lunes, mayo 25, 2015

Is systemic corruption.the main cause of inequality between rich and poor? See Electricity Pact

First update: Systemic corruption enables consensus to create statu quo inequality between rich and poor. Please take a look at parallel discussion on the IEEE Spectrum group of Linkedin Is systemic corruption.the main cause of inequality between rich and poor? See Electricity Pact. Please look at the following Twitter conversation, that at this moment says:

william adams:

some people work hard
some work
some are parasites taking freebies from the govt

some are smart
some study
some just hang out on street corners

some are lucky
some are not
corruption has nothing to do with inequality
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio:

Thanks William. You might be right about corruption by people. But this is not about corruption by people per se. It is about systemic corruption which enables consensus to continue to favor the statu quo, creating "Inequality between rich and poor" that "has hit record highs, OECD warns," while none of those that favor such consensus can be proved to be corrupt as people by themselves under present laws and regulations.
Is systemic corruption.the main cause of inequality between rich and poor? See Electricity Pact

Under the news Inequality between rich and poor has hit record highs, OECD warns, written by Carlos Yárnos in El País, I had a valuable conversation with Anabella Gomar, on the need to go beyond trends to introduce systemic structure to address systemic failure, for example, in economics, climate and energy. That means to establish the close relationship that exists between inequality and a flawed systemic structure. But to try to establish the close relationship between systemic corruption, Neoliberalism and inequality, lets first repeat the full text of one update to the blog post ¿Necesitarán los nativos digitales, un Pacto Eléctrico redefinido que no están esperando, pero les encantará?, which says:

Third update: If "Neoliberalism" is systemic corruption under passive agreement, what's intelligent dissent in the Electricity Pact?
“Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.” -- Bertrand Russell
I received the following private comment: "The goal of reliable and affordable electricity for everybody in both the Dominican Republic and Haiti seems to me both good and attainable. The goal of making Hispaniola a developed nation by creating major corporations that will enter the world market--that seems to me to miss the point. That goal (if I understand the headnote on the page correctly) merely repeats the beliefs and assumptions of Neoliberalism, which have only resulted in increased inequality and misery worldwide." Next is my response:
Thank you very much for the critique of the headnote of the homepage of the Grupo Millennium Hispaniola. I will work on the adjustment based on what has emerged since the last update.of January 11, 2009, where it was shifted from multinationals to global corporations. Today we know that what´s important is not longer scalable efficiency of global corporations but scalable learning on networks of companies, which might reduce significantly the proposal to contribute to the transformation of the island - Dominican Republic and Haiti - during the 21st century into developed countries to a much shorter horizon.

So this is not about "neoliberarlism," because in practice it has emerged as NO Liberalism that have degenerated into systemic corruption, as we can reinterpret the paragraph of Steve Denning's article Vampire CEOs Continue To Suck Blood, that says: "The current situation is one of fundamental institutional failure across the whole of society. The behavioral breakdown is mutually reinforcing. Hedge funds are gambling risk-free with other people’s money. “Rats in the granary” are raking in baksheesh in massive amounts. CEOs are extracting value from their firms, rather than creating it. CFOs are systematically enforcing earnings-per-share thinking in decisions throughout their organizations. Business schools are teaching these people how to do it. Institutional shareholders are complicit in what the CEOs and CFOs are doing. Regulators pursue individuals and offer placebos but remain indifferent to systemic failure. Rating agencies reward malfeasance. Analysts applaud short-term gains and ignore obvious long-term rot. Politicians stand by and watch. In a great betrayal, the very leaders who should be fixing the system are complicit in its continuance. Unless our society as a whole reverses course, it is heading for a cataclysm." That's where the misery and inequality actually comes from.

The goal of reliable and affordable electricity for everybody was what vertical integration was all about. In today's world reliability from the customer side can have two components: system reliability and self-service reliability. The combination depends on the preferences of the customer. 
Under the above mentioned news, I had the following conversation with Anabella Gomar (AG below) that reinforces the thesis that systemic corruption is the main cause of inequality:
AG: This trend is not sustainable in the long term, like climate change. Eventually you will have the social and political consecuences that have lead to wars in history. Asking why there is a inmigration problem....? Look around!

Me: Is this about trends? I understand that trends are the result of thinking that the future is a continuation of the past. Not being a continuation of the past, I also understand that we are in a very big change: the shift from the 3rd to the 4th Information Revolution. To make the story short, please take a look at the following Twitter conversation, where only the two tweets with more retweets are shown. [see the conversation in ]

AG: I´m a trader and economist and I can tell you that trends feed on themselves until the cycle is broken. What fed this trend was the financial collapse in 2008 with historycally low interest rates, a big redistribution of wealth took place. It is a fact. A very extense subject....

Me: Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. In truth a very complex subject. Peter Senge, in his book The Fifth Discipline, shows that there are three kinds of explanations. 1) Events (reactive), 2) Patterns of Behavior (responsive) and 3) Systemic Structure (generative). Structural explanations, is the least common and most powerful. It focuses on answering the question, "What causes the patterns of behavior?" And "... changing underlying structures can produce different" trends as suggested in the Twitter conversations, that shows the need to change the common sense in order to exit from the prolonged systemic crises, for example, economic, climate and energy.[see the conversation in  ].