the trouble with trillions
In talking about the influences on the performance project I’m embarking on (slides here – pdf) I picked out one particular problem. How do I (and audiences) process the kind of scale involved in the current financial crisis? How much is a trillion, anyway?
Various newspapers have tried recently – with varying degrees of success – to describe economies of scale. An article in The Guardian helpfully calculated that a stack of one trillion pound coins would reach from the surface of the earth to Mars. The problem there, though, is that I have no real comprehension of the distance to Mars. One abstract quantity has been replaced by another equally abstract image.
One approach I’m testing involves creating an audience-specific exchange rate: count up all the money in the room, in cash and credit card limits, and then use that as the base unit for discussion. How many rooms of ready cash would make up a million? How many for a trillion?
There’s still, I think, a problem of scale – that the jump from million to trillion requires such a shift of perception that our imaginations might still fail us. A thousand rooms of people isn’t necessarily more comprehendable than the tower of money to Mars.
However, building a relationship of value based on the money or spending power we (perhaps unthinkingly) carry around with us on a daily basis could be the first step in a journey of understanding. Instead of reaching directly for the trillion, we could make a sequence of manageable leaps: from cash in hand, to yearly income, to the cost of a house and on upwards.
My main reason for talking about the trouble with trillions, this morning and now, is to ask for help. What does a trillion mean to you?
[...] the trouble with trillions [...]