lunes, diciembre 01, 2014

Instead of "Is Google Doing Anything New?" Why not: Is #Fordism as good as #Jobsism

This update is trying to link  "Is Google Doing Anything New?" to the question "As Piketty's inequality is due to Feudalism corrupting capitalism, Can we transform capitalism to go for a Golden Age, like Luther reformed Catholicism to get out of the Middle Ages?"

Dear Steve Denning,

Next is a tweet that should be read as part of a Twitter conversation trying to make it relevant.

Did Steve Jobs' #Jobsism transform several industries?  @Forbes @stevedenning @GDruckerForum @rstraub46 @profhamel
— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) December 2, 2014

Why Nicholas Lemann compared Google with GM and not Henry Ford with Steve Jobs? Should he compared then? Should we better discuss the relationship between Fordism and Jobsism.

Global Drucker Forum ‏@GDruckerForum  · Nov 13  - Nothing written challenges the world view & fundamental premices. @profhamel #GPDF14

 stevedenning ‏@stevedenning  · Nov 13  - Is this so? RT @GDruckerForum: Nothing written challenges the world view & fundamental premices. @profhamel #GPDF14

 Jose A Vanderhorst S ‏@gmh_upsa  · Nov 13  - Dominican Republic  - What about @profhamel the humble #Jobsism, 'systemic civilization,' EcoIsOurs  | @stevedenning @GDruckerForum #GPDF14

Dear Steve Denning,

You have provided an excellent article to support the logic behind your valuable arguments in support of the creative economy that is in part based on an emerging paradigm. As you know, from several comments under your articles, I have been aiming even higher than that. It is the paradigm that emerged not as the 5th technological revolution of the industrial civilization, but as the 1st technological revolution of what I suggest is the systemic civilization.

In that light, I am testing the following hypothesis: "As Piketty's inequality is due to Feudalism corrupting capitalism, Can we transform capitalism to go for a Golden Age, like Luther reformed Catholicism to get out of the Middle Ages?" So far I have received comments in the Linkedin groups of the SSIT in which right now has 8 comments and of the IEEE Spectrum in with 2 comments also so far.

I thought to let you know, that in the second link, I received a comment that started with “The many historical errors embedded in the question might lead to as interesting a discussion as would have resulted if a more accurate question had been asked. It's commonly held that the Middle Ages gave way to the modern world via the Renaissance, which started in the Italian city-states in the mid-14th century, nearly two hundred years prior to Luther.” Next is part of my response in which I mentioned you.

To get a deeper understanding, it may help to read what the most popular ever GMH post “Applying #Jobsism to transform current global #Fordism marketing myopia (  )” says. That’s how…  we look at the systemic problems being faced by humanity as a result of using the common sense of Fordism corrupted by Feudalism, instead of the common sense of Jobsism.

 I will come back to your first paragraph after addressing the second which says: “’Piketty's inequality’ (I'm not sure he'd be happy with that phrasing) is due to the two ways that entrenched money begets money at a faster rate than earned money can. Those two ways are rents and investment returns. Feudal wealth only came in the former form, not the latter.’” First, as an expert, How would you please rephrase “Piketty’s inequality” in order to increase the effectiveness of the question?

 Second, Steve Denning a contributor to Forbes has been writing extensively on how many companies are extracting rents without adding value to customers and society as Fordism has been corrupted by Feudalism. And that is huge! Please take a look, for example, to the article “From CEO 'Takers' To CEO 'Makers': The Great Transformation ( ).” He writes that “Instead of creating value for their organizations and society, they are extracting value.”

 Now please take a look at Denning’s article "Has Capitalism Reached A Turning Point? ( )" in which, for example, says: "In the early 16th Century, the movement objecting to the flagrant greed and corruption in the Roman Catholic Church, now known as the Protestant Reformation, got under way in earnest. In 1517 in Germany, Martin Luther posted his “Ninety-Five Theses.” At about the same time in Switzerland, Huldrych Zwingli launched a reform movement with a remarkably similar set of “Sixty-Seven Conclusions.” The recently-introduced printing press helped spread these ideas rapidly from place to place, but unresolved differences kept the reform movements separate. At the time, the prospects of reform looked remote, as the Church, most governments, the ruling classes and civil society supported the continuance of the status quo." Having said that, Should we look at history on the perspective that the Renaissance allowed a small part of the population to leave behind the Middle Ages, while the great majority was still left behind for two hundred more years? Isn’t history repeating itself on flagrant greed and corruption?