About updates: the title of this post is the first hypothesis of our though experiment that has led to updates with better accumulated hypothesis as we learn with fast feedback from concerned citizens.
Eighth update. John Hagel's strategy of trajectory to the 'Emergence' scenario can favor a solo systems architecting view. Many of the statement here are supported mainly from the initial post and its updates. The 'Emergence' scenario as a common goal is supported by my quote that has been socialized with the seventh update's tweet. People need to be un-deluded to act in accordance with the sixth update.
Learning about the emergent future, we humbly address one sharp conclusion of the Global Peter Drucker Forum (GPDF) edition 16 that showed up in a tweet that in colloquial language (here and below) says “Solo genius is not the catalyst for innovation anymore. It involves a larger group of people with diverse perspectives and a common goal.” We suggest that there are two kinds of innovation conflated in that conclusion: one transformation innovation to the common goal and transition innovations to reach that goal under different countries contexts.
As a result, we responded to said conclusion with a tweet that with slight change from a cracked something mentioned by The Guardian newspaper to a bubble burst as Carlota Pérez expects, by saying “Can the edition 17 of the GPDF consider the burst of the representative democracy bubble to help emerge the Systemic Civilization with direct democracy of the systemic markets under the ‘Emergence’ scenario?”
For the benefit, for example, of intellectuals and entrepreneurs interested in transition innovations, next we rephrase several tweets conversations to colloquial language that support what we said above that are an integral part of this update.
For our purposes, it all starts with what now is considered as Tweet 1, on which we asked some prominent participants of the edition 14 of the GPDF that had tweeted “Nothing written challenges the world view and fundamental premises,” which we responded then with my proposal of an emergent world view,
Tweet 15 retweets Tweet 1 tweet proposal, to the same participants asking if they agree with our solo direct democracy of the systemic markets world view. Now we jump many tweets, which are not less important,
Going back to August 2015, on what is now considered Tweet 11, we said"Is Donald Trump competing under a global representative democracy bubble that el Pacto Eléctrico of the Dominican Republic can prevent? Tweet 12 asks if an instance of the direct democracy of systemic markets of Dominican Republic in the electric power sector would have prevented the Donald Trump explosion of the representative democracy bubble.
Tweet 13 tells that the bubble exploded with BrExit for the EU and with Trump’s win for the world.
Tweet 14 asks GPDF organizers if they can consider the Systemic Civilization, direct democracy of the systemic markets of the ‘Emergence’ scenario as a solo world view.
We now add further clarifications, based on the difference between transformation and transition. Using John Hagel's distinction between strategy of terrain, which in this case if performed within the the ‘Patchworks Powers’ scenario, and the strategy of trajectory that is based on the common goal of the ‘Emergence’ scenario, we partially disagree with the sharp conclusion to say that “Solo genius is not the catalyst for innovation anymore,” Such a goal is the ‘Emergence’ scenario, which is about transformation, which should be followed by a transition under a strategy of trajectory from the current ‘Patchworks Powers’ scenario to the ‘Emergence’ scenario to enable a distinct development space for interdependent countries. Such a transition is what “involves a larger group of people with diverse perspectives (more below).
The contradiction between the headlines “APEC Leaders May Be Looking to China After Donald Trump's Win” and “Trump to withdraw from Trans-Pacific Partnership on first day in office” is a clear and strong signal of what has happened under the ‘Patchworks Powers’ scenario. Such contradiction is the result of the representative democracy bubble explosion. That bubble increased in size as market restructuring concentrated on excessive protectionism in the name of market failure with government interventions leading to anti-systemic markets that have resulted in, for example, soaring inequality, climate change, and low economic growth.
It is easy to agree that APEC will need to be reformulated for the ‘Emergence’ scenario. That’s where the opportunity to enable the Golden Age of the first technological revolution of the systemic civilization, where the direct democracy of systemic markets self-regulate themselves. While the ‘Patchworks Powers’ scenario is operating at its limits, following Keynes under a global leadership vacuum, the ‘Emergence’ scenario will operate far away from its limits, following Schumpeter to dissolve said vacuum.
Seventh update. “If I had asked voters what they wanted, they would have said the American Way of Life.” This is a synthesis of the fifth and sixth updates of this post.
-----
Summary of the sixth update. It is the people in knowledge of making their country and the world great who have the power to vote freely in a referendum to decide the change of course to the 'Emergence' scenario. It is not for the government to decide this scenario that makes the State become minimalist and sponsor the direct democracy of the systemic market that involves the creation of systemic civilization of interdependent countries. It is the people who will make politicians to change their common sense.
Resumen de la sexta actualización. Es el pueblo en conocimiento de hacer su país y el mundo sobresaliente quien tiene el poder para votar libremente en un referéndum para decidir el cambio de rumbo al escenario 'Emergencia.' No corresponde al gobierno decidir dicho escenario que hace que el Estado se vuelva minimalista y auspicie la democracia directa del mercado sistémico que envuelve la creación de la civilización sistémica de países interdependientes. Es el pueblo que hará que los políticos cambien su sentido común.
Sixth update. The un-deluded referendum will dissolve #Brexit, #Calexit #Texit #Catalexit and for that matter #Anyexit. While the fifth update of this post suggested that Europe leaders had the opportunity to Make the World Great, we have learned from the emergent future something that fit with our old idea that what fits is above politics.
As a mechanism for fast feedback, a lot of tweets (hashtags are highlighted here) were written (three pair of the most relevant can be seen below for the other we suggest to look for @gmh_upsa tweets in Twitter) before and after Donald Trump won the #USA2016 election. Those tweets helped a lot for the final word to emerged from the thought experiments being conducted for quite some time.
The final word is that an interpretation of politics as government elected official that have vested interests in representing themselves as the statu quo of the industrial civilization which are no longer systemic.That is, government has become the source of anti-systemic corruption in terms of not just money but also unnecessary waste under anti-systemic regulation that invite the dark side of technologies.
The concerns of some of our close collaborators have helped in bringing about bright understanding, which emerged under the Linkedin post
Renewing the American Republic: The Ecodynamics of Donald Trump Part II, written by David K. Hurst FRSA, the author of The New Ecology of Leadership. This is the comment with minor editing:
Your work is written under the assumption of remaining in the industrial civilization. Eamonn Kelly in his book Powerful Times developed three scenarios for the last decade which were right on: 'New American Century,' 'Patchwork Powers,' and 'Emergence.' The first two belong to your scope. 'Emergence' is for the new civilization that Alvin Toffler imagined as The Third Wave. Trumps' election eliminates 'New American Century.'
As you said, Trump’s narrative is an old one, the promise to “Make American Great Again.” Our first reaction was to oppose with "Make The World Great," but it was not in line with what my twitter followers like. So, a better fit is actually to have both mutually reinforce each other. The decision for the transformation to the 'Emergence' is not for government to decide. It is just the system architect to suggest to the people. The transition from today's situation to the systems' aim is for government to implement.
Writing to you, I just learned from the emergent future that we need global referendum on the 'Emergence' scenarios.
The word un-deluded emerged from the article by James Traub, a contributing editor at Foreign Policy,
It’s Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses, whose subtitled said: "The Brexit has laid bare the political schism of our time. It’s not about the left vs. the right; it’s about the sane vs. the mindlessly angry." Now after we know that the masses are not ignorant after they have shaken the statu quo in the European Union, Spain, The UK, and now the USA, we happily have the great potential to let the be people be un-deluded by learning of the high level institutional innovation of a new civilization.
The next tweet is about the above mentioned adjustment of today, It has two images, one about Kelly's scenarios and the other justifies the above mentioned adjustment for countries to become interdependent on the systemic civilization under the 'Emergence' scenario.
This last tweet responds "Pablo Iglesias ratifica ante diplomáticos su apuesta por el referéndum en Catalunya. - 'Debemos dejar que los catalanes voten libremente'".which in our free translation means "Pablo Iglesias ratifies before diplomats his commitment to the referendum in Catalonia. - 'We must let the Catalans vote freely.'" The response is that all exits make no sense for interdependent countries, under the 'Emergence' scenario.
Fifth update. Great Capitalism common sense to 'Make the World Great' as 'The American Way of Life' model is unsustainable. To replace 'The American Way of Life' model, a 'Global Way of Life' model that is sustainable is in accordance to what is suggested by Prof. Carlota Pérez in her paper “Capitalism, Technology and a Green Global Golden Age: the Role of History in Helping to Shape the Future,” which argues for a radical change in policy. Being an integral part of this post are all of its updates, of which we highlight its "Fourth update. From actions that serve parts to actions that serve emerging Globaldebout whole at Bratislava Summit," a recent though experiment to try to learn from the emergent future, that so far did not make a dent to that Summit, but which is very timely now.
Here we propose an upgrade to Prof. Pérez’s paper that increases the scope of history, by considering the nearly 500 years old precedent of the third information revolution that emerged as a result of the printing press. In said upgrade, we also include the role of learning from the emergent future of the fourth information revolution which is driving what we have named as the systemic civilization, which is waiting to be created. It seems that the best candidate for enabling the 'Global Way of Life' model is the European Union, as can be seen in the main text of this post, which started with 3 quote on Peter F. Drucker's article “Schumpeter And Keynes,” May 1983. In addition, that text used insights from her book "TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTIONS AND FINANCIAL CAPITAL: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages,"
Such emergence is the output of a heuristic system architecting process methodology that proposes an institutional innovation at the civilization level that corresponds to a transformation (more below on transformation versus transition) that defines the future to 'Make the World Great.' Taking as a given result from the system architecting process, such a future on what we discovered as the systemic civilization, the next step is on the transition to the future in every country and country unions where government will be able to intervene to drive the somewhat familiar political participative system architecting process methodology, with the exception where it is strategically necessary to shift away from traditional process based on the primacy of the parts to the generative dialogue based on the primacy of the whole. By doing so, the ICT revolution becomes the first technological revolution of the systemic civilization, that will be ready for its Golden Age.
An action oriented scientific attitude thesis is submitted to the European Union. The trigger for the proposal is the potential big threat that may escalate as Donald Trump, who has been elected to be the president of the USA, under an electoral distorted independence country reality process, tries to execute his unsustainable promises. The similarity to the distorted reality of the Scottish (mentioned in the initial text of this post) and Brexit referendum is explained by Peter Drucker’s Theory of the Business to show that both elections were far away from the reality of global interdependence.
As the USA has an independent country unsustainable rivalry story to ‘Make America Great Again,’ the European Union and the United Kingdom have the opportunity to help emerge the loving story ‘Make the World Great.‘ Such a story can start with its first action right now by endorsing, for example, the high leverage point understanding of the Petition: “Transformemos el mundo empezando con República Dominicana Sin Apagones,” which is ready to serve as the global framework reference to introduce a much needed heuristic based system architecting policy instrument.
One critical idea emerged by reframing the system concept which restricts its meaning to positive leverage outcomes. Such reframing is complemented by the anti-system concept for the negative leverage outcome. The increased usefulness, of the 'least common and powerful' structural explanations, mentioned in the main text of this post, tell us that independent countries have become anti-systems by trying to copy 'The American Way of Life,' as the industrial civilization is operating under the saturated region of its experience curve. In fact, that reframing helps explains, for example, soaring inequality, migration and climate change anti-systemic crisis. It may also explain organizations that are structured as money making machines that are anti-systemic.
The way to make the whole world great and enabling its first Golden Age is to help developing interdependent countries become systems able to leapfrog to the systemic civilization that will be operating in the high green growth region that will help reverse the anti-systemic problems. By making sure that restructuring result in systems and not in anti-systems is how the synergistic space mentioned by Prof. Pérez that give advantages for everybody. That space include the development of the direct democracy of systemic markets (#DD_SM in Twitter).
John Thornhill interview Carlota Perez
We agree with the great majority of the wisdom that Carlota Pérez shared in the interview made by John Thornhill in the first episode of the Financial Times Tech Tonic weekly podcast on technology. We need to enable Great Capitalism by creating the Systemic Civilization to make the whole world great, not just the USA as Donald Trump suggests. That also means that there is no way that Inclusive Capitalism that endorses Theresa May (and used to endorse Hillary Clinton) will make the world great either while remaining in the industrial civilization, as we will see next.
The aim of Great Capitalism is to make the whole world great. Great Capitalism is a context that increases the architecting scope of Jim Collins book “Good to Great,” which is based on a few principles in order to generate a Culture of Discipline, “which requires disciplined people who engage in disciplined thought and then take disciplined action.” Professor Pérez concerns on the culture of bureaucracy are dissolved under the Culture of Discipline. We deal with that issue in the post
Applying #Jobsism to transform current global #Fordism marketing myopia, that is mentioned in the third update of this post. One key principle is that of using the heuristic "simplify, simplify, simplify," to make sure that technologies are selected to be of the bright side for customers.
Other of the principles is Level 5 Leadership, should be considered to be replaced with Servant Leadership. Such a change includes questioning the assumption mentioned by Prof. Pérez that "capitalism really only becomes legitimate when the greed of some is for the benefit of the many." Such questioning will be based on the fair is fair, foul is foul, potential to make overdue John Maynard Keynes quote that's written in the initial text of this post, that starts with "When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals." We believe that time has come.
With respect to the need for consensus, it is critical that such consensus not be done under the current ‘Groupthink’ of the industrial civilization. Consensus must be done to transition to Make the World Great by leaping where necessary to the systemic civilization.
Here we increase the scope of the following text to concentrate on the difference between transformation and transition that's available in the fourt update of this post. As we can interpret from the book “Presence: Human purpose and the field of the future,” by Peter Senge, Joseph Jaworski, Otto Scharmer and Betty Sue Flowers, printed in 2004, by the Society for Organizational Learning, the difference between transition and transformation, can be seen in this way:
Living systems are not machines. Living systems create themselves and are continually growing and changing. “The whole exists through continually manifesting in the parts, and the parts exist as embodiments of the whole.” When you hold up a hand, you don’t see a hand but you see cells that are continually dying and regenerating in the temporary form of a hand. You see “the universe’s capability to create hands”. Wholes don’t exist without parts and vice versa. “This is the awareness that is stolen from us when we accept the machine worldview of wholes assembled from replaceable parts.”
As Carlota said, there is no future in the world by copying the American Way of life model. We add that that it is that model that has saturated the industrial civilization and induced the severe anti-systemic (meaning against systems) crisis, for example, of climate change, soaring inequality, and migration crisis. We say that to make the world great under Great Capitalism, we need to develop the other countries of the world in order for growth to come back to developed and emerging countries as Carlota explained.
She gives the insight that USA should help developing countries leapfrog to what we suggest is the systemic civilization, which we introduced in the Petition “Transformemos el mundo empezando con República Dominicana Sin Apagones (Let’s transform the world starting with a Dominican Republic without [electricity] blackouts .” In Twitter we use the hashtag #RDUPSA for our transformation.
One of the key insights that Carlota suggested was on the need to change the process by which we make the policies. #RDUPSA is available for that change as it emerged by using systems architecting heuristics, which enabled to learn from the emergent future, a reference framework. Recently we found that we are proposing a living system as the model. This is supporting the hashtag #SomosMundoHF which means We Are World There Is a future in the systemic civilization, which now makes sense as the Global Way of life.
We now for quite some time that Margaret Thatcher's old story TINA (There Is No alternative) to neoliberalism has led to soaring inequality, increase the rivalry, on the continued assumption of a future based on the American way of life, which has over expanded the industrial civilization. As Carlota has said, we don’t have seven planets to do that. Instead, a new civilization – a new context- a new culture is needed.
The developing countries cannot develop in the industrial civilization. They need to leap to the systemic civilization which operates to reduce the over expansion of the America Way of life, generating work, like maintenance, that replace industrial jobs.
The new way of life model need to be under a civilization that’s sustainable. To enable it, we need an architecting methodology under the primacy of the interdependent whole to replace the primacy of the independent parts. That distinct primacy context is what calls for the creation of the systemic civilization which is a transformation above politics that defines via system architecting the aim of the global system. A global declaration of interdependence The heuristic approach to system architecting is the new architecting method available to leapfrog the industrial civilization which is operating in the saturated region of its experience curve.
Fourth update. From actions that serve parts to actions that serve emerging Globaldebout whole at Bratislava Summit. As part of thought experiments, to learn what's emerging, this update was preceded by one tweet that refer to the image of the previous tweet of its conversation.
As ca be seen, the image of the above mentioned previous tweet goes on to say "If you have what it takes or know anyone able to help make the following declaration as wise as possible, please contribute to enhance the following draft:" The opportunities remaining under the new mindset of interdepedence in the first technological revolution of the systemic civilization is for all to have the opportunity to win.
In contrast, the old mindset is one of winners and losers. Just like what happened, according to Carlota Pérez, in the transtition from the second to the third industrial revolution, where the UK lost its leadership to the US and Germany, there is no doubt that the US is the leader under the wrong common sense of the fourth industrial revolution of the industrial civilization. That is how it makes sense in today's news, articles like "WhatsApp and Skype May Be More Heavily Regulated in the EU."
Many difficult to explain anti-systemic crisis that have developed in the world in general and the European Union in particular, are the result of a long delay from the short term reactive thinking. Such delay can be explained, recalling what W. Edwards Deming associated with "tyranny of the prevailing style of management," in the early 1990s, and his proposal for a system of profound knowledge which requires a change in the common sense.
As we can interpret from the book “Presence: Human purpose and the field of the future,” by Peter Senge, Joseph Jaworski, Otto Scharmer and Betty Sue Flowers, printed in 2004, by the Society for Organizational Learning, the difference between a low carbon transition and a zero carbon transformation, can be seen in this way:
Living systems are not machines. Living systems create themselves and are continually growing and changing. “The whole exists through continually manifesting in the parts, and the parts exist as embodiments of the whole.” When you hold up a hand, you don’t see a hand but you see cells that are continually dying and regenerating in the temporary form of a hand. You see “the universe’s capability to create hands”. Wholes don’t exist without parts and vice versa. “This is the awareness that is stolen from us when we accept the machine worldview of wholes assembled from replaceable parts.”
There are many signals of the overexpansion of the industrial civilization, two of which, the electricity sector and the Paris Agrement, are mentioned below To address anti-systemic crisis is wrong by being the result of a common sense based on the primacy of the parts that serve well the industrial civilization earlier, but that is now operating in its limits. Central bankers as independent replaceable parts are being expected to give solutions operating at stability limits. Inmigration of the losers to Europe is another signal of the over expansion of the industrial civilization, under a common sense that has allow, for example, China and India to continue over expanding the industrial civilization.
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.
Just like a hand, is a manifestation of a living person , the transformation of the electricity sector of the Dominican Republic as a living system is an organic manifestation of the whole systemic civilization. It is completely imposible to address each of the anti-systemic crisis without a change in civilization that is the result of the fourth information revolution that enables communities to be part of living systems, under direct democracy of systemic markets, for example, under two sided Platforms on community fast feedback that have provisions to governed themselves with minimalist regulation on the part of the states, disolving the market failure issues of industrial civilization regulation.
3rd Update:
With a lot of respect to Mr. Jacques Atalli, we need to question what's written in Bloomberg's story
Free Market Guru Attali Inspires Hollande’s New Economic Push, as being part of an obsolete common sense, which now emerged in the most popular GMH blog post (since at least May 2006)
Applying #Jobsism to transform current global #Fordism marketing myopia.
What used to be free markets can now be considered mediocre unfair markets as Feudalism has corrupted Fordism. In order to enable great and fair great markets, for a socioeconomic push, we need to change to the common sense of Jobsism, as it is supported by the whole background nailed via Twitter on
https://twitter.com/gmh_upsa
2nd Update:
Update to Eurozone leaders:
TRANSFORMING THE SYSTEMS MOVEMENT, by Russell L. Ackoff, May 26, 2004
Why the Eurozone leaders must change their common sense first
“…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.
Under “Introduction: Tomorrows’s ‘Hot’ Issues,” of his book Management Challenges for the 21st Century, the late Peter F. Drucker wrote “This is a MANAGEMENT BOOK… It intentionally does not concerns itself with ECONOMICS – even though the basic MANAGEMENT changes (e,g,, the emergence of knowledge as the economy key resource) will certainly necessitate radically new economic theory and equally radically new economic policy.” Although I don’t recall who it was who asked the question, “Why the economics discipline has not changed, like the physics discipline did from Newtonian to quantum mechanics,” Drucker knew since at least 1983, that such unorthodox change had to be done.
As can be seen, for example, in the blog post
Scotland’s independence got around the world before its interdependence got its pants on, in one of her tweets, “Anne Applebaum ( @anneapplebaum ) had said that “Breakup of UK and President Marine le Pen of France both possible, according to today's news. Europe as we know it may be coming to an end.” The main reason that her tweet was highly retweeted is because of the pervasive Cartesian common sense influence that needs to be replaced before the new world order comes into place, just as quantum mechanics emerged.
It seems to me that she was responding to the Financial Times article
Europe has to do whatever it takes, by Martin Wolf, whose subtitle is ‘The new European Commission needs to take a stand for common sense and growth.” As the Financial Times policy says that “high quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article,” Just to make sure, I am not cutting, nor pasting, and placing the link in the title.
With all due respect, I am about to refer to the first paragraph of the article, in which Mr. Wolf concludes three simple things, that I understand are based on the idea that cause and effect are close in time and space, which I also guess is the most normal practice of such class of journalism. I am afraid that such practice, based on the Cartesian common sense is the first thing that needs to go, if Europe and other countries, like the US, “has to do whatever it takes,” as Mr Draghi suggested.” However, I ask: “Should journalists like economists change their practice to whatever is needed?
Of course, getting ahead of the next paragraphs, I invite comments, to what I say here. That’s because, for example, words like restructuring, which belong to situations in which cause and effect are not necessarily close in time (for example, centuries, as in this paper) and space, are mentioned in the article. However, in Mr. Wolf's article there seem to be an excessive emphasis on equilibrium, which seems to fit with Keynes and not with Schumpeter, as can be seen on Peter Ducker’s first and second quotes at the beginning of this paper.
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.
I suggest that in doing “whatever it takes,” the first step is to change the current Cartesian common sense, that proved very useful for independent countries during the industrial civilization, into the emerging Peircian common sense, that will be required for interdependent countries, during the also emerging systemic civilization (more upon request), that should lead the new world order in its first technological revolution. I hope Scotland won't miss this advice, if journalists help sending this non partisan message today. But that's not essential, What's essential is that all the members of the new European Commission get to read it.
Based on her book "TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTIONS AND FINANCIAL CAPITAL: The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages," during the second stage of every technological revolution, Carlota Pérez describes a new order, which includes, for example, “the emerging heuristic routines and approaches are gradually internalized by engineers and managers, investors and bankers, sales and advertising people, entrepreneurs and consumers. In time, a shared logic is established; a new “common sense” is accepted for investment decisions as well as for consumer choice. The old ideas are unlearned and the new ones become “normal.’”
In that sense, Carlota Pérez has also indicated that “Such changes in the economy are very disturbing of the social status-quo and have each time accompanied the explosive growth of new wealth with strong polarising trends in the income distribution. These and other imbalances and tensions, including a major financial bubble and its collapse, result from the technological upheaval and end up creating conditions that require an equally deep transformation of the whole institutional framework. It is only when this is achieved and the enabling context is in place that the full wealth creating potential of each revolution can be deployed.”
Now, regarding the much recently talked about the issue of “strong polarising trends in the income distribution,” that she mentioned, related to the status quo, Steve Denning, a contributor to Forbes, has just written the very timely article
How Business Leaders Turned Into Vampires, where he reviews the October 2014, Harvard Business Review magazine article "The Rise (and Likely Fall) of the Talent Economy," by the world renown author, Roger L. Martin.
While I have a reservation about using talent as such, I suggest to test if talent should be reduced in scope to CEOs trained in Masters of Business Administration (MBAs) programs, I understand that the real problem can be identified as systemic corruption. Such systemic corruption can be defined, barrowing from Mr. Denning’s article, as to include “CEOs, institutional investors, legislators, regulators, politicians, analysts and particularly business schools,” to which he adds “must join in the effort to focus organizations on their true purpose.”
As can be inferred from above, Europe is undergoing no just the change associated with a technological revolution, but a much larger change associated with a new civilization in which a newly defined Peircian or systemic change is necessary to do what it takes to grow. With regards to time, in the cause and effect equation, a shift from Descartes to Peirce, is in the order of centuries. As seen below, it is expected, that such growth will be more about intangible goods than tangible ones, in order to make society and planet sustainable.
Last, but not least, I will repeat two comments I posted yesterday September 17, 2004, under Mr. Denning’s article. The first is:
Business leaders turn into vampires by resuscitating Keynes instead of Schumpeter, as Carlota Pérez suggested. Using Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Act 1, Scene 1, where the three witches said “Fair is foul, and foul is fair,” Keynes repeated once again:
When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be great changes in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highest virtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession — as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life — will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease … But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight. — “The Future”, Essays in Persuasion (1931) Ch. 5, JMK, CW, IX, pp.329 – 331, Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren (1930); as quoted in “Keynes and the Ethics of Capitalism” by Robert Skidelsy
The second comment is:
Dear Steve Denning,
In line with your header “A wider set of issues for society,” where it is anticipated that “this is only likely to happen if it is part of a much wider societal transformation,” I am happy to tell you to please consider my tweet:
@gmh_upsa • Sep 15 – Scotland’s independence got around the world @stevedenning @anneapplebaum before its interdependence got its pants on http://bit.ly/522GMH
In that tweet, I respond to the question What’s at stake in the referendum on Scottish independence? as follows:
It’s interesting to see that is a very wise question to ask, no to organize a debate, as it’s been done by learning about the past, but to induce a generative dialogue, to be able to get closer to the truth about the emerging future, which is what I have been trying to do for quite some time. Using the Peircian (after the great US philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce) non-Cartesian scientific (systemic) research method to approximate the truth, with an action oriented scientific attitude…
As you will see, what’s at stake is the wider set of issues for society, which already overdue in the US, Europe, Japan, and all over the world. By the way there was a big hint of a change in civilization, in June 2012, when I wrote the post “A Battle of the Peircian – Cartesian War ( http://bit.ly/513GMH ),” where I quoted Roger Martin’s article “Logical leaps into the future,” where he said that: “Apple has managed to leave open the possibility of abductive logic and has limited use of deductive and inductive logic to the areas for which it is actually useful. This has resulted in Apple becoming organizationally adept at inventing the future.”
In summary, we need to change civilizations, as described in my comment under your article The Financial Times Slams ‘The World’s Dumbest Idea.”
1) From countries which were supposed to be independent in an unlimited world, which has an EcoNoMy savage Capitalism of the industrial civilization with plenty of externalities, that satisfies with Yes, the question “That’s capitalism, right? Every man for himself.”
2) To countries in an interdependent very limited world which has an EcoIsOurs humanistic capital, in which the more than 100 years of immorality must come to an end. That’s the only way to shift from saturated markets to growth markets at the Bottom of the Pyramid.
