Competitive Markets for COMPETE Coalition Potential Losers

Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | Dec 31, 2009

        

Potential COMPETE Coalition losers need to be aware of the need for a revolutionary regulatory change to enable highly competitive power markets. As the Digital Era advances, the difference value capture among winners and loser among them will widen.

Competitive Markets for COMPETE Coalition Potential Losers By José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio, Ph.D. Systemic Consultant: Electricity EWPC Systems’ Architect First posted in the GMH Blog, on May 6th, 2009. Copyright © 2009 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write tojavs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.

EWPC on Most Viewed May 6, 2009 ·         Response to Professor Banks (2982) ·         Nanosolar Breakthrough and the Old Paradigm (2923) ·         The Sixth Disruptive Technology (2897) ·         Can the Power Industry Eliminate its Price Controls to the End Customer? (2464) ·         Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics. (2358)

EWPC on Most Commented May 6, 2009 ·         Can the Power Industry Eliminate its Price Controls to the End Customer? (66) ·         The Next Energy Secretary (53) ·         Response to Professor Banks (46) ·         EWPC’s Tipping Point (44) ·         IMEUC False Facts (41) ·         Campaign for Fair Electricity Rates (33)

Denying the need to help Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) professionals to get liberated of the obsolete Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) Regulatory Framework mindset, as described in the EWPC article Can EPRI Professionals Get Out of the IOUs Box to Join the EWPC Necessary Revolution?, Mr. James Carson wrote:

What are you talking about? EPRI has LONGGGGG been in the forefront wrt market solutions for the power sector. Here is a link to their latest program review for Power Markets and Risk.

http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/Portfolio/PDF/2008_P00...

While I may quibble with their approach, and compete with them on price forecasting, they do great work.

I give him thanks for yet another interesting inquiry that shows the need for a move to jump out of the box to reinforce the green tech revolution. EPRI Professionals and he may have the highest professional level of accomplishments, but those accomplishments, by being still within the IOUs box, will destroy immense economic value if they proceed as planned.

I looked at the EPRI's pdf that he suggested and I can tell that their work and his work are still inside the IOUs Regulatory Framework, with demand integration as an afterthought. As I read the Power Markets and Risk pdf, I distilled the insight that both energy efficiency and demand response are demand side management (DSM) components coming from the outside as incremental extension of the IOUs Regulatory Framework.

As they are actually external, retail markets have to depend solely on the restricted competitive possibilities of wholesale markets enabled by DSMs. I think that the COMPETE Coalition members that are losing with those market still not aware of the need to jump out to the EWPC Regulatory Framework.

Trying again to explain to potential losing COMPETE Coalition members, as 2GRs develop business model innovations, that effectively integrate a mix of ongoing demand side innovations (DSIs) to power system planning, operation, and control, competitive retail and wholesale markets mutually reinforce each other to produce a much more competitive service than organized wholesale markets. The difference between the two approaches is the large value destruction due to lack of innovation is explained in the EWPC post Smart Grid: Can the U.S Waste Billions in Taxpayer Dollars? 

So I repeat, “I am inviting careful and serious inquiry to try to find out how to help Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) professionals to get liberated of the obsolete Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) Regulatory Framework mindset. U.S. and global power industry sustainability (as opposed to its ongoing collapse) depends on valuable professional’s advice to seek the common good to enable the EWPC necessary revolution. No matter what is done, ongoing incremental extension reforms don’t have a chance to lead to a truly Smart Grid. 

yyy

Questions to EnergyBiz Leadership Forum Participants

Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | Mar 8, 2009

        

Copyright © 2009 José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without written permission from José Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio. This article is an unedited, an uncorrected, draft material of The EWPC Textbook. Please write to javs@ieee.org to contact the author for any kind of engagement.

This is an incomplete set of True or False questions that should be asked to innovators, DOE, IOUs, and state regulators, participating at the EnergyBiz Leadership Forum to show that there is an urgent need for reform of the power industry.

1. Is it true that customers in the US are expending an additional 50 cents for every dollar billed by utilities to lower their costs for lack of IOUs service performance?
2. Is it true that the large value destruction is a signal that the business model of winning rate cases to the regulator is obsolete?
3. Is it true the value destruction is widely differentiated among customers, which is against the assumptions underlying regulated rate cases and in favor of markets?
4. Is it true that there is a need to open the industry to alternative business models to let differentiated killer applications evolve into business model innovations as it happen in the information and communications technologies industries?
5. Is it true that most of the industry value destruction, in the additional 50 cents of every billed dollar, that creates value at the Edge (in the customer side of the meter), results in IOUs shooting themselves in the foot by holding onto their obsolete business model?
6. Is it true that the Edge is generating an Everyone For Himself (EFH) market that is destroying immense value that could result in large coordination savings if demand could be integrated to power system planning, operation and control.
7. Is it true that the stimulus funds will increase even more the EFH market unless reform is enacted to enable the coordination savings?
8. Is it true that the whole emerging highly complex system is the combination of an increasingly value added Edge system and the traditional IOUs system?
9. Is it true that the whole can be easily separated into two cohesive less complex systems,that are loosely couple among themselves, leading to the EWPC basic innovation?
10. Is it true that the two EWPC systems are an unregulated business system and a regulated power transportation only system?

yyy

Most Commented and Most Viewed

Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | Mar 21, 2008

        

This is a take of a snapshot of today's EnergyBlogs stat.

Most Commented (7 EWPC articles)

• Response to Professor Banks (46)
• IMEUC - Independent Market for Every Utility Customer (26)
• Financing and Developing Wind Projects (13)
• The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (12)
• Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics. (12)
• EWPC As The New Internet (11)
• Two More Lessons from Denmark’s Wind Story (10)
• All the issues in the same room (9)
• The Good, the Bad and the Ugly II (9)
• High Leverage Shake-Up in California (8)

Most Viewed (10 EWPC articles)

• The Sixth Disruptive Technology (1008)
• Financing and Developing Wind Projects (986)
• Response to Professor Banks (959)
• Conspiracy Theory Against Mr. X (937)
• Demand Integration is NOT the Province of Politics. (925)
• Engineers Needed for Lower Prices (889)
• Nanosolar Breakthrough and the Old Paradigm (853)
• Slicing the Last of the Regulated Monopolies (826)
• Free Market and Central Planning, Under R1E2 (795)
• EWPC As The New Internet (760)

Elections in USA, Germany, Spain, DR are under unstable equilibrium, as they were in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain

Fourth update. Can 'shifting the whole' world to interdependentism for Global Debout start in Venezuela? The Venezuelan crossroads that is more anti-systemic, for example, than the crossroads in the USA, European Union, Spain, Dominican Republic, follows very well the axiom introduced in the initial text (right now it has three updates) of the post Can 51 European business leaders of @ert_eu help fill the global leadership vacuum?, says:

Can shifting whole #GlobalDebout world to interdependentism start in #Venezuela? https://t.co/GJfHXRbFXL #EuropeIN pic.twitter.com/i1hva53VuY

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) June 23, 2016

Muchas gracias @fdespinal. Te cito en https://t.co/MVsnLnXUBe @rafael_ciprian @Diario_Libre @pousuazo @ClaudioCaamano @bacamb @EdJorgePrats

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) June 23, 2016

Grupo Millennium Hispaniola: Elections in USA, Germany, Spain, DR are under unstable equilibrium, ... https://t.co/2fsGLqBQrZ via @gmh_upsa

— Elections 2016 News (@Election2016Nws) June 23, 2016

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

Not being the substitute of the book, according to a 4 page Summary of Presence posted by the "Foundation for European Leadership,” we try to help the 51 European business leaders of the European Round Table to help themselves, their businesses and the world by saying that:

‘Shifting the whole’ does not mean changing the global agenda but being aware of what is emerging internally. It is “sensing the unfolding whole within each of us, within the present situation and acting in service of it”. This leads to a new systems axiom, says Peter Senge. “What is most systemic is most local. The deepest systems we enact are woven into the fabric of everyday life, down to the most minute detail. We can only change the world (or our organizations) if we are aware of ‘the absolute in the manifest’, and only “as we learn to use ourselves as instruments for something larger than ourselves to emerge, wherever we act”. Jaworski sums up the U in one sentence: “A profound opening of the heart, carried into action”.

After recalling our suggestion of changing 'systemic' (in favor of systems) with 'anti-systemic' (as contrary to systems), the next point of this post is in the article La encrucijada venezolana (The Venezuelan crossroads) written for Diario Libre by the ex ambassador from the Dominican Republic to the USA, Flavio Dario Espinal. Here we highlight that many countries and country unions of the world are living under crossroads that are the result of a major departure from Peter Drucker's "The Theory of the Business," as a result of the saturation of industrial civilization and independence in a world increasingly interdependent, which is dominated by global crony capitalism that is operating under a global leadership vacuum.

As described in post Un intercambio para #UNASUR a favor del amor (en vez de la rivalidad) en #Venezuela (An exchange for #UNASUR in favor of love (rather than rivalry) in #Venezuela), under such circumstances, neither UNASUR, nor OAS, using their traditional non systemic common sense can execute Flavio Dario Espinal’s scenario in which he concludes that they " ... can play a constructive role in helping to overcome the political crisis and redirect the country towards stability, governance and economic recovery."

A finding of the above is achieved with a survey of knowledgeable people about the question that underlies an institutional innovation like that, "What kind of institution is more convenient: between two old or to create new one to minimize the increasing inequality?" As a result of Twitter, the options and a first aproximation to the 11 votes by a small group of followers of this blog which are:

• Nationalism #UNASUR 0%

• Crony capitalism #OEA 9%

• Global Interdependentism 91%

The constructive role that Flavio Dario Espinal suggests to the Venezuelan crossroads, which we understand is much more anti-systemic, for example, to those of the other countries and unions mentioned in the title, as a "... road to stability, governance and economic recovery," is generated with the arrival of the global interdependentism that would start to fill the global leadership vacuum, which might start with an institution to merge or replace UNASUR and OAS. By being more anti-systemic, the solution to the Venezuelan crossroad would help emerge the framework change needed by all countries at such crossroads.

The introduction of the second update (hyperlinks ommited here are available below) of this same post (now after DR elections), which includes those other countries also at crossroads, says:

Whichever party embraces a Systemic Energy Policy Act strategy will probably win the 2016 election. According to the article WHAT HAPPENS WHEN NEITHER POLITICAL PARTY ANSWERS TO THE BOTTOM 90%?, written by Thom Hartmann, “Both parties right now face a great crisis of leadership/ideology as well as a great opportunity for reinvention, and whichever party first reinvents itself successfully will begin winning elections the way the Democrats did in the 1932-1968 era.”

Although Hartmann describes very well the leadership vacuum in the United States, he does not realize that such reinvention is requires to fill the global leadership vacuum in a world that has changed from that era of independence to an era of interdependence. In that sense, that second update includes the following:

Coming back to Hartmann referring to the Democrats, he says “This ideological change in the Party led to the Clinton-era 1990s policies that gutted our industrial base, ripped apart the social safety net (ending “the era of big government”), and financialized our economy,” we disagree on that “big government” didn’t end and indeed it is actually the main problem. That’s exactly what Rosa Brooks wrote in her New York Times book Review, “A Call to Rally: ‘The Fourth Revolution,’ by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge,”.of the book “The Fourth Revolution: The Global Race to Reinvent the State,” when she says that:

“The Fourth Revolution” is a lively book, romping briskly — if selectively — through five centuries of history. It makes quick stops along the way to explain “why ideas matter” and to check out the “three and a half great revolutions” that propelled the West into its now-imperiled leadership role. Micklethwait and Wooldridge’s first revolution was the rise of the European nation-state after the Peace of Westphalia; the second was the late-18th- and 19th-­century turn toward individual rights and accountable government; the third was the creation of the modern welfare state. Each revolution improved the state’s ability to provide order and deliver vital services while still fostering innovation. But as democratic publics demanded more and more, the state promised more and more, eventually overextending itself. In Revolution 3.5, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan tried, but failed, to shrink the state.

Hartman’s misunderstanding is reinforced, on what we reinterpret as the characteristics of crony capitalism, when he says that:

The result of those Republican decisions and policies (many also embraced by the DLC/Third Way Democrats as well) brought us the Gingrich-congress-pushed Phil Gramm-deregulation (signed by Bill Clinton but opposed by most congressional Democrats) that crashed the world economy (and threatens to do it again any day now); changes in tax and trade laws that let the rich get fabulously richer but flat-lined wages of blue-collar workers for two generations; and an open revolt among Republicans in the form of the Tea Party and the Trump candidacy.

Thus the essential misunderstanding is about deregulation, in which the key sector is electricity, where this blog has its strong support, for example, with the post A complete and fully functional electricity restructuring proposal. The main fact is that there was no deregulation, but reregulation led by the Koch Network, that has kept big government under Groupthink international anti-systemic corruption that has have a contagious effect in all other sectors of the global economy. So instead of “Thus, whichever party embraces the 90% will probably win the 2016 election,” by learning from the emergent future it is whichever party embraces energy deregulation against the Koch Network,  as an example of what is about to come will probably win the 2016 election.

All of the above in support of 'shifting the whole' is reinforced as a result of the The Cato Institute paper The European Union: A Critical Assessment, by Marian L. Tupy, whose summary says:

The European Union (EU) is a culmination of a long process of economic and political integration among European states. The EU started as a free trade area and a customs union. Over time, it has become a supranational entity that resembles a federal state and is governed by a byzantine bureaucracy in Brussels. The EU claims to have brought about prosperity and stability in Europe, but those claims are increasingly at odds with reality. Europe is becoming worryingly unstable and is falling behind other regions in terms of economic growth. The EU model, which is marked by overregulation and centralization, seems increasingly out of place in today’s world. What European countries need in the coming decades is openness, rather than regional protectionism, and flexibility, rather than overregulation from Brussels. Above all, what European governments need to do is to reconnect with their increasingly restless electorates, rather than ignore the latter for the sake of the unwanted goal of a European superstate.

The introduction to the section 'Democratic Deficit,' by Marian L. Tupy on the European Union should be a strong signal to most countries and unions on the value of her whole paper:

In today’s political discourse, democracy is often understood as majoritarian decision making. That view of democracy is problematic, for, as history shows, majorities, too, can be tyrannical. Majoritarian rule, therefore, needs to be constrained by separation of powers, checks and balances, and constitutional guarantees.

But the term “democracy” has another important meaning—the ability of the electorate to choose and replace the government through free and fair elections. The choice, however, needs to be a meaningful one. What is the point of being able to choose between two or more candidates if none of them can effect specific policy changes? What is the point of having a vote if the real decisionmakers are unelected, unknown, and unaccountable? Those are the questions that are at the root of the EU’s problem with the “democratic deficit.”

Third update. Global voters need that Talent govern with #DD_SM deregulation rather than Money. That suggestion is the response to the question “What does ‘capitalism’ mean when Knowledge governs – rather than Money?” that the late management guru Peter Drucker raised in his 1999 book “Management Challenges for the 21st Century.”

Global voters need that Talent govern with #DD_SM deregulation rather than Money https://t.co/GJfHXRbFXL #EuropeIN pic.twitter.com/Fa50i8Pquk

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 28, 2016

Ese es el lado oscuro tecnología @DJavierTH @Argentarium @rhadae0760hotma @Carlos_lantigua Este es el lado brillante https://t.co/g2h3GMHg5d

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 28, 2016

An answer to Drucker: Talent governs rather than Money @rstraub46 @stevedenning @LdeRothschild @PaulPolman @adiman https://t.co/g2h3GMHg5d

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 28, 2016

See how to learn from the emergent future with #DD_SM @OccupyWallStNYC #OWS @RBReich @Thom_Hartmann & Thomas Frank https://t.co/g2h3GMHg5d

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 28, 2016

Profits are too high @TheEconomist because crony capitalism and big government are mutually reinforcing each other. https://t.co/g2h3GMHg5d

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 28, 2016

Suggestion for @OccupyWallStNYC @occupy voters @EcoInteractive @VtPoliticalRev @brooklyn_news @AlterNet @GoodbyeKoch https://t.co/g2h3GMHg5d

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 28, 2016

@gmh_upsa he añadido tu tweet a mi web https://t.co/isTwDwk9ZH https://t.co/KZbm2odiV8

— AntonioVallejoChanal (@AntonioVChanal) March 29, 2016

Great capitalism talent must govern with direct democracy systemic markets deregulation rather than money driven crony capitalism and big government. To do that we need to create the systemic civilization to shrink and transform the industrial civilization activities, and further shrink and transform those of the agricultural civilization. While emerging organically on this blog and on this particular post dedicated to voters, with feedback coming mainly from tweets conversations retweeted by valuable people, the synthesis on the image finally emerged in a comment posted under the article The Promise of a Truly Entrepreneurial Society, which was written by Richard Straub, the founder of the nonprofit Peter Drucker Society Europe:

While the entrepreneurial society may become a very timely idea what follows may be a contribution in that direction. We should agree that at this point in time it seems it may "preclude any easy return to sustained economic growth." However such return may be precluded by "an abundance of cheap financial capital into productive use by companies, economies and states," as an approach that keeps big government and crony capitalism mutually reinforcing each other. Instead, what's really needed may be to minimize states and by concentrating mainly in "productive use by companies" and economies in order to answer Peter Drucker question “What does ‘capitalism’ mean when Knowledge governs – rather than Money?”

In response to the observation of “thousands of pages of regulations,” that has resulted in what we suggest are anti-systemic markets under representative democracy, knowledge will govern we also suggest under deregulation that result in direct democracy systemic markets. To learn about the details, please consider the post “Elections in USA, Germany, Spain, DR are under unstable equilibrium, as they were in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain ( http://bit.ly/g566mh ),” its “First update. What voters are not expecting but will love: a minimalist State that drives direct democracy systemic markets” and its “Second update. Whichever party embraces a Systemic Energy Policy Act strategy will probably win the 2016 election.”

Second update. Whichever party embraces a Systemic Energy Policy Act strategy will probably win the 2016 election. According to the article WHAT HAPPENS WHEN NEITHER POLITICAL PARTY ANSWERS TO THE BOTTOM 90%?, written by Thom Hartmann, “Both parties right now face a great crisis of leadership/ideology as well as a great opportunity for reinvention, and whichever party first reinvents itself successfully will begin winning elections the way the Democrats did in the 1932-1968 era.”

Whichever party embraces a #SystemicEnergyPolicyAct #OWS strategy will probably win #USA2016 election https://t.co/GJfHXRbFXL #EuropeIN

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 26, 2016

Please @EcoInteractive @VtPoliticalRev @brooklyn_news @AlterNet @OccupyWallStNYC @occupy @GoodbyeKoch consider this! https://t.co/0L58FKcPhu

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 26, 2016

To @harrymoser @SandyMontalbano @ReshoreNow @stevedenning: please consider a sharp #SystemicEnergyPolicyAct strategy https://t.co/0L58FJVdSU

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 26, 2016

Can @TheEconomist see such competition dose on a #SystemicEnergyPolicyAct strategy proposal? https://t.co/0L58FJVdSU pic.twitter.com/Ltl4AvouW3

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 27, 2016

Is @RBReich also learning from the past @OccupyWallStNYC #OWS, like @Thom_Hartmann & Thomas Frank, as explained in https://t.co/0L58FJVdSU

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 27, 2016

Please consider a suggested reinvention @LdeRothschild @rstraub46 It can be seen on the link https://t.co/GJfHXRbFXL pic.twitter.com/wlzly03rqy

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 27, 2016

Taking in consideration the first update of this post “What voters are not expecting but will love: a minimalist State that drives direct democracy systemic markets,” we suggest that both Republican and Democratic establishments’ crisis are the result of the degradation of capitalism into crony capitalism of the industrial civilization, that we suggest in the background of this blog calls for the emergence of great capitalism of the systemic civilization.

As a result of learning from the past, Thomas Frank and Hartmann’s conclusions are that the Democratic and Republican parties abandoned respectively the 90 and 99 percent of Americans. However,  the conclusion of learning from the emerging future is that they need to be transformed in order to enable what is said in the first update, to which we now suggest that such direct democracy would help people be able to co-create their experiences.

Alternately, both parties might agree to a bipartisan process in the US Congress to start such a transformation right now with a sharp strategy restricted to the electricity sector. Such strategy will be aimed to enable a Systemic Energy Policy Act, so that systemic and anti-systemic legislators can be identified by voters before the election as a strong signal to help emerge a systemic congress.

The above experience co-creation suggestion comes from a comment posted under Steve Denning contribution to Forbes Do Trade Agreements Kill Jobs?, that says:

Dear Steve Denning,

Good afternoon!

This is an alternative point of view no far away from yours that is based on the three “pressures of globalization, deregulation and new technology,” you mentioned. If trade agreements killed jobs (whether that’s important or not) it was not because of globalization or new technology, but because of deregulation manipulation into reregulation in order to avoid innovation while extending the useful life of their old technology in the world. We believe that made many companies lose direction and become anti-systems.

In their 2008 book “the new age of innovation,” Prahalad and Krishnan suggested what I understand is a new normal synthesis based on two principles that beg for deregulation from Fordism into what I coined as Jobsism in the Grupo Millennium Hispaniola Blog:

N=1 (Firms have to learn to focus on one consumer and her experience at a time…) and 

R=G (All firms will access resources from a wide variety of other big and small firms – a global ecosystem.)

This is about the effect of deregulation on the government side needed to complete the whole picture. Reinterpreting those principles as those of Jobsism (#Jobsism in Twitter), was done in the “First update. What voters are not expecting but will love: a minimalist State that drives direct democracy systemic markets,” of the post “Elections in USA, Germany, Spain, DR are under unstable equilibrium, as they were in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain.” (Please Google it).

This means that instead of cheap labor a key issue for voters, the authors suggest companies under R=G should aim for global high quality low cost resources, which is better than reshoring. In the last paragraph of Chapter 1 of the book says:

As we move toward an N=1 and R=G world, different capabilities become crucial sources of advantage. Privileged access to capital, technology, and people is becoming less critical. The ability to develop flexible, transparent, and granular business processes that allows continuous configuration of resources (R=G) to serve the interest of N=1 will indeed define the new age of innovation.

Best regards, 

José Antonio Vanderhorst Silverio, Ph.D.
Consulting engineer on systems architecting
Servant-leader Dominican and global citizen

Coming back to Hartmann referring to the Democrats, he says “This ideological change in the Party led to the Clinton-era 1990s policies that gutted our industrial base, ripped apart the social safety net (ending “the era of big government”), and financialized our economy,” we disagree on that “big government” didn’t end and indeed it is actually the main problem. That’s exactly what Rosa Brooks wrote  in her New York Times book Review, “A Call to Rally: ‘The Fourth Revolution,’ by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge,”.of the book “The Fourth Revolution: The Global Race to Reinvent the State,” when she says that:

“The Fourth Revolution” is a lively book, romping briskly — if selectively — through five centuries of history. It makes quick stops along the way to explain “why ideas matter” and to check out the “three and a half great revolutions” that propelled the West into its now-imperiled leadership role. Micklethwait and Wooldridge’s first revolution was the rise of the European nation-state after the Peace of Westphalia; the second was the late-18th- and 19th-­century turn toward individual rights and accountable government; the third was the creation of the modern welfare state. Each revolution improved the state’s ability to provide order and deliver vital services while still fostering innovation. But as democratic publics demanded more and more, the state promised more and more, eventually overextending itself. In Revolution 3.5, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan tried, but failed, to shrink the state.

Hartman’s misunderstanding is reinforced, on what we reinterpret as the characteristics of crony capitalism, when he says that:

The result of those Republican decisions and policies (many also embraced by the DLC/Third Way Democrats as well) brought us the Gingrich-congress-pushed Phil Gramm-deregulation (signed by Bill Clinton but opposed by most congressional Democrats) that crashed the world economy (and threatens to do it again any day now); changes in tax and trade laws that let the rich get fabulously richer but flat-lined wages of blue-collar workers for two generations; and an open revolt among Republicans in the form of the Tea Party and the Trump candidacy.

Thus the essential misunderstanding is about deregulation, in which the key sector is electricity, where this blog has its strong support, for example, with the post A complete and fully functional electricity restructuring proposal. The main fact is that there was no deregulation, but reregulation led by the Koch Network, that has kept big government under Groupthink international anti-systemic corruption that has have a contagious effect in all other sectors of the global economy. So instead of “Thus, whichever party embraces the 90% will probably win the 2016 election,” by learning from the emergent future it is whichever party embraces energy deregulation against the Koch Network,  as an example of what is about to come will probably win the 2016 election.

First update. What voters are not expecting but will love: a minimalist State that drives direct democracy systemic markets. That expectation begin to emerged in the July 2015 post Pensamiento para los indignados de Clase Media: Un Estado minimalista que impulsa la democracia directa (Thought for Middle Class indignados: a minimalist State that drives direct democracy). As part of the action oriented scientific attitude being followed by us, such direct democracy meaning was differentiated in February 10 2016 with the Twitter hashtag #DD_SM as to restrict it to systemic markets.

What voters are not expecting but will love: a minimalist State that drives #DD_SM direct democracy https://t.co/GJfHXRbFXL #EuropeIN

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 24, 2016

Based on the background on this blog, and in the knowledge of the many repercusions this will have, we are now able to reconfirm that voters are emotionally rejecting representative democracy crony capitalism and are expecting direct democracy great capitalism as trust is quickly migrating from the former to the latter. In fact, we are now able to answer a very important question written in the post World Economic Forum Davos 2016: Will #OWS and #15M love The Industrialist’s Dilemma?, which for example says:

Seventh update. Should elections distract us from Great Capitalism, when politicians are not up to the job? As a follow up to the sixth update, which revealed that "the lack of leadership needed is very well described by The Economist in the section 'It’s the politics, stupid,'" as we will see next, citizens the world over have the opportunity to concentrate on the development of great capitalism to stimulate the economy while reversing soaring inequality.

As will be seen next, the answer is that elections must not distract us from Great Capitalism. As a follow up of the initial text of this post, the reason elections in USA, Germany, Spain, DR are under unstable equilibrium, as they were in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain, is that voters are expecting a unique individual experience.

In Chapter 1, "The transformation of business," of the book "the new age of innnovation: driving co-created value through global networks," the late C. K. Prahalad and M. S. Krishnan strongly support what's suggested in the October 2014 post Applying #Jobsism to transform current global #Fordism marketing myopia in terms of two fundmental principles, which are reinterpreted as follows (with italics of the original):

Jobsism first principle: "Value is based on unique, personalized experiences of consumers. Firms have to learn to focus on one consumer and her experience at a time, even if they serve 100 million consumers, The focus is on the centrality of the individual."

Jobsism second principle."No firm is big enough in scope and size to satisfy the experiences of one consumer at a time. All firms will access resouces from a wide variety of other big and smal firms - a global ecosystem. The focus is on access to resources, not ownership of resources."

While Fordism is the key to representative democracy (as States and anti-systemic businesses that mutually reinforce each other are well behind systemic businesses), Jobsim is the key to direct democracy systemic markets. This means that governments can now be shrinked to a minimum, by eliminating all regulations that were taken by representative democracy in the  hands of the State under the assumption of potential market failure and which has led to international and local anti-systemic corruption all over the world as the main source of global governments crisis, soaring inequality and economic depression. Such a flawed assumption had been anticipated in the post Can we agree with the Second Curve, while not with Handy?, whose last paragraph says:

Systemic civilization “great” (in Collins' sense) markets, that result from an institutional innovation based on the post Great electric service will concentrate on what John Hagel calls ‘scalable learning’ to perform, better and better as time goes on, under the minimalist government regulation as described, for example, in the post A complete and fully functional electricity restructuring proposal. However, Handy suggestion was for “good” (also in Collins' sense) for old industrial civilization markets, which were before in “need careful regulation and tight rules” and which might have misled Amin to concentrate on what John Hagel calls ‘scalable efficiency.’

Elections in USA, Germany, Spain, DR are under unstable equilibrium, as they were in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain

Under the post ¿Podrá Felipe VI crear la civilización sistémica para resolver la crisis de gobierno, revertir la desigualdad y estimular la economía?, something like "Can Felipe VI create the systemic civilization to solve the government crisis, reverse inequality and stimulate the economy?" are mentioned unstable equilibrium electoral environments for the United States, Spain and the Dominican Republic. In the last two countries, an strategy has been emerging to set up a stable equilibrium electoral environment. At this moment that post has nine updates as a result of an action oriented scientific attitude effort.

#USA #Germany #Spain #DR elections under unstable equilibrium, as were in #Argentina #Brazil #Venezuela https://t.co/GJfHXRbFXL #EuropeIN

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 17, 2016

Please consider shifting elections to stable equilibrium @HillaryClinton @realDonaldTrump @BernieSanders @tedcruz https://t.co/nPpTCASqtb

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 17, 2016

Has US Congress still opportunity to return elections to stable equilibrium @occupy @Occupy_USA #OWS #Occupy #15M? https://t.co/nPpTCASqtb

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 17, 2016

More on what to do @paulkrugman @FareedZakaria before @RealTrump2016 explotes global representative democracy bubble https://t.co/nPpTCASqtb

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 17, 2016

Can @TheEIU @nytpolitics @arappeport tell the public that to lift global growth we need to have stable equilibrium https://t.co/nPpTCAAPBD

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 17, 2016

Public policies & finances @martinwolf_ won't raise productivity. Shinking budgets and energy transformation will https://t.co/WC6XwldImd

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 17, 2016

The political moment is of unstable equilibrium @ProSyn @JosephEStiglitz. See how stable equilibrium might emerge. https://t.co/nPpTCASqtb

— Jose A Vanderhorst S (@gmh_upsa) March 17, 2016

This post has a higher scope intended to grasp the attention of what might emerge as global leaders before it is too late, Please contribute!

This simple, but not simplistic graphic shows how under stable equilibrium any movement away from the center comes back to the center of the system. It also show that under unstable equilibrium we have what we understand is an anti-system which could go easily either to the far right, or to the far left.

Based on the graphic it is easy accept that elections in Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela and Spain were and are now being conducted in USA, Germany, Dominican Republic and most probably again in Spain by anti-systems countries under unstable equilibrium. Argentina shifted from left to right. Brazil remained in the left. Venezuela has now the legislative branch on the right, while the executive and judicial remained so far on the left. Spain is under big uncertainty at this time. In all cases, those countries remain as anti-systems, where big government is driven by excess weight of the State due to no longer needed regulations, as the main factor of unstable equilibrium dominated by global crony capitalism under a representative democracy that´s about to explode.

This is where stable equilibrium begs for the direct democracy of the systemic market as we shift from mechanical Fordism regulation to organic Jobsism deregulation. Increasing the scope from COP21 to the countries, please consider one paragraph of the "Seventh update. Citizens are not expecting a highly systemic COP21 world order, but will love it" of the post Can 10 questions above politics help forecast a new world order in 2015?, which says:

To be highly systemic, deep restructuring transformations on antisystem organizations to become systems will need to be done before funding to get citizens to love it.The Electricy Pact of the Dominican Republic can be the first example of the kind of deep transformations, where systemic thinking and systems architecting drive a synthesis of positive synergy where the power of wisdom turns "small is beautiful" into big results under a vision of the future of the systemic civilization. That's why Thomas Piketty was wrong. [5]. Being a highly antisystemic entity, the electricity sector of the Dominican Republic will turn around from the lagging to the leadind places of the world.

While disintegrating violence and money led to the soaring inequality puzzle under crony capitalism are under unstable equilibrium at which elections are being conducted; integrating wisdom will crack and reverse such inequality under great capitalism by enabling a stable equilibrium. Many of the most important crisis in the world today seem to be independent events. But those events are actually interdependent that started, for example, on soaring inequality under indignados movements, like the Arab Spring, the spanish 15-M and Occupy Wall Street, as very low cost information technology has reduced both time and space delays to make them insignificant.

In response to a tweet of the World Economic Forum that distributed the article Why haven't we cracked the inequality puzzle yet?, which is published in collaboration with Project Syndicate and written by Dambisa Moyo, we responded with the tweet "See global synthesis that #SoaringInequality has been cracked @dambisamoyo @wef http://bit.ly/g363mh #EuropeIN," which retweeted "Global synthesis: #GreatCapitalism 1st, elections 2nd @Occupy #Occupy #OWS #15M http://bit.ly/g363mh #EuropeIN" which included an image with the following text:

The industrialist dilemma is a strong signal of the end of the industrial civilization where independence resulted in the left and the right competition, with money as the driver, which has made countries greatly lose direction to become anti-systemic, serving their part of the population making it unsustainable. No administrative election is able to help make such a big change in direction with politicians with short horizons and blinded by representative democracy Groupthink. That signal means the need of leadership above politics to create the systemic civilization, where we shift to interdependence driven by wisdom to serve the whole population, for example, to reverse migration; such civilization change is long overdue, resulting, for example, in a COP21 transition that needs to be changed to transformation for climate change. Direct democracy emerges as the way to shrink states, reverse soaring inequality and stimulate the economy.

In a sense, the above is telling us that both the World Economic Forum and the Project Syndicate are still blinded by violence and money led under crony capitalism global Groupthink, which gives us the opportunity to consider soaring inequality as a burning platform of what used to be their 'Comfort Zone.' To introduce the burning platform concept, for example, in association with climate change, let´s consider three paragraphs of the article No Transformative Change without a Burning Platform?, by Burkhard Gnarig, Executive Director, International Civil Society Centre:

In 1988 Daryl Conner coined the metaphor of “the burning platform” which ever since has played a prominent role in many change management concepts and projects. As Daryl recounts on his company’s website the metaphor comes from a survivor of a burning oil rig who only had the alternative of certain death in the flames if he stayed on the platform, or probable death if he jumped into the freezing sea where he would survive a maximum of 20 minutes. He jumped – choosing probable death over certain death – and survived.

But what do we do if we cannot see the platform burning. Sadly I have the impression that this is the case for today’s most dramatic challenges: climate change and other planetary boundaries. We know that we are in the process of setting our platform (the planet), on fire but we don’t suffer enough from the heat yet to make us jump. Or, in other words, we continue overexploiting our planet expecting to get away with this even though we know that future generations will have to pay dearly for our inaction. In situations where we are not immediately punished for our mistakes, where others will have to pay, the threatening concept of the burning platform does not work. Most of us have read about the dramatic effects climate change will have by the end of this century and even scarier effects in future centuries but very few of us are sufficiently scared by the notion that our platform will burn in the future to act today.

So, what to do in a situation where we cannot feel the platform burn? Many of us have tried for years to scare ourselves and others into decisive action against climate change – not to much effect yet. It looks like we need a totally different approach: rather than scaring people into action with nightmare scenarios can we excite them into action with our most beautiful dreams?

We suggest that by considering the above mentioned global synthesis: great capitalism first, elections second,"  we will find burning platforms where we can feel the burning.  One outstanding example of them is the burning of the Republican party at this moment with Donald Trump, as described in the post Preventing a global representative democracy bubble explosion with electricity, which is to be considered as an integral part of this post. That prevention opportunity is the key to the above mentioned strategy. But such burning platform will be seen at the Democratic party as the conditions of unstable equilibrium at which elections are being conducted will be still remain in place.

Another outstanding example, are the results of recent elections in Germany, under unstable equilibrium, where violence and money keep disintegrating, is the ongoing burning of the European Union by the migratory crisis, which is introduced in the "Second update. What to do before Trump explotes the global representative democracy bubble?" of said post, which says:

To show another important perspective of the global nature of the representative democracy bubble explosion in the making, please also consider the introduction of the article Ending the Syrian War, by Jeffrey D. Sachs, a well known Professor of Sustainable Development, which says that:

Syria is currently the world’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe and most dangerous geopolitical hotspot. The Syrian people are caught in a bloodbath, with more than 400,000 dead and ten million displaced." 

Starting to describe the situation, it is easy to see another instance of the system thinking archetype of fixes that backfire on indignados, as Professor Sachs wrote that:

The chronology is as follows. In February 2011, peaceful protests were staged in Syria’s major cities, amid the region-wide phenomenon dubbed the “Arab Spring.” The Assad regime reacted with a shifting mix of violent repression (shooting at demonstrators) and offers of reform. Soon, the violence escalated. Assad’s opponents accused the regime of using force against civilians without restraint, while the government pointed to the deaths of soldiers and policeman as evidence of violent jihadists among the protestors.