Archive for ‘Democracy’

January 22, 2012

“Democratic” bacteria

I was reading the other day an article in an old New Scientist (1.10.11) referring to group behaviour that I found intriguing.

The study was around bacteria (Pseudomonas) that are antibiotic resistant, but the interesting part was about the fact that a. they have the ability to work together as a super-organism and b. that while they are capable of overwhelming any human organism defences they cause pneumonia only to 15% of their “victims”!

Both events are extraordinary but not surprising, I would dare saying.  The surprising part was what the scientist s discovered, being the reason for that.

And I copy …“It turns out that the armies of Pseudomonas are often greatly weakened by indiscipline in the ranks.  They come to be dominated by cheaters and layabouts, who feast on the spoils of victory but ignore all orders to attack. These selfish bacteria multiply faster then the obedient ones, resulting in a less aggressive infection. The discovery opens up the possibility of radical new ways to tackle superbug infections… (by) deliberately encouraging the growth of  cheater strains and injecting them into  people”!

I do not exactly know why, but I immediately associated the bacteria behaviour with politicians from several democratic countries currently under “stress”. Not all of them of course, there are indeed those they methodically, in the name of an ideology, try to destroy the last defences of Democracy, and they are currently winning the battle I am afraid, but those cheaters, those that have never fought a battle but have just enjoy the benefits ….

Ending 1

You probably understand where I am heading with this… Should we encourage the people in the next election to “inject” more of them into the “system” in order to save these countries…?

Or Ending 2

You probably understand where I am heading with this… The instinct of the people in the last election was right and that is my explanation why these specific countries still exist!

Have your pick. As usual, comments of all kinds welcomed. SM

December 31, 2011

Και όμως το 2012 θα είναι καλύτερο για την Ελλάδα (Apologies to our regular readers but this post is intended for Greeks readers only)

Κάθε οικονομία επηρεάζεται και επηρεάζει τις άλλες, ο βαθμός μόνο διαφέρει. Επί χρόνια η Ελλάδα είχε «έλλειμμα» σε αυτόν τον τομέα και στο άμεσο μέλλον δεν υπάρχουν ενδείξεις ότι αυτό μπορεί να αντιστραφεί, με βάσει τουλάχιστον τα λεγόμενα και γραφόμενα στον Ελληνικό τύπο που επιμελώς παρακολουθώ.

Η εξάρτηση αυτή, σε συνδυασμό με τις επιβαλλόμενες έξωθεν μεθόδους «αναδιάρθρωσης», την ανυπαρξία προτάσεων ουσιαστικού περιεχομένου για την έξοδο της χώρας από την κρίση όπως επίσης και την συνειδητοποιημένη πλέων οικονομική δυσχέρεια του μέσου Έλληνα, τροφοδοτούν ένα κλίμα δικαιολογημένης απαισιοδοξίας.

Σε όλα αυτά έρχεται να προστεθεί και η συνειδητοποίηση, στον μέχρι πρότεινως αδιάφορο πολίτη, των συστηματικών αδυναμιών της οικονομίας, της πολιτικής και της δημόσιας διοίκησης και των ζοφερών αποτελεσμάτων της συνδυασμένης αρνητικής επίδρασης τους στην καθημερινότητα. Αναπόφευκτα η απαισιοδοξία μετατράπηκε σε εθνική κατάθλιψη και τα όποια σενάρια για πιθανά δεινά βρίσκουν πρόσφορο έδαφος ανάπτυξης σαν βακτήρια σε ανοικτές πληγές.

Η μοιρολατρία κερδίζει συνεχώς έδαφος με κίνδυνο να τροφοδοτείσει νέους κύκλους λανθασμένων αποφάσεων από τους διοικούντες, είτε διότι οι ίδιοι έχουν πέσει θύματα του ίδιου καταθλιπτικού συνδρόμου τροφοδοτούμενο από παντελή έλλειψη ιδεών, είτε διότι οι φωνές του πλήθους τους αναγκάζει να πάρουν αποφάσεις που μέχρι πρότινος θα θεωρούνταν από πρόχειρες μέχρι εξωπραγματικές.

Το να βρει ο όποιος αναγνώστης πλέον ένα αισιόδοξο μήνυμα είναι σαν να κερδίζει στο lotto.

Η συνειδητοποίηση του πεπερασμένου της σκέψης και του κίνδυνου της επικείμενης ανταπόδειξης των καταστροφικών προφητειών με οδήγησαν στο να γράψω αυτό το κείμενο σαν προάγγελο της επικείμενης συνολικής πρότασης της ομάδας σκέψης που είμαι μέλος για την έξοδο της Ελλάδος από την κρίση, που θα αποσταλεί σε όλα τα μέσα ενημέρωσης στους πρώτους μήνες του 12.

Η επιστήμη που υπηρετώ έχει την τάση να «βλέπει» τα πράγματα μέσα από ευρύτερα πρίσματα αναδεικνύοντας χώρους χωρίς αδιέξοδα όπου η αλλαγή είναι διαρκής και καλοδεχούμενη. Εάν δεν είχε ήδη όνομα (synthetic institutionalism) θα μπορούσαμε να την μετονομάσουμε σε κάτι που να προσωποποιεί την αισιοδοξία.

Δεν θα σας κουράσω μακρολογώντας περισσότερο επί του αντικειμένου. Όσοι είναι γνώστες της αγγλικής μπορούν να πάρουν μια γεύση στο http://bit.ly/s0Q4hK .

Η ουσία είναι ότι:

·Η οικονομική κατάσταση της Ελλάδας είναι παγκόσμια πρωτοφανές γεγονός και γέννημα ενός συγκεκριμένου οικονομικού συστήματος που δεν είχε ποτέ σχεδιαστεί να λειτουργήσει κάτω από συνθήκες συστημικής αλληλεξάρτησης.

·Λόγω του προηγουμένου τα συστημικά προβλήματα είναι ΑΔΥΝΑΤΟΝ να επιλυθούν με οικονομικά μέτρα μόνον. Η ομοιοπαθητική δεν έχει εφαρμογή στην οικονομία.

·Η όποια στρατηγική ανάπτυξης, που όλοι οι συνάδελφοι οικονομολόγοι επικαλούνται, σαν την μόνη αποδεκτή μακροχρόνια λύση για την Ελληνική οικονομία δεν μπορεί να εφαρμοστεί. Πρώτον για τον λόγο που ανέφερα στην πρώτη παράγραφο αυτού του κειμένου και δεύτερον γιατί κανείς δεν έχει την δυνατότητα να σχεδιάσει μια στρατηγική θεσμικών αλλαγών που αποτελούν την προϋπόθεση επιτυχημένης ανάπτυξης ελλείψει θεωρητικού υπόβαθρου για την ανάλυση τους μέσα στα πλαίσια των σημερινών οικονομικών θεωριών.

·Η ποιο πρόσφατη ανάλυση της οικονομίας (σαν κοινωνικός θεσμός) σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο (αδημοσίευτη επί του παρόντος πέραν του ιστοχώρου μας http://bit.ly/sZDN90 )  έχει παύσει να υπηρετεί τους πρωταρχικούς λόγους δημιουργίας της, έχοντας μετεξελιχθεί, συν τω χρόνο, σε ένα άγνωστο για τους οικονομολόγους πεδίο συμπεπλεκομένων αλληλεπιδράσεων, τα αποτελέσματα του οποίου βιώνουμε σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο.

Θα μου πείτε όμως ότι, εμμέσως πλην σαφώς, υποσχέθηκα καλά νέα ενώ το μόνο που κάνω είναι να προσθέτω στην κατάθλιψή σας.

Τα καλά νέα λοιπόν.

·Η θεωρητική σύνδεσης μεταξύ θεσμών και οικονομίας έχει επιτευχθεί ανοίγοντας τον δρόμο στη δυνατότητα στρατηγικού σχεδιασμού της Ελληνικής οικονομίας υπολογίζοντας αυτή την φορά (επιτέλους) τον βαθμό αρνητικού εξωγενούς επηρεασμού

·Η ανάλυσης της οικονομίας σαν θεσμός μας δίνει την δυνατότητα να εκμεταλλευτούμε για πρώτη φορά, βασισμένοι επιτέλους σε ουσιαστικές αναλύσεις, τούς ποιο προσοδοφόρους και συνάμα ασφαλείς δρόμους που μπορούμε να χαράξουμε

Πέραν όμως του θεωρητικού υπόβαθρου υπάρχουν πολλά καλά νέα προερχόμενα μέσα από την Ελληνική κοινωνία που δεν μπορούν να διαφανούν με «γυμνό» μάτι και αναφέρομαι στα εξής:

·Ο Ελληνικός λαός σε επίπεδο μόρφωσης και διαδικτύωσης σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο έχει ξεπεράσει την δυνατότητα των Ελλήνων πολιτικών να πείθουν με ατεκμηρίωτες υποσχέσεις, υπαγορεύοντας έτσι ένα πλαίσιο ορθολογισμού και τεκμηρίωσης ανήκουστο μέχρι πρόσφατα στην Ελλάδα

·Η Ελληνική κοινωνία πλέον έχει αποδεχθεί το γεγονός ότι πολλά πρέπει να αλλάξουν και συστηματικά αναζητά τις ουσιαστικές λύσεις πέραν της Ελληνικής επικράτειας. Το γεγονός ότι δόθηκε η ευκαιρία στον ΟΟΣΑ να πραγματοποιήσει την ερεύνα για το Ελληνικό δημόσιο και το γεγονός ότι επετράπη η παρουσίασή της κατέρριψε πρακτικές εκατονταετιών.

·Η κατάρριψης θεσμικών «αξιών» δεν αποτελεί πλέον σοκ σε κανένα, δίνοντας το πράσινο φώς σε νέες ιδέες που ίσως είναι αδιανόητες για άλλα κράτη και προσφέροντας έτσι στην Ελλάδα συναγωνιστικό πλεονέκτημα εάν το εκμεταλλευτή κατάλληλα.

·Οι υπάρχοντες πολιτικοί οι πολιτικές που εξυπηρετούν και ο τρόπος με τον οποίον αυτό γίνεται έχουν απαξιωθεί στην συνείδηση του μέσου Έλληνα που αναζητά εναλλακτικές λύσεις μια από τις οποίες είναι και ο διαχωρισμός της πολιτικής από την διαχείριση του κράτους, κάτι που θα ήταν αδιανόητο ακόμη και ένα χρόνο πριν, κάνοντας την αρχή με την επιλογή του κ. Παπαδήμου. Παρεμπιπτόντως όλο που χρειάζεται είναι ένα απλό νομοσχέδιο πού να ορίσει το πλαίσιο εφαρμογής ενός τέτοιου μέτρου απαξιώνοντας εν μέρει έτσι τα διλήμματα που ανακύπτουν από την έλλειψη εμπιστοσύνης μεταξύ κομμάτων και λαού.

·Η φοροδιαφυγή από εθνικό σπορ έχει μετατραπεί συνειδησιακά σε κατάπτυστο κοινωνικό αδίκημα και λύσεις για την παντελή απάλειψη της έχουν ήδη προταθεί και είναι εύκολο να εφαρμοστούν http://bit.ly/vFhAEv

·Η Ελλάδα λόγω του προβλήματος έχει αναφερθεί στα διεθνή μίντια σε βαθμό που επηρέασε το αίσθημα της συμπάθειας από όλους τους λαούς γεγονός που μπορούμε να εκμεταλλευτούμε εμπορικά και όχι μόνο

·Οι Έλληνες του εξωτερικού ανέκτησαν εκ νέου ενδιαφέρον στα Ελληνικά δρώμενα μετά την απογοήτευση δεκαετιών γεγονός που μόνο θετικά αποτελέσματα μπορεί να έχει (ευελπιστώ ότι η ύπαρξη και μόνο αυτού του κειμένου μπορεί να εκληφθεί ως ένδειξης).

·Οι Έλληνες του εσωτερικού από την πλευρά τους για πρώτη ίσως φορά μετά την μεταπολίτευση ανακάλυψαν πάλι την αξία του πολιτικού διαλόγου και νέες πολιτικές ιδέες είδαν το φώς της δημοσιότητας προσφέροντας εναλλακτικές

·Έχει αρχίσει ήδη να εμφανίζεται μεταστροφή της αστυφιλίας και νέοι άνθρωποι, μορφωμένοι ως επί το πλείστον, εγκαταλείπουν τις πόλεις με ανείπωτο μακροχρόνιο όφελος για την Ελληνική κοινωνία και τις επόμενες γενιές

·Η ανεργία και η φτώχεια επανεκκίνησε την χαμένη δημιουργικότητα των Ελλήνων μια δημιουργικότητα που είχε ατονίσει για δεκαετίες ενώ σαν επιπλέον όφελος επανεμφάνισε την ανθρωπιά προς τον συνάνθρωπό μας που κινδύνευε να με εξαφάνιση από την υιοθέτηση της παράλογης ατομικότητας

·Νέες ξεχασμένες αξίες βρήκαν ξανά το δρόμο προς την επιφάνεια με τις έννοιες της συμπολίτευσης και του Εθνικού οφέλους να κερδίσουν συνεχώς έδαφος

Κύριοι όλα τα προαναφερόμενα δεν υπήρχαν ένα χρόνο πριν και είναι εχέγγυα μιας νέας αρχής που βασισμένη σε μια μίξη πατροπαράδοτων θεσμών με την σύγχρονη επιστήμη έχει όλα τα χαρακτηριστικά που απαιτούνται για υγιή αναδημιουργία.

Παρά τα όσα απαισιόδοξα μηνύματα ακούγονται εγώ θα επιμείνω, εάν μου επιτρέπεται, να ισχυρίζομαι ότι το 2012 θα είναι ένα καλύτερο έτος για την Ελλάδα και ότι για πρώτη φορά στα τελευταία 2000 χρόνια μας ξαναδίνεται η δυνατότητα να αντιστρέψουμε την θεσμική μας ένδεια σε εξαγώγιμο πλεόνασμα.

Καλή χρονιά σε όλους

Σωτήρης Μελιούμης Αναλυτής Οργανισμών, Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο

 

December 11, 2011

Scarcity the driving force behind Politics and the birth of the Technocrat Politician (Credited to the thinker who asked us the question “do we really need the politician”)

Scarcity refers to the tension between our limited resources and our unlimited wants and needs. On an individual level, resources include time, money and skill, while on a country level, limited resources include natural resources, capital, labour force, technology and information.
Because all of our resources are limited in comparison to all of our wants and needs, individuals and nations have to make decisions regarding what goods and services they can pay for and which ones they must forgo.

Whatever, the form of governance societies tolerate, they in practice have “assigned” the decision making to groups that “persuade” them they know exactly what these much needed resources are and that they have the means of acquiring them on the nations’ behalf.

Economics (macroeconomics to be accurate), in turn, aims, in theory, to “study” why these groups make these decisions and how they could allocate resources more efficiently.

The ways these groups employ to persuade nations that they can utilise Economics to provide these resources and the art of justifying their failure to fulfil their promises (by blaming all but themselves) is what we call Politics.

Recently we witness a reluctant power transfer from politicians to technocrats, in two counties under “siege” from the Markets, Greece and Italy. The degree of power transition in both cases was different with Italy going all the way to assign technocrats in all key positions. In both cases, they called the whole structure “transitional government” and in both cases, it was the “influence” groups from abroad that imposed the change. Are there any conclusions we can draw? Is what we experience the end of the politician, as we knew them thus far?

If the experiment succeeds, would that mean that nations would start developing a new way of thinking?

If the actual need of the nations today is to manage their economy, why do they need the “middle man” and not combine the two forms into one.

However, before you start thinking yes this is rational, ask yourself, what actually are these “influence” groups that forced the change, are they not “The Markets”?

Moreover, we know from the above, that scarcity in a way drives “economic” growth. It is doing so by increasing the pressure on societies to come up with solutions, which can satisfy both their needs and wants. However, what exactly is the scarcity that drives this specific change the solution of which is the technocrat?

The profound answer is economic growth (or rather the lack of it and the consequent attempt of debt renewal), which though is a cyclical notion. Remember we started with the notion that it is scarcity that creates growth and consequently, if the growth was not materialised means that there was no scarcity in the first place.

Are we in a dead end?   The apparent puzzle is similar to what a two dimensional men has when find itself within four connected into a square lines on a piece of paper and he wants to escape.

Luckily, we do know that there are more then two dimensions so I wonder why do we insist to simulate the two dimensional men.

We know that the universal problem of all nations is debt. We know that what created the problem in the first place is the economic framework within which we operate. We tried to give solutions to perceived scarcities by means of it and we failed.

Let us do the right thing this time around. Let us go beyond the “two dimensional” economic framework, jump on the “third axis” into the socioeconomic one where scarcity can be analysed holistically, https://gaianomy.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/hierarchy-of-social-needs-by-gaianomy-at-last/  .

There the politician 2.0, https://gaianomy.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/the-politician-2-0-and-an-introduction-to-post-democracy/ takes a different form and so does the technocrat. In there, we can decide what mandate to give them and if we need them both?

However, do remember in the socioeconomic environment the definition of the technocrat goes far beyond the economist. The scarcity we are faced with is the lack of institutional entrepreneurism mainly (that is why the “system” is trying to produce them i.e. occupy movement) and there is where the emphasis should be given, in a more organised way though.

December 10, 2011

There is a citizen-friendly solution to the Global Fiscal Crisis (Part 4)

In the previous 3 parts we introduced you to the concept of Gaianomy and the first steps towards global institutional reformation.

Specifically in Part 1, https://gaianomy.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/there-is-a-citizen-friendly-solution-to-the-global-fiscal-crisis-part-1/  we introduced the Human Institutions and way they influence societal behaviour, the way they combine to create complex forms,  the mechanism through these forms shape our economic behaviour at a global and local scale and the ways that economic measures will always affect the social and vice-versa.

Based on the above we concluded that in order to address the current crisis one has to modify the human (informal) institutions that combined to create the so called “Global Economy” instead of relying to pure fiscal measures or wait for The Markets to bring the “Global Economy” to order.

In Part 2,  https://gaianomy.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/there-is-a-citizen-friendly-solution-to-the-global-fiscal-crisis-part-2/ we introduced the first four changes out of a total of eight we feel necessary in order to exit from the crisis. These were, rethinking Globalisation and its governance needs, introducing the need for one world currency, one new standard the H2E that should replace the fiat and the golden standard and finally the abandonment of all physical representation of currencies in favour of the electronic one. We listed as well a myriad of benefits deriving from this.

In Part 3,  https://gaianomy.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/there-is-a-citizen-friendly-solution-to-the-global-fiscal-crisis-part-3/ we introduced the next major step the re-evaluation of work based on macro-social and meta-social criteria or in simple terms the net value of work to the global society, as well as the net value of its environmental contribution.

Once more, the benefits described are far reaching but do not complete the Gaianomy vision.

To do so we need to follow the path to the end and it tales only three more steps that we will present in this and the final part.

Step 6

This will be the last major step, and maybe by having achieved the previous this will be considerably easier, however, one must prepare himself for some additional “hardship”.  Changing Profit one of the most ancient institutions, through the redefinition of our material value system, may well equal in number the obstacles of the previous step.

Just to clarify by material value system in this instance I mean the way that, for example, we calculate;  how much a company stock should be valued, how much is the net added value of an industry at the end of its production line, what is the net value of transporting  goods from place A to place B, what is the actual value of a specific service of a Bank or a Consulting Firm, what is the value a mill adds to the price of wheat by transforming it into flour etc.

We need to always be mindful of the fact that what ever is produced has an impact on the environment, the ecosystems, our genes, and the society overall. It is a cost we never calculated before, with some exceptions. Can we really afford to keep ignoring all these parameters? How does it makes sense to allow water demanding cultivations to sprang in areas where water is a scarce resource, and value the product the same as one produced where the environment is impacted minimally?

Profit as an institution is really prehistoric. From the moment our ancestors start to consider the effort needed vs. the reward, in choosing what food to gather/hunt and what not, the institutional segments to build Profit where in place. With the addition of Growth and Money, Profit took a life on its own and infiltrated all socioeconomic theories developed over the millennia, even communism where it was practiced by the state, to reach in its current “selfish” form.  It is exactly this selfishness that we need to alter in a way that profit, at last, takes under consideration the impact it has on the rest of us and the environment. Making profit from cutting down out fins from sharks currently is still acceptable by some societies, as is opium trade profits that sustains revolutionary movements. It is madness and it will have to stop.

So, how we approach the whole change?

First of all we need to redefine the cost of all products using the Human Effort Equivalent (H2E) principal introduced above. To do so we need to define the actual value of the raw materials and the value of the capital needed in addition to the human effort. (Changing the basic principals of our economic theories at this moment in time will pay no dividend and will not affect our decision making hence, I am using the same ones.).

Raw materials can be valued again as products, as do all other elements of any production process and consequently can be measured in H2E but in this case with an additional twist.

All non-renewable raw materials are finite (at least until we build replicators or we achieve space mining) and consequently scarce to a degree. In most cases we know for how long we can keep harvesting them based on the projected consumption trends. It is relatively easy consequently to agree how much we need to “invest” as society in research and development, in order to have an alternative or a replication mechanism ready when they are depleted.  By adding this “cost” in the equation we can calculate the actual value of this material.

On the same subject, I think that, this part of the material’s value should be excluded from local taxation and the accumulated revenue  be divided through a mechanism build within the processes of our global governance body, to research centres around the globe.

Eventually with all the end to end process of every product calculated based on the H2E and the capital already measured against the same standard all one needs adding is the impact to society which will always be both positive and negative to different degrees. To calculate that I am proposing that we use the same 10 elements list as above, and by accessing that as well we are done.

Services now as products are much simpler to calculate as we already have defined how much every work actually “costs” including its social impact. We know as well the material it needs   and we can add that to the total cost as well.  We know finally the energy consumption needed for this service to take shape, which itself as being a product in its own right is no difficult to account for and add its worth to the final total cost.

So we have all cost ingredients (capital, materials/products and services) and all one needs to do is add the applicable elements.

After that we will be ready to estimate profit and that will be a straightforward calculation to make, depending on the method we will decide to use.

This include several options, none of which need to be decided now. Examples can be:

  1. To regulate globally a min and a max profit climax depending on product desirability
  2. To connect the profit margin to the workers remuneration packages. You may recall that we calculated above with relative consistency the value of every work. I never suggested that this should be his payment, so adding to that the same margin the enterprise wants to make as a profit overall may sounds in a lot of people’s ears as fair. However, every application of this type is better to remain with the local governments as it affects taxation levels.
  3. To use a rigid min and max profit margin depending on any other parameters or a combination of them like country’s GDP vs. Global average, scarcity, poverty levels, level of unemployment etc.
  4. Or…we can devise as many as our imagination and our sense of social justice allows us.

Brace yourselves though for a confrontation with all the short sighted ones, those with vested interests in retaining the currents status quo or those that are generally afraid change.

You see, most nations in this post-industrial era with some notable exceptions, those mono-product based economies and China, followed economic services oriented paths. These were build on the belief that services offer better profit margins then industries, they offer more predicted taxation revenue, faster growth and practically no need for subsides. Even nations that could not afford to migrate away from their traditional products followed that path (i.e. Greece). Cheap labour utilisation and the numbers in which it was available fuelled the industrial migration.

Look however in today’s world, which are the strong economies under this capitalistic model, Brazil, Russia, India, Korea and Germany. What do they have in common? Their ratio between the industrial products vs. post industrial era ones is positive. Every nation that lost its balance and moved too soon into the post industrial era has suffered the consequences and currently carries disproportional depts. The notion that capitalism is all about fiat money capital, has proven disastrous and we know it now. (See the terms or banks recapitalisation the EU leaders propose, demanding an increase of the banks’ securities to 9%) But on the other hand high profit margins have been associated even now with growth and countries will find it difficult to move away from this institutionalised idea.

What I am suggesting above is a totally radical and it will force all policy makers and political theorists alike into bringing forward a white paper start again approach.

Ok enough said on the topic, so let us see the benefits of such an alteration.

Well as expected they will be almost unbelievable.

  • Drastic reduction in pollution levels will follow immediately as product prices will be connected to environmental impact. No need for any additional Kyoto like treaties will be needed
  • All non productive functions will gradually disappear boosting this way global growth
  • Unemployment gradually will hit its lowest ever level and with it the benefits cultured that fuelled anti-social behaviour in various countries will be altered for ever
  • Inflation will decline to its lowest level as new mechanism to control it will exist within the system
  • Financially driven migration will be reduced further
  • Human trafficking will become a thing of the past
  • The equal rights charter will be further  enforced
  • Poverty will start to decline rabidly as decision on capital investments will alter course
  • Remunerations at all levels will reflect social and environmental contribution and with it social anger will cease
  • Poaching will stop all together
  • Drug trafficking will reduce further as new legal absorption avenues will open and people will be given realistic alternatives to its cultivation
  • Fiat money will be reduced further as profits from its use will stagnate
  • Research and the open source movements will get all funds needed
  • Pensions crisis will become a thing of the past as amount of people at work will multiply
  • Several major reasons that fuel war will be eliminated and with it weapon fuelled research will be able to contribute to society more
  • Refugee camps will diminish
  • Stability will increase globally and with it capital flow and investments in currently deprived areas
  • Countries GDP will be further rationalised to indicate the nation’s global contribution not just its richness
  • Global institutions will move a step further empowered to make this planet a better place to live

….

Next week we will finish the journey we started five weeks ago and publish the final chapter (Part 5) of the theory.

Until then enjoy life and your weekend and please keep up sending us your comments and suggestions.

S

December 9, 2011

The Politician 2.0 and an introduction to post-Democracy

We established in the previous blog (https://gaianomy.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/do-we-really-need-the-politician/) that the politician as an institution needs to change and together with it, the institutions of the political party and public administration.

Where can we start the change?

Inevitably, we need to evaluate  the probable “futures” we can see, compare these with today’s reality and plan a phased transition from today to the future vision, with the minimum of “allergic” reactions, ideally. Equally important is to agree on the fact that no one solution can fit all, as different nations will start from different systems and institutional forms that support them currently so probably localisation of the principals will be needed.

So, “back to the future” and let us see how our vision of post-Democracy could be defined.

Based on current trends and having excluded several incompatible scenarios we can see it as:

  • A framework allowing  the country’s and the global interests to coexists at least as equal partners
  • An environment whereby political parties are groups of thinkers or citizens-members, an evolution of a think tank in combination with an evolved political party, that will never get into power
  • Whereby politics and public administration are two distinctly different things
  •  An environment where policy making is a process of careful impact analysis on the socioeconomic level within a globalised framework
  • A socioeconomic environment whereby election circles do not exist but instead
  • A process where legislation and policies are approved by the means of a fully electronic process driven by common grounds between the interested non political parties (instead of a majority) and based on impact analysis on both the environmental and social aspects
  • An environment where public administration is run in the background funded by a central independent body that is responsible for the country’s fiscal policies, the socioeconomic analysis needed for decision-making and the allocation of funds
  • A framework where the citizen rules
  • A framework where the economy and the social coexist as equal partners
  • An environment whereby public services/resources  are distributed equally to all
  • An environment that rewards the citizens according to their contribution to society
  • A framework within which taxation forms are related to social and environmental contributions
  • A system where the politician is used only as a representative of the state in global institutions, as foreign policy leaders, diplomats, ambassadors, institutional entrepreneur, and social lobbyists for new policies and maybe as political philosophers if they are up to it

So, how Democracy 1.1 can look like, what the first step can be to start the journey, from where we are, to where we would like to be?

We believe that societies are currently mature enough to:

  • Break the connection between a political party and the country’s  governance
  • Eliminate party vote in favour of the elected individual
  • Separate the politician from the party during elections and vote him on his political manifesto, personal integrity and capability with all of them graded in the vote. When elected they can group into political fractions if they wish
  • Reduce the amount of elected politicians
  • Progress with (or start if not in place yet) the separation between Politics and Public Administration by assigning Undersecretaries and restructure the Public Administration Structure according to real needs
  • Enhance the public consultation principal, by presenting the recommendations of all parties in it as the baseline, for all legislations
  • Give gradually-increased  gravity to public consultation into regulations affecting the majority of the citizens and national policies
  • Transfer to an independent body, away from political groups, the country’s fiscal policy, the socioeconomic analysis needed for decision-making and the allocation of public funds.
  • Reduce the central governance and move responsibility to the periphery
  • Plan for the transition away from Parliaments
  • Change taxation of individuals and enterprises to reflect social and environmental impact
  • Eliminate corruption and crime by introducing the electronic only currency (see relevant articles on the subject)

Then sit back and enjoy!

The Gaianomy think-tank

November 25, 2011

Μια πρόταση για την Ελλάδα (applied gaianomy)

Εις απάντηση πλείστων συναφών ερωτημάτων για την πρακτική εφαρμογή της Gaianomy, ιδού μια από τις προτάσεις που μπορεί να προσφέρει λύση σε ένα από τα συστημικά προβλήματα της Ελληνικής οικονομίας, με μηδενικό πρακτικά κόστος εφαρμογής και μόνη προϋπόθεση μία γενναία πολιτική απόφαση:

Αναρωτιέμαι, εάν κάποιος πρόσφερε μια συνταγματικά ελεγμένη λύση η οποία:

  • θα έδινε από 12 έως 17 δις φόρους επιπλέον κάθε χρόνο
  • θα έριχνε στην αγορά από 30 έως 120 δις και επιπλέον φόρους της τάξεως του ενός τουλάχιστον δις κάθε χρόνο

  • θα εξαφάνιζε την φοροδιαφυγή σχεδόν παντελώς

  • θα μείωνε την ανεργία κατά 5 ποσοστιαίες μονάδες
  • θα εξαφάνιζε παντελώς τον χρηματισμό των δημοσίων λειτουργών

  • θα εξαφάνιζε τα ναρκωτικά από τους δρόμους

  • θα σταματούσε τα περισσότερα από τα εγκλήματα οικονομικής προελεύσεως

  • θα ενίσχυε τα έσοδα του ΙΚΑ κατά 20%

  • θα σταματούσε την παράνομη εργασία

  • θα εξαφάνιζε την επαιτεία

  • θα εξαφάνιζε την τοκογλυφία

  • θα μείωνε την μετανάστευση των Ελλήνων

  • θα εξαφάνιζε την παράνομη μετανάστευση

  • θα μπορούσε να εφαρμοστεί σε λιγότερο από 9 μήνες χωρίς έξοδα για το κράτος

ποιος Πολιτικός η ποιος πολίτης θα τολμούσε να εναντιωθεί στο μέτρο;

Η απαντηση είναι η μετατροπή ΟΛΩΝ ΤΩΝ ΣΥΝΑΛΛΑΓΩΝ ΣΕ ΗΛΕΚΤΡΟΝΙΚΕΣ (ΧΡΕΩΣΤΙΚΕΣ ΚΑΡΤΕΣ) ΚΑΙ Η ΤΕΛΕΙΑ ΚΑΤΑΡΓΗΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΥΛΙΚΗΣ ΜΟΡΦΗΣ ΤΩΝ ΧΡΗΜΑΤΩΝ ΟΠΩΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΩΝ ΕΠΙΤΑΓΩΝ ΣΕ ΟΛΗ ΤΗΝ ΕΠΙΚΡΑΤΕΙΑ.

υγ. Μεταχρονολογημένες συναλλαγές μπορούν να διατηρηθούν μέσω τραπεζών

%d bloggers like this: