ketynes life work (last chapter general systems) concluded:
increasingly ony ecxonomists and emdia men rule the world's possibilities
worse they lock in next generations by compounding risks etc which youth inherit
therefore according to keynes economist should take a hippocratic oath and design system around the 2 prime sustainabilitygoials
ending poverty
impriving livelihoods of next generation out of each community
unfortuntely as mass media grew in the west vested interest and politocians hired economists to deisn oppoiste consequnces
by 1984 according to the economist most: macroeconomics was disgraceful political chincanery and would need to be wholly replaced by 2000 if milennils were to have any chnace of surviving the greatest risk:namely diffenence in incomes and expectaions of roich and poor nations
here are some defintions that may be worth trusting
girls lift up half the sky -that is economist who wish to be audited by whether they are designing systems which give women as much voice in future (and prod=uctivity) as men- there are very few western economists of girls hold up half the sky and no global media in the west - anything that calls itself social media should be assumed to be the most antisocial media women have ever suffered
people-centric economies - up to 1500 it was roughly true that economies were correslted with p[opulation size - ie opportunity to produce had quite high levels of equality - in particular if a third of the people lived in china or india then about a thord of the world economy linked with china and india; then many british colonisation decemiated all of this with at one stage india and china repsrenting less than a tenth of the world economy; we believe people-centric economists should be designing systems that get back to equality but in such ways that no curretly richer nations lose- if it isnt possible to raise peoples opportunities fir sustainability with the 1000 times more commns tech than we had in 1946 then we are clearly failiing to network life critocal information -
there is a second level discussion:
what about nations that dont have that many people but huge land resources- yes by all means those nations might have more wealth per person but maybe they also need to contriubute more to fairly being the world's policeman or to racing towards renewability or other goals that naturally go with being earyth's biggest owners
we are sure there are many contexts where you can add in extra expectations but what we should not be doing is perpetuating false bodrers which the colnists erected and which may block infrastructure for all - this brings us back to clusters of nations celebarting education naking BRI a liteeracy
millennials rewind usa in 1999 afore 3G mobilisation decade- sample of cluetrain signees
| Saving the Internet—and all the commons it makes The ninth and worst enclosure is the one inside our heads. Because, if we think the Internet is something we use by grace of Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google and “providers” such as phone and cable companies, we’re only helping all those companies contain the Internet’s usefulness inside their walled gardens. Not understanding the Internet can result in problems similar to ones we suffer by not understanding common pool resources such as the atmosphere, the oceans, and the Earth itself. | chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk, normanmacrae.net quarters 5 and 6 of EconomistDiary 2018-1843 - journalists valuing mediation of goal 1 end poverty , A global databank for brandchartering the interconnecting aims of CLO, CBO and CEO in organising learning, branding and strategy - "I'd like to ask : Isn't it time that branders, strategists, and learning systems people believed and acted on their marketing promise as much as they want end-consumers to trust it? I am editing a millennial issue of a journal where we are urgently inviting world leading influencers of strategy, brand or learning to write 6 pages on future organisational frameworks in such simple language that every reader connects to the big idea whatever their home area of expertise" | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
No comments:
Post a Comment