martes, mayo 31, 2016

Can 51 European business leaders of @ert_eu help fill the global leadership vacuum?

Sixth update. To The Economist: Should Brexit’s vote matter with a Europe Union highly unfit Theory of the Business? This is based on The Economist issue on The Brexit briefs: Our guide to Britain’s EU referendum and the tweet “To #GlobalDebout: #Brexit is an answer to the wrong problem, which is @EUCouncil #EuropeIN's Theory of the Business,” which included the attached image.

By learning from the past, the current Brexit political debate based on the primacy of the parts analyzed by The Economist comes up in the last of the 17 brief “Beyond the fringe.” Saying that:
“Brexiteers are deliberately vague about the alternatives to European Union membership.
That is because most models, such as Iceland’s, are unsatisfactory.” What’s missing in the analysis is a synthesis that recognizes that the European Union has a Theory of the Business highly unfit to today’s circumstances of a highly saturated industrial civilization where independence is no longer important. That is the main reason we have a global leadership vacuum in the European Union Council and other places of the world as described in previous updates to this post.

In response, what we have is an alternative about learning from the emerging future that reframes Brexit into a generative dialogue above politics based on the primacy of the whole in order to shift into an emergent civilization which we have been calling systemic where interdependence is what is really important. Such a reframing makes all the difference on brief 15, “Tug of war,” which says that “Brexit could lead to a second Scottish independence referendum. But the place to fret about most is Northern Ireland,” as we are also able to shift to interdependence referendum in other places of the world, for example, Cataluña and the Basque Country in Spain, which is having elections on June 26, 2016..

While the above trumps a Brexit, let’s look at brief 14, “If it were done,” that says that “There is some dispute over the mechanics of how to leave the EU,” it adds the possibility of a second referendum which we suggest should be about interdependence:
The fact is that Article 50 is the only legal way to leave the EU. It might not have to be invoked instantly, but Britons who had just voted to leave would expect it to be done quickly. And, once invoked, the two-year clock starts ticking. So some Brexiteers have raised another possibility: that a vote for Brexit could produce a new offer of better membership terms, including the ending of free movement of people, that could lead to a second referendum. Many point to Denmark and Ireland, which each had to vote twice before ratifying EU treaties.
Fifth update. Should EUCouncil help Brexit 23J and Spain 26J with framework change available to Dominican Republic? According to Mike Bird's article mentioned in the fourth update, "Germany is one of only a handful of countries with a triple-A rating from all the major rating firms and has a constitutional law that limits future annual deficits to 0.35 (correction not %) of GDP." Recently, Spain went beyond 1.00 of GDP, which is a signal of being on a very risky position which agrees with what Mr. Bird said "Italian, Portuguese and Spanish government-bond yields all rose, and the gaps between their yields and the 10-year bund reached their highest levels since February."

All three latin countries are in what Jim Collins describes in his book Good to Great as the doom loop. In such a doom loop, taking more debt becomes attractive in the short run, while repaing the debt in the long run become more and more difficult, as it happened to Greece and Puerto Rico, which behave esentially as latin countries. One of the most systemic countries in a doom loop as a result of its electric sector is the Dominican Republic, which contrary to most countries has already the wisdom to reframe it into a flywheel as described in the post Can #GlobalDebaut international call concentrate on an Ashoka like solid framework change?

The section on the "Nomination of José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio to the Ashoka Global Fellowship," starts, for example, responding "Please articulate the core idea of your work and describe how this idea is new or different from current approaches," as follows:
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.
Right now, the representative democracy of the Dominican Republic is set to continue to support debt increases. We need to know better. In line with the fourth update, reframing can be seen as a commitment towards the flywheel as a result of EUCouncil leadership wisdom. While the EUCouncil might not be able to change the outcome oo the Brexit or those of the Spanish elections, they and most countries of the world have in this post and its updates elements to get out the current doom loops in execution all over the globe. 

Fourth update. Reframing Brexit 23J and Spain 26J to reverse inmigration by EUCouncil global leadership wisdom. According to the Free Dictionary by Farlex, refaming is "changing the conceptual and/or emotional viewpoint in relation to which a situation is experienced and placing it in a different frame that fits the "facts" of a concrete situation equally well, thereby changing its entire meaning."

The new meaning changing both the conceptual and the emotional viewpoint is in accordance with all three previous updates of this post, and as a result enables the EUCouncil to shift away from a Keynesian money anti-systemic orientation that's breaking apart the EU into a wisdom systemic orientation of global leadership that reintegrates the EU, by following the advice given in the post Why the Eurozone leaders must change their common sense first, whose initial text has three 1983 quotes of Peter Drucker, the third of which says: “…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.’’

In fact the synthesis of the news German 10-Year Government Bond Yields Dip Below Zero as Brexit Fears Hit Market, written by Mike Bird for The Wall Street Journal is the money is very cheap and highly abundant, while wisdom is expensive and rare. Mr. Bird first sentence is "Yields on the 10-year government debt of Germany sank below zero Tuesday for the first time ever, a potent financial marker of Europe’s acute economic and political instability." Such strong signal is the result of an industrial civilization  myopia concentrating on short run financial capital, which is the source of the global leadership vacuum, as opposed to a systemic civilization long run production capital, mainly at the Bottom of the Pyramid, which is not only the best place to help emerge green growth for all countries, but also to reverse the critical anti-sistemic migratory crisis that's misleading the Brexit referendum. Such migratory crisis as evidence of the EUCouncil global leadership vacuum was self inflicted by themeseves, whether they are willing to accept it or not.

The above, for example, is well in accordance with the paper Minimalists governments with fair global free deregulated markets must arrive soon, whose executive summary says: 
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.
Third update. A proposal Brexit 23J and Spanish 26J voters are not expecting from EUCouncil but will love. Lets consider this whole post to support said proposal, while concentrating this update on the news Four-way debate suggests little change to Spain’s post-election landscape, by Fernando Garea on El País, which says: "Spain’s media agreed that there were no new proposals from any of the four, with no clear winner emerging from the debate."

Such an agreement confirms for Spanish (and also Brexit) voters what is said in the "Second update. Can #USA2016 be reframed to fit the reality required by #GlobalDebout?" of the post Can #GlobalDebaut international call concentrate on an Ashoka like solid framework change?
Timely for being in synchronicity (not synchronic) with GlobalDebout, I will use the late management guru Peter Drucker's 1994 article "The Theory of the Business," which I used today to write the blog post Votante: exige en tu país un gobierno basado en una teoría de negocio ajustada a la realidad, something like "Voter: required in your country a government based on a theory of business that fits reality." That is based in the last sentence of the introduction of the Drucker's article that says: "The assumption on which the organization has been built and is being run no longer fit reality."
In order to confirm that the debate missed the third level explanations that lead to such framework change in order to fit reality, let see what's suggested in the initial text of the post Why the Eurozone leaders must change their common sense first:
In the “more than 1 million copies in print,” of the “revised and updated with 100 new pages,” in the 2006 book in front of me, "The Fifth Discipline: the art & practice of the Learning Organization,” written by Peter Senge, it says that “The system perspective shows that there are multiple levels of explanations in any complex situation… In some sense, all are equally ‘true.’ But their usefulness is quite different.”  I guess that high quality journalism is not just about “event explanations,” which Senge says “are the most common in contemporary culture, and that’s exactly why reactive management prevails.”

Instead, he says that “Pattern of behavior explanations focus on seeing longer term trends and assessing their implications,” which seem to fit with today's good journalism. Then he adds that “the third level of explanation, the ‘structural’ explanation, is the least common and most powerful. It focuses on answering the question, “What causes the patterns of behavior?” By the way, that’s exactly what it says in the first edition published in 1990. This third class of systemic explanations is what I understand as Peircian explanations, of which I add more below, as that’s the kind of explanations that have emerged to support Peter Drucker’s first and third quotes.
It is easy to conclude that in most of the debate was about an old common sense sense, which is the reason why no framework change proposal emerged. For example, Fernando Garea highlighed a second level of explanation:
The economic policies and corruption scandals of the eight years of acting Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s administration came under a sustained three-pronged attack during Monday evening’s televised debate between the leaders of Spain’s four main parties.
However, the debate was mostly about first level explantations when he wrote, for example:
The four leaders each blamed one another for their failure to reach agreement on a coalition government in the six months since the inconclusive elections of December 20, which gave the PP a narrow lead, but insufficient to form a government on its own.

Sánchez highlighted Podemos’s decision to side with the PP in Congress by voting against an attempt by the Socialists and the center-right Ciudadanos to form a government.

Iglesias was careful to avoid direct confrontation with Sánchez, instead calling on the Socialist leader to team up with Unidos Podemos (United We Can), a coalition with the Communist Party -led United Left. “There are only two options: the PP or a progressive government,” he said.
Second update. Please help Donald Tust become the first global statesman with Brexit and Cataluña interdependence. Taken from the main text of this post we repeat that "The whole world is experiencing many crises which we say are due a simple and common reason: the global leadership vacuum. The worst of those crises at this moment, which are the greatest places for action by emerging global leadership, for example (please correct us if we are wrong), in relation to: Venezuela, nationalization; Brazil, excessive size of the state; Puerto Rico, debt; Spain, Cataluña; Dominican Republic, electricity; EU, UK (Brexit); France, labor; Chile, education."

Here we recall the post Why the Eurozone leaders must change their common sense first and its three updates all of the second half of 2014. Such changed common sense supports the main text of this post and its updates. Such support being available to help the Council of the European Union to be the institutiion that starts with two pressing key opportunities to fill de global leadership vacuum, for example, for the Brexit referendum and Spanish elections, on June 23 and 26, respectively.

In order to develop the Global Declaration of Interdependence, mentioned below is a tweet conversation on the first update, as the president of the European Council, Donald Tusk has the opportunity to dissolve both the Brexit and the red line of Cataluña independence. To do it, he has a precedent in what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt did as translated from the post Propuesta simple (330 palabras) que los consumidores eléctricos no están esperando pero les encantará (Simple (330 words) proposal that electrical consumers are not waiting but love).
During the Great Depression in the United States, people took out their savings from banks and for three years there was chaos. However, that chaos disappeared with a proposal to change the system that savers were not expecting, but love them. President Roosevelt guaranteed savings up to a given amount. In a few days the savings returned to the banking system were defined as acceptable.
First update. A challenge to #EU on their global leadership vacuum: they are the most responsible if #Brexit occurs.  We guess that the last minute change in the title of this post from "Is the #Brexit anti-systemic crisis due to the global leadership vacuum, for example, at @ert_eu?" didn´t help, as #Brexit was taken out of it. This time we take the synthesis of a comment posted yesterday June 11, 2016, in El País, which is shown at the end to question not the #Brexit movement but the European Union lack of global leadership in an interdepedent world.








The essence of the comment with respect also to Brexit is:
Could the difference between nationalism and separatism be a chimera? We believe that the independence of the independent nations of the industrial civilization is equivalent to nationalism and the opposite is the global interdependentism of interdependent nations of a civilization we have been calling systemic, which is in serious trouble for a great global leadership vaccum today.
The European Union is weaker than most of its governments are willing to admit. The main reason is that as the world has changed democracy credibility has been migrating from representative to direct. In the main text of the post Elections in USA, Germany, Spain, DR are under unstable equilibrium, as they were in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain, to which we add Brexit, as a referendum under unstable equilibrium, we said: "In response to a tweet of the World Economic Forum that distributed the article Why haven't we cracked the inequality puzzle yet?, which is published in collaboration with Project Syndicate and written by Dambisa Moyo, we responded with the tweet "See global synthesis that #SoaringInequality has been cracked @dambisamoyo @wef http://bit.ly/g363mh #EuropeIN," which retweeted "Global synthesis: #GreatCapitalism 1st, elections 2nd @Occupy #Occupy #OWS #15M http://bit.ly/g363mh #EuropeIN" which included an image with the following text:"
The industrialist dilemma is a strong signal of the end of the industrial civilization where independence resulted in the left and the right competition, with money as the driver, which has made countries greatly lose direction to become anti-systemic, serving their part of the population making it unsustainable. No administrative election is able to help make such a big change in direction with politicians with short horizons and blinded by representative democracy Groupthink. That signal means the need of leadership above politics to create the systemic civilization, where we shift to interdependence driven by wisdom to serve the whole population, for example, to reverse migration; such civilization change is long overdue, resulting, for example, in a COP21 transition that needs to be changed to transformation for climate change. Direct democracy emerges as the way to shrink states, reverse soaring inequality and stimulate the economy.
 This is the comment posted in El País mentioned in the introduction:
"ELECCIONES GENERALES 2016," sobre "LA SITUACIÓN DEL PAÍS VASCO" en la noticia "¿Tiene futuro el nacionalismo?" Y dice lo siguiente. La globalización y el fin del terrorismo de ETA marcan la adaptación al siglo XXI del independentismo del XX¿Por qué nos complicamos? ¿Podría esa diferencia entre nacionalismo e independentismo ser una quimera? Creemos que el independentismo de las naciones independientes de la civilización industrial es equivalente al nacionalismo y lo opuesto es el interdependentismo global de las naciones interdependientes de la civilización que venimos llamado sistémica, que hoy día está en graves problemas por un gran vacío de liderazgo global. Para más detalles, sugiero que examinen la nota "Votante: exige en tu país un gobierno basado en una teoría de negocio ajustada a la realidad ( http://bit.ly/g707mh )" que en este momento tiene su "Primera actualización. Ciudadano global: ayuda a los venezolanos a resolver su problema con interdependentismo." y su "Segunda actualización. ¿Podrán los miembros de UNASUR y el G7 transformarse al interdependentismo global? "

Can 51 European business leaders of @ert_eu help fill the global leadership vacuum?

At the last minute we changed the title "Is the #Brexit anti-systemic crisis due to the global leadership vacuum, for example, at @ert_eu?" of this post to the one shown. This is in response to the tuit of the European Round Table ‏(@ert_eu)  that says “We believe an EU without the UK is weaker, just as the UK itself is weaker outside the EU #EuropeMatters #Brexit http://www.ert.eu/EuropeMatters."  The idea of the global leadership vacuum is described, for example, on the “First update. Mr. Joe Biden: voters need a global framework change to a systemic energy policy act for maximum social welfare,” of the post Leadership Answers What to do First.


It is also a follow up to the comment posted under El País news "La gran industria europea defiende una Europa unida frente al riesgo del ‘Brexit’.whose version in English is Spain’s leading companies join call for UK to reject Brexit and stay in EU. The whole world is experiencing many crises which we say are due a simple and common reason: the global Leadership vacuum. The worst of those crises at this moment, which are the greatest places for action by emerging global leadership, for example ( please correct us if we are wrong), in relation to: Venezuela, nationalization ; Brazil, excessive size of the state; Puerto Rico, debt ; Spain, Cataluña; Dominican Republic , electricity; EU, UK (Brexit); France, labor; Chile, education.

In their book “Presence: An Exploration of Profound Change in People, Organizations, and Society,” Peter Senge, Joseph Jaworski, Otto Scharmer, and Betty Sue Flowers, came up with what they believe was an axiom, while discussing the archetype "shifting the whole," in our case the world.

Not being the substitute of the book, according to a 4 page Summary of Presence posted by the "Foundation for European Leadership,” we try to help the 51 European business leaders of the European Round Table to help themselves, their businesses and the world by  saying that:
‘Shifting the whole’ does not mean changing the global agenda but being aware of what is emerging internally. It is “sensing the unfolding whole within each of us, within the present situation and acting in service of it”. This leads to a new systems axiom, says Peter Senge. “What is most systemic is most local. The deepest systems we enact are woven into the fabric of everyday life, down to the most minute detail. We can only change the world (or our organizations) if we are aware of ‘the absolute in the manifest’, and only “as we learn to use ourselves as instruments for something larger than ourselves to emerge, wherever we act”. Jaworski sums up the U in one sentence: “A profound opening of the heart, carried into action”.
From that summary we infer that the global leadership vacuum is the result of the following:
The 20th century saw the birth of a new species: the global corporation. It “is affecting life for almost all other species on the planet” through technology, politics, trade, culture, etc. Like any other life-form, “it has the potential to grow, learn, and evolve”. And like any other life-form global corporations re-create themselves. “But how this occurs in social systems such as global institutions depends on our level of awareness, both individually and collectively. (…) As long as our thinking is governed by industrial, ‘machine age’ metaphors such as control, predictability, and ‘faster is better’, we will continue to re-create institutions as we have, despite their increasing disharmony with the larger world. In short, the basic problem with the new species of global institutions is that they have not yet become aware of themselves as living. Once they do, they can then become a place for the presencing of the whole as it might be, not just as it has been.”