Posts tagged ‘Socioeconomics’

May 30, 2013

Music is a tourist magnet for London

Mental associations pie

It is impossible one to escape the complexity of individual desires and that holds true for tourism. People decide to travel, our inherited desires to explore put aside, for a myriad of reasons. You normally want to go where others are going to, where your youth memories is driving you due to the language you studied, the promise you made to yourself when browsing the internet or watching your view-master if you are old enough to remember such a gadget, maybe the promise you gave to your spouse or your children…the list is endless. To add to the complexity most of the times it is the financial situation of this individual or family that dictates priorities and silence your wants.

That said 15.000.000 of you end up in London every single year and wanted to know why. What is exactly that attracting this mythical average visitor to London?

Until recently to contact a global survey one would need the collaboration an institution like the UN an endless list of participating Universities and endless hours of research and analysis from thousand of people.

Thank God now, thanks to the internet there is a technique, that you may heard of, call crowdsourcing which can reduce the amount of effort needed by several thousands times and is as accurate as any if you analyse it using specific mathematical techniques which I will not get into in this instance.

Anyway we did that and for the first time to our knowledge we reveal what are the actual mental associations of that elusive individual the “average London visitor” when he thinks of London.

Studying the results you may be equal surprised with us or not but several point were of interest and I would like to raise them.

  1. A staggering 30% of all tourists are attracted by the various concerts. That doesn’t mean they will go to one of them during their stay but is you were to ask them they would love to. Music is not just one of the biggest industries and exporting products from UK but a major reason people are coming to London.
  2. For some peculiar reason beyond my comprehension to be honest, and I live in UK for the last 18 years, people associate in their minds London with food!
  3. The third reason is one I was expecting to be the first Attractions and Landmarks with one in 10 coming to London with the hope to be visiting all of them if possible.
  4. People love glamour the palaces and the Queen where associated in almost one in 10 individuals. Maybe the resent royal marriage has something to do with it and finally
  5. We encountered here a significant and not easy to understand oxymoron which has to do with shopping and fashion. From one hand only one in every eleven people in our research associated their visit to London with either fashion or shopping on the other hand a recently published report (http://www.retailgazette.co.uk/articles/12104-tourist-spend-in-uk-shops-hits-45bn ) revealed that an unbelievable 81% of all visitors are actually going shopping during their visit in London.

But enough of me, use the chart we attach and draw your own conclusions and please let us know what you think.

The Gaianomy TT

January 21, 2012

Paperless currency, is there a case for implementation?

We wrote already two relevant articles on the subject. In every case, when the articles published, in news sites or linked through general interest sites, the shock of the “radical” change needed appeared to overwhelm a part of the non-familiar with the subject readers, resulting in an avalanche of queries regarding its implementation challenges. The trend was dissimilar with the one we encountered from our regular readers.

It became apparent that the degree of analysis required on a subject is equivalent to its expected benefits.

We write this blog in compliance with this otherwise profound conclusion.

Our regular readers will be aware of why one the major propositions within the Gaianomy framework is the introduction of paperless currencies. For those that the concept is unknown, as a parenthesis, we present briefly some of the potential socioeconomic benefits of a paperless currency system.

  • Eliminates tax evasion (Only in Europe it can ease the taxpayers burden by €1.96 T yearly!)
  • Eliminate practically overnight government corruption and officials’ briberies (current corruption statistics suggest that more then 90% of transactions are made in cash)
  • Reduce drastically money driven street crime (if all money is digital only objects can be stolen which again cannot be exchange for cash)
  • Regulate syndicate managed prostitution and illegal gambling, which primarily operates with cash
  • Reduce within 5 years from its introduction the drug trade by at least 80%. 5 years is the maximum time before the privately owned in any country gold stock, that is practically the only other means of exchange beyond hard currency for drugs, will be depleted. Simultaneously with drugs becoming less on the street by the day, all drug related anti-social behaviour would diminish rapidly (see global statistics on drugs related crime) with the effect reaching some of the route causes of civil wars (see Mexico, Afghanistan etc.)
  • Eliminate the fear of counterfeit money
  • Eliminates all the black markets (at least the 93%)
  • Impact positively on gang cultures as the loss of their operational capital will reduce their attractiveness as alternative to work options
  • Create the conditions to stop illegal economic migration between countries (barter in kind is not enough to sustain illegal migration and no trafficker will accept barter as his remuneration)
  • Eliminate bank robberies
  • Reduce the jails population by at least 35%
  • Reduce reoffending ratios in relation to non-violence crime that are primarily of financial nature
  • Interrupt terrorist group financing channels
  • Stop poaching (Black markets will find it very hard to operate by reverting to other then cash)
  • Last but not least, the links between enterprises, organisations, political parties, public servants and individuals with vested interest in the continuation of the existence of black markets, illegal trade, human trafficking, drug trade, weapons trade, It will immediately be unveiled. It will be easy after that to know whom not to vote in the next election.

You will have to agree, that it is an impressive catalogue of benefits, which societies may ignore to their peril. We see no apparent reason why any government will refuse to implement it. Especially if one considers all the additional positive side effects, the application might have, like: reduction in policing needs, money production and distribution, reuse of the cash handling human resources to more productive economic sectors, the inevitable reintroduction into the economy the proceeds of previous illegal activities, the long term health benefits of the country’s population, the reduction in health spending etc.

Of course as every change in societal level, one must manage such an undertaking carefully and in a socially sensitive way. Based on the feedback we received the major of the challenges identified were:

  • If one country only, implements the paperless currency how can they stop other currencies from “over-spilling” through its borders?
  • Will the cost of policing, the implementation, will exceed the benefits?
  • What will happen with the tourists?
  • How technophobic and elderly will adjust?
  • How the less educated will avoid overspending?
  • How one may address fraud in its usual forms?
  • How the banks will react to the additional stress on their systems and services from the additional amount of transactions?
  • In case of the county’s communications networks going down, how transactions can continue?
  • What the implementation cost will be?
  • How a country should avoid phenomenon of people hiding their currency during the transition period, which will feed later on the black markets once more?
  • Does it need constitutional changes?
  • In case of a country, like Greece that is a part of the EU does it need EU approval?

Lets take them one a at a time.

“Over spilling”: The ways to, illegally, import currency are known and involve mainly smuggling either through the customs or through the borders. In the case of the European Union where boarders do not really exist and people can transfer with them any amount of money without any checks.

To counter the risks a country ought to: (a) introduce a comprehensive law where all risks are addressed and for all possible bridging attempts, the law enforcement units have a “weapon” (b) transfer all fiscal benefits from the implementation of the system to the people in order to transform them into guardians of the institution (c) introduce punishments severe enough to be respected (d) offer sufficient rewards for compliance and uncovering illegal transactions (e) offer at the points of entry an easy to use and effective system of transferring currencies into paperless forms either by prepaid debit cards or by links to direct debit facilities or mobile solutions without additional cost to the bearer.

We calculated that a period of 5 years would be enough to reach a compliance level exceeding 93%.

Cost of policing the implementation: As already mentioned above, one should design the system in a way that society owns responsibility for its diachronic success. No level of policing can substitute that. Hence, our proposition seeks the people’s endorsement primarily and its government bodies secondary. In support to the societal “neighbourhood watch” one should add, of course, intelligent controls into people’s transactions whereby “broken” trails, amounts they cannot be justified, within the country and outside of it, are flagged.

 

What will happen with the tourists:  We covered this in the two previous replies

How technophobic and elderly will adjust: Technophobia is one of the manifestations of resistance to change. As Habermas would put it interest drives actions. What we are proposing as a resolution, and feel free to add to it, is to counteract resistance through benefits and ease of use. We know for example that the fear of being mugged is higher than the fear of pressing a button on your mobile or typing a pin or placing your finger on a sensor. There are so many user-friendly technologies today that the probability of a nation finding no solution to cover the need of this niche group is remote

How the less educated will avoid overspending: Well this one is simple. In every transaction, the system can give them the remaining available credit similarly, to what today the cash dispensers are able to do.

How one may address fraud in its usual forms: Well this is a very large subject. Fraud will always exist but this time it has just one option to be electronic. This however is a backdrop for the fraudsters as every transaction will be recorded and traceable. We analysed all of the “usual suspects” and in every case we found a way to counteract it. We look forward to suggestions from you for cases where someone may get hold of your money without leaving a trail.

How the banks will react: We believe extremely positively. You see, for the banks collecting the taxes, on behalf of the state, and paid for it, is not something we see them objecting to. The states on the other hand have more then enough benefit from the reduction of personnel needed, the immediate collection of the VAT and the benefits deriving from the counteracting of systematic tax evasion that willingly will pay enough to compensate the banks. Finally, the potential stress on their systems and services from the additional amount of transactions is not even an issue for modern technology.

If the county’s communications networks going down: The probability of this happening to a wider region due to the inherited redundancy of today’s communication networks is negligible and in any case one will be equally able to utilise the mobile network infrastructure or any other wireless network for that reason. Al technologies for this to happen are both existing and mature.

What the implementation cost will be:  According to our calculations, anything between $35 to $350 per transaction point, which is negligible and can be, possibly, financed by the participating banks and the mobile operators.

People hiding their currency during the transition period: We expect phenomena of this type to appear, however diachronically as all research in the field of institutions suggests will disappear. We see as being part of the 3 to 7% inefficiency we predict in the system, but definitely more research may be needed. Bottom line is we do not really see this as an issue if all measures described above are in place.

Does it need constitutional changes: None in the team is a constitutional-law expert. As a matter of interest, we tested the proposition’s compliance against the Greek constitution and we found no evidence of the opposite

In case of a country, like Greece that is a part of the EU does it need EU approval? There is no prior experience, due to the novel nature of the idea, but knowing the way EU operates we think that the answer should be yes. Will they oppose? We very much doubt it. Will they delay an implementation attempt, most probably? Nevertheless, we definitely believe they will succumb to the propositions strong arguments eventually.

January 14, 2012

The 12 Olympian Gods and the Hierarchy of Societal Needs

Mythological stories always fascinated me.  Listening about the gods and the heroes was my favourite hour, in the elementary school, in antithesis with history. Not that initially I was able to distinguish between myth and history. To history’s credit, it had battles heroes and kings and the Greeks were always the winners, but something was lacking. Myths appear to be always so much better as stories, then the “boring” history.

I will return home every afternoon, with my mind full of new stories to tell to my poor mother, who patiently will sit next to me and listen. I thought she could never distinguish the actual story from my “additions”.

I never became the hero I always wanted to and the nearest I came to these gods was be climbing mount Olympus and allowing my fantasy to act as augmented reality, there is no app for that yet.

The study of Christianity that followed in consequent years (compulsory back then) took away all the Olympian glamour and forged into my mind a new belief, that one god is better then twelve. There were no more stories for my relieved mother. There was no glamour anymore just suffering, a very different perspective of life.

It took me another 30 years or so, to realise that there was no so much difference after all between monotheism and polytheism. Both of them were there to cover human existential needs, both of them represented a different but not dissimilar philosophy of life and both of them, theology aside, were social institutions designed subconsciously (primarily) and as such build to order, to serve specific societal needs.

At last I had the answer that was lurking at the back of my mind for so many years, “why one is better the twelve” and I realised that based at least on the third perspective the institutional one, that the Greeks and the rest of the monotheism-bounded humanity got it wrong!

I realised as well how difficult the transition must have been and why even now these old religions still have proponents. Beliefs and spirituality aside, it is the social institutions and what they represent what keeps them alive.

I came across yesterday, while cleaning my folders, an image of the twelve gods and exactly next to it, the jpg file with the Hierarchy of Societal Needs. It did not took long before curiosity overwhelmed rational and “in the name of science”  I started to explore the needs, institutionally wise, the twelve gods were designed to cover if mapped against the Hierarchy of Societal Needs (HoSN).

It was a bizarre, to say the least exercise, but then again something that to my knowledge none attempted before which by itself, as every scientist will tell you, was justification enough.

It did not take long after that to find what every one of the twelve gods was representing to my ancestors and map it against the HoSN.

Having read so, far I bet you will be wondering what was different back then. Well it depends upon your expectations.

For one their gods were there, primarily, to cover for all their uncertainties, all their fears and everything else their science could not explain. (See highlighted in yellow the institutions covered from the 12 Olympians).

The socioeconomic framework was there in all its glory, so it was nationalism. All four basic-needs levels namely survival, coherence, progress and prosperity where to a degree represented.

The interest though, some to my surprise, was that:

  • They did not fear about having work or not, they all had!
  • They did not care (fear) that much, about money and currencies and the most important was that they show no need for “wealth as a mean” so, no prayer was spared to gods for gold and riches. Harvest yes, “prosperity” yes but riches was not in demand.
  • Diplomacy and Politics were totally absent from their fears list
  • Banks as well, were absent (as expected?) and so were “Services”
  • Immigration was not an issue nor was Social Integration… slavery was doing an excellent job
  • They did not have any type of complex civil services so they did not have to create a god to protect them from bureaucracy… lucky people!
  •  …
  • And the most important they were at ease with war as an integral part of life!

That last one, to be honest, spoiled the whole image because, I have to admit, until then I was tempted to, triumphantly, declare that my ancestors were wiser then us.

As usual, I leave enough for you to conclude on your own.

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 29, 2011

The Economy and the Societal Needs (Part 1)

Ask anyone what the economy means to him or her and you will receive a different answer. Economy is a discourse for quite a while now.  For the North Korean farmer economy finds its meaning in securing the survival of his family and he is organising his life accordingly. For the foreign exchange trader in the City of London economy is a profit exploitation framework satisfying through it his prosperity needs. Putting the extremes aside though, until now none to our knowledge, has ever explored how humanity utilises the economy and what are the needs it tries to cover.

If you are a regular visitor of our blog, you may immediately understand the potential benefits deriving from such an analysis, for the newcomer though it makes sense to put the horse before the car and explain what the problem was, the solution of which is our research.

Politics, you see, is a discourse on its own right, which by the way we are in the process of deconstructing as we did with the economy. Defining it loosely, it was until today, the art of “explaining” to the masses, using normally a political in conjunction with an economic theory, the degree of accuracy in interpreting the nation’s needs and a “justification” for the strategies used.

However, until a month or so ago, neither hierarchy of societal needs nor an actual deconstruction of the economy existed rendering all the explaining and the justification anything between an inaccurate “science” to a plain fiction,  if you were a cynic. That was simply the problem and our hope is to contribute towards transforming the art into actual science.

Of course, we are still a few months away from the point whereby we would be able to analyse specific countries but the power of Synthetic Institutionalism (http://bit.ly/s0Q4hK) in conjunction with our constantly increasing mental-association analysis toolkit provide us with plenty of optimism.

For the time being, we are pleased to be able to offer you an initial mapping of the Economy substructures against the pyramid of societal needs (http://bit.ly/upeNTq) we presented at an earlier stage. Enjoy!

December 24, 2011

Synthetic Institutionalism (in under 3 min) A guest blog from one of our Gaianomy members

When it comes to institutional analysis, there are three schools of thought, sociological institutionalism, rational-choice institutionalism, and historical institutionalism. (J. Mahoney and K.  Thelen 2010 & Hall and Taylor 1996), all of which “compete” in academic literature trying to explain institutional evolution and change.

I went through all of them over the last five years while developing my theory and to my amazement; they turn at the end all to be right to a large degree, despite the discourse.

The part that was missing, I believe, thus far was the use of the right type of maths (and not statistics).  The approach I used adds this component. However, this is only half of the story because, in order for all three to be simultaneously right, they should be interrelated pieces of a bigger puzzle (my theory). Consequently allowing myself a dose of arrogance, I will claim that I managed to unify the three theories into one. Provided I am not, just another mislead arrogant but the actual founder of this theory, (knowledge of all published papers globally is practically impossible) I would like to call it Synthetic.

Now to the point…institutions are social structures. By being a part of the overall social system, they obey its rules. That means that behaviourally wise, they can be analysed using the complex adaptive systems theories.  To my knowledge, this is the first attempt to follow this profound otherwise thought-path.

Practically all of them (the institutions) evolved in the beginning under the influence of primeval instincts. Over time, the most resilient of these institutions, evolved into “axiomatic” sub-structures or institutional components, while all other combinations dissolve.

The fashion according to which this happened can, simplistically, be presented as:

At the same time we know that social structures according to the complex systems theory ought to be synthesised by smaller components (hence the complex). In this case, the components are none else but the axiomatic sub-structures connected together in various ways and over several generations of evolutionary synthesis to, eventually, create the complex institutions we recognise today.

In addition we know as well that these components the sub-structures, genealogically speaking, are themselves institutions as they affect behaviour. The way they synthesise, across all their evolutionary stages, obeys the complex adaptive systems rules with the links between them being of variable strength.

Based on the two above principals we can easily conclude that: simpler institutions assemble into complex ones by linking between them in fractal ways and this is the founding principal behind synthetic institutionalism.

Interestingly, due their social origin, the links that hold the sub-structures together can be nothing else but institutionalised mental associations (Occam’s razor). It goes beyond saying that the stronger these associations are the more resilient the construct, which by the way offers an answer to the “structure and agency” perceived complex relation uncertainty of the current theories.

Change (evolution or devolution) of these structures (the centre point of the discourse so far),  occurs in three different ways: (a) by adding one more institution (sub-structure) in an already existing one (i.e. “googling” an addition to “research”) and which by the way explains emergence, (b) by changing the nature of one of the constituting sub-structures (i.e. post-digital “photography”) or (c) by eliminating one of sub-structures all together (i.e. hunter-gathering from “economy”). For this last one of course to happen, the link(s) holding it in place should be weak enough, at that moment in time.

So, there you have it. Instincts make institutions, which drive behaviours, which create more institutions, which synthesise by means on mental associations (of the actors) into new  more complex ones,  the constant (gradual or radical) change of which contributed in us all having an interesting life… and from now on, the mathematicians and institutional analysts happiness.

My Apologies to two of my favourite scholars, Colin Hay and Daniel Wincott that so passionately thus far argued the case against synthetic institutionalism.

Next time if your problem is Unemployment or Corruption or the Markets or even Economy and you want to change it forget the politicians and call one of us …. to be continued.

Sotiris Melioumis Organisational Analyst

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

December 6, 2011

Do we really need the Politician?

A politician, political leader, or political figure (from Greek “polis“) is an individual who is involved in influencing public policy and decision-making you will read in Wikipedia.

He is, according to online dictionaries, also:

  • An expert in politics or political  government
  • A person who is active in party politics
  • A person who holds a political  office
  • A person skilled in political  government or administration; a statesman or stateswoman.
  • As well as a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favour or retaining power than about maintaining principles and if I may add
  • A professional

As a “species”, they exist in all social environments and all type of government “models”. They exist in organisations, formal institutions, unions and other social forms.

They are a part of the reality we created for ourselves, the people we pay as societies to give us hope, to transform history into fiction, to deceive us in believing in the art of the impossible.

Almost certainly at the end of each “episode”,  we call election cycle, they will be those that will receive our anger and hatred, become our excuse, our little trick to evade personal responsibility the “actors” we can blame for all things wrong in the society.

Seeing it from this perspective, one may even sympathise with them and question why they do it.  Well, all research in the field suggest that they enter politics for a mixture of reasons but mainly ideological in combination with power seeking, family tradition, vanity, personal indulgence and of course money with the degree varying for each one of them.

It is a tough job we have to admit, a 24/7 one. Do you want to be doing it? I doubt it. Neither do I.

This however is only part of the story, because if you stop perceiving the Politician as person but as a notion, a societal necessity, then the Politician is transformed into a social behavioural pattern and as such an institution!

Mainstream Institutional analysis suggests that every institution (every behavioural pattern) evolved or emerged from something else and according to the Gaianomy Theory is an assembly of other more fundamental and inevitably more ancient institutions.

So what exactly gave “birth” to the Politician?

It is not so hard after all to imagine. If we start from the first tribe settlement in Africa, to a the villages in Mesopotamia, To Egypt, to the kingdoms of East and middle East,  to the city states in ancient Greece, to middle age states to today countries and unions we can draw a functional path that this institution had to follow. Add to that, elements from the newly developed Hierarchy of Societal Needs pyramid and …presto.

Leadership, kingship, the elders council…taxation, polis, state, economy, tradition, religion, army…law, legislation… aristocracy, public servant, public administration, democracy, representative, union leader…diplomacy… trade… to name the major ones all contributed.

Now, stop and contemplate. If I was giving you all of the above institutions and was asking you to synthesise them in all possible ways you may probably in between all others found one with the characteristics a Politician as well, the question is though would you keep it as a viable model?

Is this institution really, what we expect of the politician today? What is the ideal model you have in mind? Of course, different countries have different approaches and possibly different requirements but let us take the average democratic state.

What the people expect our politician to be doing?

  • Have a political philosophy
  • Be knowledgeable and educated
  • Know in depth public administration
  • Know how the real economy really works
  • Being able to legislate
  • Be moral enough to care and defend the interests of the citizens in his constituency
  • Be a good negotiator
  • Be a good diplomat
  • Understand the basics in economics and resource management

Probably you expect all of the above to a degree.

Does he necessary have to be?

  • A CEO
  • An Organisational Analyst
  • An expert in HRM
  • An expert in Resource Optimisation
  • An expert in Process Optimisation
  • An expert in Economic Design
  • An expert in Organisational Modelling
  • An expert in Public Health Management
  • A Strategy Consultant
  • A Management Senior Consultant
  • An expert in Risk Management
  • An expert in Constitutional Law
  • An expert in Globalisation
  • An expert in Commerce & Trade
  • An expert in Finance & Banking
  • An Investment Senior Consultant maybe
  • A Supply Chain Senior Consultant
  • An Institutional Analyst

I bet, that your answer will be no and you will be right.

However, this is exactly what a modern democracy operating under capitalism or capitalism bounded socioeconomic models, is demanding /expecting of them and we close our eyes in the obvious fact that they just cannot do it. They may hire consultants and analysts to advise them, but themselves very rarely understand even remotely the basics and based on their nature end up with the wrong decisions most of the times.

Look around, with all countries in debt, several countries and Unions desperately trying to save their economies from collapse, the global fiscal policies in total disarray, decisions that ought to take hours taking  months instead, unemployment in its highest in all Western economies…..

What we ask from our politicians, they cannot deliver. (Full stop)

Having someone to blame is always a good thing but, we are in a very gray area currently and we jeopardise the future of the next generation not to mention the planet. You cannot have an omelette without breaking eggs. Is it not time to see things for what they are and grow up?

If you see a country as a Business, the way The Markets do, I wonder, is there a place for the Politician, the Political Party, the Public Administration of the 20th century pre- Markets world or we need to alter these institution and with them the Democracy framework that supports them into something different, something more 21st century?

%d bloggers like this: