miércoles, abril 20, 2016

¡Respaldemos cambio de marco de referencia #globaldebout #DD_SM YA!

Primera actualización. Clave #GlobalDebout: santificar YA desregulación mercados sistémicos. Sin conocer otros lugares (bienvenidos sean) que ya tienen desarrollada la capacidad para la desregulación de los mercados sistémicos, uno excepcional para lograr tal santificación (ver artículo Simplicidad) es la República Dominicana. En tal sentido se sugiere apoyar en lo que queda hasta el 15 de mayo de 2016 el reclamo de una Ley Sistémica de Electricidad que cambia el marco de referencia para todo el mundo al de un servicio eléctrico sobresaliente. Es así como el Global Debout puede mostrar una cosecha temprana el mismo 15 de mayo, fecha que coincide con las elecciones dominicanas, si respaldan el cambio de marco de referencia basado en la democracia directa del mercado sistémico (#DD_SM) por medio de las redes sociales.



Para constatar que la República Dominicana es un lugar excepcional para hacer la transformación a la democracia directa del mercado sistemíco de electricidad, se sugiere contemplar atentamente el video de 29 minutos que fue presentado en el Consejo Económico y Social (CES). Lamentablemente el CES es una "Plataforma en Llama," anulada por el pensamiento de grupo (Groupthink) del marco de referencia vigente que sirve al capitalismo de amiguetes global y sus socios.

Contrario a lo que la mayoría de la gente puede esperar, la estrategia del movimiento de los indignados de todo el mundo necesita ser global para poder cambiar el marco de referencia en unos pocos y selectos lugares del mundo. Así se le sugiere aquí a los organizadores del Global Debout. En lo que respecta a dicho sector clave se debe saber que cambia al mismo tiempo la crisis ambiental global de problema a solución, que luego servirá para cambio de patrón y para acción directa en otras partes del mundo. Eso queda respaldado en el texto inicial de esta nota que sigue a continyuación..

¡Respaldemos cambio de marco de referencia #globaldebout #DD_SM YA! 
“La elevación de la productividad del trabajo de servicios no se puede lograr ni por la intervención del gobierno ni por medio de la política. Esa labor la deben hacer los gerentes y ejecutivos de las empresas y de las organizaciones no lucrativas. Esa es la primera responsabilidad social de la sociedad del conocimiento.” -- Peter F. Drucker, Facetas No. 101 3/1993

En breve aparece copiado integramente el texto provisional sobre #GlobalDebout que aparece en el blog "¡Democracia real YA! - No somos mercancías en manos de políticos y banqueros'." Entendenmos que dicho texto es muy certero y brillante de acuerdo al acostumbrado aprendizaje del pasado. Pero también es muy oportuno en ocasión de lo que se hizo en la nota Can #GlobalDebaut international call concentrate on an Ashoka like solid framework change?, (´Puede el llamado internacional #GlobalDebout concentrase en un cambio en el marco de referencia sólido como el de Ashoka? En tal sentido, a seguidas introducimos en medio del texto 6 observaciones que se basan en el aprendizaje del futuro emergente. Por estar la República Dominicana lista para enfrentar el capitalismo global de amiguetes, adelantamos la última observación que dice lo siguiente: 

Observación 6. Dado que hay elecciones en EE.UU (en noviembre),  República Dominicana (coincide con el 15 de mayo) y posiblemente en España (en junio), no debemos dejar para mañana lo que podamos hacer hoy, respaldando el cambio en curso del marco de referencia que se inicia con "Resumen ejecutivo: Estando abierto a mejoras, este paper esta dirigido a una innovación institucional pre-electoral para el crecimiento verde elevado que aumenta el estándar de vida en todo el mundo," que aparece en la "Decimotercera actualización. Ocupar o no ocupar el Estado, esa es la cuestion de los indignados" de la nota ¿Podrá Felipe VI crear la civilización sistémica para resolver la crisis de gobierno, revertir la desigualdad y estimular la economía? 




15 de mayo 2016 #globaldeboutBY 


Gente de Europa, gente del mundo:
El 15 de mayo de 2011, después de otra protesta contra políticos , banqueros y contra las radicales medidas de austeridad que sufrió España, un pequeño grupo de personas decidió que una manifestación no era suficiente, no volvió a casa y continuó el debate en la plaza de la Puerta del Sol.
La razón era clara y simple, nuestra democracia había caído en manos de los banqueros y nuestros políticos se habían corrompido. Ya no nos representaban. Era la hora de que la gente recuperara el poder para dar significado a la palabra democracia.
Observación 1. Esa razón clara y simple ha sido reinterpretada como el capitalismo de amiguetes global que domina el mundo por encima de los países con un pensamiento de grupo ('Groupthink').  
A pesar de la violenta represión de las fuerzas de policía y el silencio de los medios de comunicación, rápidamente se contagió en unas pocas semanas este viento de esperanza en toda Europa. Desde Madrid a Atenas y Turquía , luego de Nueva York a Brasil y Méjico, y finalmente hasta Hong Kong en todas partes las plazas fueron ocupadas por campamentos de soñadores que aspiraban a construir una nueva forma de democracia directa y participativa. Siguiendo el modelo de la Primavera Árabe la gente de abajo comenzó a organizarse en asambleas populares para crear el comienzo de un movimiento internacional de toda la humanidad, horizontal, y apartidista. El 15 de octubre de 2011 en la Convocatoria de Occupy Wall Street un grito de democracia real resonó en más de 1.000 ciudades.
Observación 2. Con base a la primera actualización de la referida nota (y respaldada con la cita inicial del finado gurú de la gerencia del siglo XX Peter F. Drucker), sugerimos el texto provisional que aparece al final que traducimos y adaptamos para que diga: "No mundo sin democracia, representativa y directa, no democracia representativa sin política y no democracia directa sin emprededurismo, no hay política sin partidos ni emprendurismo sin grandes talentos." La sociedad del conocimiento de Drucker pasa a ser la civilización sistémica donde se llega al capitalismo sobresaliente que reemplaza al capitalismo de amiguetes.
5 años más tarde el movimiento de las plazas resurge de sus cenizas en Francia con #NuitDebout. Desde el 31 de marzo, los franceses ocupan la Plaza de la República para escuchar su propia voz.

Nuestra lucha va más allá de la reforma laboral: es todo un sistema que queremos repensar y crear juntos hasta el final.


Observación 3. El sistema ya está repensado de foma provisional. Se trata de un Estado minimalista que impulsa la democracia directa del mercado sistémico (#DD_SM siglas en inglés).

#NuitDebout representa un nuevo impulso en la lucha mundial contra la dictadura de las finanzas, la explotación de las personas y la destrucción del medio ambiente.
Observación 4. Esa lucha se enfrenta con una estrategia selectiva en el cambio de mentalidad que se sugiere lograr con leyes sistémicas de electridad en lugares como EE.UU, España y República Dominicana. 
Esta lucha no solo la libra Europa, Canadá o Estados Unidos, sino en todo el mundo la gente sencilla como nosotros encuentra la esperanza, es por ello que la asamblea se ha reunido esta noche para convocar otros #NuitDebout y construir un porvenir digno para todos en el mundo …
Observación 5. Ese cambio de mentalidad que aumenta radicalmente la productividad sirve de ejemplo para cambios de patrón y acción directa para todo el mundo en ese y otros sectores de servicio. 
Por ello hoy, la asamblea popular reunida en la plaza de la República en París hace un llamamiento a todos los pueblos de Europa y del mundo, para ocupar los lugares públicos y organizar para las próximas semanas una nueva temporada de la lucha por la democracia.
Observación 6. Dado que hay elecciones en EE.UU (en noviembre), República Dominicana (coincide con el 15 de mayo) y posiblemente en España (en junio), no debemos dejar para mañana lo que podamos hacer hoy, respaldando el cambio en curso del marco de referencia que se inicia con "Resumen ejecutivo: Estando abierto a mejoras, este paper esta dirigido a una innovación institucional pre-electoral para el crecimiento verde elevado que aumenta el estándar de vida en todo el mundo," que aparece en la "Decimotercera actualización. Ocupar o no ocupar el Estado, esa es la cuestion de los indignados" de la nota ¿Podrá Felipe VI crear la civilización sistémica para resolver la crisis de gobierno, revertir la desigualdad y estimular la economía? 
El 15 de mayo del año 2016 debería marcar el advenimiento de una conciencia global.
Somos el 99%, ¡todos juntos podemos cambiar el mundo!
(texto provisional, desarrolandose en las asambleas NuitDebout)


yyy

lunes, abril 18, 2016

Can #GlobalDebaut international call concentrate on an Ashoka like solid framework change?

First update. To @FareedZakaria: ¿Are American elections and Global Debout ready for #DD_SM? Whether or not the #GlobalDebout (a typo says #GlobalDebaut) international call, mentioned below, elects a framework change in favor of Direct Democracy Systemic Markets (#DD_SM), we suggest that American voters deserve to receive such a framework change call as soon as possible from the mass media that's no part of crony capitalism 'Groupthink.' The call is not in defense of any political party whatsoever. So we suggest the need to question, the Washington Post article In defense of the GOP, where Fareed Zakaria wrote that:
Having recently discovered how the nomination process works in the Republican Party, Donald Trump is furious. “They wanted to keep people out,” he bellowed. “This is a dirty trick.” In fact, Mr. Trump is right on the first count and wrong on the second. Political parties do have mechanisms to “keep people out.” But far from being a trick, they are the crux of what makes parties valuable in a democracy.
Of course his assumption that it is not a dirty trick is right, but what's not longer right in this period of big change is Clinton Rossiter quote that "... begins his classic book 'Parties and Politics in America' with this declaration: 'No America without democracy, no democracy without politics, no politics without parties.'” An update to the quote for American voters, that equates direct democracy with #DD_SM, and in fact for voters all over the world, to be polished if necessary by learning from the emergent future, might say:
"No America without democracy, representative and direct, no representative democracy without polítics and no direct democracy without entrepreneurship, no polítics without parties and no entrepreneurship without great talents."
Can #GlobalDebout international call concentrate on an Ashoka like solid framework change?
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead, American cultural anthropologist
We (me and a small select group of citizens from a few countries that have distributed and feed-backed my suggestions) find very timely and important the INTERNATIONAL CALL BY #NUITDEBOUT, whose text is copied below in order to try to upgrade it with a few observations in light of our humble experience that is represented at the end of this post, based on a recent nomination to the Ashoka Global Fellowship as an attempt to show our credibility. The main changes reframe the call for being mainly about liquid emotions, as the polish philosopher Zygmunt Bauman characterized the 15-M back in 2011, by saying it lacked the solid though that we claim is available in this blog background.




The first impression of the call seems that #NuitDebaut is committed to “Occupy the State,” as has been done in Spain and Greece, in contrast to the original 15-M spirit which was “Not to Occupy State.” In addition to a video, where “Ashoka Founder and CEO Bill Drayton explains how his organization uses unique measures of impact to gauge the work of their social entrepreneurship fellows. Drayton also discusses the differences between pattern change and framework change, and uses an example from k-12 education to illustrate the latter,” we repeat the Call with interspersed observations based on our experience:

WE CALL FOR A #GLOBALDEBOUT DAY OF ACTION ON THE 15 OF MAY, 2016

We call on peoples movements across the world to mobilise for justice and real democracy on the 15 of May, 2016 for a #GLOBALDEBOUT. We invite you to come to Paris for an International Gathering of movements at Place de la Republic on May 7 and 8.
Observation 1. Real democracy has been thought to be only representative and participatory democracy that is part of the State, but a direct democracy of systemic markets has emerged to shift from the existing unsatisfactory anti-systemic State market equilibrium dominated by crony capitalism ‘Groupthink’ of the industrial civilization to the emerging equilibrium of the systemic civilization under great capitalism (more below).   
Today #46mars (April 15) is just two weeks after one million people mobilized in Paris and the movement Nuit Debout continues to grow. In numerous French and foreign cities, #Nuitdebout (Night on our Feet) is a light in the dark, it gives testimony to our hopes, dreams and common rebellions. Those who have taken the squares in the past and those who are taking them NOW: we know something is happening.

The struggle for a better world is Global and without boarders, let's construct together a global spring of resistance! Join to us on May 7th and 8th in Paris at Place de Republique to debate, to share our experiences and to begin to construct together common solutions. There we will strategise and prepare for an International day of Action on MAY 15th (#76mars). On this date we will occupy, mobilise and take direct action together across the world.
Observation 2. The time for resistance and debate based on the exclusive primacy of the parts can be upgraded to a time of proactive action and generative dialogue based on the inclusive primacy of the whole to start to co-create the systemic civilization as a mindset or framework change with energy policy acts that enable economic green growth that the serve as pattern changes and direct action later on in other sectors.
Nuit Debout's first aim is to create a space for the 'convergence of struggles'. We hope this convergence will go beyond France and spread worldwide. There exist numerous links between social movements in all four corners of the world; from unemployment to the imposition of the financial markets, from the destruction of the environment to war and unacceptable inequality.
Observation 3. As the space for the convergence of anti-systemic struggles of the industrial civilization is based on the paradigm of independence, a global declaration of interdependence for the systemic civilization is critical to unite all social movements in all four corners of the world; from unemployment to the imposition of the financial markets, from the destruction of the environment to war and unacceptable inequality, which have a root cause on the global crony capitalism ‘Groupthink.’
In response to a system based on competition and individualism, we answer with the solidarity, participatory democracy and collective action. Our differences are not a source of divisions, but rather our strength, as we complement each other struggles. We are neither listened nor represented by the current economic system.
Observation 4. As the anti-systemic existing market State equilibrium centered on short run financial capital and big government that is leading us to the Second Middle Ages has been erroneously interpreted as based on competition and individualism, form an industrial civilization paradigm perspective, the emerging market State centered on long run production capital will lead to the first Golden Age of the systemic civilization based on systemic competition and collaboration. In the new equilibrium every citizen has the opportunity to win (or there is no deal, as Steven Covey suggested) under great capitalism.
Together we retake public space and politics because politics is a matter of all of us. Now is not the moment retreat, but to come together for change.
Observation 5. Concentrate on “Not to Occupy State” with mindset change starting supporting selected energy policy acts in specific locations, for example, USA, Spain and Dominican Republic.
We are the 99 % and we are here to reject the financial and political rule of the 1 % and their world. We are here to take back our cities, our places of work and our lives.
Observation 6. Please adjust based on the first 5 observations.
On May 7th and 8th, let's come together to Paris to the square of the Republic!

On the day of May 15 we will rise up together for a global day of action.

#NuitDebout everywhere! #GlobalDebout!


Nomination of José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio to the Ashoka Global Fellowship

Please articulate the core idea of your work and describe how this idea is new or different from current approaches.
The need to leap from the industrial civilization (centered on the paradigm of independence) to what we (me and a few Twitter citizens) named as the systemic civilization (centered on the paradigm of interdependence). Such leap is based on a framework change that might start on the electricity sector to enable high green economic growth, for example, in the USA, Puerto Rico, Spain, Haiti, Dominican Republic, other countries, or any combination of them. This work started in 1996 addressing Dominican Republic electricity crisis. The main difference with current approaches is transition versus transformation. Transition, for example, is what’s driving the IEEE Smart Grid (more below) and even in the climate change COP21 Paris Agreement, where their ideas are based on the primacy of the parts, while transformation is based on the primacy of the whole.
What is the main social problem this idea is attempting to solve? What is the impact of the problem and why does it persist?
The main social problem is soaring inequality, which is the result of global crony capitalism incomplete deregulation, which privatizes the benefits to those capitalists and their associates, whether they know it or not. This seems to have led to anti-systemic (not systemic, which have positive synergy, but contrary to system with negative synergy).  The impact can be explain as heading to the Second Middle Ages, which persists by a strong global ‘Groupthink’ that involve most global institutions that negatively mutually reinforce each other to maintain the unsuccessful current equilibrium comfort zone of crony capitalism
What is the scale of the impact of your work to date?
Pilot
What is your strategy for scaling the impact of your idea? What will be different in 5-10 years if you are successful?
This is not a direct activity pilot, nor a change pattern pilot. It is a change framework pilot that is based on an action oriented scientific attitude and heuristic systems architecting though experiments that have play out on Twitter, that is now ready to be able to introduce systemic energy policy acts in selected places. Such policy act is based on the fair, complete an fully functional Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework (EWPC-AF), which emerged increasing the architecting scope as to transform (no fix & maintain, develop, nor transition) not just the global electric power industry but in order to leap into a new equilibrium State and markets to leap to where the magic happens for great capitalism, which Carlota Pérez has described as a Golden Age. This will, for example, apply what Prahalad and Krishnan suggested in their book 'the new age of innovation:’ N=1 (one consumer experience at a time) and R=G (resources from multiple vendors and often from around the globe).The electric power industry tipping point will be overcome in less than 10 years.
Why are you personally dedicated to the issue?  Please share relevant background, including: your history of entrepreneurship (including childhood years) and the life experiences and/or insights that led to your current path.
In the 1950’s, I spliced an analogue tape recorder’s tape and made a close loop with a message that repeated it endlessly and left the house. For a moment, my mother though that I had become crazy. In elementary school 6th grade’s final official math exam, my teacher didn’t understand a question that had a graph, which I explained to her, was a pie chart.  I earned the first prize of an essay about a local personality, who happened to be the one my high school (one or two years later) had been named earlier. In my first two years in university, I earned Shell Co. prize as the best engineering student. As the university was closed down during a civil war in 1965, one of my professors, who happened to be a board member at the public power company, offered me a scholarship in electrical engineering if I was accepted in any of five prestigious universities in the US. Cornell University accepted me and I went on to get BS, MS, and PhD degrees. I realized recently that my professor is the reason why I have been dedicated to the issue which emerged as EWPC-AF.  On May 2009, I applied to the “Contest for Innovation in Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency in Latin America and the Caribbean,” a program jointly sponsored and managed by three international organizations and  the Inter American Development Bank (IADB), with the pattern change proposal which I translate as “A country without arbitrary power interruptions," which was submitted as “an organizational basic innovation (revolutionary) EWPC sustainable regulatory model.” The proposal was not even selected in the short list 250 out of 1000 proposals. In March 2011, playing as the EWPC-AF_Creator, I thought to have been the “All Around Winner of the Smart Grid 2025 Game.” Later I demonstrated the game was for a transition scenario to support the statu quo IEEE Smart Grid, when what’s required is a mindset changer transformation scenario like the EWPC-AF. In November 2012 I was accepted as the interim (first) Chair of the IEEE Dominican Republic Subsection, with an approved business plan of leaping it from Good to Great.  The plan which would later lead to the transformation of the IEEE from Good to Great became bombarded by the corresponding Puerto Rico and the Caribbean Section and IEEE headquarters.

martes, abril 12, 2016

Minimalists governments with fair global free deregulated markets must arrive soon

First update. Would #GlobalDebout aim #DD_SM direct democracy towards minimalists States under #Jobsism? The subtitle "Corruption is just a symptom of Brazil’s deeper issue: a vast state apparatus that has tried to be the country’s engine of economic growth," of the essay Brazil’s Giant Problem is a welcome contribution to the need for the framework change required by the Global Debout. That deeper issue is precisely what mutually reinforces the need for minimalists States as addressed in this paper's main text. The essay also brings to fore Jobsism as a framework change in the "First update. What voters are not expecting but will love: a minimalist State that drives direct democracy systemic markets" of the post Elections in USA, Germany, Spain, DR are under unstable equilibrium, as they were in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain, where it says:
In Chapter 1, "The transformation of business," of the book "the new age of innnovation: driving co-created value through global networks," the late C. K. Prahalad and M. S. Krishnan strongly support what's suggested in the October 2014 post Applying #Jobsism to transform current global #Fordism marketing myopia in terms of two fundmental principles, which are reinterpreted as follows (with italics of the original):
Jobsism first principle: "Value is based on unique, personalized experiences of consumers. Firms have to learn to focus on one consumer and her experience at a time, even if they serve 100 million consumers. The focus is on the centrality of the individual."  
Jobsism second principle."No firm is big enough in scope and size to satisfy the experiences of one consumer at a time. All firms will access resouces from a wide variety of other big and smal firms - a global ecosystem. The focus is on access to resources, not ownership of resources."
Written by John Lyons and David Luhnow, for The Wall Street Journal, and updated on April 22, 2016, the essay last paragraph quotes Rubens Ricupero, a former Brazilian finance minister, saying:
The trouble is, the only way to fix the politics is through the politicians. Are they really going to vote against their own self interest?
What follows is an adjustment to the translation of an image distributed in Twitter, which generalizes what we witnessed yesterday, Sunday 24 April, when Juan Carlos López moderated on CNN en Español, in the “Choque de Opiniones (Clash of views).” There in the studio participated panelists Maria Cardona, Roberto Izurieta, Maricruz Magowan and from Los Angeles Luis Alvarado. The program sought the presidential nomination process in the US and statements of the candidate Donald Trump that the system is rigged. Our conclusion is that Global Debout could boost shortly a change in the current framework that wrongly suggests what Ricupero said.

Such a change is similar to the famous quote by Henry Ford, when the world changed a century ago: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” What Ford did was a change in the framework for the car, which then served to changing patterns in the vast majority of organizations that led to whai is call Fordism. It is based on that obsolete framework of Fordism that the "Clash of views" was conducted.

But since 2011 indignados movements of the world, including the Arab Spring, 15-M in Spain and Occupy Wall Street have been asking (unknowingly) a change in the framework, we have suggested as Jobsism, recognizing the leadership of Steve Jobs. Said Jobsism changes to the framework of a minimalist state that promotes direct democracy of systemic market (#DD_SM) for voters before voting will find out what needs to be fixed is the market through, for example, a Global Debout to follow the spirit of the 15-M indignados.

Executive summary: Being open to enhancements, this paper is aimed at a pre-electoral institutional innovation leading to high green growth that increases the standard of living all over the world. The time has arrived for a sharp pre-electoral strategy of a systemic electricity law aimed at high green growth as the new normal to start to shrink big government, for example, in the USA, Spain and Dominican Republic. The strategy is in response to a global 'Groupthink' consensus of experts with a superficial ethic dominated by crony capitalism, that keeps unfair complex regulations in place. For example, such consensus wrongly suggest that low growth is the new normal. To restore the character ethics on talent as the means for success, the world now need simple government regulations that enable fair global free market deregulation with long run production capital. This means that political parties must be driven to stop as soon as possible representative democracy ‘Groupthink’ to avoid global society collapse. Such collapse is closer than most policy makers are willing to admit, as the excesive use of short run financial capital where global money governs is what involves increasing government debt which increases global financial instability.

Resumen ejecutivo: Estando abierto a mejoras, este paper tiene esta dirigido a una innovación institucional pre-electoral para el crecimiento verde elevado que aumenta el estándar de vida en todo el mundo. Ha llegado la hora de una estrategia preelectoral aguda de una ley de electricidad sistémica orientada al crecimiento económico verde para comenzar a reducir el tamaño del gobierno, por ejemplo, en los EE.UU., España y República Dominicana. La estrategia es en respuesta a un consenso global "pensamiento de grupo" de expertos con una ética superficial dominado por el capitalismo de amiguetes, que mantiene vigentes regulaciones complejas y abusivas. Por ejemplo, ese consenso sugiere equivocadamente que el bajo crecimiento es la nueva normalidad. Para restaurar la ética del carácter en el talento como medio para lograr el éxito, el mundo ahora necesita regulaciones gubernamentales simples que permitan desregulación justa en el mercado libre global con capital productivo a largo plazo. Esto significa que los partidos políticos deben ser impulsados ​​para detener tan pronto como sea posible "pensamiento de grupo" de la democracia representativa para evitar el colapso de la sociedad global a través de cisnes negros. Tal colapso está más cerca que la mayoría de los políticos están dispuestos a admitir, con el uso excesivo de capital financiero a corto plazo donde gobierna el dinero mundial es lo que implica aumentos de deuda por los gobiernos que aumenta la inestabilidad financiera global.




Minimalists governments with fair global free deregulated markets must arrive soon
“…the central problem of economics is not equilibrium but structural change. This then led to Schumpeter’s famous theorem of the innovator as the true subject of economics.”  
“Economics, for Keynes, was the equilibrium economics of Ricardo’s 1810 theories, which dominated the 19th century. This economics deals with a closed system and a static one. Keynes’ key question was the same question the 19th-century economists had asked: ‘How can one maintain an economy in balance and stasis?’” 
“…it is becoming increasingly clear that it is Schumpeter who will shape the thinking and inform the questions on economic theory and economic policy for the rest of this century, if not for the next 30 or 50 years.’’  
Peter F. Drucker, “Schumpeter And Keynes,” May 1983.

Based on the flawed Keynesan assumption that "Low growth is new normal," the introduction of the press release Fiscal reform key to boost growth in Latin America and the Caribbean, says that:
Weak global growth, a fading demographic boom, lower commodity prices and deteriorating fiscal positions are underscoring the urgent need for major reformulations in fiscal policies of Latin America and the Caribbean, according to the Inter-American Development Bank’s annual macroeconomic report released here today.

Most countries need to trim fiscal spending. However, the report argues against cutting capital investments but rather undertake more fundamental reforms.
In line with Drucker's advice, the confluence of a schumpeterian deep transformation for a systemic electricity law and the emergenge of high green growth as the new new normal, which mutually reinforce each other, suggested below (and well in accordance with the action oriented scientific attitude of this blog) will lead to the Golden Age of the first technological revolution of the systemic civilization.



In line with the video of Carlota Pérez (below we disagre with the suggestion of a Second Machine Age), about capitalism and the social contract, which downplays the quantification of lost factory manufacturing jobs as a result of technology shaping society, to concentrate into how society shapes technology in order to spread the bounty to most of society through changes in life styles to increase the standard of living all over the world. This means that the time has come to enable economic green growth coming from long run production capital, where talent with the character ethic governs, specially at the market at the Bottom of the Pyramid.

The issue of soaring inequality is shown to be the result of 'Groupthink' consensus of experts (the owners the old best practices) that have a lot to lose in the current big shift from the industrial civilization to the systemic civilization that will be co-created organically. The people of the world need minimalists goverments that promotes complete and fully funcional free markets under global interdependence so that the individual co-created customer experience can be of high quality low cost innovations in the global market. Highly regulated unfair regional free trade agreements must be transformed and integrated into one deregulated fair global free market.

This paper is an outgrowth of the “Third update. Has global society chosen to fail with the Paris Agreement developed under representative democracy ‘Groupthink’?” of the post World Economic Forum Davos 2016: Will #OWS and #15M love The Industrialist’s Dilemma? that changes its aim from climate change (which Carlota takes as the solution for green growth) to the political parties, in which we add the finding that Groupthink's root cause for both aims is crony capitalism. While reediting and enlarging the update, some of what has been later on learned under the ongoing action oriented scientific attitude (not Groupthink consensus) will be applied here.

In Chapter 14, “Why do some societies make disastrous decisions?” of his New York Times bestseller book Collapse [1], Jared Diamond proposed a road map “of factors contributing to failures of group decision making.” This is how he introduced his proposal:
We consider those categories as follows:
  1. The group decision made by political parties didn’t anticipate the problem they have now, for example, in the 2015 election in Spain, which seems to have another election in 2016, as are the elections being organized in the USA, the Dominican Republic and other countries. 
  2. The problem arrived with a strong signal on the year 2011, for example, on the Arab Spring, the May 15 Indignados movement in Spain and Occupy Wall Street in the USA, but parties all over the world failed to perceive it. 
  3. Now during the elections since 2015, political parties and the media are confused, but have a way in this paper to perceived it, which means they are so far failing to solve it. 
  4. To try to solve it, as soon as possible before elections, we suggest to political parties of the three countries on the first category to start looking for clues, for example, in the 20 tweets of the post Twitter Analytics TOP TWEETS of @gmh_upsa over the 28 day period ending on April 7, 2016, whose introduction is as follows:
This is a grateful testimony giving thanks to those local and global citizens that have retweeted and like my tweets intended for the greater good of local and global society during said period. As can be seen in the top tweets @gmh_upsa, the electoral strategy of the Systemic Electricity Law for voters before elections as the most prominent. Clicking on the date of a tweet takes you to the corresponding Twitter conversation (sequence) of the tweet, where you can see those citizens we are giving thanks. This option gives you the opportunity to retweet or like a tweet you want to support. Hashtags as well as (bit.ly) links are operating directly.
The main thesis of this paper is that political parties of representative democracies have set up a disastrous decision approach that is leading global society to collapse as a result of their Groupthink based on consensus of the primary of the parts. To support the way to understand it and try to solve it, next we (me and the just mentioned citizens) suggest a way based on the primacy of the whole in which we might have a chance to succeed if such collapse can still be prevented by getting closer to the market State equilibrium with the introduction of complete and fully functional deregulation, starting with electricity sector as a critical, important and where a well documented simplified solution is available to enable green growth for the whole world.

According to the Linkedin post The 8 Deadly Sins of 'Groupthink', by Mike Conforme, “the work of Irving Janis (1918 – 1990) underpins much of the modern theories – or, rather deciphers the peculiarities – of collective decision making. As a research psychologist at Yale University and a Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Janis was probably most famous for his theory of ‘Groupthink’ which described the systematic errors made by teams when making collaborative, consensus-driven decisions.” In this case, the systematic Groupthink errors (repeated and divided in three groups at the end of this post) can now be applied to the representative democracy political parties under the light of the strong evidence of the Industrialist’s Dilemma?

To show that we need the strong leadership to create the systemic civilization, there are three representative examples of the American travelling industry where the bad consequences of Groupthink decision making apply under the emergence of disruptive technologies. The first was railroad, which was documented as Marketing Myopia by Theodore Levitt [2]: the second was when car manufacturers faced small cars that came from Japan and Europe as documented by Gareth Morgan [3]; and the third is coming from Uber (which might be wolf instead of a sheep) as a special case of the Industrialist’s Dilemma, which can be accessed from the main text of the above mentioned post about The Industrialist’s Dilemma.

By taking into account the well documented research of Carlota Pérez [4], it is clear that the first was the result of the change from the third to the fourth technological revolution. As we discovered that Carlota fifth technological revolution should not be considered as part of the industrial civilization, which is now supported here as a result of the influence of Groupthink, the second and the third examples occurred as a result of the emergent civilization change. Such a civilization change fits well as the best explanation of the great decoupling that resulted in the soaring inequality, associated, for example, with the Groupthink overestimation of the representative democracy power, influence and morality. In fact, while the most important underlying assumption of the industrial civilization was independence, it is interdependence for the systemic civilization. More on independence and interdependence below.

Contrary to the third update which restricted itself to consider "outside the scope of this post to prove without any doubt the emergence of the systemic civilization," now there is no doubt  as we are providing key evidence to support its emergence of the systemic civilization that was in the blind spot of Groupthink. Let's start with the book review “The Fourth Revolution: The Global Race to Reinvent the State,” where Rosa Brooks [5]  wrote that:
“The Fourth Revolution” is a lively book, romping briskly — if selectively — through five centuries of history. It makes quick stops along the way to explain “why ideas matter” and to check out the “three and a half great revolutions” that propelled the West into its now-imperiled leadership role. Micklethwait and Wooldridge’s first revolution was the rise of the European nation-state after the Peace of Westphalia; the second was the late-18th- and 19th-­century turn toward individual rights and accountable government; the third was the creation of the modern welfare state. Each revolution improved the state’s ability to provide order and deliver vital services while still fostering innovation. But as democratic publics demanded more and more, the state promised more and more, eventually overextending itself. In Revolution 3.5, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan tried, but failed, to shrink the state.



While it fits that Revolution 3.5 supports both the great decoupling and the civilization change was emerging but has been restrained under Groupthink, it is not where the cultural shift started as will be seen briefly. The proof of the above mentioned overestimation is given in the interview by Thom Hartmann to Thomas Frank, about his latest book [6], whose interview introduction tell us in fact that:
For tonight's Conversations with Great Minds - we're going to take a closer look at what happened to the Democratic Party. From the New Deal until the middle part of the 20th century - the Democratic Party - like most left or center left parties the world over - was the party of the people. It was the home of unions - social security - medicare - and American working and middle-classes. But then something strange started happening. Over the course of the 1970s - the 1980s - and then the 1990s - the Democrats - well - they got a lot less democratic. They were still "liberal" - or said they were - but they now got their economic policies from Wall Street - and their trade policies from multinational corporations. And that was just the beginning. Then came school "reform" - welfare "reform" - the bankruptcy bill - the bailout. What happened? What happened to the party of FDR - Henry Wallace - and Lyndon Johnson? When did that party disappear and become the party of Bill Clinton - Tim Geithner and Larry Summers? 



Also in fact, Thomas Frank associates the above with the emergence of a meritocracy that failed. It failed not by being a meritocracy, but by the money led Groupthink consensus under the primacy of the parts. Steven R. Covey explained why it failed and where the cultural shift actually started [7]:
The author describes the difference between what he describes as the personality ethic and the character ethic. The character ethic is the idea that a person advances in basis of their character. This was culturally the main idea expressed in the US up until about WWI, when popular literature began to focus more on short-cuts and easy ways to manipulate situations or to get what you want. Character ethic depends on deep changes within each of us, while the personality ethic falls back on methods or techniques. The personality ethic does not challenge us; neither does it bring about deep changes within us. Phrases characteristic of the personality ethic are think positive and believe in yourself.
Such character ethics of talent is what's behind the post Elections in USA, Germany, Spain, DR are under unstable equilibrium, as they were in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain, which at this moment starts with its "Third update. Global voters need that Talent govern with #DD_SM deregulation rather than Money. That suggestion is the response to the question “What does ‘capitalism’ mean when Knowledge governs – rather than Money?” that the late management guru Peter Drucker raised in his 1999 book 'Management Challenges for the 21st Century.'” Talent is clearly not the current meritocray with its personality (perhaps better named as superficiality) ethics that is actually being governed by money for a long time under the Groupthink pressure of group conformity with crony capitalism. 

Such a decoupling can also be explained by the mechanistic systems Groupthink under the Cartesian paradigm of the industrial civilization, instead of the organic systems under the systemic paradigm where the system environment needed to be considered. In that regard, Gareth Morgan also wrote [3]:
Since the 1960s, management and organizational researchers have given much attention to shaping the design of work to increase productivity and job satisfaction while improving work quality and reducing employee absenteeism and turn over. Human resource management has become a major focus of attention and the need to integrate the human and technical aspects of work as important principle. 
Work in most parts of the world has now shown that in designing or managing any kind of social system, whether it be a small group, an organization, or a society, the interdependence of technical and human needs must be kept firmly in mind. 
While independence is a key property of the industrial civilization, the interdependence of society is a key property of the systemic civilization, that Covey show must be based on the character ethics. As representative democracy continued under the strong influence of independence and the personality ethic as a result of Groupthink, Dr. Morgan added that:
The principle now seems very obvious and is clearly recognized in most popular theories of organization, leadership, and group functioning. But there is still a tendency in management to fall back into a strictly technical view of organization. As noted in Chapter 2, this has been the primary problem facing the “reengineering movement,” which more or less dominated Western management practice in the early 1990s. Aspiring “reengineers,” paid a heavy price for ignoring the social dimension. By placing primary emphasis on the design of technical “business systems” as the key to change, the majority of reengineering programs mobilized all kinds of social, cultural, and political resistance that undermined their effectiveness.”
Still another example of strongly supporting the civilization change, while ignoring the social dimension as the industrial civilization Groupthink influence today, can be seen in the post Humanity in 2030: 危機, by José Luis Cordeiro of January 28, 2016. The idea of exponential technologies place “primary emphasis on the design of technical,” is another way of looking at what was suggested the main text is in in the post As The Great Decoupling is driven by TNA anti-systems, What about TAA in systemic civilization?, whose introduction says:
In The Great Decoupling: An Interview with Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, published by the Harvard Business Review, on their June 2015 issue,  the interviewers Amy Bernstein and Anand Ramansay wrote that:
Technological progress makes the world better but also brings new challenges, say Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, faculty members at the MIT Sloan School of Management, who have studied the impact of technology on economies for years. Their most recent book, "The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies," took an upbeat view of the high-tech future. But since its 2014 publication, the two academics have been grappling with a problem whose dimensions surprise even them: why digital innovations are contributing to the stagnation in average incomes in the United States and to the disappearance of so many middle-level jobs.
As TNA and TAA, meant There's No Alternative and There's An Alternative, respectively, on dark and bright technologies, we now add that one big difference between their approach just on technology and that of Carlota Pérez, which was given, for example, by John Bessant's simplification [8] of the model of a paper by Freeman and Pérez that classified technological change in the following types of innovations: Incremental. Radical, New technology system and New techno-economic paradigm. Here we are only concerned what he described as follows:
Lastly come technological changes which involve not only changes in technology but also in the social and economic fabric in which they are located.  Such ‘revolutions’ do not occur frequently, but their influence is pervasive and long lasting. For example, the role of steam power as a technology was not confined to radical improvements in the coal-mining industries. It was the catalyst for the Industrial Revolution, and its development and application set patterns which dominated economic growth for many decades to follow.  
Well in agreement with the above, the book "The Second Machine Age," (but not with its mistaken concept: while the industrial civilization was a machine age, the systemic civilization is an organic age) claim that the steam engine was the key technology of the industrial civilization. However, the steam engine was only in its second technological revolution, and is considered together with railways the key to the Victorian prosperity. The first technological revolution of the industrial revolution corresponds to early mechanization, where factories, wind power, and cotton were key elements, that according to Bessant (1) “involve a cluster of key technologies... and thus fuel economic expansion...” to which we add by mutually reinforcing each other.

Continuing with what Bessant wrote under quotes, the above is the first characteristic of the “Long Wave Model,” which has additional characteristics:  
(2) each technological revolution lead to a downturn, (3)”The emergence of economic growth comes primarily through established ‘carrier’ industries, which are able to exploit the opportunities opened up by the technology clusters. “ (4) “During each new cluster new industries also begin to grow and, although only in embryonic form in the current wave, these play a key role as carrier industries in the next. “ (5) Each technological revolution is not only concerned with technological clusters but also has dominant organizational forms associated with it. These set the pattern for organization and management for the next ‘era’ … (6) Finally, the impetus for change does not come solely from the emergence of new technologies (technology push) but also from growing problems and experience of limitations with the technologies and organizational forms associated with the previous technological revolution.
Comming back to the above mentioned tendency to "fall back" under Groupthink, this can be seen in the summary of the January 2010 post A Better Decade Require the End of the Prevailing Style of Management, that says “As suggested by W. Edwards Deming, the main barrier to basic innovations, like the EWPC-AF, and an increased standard of living, is the prevailing style of management. A better decade is thus dependent on the adoption of Deming’s System of Profound Knowledge.” Shifting to the energy side is related to the EWPC-AF, which is the Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework. One key support to the second example as a source to address global society collapse is that of the electric power industry Groupthink ignorance of the social dimension that can be taken from the post A complete and fully functional electricity restructuring proposal, that says:
Back in 1978, the late MIT professor Fred C. Schweppe, “… introduced the concept of a societal definition of a blackout to contrast it to the technical definition that is being used in the United States, China and other countries said to be following suit with smart-grid projects. Once that is understood, the public will respond by having supplemental energy sources.
As a follow up to that quote, there was a strong warning made by Schweppe and his team that said: "We believe the deregulation which considers only the supply side of the supply-demand equation is dangerous and could have very negative results [9]," which was not considered, for example, under Groupthink close-mindedness. In addition, as can be seen in the “First update” of the post World Economic Forum Davos 2016: Will #OWS and #15M love The Industrialist’s Dilemma?, we have one recent example of Groupthink conformity with its rejection, as can be seen in the introduction of the update that says:
Under the very timely article The World Is More Unequal Than Ever. Is That Because of Technology?, written by Michael Reilly on January 20, 2016, for MIT's Technology Review magazine, the following original comment (edited of course for that context) was submitted (but not accepted as of 11:30 am):
As can also be seen below, the above update being censored and mind guarded end like this:
Similar Strategic Myopia is what's been happening to the representative democracy of the industrial civilization, which has expanded its capacity, this time way beyond what the global socio economy needed. As the disruptive technologies enable direct democracy pro systemic markets, representative democracy reduction will return the much needed balance to reverse decreasing inequality.



The main difference between representative and direct democracy can be associated with complexity and simplicity respectively. After I heard Thomas Frank talk about complexity, we search his book and found this two paragraphs, the first of which is under the section “Consensus of the willing:”
All the thngs mentioned so far – the fascination with complexity, the desire to preserve existing players, the genuflection before expertise – all of them arise from one of the deepest wellsprings of liberal thought and action: the longing for a grand consensus of professional class that never seems to come. 
A forgotten school of left-wing historians used to argue that the regulatory state began not with public-minded statesmen cracking the whip and taming big biz, but just the opposite – with business leaders deliberately inviting federal regulation as a way to build barriers to entry and give their cartels the protection of law. Long-ago giants of steel, tobacco, telephones, and meatpacking all welcome federal regulation because of the effects it would have on smaller competitors. That old style of regulation brought ancillary benefits to the public, of course: better food, a standardized phone system. But its main objects were stability for existing businesses and guarantee profits in perpetuity.”
The issue of complexity is so critical, that we are repeating in full the EWPC post Is Power Industry Regulation Helping Crush the Life Out of America’s Economy?
Is the power industry one important instance of the Over-regulated America: the home of laissez-faire is being suffocated by excessive and badly written regulation, as The Economist documents in an article published on February 18th, 2012? Yes! As can be easily shown, the power industry is over-regulated. As a solution, The Economist suggests “A plea for simplicity,” identifying at the very end of the article “a real danger: that regulation may crush the life out of America’s economy.”

The origin of said over-regulation is that there is a huge mistake at the policy level architecture in EPAct 92 that has remained in place. Unless that critical mistake is addressed, it will be impossible to simplify the regulations. In order to introduce simplicity for the industry as a whole, one approach suggested is in the Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework (EWPC-AF), whose summary read:
A new approach to power energy policy design, based on system’s architecting heuristics, has led to an emerging simplified synthesis of the power industry regulatory policy. Instead of undergoing business as usual regulatory proceedings, the approach to the Electricity Without Price Controls Architecture Framework is poised to replace the Investor Owned Utilities Architecture Framework and its incremental extensions that have evolved by analytic patchwork as a extremely complex system. 
It is easy to agree with The Economist that “… red tape in America is no laughing matter. The problem is not the rules that are self-evidently absurd. It is the ones that sound reasonable on their own but impose a huge burden collectively. America is meant to be the home of laissez-faire… Americans are supposed to be free to choose, for better or for worse. Yet for some time America has been straying from this ideal.”
Although the regulation of the power industry is excessive, I would no say it is badly written. Instead, I argue above that it is badly designed. The main design problem with smart grid policy comes from the architecting assumption that a system-of-systems will do. By itself, the idea of system-of-systems is fine. What is wrong with the approach taken is that the systems are the existing systems that have continuously disintegrated the regulations via incremental extensions. Instead, what are needed are the emerging systems of the power industry as a whole. 
In all three dimensions, where consensus doesn't work, as the future is by far not a continuation of the past, which are rephrased as complexity, statu quo and experts under the personality ethics are in sharp contrast with loving simplicity, destructive creation and character ethic talent - the "Segunda actualización. Por qué necesitamos santificar la desregulación del mercado de comercialización de electricidad (Second update. Why we need to santify the deregulated retail electrity market) of the post Simplicidad (Simplicity), which is based on Jack Trout's book "The Power Of Simplicity: A Management Guide to Cutting Through the Nonsense and Doing Things Right." 

All three dimensions shift enable the “Ninth update. Countries must leap into Hagel’s electoral strategy of trajectory on Handy’s curve of systemic civilization” of the post Can we agree with the Second Curve, while not with Handy?, from where it emerged the following strategic intent synthesis as deregulation leads to the co-creation of individual experiences by customers:
The experience curve of the industrial civilization corresponds to the final area that is so saturated that even doesn’t allow innovators to crawl. No matter who wins the election, we will have unstable equilibrium by getting fatter governments.

On the new curve of the systemic civilization to which countries must leap, we can start with the Systemic Electricity Law, so that people can co-create in social networks, with plenty of room for innovators to crawl, walk, run and then fly. This is how we will go to the market State equilibrium.
In fact, repeating from above that “Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan tried, but failed, to shrink the state,” is exactly what is meant by the “Strategic Myopia” of “the representative democracy of the industrial civilization, which has expanded its capacity, this time way beyond what the global socio economy needed.” It should be clear that we are facing an outright collapse of global society in the making by the expansion of the industrial civilization, as suggested by The World Economic Forum on “The Fourth Industrial Revolution.” In order avoid said collapse, the above mentioned third update said "there is a lot of support available through this blog, which is open to extensive changes, to support a call to organize a pro system coalition 'without a stake in the current' undeniable Groupthink representative democracy anti-system." Recently the alternative to strategy with a systemic electricity law has taken its place. Nontheless, such a coalition might still be an alternative strategy.

This is where the article Exporting the Chinese Model, by Francis Fukuyama, a senior fellow at Stanford University and Director of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law doesn't make sense under systemic thinking. His most recent book is Political Order and Political Decay, is very timely. Describing still another expansion of the industrial civilization, Fukuyama wrote:
In 2013, President Xi Jinping announced a massive initiative called “One Belt, One Road,” which would transform the economic core of Eurasia. The One Belt component consists of rail links from western China through Central Asia and thence to Europe, the Middle East, and South Asia. The strangely named One Road component consists of ports and facilities to increase seaborne traffic from East Asia and connect these countries to the One Belt, giving them a way to move their goods overland, rather than across two oceans, as they currently do.

In response to the tweet that carried Fukuyama’s article, I wrote the tweet “Is China repeating its mistake at the start of a civilization now the systemic civilization?,” that added a link to this post. That mistake was at the start of the industrial civilization.

Then by reinterpreting a suggestion of his recent book, I added a tweet with a "Call for Global Declaration of interdependence coalition,” with an image whose introduction says “This is a call for Global Declaration of interdependence coalition.

Under systemic thinking it is very valuable to take history in account, learning from the old past, and also from the emergent future. Skillful and patient leadership and a clear agenda are available for the systemic civilization. The shock is also here.” To conclude this update, we may now change what Fukuyama said about the US, “Persuading them to rethink its most basic tenets short of an outright system collapse is highly unlikely. So we have a problem,” as “Persuading them to rethink its most basic tenets after an outright system collapse is highly likely. So we no longer have a problem.”

-----------------

Janis research yielded eight symptoms which severely dampened the effectiveness of group decisions, which he classified under three groups:

1. Overestimation of the group’s power, influence and morality
  • Omnipotence – the Group generates an internal sense of invulnerability, leading to excessive optimism and risk taking.
  • Morality – the Team develops a cult-like belief in their purpose, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
2. Close-mindedness
  • Rationalization – the Group justifies and ignores warnings that might challenge their assumptions.
  • Stereotyping – the Team classifies those opposed to the group as weak, biased, stupid, etc.
3. Pressures of group conformity
  • Censorship – the Group suppresses ideas that deviate from harmony and conformity.
  • False Agreement – the Team interprets silence as agreement, leading to implied consensus.
  • Pressure – the Group places ‘peer pressure’ on members that raise questions branding them as ‘disloyal’.
  • Mind Guards – the Team develops self-appointed individuals who shield members from external information which contradicts the team viewpoint.
References:
[1] Jared Diamond (2005), “Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed,” Penguin Books 2006.
[2] Levitt, T. (1960). "Marketing Myopia," Harvard Business Review.
[3] Gareth Morgan (1986, 2006), Images of Organizations, Sage Publications.
[4] Carlota Pérez (2002), “Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages,” Edward Elgar.
[5] Rosa Brooks(2014), “A Call to Rally: ‘The Fourth Revolution,’ by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge,” The New York Times.
[6] Thomas Frank (2016), "Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?, Henry Holt and Company
[7] Stephen R. Covey (1990), "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People," Free Press
[8] John Bessant (1991), “Managing Advanced Manufacturing Technology: the challenges of the Fifth Wave,” NCC Blackwell
[9] Fred Schweppe et al (1988), “Spot Pricing of Electricity,” Kluwer.

yyy

jueves, abril 07, 2016

Twitter Analytics TOP TWEETS of @gmh_upsa over the 28 day period ending on April 7, 2016

This is a grateful testimony giving thanks to those local and global citizens that have retweeted and like my tweets intended for the greater good of local and global society during said period. As can be seen in the top tweets @gmh_upsa, the electoral strategy of the Systemic Electricity Law for voters before elections as the most prominent. Clicking on the date of a tweet takes you to the corresponding Twitter conversation (sequence) of the tweet, where you can see those citizens we are giving thanks. This option gives you the opportunity to retweet or like a tweet you want to support. Hashtags as well as (bit.ly) links are operating directly.

Tweets sobresalientes en Twitter Analytics de @gmh_upsa sobre el período de 28 días que terminó el 7 de abril el año 2016

Este es un testimonio dando gracias a los ciudadanos locales y globales que han retuitado y dado me gusta a mis tweets destinados al bien de la sociedad local y global durante dicho período. Como puede verse en los twits sobresalientes de @gmh_upsa e superior, la estrategia electoral de la Ley Sistémica de Electricidad para los votantes antes de las elecciones como los más destacados. Al hacer clic en la fecha de un tweet te lleva a la correspondiente conversación en Twitter (secuencia) del tweet, donde se puede ver a aquellos ciudadanos a los que estamos dando gracias. Esta opción le da la oportunidad de dar retuit y me gust a un tweet que quieran apoyar. Las etiquetas (hashtags), así como enlaces (bit.ly) están operando directamente.