Norman Macrae Youth Foundation NMYF -net of The Economist's pro-youth economist
Nature is simple but loves integration of details- egotistical men are complex and should never be accredited with a monopoly for examining your children
One way to test who never to rule over your next generation's mindsets is if they quote (exactly the wrong way round) something adam smith said on moral sentiments or never letting the state (or anyone) monopolise how to grade youth. It is to be hoped that adam smith's top 30 hi-trust system lessons will find worldwide access on a platform like khan academy. The 4th Norman Macrae Remembrance party debated this idea at Glasgow University the home of Adam Smith scholars and with the french guardians of what the word Entrepreneur has meant since French alumni of Smith coined it to start the 19th century.
Mathematicians who brand a foolish analogy waste more peoples' time than anyone knows how to account for. When chaos theorists teased that a butterfly flapping its wings in the amazon can change the other side of the planet, they missed a chance of propagating one of the most important lessons (linked to 20th C greatest failures of leadership and biggest top-down decision-making) impacting our species evolution. It would have been wiser to have connected the story with that of the last 3 pages of keynes general theory. The uneconomical economist - said keynes- exponentially destroys youth futures because increasing tall human beings (especially youth's futures) are trapped in whatever systems economist design and exponentially spin
Tell us your stories of uneconomical economists and system designers. Some literaly hire themselves out to those who wish 1% of people to monopolise the world's. However much more complex are those alumni at any particular time believe they are doing good. They come in all sorts of egotistical motivations starting with such geniuses as
Sachs (book Idealist) (a child prodigy, digested harvard economics of the 1970s as if there was one hundred per cent right way of designing everything - swung violently from every big unanticpated consequence of his own work including - saving Bolivia from becoming a failed state but at a huge social cost, failing to give Poland or Russia the negotiating advice they needed to mend trust on both sides of iron curtains, wasting 120 million dollars on millennium villages by failing to understand economists cant prescribe anything without (between cultures) peace being planted in such ways as Gandhi and Mandela did)
Porter- his 1980s work on value chains was disastrous because it analysed from to-p-up and externalisation view that were then programmed into spreadsheet networks and used by the worst sort of american lawyer to sack ceos who didnt make the most extractive and vicious decisions; he also offered no total intangible way of mapping exponnentials, win-wins and transparent conflict resolution (this could have eg been integrated in what hamel and prahalad alumni called brand architecture except that perversely brand didnt appear in Porter's 2000 pages of strategy - so nor did intangibles valuation crises. These days Porter has tried to set the record straight but his 1990s strategies for countries (eg Portugal as a test case of EU) were as disastrous egotistical as sachs.
RIGHT OLD MUDDLE
Some of those who knew Porter now have the most edgy models - we are not going to publicly name them here in case those whose MBA mindsets are dominated by 1980s Porterian logics take offence at their own need to unleaning tangible porter