunities, and relations to others rationally adopt or uphold different ideals...there are far more potentially worthy objects of valuation than could occupy any one person's concern."
I spend a lot of time studying what makes meaningful work, and tend to be drawn to black and white ways of thinking about it - in a world of cigarette marketers, some work is prima facie more meaningful than others. But the idea of one life being too small to pursue all worthwhile ideals is interesting…and could save a lot of us from spinning our wheels.
March 5, 2020
Yet another work tracing what's happened to us since the day we were cast out of the garden of eden, some call it Reaganism, some neoliberalism, Strickler refers to Milton Friedman's article bringing financial maximization to the public's attention. Since that day, the well-known curve showing that productivity continues to rise but wages stagnate. Strickler thinks we can overcome the problem thru the power of platitudes. Specifically, he proposes what he calls Bentoism from the Japanese takeout lunch box which guides our decision making on 2 axes, present & future, me & us. As feel good ideas go, this ain't a bad one but I'm skeptical of results.
January 10, 2021
Quite enjoyed to read this book. I wholeheartedly agree with it and its points of view. Financial maximization is a concept we need to keep moving further away from and start to refocus on a wider view that focus on values. A whole better world can be created from it. That's the important message that needs to go through and Strickler does a great job passing it on, going through history, giving several examples and exploring the Bentoism framework.
Overall, I felt it lacked a little bit of depth and oversimplified some aspects and that's the only reason I'm not giving it 5 stars. Still, very worth reading!
Overall, I felt it lacked a little bit of depth and oversimplified some aspects and that's the only reason I'm not giving it 5 stars. Still, very worth reading!
June 7, 2020
“We humans don’t get to run a million iterations. We only get to live life once. We need every tool we can find to make the best decisions. This is why a broader spectrum of values is so crucial. Values are a guidance system based on the collective wisdom of our ancestors and the inputs of our cultures. Values are what make right and wrong. We ignore them at our peril.”
“For a company whose mission focuses on improving the health of the earth, the environmental impact of its products should be as serious a concern as the company’s profitability.”
“For a company whose mission focuses on improving the health of the earth, the environmental impact of its products should be as serious a concern as the company’s profitability.”
December 11, 2020
This book truly creates a new perspective and "widens then frame". I'm still contemplating the full picture, but I can feel, that there is something important to this. Moving away from financial maximization and its devastating effects and complementing the picture. Yancey proposes a model of Me Now, Us Now, Future Me and Future Us that seeks to move us from a money orientation to a values orientation. This seems to come from a deeply personal and generous insight and I'm looking forward to contemplating this further! Thanks a lot for sharing!
January 30, 2025
Super insightful critique on how financial maximization dominates how we think, act, and make decisions. It rejects the notion that the best option is simply the one that makes the most money. Obviously right? But I promise this is worth the read. It forces you to think of value beyond the “here and now” and beyond just yourself.
The framework he proposes called “Bentoism” really came at an important time for me. Also forces you to think..what the heck are my values?
The framework he proposes called “Bentoism” really came at an important time for me. Also forces you to think..what the heck are my values?
March 10, 2020
A good book for a politician. Profit is bad, but it can also be good. Money is bad, but it can also be good. Everybody, vote this guy!
January 7, 2021
I thought the author's build up to the Bentoism value system was good - giving readers enough context, but the latter part of the book could have been developed more.
August 31, 2020
A really interesting look at the ways in which our society has formed itself solely around ‘financial maximisation’ and has lost sight of goals which aren’t related to making money. Strickler explores other ways we might measure value through his ideas about ‘Bentoism’ and gives examples of companies and individuals who are genuinely value led, showing how possible it is. I feel like listening to this book has changed my perspective for the better and given me hope that we might be able to create a better more rational future.
August 25, 2020
So I really enjoyed and was inspired by this book. The author was the inspiration for Kickstarter, and created the new phenomenon of crowdfunding. This manifesto is all about breaking apart our expectations for how kindness and creativity and culture come together.
Most interestingly, he posits that it takes about 30 years for an idea to become a reality - as if the current generation accepts/discusses the idea, and the next one gets down to working with it.
It's a riveting read, and has loads of interesting insights into why the modern economy works the way it does, and why its going to continue to shake up and change. Pure 'practical' money-based decisions don't cut it as well any more. In a world where meaning carries more weight, we need that kind of business culture.
We're almost there. And it's an exciting future.
Most interestingly, he posits that it takes about 30 years for an idea to become a reality - as if the current generation accepts/discusses the idea, and the next one gets down to working with it.
It's a riveting read, and has loads of interesting insights into why the modern economy works the way it does, and why its going to continue to shake up and change. Pure 'practical' money-based decisions don't cut it as well any more. In a world where meaning carries more weight, we need that kind of business culture.
We're almost there. And it's an exciting future.
August 5, 2019
A badly needed dose of practical optimism from one of the cofounders of the successful tech company Kickstarter. Strickler’s manifesto for expanding our definition of value creation beyond the primitively narrow current paradigm of simple “financial maximization” is both timely and urgent. His “Bentoism” tool is simple and thought provoking. A great read for fans of Yuval Noah Harari, Malcolm Gladwell, or Adam Grant.
December 10, 2020
این کتاب دید خیلی خوبی در مورد دنیای امروز و شرایط محدود و بدی که بیشینهسازی مالی واسه جوامع و شرکتها و افراد درست میکنه به خواننده میده. علاوه بر اون راهحلی رو در اختیارتون میذاره که بتونید ارزشهای دیگهای غیر از نفع مالی رو وارد تصمیمگیریهای خود و شرکتتون کنید. اگه کسب و کاری دارید و چند وقتیه که همه کارهاتون در راستای سود شرکت بوده و از رسالت اصلی شرکت دور شدید حتما پیشنهاد میکنم این کتاب رو بخونید.
April 7, 2020
2020-02 - This Could Be Our Future: A Manifesto for a More Generous World. Yancey Strickler (Author) 2019. 304 Pages.
I watched the author of this book give a book talk on this book on C-Span. I was about 1/3 through the book talk when I put it on reserve at the library. The actual book did not let me down. It is absolutely similar to the book talk I had watched, just more detailed. I ended up taking 6.5 pages of single spaced 12 point font reader’s notes. This is not an anti-capitalist scree. This is a book about the changes in American Market capitalism that occurred in the 1970’s and 1980’s when the idea of financial maximization edged out the previous conceptions of the purposes of a market economy. It is a theme I have read about before, but this is more focused on the costs of this ideological shift. Page 26: “This is what it means to be dominated by a default of financial maximization. It means viewing our society as a portfolio to buy, sell, and trade. It's like seeing the world through the eyes of a pathological oligarch. Everything has a price.” This gives a sense of when you glorify the driver and the car but assume the road and traffic regulations. In a sense the notion of financial maximization is new but much of the underlying discussion about culture, markets, government, identity are similar to the discussion that we had in the US after we through off the mercantilism and aristocratic shackles of the British Empire and groped about for our own identity and purpose. This is the first half of the book. The second half is about making changes using a bento box … bentoism … as a paradigm changing tool. It is akin to what I have been thinking about for several years. This is a stunningly excellent book about purpose, about values vs value. I’ll leave with a chapter heading quote: "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few" G.K. Chesterton. (I’d love to just post my reader’s notes as the book review but that would be cumbersome)
I watched the author of this book give a book talk on this book on C-Span. I was about 1/3 through the book talk when I put it on reserve at the library. The actual book did not let me down. It is absolutely similar to the book talk I had watched, just more detailed. I ended up taking 6.5 pages of single spaced 12 point font reader’s notes. This is not an anti-capitalist scree. This is a book about the changes in American Market capitalism that occurred in the 1970’s and 1980’s when the idea of financial maximization edged out the previous conceptions of the purposes of a market economy. It is a theme I have read about before, but this is more focused on the costs of this ideological shift. Page 26: “This is what it means to be dominated by a default of financial maximization. It means viewing our society as a portfolio to buy, sell, and trade. It's like seeing the world through the eyes of a pathological oligarch. Everything has a price.” This gives a sense of when you glorify the driver and the car but assume the road and traffic regulations. In a sense the notion of financial maximization is new but much of the underlying discussion about culture, markets, government, identity are similar to the discussion that we had in the US after we through off the mercantilism and aristocratic shackles of the British Empire and groped about for our own identity and purpose. This is the first half of the book. The second half is about making changes using a bento box … bentoism … as a paradigm changing tool. It is akin to what I have been thinking about for several years. This is a stunningly excellent book about purpose, about values vs value. I’ll leave with a chapter heading quote: "Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few" G.K. Chesterton. (I’d love to just post my reader’s notes as the book review but that would be cumbersome)
Read
December 1, 2025overall: disappointing
p111-112: artist as a living counterexample to maslow's hierarchy of needs? "for consciousness is almost completely preempted by hunger...the urge to write poetry...in the extreme case forgotten or become of secondary importance."
p118: introduction of a monetary incentive ruined the game's fun
p121: the flaws of GDP as our dominant measurement of value - what is measurement blind to? what does measurement not see?
p123: measurement is a way of seeing
major limitation to his argument is for individual readers to change/expand/be more aware of their own values and decision making processes/agency.
i'm more interested in measurement as a way of seeing, and money as a language to express value.
what does it mean to grow a nonfinancial value? the overall message is "do better" and the tool to help you "do better" is the bento framework. not very convincing. was hoping for more structural thinking, since he has such an impressive career - kickstarter, the creative independent, and now a-corps
he also suggests using the same methodology (the master's tools...the master's house) of measuring and growing nonfinancial values
measuring is a dominant way of seeing that enabled financial maximization. true or false?
artistry trains a different way of seeing. true or false?
his argument relies on internal motivation, not external incentive. but HOW does a new idea become a hidden default?
isn't this the same paradigm overall? is that what we want? standardization but around a new thing previously not standardized or measured? it gives a whiff of colonialism. also: nonfinancial value is a good financial investment?, who is buying in? realistically, if we are working within the structure of capitalism and the society we have today, there needs to be a monetary return
obviously values are inherited within family system but interesting question is how to get masses to adopt values. money is the language of value. a very powerful symbol.
p111-112: artist as a living counterexample to maslow's hierarchy of needs? "for consciousness is almost completely preempted by hunger...the urge to write poetry...in the extreme case forgotten or become of secondary importance."
p118: introduction of a monetary incentive ruined the game's fun
p121: the flaws of GDP as our dominant measurement of value - what is measurement blind to? what does measurement not see?
p123: measurement is a way of seeing
major limitation to his argument is for individual readers to change/expand/be more aware of their own values and decision making processes/agency.
i'm more interested in measurement as a way of seeing, and money as a language to express value.
what does it mean to grow a nonfinancial value? the overall message is "do better" and the tool to help you "do better" is the bento framework. not very convincing. was hoping for more structural thinking, since he has such an impressive career - kickstarter, the creative independent, and now a-corps
he also suggests using the same methodology (the master's tools...the master's house) of measuring and growing nonfinancial values
measuring is a dominant way of seeing that enabled financial maximization. true or false?
artistry trains a different way of seeing. true or false?
his argument relies on internal motivation, not external incentive. but HOW does a new idea become a hidden default?
isn't this the same paradigm overall? is that what we want? standardization but around a new thing previously not standardized or measured? it gives a whiff of colonialism. also: nonfinancial value is a good financial investment?, who is buying in? realistically, if we are working within the structure of capitalism and the society we have today, there needs to be a monetary return
obviously values are inherited within family system but interesting question is how to get masses to adopt values. money is the language of value. a very powerful symbol.
December 13, 2019
I guess if you're among the 80% on the surveys he quotes who list becoming very wealthy as one's main life goal, this might be revolutionary and groundbreaking for you. If the idea of making money your main life goal already strikes you as fairly horrifying or alarming, you will probably not get much out of a book that encourages people to look beyond short term financial maximization and include other values in your decisions.
It's a fine book. I guess the need for it says more about society than the author.
It also struck me as very odd to see repeated references to 2050 without any mention of the importance of that date in climate/carbon terms. (It always strikes me as odd, nowadays, when anyone claims to write about the future without having a solid sense of what that means in climate terms.) Environmental sustainability was in the text as a value, and climate change was mentioned, but my sense is that the author is largely unaware of the extent of the threat posed by this crisis to the future he champions, or the foundational necessity of including climate outcomes in any values decisions affecting the future. You cannot end up with a happy 2050 with future citizens talking about value maximization in bentoism offices if the subway network has been wiped out by repeated flooding and the power grid no longer reliably operates. I just did a very quick google search of 2050 climate impacts on the lower east side, referenced repeatedly in his book, and the picture is pretty grim. The storefront he imagines may no longer exist or be accessible, and if it does, it will be in a neighbourhood vastly restructured to maintain its viability.
If you are writing about the future, and you are not including climate impacts, decarbonization, economic transitions, and adaptation projects, you are writing a fairy tale; and moreover, your fairy tale is damaging. We need more authors to understand this.
It's a fine book. I guess the need for it says more about society than the author.
It also struck me as very odd to see repeated references to 2050 without any mention of the importance of that date in climate/carbon terms. (It always strikes me as odd, nowadays, when anyone claims to write about the future without having a solid sense of what that means in climate terms.) Environmental sustainability was in the text as a value, and climate change was mentioned, but my sense is that the author is largely unaware of the extent of the threat posed by this crisis to the future he champions, or the foundational necessity of including climate outcomes in any values decisions affecting the future. You cannot end up with a happy 2050 with future citizens talking about value maximization in bentoism offices if the subway network has been wiped out by repeated flooding and the power grid no longer reliably operates. I just did a very quick google search of 2050 climate impacts on the lower east side, referenced repeatedly in his book, and the picture is pretty grim. The storefront he imagines may no longer exist or be accessible, and if it does, it will be in a neighbourhood vastly restructured to maintain its viability.
If you are writing about the future, and you are not including climate impacts, decarbonization, economic transitions, and adaptation projects, you are writing a fairy tale; and moreover, your fairy tale is damaging. We need more authors to understand this.
January 16, 2026
This is one of those rare books that lays everything out so clearly and puts the puzzle pieces together for us.
My mind sometimes feels like those detective's bulletin boards with the red string connecting things haphazardly and this book neatens many things that were jumbled in my mind, painting them clearly, like a flow-chart.
As a leftist, I do worry that this may be technocratic over-simplification, but it all sounded pretty good to me! I think his thesis is a really useful way to look at things.
He does not touch on race or gender/sex/sexuality, ability, or even really class, but I think he's sort of staying in his lane; talking about what he knows about. Especially in the U.S., those things are always relevant, so it's important to read other authors as well. Yes, I think he may be right that Milton Friedman's 1970 op ed proclaiming that businesses have no social responsibility, only the responsibility to make a profit, did end up shifting U.S and world culture toward what he calls "financial maximization", but we should never forget that this country was created out of stolen land, genocide, and enslavement. Those things are never irrelevant.
That being said, I do thing he's onto something.
Also, the stuff about the theory of 30 years as a common time-span for broad social change is hopeful to me in a time when I have been warding off despair. I don't remember who he said first proposed that theory, but it's basically about how long it takes a new generation to grow up and start doing things according to the world they grew up in versus their parents. He said Isaac Asimov (a racist?) predicted that around 2019 young people who drastically improve the world. Environmentally, we don't have much time. Fingers crossed!
My mind sometimes feels like those detective's bulletin boards with the red string connecting things haphazardly and this book neatens many things that were jumbled in my mind, painting them clearly, like a flow-chart.
As a leftist, I do worry that this may be technocratic over-simplification, but it all sounded pretty good to me! I think his thesis is a really useful way to look at things.
He does not touch on race or gender/sex/sexuality, ability, or even really class, but I think he's sort of staying in his lane; talking about what he knows about. Especially in the U.S., those things are always relevant, so it's important to read other authors as well. Yes, I think he may be right that Milton Friedman's 1970 op ed proclaiming that businesses have no social responsibility, only the responsibility to make a profit, did end up shifting U.S and world culture toward what he calls "financial maximization", but we should never forget that this country was created out of stolen land, genocide, and enslavement. Those things are never irrelevant.
That being said, I do thing he's onto something.
Also, the stuff about the theory of 30 years as a common time-span for broad social change is hopeful to me in a time when I have been warding off despair. I don't remember who he said first proposed that theory, but it's basically about how long it takes a new generation to grow up and start doing things according to the world they grew up in versus their parents. He said Isaac Asimov (a racist?) predicted that around 2019 young people who drastically improve the world. Environmentally, we don't have much time. Fingers crossed!
March 30, 2020
I got this audiobook at the start of the COVID19 quarantine; hopeful for some radical proposals for change in the world. I had to adjust my expectations as the theory of change here is incremental and calls for small shifts. This book more of a call to American entrepreneurial leaders to redesign capitalism.
The book feels like a call to adjust the greed and hegemony in the United States. It’s in the same vein of business literature that asks businesses to think in values and people. The style of the writing is clearly written by the co-founder of Kickstarter and had elements of the investor pitch or investor retreat. The book is digestible and It moves quickly - summarizing complexity into simple to grasp concepts. The author is very easy to listen to on audiobook. There is plenty of resources in the afterward as well. You hear from both the author's personal perspective and his thoughts on America more broadly. These are all kind gestures from the author and I think it’s very readable.
Another part of me felt the book simplified and or shined up ideas quickly. There were times where I felt a bit more investigation or contrasting viewpoints would have been nice. There are some stories from around the world, but I felt the bounds of what could be returned to an American standpoint. This is understandable as the author is American. I jumped to the conclusion the title of the book was about a more generous world, but I felt I was thinking about a more generous America.
The book feels like a call to adjust the greed and hegemony in the United States. It’s in the same vein of business literature that asks businesses to think in values and people. The style of the writing is clearly written by the co-founder of Kickstarter and had elements of the investor pitch or investor retreat. The book is digestible and It moves quickly - summarizing complexity into simple to grasp concepts. The author is very easy to listen to on audiobook. There is plenty of resources in the afterward as well. You hear from both the author's personal perspective and his thoughts on America more broadly. These are all kind gestures from the author and I think it’s very readable.
Another part of me felt the book simplified and or shined up ideas quickly. There were times where I felt a bit more investigation or contrasting viewpoints would have been nice. There are some stories from around the world, but I felt the bounds of what could be returned to an American standpoint. This is understandable as the author is American. I jumped to the conclusion the title of the book was about a more generous world, but I felt I was thinking about a more generous America.
July 11, 2020
Yancey Strickler writes a manifesto to go away from "financial maximization", a mental illness that he considers to have taken the world since Milton Friendman wrote an article stating that companies should stick to the desires of their stakeholders in the 70s. This way of thinking is characterized by short-term, myopic seeking of benefits and it has become an unchallenged assumption in the West, specially in USA (what he calls "hidden defaults").
You might be thinking that Strickler is an anti-system guy but, if you are European like me, you'll discover that he is just reacting to the over-financialization of USA. He would be considered within our Overton window because as he summarizes: he is pro-money but also pro people.
What he is asking for is that other people and organizations adopt a more broad set of values. For that he offers a canvas that he calls the bento. It has four boxes: me now, future me, us now, future us. Those boxes force you to think longer term and in broader contexts. That all.
Another important idea of the book is that deep societal change takes about 30 years because that's what a generation takes to be educated. He uses several examples like Semmelweis antisepsis (that made me think of physics departments adopting Einstein's relativity one obituary at a time).
You might be thinking that Strickler is an anti-system guy but, if you are European like me, you'll discover that he is just reacting to the over-financialization of USA. He would be considered within our Overton window because as he summarizes: he is pro-money but also pro people.
What he is asking for is that other people and organizations adopt a more broad set of values. For that he offers a canvas that he calls the bento. It has four boxes: me now, future me, us now, future us. Those boxes force you to think longer term and in broader contexts. That all.
Another important idea of the book is that deep societal change takes about 30 years because that's what a generation takes to be educated. He uses several examples like Semmelweis antisepsis (that made me think of physics departments adopting Einstein's relativity one obituary at a time).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 101 reviews