discussing what impossible becomes possible transformation embassy of france would like to celebrate while yunus testifies to US congress fall11 (see last fall's invitations from congress attached)
To: "christopher macrae" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Thanks ! I was happy that we had the opportunity to host MIT gala.
I will come back to you on after having had a chance to read journals of social business.
Jean-François BOITTIN,Ministre conseiller pour les affaires économiques et financières
Service Économique Régional de Washington Ambassade de France aux États-Unis
since at monday June 6 meeting with M Boittin, we are talking to one of france's 3 most influentially connected economists I would like to ask him to help specify what we friends of youth and yunus in america and round-world (and embassy of france) do during yunus congress visit, and before and after
ever since congress last september voted to hear from yunus as youth's genius economist my family and friends have seen his congress visit -fall 2011 - as america's last best chance to change economics - something obama came to power on here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzEajBQ9gmQ and then never did enact, quite possibly because of the fatal error of feeling he owed the clintons healthcare reform before economics (job creation banking) reform
changes to economics that are needed for 2010s to be youths most productive decade all round the world are clear to anyone who has read and truly interacted round my dad's 1984 script at anytime in the last 27 years; only france in developed nation has rediscovered how to invite youth to sustain entrepreneurial revolution while also changing the names og the game such as E-G8 and microeconomic G25
look mathematically at any famous economists' usa discourse and they (their overarching system) are still talking about the politics of disinvesting in youth; my dads's 1962 book "sunshades in october" itself a sequel to "london capital market" warned that the then new breed of macroeconomists was rapidly becoming youth's greatest enemy, something that Keynes general theory had also forewarned as a possibility once powers that be realised that structure of economics systems - not democratic systems per se - ultimately condition everything else that human behaviour stochastically does -including the huge risks it compounds the less critical information top people free in time for all 7 billion of us to make sense of what to innovate as death of distance makes us boudaryless as value exchangers
; wall street 2008 is just one dismal example of 46 years of compounding the same fatal conceit of too-much top-down and behind closed doors need to know, instead of community rsiing and let knowhow openly multiply value in use
the opportunity of service economies - not yet understood by thing-age american strategists (worst of which reside at business schools like harvard) is to empower people not to boss them -norman 1982 http://www.normanmacrae.com/intrapreneur.html
the economic opportunity of knowledge networking age is to open source way above zero sum models (Norman biography of von neumann) - yunus tragedy is that there is no worldwide model for quality certifying an open idea
so maybe the partnering process we urgently need to blend before and after embassy dc yunus roundtable is less about thinking who should attend the roundtable with yunus and more about how to discover and write up a guide to the 20 most exciting new economics projects the world of youth can network in 2010s
example of Boittin connections
Meaning of DSK: Thanks to then Embassy of France to the U.S. Minister-Counselor for Economic Affairs, and now recently returned Embassy Minister of Finance, Jean-Francois Boittin, I met Dominique Strauss-Kahn for a one-on-one meeting in 1998. Boittin, working single-handedly to correct my over-familiarity with Asia by a productive junket to Paris, said "You must experience Strauss-Kahn; there is no one else like him in France, and perhaps the world."
As France's Finance Minister, when I met him, Strauss-Kahn had emerged in the French Socialist party as its leading, sometimes reluctant, sometimes bullish globalist. Europe was hard-charging into deepening its internal arrangements, and Strauss-Kahn had helped engineer technically and politically his nation's forfeiture of the French franc and the embrace of the Euro.
But Strauss-Kahn was never a manic neoliberal nor is he what financier George Soros derisively calls a "market fundamentalist." Strauss-Kahn, even when we discussed his views of the global economy in 1998, was a storm of contradictions that nonetheless made sense.
He could see deeper global economic dependencies growing and simultaneously increasing the speed and scale of financial transactions but in contrast to the U.S. ruling triumvirate of Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers and Alan Greenspan, Strauss-Kahn believed in healthy and robust regulation and monitoring. Strauss-Kahn has always been concerned about the human and national victims of an amoral global economic order.
In 1998, Strauss-Kahn said that there was much to admire in what was happening in the U.S. with the boom in information technology and the inspirational aspects of what President Clinton was trying to sell as benign U.S.-led globalization, but Strauss-Kahn feared that America was blind to the downsides of economic deepening around the world and needed to be careful of turning globalization into a religion.
In so many ways, Dominique Strauss-Kahn's thoughts were highly prescient about the instabilities being cooked into an evolving global economic system in which manic deregulation and the triumph of markets were going to bring serious challenges.
Strauss-Kahn has long been the living embodiment of an ideological hybrid between Milton Friedman and Joseph Stiglitz, two antagonists profiled in journalist Michael Hirsh's Capital Offense: How Washington's Wise Men Turned America's Future Over to Wall Street. And this is what the highly regulated world of French socialist-capitalism needed, and also what the world needed and got when Strauss-Kahn became Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund.
Given the global financial crisis of 2009 and the many foreshocks of that crisis that have been brewing around the world in earlier years, the IMF -- if to survive -- needed someone who would be able to convince the new growing major economies like Brazil, China, Turkey, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and India that the IMF could partner with their aspirations and regional financial needs rather than be a rival to them. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, during his tenure at the IMF, has largely achieved this and helped steer the institution and the world through the rough currents of large scale financial deleveraging.
At the inaugural meeting of the Institute for New Economic Thinking, co-founded by George Soros, held at King's College in Cambridge, England where John Maynard Keynes used to reign, Strauss-Kahn spoke as one of the keynote speakers. As his remarks began, anti-IMF protesters had broken into the hall and hung a banner over the stage in front of 200 or so surprised economic thinkers and writers. I was in the second row and snapped the picture at the side, which I quickly fed to Arianna Huffington who in turn had it up as the lead on Huffington Post in about three minutes.
What followed was magnificent. Strauss-Kahn showed no fear at all of these protesters whom he engaged in discussion. He asked them to make clear their concerns -- to use his stage to articulate their core fears and demands and make this time that they had taken count. Unfortunately, the folks hanging the banner were not those most intellectually in tune with the protest and they ran off after he asked them to speak. I communicated with the protest leaders later and have no doubt that they would have done well in responding to Strauss-Kahn, but the key then is that he actually did think they should be heard and that the elite who had assembled in Keynes' former halls should not forget the voices of those worried about the impact of global economic policy making. It was a powerful moment, deftly managed by Strauss-Kahn.
Strauss-Kahn's latest IMF patient has been Greece, helping it to work through its debt nightmares. Virtually everyone gives the IMF Director high marks for his ability to keep in mind human faces when sorting through and dealing with the tough disciplines wrought by globalization.
I know nothing of Strauss-Kahn's rumored aggressiveness towards women and think that President Nicolas Sarkozy is right that he should be presumed innocent until the charges against him for sexual battery are sorted out. Nouriel Roubini has publicly speculated that it can't be discounted that this may be some sort of a set up. I won't speculate one way or another as I think at the time of this writing, none of us know the truth of what did or didn't happen.
What is clear is that Strauss-Kahn, who is one of the few major economic gladiators in the world to defend the rights and privileges of people, is human himself. We sometimes forget that.
all errors in transmission are mine alone :: chris macrae
DC 1-301 881 1655 skype chrismacraedc
es of Keynes General Theory interest me. There Keynes explicitly warns that the greatest danger to the future of youth are elderly macroeconomists. He makes it clear that :increasingly the world is rule only by economists.., ie economists design futureshe asks what if most economists ever started hiring themselves out to those who would extract from the past rather than sustain the futureMy dad was one of the last to be mentored directly by Keynes. Dad saw no value whatsoever in economists who were unable to design futures that invested in the next generation. Ironically today we enjoy a millions times more collaboration technology than when man race to the moon but many nations are not investing in how youth could be productive with that because elders have invested in things (and systems) that went bust instead of openly multiplying trust the way win-win models in knowledge economies needed to do. Its worth remembering that knowledge has an abundancy that multiplies value in use unlike things that get consumed up. That's why when dad first saw students testing early digiital networks in 1972 he spent the rest of his time debating the genre Entrepreneurial Revolution - how to design systems so that 2010s became worldwide youth's most productive and sustainable time. He was well aware that if we did not transform beyond zero-sum 20th century economics of big gets bigger we would end up on Orwell's big brother trajectory.In real mathematics , you design systems by making core principles transparent. One of dad's most basic principles was a place cannot grow unless capital structure families' intergenerational savings towards next generation's productivity out of that place. Look at 99% of so-called economists on your nightly news who devalue that principle in every piece of advice they give. Would Keynes sack all of them?Join us at linkedin if you are an alumni of Worlds' Best Course
nt of The Economist and pro-youth economics and education…
4 years ago
Muhammad Yunus discusses social business potential of Orphan Drugs. These are life-saving medicines and innoculations whose patent holders say they cannot be affordably marketed …
learning at world's number 1 epicentre of innovation
Active 4 years ago
grameencredit is benchmark model for all end poverty banking systems, and indeed all ban…
Probable Truth -respond below if you have other clues
when yunus tried to rause a debate on future capitalism late 2007, gates me tooed with a lot of noise on what he called creative capitalism destroying attentiuon to the issues yunus wanted youth and Obama to question- since then yunus has given up trying to help advanced nations sort out their economic muddles though his ceo alumn john mackey holds the fort at conscious capitalism
If you find these short yunus videos useful ask for a free copy of our 10000 youth dvd -how can we get this content out to moocs and other open education platforms millions of youth need to know and action
Are billionnaires efficient at ending poverty
Active 3 years ago
Active 3 years ago
http://erworld.tv 1984+25 after 25 years of macroeconomics compounding lose-lose-lose ris…
ducation systems before
2020s when more computer brains AIDemocracy.com webbed the word than human capital
email@example.com :: GAIIB.com -Girls AI-Infra-Bank: twitter lists of ObamaUniv :: linkedin UNwomens :: WASHINGTON DC whatsapp HOTLINE (USA +1 240 316 8157
In 1984 our family wanted to timeline little sisters maps mobilising sustainability worldwide altogether opposite to Orwell's Big Brother- download chapters from
The 2025 Report by firstname.lastname@example.org and The Economist's 20th C end poverty sub-editor Norman Macrae
chapter 20x chapter 1 chapter 2 chapter 3 part 1 chapter 3 part 2 chapter 4 chapter 5 chapter 6 chapter 7 chapter 8 chapter 9 chapter 10 chapter 11 part 1 chapter 11 part 2 chapter 12 chapter 13 chapter 14 chapter 15 chapter 16 chapter 17 chapter 18 chapter 19 chapter 21
changing education - most exciting examples new to us in 2019: help our associates worldrecordjobs.com womenuni.com EconomistDiary.com Universityofstars.tv find more, and vote for what to add at the lists and tweets and media of @obamauni
ne valuable as a world leading economist - let alone a leader of social enterprise networks or youth job creation movements - UNLESS they/you advocate peacemaking as a primary school curriculum? 2 1 0
City Montessori School (CMS)
-peculiarly (interesting as a YouthCreativeLab because India and bangladesh have hundreds of thousand of village montessori schools (legacies from gandhi, montessori, more recently Paulo Freire) including those of WISE’s inaugural job creating education laureate sir fazle abed founder BRAC- but very few in capitals - CMS is the largest school in the world (4800 children’s parents in Lucknow vote for it); started by one mum and dad and sustained by several daughters of the gandhi family
more BRAC references 1 2
125 Years Ago @ The Future’s Crossroads of Gandhi and Mandela
- East and South Peaceful Entrepreneurial Revolution movements
Primarily CMS aims to honor Mahatma Gandhi’s legacy in every child’s mind and future livelihood - it was Gandhis conclusion while trying to mediate interacial peace in the South Africa of the 1890s that he could only peacefully transform the Indian subcontinent beyond English colonisation by innovating a whole new schools curriculum which Maria Montessorri most helped him with at the primary school level; at the teenage apprenticeship level his communal ashrams were his main entrepreneurial revolution; he also started up a new university in ahmedabad to complete the offering peacekeeping knowhow gravitated by job-creating (not literary) education to any age group. Millions of people of the Indian subcontinent can offer you a deeper guide to all of Mahatama’s Gandhi curriculum (see eg 2004 proceedings of Global Reconciliation Network Delhi 1 2 ) than I can- I am just a maths guy and an amateur world citizen- as an internationalist scot from 6 generations of mediators including maternal grandad who spent 25 years changing law out of Mumbai ultimately in systemic directions inspired by Gandhi (It was Sir Kenneth Kemp whose last job was to write up the legalese for India’s independence as understood by London at peace and economics most chaotic time of ascending from the rubble of World War 2) email@example.com - you can help by treating this document as a wiki- make small changes and additions of references directly - if you want to make big changes copy it as your on googledoc- and tell us where your massively re-edited bookmark can be navigated
170 Years Ago at London-Scotland’s-Calcutta’s Turning Point on Empire
Back in 1843 the Scot James Wilson came down to London to mediate an end to top-down empire and the starvation its parliaments spun through corn laws and MPS of the biggest vested interests. Queen Victoria preferred his mission of epicentre of commonwealth to head of slavemaking empire. This wasnt necessarily a good thing for James- he was ordered by royal charter to go start a bank in calcutta to reform Raj Economics- and died 9 months into the project of Diarhhea- today the cure oral rehydration costs about 5 cents for BRAC and other Partners in Health Networks to share wherever it can save lives including 20% of all infants who would otherwise die in dirty-water poverty regions such as Bangladesh. James’ son Walter Bagegot continued as second editor of The Economist and is commonly regarded as having changed the English Constitution and having written the most trustworthy book on the future of banking (Lombard Street). Today when soros aims to reform economics from the bottom-up the first mooc www.ineteconomics.org sponsors is animated by a professor whose latest book is called The New Lombard Street.
Nations would be better off without MBAs - motion passed at The Economist
30 minute video intro to MOOC
HISTORY MISSING CHANCES TO CELEBRATE THE PRODUCTIVITY OF NEXT GENERATIONS
However in spite of the calcutta connection, and gandhi being educated at The Bar of London, it is not obvious that the system transformational dynamics of entrepreneurs and peacemakers have ever fully interconnected. Today the opportunity of CMS and Khan Academy and the fact that the greatest primary curriculum of financial literacy is ebing replicated by owners of orhpanages (and that cashless banking networks are being mobilised & moderated by BRAC and banks with global values) is a promisingly urgent means to end both capital and digital divides -firstname.lastname@example.org Youth Capitalism- join the call for microeducatiuonsummit as the greatest youth millennium goals colaboration space
FOCUS OF REST OF THIS GDOC
Lucknow’ Gandhi Family have spent their lifetimes - over half a century - building what the Guinness Book of records cals the world favorite school of 48000 children in Lucknow. Before these children reach teens they have experienced world class peacemaking curriculum. They practiced this is resolving conflicts between muslims and Hindis in their own city and are busy trying to ensure Pakistani and Indian children love each other
help us with this microwiki celebrating one of children’s favorite schooling systems
The City Montessori School (CMS) Lucknow is one of the education world’s most wonderful institutions - it was founded by one family and today nearly 50000 students in Lucknow India enjoy its facilities and unique world citizen networking
how can world greatest peacekeeping school (and its 50000 students) help twin capital of million jobs creation with youth (see 1 2 for more details )
some personal references on CMS- ask email@example.com for copy of form filled in for ted prize nomination for sunita gandhi circa 2007; ask firstname.lastname@example.org for 2 visit notes:
visit 1 with muhammad yunus’s eucation partner Mrs Begum
visit 2 preparing future visit connections
help us explore links to lucknow city montessori and jagdish gandhi, and the 5 Gandhi education entrepreneurs, and the world network of chief justices, and the top12 international youth competitions hosted by the school http://cmseducation.org http://jagdishgandhi.org…
neurial revolution" in The Economist of December 25, 1976, Norman Macrae argued that "methods of operation in business are going to change radically in the next few decades, in a direction opposite to that which most businessmen and nearly all politicians expect". The survey aroused enthusiasm and infuriation in almost equal measure, with invitations to lecture in more than 20 countries. Today Macrae updates his views on management methods that can make even lousy businesses profitable, and those that are driving tighter organizations to the wall.
Big goes bust
The 1976 survey argued that the world was probably drawing to the end of the era of big business corporations, because it would soon be seen to be nonsense to have hierarchical managements sitting in skyscraping offices trying to arrange how brainworkers (who in future would be most workers) could best use their imaginations. The main increases in employment would henceforth come either in small firms or in those bigger firms that managed to split themselves into smaller and smaller profit centres which would need to become more and more entrepreneurial.
As so often with supposedly controversial journalism, this proved to be an exercise in tentatively forecasting something that had already begun to happen a decade before, although it honestly was the opposite of what was being most widely reported at the time. In 1976 the textbooks being most assiduously fed to business courses were still Ken Galbraith's. "The new industrial state" and Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber's "Le defin americain", each of which was a bible to the advocates of industrial policies then subsidising British Steels, British Leylands and Projects Concorde into growing inefficiently larger and therefore irretrievably bust. These mergers were procreated on the thesis, explicitly stated by Ken Galbraith, that markets had been replaced by planning in favor of big technostructures so that large organisations like Chrysler or United States Steel did not lose money any more. "By all but the pathologically romantic", cried Ken Galbraith in 1967, "it is now recognised that this is not the age of the small man". He believed that the most economic size for business corporations in the future could be "'very, very large".
Shortly before these two books were -written and, instantly reached the best-selling lists, precisely the opposite trends had remorselessly begun to occur.
By 1965 small workplaces were already out-performing big ones on almost every count. Even in idealistic occupations, British hospitals with under 100 beds had between one half and two thirds the sickness rates among nurses as hospitals with more than 100 beds. I got my saddest quote of the late 1970s from the manager of a huge factory in Manchuria (though he could find echoes at Detroit, London Airport, Kama River): "During the period of disruption by the gang of four many workers came only on pay-days, some carrying placards saying I was a fly on top of putrescent meat. With 10,000 comrades here, it was impossible to check the absenteeism, pilfering and work-dodging that went on".
The biggest world political event since the 1960s is that communist countries have proved less able than free-market ones to escape from inefficient giantism in state factories and farms, so they are all going bust. In free-market countries managers are eventually more willing to lose face than their shareholders are to lose money, but tough problems are arising as even capitalist giants slim.
Since the mid-1960s the thousand biggest firms in the United States have as a group been sensibly reducing their labour forces, and more than the whole of the 15m private-sector jobs created since then have come in smaller firms-the majority of the new extra jobs at any one time being in firms less than five years old, even though more than half of new small American firms disappear out of business in their first five years. Although survey dates are jumbled, the accompanying inadequate charts suggest the same trend is accelerating even in manufacturing across the capitalist world. The present capitalist conjuncture is therefore one where the bigger and more stable firms are running down their employment, while more than the whole of net new employment is provided by small firms which, however, frequently go bust. Ow! And some thought needs to be given to ways of combining the advantages of small firms within big ones.
Make departments minifirms
In my 1976 survey I suggested there would be two trends-in the most conventional of which, greater reliance on subcontracting, I now think I was jejune. Subcontracting works only when the big firm has very tight quality control (as have Marks and Spencer, big Japanese companies towards tiny component makers and the superbly entrepreneurial Italian textile industry, see later). Subcontracting does not work when the big firm cannot measure what quality is, so that many management consultants, public relations firms etc. are about to disappear because they are high-cost ramps.
The second system I suggested in 1976 was that dynamic corporations of the future should simultaneously be trying several alternative ways of doing things in competition within themselves, becoming what have later been called confederations of "intrapreneurs". Two key concepts for efficient businesses here. First, the right size for each profit centre or intrapreneurial group-by which I mean a group of friends working together in daily productivity hunt towards the same objective-is very small, probably not more than 10 or 11 people, however dynamic your top management. Jesus Christ tried 12, and that proved one too many. Second, firms should not pay people for attendance at the workplace but should pay competing groups for modules of work done.
Thus, if you need a typing pool, I have suggested it might be best to set up several competing groups of Typists Intrapreneurial. You would offer an index linked contract to the group for a set period, specifying the services you wanted in return for a lump-sum monthly payment. The typists would apportion the work among themselves, devise their own flexitime, choose their own lifestyles, decide whether to replace a leaver by a full-timer or part-timer or whether to do her work and keep more money per head. They could also decide whether to tender for extra paid work from outside. In offices with tomorrow's equipment, there could, see later, be a lot.
A trivial example? By comparison with the gains that can be made in other fields it is. Yet the EEC court of auditors has recently ruled that the proper output for a typist is around 24 pages a day, and was upset that in some EEC departments the average, was only 12. In The Economist on a print-day Wednesday, when we are feeling rather participatory, a top secretary will type around 60 pages. If some EEC departments went over to that pace through being Typists Intrapreneurial, the stenographers could choose to work only one day a week for the same weekly wage as now, or by slowing recruitment they could work for up to five times their existing wages for the same present attendance at the office, or they could become five times more efficient. In practice, competition would ensure a mixture of the three, and the scope in most other parts of the business and bureaucratic jungle is much vaster.
This survey will explore that wider jungle, starting from the intrapreneurial mechanisms needed to breed new projects and going on through to those needed eventually to kill outdated ones (and make it participatory fun to send them to South Korea).
About 85% of all the industrial R & D expenditure in the United States takes place in 300 large corporations. It is done very wastefully.
Towards inventors intrapreneurial
About 70,000 patents are issued in the United States each year. Of these, maybe 60,000 are never heard of again, because most are horse manure. There will be some hidden pearls among it, and more could be found if patent offices were more intrapreneurial instead of often being inefficient government filing offices, some not even properly computerised. Governments should establish competing intrapreneurial teams in patent offices, compiling competing databases.
Of the perhaps 10,000 new patents a year round the world that are used, only about 10-20 a year are for what the co-inventor of the ubiquitous integrated circuit, Mr. Jack Kilby, calls "major" inventions things that change our lives. A list of the world's major inventions over the past 50 years shows that big organisations claim to have discovered only around a third of them, and some of their claims are fibs. More than two thirds have been discovered by individuals or small businesses.
The individual inventors' list of the past 50 years turns alphabetically from air conditioning, automatic transmissions and ballpoint pens, through jet engines and penicillin, to xerography and the zipper. The big companies' list runs more predictably through crease-resistant fabrics, float glass, synthetic detergents. Note how these fit with corporate objectives; "We are a big textile or soap company, so go for something capital-intensive". "We are Pilkington's Glass, and if we can beat plate glass by developing float glass, then every motor car in the world will eventually pay us a royalty, so it is worth carrying on with research into solving the last three problems in the way of float glass even through 12 consecutive years of negative cash flow."
Nobody should underestimate the tangible and intrapreneurial excitement among a tiny group of researchers when such a big firm's opportunity presents itself. Sir Alastair Pilkington has described how his research group into float glass was kept small enough to maintain total secrecy, so that experiments had been in progress for seven years before competitors knew of them; how several of his team members, after working impossibly long hours, were carried away on stretchers suffering from heat exhaustion; how 100,000 tons of float glass were made and broken before the great day which produced the first bit they could sell. But, to quote Jack Kilby again, each invention presents a profile of opportunities and requirements, while each company has its own profile of what constitutes to it an acceptable product. The probability that these two profile, will coincide in any given case is not very high.
The result is that many big companies' brilliant researchers are, in conditions of great secrecy, in their seventh consecutive year of smashing unusable float glass.
The Pinchot proposals
The most promising set of incentives for R and D departments to stray down interesting byways has been suggested by Mr. Gifford Pinchot III of Mr. Bob Schwartz's Tarrytown School for Entrepreneurs near New York, and they are being tried out by some clients of the new School for Intrapreneurs run by the Foresight Group management consultancy in Sweden. I should have introduced Mr. Pinchot before, because he is the inventor of the word "intrapreneurs", in a paper which paid kindly tribute to my 1976 survey. His description of what is happening in semi-reforming big corporations:
Decentralisation alone is not enough. In a hierarchical organisation, promotions can be won by special graces, loyalty to one's boss and general political skills. Courage, original thought, and ability to observe the obvious do not necessarily lead to success. If we are to get really good problem-solving in our decentralised corporations, we must introduce a system that gives the decision to those who get successful results, not to the inoffensive. Such people will be willing to take moderate risks and will be more concerned with achieving results than gaining influence. These are among the characteristics of the successful entrepreneur. What is needed in the large corporation is not more semi-independent departments run by hard-driving yes men, but something akin to free-market entrepreneurship within the corporate organisation.
His recommendations about intra-capital, see the next two paragraphs, could prove one of the great social inventions.
Under Mr. Pinchot's proposals for R and D departments a researcher wishing to plunge intrapreneurially into some project would initially have to risk something of value to himself; such as 10% of the costs of a project, up to 20% of his salary for the duration of a project and two years thereafter. A committee within the company would then contract to "buy" completed research in an intrapreneurial scheme for both cash bonuses and intra-capital. If a company makes $1m on a project, the intrapreneur's share might be $100,000, of which only $10,000 might come in cash and $90,000 might come in intra-capital which the intrapreneur can invest on the corporation's behalf in future R and D projects of his own choice. If he is successful again, his reward will be another cash bonus (probably larger the second time) plus more intra-capital.
This system, says Mr. Pinchot, motivates creative staff to think practically and frees their individual initiative. It minimises politics and maximises performance as a criterion for advancement. It rapidly puts a portion of the company's R&D budget in the hands of proven winners. It gives any good research staffer a strong reason to stay with the company, since leaving would mean giving up control of his accumulated intra-capital.
My own variant of the Pinchot scheme would put less emphasis on the idea of the company undertaking projects, more on it helping to farm them out, while still rewarding the intrapreneurial inventor in Pinchot's way. To quote Mr. Ralph Landau (founder of Halcon International, and one of America's most successful entrepreneurs), there are two stages in innovation: (a) the conception or invention of a new or improved process, product or system; (b) the commercialisation of it. Stage (b), the commercialisation, will generally cost between two and ten times as much as stage (a). This great expense of commercialisation for products that do not fit a particular firm's "profile"–creates a danger. Intrapreneurialism in R and D will not go fast enough if it becomes a device for regruntling touchy young Boffin by pretending to put his wheeze along the company's existing production and distribution lines that are quite unfitted for it.
Which leads to supermarkets for ideas. A big next vogue should be the sale of ideas telecommunicated between computer terminals. Everybody should have different ideas on how to tie intra-capital into these and how the offering firm can sift for quality; but, once competing mechanisms are established, sales of ideas should be decided intrapreneurialy, as sales of goods already are in firms whose salesmen are virtually independent businessmen working on commission. Franchising extends this concept. The only sales element subject to "tight central control" in such companies is the salesmen's expense account, which is therefore the one element on which the central controller is always swindled.
A steel mill's eels
Mr. Pinchot's group at Tarrytown is soon going to establish in America the world's second school for intrapreneurs. The first started when the Foresight Group (itself originally four intrapreneurial Swedes operating from their homes) in 1980 persuaded some Swedish client companies to announce on their internal notice boards: "any would-be intrapreneur come to a meeting". In most companies 40-60 turned up, about equally upper-blue-collar and middle-management. The school wanted 2-4 from each company for the first course, each with a separate specific intrapreneurial idea. Twelve people lasted through the first Swedish course, which consisted of six meetings-the first of a week, the next five each of three days. The course tried to turn each fuzzy idea into a business concept, then into a business plan.
From those first graduates in 1981 there are now emerging (eg) two use-of waste-heat projects (one man is pumping a steel mill's heat into a pond that breeds eels, another a paper mill's heat and computer knowhow into some computerised greenhouses); a man from a building company is making prefabricated concrete elevator shafts (likely to boom in Sweden because of new environmental rules demanding too many lifts for the handicapped); and an Esso man is converting repair garages behind filling stations (many of which are closing) into places to store and lease out do-it-your-self equipment. Some of these look more like the creation of small new capitalists than intrapreneurial ventures, but Sweden's silly tax law (which is suspicious of the transfer of forgone income to capital) makes intra-capital difficult.
It would be wise for all governments to alter this sort of tax law. Other government policies "in favour of entrepreneurship" make less sense.
Nobody should be in favour of governments granting special credit and other favours to small and innovative firms. If governments are ass enough artificially to increase supply by granting special favours, Silicon Valleys are going to go quickly bust.
As a test case, suppose this is 1946. Here are some accurate market forecasts for the succeeding seven years for a product that alters the living habits of over two thirds of the population of the world. In 1946-53 sales of this product in the United States will increase by over 10,000%. America's production costs in this very high-technology industry are now, in 1946, below anybody else's and the quality of American production is higher. The number of firms in the United States making this eminently exportable product will multiply four times over in 1946-53, and after 1953 the sort of growth in purchases about to be experienced in the United States will eventually spread to countries including more than two thirds of the population of the world. You now have to decide whether to put taxpayers' money into this industry (a) in 1946, (b) in 1953.
The industry concerned, as you may have guessed, is that producing television sets or major television parts in America. Even in the boom years 1946-53 less than half of the American firms sometime operating in this market ever showed a really healthy positive cash flow, and in the five years after 1953 more than three quarters closed down, increasingly on terms equivalent to going bust.
Moreover, this is not an exceptional case-except in so far as it was an exceptionally fortunate one because the product called television actually caught on. This is likely to be the usual experience in today's go-go industries like microprocessors or biological implants or laser technology or whatever new product you will first hear of tomorrow. It has been the usual experience in yesterday's went-went industries like airlines or computer leasing or washing machines or real estate investment trusts-even when there has been an incredible increase in demand for their products. Correct forecasts for 1950-82: passenger miles flown in airlines will increase by 3,200%, and by 1982 all the biggest airlines will be going bust.
The present trendiest policy of governments at the equivalent of television's 1946 stage is to provide cheap loans to small technological firms, thus ensuring that the number in the market multiplies six instead of four times over, so 90% instead of 75% eventually go bust.
At the 1953 stage the problem is not just that the domestic market is going over to replacement demand. The problem is that the industry is now established, so a Taiwan without trade unions and lower wages may take it over. What you do as a taxpayer at the 1953 stage, with far too many firms in the market, is scream because your equivalent of a national enterprise board will be introducing yet another one, since it has just heard that an exciting new technological product called television exists. What you do as a businessman is either (a) make money by switching operations to Taiwan; or (b) stick to quality control and follow the logical intrapreneurial policies for mature (not infant) firms.
Next, some good news for old countries, making old-fashioned things.
At the beginning of this century the two largest occupations in America and Britain were agriculture and domestic service, together employing around half the workforce. Today these two employ under 4% in each country, and until the 1960s it seemed probable that manufacturing employment in the world's rich north would drop the same way. Now the success of Japan, and the discovery small is more flexible, are good news for Europe's and America's manufacturers.
When a multimillion-dollar factory with 10,000 men can produce more cheaply in Brazil than in Birmingham, the multimillion Eurodollars will roll to Rio, but probably not the $50,000 for a five -man Brazilian workshop lest the five and the $50,000 disappear to the bush. In my 1976 survey I argued that robots and computer-controlled manufacturing systems should make rich countries' manufactories smaller and more intrapreneurial, dreaming that some might become one-man workshops. This proved to be underdreaming since some Japanese small businessmen now have no-workman garden worksheds, where their unwatched leased secondhand robot system hammers out a component for some big factory, while the small businessman is touting entrepreneurially on the golf course for new orders.
The Japanese have always based their continuing manufacturing miracle on tiny entrepreneurial component-makers (one Japanese worker in six now owns a small business) and on surprisingly small but brotherly profit centres even within huge plants. To quote Harvard University's Professor Ezra Vogel:
The essential building block of a Japanese company is not a man with a particular role assignment and his secretary and assistants, as might be the case in an American company. The essential building block of the Organisation is the section. A section might have perhaps eight or 10 people. Within the section there is not as sharp a division of labour as in an American company. To some extent, each person in the same section shares the same overall responsibility.
If you go into a Japanese assembly-line factory, you first see the components flowing in (maybe from those automated no-workman garden sheds), and subjected to very tight quality check. At each stage along the automated assembly line, most of the regular workers are also just reading dials or otherwise checking for quality, usually in those co-operative sections of about eight men. The section is told at its daily post-breakfast meeting how many subsequent faults were later found in its checked products, compared with the allegedly larger number of faults missed by the equivalent section in a main rival company (loud banzai).
At the end of one Japanese hi-fi-set assembly line near Osaka I once found a rather jolly crew actually doing manual work, packing the awkwardly shaped sets into cardboard boxes. They were not wearing Company uniforms. It had been decided that this measurable manual work, right there on the assembly line, could be contracted out to a separate tiny firm (virtually a workers' co-operative). Question: who decided how many workers should be on this job, and thus their working hours and income per head? Answer: the workers themselves, like my Typists Intrapreneurial.
Mr. Revans's action learning
The Japanese have become the world's best businessmen partly because they do not go to business schools. Indeed, they wisely do not believe in off-the-job government-subsidised training programmes for absolutely anything. One foreign management academic mentioned in Tokyo with real respect is the English Professor Reg Revans of the Manchester College of Science and Technology, of whom I had never previously heard. Since corresponding with Mr. Revans (who teaches that "the sudden decline of the English-speaking economies of Britain, Canada and the United States is partly a consequence of the rise of the academic business schools"), I see why his articles do not frequently appear in business school publications-although his 900-page hardback "The origin and growth of action learning" is about to be published in Sweden with help from Lord Weinstock and others.
Mr. Revans's own system of "action learning" is to put a small (I would call "intrapreneurial") group of four or five people into the field with a mandate like "make the business side of that hospital more efficient", all the time recognising:
that managers learn with and from each other as they work together on real problems (or opportunities) for which no course of action (let alone solutions or policies have yet been agreed; since the problems are real, it is insufficient that the manager should discuss or diagnose them without also taking steps to treat them. An action learning project is thus a sustained and iterative attack, conducted in parallel with three or four others, upon a real problem by a real manager, regularly meeting his three or four colleagues to offer and receive advice, criticism and support about the diagnosis and treatment of the problem....
It is clear that these groups have some times brought real advances-for example, they helped to breed the supposed Japanese idea of "quality circles"-a well as being schoolmasters. A main difficulty is that real reform programme generally require what Mr. Revans calls two dimensions: (a) the recognition that some particular activity needs to be ended, and then (b) a tremendous fight against those to be supplanted who have acquired reputations as experts in the prosecution of what needs to be wound up. We are approaching the problem of making lame ducks fly. Two that did:
Flour and textiles
One of the few top 500 American companies to have grown in the past two, decades was in 1960 the largest flour miller in the world. Pause to ponder whether you would expect this to be an expansive business, and what you would, advise it to do with its flour mills. Answer: not expansive, and this firm prospered mightily by closing half the flour mills in America down. It got out of businesses making 40% of its previous revenue, and split into more than 6 separate companies, some doing very different things.
Next question: would you a expect corporate planner to recommend some thing like that? Answer: no, all of the executives involved in the 40% of existing businesses to be scrapped would be up in arms, and even the Archangel Gabriel could not sensibly suggest today that the company should go forthwith into the following 60 lines of business. So the company did what I think is the first essential thing in corporate planning: it sacked its corporate planner, and set up small "developments department". It decided that its strength was marketing consumer products (it had early been successful in advertising and selling some breakfast goo). Then it invited proposals for small ventures based on this strength.
The new businesses have ranged from fashion goods through toys to restaurants. A spectacular example was that a film buff had heard that a film was being made which needed to find ways of getting more finance but looked as if it might become a cult among kids across the world in the five- to 12-year-old age group. Intrapreneurial question: what do we do? Answer: buy the franchise for toys with the film's name, and advertise in the trade press for small firms to submit particular toys which, if they passed the company's quality test, would carry the insignia. The film was called "Star Wars". Revenue went from nought to $100m in one year.
Cautionary tale. When I last talked to a meeting of this company, it seemed to have developed a matrix Organisation chart (which Reg Revans rightly calls a device for repudiating responsibility), lots of group vice-presidents in charge of different divisions named after products (which is exactly the wrong concept), a habit of buying existing businesses instead of creating ideas (oh dear).
A second rescue story has been in Italian textiles, where one of that country's evanescent governments devised the best possible industrial policy partly by mistake. Previous governments had imposed bureaucratic controls on all companies, so this one said that any firm with fewer than 20 workers would be free from these. Of the 15,000 textile factories in the main textile town of Tuscany, 13,000 have fewer than 10 employees. One minister for industry who helped to spur this system was the professor who had translated my 1976 survey into Italian.
The industry now has just about the highest textile wages in the world, and the frontier between the boss and worker moves all the time, because if the small works of which you are main owner fails you turn into being a friend's worker for a time. And this is not just one freak way of running an adaptive textile industry. In continually changing industries-which in future may mean all industries-it is increasingly going to be the only way, although the relation to the small producing unit of the big-firm-buyer doing the quality checking will vary.
Since most readers of this survey are not Italian ministers of industry, let us consider some profitable intrapreneuralism which quite junior businessmen reading this could initiate with one memo now. Since the advent of competitive air fares, there have been -five possible ways for a firm to run its executives' air travel, and most very big companies still choose one of the two craziest. Take your pick:
System A, contract travel arrangements out to a travel agency which is paid on a percentage commission so that it gets most money when executives go by the most expensive way.
System B, set up some underemployed secretary as a profit centre to ferret for cheaper fares. You tell any executive who has to travel on the firm's business whether his entitlement is economy-class fare or first-class fare. Then if he arranges with the secretary who has turned herself into an expert on cheap fares to go a cheaper way, they split the saving-say, one third to the company, one third to the traveler and one third to the secretary as profit centre.
System C, let as many secretaries or hall porters or whatever as want to play this game set themselves up as competing profit centres. Let them either co-operate or compete with each other, as they please, but with the quite simple check the company accountant pays the bucket-shop's air fare for £90, there is a note saying Mr. Smith's entitlement will usually be a fare of £390, the company takes £100 of this £300 saving, and returns £200 for the other two to split among themselves as they like-licences withdrawn if the travellers don't arrive on time.
System D, give the money to the executives, and let them buy their own fares-cheaply, if they wish. .
System E, set up a central department, bullying executives to go to Hongkong by standby Aeroflot flight 'via Iceland and Irkutsk.
The least sensible systems are A (the travel agency) and E (the central travel department), so most very big British companies use one of them. The disadvantage of D ("give them the money") is that executives then travel too much and use the firm's time to hunt bargains. The most competitive system is C (the co competing profit centres), but go via B (the single profit centre) first and try to develop op into selling this service outside?
Obviously I would like such business to develop through lots of groups "secretaries intrapreneurial", trying sell lots of services outside including t use of capital equipment that in many offices lies idle for 150 of the 168 hour week. For example, many firms have "infotech" (in America "rapifax": facsimile transmission by telephone) devices connected with their branch offices abroad, sometimes into foreign countries which don't have Saturday mail deliveries when you won't be using your infotech anyway. Test launching-an advertisement saying contact a recorded message on your ansaphone detailing your services on offer?-could cost virtually nil.
Behind all these prospects lies the present advance of the computer in completely inefficient underuse. Data processing departments are being given the incentive to do as little work possible, and top management over age 50 does not press them because it hates revealing that it does not understand computers anyway. The computer age has therefore started without most big organisations having a daily and imaginative productivity hunt to discover how the computer can best be used.
This mess is worst in the world's biggest information-handling industry, which is government. If you talk to a seminar of (eg) senior British inland revenuemen you find that they are engaged in commissioning meaningless "feasibility studies" on how to computerise pre-computer systems of operation without anybody thinking (let alone testing intrapreneurially) how changing the system to fit the computer age could remove the need for two thirds of the unnecessary labour now being done.
The road to efficiency in all government offices could be paved by the simplest sort of intrapreneurialism. You divide people into groups of under 10; tell them that this is the work to be done by them, and that if (in association with the computer people etc.) they can cut the time spent on it, then they can have the advantages of a "Typists Intrapreneurial" (the flexitime, the self-organisation, the opportunities for outside income). Savings would eventually be huge.
Doubters say that all this is white-collar stuff, and how could intrapreneurial work in (eg) some heavily trade-unionised British business going bust? Answer: in Britain, and many other countries buy-outs by employees of bust and heavily trade-unionised businesses are now proceeding fast.
When a big company closes a loss-making subsidiary, it often finds that redundancy costs etc. make the net proceeds on liquidation derisory, so the opportunity arises for a small group of workers to buy the firm for a knockdown price. Sometimes a big company will also sell subsidiaries that do not fit its "overall strategy". Since any company which uses that phrase will have been managed absurdly, these can be better buys still. In 1977 an American company sold a large British factory for £350,000 to two top employees who had only £12,000 capital between them. The two borrowed £100,000 from two overseas distributors, plus another £100,000 from a bank; and persuaded the selling company to accept the other £150,000 on deferred terms (and also to retain a 5% equity stake). Efficiency and profits soared.
As was clear from answers to a questionnaire in a recent do-it-yourself booklet on Management Buy-Outs by The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU Special 115, price £30 or US$60) most big British banks and near-banks are now eager to handle this suddenly booming buy-out business. The recently renamed National Enterprise Board will be losing taxpayers' money on it (it told the questionnaire that its object was to assist "companies in advanced technology and companies in English Assisted Areas whose requirements cannot be met appropriately......", oh dear), but all the other banks fortunately say they are zooming in to make profits. The EIU's sample suggests the failure rate in buy-outs is less than 10%, versus 30% in new start-ups, even though the start-ups are in the ventures deemed most profitable to start and the buy-outs in those which big businesses want to shed.
A familiar difficulty: buy-out teams should preferably be small (the EIU recommends two to five) because more than six new entrepreneurs quarrel. That problem can sometimes be assuaged by halfway devolutions to separate small groups. One example of such intrapreneurialisation under particularly unfavourable conditions in the 1970s was a British film studio which ran one year into a huge loss, because its workers spent most of their days drawing large overtime while waiting around. It was closed, and the workers were given redundancy money, but some were asked if they wished to stay on to operate freelance in what became a film facility studio. A producer who made a film in the studio had thenceforth to negotiate separately with the intrapreneurial cameramen (who were intrapreneurially doing outside jobs in shooting television advertisements), with the plasterers, carpenter's shop, lighting and electrical men (who were also operating outside in the normal neighbourhood ' For example, small teams at any two building trade), the former transport department (now running a minicab service) etc.
Ride out on the rail
End with the British nationalised industries, which were originally created because it was assumed that large private monopolies in them would too easily make excessive profits, but are now all great stranded whales. The railway engine drivers of Britain have some agreement, which no small firm could grant, so cheaply so long ago. that an unnecessary two footplatemen should travel on most trains where there is work for only one to do. A sensible minority sign on to draw their wages but do not actually go to these pointless journeys. They slope off to increase the real national income by running their black-[economy minicab services etc. This winter saw a rolling strike because British Rail was trying to introduce a "productive deal" through flexible rostering which-so long as it was accompanied by promised of no redundancies-would achieve a net cut in the national income by obliging the men to close some moon-lighting services down.
If groups of train drivers were organised like Typists Intrapreneurial they could vote whether to make most money for themselves by sacking their mates, whether to make least money for everybody by retaining the present system, or whether to keep the mates outside the trainings to run more intrapreneurial services (eg, minicabs geared to meeting trains). Similar possibilities for local authority dustmen (many of whom can complete their existing jobs before ll am), turning coal pits into workers cooperatives, right across the state sector. The intrapreneurial improvements in productivity would likely be very large, because the existing productivity of management and workers in this sector is so unbelievably low.
For example, small teams at any two or three partly unnecessary British Rail suburban stations could then decide which stations to close and sell, how and when to run car parks or jitney services at or to those kept open, what best uses to make of each square yard of British Rail's overabundant space (just over a decade ago a survey showed that it owned 6% of the land area of the then borough of Camden). Only a giant organisation could be losing so much money when it owns so much underutilised land bought so cheaply so long ago.
In most large British workplaces there are no direct incentives for ordinary workers to speed or improve production and no way in which ordinary folk can have the fun of suggesting (and participating in) constant experiments to improve their group's efficiency. Except when they are frightened lest bankruptcy may bring them the sack, it is therefore natural for most British workers to resist productivity drives that disrupt their habits at no benefit to themselves. The conventional doctrine for running British industry is becoming the daft one that a manager can best get higher productivity by running his firm constantly on the verge of bankruptcy, and that his workforce's main enjoyment of the loveliest human excitement called group togetherness will be when going on strike.
As most firms are less near to terminal illness than (eg) British- Rail, they could often find the way forward to greater profitability and more participatory workplace fun by starting intrapreneurial ventures on a small scale (which is the right scale on which to start them) and letting them spread. If these 1976 and 1982 surveys encourage any pioneers down that road, they will be worth the aggravation that this sort of writing unhappily manages to cause.
THE-HUB.NET YEAR 8
ARTISTS PEACE CORPS YEAR 3
PORTALS FOR FUTURE CAPITAL
SB STOCKMARKETS - ?COMPASS
CITY MONTESSORI SCHOOL
PLACE LEADERS : QUEEN OF SPAIN, QUEEN OF JORDAN –Sustainability ER Celebrations Consider Bangladesh, Kenya , ...
FACILITATION METHODS: OPEN SPACE
MICROWORLD PRIZES : ASHDEN AWARDS ENERGY
CHINA: ALI BABA
FUTURE NOW FACILITATORS : ALVIN TOFFLER ALUMNI
MORE NEEDED: infotech for poor summit; goodwill media; 2020 youth goals; UNPRO 100; top10 trillion $ audits
Celebrating 40 Years Ago
In 1971, on the future of finance, NMwrote:
The rich countries of the world are probably going to go into balance of payments deficits with the poor ones. Most of our international financial mechanisms are prepared for the opposite. Are multinational companies going to be an efficient means of exporting capital around the world? There is a fine old muddle about this arising out of a lack of discrimination between the effects of a) different countries' balances of payments, and b) the mobilisation of savings. The consequences will be important for the future of banking business over the next two to four decades. It may even be that on this unexpected hinge that the fate of the whole interantional economic system will swing.
The Next 40 Years 1972-2012, The Economist/ Norman 1971
I am pretty sure my dad had a method not luck. If anyone finds it before I do, hope you will share.
ian Youth Dream Capitals At Dh Bei Tok Luck -do you know that over one third of human beings' livelihoods are governed out of Beijing and Delhi?
03 Latino Youth Dream Capitals Ba Mia SanD At Ro Rio BuA Mad Pa
J04 East Europe Youth Dream Capitals At Wa Bu KI
05 All under 21s Dream Capitals and wiki post 2015 goals At
06 End to end Diaspora value exchange maps/models At DC Dh
07 Breaking through top 20 anti-youth monopolies
08 Youth futures in warring regions
y08a maker's movements - faires mag summer camp 3dprinting
09 Youth futures in other historically divided regions
10 which region can be trusted to bank futures innovations youth most need- in other words which will be the international reserve currency of first net generations
BORDERLESS PEACE INTERNALISATION
11 Peace & Social Fiction Mediation At Dh Ro Ny
12 Youth Collaboration Action Heroines and Heroes At Dh ...
13 Rights At Cape Ahmed
14 Public servant & 2 million global village empower 21st curriculum At Ro Wa Jo Lu
15 Urgency of Open Space Future's greatest conflict with history's constitutions
15a labs partnering disaters ares often source of greatest inventions for human lot
OPEN EDU platforms, practice peer to npeer
21 Open Edu Jobs & Change World Curricula At Jo Bo San Dh
22 Open Source/Tech Everything At Bo
23 Free Nursing College, Afford Access Health At Bo Gl Dh Ark imposs card 1
24 Radical Community Broadband Experiments At DC Sing Bei
25 Khan Ac production lab everywhere leaders value youth innovation At Dh
HI TRUST ECONOMIC SYSTEM DESIGN -models , ownership, professions
31 ER Hi-Trust Economics System Maps At Gl Bu Dh -economics / entrepreneur curriculum as net ge livelihoods -taddy sunita bernardo smith curriculum
32 Future exponentials missing metrics - goodwill, transparemcy, sustainability, youth-purpose markets, multi-win models of grounded knowhow multiplying value in use AT Gl Ten
33 YWB Ownership of community and Global banks with values open system triad (cashless, capital, village) At Dh Ch Na Va
34 Orphan-lovers Financial Literacy and Jobs Curriculum At Mu Na Net
35 Youth investment funding processes -eg crowdfunding At DC Sa Par
35a youth portal club ysn dc-cdc; anna
36 china-youth world trades and celebration of back from future goals
40 Nanocredit - next nearly free mobile use to free extreme povery/abused women
41 Empower Womens Poverty Race Twin Global Village Labs At Dh Na
42 Fashions responsibility revolution At DC NY Dh Lo
51 Youth Entrepreneur Summits At Bo DC
52 Practice connecting networks: students, mentors, judges, open edu, suitable capital sources
53 Postcards of greatest opportunities to scale microfrachises and goodwill partners
54 developing job creating promotions as a smarter media than tv advertising
61 Green Energy Futures Curriculum At Lo Bo Dh Bei
62 Corporate half generation conversion to zero footprint At
63 Solar and photosynthesis At Lo Bo Dh Bei
64 Food and water security At - videos 1
Y65 End waste At
y65.1 change plastic chile
66 disasters - prevention and relief in mobile age
71 trillion dollar audit mapping - pro-youth sector purpose of global village value exchanges
72 open space
73 grounded theory and other methods of exception analysis of opinion surveys
74 collaboration cafe
75 maximum 9 minute audio blackboard competitions
81 young professionals reformation agenda
82 modelling sectors greatest compound risks in ways that peoples can understand ahead of time
2014-2015 Hall of Fame of leaders of futures worldwide youth want -eg 2030nowjimkim2transcripts.doc, 40 KB
..1 jim kim world bank ceo (& co-founder of PiHealth) - his systemic role for youth connects the main conflicts that networkers need to resolve - major context links 1 24JKideas Chinahub
How can you help with the net generations' 20 greatest job creating opportunitiesWHICH WILL BE WORTH MORE - PHYSICAL OR VIRTUAL REAL ESTATE?
In all our youth clubs on the left hand side, our number 1 focus is how can youth co-create a virtual property that multiplies trust round the practice focus being actioned and learnt. Why? see right hand column
The Adam Smith Laureates for Youth Economists - helpScottish alumni of Smith and Yunus improve on these candidates by year of birth and by mother tongue
New year 2010 - What 12 Year Old Americans are most economical at searching for
New Year 2008- What 9 year old Americans are most economical at searching for
Tough Question 1000 Youth and Yunus bookclub New York .youtube. caplinski
Prooftesting how and why wholeplanet's netgeneration - if we are to be sustainable- will value virtual properties 10 times more than physical ones isn't just the most important issue in the 2010s. Whats important for equality of every child born into 21st C is: celebrate helping youth to communally own such collaboration properties that death-of-distance brings to our borderless human race. Urgency evolves round two opportunity reasonings:
because knowhow multiplies value in use , those virtual real estates that are open to everyone who improves life critical knowhow flows will prove their purpose by being at least 51% owned by worldwide youth (and future generation's sustainability)
because designing such a model only gives away one doubling of wealth, and because the moores law of the most connected virtual real estates doubles reach annually or less- it makes sense to any pro-youth investor to bank round 51% assets owned in trust for youth's most human collaboration goals
We also seek to prevent the greatest threat reason to be learnt from the 20th c. Wherever bankers worked to make physical property the most expensive of moore laws, they ultimately destroyed that nation's next generation's growth or caused wars. This is why youth world banking will never invest in physical property as a way of making money- and national feds and currencies with a future will end their connection with over-expensive physical property assets as their number 1 youth economic priority
top 10 bottom-up collaboration brands
W4E - women4empowerment franchises connect world's first ladies with such projects as:
change responsibility of global fashion industry so that no more factoreis kill thousands of grament workers
design next almost free app of mobile that can most empower worlds most abused women
organise free healthcheck days for thousands of local families
linkin superstanrs to youth's bottom up community regeneration and culture-for-all celebrations
Maharishi- Real Free Education of country's greatest job creators and vocation services (eg nurses) -partners include Branson, Mandela elders , google , gov and egov of south africa - solutions including missing curricula from age 9 up of entrepreneurship, microfranchise replication, financial literacy, peer to peer apprenticeships, empowerment
Potential connections with Skoll's other open education entrepreneurs including Sal Khan
Twin capitals of Youth Jobs - Johannesburg and Cape Town lead the world of 2014 in this collaboration celebration - Johannesburg because of the Maharishi Uni and Taddy Blecher partnerships including Branson, google, gov and egov (see below for more); Cape Town as host of the 15th Youth and Nobel Peace laureate Summit October 2014
The deliverables of South Africa's Job-Creating educator networks -Blecher partners such as Branson and google - include National virtual small business and entrepreneurship support services being developed and provided:
University in your Pocket: accessible through any web-enabled cell-phone, computer, or tablet
1. Access to Free Business relevant Education Materials: accredited and registered educational
materials for a MBA, BBA, Post-graduate diploma, Certificate in Management, and 50 skills
courses free of charge in partnership with Regenesys, the largest Private Business School in SA.
This initiative was launched in Nov 2012, and over 350,000 individuals have accessed the site since.
2. Free online National Certificate in Entrepreneurship to existing small businesses (2 years or older)
a. Plan to launch in partnership with UCT (University of Cape Town) Graduate School of Business (GSB), who will provide the qualification
b. 1-year accredited and recognized Certificate alongside a well-developed business plan will be
recognized by large banks and government agencies in SA to access financing
c. Entrepreneurship curriculum to also be offered to traditional skills delivery entities and other
intermediaries (Universities, Colleges, and Further Education and Training institutions)
d. SAQA (South African Qualifications Authority) and CHE (Council on Higher Education)
accredited and registered
e. “Price of Entry”, small business to provide extensive information (will build critically lacking
information around small business sector)
3. Free online accredited education for new businesses (and very early stage businesses) to be
provided in partnership with Lean Start-up Method
National Virtual Incubator Services:
1. Access to Markets: Woza Online “Free websites” initiative, launched Jan 2012 to provide free
websites for small businesses in partnership with Google. Over 1 million mentions on Google, and
65,000 small businesses already assisted. Case studies on 1,000 of these being tracked.
2. Access to Finance: Initiative still needing funding and to be launched in Feb 2014, as a national
finance solution for small business, providing knowledge of all loan and financial support products
offered by any provider (government or private sector) in the hands of every SMME, as well as actual
access to finance, ongoing financial literacy, and financial support. Core funding by eg USAID.
This tool will include a free financial accounting package, using single entry accounts in, so that all
small businesses looking for capital, can produce comprehensive income statements, balance
sheets, cashflow statements, etc.
3. Business Mentorship: Master class series over the internet: video streaming onto cell-phones and
computers, by leading entrepreneurs (including the Patrons) as well as experts in pertinent matters
for small businesses (tax; vat; financial statements; financial management; government tenders;
marketing; strategy, etc.)
4. Business Information: new National Portal under development to support small businesses– one
stop shop –any small business anywhere can access information, education, support, mentorship
Over 100 legal contracts and standard agreements for hiring and so on to support small businesses
5. National Support: National call centre: to support entrepreneurs country-wide
6. Predictive Analysis Tool: Predictive analytical tool to assess likelihood of survival and growth,
based on a 7-year study. In discussions with African Bank, SEFA (Small Enterprise Funding Agency),
SEDA, IDC, and the 4-big banks to recognize these qualifications and provide access to funding for
both individuals for exam fees, and for businesses needing capital for their business plans
7. Access to Broadband: Creating partnerships with the 2 largest cell-phone network operators
(Vodacom and MTN) to donate data (internet access) for the initiative as part of CSI programme
YouthWorldBanking - #2030now and twinning capitals of youth job celebrations defining social economic movements of net generation- bottom up value chain analysis as defining tool of affordable social movements; -celebrating search for each global sector's most productive and exponentially sustainable purpose; which type of banking competence wil be most valuable for which bottom-up service focus; lessons from world's most collaborative microfranchising ngo; how can cashless banking end historical current crises and big bank collapses
GrameenGreen-celebrating the most abundant and cleanest energy sources; ending geographical boundaries caused by externalising the dirtiest energies or manipulalting their scarcities; connecting food security to organic foods and naturally supporting ecosystem including clean water for all- ending post world war 2 folie grandeur of military governments and their over-investment in nuclear-designing superports around future transport modes
AHa - Affordable Healthcare Access - 10 times more affordable healthcare can be achieved by celebrating nearly free nursing colleges; telemedicine and mobile-apps of life critical knowledge sharing; ending patents on unmarketed drugs; learning acceleration drug discovery lessons from HIV ....making healthcare basics at schools curricula; focusing on pro-youth healthcare; annual biggest celebration of healthcare as part of national culture
CONTEXT Navigating youth's #2030now from 20th C most curious dreammakers :TOKYO AND BUDAPEST -AND INTRODUCTION TO WORLDWIDE YOUTH'S 5 MOST AMAZINGLY GRACEFUL FUTURESHelp global youth survey which Future Capitals Atlanta, SAfrica: Joburg, Cape Town, Warsaw, Kiev, Budapest, Dhaka, Tokyo, Beijing, DC, NY ...
Ethiopia Boston,Dubai, San Francisco, Singapore ...
are most critical to 2015, and beyond ...
...In Memoriam - Norman Macrae - our family foundaton's and The Economist's Entrepreneurial Revolution's founder passed in 2010.
Saint James - and Curriculum of will humans escape greatest mistakes economists ever made?
Annual events are co-hosted with youth networks whose freedoms we audit that would make him happiest for the future of all our grandchildren. Write us if you know of such a network that we haven't yet found - email@example.com washington dc 1 301 881 1655 skype chrismacraedc . We also map next worldwide celebration deadlines - Youth and Nobel Laureates Road to Atlanta Nov 2015 via Cape Town October 2014 and from Warsaw 2013, and after that in 2018 the 175th anniversary of media founded to end hunger.
SAfrica Joburg, Cape Town
NH &North East
Germany: Brazil, Columbia,Costa Rica, Haiti, Albania, India, Uganda, Tunisia
EUROZONE IN GREATEST DANGER OF LOST GENERATION
ASIAN SEASONS BEYOND SPRING?
SOUTH OF THE BORDER 9
tury of sustaining society's most life critical services- that much was communally obvious ( worth freeing schoolchildren to debate)- as his last signed survey in The Economist was published - 44 years after joining The Economist and 20 years after starting up the Net Generation job creating curriculum of Entrepreneurial Revolution
(update 2014who's Democracy The Economist )
A Future History of privatisation, 1992 - 2022
The Economist 21st December 1991
Norman Macrae looks forward to the end of politicians.
IT is possible that the word "privatisation" first appeared in print in The Economist, just over 30 years ago, It was suggested by somebody now dead, who may have subconsciously pinched it from some-thing published earlier somewhere else. For those who used it in these columns, the word then seemed part of a hopeless crusade. In the 1960s it was hard to persuade even sensible people how wrong were those like J.K. Galbraith, who told eager politicians that the interests of the poor could be served best by spending much more of GDP through politician-dictated monopolies in-stead of market-leading common sense.
Actually, in the 1960s rich countries were achieving marvellously greater equalisation in almost everything provided by private enterprise, but the underclass became further downtrodden in America's and Europe's inner cities whenever services were instead provided from the public purse. For the first time in history, millionaires and welfare mothers were spending their leisure hours in the same way: watching the same television programmes, from armchairs of the same comfort in similarly heated rooms, while other consumer durables spread to the living rooms, kitchens, bathrooms and (in some countries) parking spaces even of the few unemployed. So did opportunities for holidays in the sun and purchases of clothes; remember that in 1945 the average Englishman had owned only one pair of trousers. Supermarkets spread from the suburbs to the slums, and found similar expenditure per consumer there.
There was no such equalisation between suburb and inner city in things where public servants spent increasingly more of the taxpayers' money. This was especially true on the worst public-housing estates, from which 90% of an area's crime might emanate; where it became unsafe to walk down graffiti-desecrated corridors, because anything that belonged to the community was deemed to belong to nobody; where life deteriorated into drugs, hopelessness, squalor.
The great divide
The luckiest young Londoners returning from the war in 1945 were those whose applications for flats in these great new tower blocks overlooking the Thames were, to their fury, turned down. They had to buy, for perhaps £1,500 in 1950, supposedly shoddier homes built by "speculative" builders several decades before, with weekly mortgage payments at about thrice a favoured council tenant's rent. Forty years later they had a capital asset worth perhaps £150,000, while the "favoured" tenant had something worth nothing, except a vicious circle of hell. In the inner cities, police protection, state education, safeguarding of poorer people's life environment grew steadily and - for both taxpayer and customer - ever more expensively worse.
After vast inpouring of public money, people in poor areas had to send their children to more modernly-built but much nastier and less parent-selected schools, where their kids had a growing prospect of being turned into drug-addicted delinquents. After quadrupled spending police protection in the Bronx, the prospect of a mugger being apprehended there fell to under 2%, so mugging became an attractive way of teenage life. In Lyndon Johnson's presidency, 1963-69, America created a huge welfare state, which proceeded to cripple instead of aid its clients. All of the forward indices of misery (illegitimacy, welfare dependency, lack of neighbourliness, crime, drugs, riot so as to loot) grew worse.
In Britain the "commanding heights of the economy" had been nationalised originally on the argument that it would be too easy to make vast profits in these great monopoly industries (like coal, rail, steel, ship-building, public utilities). As soon as the state took over these industries, they plunged into vast losses instead. They were operated in the interest of their unions, instead of their customers, and without any innovative spark. If a middle manager in a private company thinks his boss is making a horlicks of his job, he can set up another firm in competition. If he is in a state firm, he writes a memorandum which says the boss is making a horlicks; and loses all chance of promotion. In Russia he got shot. The inefficiency of state spending in rich countries was shown further when the mighty United States began to lose a war to slightly ridiculous North Vietnam, despite spending 1,000 times more money on its arms and soldiers than did Hanoi.
Nobody listened, then everybody did. At the time I was doing some moonlighting work with an American management consultant. Together we tried to invent new Greek-derived words, distinguishing between activities which were wholly driven by customers' demand (and were generally succeeding), and those driven by expenditure of taxpayers' or sometimes private money (whose productivity declined with each extra zillion pumped in). None of these Greek words caught on. In The Economist we tried terms like recompetitioning and privatisation. Privatisation was meant to signify the return to profitable private motivation of anything that had declined through unprofitable state intervention, in Europe usually through state ownership, in America usually through excessive regulation (including what Herman Kahn called "health and safety fascism").
The clear advantage of privatisation was that everybody working in private businesses, from the entrepreneurs to the often non-unionised workforce, got more money if their new ways of doing things succeeded (a success they sometimes overhyped). If they did not attract more customers, they went bust. People in public activities soon learnt that they got more money if their settled ways of doing things failed, because then they could wail that governments must pump still more money to them.
One school in south London produced 80% of the juvenile delinquents in its area; the educational authorities directed ever more money to its often absentee and strike-ridden staff; because so many of their pupils were truant (sometimes after a hard night mugging), they clearly faced "special problems". Today's Soviet Disunion produces far more wheat, rye, potatoes, barley than the United States; yet Moscow faces bread riots because most of it fails to reach the shops. This is because the distribution system is socialist, so nobody has an incentive to move the stuff (as distinct from either staying away or turning up just to fill forms).
That is also true in many town halls across the free world. Morale has naturally deteriorated in all the activities run in the failure-welcoming socialist way. Economic decline has correlated closely with the proportion of the workforce in public-sector jobs, from Merseyside (way above the British average) to Brezhnev's Omsk(100%). But during the 1970s those of us who appealed for reform via privatisation were still generally regarded as nuts. The word barely appeared in Margaret Thatcher's 1979 election campaign.
Then it took off. In the past dozen years, 1979-91, privatisation has become a real policy in more than 70 countries. Although the lead was given by Thatcherdom, some of the most extensive privatisers have been Labour governments in Australia, Scandinavia and Spain. Privatisation is seen in all the ex-communist countries as a means through which industries and services long buried under dead socialism can bring some springtime to the frozen earth above. The policy has taken wing in Japan (telecoms and railways) and the Asian dragons. It stumbles forward in the third world. Less than a decade after the Falklands war, British merchant banks are drawing fees from a Peronist government for advising on privatisations to stop Argentine industries being mismanaged by Peronist colonels. No-body could have imagined this 12 years ago.
Unfortunately, much of it is being done the wrong way. Fortunately, the scope for further privatisation is everywhere huge. The rest of this article sketches a plausible future history for privatisation. The suggested timetable will be wrong, but things will move this way. Parochially, in a viewspaper published in London, this future history will most often be told as it may develop in Britain. Other countries may move at a faster pace, but this blinkering will protect the article from being diffused. It will also help emphasise that party political changes will not slow the caravan.
Kinnock privatises coal and rail
Start with the two industries which the British Tories have promised to privatise if returned to office: coal and the railways. In our scenario these would be privatised even by a Kinnock Labour government in the 1990s, although for opposite reasons.
The fudged three-year agreement, whereby privatised British electricity firms have to buy some uneconomic British coal, runs out in 1993-94. The European Commission will be bound to forbid continuance of this clearly anti-competitive arrangement. The number of viable deep British pits will then fall from today's 68 to about three. The Kinnock government would not want a nationalised coal company to fight the long strike with Arthur Scargill about this. It will therefore say that wicked Brussels has ordered coal privatisation (which it virtually will have done), and that the pits to remain open must be decided by the market.
Some of the abandoned pits may have coal drawn from them by any teams of miners that find this economic, rather like anybody can go blackberrying. At first the attempted safety regulations will be tougher than potholing, but will then decay. In America the safety people were pilloried when they demanded the installation of a stretcher by the owner of a one-man mine. In the 1990s opencast mining, at present environmentally unpopular, will become environment-loved. The opencast machines rip off the topsoil, but are then required to replace it in the form that local people want which is no longer for agriculture, but as golf courses and pony-trekking land. This helps mitigate one of the worst drains on enterprise, which is that planning restrictions tend to forbid any land to be turned to alternative use.
The railways will gain from the prejudice against changing land use. In the 1990s and 2000s crowded countries like Britain will sensibly turn to charging for occupying the roads. An electronic attachment on each vehicle, especially each lorry, will be activated whenever it enters an area where it adds to delay-causing traffic jams. The bill will be sent to the vehicle's owner, and be-come quite high. Coupled with technology that makes it much faster to load and unload containers at railhead, railways will be ripe for privatisation.
As argued by Oliver Letwin (the Tory candidate standing against Glenda Jackson in Hampstead), a privatised railway system will become rather like an airport. A centralised body (which may not be privatised until the 2010s) will run the safety and signalling system. If anybody in the early 1950s had said how many thousandfold would rise the passenger miles flown on the airlines, and yet with a large drop in accidents, he would not have been believed. His surprise would be greater when told that efficiency would increase fastest when Ronald Reagan sacked all America's public-sector air-traffic controllers for going on strike. Today, incoming and take-off aircraft rarely run into each other, even though landing slots are being "chaotically" sold through private agents, even though all sizes and speeds of aircraft are taking off from and homing into the same narrow and some-times foggy runways. Thus it will become with the privatised railways.
The opening of the Channel tunnel will allow new railway locomotives into Britain, which are half as expensive as British locomotives now and of much more varied design. Light railways (often driven by computers, sometimes by volunteer commuters) will run from exurbia to connect with rush-hour commuter trains, suddenly making profits again. Lush cruise trains will take rich Americans and Japanese through the cultural centres of Europe. The end of duty-free drinks at European airports in 1993 will be mitigated for international trains, the one form of transport where booze does no damage. Slightly more important, the railways will make money from the fibre-optic and other cables or the new-technology pipelines laid beside their tracks.
Most important, property development will boom at stations and on other parts of the railways' ridiculously underused land. The world's richest billionaire in 1991 is a 55-year-old Japanese who spotted the money to be made from railway land in Japan. By the early 2000s the successful privatisation of British Rail will be followed by privatisation of the Bundesbahn, the trans-Siberian railway and every other railway on the Eurasian land mass.
Other utilities will follow
The success of railway privatisation will set the tone for the proper competitioning of other utilities. In electricity the grid should usually belong to a separate organisation, and entrepreneurs make money by feeding competitively into it. By the late 1990s the partial success of British electricity's privatisation will mean there is some sort of commodity price per kilowatt hour of electricity on the European grid. Suddenly scientists will manage, eg, to isolate hydrogen from something in which it abounds, like seawater, and feed it as a power source much more cheaply into that grid than electricity from coal or gas. This will be followed by the discovery of ever cheaper ways of releasing energy from storage in matter. All will come competitively into the grid.
In the gas industry, British Gas will have lost its monopoly, because cheaper gas from Siberia will have to be allowed into its pipelines, after the 1996 free-trade agreement with the post-Gorbachev Soviet Union. During the brief 1991 Gulf War the Japanese invested in ways of bringing frozen natural gas from all round the Pacific. These will succeed. The near-bankrupt oil wells of the Middle East will have to follow, by exporting similarly cheap gas by all means to Europe and America. As energy prices fall, food prices will dramatically accompany them. After free trade with Russia, the EC's common agricultural cartel will collapse. Cheap food will pour in by rail from the black earth of Ukraine, as cruise trains to Samarkand pass them the other way.
Telecommunications (whose grid is anyway disintegrating with mobile telephones) and television (recompetitioned by satellite) will also leave the public sector entirely. In tones similar to today's lessons about 19th-century child labour, sociologists will tell with horror of the exploiting classes' device named the BBC. A poll tax (called the licence fee) was levied on every family, even poor widows and pensioners in Hackney, in order to impose on them toffee-nosed programmes which only the upper middle classes (in the name of "culture") thought they wanted. Actually, as we will soon learn, the BBC's brief 74 years from 1922 to 1996 were when British culture rotted worst, because it was brought under duopoly control.
Then everything, including the policy
During the late 1990s the privatisation of the social services will gather worldwide pace. The first privatisations will take some disguised form of the "voucher" system discussed for decades. Everybody except the teachers' unions will see that schools should get money only if they attract pupils. Dreadful schools, which parents shun, should be closed. Each child will carry a voucher, paid for by the state, to the school of his choice. "Choice units" in each area will take parents round available schools, to show what is on offer. Many people will rightly say that children from disadvantaged backgrounds should have specially topped-up vouchers, so that schools should compete most keenly to attract them. At juvenile courts, orders will be made to increase the vouchers for offenders; some-times the parent will be ordered to pay the topping-up.
Both the American and British health systems will gravitate towards a system of health maintenance organisations (HMOs, or bodies that compete to get your capitation fee, and then seek to provide all your health-care needs as economically as possible). In America the present fee-for-service system has proven quite uneconomic. Doctors make more money if they treat patients as expensively as possible after they become ill. The patients do not mind this money being spent, because it comes from insurance cover paid for under tax incentives by their employers. In its umpteenth attempt to stem the federal budget deficit, sometime in the 1990s, the American Congress will see that it can save tens of billions spent on hypochondriacs a year if it grants tax relief on employers' health insurance only up to the point where everybody can pay a basic HMO capitation fee. If anybody wants more expensive fee-for-service medicine, he must pay for it out of taxed income.
Britain's NHS has always had something like an HMO system for its family doctors or general practitioners (GP's). But nearly 90% of British government NHS spending has gone to hospitals with hierarchies of state-salaried doctors, nurses and far too many trade-unionised workers (three times as many as in some of the better Japanese hospitals). The GP system, whereby Britons choose their family doctors and the government pays those doctors a capitation fee, has been reasonably successful. By any criterion of cost effectiveness, the NHS hospital system has not. In 1991, amid loud and sometimes mendacious political controversy, some seeds of reform have already been sown.
Under the 1991 NHS reforms, budget-holding family doctors will compete to get patients into hospitals without waiting lists, and hospitals will get more money only if they thus attract patients. There are only minor and gradual steps from this reformed NHS system to a proper HMO system. Under any governments in Britain, those steps will occur. They will probably occur rather faster under a Labour government.
Labour 1992-96 will have less public money to spend on the NHS than the Tories, because it has promised to spend so much more on other things, and (partly thereby) is bound to scare more money out of the country. Labour will have to try to spend the annual £30 billion or so on the NHS more effectively. The row about Tory reforms is that Tory "trust hospitals" then proceed to sack workers. Since British hospitals have long been overstaffed, that is what any reforms (including Labour's) will have to aim for.
British prisons have long been a ridiculous public service, with negative gross production. They create recidivists, instead of cure criminals. A 20-year-old who is sent to prison is more likely to become a habitual criminal than one who narrowly escapes being sent there. America has moved towards some private-enterprise prisons, whose entrepreneurs will be paid more if their inmates do not recommit offences. In the decade 2000-10, governments will recognise that the same "recompetitioning" is also highly desirable for the police.
Modern police forces have huge computer files of genetic fingerprints, ordinary fingerprints, case histories and behaviour patterns of particular villains and for particular crimes. These files are secret to everybody except the police, who (being a public-sector body) are PC Plods who are not innovative at using them. In the early 2000s the increased efficiency of hackers at breaking into secret files will bring scandal about the police into the media in many countries. There will be accusations that the police are deliberately not tracking down some big gangs of criminals, ostensibly because those criminals are paying them with information about other criminals, but really because they are paying them money. In Britain police will be found still concocting cases against black people, Irish people, long-haired youths, short-haired youths, other folk they dislike. The interesting question will explode: why should police files be kept secret?
Some civil libertarians will say "the police have to keep secret the record of petty offender Joe Bloggs, because it would be wicked if all his neighbours know it." A compromise will be effected whereby each computer file, though thrown open to investigation by many competitors to the police, will have a number instead of proper name attached. After a certain stage in a criminal career, even that anonymity will be removed e.g., for the under 1% of people who commit over 50% of some crimes because, on release, they go straight back to offending and soon to prison again. Even in the early 1990s, each year spent by anybody in prison in Britain costs the state £25,000. Gradually, the whole unsuccessful police and justice system in most countries will be transformed, by recognising that it should be a modern open-to-everybody information industry.
By 2000 the cost of lawyers will be falling fast. People will recognise that most of the work of lawyers can be done more quickly by telecommuting into programmes that interpret the statute law of England. Those programmes will answer the specific question you have posed via your personal computer. Cases in non-criminal law will then increasingly be settled by each side putting its case to the computer, and agreeing to accept its verdict.
When a suspected criminal is arraigned before a court, the first question will at last rightly become "did he do it?" Until after about 2010, suspects will still be able, if they wish, to insist on submitting themselves to the present lottery system of adversarial lawyers, widely differing juries and erratic Lords Justice. But more and more criminals will agree to plea-bargain after seeing on computer file all the evidence against them, and the computer's judgment of how little chance they have of getting away with their defence.
The courts will then usually go on to the next and civilised question, though preferably with the lightest punishment: "how best can we discourage you from doing this again?" There should be lots of competing organisations offering "if the state will pay us the £25,000 a year that it would otherwise cost to put this man in prison, we will try to reform him within the community in the following way. If he recommits an offence within a certain time, we lose our fee." Sometimes that will require electronic tagging of the man concerned. If so, he should have some choice of which regime he prefers. There will be an increase of "bobbies on the beat" (i.e., policemen within the community), but various competitive bodies will start submitting tenders for this job saying they will seek to simplify their tasks by, e.g., better street lighting near notorious trouble spots.
Then, around 2010, local authorities will begin to change their way of providing municipal services. It is absurd that you should have to vote either Conservative or Labour when choosing who best can man-age your drains. Multinational corporations will appear On the ballot for local elections. They will say: "We will charge only this level of poll tax or property tax. We will promise by contract to reach the following targets for reduction in the crime rate, for environmental cleanliness, etc. If by the judgement of independent auditors we fail, we will have to remit some of your property tax to you. But we are confident we can fulfil this contract, and make a profit for our-selves at this level of property tax. Liverpool and New York city will be-come two of the first areas to elect commercial firms instead of politicians as their municipal authorities.
The poor and the military
By 2015 there will be only two main "public goods" left in the sense economists use the term (things best provided by government rather than markets). These two remaining public goods will be redistribution and military protection. These will then become competitivised.
Some part of redistribution can be handled by insurance. "I want to make sure my income never falls below half the average income": for some people, that could be an insurable risk. Others, such as the handicapped, some elderly and a few children, need special help. This can best be provided competitively. Children in the care of local-authority homes in Britain have an appallingly higher delinquency rate than other children, including those from equally troubled families but foster-parented or in charitable institutions like Barnardos. "Public sector" means there is a trade-union row if employees are sacked for mere inadequacy, or for monstrous incompetence. In institutions on performance contracts, there can be a continuous search for methods that succeed.
These performance contracts will eventually spread to tackle poverty. In the early 1990s the United States has 13% of its population below the officially defined poverty line, but an American has less than a 1% chance of staying long in poverty provided he or she does three things: completes high school, gets and stays married (not necessarily to the same person), stays a year in his first job even if at the minimum wage. People will start to bid for contracts to try to help "endangered people" thus to avoid being long in poverty, and some of the con-tracts will work.
The future of defence can be seen from what happened in the Gulf war. Long-distance rockets can already be pinpointed down the bedroom ventilator of any dictator, or on to any of his lorries and tanks. More sophisticated weapons than that are not going to be needed any more. Idealists say that military operations should be put under the control of the United Nations. Since many of the nastiest dictators have votes in the UN, that would not work. But in the next two decades NATO will more or less join with the old Warsaw Pact, in what will become a rich man's club.
NATO-Warsaw will keep a register of arms sent to any poorer countries, and will start to forbid any such sales. It will gradually assume a world policeman's role. It will equip itself at lowest price with stuff that actually works and will therefore probably buy much of its electronic hardware from the Japanese. It will recruit its soldiers in the cheapest high-quality markets: Gurkhas, Britain's SAS, Sons of old soldiers from various villages round the world with fighting in their blood.
By the 2020s it will be recognised as absurd that only the Republican and Democratic parties should field serious candidates for (say) the 2024 election for president of the United States. A competing "contractual" candidacy will be emerging a cabinet team who say they will never raise income tax above 10% (watch their lips), but will contract to provide government of the following quality...
every locality and culture? rsvp firstname.lastname@example.org
web will link how many of youth's 10000 greatest job creators?
RESOURCES of The Economist's Unacknowledged Giant
1984 First Future History of Web
1972 First Future History of would globalisation of financial markets collapse in 2010s
1962 Consider Future of Japan and Coming Asian Pacific Collaboration Century
2008 Consider Bangladesh as most important development economics paradigm of net generation's collaboration race to poverty museums- norman's last article republished as leaflet for The Economist Boardroom remembrance party of Norman Macrae 2010
Norman Macrae Fan web mainly as designed in 1996
2013 Happy 170th year of The Economist and first globall anniversary of the Coming of the MOOC and the www joyful revolution of Job Creating Education
Journal of Pro-Youth Economics edited out of Scotland by Adam Smith scholars, worldwide youth entrepreneurs, and friends of the families: Macrae & Yunus .. & daughters
5 education eg discuss MOOCs and virtually free education
4 banking eg discuss cashless banking
3 health services eg discuss 21st c nurse as every village's MVP of info networking
2 agriculture and waste eg discuss eAGRI
1 other eg can we use media to become smarter, more peaceful, communally active, happier with what becomes more abundant in use (eg knowhow) than what becomes scarce (eg consuming up thingsa)? ...
5 what constructs make education more and more affordable, and better quality for each human's flow?
peer to peer edu
how valuing core purpose of education as job creation (or generating fully produtive lifetime of every being) depends on everyone including the richest or most powerful believing that peoples and places only sustain progress if they-and-we-the people design education and savings around increasing next generation's productivity and sustainability
4 questions - how do you -and the societies you live in most- vision the most economical form of cashless banking applied to the basic service of enabling individual people to buy and sell by keeping people's money safe and accessible? what is a brief history of when different types of advances in computing and communications technology could have reduced costs of basic personal banking by an order of magnitude?
3 discuss whether we will ever get back to a world of working to make healthcare more affordable for everyone to access - and whether this opportunity depends on supporting the job of 21st c nursing to be ever village's most trusted vital informal connector and well as lead-doer of basic health knowhow
2 discuss whether this generation will be just in time to get back to nutrition and food security for all: map how man-made carbon waste is alien to nature whose organic system design revolves round sustaiinability of one living organism's waste being another's energy input; do the people who make place's biggest decision truly involve all of us in understanding that we are the first generation to know about climate chane and the ;last one to be able to do anything about it
1 discuss how to value abundance before scarcity .. is it possible to get back to a world of win--win-win system designs where every professional metrics or lawmaker takes a hippocratic oath to openly help innovate abundance before privately leveraging scarcity?
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Dad (Norman Macrae) created the genre Entrepreneurial Revolution to debate how to make the net generation the most productive and collaborative . We had first participated in computer assisted learning experiments in 1972. Welcome to more than 40 years of linking pro-youth economics networks- debating can the internet be the smartest media our species has ever collaborated around?
Foundation Norman Macrae- The Economist's Pro-Youth Economist
5801 Nicholson Lane Suite 404RockvilleMD20852 tel 301 881 1655 email email@example.com
2013 = 170th Year of The Economist being Founded to End Hunger
2010s = Worldwide Youth's most productive and collaborative decade
1972: Norman Macrae starts up Entrepreneurial Revolution debates in The Economist. Will we the peoples be in time to change 20th C largest system designs and make 2010s worldwide youth's most productive time? or will we go global in a way that ends sustainability of ever more villages/communities? Drayton was inspired by this genre to coin social entrepreneur in 1978 ,,continue the futures debate here
world favorite moocs-40th annual top 10 league table