This collection of the links, date/time stamp, and introductory words of the first 45 EWPC Blog articles is available as an alternative source to the EWPC Blog. I believe that every article can be though of as a holographic image from a different perspective of the whole EWPC market architecture and design paradigm shift.
45 Switching Retailers is NOT as Important
Posted At : October 31, 2007 3:02 PM
Dear Fred (Banks), Len, Mike, Fred (Plett), Jim, Steve, and Peter…I am glad that the dialogue is getting more balanced and rich, with the participation of all of you important and intelligent people, on three fronts.
44 Uno Lamm is a Leader Role Model
Posted At : October 29, 2007 2:50 PM
Dear Prof. Banks and readers, This is the quote about Uno Lamm in the article Handling Sweden’s Electric Reform Threats: As my hero Uno Lamm proved, when he introduced High Voltage Direct...
43 Response to Professor Banks
Posted At : October 28, 2007 8:01 PM
Dear Professor Banks and Mr. Gould, As promised, I just published the following articles in energyblogs.com in response to the article and the comments. The Natural Monopoly Transportation Sys...
42 A Little Silicon is Necessary but NOT Sufficient
Posted At : October 28, 2007 7:18 PM
There is more to markets than meter electronics. It is important to understand the need for retailers as the bridge between the retail and wholesale markets. A Little Silicon is Necessary but NOT...
41 A Futures Market under EWPC
Posted At : October 28, 2007 7:03 PM
The elements of a futures market under R1E2 EWPC to lead to an stable and competitive electric markets environment are explained. A Futures Market under EWPC By José Antonio Vanderhorst...
40 Handling Sweden’s Electric Reform Threats
Posted At : October 28, 2007 6:54 PM
Strong leadership is needed to complete the reform process in the Nordid countries to benefit end customers, by introducing a paradigm shift to EWPC, and making them active participants in the elect...
39 The Natural Monopoly Transportation System
Posted At : October 28, 2007 6:05 PM
EWPC provides a new configuration in which the natural monopoly is reduced to the transportation system of the electric market, where the old configuration produces much higher and more volatile pri...
38 The Old Response to Jack Casazza
Posted At : October 27, 2007 2:23 PM
It seems to me that the above comments help understand what has happen to the electricity business. I will use Jack Casazza’s comments and EPRI’s Framework to try to add elements to the di...
37 An Old Letter from Jack Casazza
Posted At : October 27, 2007 2:17 PM
On 12/29/05, Jack Casazza wrote: Dear Jose Antonio, I have been reading the discussions between you, Prof. Banks and others and did not comment previously because I did not have anything to add. I t...
36 The Magic Deregulation Formula
Posted At : October 24, 2007 6:57 AM
Dear Professor Banks, Thank you very much for your challenge (which I found by browsing your article): "I am thinking in particular of the consultant Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. He admits...
35 Disruptive Technologies Convergence
Posted At : October 20, 2007 3:43 PM
Now that EWPC has emerged, it is to too little, too late, to try to extend the VIUs paradigm beyond its capabilities to integrate the grid and the enterprise. The availability of at least six disrup...
34 No Need for Regulated Price Caps - II
Posted At : October 20, 2007 1:37 PM
Customers’ price caps are the key to the infrequent rational rationing of service. During a transition to EWPC that ends with every customer defining its own price cap, it is important to unde...
33 No Need for Regulated Price Caps - I
Posted At : October 20, 2007 12:23 PM
Missing in the discussion under the article "Meeting Our Need for Electric Power," up to the 19th of October, 2007, are the huge coordination problems of short run unit commitment and long...
32 Full Retail Choice Emerges
Posted At : October 19, 2007 10:46 AM
As customer value migrates a paradigm shift of full retail choice emerges under EWPC from R&D discoveries that allows retail and wholesale competition without incumbent retailers. Full Retail...
31 The Sense of Urgency for EWPC Restructuring
Posted At : October 15, 2007 9:26 AM
There is a strong sence of urgency for the implementation of EWPC. Professor Alberto Ramírez Orquín writes "Soaring prices together with the perception of a deteriorating service/...
30 Give Engineers What Belongs to Engineers
Posted At : October 13, 2007 5:18 PM
Engineers no longer have any possibility to take back the whole industry for themselves. EWPC is a market architecture and design breakthrough discovery that gives engineers what belongs to engineer...
29 Rethinking Electricity Restructuring as EWPC
Posted At : October 12, 2007 3:11 PM
Strong EWPC market architecture and design recommendations to restructure worldwide electricity markets, superseed those proposed in 2004 by Peter Van Doren and Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute by...
28 How TXU Can Take the Lead
Posted At : October 11, 2007 2:30 PM
The Texan’s Market is one of the most likely candidates to start the paradigm shift to EWPC, ending demand forever as an externality. It has been shown that the days of the obsolete VIUs parad...
27 Only Two Stable Paradigms
Posted At : October 11, 2007 12:37 PM
There are two stable paradigms: vertically integrated utilities (VIUs) and electricity without price controls (EWPC). Both have a Reliability First, Economic Second (R1E2), as their non-trivial essent...
26 Financing and Developing Wind Projects
Posted At : October 5, 2007 10:38 AM
EWPC is the answer to the difficult question on how to finance and develop wind projects for all stakeholders to win. The underlying problem is found on the successive extensions of the inefficient...
25 Strategy is NOT Enough to Reach the End-State
Posted At : October 3, 2007 8:22 PM
As he is not his opinion, Dr. Stephen Lee can easily separate the objective, or strategic side of leadership, from the subjective, or culture side of leadership, as to what affect human behavior in...
24 Slicing the Last of the Regulated Monopolies
Posted At : October 1, 2007 5:02 PM
The sense of urgency has arrived to introduce competition in the power industry, with a paradigm shift to EWPC. The shift will sliced the last of the regulated monopolies. Enough insights are now avai...
23 Demand Integration Under EWPC
Posted At : September 30, 2007 3:37 PM
Fred C. Schweppe said that “The demand forecast is always wrong!” To mitigate forecasts errors and introduce stability in the power industry, EWPC integrates demand to power...
22 The Sixth Disruptive Technology
Posted At : September 30, 2007 3:06 PM
A set of 6 disruptive technologies can be identified “To do a better job of managing our dwindling energy resources…” AMI and the Smart Grid are the fourth and fifth disruptive te...
21 Synthesis Proposal Agreement of EWPC
Posted At : September 28, 2007 2:41 PM
There are "8 possible End-State, only one of which is the generic market model paradigm: retail competition with active demand and ultraquality transportation. That is the essence." This i...
20 Conspiracy Theory Against Mr. X
Posted At : September 27, 2007 9:14 AM
A conspiracy theory against Mr. X being a Nobel Prize candidate is written to provide an ordered framework to understand the chaotic events that happened or will happen in the Energy Central Network...
19 2nd Disruptive Technology Crossed Chasm
Posted At : September 26, 2007 8:52 PM
Distributed generation joins demand response as disruptive technologies keeps penetrating the power industry. It is shown the need to change from an incremental change to a breakthrough pace, and fr...
18 Engineers Needed for Lower Prices
Posted At : September 25, 2007 8:03 PM
The paradigm shift from the vertically integrated utilities to the electricity without price control paradigm will lead to lower costs, lower profits and lower prices after a reasonable delay. To ac...
17 Take EWPC Lead & Reap Large Benefits
Posted At : September 25, 2007 9:32 AM
The US Congress, the European Commission, the state of Ohio, and the Dominican Republic, are some the most likely candidates to start the paradigm shift to EWPC, ending demand forever as an external...
16 Utility Trends and Real Paradigm Shift
Posted At : September 24, 2007 2:03 PM
A paradigm shift to EWPC is urgently needed to change the status quo and start integrating distributed resources and good ideas into power sectors all over the world. To all writers and readers,...
15 Free Market and Central Planning, Under R1E2
Posted At : September 24, 2007 8:34 AM
This is my synthesis of the EWPC paradigm shift that maximizes social welfare. Although it is a non-trivial subject, it seems that many intelligent and important readers of earlier posts may just un...
14 IMEUC: Unreliable Service and Price Spikes
Posted At : September 23, 2007 5:45 PM
In response to the suggestion by Mr. Jeff Presley about simulations, it is shown that there is not a need to look further, as a simulator already exists, and its information’s confirm the EWPC...
13 So Far Just ONE Objection to EWPC as Winner
Posted At : September 22, 2007 10:07 AM
As tomorrow's deadline approaches, only Mr. Len Gould has provided a dissent to EWPC as the winning market for the first phase of competition. The second phase is the company vs. company competition...
12 Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm
Posted At : September 21, 2007 7:59 PM
Republished from Aug. 20th, 2007. There is a need for a change in mental models to integrate wind to power systems operation. Several generative dialogue suggestions are given to apply the f...
11 Extra, Extra… Goliath is Defeated Once Again!
Posted At : September 21, 2007 7:40 PM
Reprinted from Sept. 17th, 2007 for completeness. David has won! The Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC) Breakthrough paradigm has finally beaten the Vertically Integrated Utilities (VIU) Para...
10 EWPC - Winner 1st Competition Phase
Posted At : September 20, 2007 1:30 PM
After nearly two years of downloads, debates, reflexive dialogues and generative dialogues, EWPC declared itself as the winner of the first phase of competition in EnergyPulse.net. Dear writers and...
09 Solving Smart Grid Cost Recovery
Posted At : September 20, 2007 8:49 AM
To solve the Smart Grid cost recovery dilemma requires a restructuring of the electric industry in such a way that the regulator gets the right signals. A shift from The Anti-System Utility to EWPC so...
08 A Warning to the US Congress and the European Commission
Posted At : September 20, 2007 6:36 AM
US Congress and the European Commission need to digest EWPC very fast. The political distortions in the power industry at the state level in the USA and at the country level in Europe can be strongl...
07 The Anti-System Utility
Posted At : September 19, 2007 4:35 PM
Vertically integrated utilities don't operate as a system because of a monopoly mindset of incumbents investor owned utilities and political interference. To operate as a system a paradigm shift to...
06 Divine Dispensation of Electric Markets is Gone
Posted At : September 19, 2007 9:32 AM
As a result of David killing Goliath, US Congress has the great opportunity to introduce EWPC to the USA. In addition, the state of Ohio has the first opportunity to reap the benefits of retail comp...
05 The BIG California LIE
Posted At : September 18, 2007 1:56 PM
The BIG LIE is that retail competition is impossible in electric markets. The implementation of a competitive retail market was the center of the debate in California. Instead of cooperating t...
04 Great Opportunities Under New Energy Bills
Posted At : September 17, 2007 1:54 PM
In the copyright protected link Extra, Extra… Goliath is Defeated Once Again!, you may find out how vertically integrated utilities will very soon start to be erased from the face of the e...
03 Breakthough
Posted At : September 16, 2007 8:03 PM
EWPC is a breakthrough that is poised to transform the electricity industry. As the state of Ohio is in the process to re-regulate the industry, they should make the transition to the EWPC market...
02 David and Goliath
Posted At : September 15, 2007 6:49 PM
David is EWPC re-regulation and Goliath is the Vertically Integrated Utilities. Both markets architectures and designs are non-trivial paradigms of the power industry. It is argued, that the paradigm...
01 EWPC Superiority in Carbon Emission Reductions
Posted At : September 13, 2007 8:31 PM
A comparison between the power industry vertical integration and electricity without price controls (EWPC) non-trivial paradigms, will show that EWPC should be adopted in the new US Energy Bill, as pa...
yyy
miércoles, febrero 24, 2016
PCT One of Many Business Model Innovations
California panel removes proposed mandate for utility-controlled thermostats - Bowing to public pressure, the California Energy Commission has removed its proposed mandate for utility-controlled thermostats from its 2008 energy efficiency building code. A hearing on that code is set for Jan. 30.
NOTE: The article link expires on: 02/17/2008).
Under EWPC, PCT qualifies as one great business model innovation. As such, it should be open to competition with others business models in the making or that will emerge worldwide as the market evolves. The point is that PCT should not be allowed as a monopoly business model.
Customer choice should be enabled to a new level by introducing federal competition at the retail level. The remotion of the mandate by the Califonia panel is a strong signal of the end of the utility monopoly as we know it. Today's utilities have two main components: the grid and the enterprise. The enterprise as a state retail monopoly should be replaced by retail competition at the federal level of the U.S.
The grid is evolving to the smart grid utility to offer ultraquality transportation only electricity services, but the monopoly enterprice is acting as a restraing force on its progress.
Open Transmission Access is to evolve to Open Transportation (integrated transmission and distribution) to be developed at least costs under a controlled smart grid market to enable maximum welfare in the open retail and wholesale markets, as envisioned under EWPC market architecture and design.
Joseph Somsel, a former utility engineer who opposes the [original PCT] plan, said he was pleased to hear of the official change of heart at the commission.
"I'd call this a victory in the first battle since they've shifted venues in strategic retreat -- but a victory nonetheless," said Somsel, who raised awareness of the plan's mandatory nature in the Jan. 4 issue of the American Thinker, an online magazine.
However, Michael Shames, executive director of San Diego's Utility Consumers' Action Network, a critic of the plan's mandatory nature, wasn't impressed with the energy commission's statement.
"Most of the announcement is garbage," Shames wrote in an e-mail. "For us, the most important part of the announcement was the last line: 'Technology can be a powerful tool in managing our energy use. However, it is of utmost importance that consumers make their own energy decisions.'
"It is my plan to use this sentence again in the future when the next CEC or some other agency attempts to use good (remote energy services) for evil (non-overridable remote commands)," Shames wrote.
"Emerging advanced energy services will only be embraced by consumers if they have confidence that these technologies will not be used against them. It appears as though the CEC got that message this time around. We'll see if the message sticks," he wrote.
yyy
NOTE: The article link expires on: 02/17/2008).
Under EWPC, PCT qualifies as one great business model innovation. As such, it should be open to competition with others business models in the making or that will emerge worldwide as the market evolves. The point is that PCT should not be allowed as a monopoly business model.
Customer choice should be enabled to a new level by introducing federal competition at the retail level. The remotion of the mandate by the Califonia panel is a strong signal of the end of the utility monopoly as we know it. Today's utilities have two main components: the grid and the enterprise. The enterprise as a state retail monopoly should be replaced by retail competition at the federal level of the U.S.
The grid is evolving to the smart grid utility to offer ultraquality transportation only electricity services, but the monopoly enterprice is acting as a restraing force on its progress.
Open Transmission Access is to evolve to Open Transportation (integrated transmission and distribution) to be developed at least costs under a controlled smart grid market to enable maximum welfare in the open retail and wholesale markets, as envisioned under EWPC market architecture and design.
Joseph Somsel, a former utility engineer who opposes the [original PCT] plan, said he was pleased to hear of the official change of heart at the commission.
"I'd call this a victory in the first battle since they've shifted venues in strategic retreat -- but a victory nonetheless," said Somsel, who raised awareness of the plan's mandatory nature in the Jan. 4 issue of the American Thinker, an online magazine.
However, Michael Shames, executive director of San Diego's Utility Consumers' Action Network, a critic of the plan's mandatory nature, wasn't impressed with the energy commission's statement.
"Most of the announcement is garbage," Shames wrote in an e-mail. "For us, the most important part of the announcement was the last line: 'Technology can be a powerful tool in managing our energy use. However, it is of utmost importance that consumers make their own energy decisions.'
"It is my plan to use this sentence again in the future when the next CEC or some other agency attempts to use good (remote energy services) for evil (non-overridable remote commands)," Shames wrote.
"Emerging advanced energy services will only be embraced by consumers if they have confidence that these technologies will not be used against them. It appears as though the CEC got that message this time around. We'll see if the message sticks," he wrote.
yyy
We Need Demand Elasticity
Say fuel oil increase from $90 to $100 per Barril. 11% increase. What could one expect.
The problem with deregulation is that fuel prices are amplified into electricity prices. Expect more than 11% increase in electricity prices. Sometimes much more.
The problem with regulation is that fuel clauses transfer fuel prices. Expect an 11% increase.
EWPC mitigates fuel prices by introducing demand elasticity to the industry. Expect less than 11% increase. Sometimes much less.
So the message is "we need demand elasticity in the power industry."
As simple as that.
The problem with deregulation is that fuel prices are amplified into electricity prices. Expect more than 11% increase in electricity prices. Sometimes much more.
The problem with regulation is that fuel clauses transfer fuel prices. Expect an 11% increase.
EWPC mitigates fuel prices by introducing demand elasticity to the industry. Expect less than 11% increase. Sometimes much less.
So the message is "we need demand elasticity in the power industry."
As simple as that.
The Old Response to Jack Casazza
An EWPC Post
It seems to me that the above comments help understand what has happen to the electricity business. I will use Jack Casazza’s comments and EPRI’s Framework to try to add elements to the discussion and maybe suggest some insight to a produce new mental model which is closer to today’s reality and opportunities. However, please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding:
1. I recall the question “How much reliability can you afford?” posed by the Editor of Electrical World in April 1978, as incremental costs stop declining.
2. Economist entered the picture and found that engineers in the power industry were designing and operating electric systems using excessive reserves, without understanding the risk management of systems failures.
3. The world was stating to make a transition from an industrial society to an information society, which we are now experimenting.
4. The power industry did not seek deregulation in the 1980s as Fred C. Schweppe et al, “Spot Pricing of Electricity” became available to the general public.
5. It was expected that transaction costs would decrease as the information society would come to be the dominant paradigm.
6. Spot Pricing of Electricity explained how to develop a market of electricity where end customers with interfaces that enlarged the meters would be able to respond to prices, even without Electricity Without Price Controls (my replacement for true deregulation). I completely agree with Thomas Tanton that there is no evidence of deregulation anywhere.
7. Today it is clear that Spot Pricing of Electricity is centered on a new paradigm of at the wholesale and retail level, which by “Unleashing Technology” for price demand responsiveness would lead to “Empowering Customers,” and in turn result in “Stabilizing Markets” and “Protecting the Environment.” Demand responsiveness is a complementary risk management innovation to mitigate system failures, which replacing otherwise excessive investments and operating reserves in generation, transmission and distribution.
8. As Mark and others comment that the industry did not seek deregulation, a large threat was in the making for the power industry. That was when as Bruce points out that lobbyist and senior executives came “to the rescue” of the old paradigm. As the new paradigm would mean stranded costs, the result was a double gain by neutralizing the new paradigm.
9. Jack’s comments have merit insofar as the inexistence of price demand responsiveness in the industry
a. No. 1 is historically correct.
b. No. 2 addresses “a severe decline in the coordination needed...” However, such coordination was integral in the Spot Pricing of Electricity, but which avoids the incomplete and faulty deregulation that resulted.
c. No. 3 is correct in the old paradigm, but with demand responsiveness to excessive quoted prices of generation would lead to non-dispatch of such generators.
d. No. 4 reflects the old minimum cost for integrated resource planning, which I suggest should be replaced with an infrastructure that adds maximum value, by using demand responsiveness and energy efficiency to develop an efficient rationing system to satisfy “Providing for the Public Good.”
e. No. 5 is debatable. The power industry could be restructured to satisfy all 5 EPRI’s main conclusions. One such restructuring is Electricity Without Price Controls, which I commented on Prof. Banks article.
f. No. 6 states correctly that the greatest harm has been the loss of cooperation and coordination, as expanded by Rich Marrano comment. While Jack’s comment is certainly a way out it may be distorted on contracts and designs based of perceptions by powerful interest. Recently I came to the conclusion that a big mistake has been allowed in the restructuring processes by introducing a political decision process. Now, I understand that a power system must be architected with the imperative of ultraquality to preserve the reliability that results in maximum value to society.
g. As for Jack’s conclusion, I think it is clear from the above comments that we may aim to have both an excellent power system and an excellent complete and functional market without any price controls. While under E-WPC prices also move both ways, all customers can be approached with the idea of receiving maximum relative value added in the long run. For instance, in the case of retail customers, every retail marketer will produce several plans, one of which offers the customer the better value. Retail competition gives customers the opportunity to select the plan which they perceive to be the one with the most value in the market from all retailers. If every customer can select the plan with the highest value, then providing for the public good is satisfied in the long run.
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD
Interdependent Consultant on Electricity
Dominican Republic
Reference and context: What a surprise: Prices move both ways, by Mark Gabriel, President, Positive Energy Directions.
yyy
It seems to me that the above comments help understand what has happen to the electricity business. I will use Jack Casazza’s comments and EPRI’s Framework to try to add elements to the discussion and maybe suggest some insight to a produce new mental model which is closer to today’s reality and opportunities. However, please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding:
1. I recall the question “How much reliability can you afford?” posed by the Editor of Electrical World in April 1978, as incremental costs stop declining.
2. Economist entered the picture and found that engineers in the power industry were designing and operating electric systems using excessive reserves, without understanding the risk management of systems failures.
3. The world was stating to make a transition from an industrial society to an information society, which we are now experimenting.
4. The power industry did not seek deregulation in the 1980s as Fred C. Schweppe et al, “Spot Pricing of Electricity” became available to the general public.
5. It was expected that transaction costs would decrease as the information society would come to be the dominant paradigm.
6. Spot Pricing of Electricity explained how to develop a market of electricity where end customers with interfaces that enlarged the meters would be able to respond to prices, even without Electricity Without Price Controls (my replacement for true deregulation). I completely agree with Thomas Tanton that there is no evidence of deregulation anywhere.
7. Today it is clear that Spot Pricing of Electricity is centered on a new paradigm of at the wholesale and retail level, which by “Unleashing Technology” for price demand responsiveness would lead to “Empowering Customers,” and in turn result in “Stabilizing Markets” and “Protecting the Environment.” Demand responsiveness is a complementary risk management innovation to mitigate system failures, which replacing otherwise excessive investments and operating reserves in generation, transmission and distribution.
8. As Mark and others comment that the industry did not seek deregulation, a large threat was in the making for the power industry. That was when as Bruce points out that lobbyist and senior executives came “to the rescue” of the old paradigm. As the new paradigm would mean stranded costs, the result was a double gain by neutralizing the new paradigm.
9. Jack’s comments have merit insofar as the inexistence of price demand responsiveness in the industry
a. No. 1 is historically correct.
b. No. 2 addresses “a severe decline in the coordination needed...” However, such coordination was integral in the Spot Pricing of Electricity, but which avoids the incomplete and faulty deregulation that resulted.
c. No. 3 is correct in the old paradigm, but with demand responsiveness to excessive quoted prices of generation would lead to non-dispatch of such generators.
d. No. 4 reflects the old minimum cost for integrated resource planning, which I suggest should be replaced with an infrastructure that adds maximum value, by using demand responsiveness and energy efficiency to develop an efficient rationing system to satisfy “Providing for the Public Good.”
e. No. 5 is debatable. The power industry could be restructured to satisfy all 5 EPRI’s main conclusions. One such restructuring is Electricity Without Price Controls, which I commented on Prof. Banks article.
f. No. 6 states correctly that the greatest harm has been the loss of cooperation and coordination, as expanded by Rich Marrano comment. While Jack’s comment is certainly a way out it may be distorted on contracts and designs based of perceptions by powerful interest. Recently I came to the conclusion that a big mistake has been allowed in the restructuring processes by introducing a political decision process. Now, I understand that a power system must be architected with the imperative of ultraquality to preserve the reliability that results in maximum value to society.
g. As for Jack’s conclusion, I think it is clear from the above comments that we may aim to have both an excellent power system and an excellent complete and functional market without any price controls. While under E-WPC prices also move both ways, all customers can be approached with the idea of receiving maximum relative value added in the long run. For instance, in the case of retail customers, every retail marketer will produce several plans, one of which offers the customer the better value. Retail competition gives customers the opportunity to select the plan which they perceive to be the one with the most value in the market from all retailers. If every customer can select the plan with the highest value, then providing for the public good is satisfied in the long run.
José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, PhD
Interdependent Consultant on Electricity
Dominican Republic
Reference and context: What a surprise: Prices move both ways, by Mark Gabriel, President, Positive Energy Directions.
yyy
An Old Letter from Jack Casazza
On 12/29/05, Jack Casazza wrote:
Dear Jose Antonio,
I have been reading the discussions between you, Prof. Banks and others and did not comment previously because I did not have anything to add. I thought perhaps I could be helpful at this time by providing a few comments, as follows:
1. The restructuring and deregulation of the electric power industry was a serious mistake in the USA and in many countries, harming the general public.
2. Competition has produced some benefits, particularly in the improvement in the operation of generation plants, but caused a severe decline in the coordination needed between the participants in the planning, design and operation of the generation and transmission systems of electric power grids. The reduction in the number of companies involved can produce some future savings.
3. Generation dispatch is based on quoted prices rather that incremental production costs, increasing total production costs.
4. Present and long range costs have been increased significantly since each company made decisions based on its own profits and not what was best for the overall grid in the long run, i.e., the overall public interest. (In the USA past studies have shown that the savings from coordination exceeded $20 billion a year before restructuring. Many of these prior benefits have been lost.)
5. In most cases the changes that have been made in the industry structure and procedures cannot be undone, so we have to proceed by trying to use what is good from restructuring and removing or correcting the many harmful things that have resulted.
6. I believe the greatest harm has been the loss of cooperation and coordination between those involved in the power industry. A way to correct this learned from the past is through "coordination contracts" signed by the participating companies that provide for the planning, design and operation to be performed as if they constituted a single company. In such contracts the long range lowest total cost solution and lowest cost operation procedures were selected even if it meant that one company had to spend extra funds or give up some profits, as long as it resulted in a lower overall cost or was necessary to preserve reliability, even if in another system. These contracts provided for the compensation of a company for its extra costs or profits foregone plus a share of the overall benefits resulting to the public. (I have negotiated such contracts as far back as 50 years ago.)
There is much more analysis needed, but perhaps the comments above will get you thinking about the power system, not the markets.
Best regards,
Jack Casazza
Note to others receiving this message. Please feel free to quote or use it as you wish.
Jack Casazza
yyy
Dear Jose Antonio,
I have been reading the discussions between you, Prof. Banks and others and did not comment previously because I did not have anything to add. I thought perhaps I could be helpful at this time by providing a few comments, as follows:
1. The restructuring and deregulation of the electric power industry was a serious mistake in the USA and in many countries, harming the general public.
2. Competition has produced some benefits, particularly in the improvement in the operation of generation plants, but caused a severe decline in the coordination needed between the participants in the planning, design and operation of the generation and transmission systems of electric power grids. The reduction in the number of companies involved can produce some future savings.
3. Generation dispatch is based on quoted prices rather that incremental production costs, increasing total production costs.
4. Present and long range costs have been increased significantly since each company made decisions based on its own profits and not what was best for the overall grid in the long run, i.e., the overall public interest. (In the USA past studies have shown that the savings from coordination exceeded $20 billion a year before restructuring. Many of these prior benefits have been lost.)
5. In most cases the changes that have been made in the industry structure and procedures cannot be undone, so we have to proceed by trying to use what is good from restructuring and removing or correcting the many harmful things that have resulted.
6. I believe the greatest harm has been the loss of cooperation and coordination between those involved in the power industry. A way to correct this learned from the past is through "coordination contracts" signed by the participating companies that provide for the planning, design and operation to be performed as if they constituted a single company. In such contracts the long range lowest total cost solution and lowest cost operation procedures were selected even if it meant that one company had to spend extra funds or give up some profits, as long as it resulted in a lower overall cost or was necessary to preserve reliability, even if in another system. These contracts provided for the compensation of a company for its extra costs or profits foregone plus a share of the overall benefits resulting to the public. (I have negotiated such contracts as far back as 50 years ago.)
There is much more analysis needed, but perhaps the comments above will get you thinking about the power system, not the markets.
Best regards,
Jack Casazza
Note to others receiving this message. Please feel free to quote or use it as you wish.
Jack Casazza
yyy
Another Look at the California Deregulation Debacle
This post was not published in EWPC Blog.
In this slide 30 of the Carnegie Mellon University presentation, entitled “Another look at the California Deregulation Debacle,” It is proper to add that “The Wepex steering committee and technical teams have representative of investor-owned and municipal utilities as well as consumers, independent power producers, and marketers. A collaborative process is being used to provide an opportunity for filing to address the concernes of as many interested parties as possible and to seek a broad base of support among expected market participants.” However, “Only the investor-owned utilities, who will be making the application for the ISO and PX to the FERC and putting their transmission under the control of the ISO, are voting members of the steering committee. But all parties have been given an opportunity to actively participate in the discussions underlying the design of, and the implementation plan, for the new system.”
yyy
In this slide 30 of the Carnegie Mellon University presentation, entitled “Another look at the California Deregulation Debacle,” It is proper to add that “The Wepex steering committee and technical teams have representative of investor-owned and municipal utilities as well as consumers, independent power producers, and marketers. A collaborative process is being used to provide an opportunity for filing to address the concernes of as many interested parties as possible and to seek a broad base of support among expected market participants.” However, “Only the investor-owned utilities, who will be making the application for the ISO and PX to the FERC and putting their transmission under the control of the ISO, are voting members of the steering committee. But all parties have been given an opportunity to actively participate in the discussions underlying the design of, and the implementation plan, for the new system.”
yyy
The Magic Deregulation Formula
An EWPC post
Dear Professor Banks,
Thank you very much for your challenge (which I found by browsing your article): "I am thinking in particular of the consultant Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. He admits that deregulation has been a disaster, but he also believes that somewhere out there is a magic formula for making everything right. My comment here reduces to the following: no playing games on the consumer side of the market can possibly offset the upward pressure on prices resulting from conventional profit maximizing behaviour on the supply side. Put another way, given the technological configuration of the electric sector (e.g. increasing returns to scale), deregulation invariably leads to much higher and more volatile electricity prices."
I will respond in full a few days, but the key finding that will be at the center is that deregulation was and is based on the faulty concept "economy first, reliability second." If reliability first, economy second, is a magic formula that allows to restructure power sectors worldwide into an electric network (integrated transportation) and a money network (on the customer, retail, generation value chain), let so be it.
It is clear that generation and customer are also part of the electric power system and transportation is part of the money system, but the "electric network" institution still keeps the leadership of the whole real time control, operation planning and long run planning of the power system.
Casazza identified two other important networks that are helping the transformation and that are missing above. The fuel network and the communication network. Both impact restructuring to help integrate demand into power system control, operation and planning in the 21st Century.
Best regards,
José Antonio
Reference and context: A New Lecture on Electric Deregulation Failure, by Ferdinand E. Banks, Professor.
Dear Professor Banks,
Thank you very much for your challenge (which I found by browsing your article): "I am thinking in particular of the consultant Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. He admits that deregulation has been a disaster, but he also believes that somewhere out there is a magic formula for making everything right. My comment here reduces to the following: no playing games on the consumer side of the market can possibly offset the upward pressure on prices resulting from conventional profit maximizing behaviour on the supply side. Put another way, given the technological configuration of the electric sector (e.g. increasing returns to scale), deregulation invariably leads to much higher and more volatile electricity prices."
I will respond in full a few days, but the key finding that will be at the center is that deregulation was and is based on the faulty concept "economy first, reliability second." If reliability first, economy second, is a magic formula that allows to restructure power sectors worldwide into an electric network (integrated transportation) and a money network (on the customer, retail, generation value chain), let so be it.
It is clear that generation and customer are also part of the electric power system and transportation is part of the money system, but the "electric network" institution still keeps the leadership of the whole real time control, operation planning and long run planning of the power system.
Casazza identified two other important networks that are helping the transformation and that are missing above. The fuel network and the communication network. Both impact restructuring to help integrate demand into power system control, operation and planning in the 21st Century.
Best regards,
José Antonio
Reference and context: A New Lecture on Electric Deregulation Failure, by Ferdinand E. Banks, Professor.
EWPC Breaks The Egg
This was not a published post on the EWPC Blog.
Electricity Without Price Controls breaks the vertically integrated utilities (egg) into two systems:1) electric transportation utility at center stage; 2) generation; retail and customers money system in the periphery.
yyy
Electricity Without Price Controls breaks the vertically integrated utilities (egg) into two systems:1) electric transportation utility at center stage; 2) generation; retail and customers money system in the periphery.
yyy
Breakthough
EWPC is a breakthrough that is poised to transform the electricity industry. As the state of Ohio is in the process to re-regulate the industry, they should make the transition to the EWPC market architecture and design, instead of a costly retrocession to vertically integrated utilities.
Thank you once again Don,
Edison "invented" the vertical integration electric monopoly; Insull added the “invention” of regulation to get political insulation from the Sherman Act. Hence, you too can be absolutely sure that Insull was the mastermind that “invented” the scams. In the process, he completed the non-trivial vertically integrated utilities (VIUs) paradigm, which regulators have never learned. The results: scams then, scams now.
IOUs “… continued transfixed by the lore of…” VIUs “… that have served the country so well - until the world changed.” Many of the essential assumptions of the VIUs industry are fictitious and no longer hold. Long run generation contracts bets, Inactive demand, average rates, yearly demand charge, supply orientation, lack of competition, demand can be forecasted, planning under certainty, incremental rate cases to incorporate “innovations,” perverse incentives, many customers (most of the best) have alternatives to avoid the system, etc, etc,
While not a VIU, the industry is already in the process of being torn apart, as you can see from the case of the state of Ohio. As there is only one stable end-state (EWPC) for the future, if the state of Ohio goes back to VIUs, it will have lost the best opportunity to get a competitive power sector.
Going from the old paradigm to the new paradigm cannot be done incrementally, as it brings a lot of waste, by paying rates (the higher the rates, the better the scam) for each incremental feature (demand response, energy efficiency decoupling, NERC standards, etc., and getting many costly unneeded things in the process. There is a need for a breakthrough process, and the knowledge to get there is already available. All tinkering have already been done with deregulation. There is a great difference between tinkering and non-trivial system design, done by professionals.
IOUs should look closely to Detroit. Ma Bell did not bring cell phones. IBM lost to MS. The financial industry is already transformed.
While EWPC is a true paradigm, deregulation is a false one. As simple as that.
Reference and context: An Analysis of the Carbon Emissions Impact of the Senate Energy Bill, by Chris Neil, Energy Economist.
Thank you once again Don,
Edison "invented" the vertical integration electric monopoly; Insull added the “invention” of regulation to get political insulation from the Sherman Act. Hence, you too can be absolutely sure that Insull was the mastermind that “invented” the scams. In the process, he completed the non-trivial vertically integrated utilities (VIUs) paradigm, which regulators have never learned. The results: scams then, scams now.
IOUs “… continued transfixed by the lore of…” VIUs “… that have served the country so well - until the world changed.” Many of the essential assumptions of the VIUs industry are fictitious and no longer hold. Long run generation contracts bets, Inactive demand, average rates, yearly demand charge, supply orientation, lack of competition, demand can be forecasted, planning under certainty, incremental rate cases to incorporate “innovations,” perverse incentives, many customers (most of the best) have alternatives to avoid the system, etc, etc,
While not a VIU, the industry is already in the process of being torn apart, as you can see from the case of the state of Ohio. As there is only one stable end-state (EWPC) for the future, if the state of Ohio goes back to VIUs, it will have lost the best opportunity to get a competitive power sector.
Going from the old paradigm to the new paradigm cannot be done incrementally, as it brings a lot of waste, by paying rates (the higher the rates, the better the scam) for each incremental feature (demand response, energy efficiency decoupling, NERC standards, etc., and getting many costly unneeded things in the process. There is a need for a breakthrough process, and the knowledge to get there is already available. All tinkering have already been done with deregulation. There is a great difference between tinkering and non-trivial system design, done by professionals.
IOUs should look closely to Detroit. Ma Bell did not bring cell phones. IBM lost to MS. The financial industry is already transformed.
While EWPC is a true paradigm, deregulation is a false one. As simple as that.
Reference and context: An Analysis of the Carbon Emissions Impact of the Senate Energy Bill, by Chris Neil, Energy Economist.
lunes, febrero 15, 2016
Can a Management 2.0 update help CEOs face Pope Francis’ wealth, vanity and pride temptations?
First update. Will Wall Street 'secret summits' extend even more the prevailing tyranny of soaring inequality. Consider the initial text on Management 2.0 as an experiment under an action oriented scientific attitude that came with a proposal that didn't have the teeths expected. We hope this one will. as this is an adjustment to the experiment to end the temptations that CEOs have. The insight to the adjustment emerged from the lastest tweet of a tweet conversation on the critical importance of the social dimension that comes from the whole post World Economic Forum Davos 2016: Will #OWS and #15M love The Industrialist’s Dilemma?, which says:
Considering Pope Francis as an example of a Servant Leader, that is going well beyond the scope of the Catholic Church, we find the article In crime-infested Mexican suburb, pope rips wealth, vanity, and pride as an excellent evidence to address the existence of the global Great Decoupling soaring inequality with the intent of what CEOs can do about it. In that respect, please consider the following tweets:
In what follows the above mentioned concepts are suggested to be part of Management 2.0 as an additional language proposal. The background hypothesis of the proposal comes from the Grupo Millennium Hispaniola Blog, elaborated under an action oriented scientific attitude. This is based on Management 2.0 LabNote Renegade Thinking, which:
#WEF Davos 2016...The Industrialist’s Dilemma? @EcoAhead @Massoud_Amin @UMNCSE @UWMadison https://t.co/OJUr3VEKol pic.twitter.com/hAfnvtY6Mx— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) February 16, 2016
Will Wall Street 'secret summits' extend even more the prevailing tyranny of soaring #OWS #15M inequality? https://t.co/LZJqjWGkiq #EuropeIN— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) February 16, 2016
Starting 1st Golden Age @EcoAhead of the #SystemicCivilization which with #GreatCapitalism will serve them both with #DD_SM trust & honesty— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) February 16, 2016
— AntonioVallejoChanal (@AntonioVChanal) February 17, 2016
— ¹ɴess (@Qonscious) February 19, 2016
Said "fall back" missed by Groupthink 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.” Such emphasis on technology would mean that global society has lost a technological revolution due to the Groupthink of representative democracy.
It is easy to see that the tyranny of Management 1.0 is strongly linked in the main text with the Great Decoupling. What the insight also reveals is in the preface of the second edition of his book “The New Economics For Industry, Government, Education,” published in 1993 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Advanced Engineering Study, where the late W. Edwards Deming wrote:
This book is for people who are living under the tyranny of the prevailing style of Management. The huge, long-range losses caused by this style of management have led us into decline. Most people imagine that the present style of management has always existed, and is a fixture. Actually, it is a modern invention – a prison created by the way people interact. This interaction afflicts all aspects of our lives – government, industry, education, healthcare.I add that Steve Denning warned us in the section "The Risks Of Wall Street’s ‘Secret Summits’," of "a number of worrying elements about what is going on." As you may see from his article it is self dealing to keep in place the Management 1.0 tyranny. In the introduction of his article Denning wrote:
Over recent months, a group of the world’s largest firms, banks and asset managers on Wall Street has been holding “secret summits,” the Financial Times reported last week. The goal, says the FT, is “to hammer out proposals for improving public company governance to encourage longer-term investment and reduce friction with shareholders.” The firms include BlackRock, Berkshire Hathaway, Fidelity, JPMorgan, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and the activist hedge fund, ValueAct. The most recent “secret summit” took place in December 2015.
The key evidence to extend even more the prevailing tyranny of Management 1.0 soaring inequality is that "BlackRock’s CEO, has written to the chief executives of all Fortune 500 companies warning them of the risks of 'short-termism' and urging them to develop “'long-term visions.'” Such evidence Denning wrote is that "the 'long-term time-frame' is only three years." Having learn that we are against a clear lack of leadership, this is what it is suggested in the moonshot "Redefine the work of leadership," under Moon Shots for Management, by Gary Hamel, on the February 2009 issued of the Harvard Business Review:
Natural hierarchies require natural leaders—that is, individuals who can mobilize others despite a lack of formal authority. In Management 2.0, leaders will no longer be seen as grand visionaries, all-wise decision makers, and ironfisted disciplinarians. Instead, they will need to become social architects, constitution writers, and entrepreneurs of meaning. In this new model, the leader’s job is to create an environment where every employee has the chance to collaborate, innovate, and excel.
Can a Management 2.0 update help CEOs face Pope Francis’ wealth, vanity and pride temptations?
Considering Pope Francis as an example of a Servant Leader, that is going well beyond the scope of the Catholic Church, we find the article In crime-infested Mexican suburb, pope rips wealth, vanity, and pride as an excellent evidence to address the existence of the global Great Decoupling soaring inequality with the intent of what CEOs can do about it. In that respect, please consider the following tweets:
#Servantleaders will try to overcome @Pontifex temptations of wealth, vanity & pride in #SystemicCivilization with #GreatCapitalism & #DD_SM— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) February 15, 2016
Can a @profhamel Management 2.0 update help CEOs face @Pontifex wealth, vanity & pride temptations? https://t.co/LZJqjWGkiq #OWS #EuropeIN— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) February 15, 2016
Pope Francis @Pontifex - May the Lord help us overcome the temptations of wealth, vanity and pride which seek to destroy the truth of the Gospel.
Jose A Vanderhorst S @gmh_upsa - #Servantleaders will try to overcome @Pontifex temptations of wealth, vanity & pride in #SystemicCivilization with #GreatCapitalism & #DD_SMThose tweets suggests the need to help develop Servant Leaders as organization CEOs that are able to face those temptations by starting to create the Systemic Civilization to introduce the Direct Democracy of the Systemic Market starting, for example, with the Electricity Pact of the Dominican Republic. On the reason to create the Systemic Civilization, please consider the article Will Wall Street's 'Long-Termism' Make Things Worse?, under which is the following comment to the author:
Jose A Vanderhorst S @gmh_upsa - Because fair is fair & foul foul @Pontifex let's create the #SystemicCivilization with #GreatCapitalism & #DD_SM starting w/ #PactoElectrico
Dear Steve Denning,It is interesting to consider a quote of Mr. Denning that reflects current Wall Street CEO behavior on the wealth tempetation driven by foul is fair and fair is foul: "Palmisano viewed his role at IBM as a steward of a machine that makes money for the big investors." Do we still need money making Management 1.0 machines?
Thank you for a very timely analysis.
“By no longer ignoring the social dimension… Keynes would had believe that for quite some time fair needs to be fair and foul needs to be foul. In order to dissolve such unfair Great Decoupling of soaring inequality, we must create the systemic civilization under a paradigm of interdependence. Keynes would have agreed to adjust the more than one hundred years that he predicted have already been gone for about 40 years. That’s because the world changed for all practical purposes much earlier than he anticipated as the industrial civilization under decreasing returns had reached and gone beyond its capacity. The Great Decoupling is the result of industrialists foul is fair using the dark side of technology of a new civilization that enabled increasing returns was trying to emerge but has not been created.”
“Here is why Keynes and Schumpeter would be on the same page as open dynamic systems are available that replaced closed static systems. To support the above mentioned great change in the code of morals, which would lead us into the Golden Age that Carlota Pérez anticipated, next is what Peter Drucker said on the need to change from Keynesian to Schumpeterian economics…”
Those are two key paragraphs examples that led to the tweet “Being Keynes & Schumpeter alive, the creation of new civilization with a code of morals were long overdue http://bit.ly/g363mh #EuropeIN”
In addition, in response to your tweet on your article “Four Reasons Why You’ve Got A Rotten Job — Or No Job At All,” please consider the tweet Would Keynes tell us there is just one flawed reason: “foul is fair and fair is foul.”?, which carried the tweet of the new civilization with a code of morals that is what is missing to stop the strategic (marketing) myopia that is running under the power of ‘Groupthink’ that involves CEOs and their boards. Investors, the media, public official and other institutions you have mentioned in other articles.
In what follows the above mentioned concepts are suggested to be part of Management 2.0 as an additional language proposal. The background hypothesis of the proposal comes from the Grupo Millennium Hispaniola Blog, elaborated under an action oriented scientific attitude. This is based on Management 2.0 LabNote Renegade Thinking, which:
… calls for a whole new language and philosophy of management, the concluding plenary heard a plea for implementation of proven but neglected principles, as well as the invention of new ones. In this view management houseclearing – sweeping out the sediment of outdated practices – enlarging the pro-change constituency and building an “implementation engine” were regarded as important as new practices.With a minor change from ‘implementation engine,’ to ‘implementation organ,’ next is the proposal:
Organic (open) systems live or die, while machine (closed) systems operate or brake.
Wicked problems generated in the industrial civilization, signal the existence of artificial life organic anti-systems. Example: Wall Street is ‘operating’ artificially under foul is fair, and fair is a foul, ‘Groupthink’ anti-systemic short run financial market, at a time when money is excessively abundant.
Wall Street investors keep using a strategy of terrain that’s leading them and us to collapse, for example, by expecting to ‘operate’ as they used to "Without clearly articulated plans, companies risk losing the faith of long-term investors." Society should press governments to get out of the ‘Groupthink’ for those investors to support long run production capital.
Instead of being in the Second Machine Age, we need to create the Systemic Civilization under a strategy of trajectory, in which fair is fair, and foul is foul to reverse The Great Decoupling of soaring inequality. This way, CEOs will need to become Servant Leaders, based on the “Fourth update: in a new world order, Servant-Leadership will be prevalent” of the post Can 10 questions above politics help forecast a new world order in 2015?
miércoles, febrero 10, 2016
Debate electoral: ¿no será una distracción contra la democracia directa?
Segunda actualización. W. Edwards Deming: Padre de la democracia directa del mercado sistémico (#DD_SM). Teniendo un alcance tan amplio como el de la sociedad global, formando parte integral de esta nota y su primera actualización, aquí se aprovechan tres artículos uno global y dos locales. La idea es combinarlos para impulsar el axioma redefinido que sugiere que mientras más anti-sistemico (a nivel global), más local.
Incluyendo, lo que se respondió (ver imagen) al artículo internacional It's time for the elites to rise up against the ignorant masses (Es hora de que las élites se levanten contra las masas ignorantes ), escrito el 28 de junio de 2016 para la revista Foreign Policy por James Traub, así como lo que se responde aquí sobre dos artículos locales de República Dominicana, cuyo sector eléctrico es uno (a lo mejor el más) anti-sistémico a nivel global.
Los artículos publicado en Diario Libre el el 30 de junio y el 1 de julio de 2016 son: Brexit o las trampas de la democracia directa, escrito por el ex – embajador de la República Dominicana en Washington, Flavio Dario Espinal y Visión Económica y Fiscal,por Pedro Silverio Álvarez . Como verán, la respuesta para los tres artículos que atacan equivocadamente la democracia directa del Brexit se sintetiza con la cita que se atribuye a Henry Ford “Si le hubiera preguntado a la gente qué querían, me habrían dicho que un caballo más rápido.” Esa es la razón principal para transformar dicho anti-sistema en sistema, de modo que sirva como un cambio de marco de referencia en la relación Estado mercado, que se podrá replicar en la transformación de otros anti-sistemas independientes en sistemas interdependientes, por ejemplo, los Estados Unidos de América, la Unión Europea, el Reino Unido, Venezuela, Brasil, España, República Dominicana.
Al respecto de la diferencia entre lo sistémico y lo anti-sistémico, ayer le di una primera mirada al artículo The Management Thinker We Should Never Have Forgotten (El pensador de gerencia que nunca hemos debimos olvidar), redactado por Joshua Macht y publicado el 24 de junio de 2016 en el Harvard Business Review Online. Se trata de W. Edwards Deming, quien está muy presente en lo que nosotros, al igual que Alvin Toffler, a quien por su fallecimiento el 27 de junio, 2016, rendimos un homenaje de despedida, como el padre de la Civilización Sistémica. Abajo verán porque sugiero que Deming merece ser el padre de la innovación institucional de la democracia directa del mercado sistémico (DD_SM).
Nosotros es un selecto grupo de personas que reflejan a primera mano un ejemplo de 'un modelo de negocios' sobre cómo se eleva el potencial de la democracia directa en las redes sociales, por encima de las entretenidas colaboraciones de cantidad, dando feedback en muy poco tiempo (minutos a veces) a las colaboraciones que hemos venido elaborando y que pretenden ser de calidad, con base a experimentos de pensamiento sintéticos en situaciones donde la alta complejidad, sustituye el análisis que es imposible de desarrollar, como se hace con la metodología heuriistica del arquitectado (architecting) de sistemas.
A sabiendas de que nos equivocamos (pudiendo corregir rapidamente) cuando sube la ‘sobrecarga de información’ (concepto introducido por Toffler), como sucede con el Brexit en estos momentos, divido arbitrariamente los colaboradores importantes (algunos de los cuales aparecen en el texto inicial y en la primera actualización de esta nota) en tres grupos:
En su libro “The New Economics: for industry, government, education,” Deming se preguntó ¿qué es un sistema?, del que destacamos este párrafo entre otros cinco:
Regresando al libro de Deming, en el Capítulo 1, How are we doing? Él le dedicó un párrafo a las “Expectativas del cliente:”
En efecto, como los votantes no inventan, solo conocen lo que los partidos tradicionales de izquierda y derecha cercanos al centro creen como las expectativas de los electores y que ya sabemos está muy alejadas de la realidad. La trampa no es de la democracia directa, es auto infringida por los partidos de países y unión de países anti-sistémicos, que se han quedado en sus laureles sin inventar nada a pesar del que el mundo cambió y mucho.
Para responder a Flavio Darío tomo lo que dije a Traut:
Sugiriendo que no es lo mismo energía limpia en una transición a bajo carbono con antisistemas, que energía limpia hacia una transformación a cero carbono con sistemas, ese retuit reactivó la discusión sobre la democracia directa y el superado debate electoral que pueden ver en Twitter fue malinterpretada por Manuel Pérez Martíne (@ManuelDJesusPM). Del mismo solo destaco esto: "Lo siento @ManuelDJesusPM no te distraigas. La pregunda a @giovannida y a ti es sobre distracción o no sobre la democracia directa #DD_SM."
El concepto de anti-sistema nos ha llevado a entender la gran importancia de la democracia directa del mercado sistémico en un mundo que está siendo dominado por mercados anti-sistémicos. Acabo de reconocer que los sistemas que sirven tanto para el Estado como para el mercado están por encima de la política.
Lo anterior aumenta significativamente la credibilidad de la nota A Better Decade Require the End of the Prevailing Style of Management (Un mejor decenio exige el fin del estilo predominante de gestión) divulgada el 2 de enero del 2010 en el Electricity Without Price Controls Blog que lamentablemente Energy Central cerró este año. Traducción del resumen dice lo siguiente:
Según lo sugerido por W. Edwards Deming, el principal obstáculo para las innovaciones básicas, como el EWPC-AF, y un aumento del nivel de vida, es el estilo predominante de gestión. Una mejor década es por lo tanto dependiente de la adopción de Sistema de Conocimiento Profundo de Deming.
Primera actualización. ¿Podremos con el Pacto Eléctrico ser líderes del movimiento global del capitalismo sobresaliente? Como se puede ver abajo, el texto inicial de esta nota se enriqueció notablemente con los intercambios con Dagoberto J. Torres, Mario A. Fernández y Luaiti Santaella, que ayudaron a traer luz a la prioridad de salvar el Pacto Eléctrico, para que la metodología basada en la primacía del todo (un nuevo eje transversal) sirva para enfrentar los grandes problemas a nivel local, por ejemplo, en salud, educación y judicial.
Como resultado, se definió claramente que la Democracia Directa no es del Estado, emergiendo la etiqueta #DD_SM (siglas en inglés de Direct Democracy Systemic Market) como la Democracia Directa del Mercado Sistémico para uso global. Ahora rescatamos la etiqueta #GreatCapitalism, que inspirada por el libro de Jim Collins, "Good to Great," apareció en varios tuits en febrero y marzo del 2015. Cabe indicar que la palabra Good incluye también a Mediocre (que si la hubieren incluido el libro no se vendía).
En ese sentido, la noticia Varoufakis lanza movimiento para democratizar y refundar la UE, cuyo subtitular dice "El exministro griego Yanis Varoufakis encabeza esta alianza de plataformas de izquierdas que dice apostar por la transparencia total en la toma de decisiones," cae como anillo al dedo. Dicha noticia dice que:
Debate electoral: ¿no será una distracción contra la democracia directa?
Evidentemete el debate electoral es una estrategia de los que domina la democracia representativa para evitar que pensemos que lo que más nos conviene es empezar a desarrollar la democracia directa con el Pacto Eléctrico. Pero tal distracción es un "boomerand" o acción contraproducente para los trabajadores, las empresas y la sociedad. No obstante, en lo que sigue concentraré la atención en los sectores que deben ser productivos, que deberían ser los primeros en dejar de distraerse.
Ayer 9 de febrero de 2016, escuché a Gabriela Frías en CNN, en su programa Portafolio Global, decir “Récord de ofertas de trabajo en EE.UU. Casi tres veces más de lo que registró en julio del 2009.” Luego dijo que esa era “la buena noticia.” Entonces agregó que “La mala noticia es que la cifra puede reflejar que las empresas no están encontrando los candidatos correctos para llenar las plazas y reflejar también un déficit de habilidades.”
Esa es exactamente la situación que los empresarios dominicanos están enfrentando debido al fracaso del Pacto Educativo, que resultó ser un producto del debate, como se refleja en la nota ¿Tendrá culpa el empresario macbethiano del trabajo podrido o ningún trabajo para los indignados? Como deberían saber los empresarios, que todos los negocios están espuestos a los mercados globales, debajo de la nota La reestructuración del mercado global para desarmar la Tercera Depresión puede empezar con el Pacto Eléctrico se destaca que:
W. Edwards Deming: Padre democracia directa del mercado sistémico (#DD_SM) #PactoElectrico #PactoFiscal https://t.co/dQGJCRPqn0 #EuropeIN— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) July 1, 2016
Muy buen artículo @pedrosilver31 Sugiero en https://t.co/bGyotlRNGJ cambio marco referencia global #DD_SM en #PactoElectrico y #PactoFiscal— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) July 1, 2016
¿No será @fdespinal @Diario_Libre que la trampa proviene de https://t.co/bGyotm9p5j las desorganizaciones anti-sistémicas que desgobiernan?— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) July 1, 2016
2 mercados. Sistémicos: servicio #Brexit a #GlobalDebout @ARMAKdeODELOT Antisistémicos: al capitalismo de amiguetes. https://t.co/bGyotlRNGJ— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) July 1, 2016
Gracias @XSalaimartin por esos pensamientos aleatorios sobre #Brexit. Considera por favor este pensamiento sistémico https://t.co/bGyotlRNGJ— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) July 1, 2016
Atención #GlobalDebout #EuropeIN @24h_tve: una razón mucho más poderosa para repetir elecciones y se comparte aquí. https://t.co/bGyotlRNGJ
— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) July 1, 2016
@gmh_upsa Con tu permiso, me guardo tu tuit :) :) https://t.co/phkhWejhN5
— Ignacio CM (@ignacio_conejo) July 2, 2016
Los artículos publicado en Diario Libre el el 30 de junio y el 1 de julio de 2016 son: Brexit o las trampas de la democracia directa, escrito por el ex – embajador de la República Dominicana en Washington, Flavio Dario Espinal y Visión Económica y Fiscal,por Pedro Silverio Álvarez . Como verán, la respuesta para los tres artículos que atacan equivocadamente la democracia directa del Brexit se sintetiza con la cita que se atribuye a Henry Ford “Si le hubiera preguntado a la gente qué querían, me habrían dicho que un caballo más rápido.” Esa es la razón principal para transformar dicho anti-sistema en sistema, de modo que sirva como un cambio de marco de referencia en la relación Estado mercado, que se podrá replicar en la transformación de otros anti-sistemas independientes en sistemas interdependientes, por ejemplo, los Estados Unidos de América, la Unión Europea, el Reino Unido, Venezuela, Brasil, España, República Dominicana.
Alvin Toffler RIP: father #SystemicCivilization | @PIEROFORMICA1 @heathermcgowan @jhagel @RobertoVerganti @cshipley pic.twitter.com/QihK2em5Ej— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) June 30, 2016
Nosotros es un selecto grupo de personas que reflejan a primera mano un ejemplo de 'un modelo de negocios' sobre cómo se eleva el potencial de la democracia directa en las redes sociales, por encima de las entretenidas colaboraciones de cantidad, dando feedback en muy poco tiempo (minutos a veces) a las colaboraciones que hemos venido elaborando y que pretenden ser de calidad, con base a experimentos de pensamiento sintéticos en situaciones donde la alta complejidad, sustituye el análisis que es imposible de desarrollar, como se hace con la metodología heuriistica del arquitectado (architecting) de sistemas.
A sabiendas de que nos equivocamos (pudiendo corregir rapidamente) cuando sube la ‘sobrecarga de información’ (concepto introducido por Toffler), como sucede con el Brexit en estos momentos, divido arbitrariamente los colaboradores importantes (algunos de los cuales aparecen en el texto inicial y en la primera actualización de esta nota) en tres grupos:
- Colaboradores de alta continuidad: José Daniel Jiménez (@JdanielJimenezb), ARM58 (@A1R1M158), Dagoberto J. Torres (@DJavierTH), Mario A. Fernández (@lockpasoporto), Evelin Placido-Almon (@EvelinPlacidoAl), Luaiti Santaella (@lsnmafalda), MAP (@penaangel76)
- Colaboradores con sitios curadores: AntonioVallejoChanal (@AntonioVChanal), The Social Media Lab (@XSocialMediaLab), #Tweet_Pub (@Tweet_Pub), Toto (@hipolitototo), NuitDeboutRT(@NuitDeboutRT), Retweet #NuitDebout (@RtwtNuitDebout).
- Colaboradores de mediana continuidad: Giovanni DAlessandro (@giovannida), Cecilio Castro#29N (@CecilioCastro), Daniel Pou (@pousuazo), Anthverest (@Anthverest1), Lucienne Carlo (@LucienneCarlo), H. Romero efrit1#MÉS (@efrit1), sandra Brito #UNT. (@sandraB03360202), CreatorAhead (@EcoAhead), Jose Alfredo Mendez (@jjaammrr89 ), Víctor Riverola (@Matterfilm ), Daniel Vasquez (@DanielV2122 ), Frederic Emam-Zade (@fredemamzade), Andrea Juver (@andatira), Solar Life (@SOLARLIFE).
En su libro “The New Economics: for industry, government, education,” Deming se preguntó ¿qué es un sistema?, del que destacamos este párrafo entre otros cinco:
Un sistema debe ser gestionado. No se gestiona a sí mismo. Dejados a sí mismos en el mundo occidental, los componentes se vuelven egoístas, competitivos, centros independientes de beneficios, y por lo tanto destruyen el sistema.También se preguntó ¿es su organización un sistema? En el segundo de dos párrafos dijo:
Con algunas compañías, debido al pensamiento de corto plazo, el único objetivo es sobrevivir por el día, sin pensar sobre el futuro.Ambas preguntas, la destrucción de un sistema y no diría una organización, sino una desorganización viviente, que entonces no es un sistema, en proceso de destrucción, nos llevó a tomar la idea de anti-sistema que pasa de lo destruido que es discreto a lo que se está destruyendo que es continuo. Esto esta íntimamente relacionado con la cita que le hizo Pedro Silverio Álvarez a Acemoglu y Robinson, sobre las instituciones extractivas políticas y económicas. El ejemplo que hemos venido trabajando en carne propia de la combinación extrativa política y económica por más de 20 años es el sector eléctrico de la República Dominicana. Si lo que aspiramos es a disponer de sistemas, en vez de corrupción sistémica se expresa mejor como corrupción antí-sistémica que generó en la Unión Europea, por medio de la violencia legalizada, la fuerza separatista del Brexit.
Regresando al libro de Deming, en el Capítulo 1, How are we doing? Él le dedicó un párrafo a las “Expectativas del cliente:”
Se habla mucho de las expectativas del cliente. Satisfacer las expectativas del cliente. El hecho es que el cliente solo espera lo que tú y tu competidor le han llevado a esperar. Él aprende rápido.Entonces a seguidas empezó una larga explicación con ejemplos sobre ¿Inventa el cliente un nuevo producto o servicio? Su primera oración fue “El cliente no inventa nada” y al final dijo:
La gente está pidiendo mejores escuelas, sin una idea clara de cómo mejorar la educación, sin ni siquiera como definir mejoramiento en educación.Dado que el libro de Deming aplica a todo tipo de organizaciones y desorganizaciones, bajo su gran influencia estas otras dos ideas, nos llevan a inferir a que los candidatos en los procesos electorales no les están ofreciendo a los votantes la democracia directa en el Estado, por ejemplo con referéndum y en el mercado con lo que debe resultar de la innovación institucional que sugerimos es la democracia directa del mercado sistémico (#DD_SM).
En efecto, como los votantes no inventan, solo conocen lo que los partidos tradicionales de izquierda y derecha cercanos al centro creen como las expectativas de los electores y que ya sabemos está muy alejadas de la realidad. La trampa no es de la democracia directa, es auto infringida por los partidos de países y unión de países anti-sistémicos, que se han quedado en sus laureles sin inventar nada a pesar del que el mundo cambió y mucho.
Para responder a Flavio Darío tomo lo que dije a Traut:
… la cuestión clave, en el fondo, es la necesidad de saltar a lo que hemos llamado la civilización sistémica, con el fin de acabar con la discordia con una Teoría de los negocios (tal como la definió el fallecido Peter Drucker) con el fin de desengañar a los votantes. Interpretamos las élites como los que están impulsando el capitalismo de amiguetes en oposición al capitalismo sobresaliente que proponemos.En medio del proceso electoral de la República Dominicana el 10 de febrero de 2016, hicimos el siguiente tuit:
Debate electoral #RD: ¿no será una distracción contra la democracia directa #PactoElectrico #OWS #15M? http://bit.ly/g452mh #EuropeINTres días más tarde incorporando la imagen con el título “Segunda respuesta a: Debate Presidencial ‘Creemos en un debate televisado para toda la nación y ustedes?’”
Esos intercambios resonaron de nuevo ayer cuando Mario Fernández tuitió a varios colaboradore la pregunta "Y nosotros en la era del carbón?" acompañada de la noticia del 29 de junio de 2016 México, EU y Canadá van por energía limpia. La respuesta a los colaboradores que emergió en sincronicidad con esta actualización fue ¿Será ...otra distracción a #DD_SM? al tiempo que se retuitió el tuit sobre ¿Habrá distracción extranjera? mencionado arriba, al que Dagoberto Javier le dio retuit¿Será @lockpasoporto @giovannida @DJavierTH otra distracción a #DD_SM? @lsnmafalda @j_rijo @StgoSomosTodos @capano20 https://t.co/AEWBdQSpvu— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) June 30, 2016
Lo siento @ManuelDJesusPM no te distraigas. La pregunda a @giovannida y a ti es sobre distracción o no sobre la democracia directa #DD_SM— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) June 30, 2016
Sugiriendo que no es lo mismo energía limpia en una transición a bajo carbono con antisistemas, que energía limpia hacia una transformación a cero carbono con sistemas, ese retuit reactivó la discusión sobre la democracia directa y el superado debate electoral que pueden ver en Twitter fue malinterpretada por Manuel Pérez Martíne (@ManuelDJesusPM). Del mismo solo destaco esto: "Lo siento @ManuelDJesusPM no te distraigas. La pregunda a @giovannida y a ti es sobre distracción o no sobre la democracia directa #DD_SM."
Lo anterior aumenta significativamente la credibilidad de la nota A Better Decade Require the End of the Prevailing Style of Management (Un mejor decenio exige el fin del estilo predominante de gestión) divulgada el 2 de enero del 2010 en el Electricity Without Price Controls Blog que lamentablemente Energy Central cerró este año. Traducción del resumen dice lo siguiente:
Según lo sugerido por W. Edwards Deming, el principal obstáculo para las innovaciones básicas, como el EWPC-AF, y un aumento del nivel de vida, es el estilo predominante de gestión. Una mejor década es por lo tanto dependiente de la adopción de Sistema de Conocimiento Profundo de Deming.
Primera actualización. ¿Podremos con el Pacto Eléctrico ser líderes del movimiento global del capitalismo sobresaliente? Como se puede ver abajo, el texto inicial de esta nota se enriqueció notablemente con los intercambios con Dagoberto J. Torres, Mario A. Fernández y Luaiti Santaella, que ayudaron a traer luz a la prioridad de salvar el Pacto Eléctrico, para que la metodología basada en la primacía del todo (un nuevo eje transversal) sirva para enfrentar los grandes problemas a nivel local, por ejemplo, en salud, educación y judicial.
La #DD_SM es la #DemocraciaDirecta del Mercado Sistémico @DJavierTH @lsnmafalda @lockpasoporto @PodCiudadanoRD @giovannida @LucienneCarlo— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) February 11, 2016
¿Podremos con #PactoElectrico ser líderes del movimiento global #OWS #15M del #GreatCapitalism? @DiEM_25 https://t.co/dQGJCRPqn0 #EuropeIN— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) February 11, 2016
Hazlo todo simple pero no simplista - Einstein@Anthverest1 @DJavierTH @lsnmafalda @lockpasoporto @PodCiudadanoRD @giovannida @LucienneCarlo— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) February 11, 2016
Ejemplo colaboración @lsnmafalda @Anthverest1 @DJavierTH @lockpasoporto @PodCiudadanoRD @giovannida @LucienneCarlo https://t.co/x8BCOm59S3— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) February 11, 2016
Noticias: Jose A Vanderhorst S on Twitter: "¿Podremos con #PactoElectrico ser l… https://t.co/7fPxTdcDiX, see more https://t.co/mT9TzGMlr4— Toto (@hipolitototo) February 12, 2016
En ese sentido, la noticia Varoufakis lanza movimiento para democratizar y refundar la UE, cuyo subtitular dice "El exministro griego Yanis Varoufakis encabeza esta alianza de plataformas de izquierdas que dice apostar por la transparencia total en la toma de decisiones," cae como anillo al dedo. Dicha noticia dice que:
Con el objetivo de democratizar y refundar la Unión Europea (UE), dominada “por una dictadura de tecnócratas y más de 10 mil lobistas”, hoy el exministro de Finanzas griego Yanis Varoufakis lanzó el movimiento panaeuropeo llamado "Movimiento por la Democracia en Europa 2025" (DiEM25, por sus siglas en inglés).
Y agrega que " la meta central del movimiento es buscar y obtener la transparencia total en la toma de decisiones." Es decir dicho movimiento centrado en los Estados independientes y basado en la primacía de los intereses (de la izquierda en este caso) de las partes seguirá aprendiendo del pasado para tratar de resolver las crisis "... del endeudamiento público, el sistema bancario, la inversión insuficiente, la política migratoria de la UE y el aumento de la pobreza, que para Varoufakis son las cinco crisis que afectan a la Unión."
Como se puede ver en la nota World Economic Forum Davos 2016: Will #OWS and #15M love The Industrialist’s Dilemma? y sus cinco actualizaciones, dichas crisis se resuelven aprendiendo del futuro emergente, bajo la primacía del todo con paises que se vuelven interdependientes. Es decir que parece que estamos listos para lanzar un movimiento global a favor de la creación de la civilización sistémica empezando en República Dominicana o cualquier país (o grupo de países) que basado en estos conocimientos nos tome la delantera en cambiar el capitalismo mediocre por el capitalismo sobresaliente.
Evidentemete el debate electoral es una estrategia de los que domina la democracia representativa para evitar que pensemos que lo que más nos conviene es empezar a desarrollar la democracia directa con el Pacto Eléctrico. Pero tal distracción es un "boomerand" o acción contraproducente para los trabajadores, las empresas y la sociedad. No obstante, en lo que sigue concentraré la atención en los sectores que deben ser productivos, que deberían ser los primeros en dejar de distraerse.
Debate electoral #RD: ¿no será una distracción contra la democracia directa #PactoElectrico #OWS #15M? https://t.co/dQGJCRPqn0 #EuropeIN— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) February 10, 2016
Que los candidatos expongan sus ideas no lo veo mal. Lo que sí no debemos circunscribirnos sólo a sus planteamientos https://t.co/Bvxp0zO0V2— Dagoberto J. Torres (@DJavierTH) February 10, 2016
Con mucho respeto @lockpasoporto ¿garatizará el #DebateElectoral que el ganador de las elecciones cumpla sus promesas y desinfle el Estado?— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) February 10, 2016
Entonces @lockpasoporto, la atención no debe concentrarse en #PactoElectrico como 1er ejemplo para desinflar Estado? https://t.co/bQomQDEgqD— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) February 10, 2016
Ver "otros problemas" en imagen @lockpasoporto @lsnmafalda @DJavierTH @PodCiudadanoRD @giovannida @LucienneCarlo pic.twitter.com/m7Z5WuKwsX— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) February 10, 2016
Es @lsnmafalda el modelo a seguir de #DemocraciaDirecta de @gmh_upsa | @lockpasoporto @DJavierTH @PodCiudadanoRD @giovannida @LucienneCarlo— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) February 10, 2016
Gracias @DJavierTH revisemos si hay diferencias con @DemoDirectYA | @lsnmafalda @lockpasoporto @PodCiudadanoRD @giovannida @LucienneCarlo— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) February 10, 2016
Aunque es secundario ante #PactoEléctrico @Anthverest1, como puedes ver en la imagen, podremos elegir al menos malo https://t.co/AEWBdQSpvu— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) February 14, 2016
Ayer 9 de febrero de 2016, escuché a Gabriela Frías en CNN, en su programa Portafolio Global, decir “Récord de ofertas de trabajo en EE.UU. Casi tres veces más de lo que registró en julio del 2009.” Luego dijo que esa era “la buena noticia.” Entonces agregó que “La mala noticia es que la cifra puede reflejar que las empresas no están encontrando los candidatos correctos para llenar las plazas y reflejar también un déficit de habilidades.”
Esa es exactamente la situación que los empresarios dominicanos están enfrentando debido al fracaso del Pacto Educativo, que resultó ser un producto del debate, como se refleja en la nota ¿Tendrá culpa el empresario macbethiano del trabajo podrido o ningún trabajo para los indignados? Como deberían saber los empresarios, que todos los negocios están espuestos a los mercados globales, debajo de la nota La reestructuración del mercado global para desarmar la Tercera Depresión puede empezar con el Pacto Eléctrico se destaca que:
Contrario a los debates y el diálogo reflexivo como lo definió Otto Scharmer, lo que se necesita es el diálogo generativo, que permite (como sugirió Steve Jobs, empezar con la experiencia del cliente). Es por eso que podemos empezar a cambiar el mundo con el Pacto Eléctrico de la República Dominicana, basado en el punto de apoyo sistémico “El bien es bien, y el mal es mal,” .Complementando la situación, sugerimos la nota ¿Será ahora el mejor momento de diálogo iniciando el cambio de rumbo de RD con el Pacto Eléctrico?, que dice “Si los electores están enfurecidos en Estados Unidos, ¿cómo deben estar los dominicanos y los de la gran mayoría de los países del mundo?” Al respecto de esa nota, descato uno de sus párrafos, al tiempo que aprovecho para hacer un ajuste sobre la palabra percepción que está muy en boga.
"En particular @LucienneCarlo, para los [anti-]sistemas sociales, son las percepciones las que cuentan, no los hechos." -- Maier, Mark W.— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) February 9, 2016
Como se puede establecer de esas dos fuentes de entero crédito, más que la percepción, en realidad la credibilidad de la democracia ha venido migrando gracias a las nuevas tecnologías desde la democracia representativa a la democracia directa, que cuenta con importantes mejoras como resultado de los efectos de red que resultan en rendimientos crecientes, que permiten que los ciudadanos le vayan quitando el poder a los que detentan la autoridad por medio del desarrollo de mercados sistémicos.En realidad, en el libro “The Art of Systems Architecting,” Mark W.Maier afirma que "En particular, para los [anti-]sistemas sociales, son las percepciones las que cuentan, no los hechos." El corchete [anti-] no es de Maier.
lunes, febrero 08, 2016
La reestructuración del mercado global para desarmar la Tercera Depresión puede empezar con el Pacto Eléctrico
En las últimas semanas, vienen ocurriendo episodios de tanta inestabilidad de los mercados internacionales, que son una prueba fehaciente de que estamos inmersos en lo que sugiere la nota Perdidos en la Tercera Depresión Económica, que acaba de aparecer en el Blog de Juanjo Gabiña. De una parte, el primer párrafo de esa nota, que es parte integral de esta dice lo siguiente:
Todavía estoy por oír a algún político decir que estamos sufriendo la Tercera Depresión Económica. Llevamos casi una década sufriendo una grave crisis económica y nuestros políticos y líderes mundiales siguen presentándose a las elecciones sin tener idea de lo que nos pasa y, mucho menos, del qué hacer. Y si esto es cierto cómo es posible que continúen ganando estos políticos tan mediocres. Ello es bien fácil de explicar. Porque los seres humanos son estúpidos y sólo reaccionan cuando están al borde del precipicio y surgen los verdaderos líderes.De otra parte, el último párrafo agrega:
Por ello, urge que los ciudadanos de los diferentes países rescaten cuanto antes su dignidad y se doten de líderes que entiendan que debemos recuperar la esperanza en el futuro. Sólo a través de la esperanza y del compromiso que de ella misma se deriva es como podrán cobrar sentido nuestras vidas y así, hacer resurgir en nuestro interior esa voluntad por alcanzar un futuro deseado que, a su vez, sea posible y realizable. No olvidemos nunca que son los deseos que nuestra voluntad y esfuerzo ponen en marcha los que germinan la realidad de nuestro futuro. El ajuste del Diamante de la Innovación Sostenible es la clave de la bóveda que sostiene la salida a la crisis financiera actual.De los siete intercambios entre nosotros dos, que aparecen en este momento, solo repito a seguidas el primero y los tres últimos. Pudiendo ver los otros tres comentarios debajo de su nota (con una ligera edición para poner híperenlaces aquí y abajo), el primero dice así:
Estimado Juanjo,Como Juanjo respondió tomando en cuenta solamente el “Fifth update," en el quinto comentario agregué lo siguiente:
Te felicito por un planteamiento sobresaliente sin desperdicio. Al respecto de tu sugerencia sobre “…hacer resurgir en nuestro interior esa voluntad por alcanzar un futuro deseado que, a su vez, sea posible y realizable,” te solicito amablemente que consideres la nota World Economic Forum Davos 2016: Will #OWS and #15M love The Industrialist’s Dilemma?, empezando por su “Fifth update. Being Keynes & Schumpeter alive, the creation of new civilization with a code of morals were long overdue.”
Saludos muy cordiales,
José Antonio
Para aclarar la forma en que sugiero que podemos salir de la 3ra depresión socio-económica, te sugiero que consideres también la nota ¿Tendrá culpa el empresario macbethiano del trabajo podrido o ningún trabajo para los indignados?, que acabo de elaborar.En el sexto comentario, Juanjo dijo lo siguiente:
Si todo ello ayuda a profundizar la democracia y la independencia de los tres poderes, a democratizar la economía, a defender al ciudadano de la manipulación mediática y del control de la política por parte de los lobbies y persigue con fuerza, convicción y éxito el desarrollo sostenible valdrá. Lo demás es irrelevante.A lo que le constesté:
Muchas gracias Juanjo por tu atento comentario. Así es y más. En la civilización sistémica se va más allá de la independencia a la interdependencia, en la que se puede anticipar aprender del futuro emergente que los tres poderes se relacionarían entre sí para agregar valor, en vez de sustraerlo. Al devolver el equilibrio a la relación Estado mercado, con la llegada de mercados sistémicos que introducen la democracia directa de @gmh_upsa, los mercados anti-sistémicos que impulsan los lobbies deben desaparecer. Contrario a los debates y el diálogo reflexivo como lo definió Otto Scharmer, lo que se necesita es el diálogo generativo, que permite (como sugirió Steve Jobs, empezar con la experiencia del cliente. Es por eso que podemos empezar a cambiar el mundo con el Pacto Eléctrico de la República Dominicana, basado en el punto de apoyo sistémico “El bien es bien, y el mal es mal,” .
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)