Norman Macrae Youth Foundation NMYF -net of The Economist's pro-youth economist
Who's Capitalism Who? In the battle to slay phony capitalism, there seem to be Type 1 Capitalism movements - eg around Soros) that are trying to get hi-trust economists reform themselves by asking youth to help change the curriculum and Type 2 capitalisms that claim to represent people's desire to change the world round socially sustainable goals. Help us search out who is governing these models
Type 2.1 The Yunus-Mackey Branch (takes over from social capital chapters 2.5 with conscious capitalism and more explicit desire to see the model )
Type 2.2 The Yunus-Turner-Nobel laureate branch linking capital cities committing to co-create million youth jobs and help youth edit and action millenniums greatest collaboration goals ( replaces microcreditsummit as number 1 millennium goal summit between 1997-2012)
Type 2.3 The Youth Summit Branches inspired by bottom-up investment practice leaders and specifically identifies funds and decision-making led by youth
Type 2.4 The Yunus-Skoll-Drayton Branch (tries to reform the muddles that social entrepreneurs without sustainable/scaleable models got into). This muddle was first exposed around 2003 by 16 dvd set that skoll sponsored and Drayton distributed. Skoll has since gone on to host 10 world championships out of Oxford 2004-2013
Type 2.5 The Yunus-Weber (Fast Company) Branch (from 1999 social capital, cluetrain meets intercity debating chapters). This branch also rode the fence between what Drucker meant by knowledge-coworkers and the false models of knowledge management that spread like topsy as built to flip models of the dotcom age misvalued techology over human community
Type 2.6 Chinese Open Tech Branches
Type 2.7 African ILAB and Free University branches
Type 2.8 Berners Lee Open Tech branches and MIT Open Education branches that have now twinned with San Francisco MOOC and Khan-AC models
Type 1.1 The Soros Open Society and INET branch
rsvp firstname.lastname@example.org if you have another branch for us to linkin to
We define capitalism as transparent mapping systems designs compounding the future of next generation's lifetimes out of places around our planet.
We define phony capitalism as system that make opportunities to lead productive lives worse for a place's next generation.
So how do people free themselves to connect future capitalism that values the successful parental trait of our species of wanting to see progress so that lour children have more opportunities than our generation. And with such extraordinary technology we have today, what sorts of capitalism can make the first net generations the most productive and sustainable time for youth all over the planet http://www.wholeplanet.tv
OPENLY VALUING THE FUTURE"S HISTORY
If you turn the clock back to the late 1700s , 99% of people barely eeked out a living while 1% (kings, priests, their armies and administrators) capitalised on everyone else. Moreover unless you lived near a water transport system , life for most people was very local (typical humans moved less than 20 miles form where they were born). This put a handful of local rulers in power over everyone else.
Then some places grew a lot richer while others didnt. The industrial revolution provided engines that could do thousand times more work than man and horsepower. But this depended on at least two things - designing infrastructures (city and transport revolution) and extracting carbon and other resources. Industrial revolution capitalism's problem was that it tended to be a zero-sum game one places' people only gained from extracting from other place's .
World Wars started. Governments started spending 20% of their people's lifetimes (through taxes on arms). Before these world wars -most economists seem to have been aluni of Adam Smith's purpose which was to debate true capitalism's challenge of how do we improve a next generation's lot out of each place. After these world wars -and as television advertising became the most top-down medium man had ever designed - more and more economists seem to have hire their modelling out to 1% of speculators and others whose short-term measures of success specifically excluded sustaining the next generation. Economics started to become phony -a trap that the concluding chapters of both Keynes General Theory and Essays in Persuasion provide full and clear warning of democracies needing to preven
Then computing networks came along -could the post-industrial revolution save the day as the capability to interconnect started to double as fast as moore's law's progress of the capacity of the silicon chip. The first amazing consequence was the science fiction of the space race. But how about improving sustainabilities of communities all over the planet. Knowhow multiplies value in use unlike the industrial age consuming up of things. A borderless age where communications cost is not primarily a function of distance makes the siloised idea of separated nations ever more risky. And apps once programmed can digitally replicate in borderless fashion. This ought to make peoples want to map man-made systems in line with nature's systems which are also primarily bottom-up and open
This is the 42nd year that who read Entrepreneurial Revolution genre in The Economist have debated such future models. For example the whole movement of social entrepreneurship coined in 1978 was stimulated by The Economist's debates. So our service models of intrapreneurship. So are net generation models of value exchange mapping
What we havent got is coherent curriculum of these pro-youth futures of capitalism. This is partly because we have as yet failed to transform education models to a post-industrial age. A discussion of the 20 Freedoms will show other conflict barriers which top-down rulership and silosation has so far put in the way of valuing bottom-up and open multi-win models of valuing society and business.
There are now at lest 20 variants of capitalism being debated. But we suggest that 1) true capitalism models should be converged wherever possible; their goals should take transparent account of the transformation context the first net generations need to wholly value if our human race is to sustain 7 billion people; that if a model cannot show how it impacts every market sector to search out the most fit purpose for next generations out of every community then it has no way of proving that it wont end up drifting into phony capitalism
CEO INVITATION TO BENCHMARK THE FUTURE'S MOST SUSTAINABLE BRANDS WITH: