Yunus SBE :  intro All News  *Branson *    Selection Kenya audacious  prahalad a  stern 
changemakers.info futurestocks.tv

As soon as it is recognized that some sort of policy will be required, simple economics says that taking the least cost approach means starting now. GARY W. YOHE,Professor of Economics Wesleyan University  

The Center’s lectures on the Yale Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, February 2007
Introduction & Presentation Presentation - Part 2 Presentation - Part 3
Discussion - Part 1 Discussion - Part 2 Discussion - Part 3

Prahalad & The Sandbox  1

Peter - sounds great. I have applied to go. I love Prahalad's work though I sometimes feel he needs to be bridged between academia and practice entrepreneurs.When Competing for the Future was current in 1994, I proposed to his co-author Gary Hamel that practitioners needed to present brand architectures as a collaboration/partnering frame for leadership to map/see the open-flow connections between organisations in search of deepest service/intrapreneurial passions. Unfortunately Coopers and Lybrand, whose phone I was using to talk to Gary, were not very pleased with the idea. (Nor 4 years later were Andersen when valuetrue multiplier models were shown to them of how worthless they were making their global brand)   As a reformed global branding expert interested in media transparency, I buy CK's "sandbox" idea that many global organisations could simplify branding they use for rich citizens to offer a basic service to rurals at one fiftieth of the cost (no loss of quality other than meaningless image-laden excess of choices and a society-wide commitment to a trust contract that like Microcredit says neither side will use lawyers in trying our best as service providers and communal customers). I assume its not particularly surprising to us that many of the earliest 50 times better value cases identified by Bottom of Pyramid Alumni turn out to be in health areas. (Of course if organisitionally a global branded corporate finds it hard to have one department charging wealthy citizens 50 times more than the marginal cost to you of also serving the poor, you can always make a start by doing a partenership with Grameen -though if the missing audit of goodwill was required to save the world from Delaware corporate lawyers, truth would immediately be valuable as well as conveneinet )   If you need more references to CK's sandbox or BOP ideas than appear at http://worldeconomist.net, please say. In so doing they could find Unseen Wealth's last exit of reforming their globalisation systems wherever these are currently  measured tocompound of externalities - profiting from putting the weakest or most ignorant at risk of what theitr industry sector specialises in knowing most about)  (Basically while truth media experts now know that over 50% of the cost of everything in global markets is liable to be wasted on media and channels, the idea that media*law already wastes 98% of everything on life critical markets shows how near the end of sustainability loss of empowerment & truth systems of entrepreneurship have reached)  Tell me if you are coming - perhaps we could host a collaboration cafe immediately afterwards so that anyone in Washington interested in how grassroots colaboration entrepreneurs can end malaria can make a connection  cheers chris macrae 301 881 1655 http://www.normanmacrae.com/netfuture.html http://macrae.tv/_wsn/page3.html Ending media corruption  http://changemakers.net/en-us/node/224 and mapping goodwill's missing audit Peter Burgess wrote: Dear Colleagues Is this an excuse for me to come to Washington? Or a waste of good time? Peter ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: NextBillion NextBillion Date: Mar 13, 2007 5:59 PM Subject: Invitation: The Next 4 Billion publication and BOP panel discussion To: NextBillion@wri.org The World Resources Institute and the International Finance Corporation cordially invite you to the presentation of the report: The Next 4 Billion: Market Size & Business Strategy at the Base of the Pyramid Discussions of base of the pyramid (BOP) markets have relied principally on business case studies and rough estimates of market size. WRI, with the cooperation of the International Finance Corporation, has leveraged unique access to national household surveys for the purpose of understanding low-income communities as sources of entrepreneurship and as potential markets. Drawing on income data from 110 countries and standardized expenditure data from 36 countries across the globe, the report is an important first look at the market opportunity represented by four billion individuals who make up the BOP. This briefing on the report and the follow-on discussion of business strategy and market research will be the first public review of the report and its data.

I am reminded of a story of 3 lawyers trained at the Bar of London : one was Mahatma Gandhi, another grandfather, another uncle. 007 is centenary year of Mahatma’s Satyagraha -dramatise peaceful truth. In 1880s it was hugely innovative for an Indian to go train at Bar of London. But it had not empowered Gandhi to do much in his first 15 years as a barrister. Then whilst travelling First Class on a train in S Africa, he was thrown off the train for having the "wrong" skin. From that moment on Gandhi knew that changing the law peacefully was the greatest innovation ever sought. By the 1930s, my grandad was near the head of the British Raj judiciary in Bombay and there are court proceedings on record where his duty was to send Gandhi to prison for causing unrest through peace protests. 15 years later my grandad was converted: he was writing the constitutional law for India's In dependence mediated between Gandhi and the British Secretary of State for India. I knew my uncle who was a Queen's Council much better than grandad. His "hobby" was to compile a quantum databank on fair rewards for people who suffered horrific lifetime injuries. By making these benchmarks clear and fair to all sides as every case developed, the English legal system has not yet become the peak ambulance chasing lottery that the US now has insuring healthcare. However, my uncle's last major act was to lead a rebellion that ending in the "sacking" of a Lord Chancellor who made errors with compound arithmetic and then refused to correct the erroneous legal precedents he was setting. If you believe as WorldEconomist has debated since 1984 that the next decade integrates more change than the world has ever seen before then it would be illogical not to expect that economics and laws will also need changing. We invite you to explore what constructs can help every culture and every peoples in mapping futures that compound goodwill for all, and not the loss of sustainability of all our children's

I have been making some guide notes from my father whose economics surveys and leaders at The Economist of the 1950s to 1980s focused especially on two Q&A lenses:

a) systematic entrepreneurship : of which the 3*greatgrandmasters were Scot's Adam Smith (theory) and James Wilson (practice) the 1843 founder of The Economist, as well as arguably JB Say (theorist)  who founded the term - transform market's value exchange systematically to take (preneur) between (entre) assets - so that all involved in the productivities and dmeands of a transparent marketplace can sustain ever greater value multipliers of health and wealth http://www.normanmacrae.com

 b) future histories, based on understanding the long-term conflicts within and across societies as well as who know had the greatest lifelong learning curves to evolve higher quality and lower cost  http://futurehistory.jp  http://changeworld.net

I think that from the 200+ years since the term entrepreneur emerged, we are now in a pretty hi-trust position to map the top 10 flow lessons that anyone systemising entrepreneurship should help all connected to Q&A around the gravity of individual systems and through the boundaries of networks mapped as system*system*system including the triangularisation which mathematically defines systems as spiralling micro to inter to macro

1 Simply mapped : it was always the future view of the entrepreneurial school of economics that healthy lifetimes and transparent societies compound strong economies not vice versa. You can see this in the entrepreneurial revolution trilogy my father published in The Economist between 1976 and 1984 -eg http://www.normanmacrae.com/intrapreneur.html

2 Unlike those who specialise in economics of big gets bigger, entrepreneurs always spiralled around the triangle micro to inter to macro , http://futurehistorian.tv/

 NOT macro to inter to micro. It wasnt particularly popular with big business when my father reported in part 1 Entrepreneurial Revolution : almost all breakthrough innovations for humanity began with one inventor's lifelong explorer's gravity or a small social innovation network who loved this explorer's human inspiration. The only innovations big corporations came up with were patented processes not original solutions that make the difference of the world as better place for all to be. The article on Pilkington Glass' innovation of plate glass rejoices in :

We are Pilkington's Glass, and if we can beat plate glass by developing float glass, then every motor car in the world will pay us a royalty, so we will research the last three problems in the way of float glass..

Nobody should underestimate the excitement among a tiny group of researchers when a big firm's opportunity presents itself. Sir Alastair Pilkington  described how his research group into float glass was kept small to maintain total secrecy, so that experiments progressed for seven years before competitors knew of them; how team members, after working impossibly long hours, were carried away on stretchers suffering from heat exhaustion; how 100,000 tons of float glass were made and broken before the great day which produced the first bit they could sell. But, as Jack Kilby says: each invention presents a profile of opportunities and requirements, while each company has its own profile of what constitutes to it an acceptable product. The probability that these two profiles, will coincide is not high. The result is that many big companies' brilliant researchers are, in conditions of great secrecy, in their seventh consecutive year of smashing unusable float glass.

CITIZEN NETS AS CHANGE WORLD ENTREPRENEURS 

2a Around 1980, the rich world had already changed over to being more a service economy than one where machine investments differentiated advantage. This required the end of top-down only management as well as more investment in people - something which to this day the mathematics of tangible accounting rules against - machines can be booked in as an investment; people are costs to cut. Blindingly wrong maths to monopolise governance budgets by.

2b In our 1984 conclusion to ER we looked ahead to the sustainabilitty networking generation 1984-2024. As grandmaster theorist Einstein (accompanied by grandmaster practitioner Gandhi) had first asked the most interesting question to start this unprecedented human relations communications revolution with is : will this generation's rush to worldwide connectivity sustain or set in motion irreverisble loss of sustainability? Back in 1984 one goal our future maps set : 30000 vital social projects to be identified for interlocal replication - all over the world of deepest human needs by 2010. WE identified 7 crises each flowing into each other; each wholly capable of globalising the end of the human species before Century 22. Any questions before our next 8 lessons review these crisis compasses (including what was recently reported by HM Treasury as the biggest failure of markets ever) and ask for ideas on how to popularise world changer guides up down and through them all?

 chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk us tel 301 881 1655

 Borstein letter:

The Economist, over its  first 145 years:  my sources tell me that editors of The Economist were guided by one connecting truth investigation : Free Markets. Here is some communal knowledge they shared with us:

 What Adam Smith and his alumni "the entrepreneurial economists" intended by the idea of free markets has over the decades been disliked by big powers (be they corporate , gov professional, media or even NGO) so much that these powers are always consciously or unconsciously looking for an academic or other body to rewrite free market economics the exact opposite way round from true value multiplication

True free markets are contextual; community rising; rely on completely transparent and free information so far as all purposeful interactors are concerned in systematically improving for humanity the market’s productivities and demands. The Economist's Entrepreneurial Revolution trilogy 1976, 1982 and published in books in multiple languages from 1984 on clarified much more than this from thousands of cases and interviews of hi-trust people (the kind who had united cultures, ended wars, nurtured transformative innovations for the good of the human race)

Provided markets (their media, meeting spaces, mediators etc) are always asking future questions and not relying on past certainties, over the long run the mutual interests of the customers most concerned with the future social consequences of the markets context and employees wanting to make a difference with their lifetime are the key value multipliers to integrate into organisational systems. Those who invest money in such system uniting the best of employee service and customer-social demand win-win-win : 8 times more over a generation according to built to last research, up to 100 times more in the case of the very deepest intrapreneurial (service economics)  companies of the last three decades.

We invite you to explore these principles and vote for compound goodwill  candidates at http://futurestocks.tv Expect to be surprised. For example, the best work being done on saving the lives and educations of the world's poorest children is not being done by a government. The world citizen organisation BRAC has discovered through trial and error than and 30 years of absolute devotion that both health and educational professionals must live inside  the communities of the very poorest not be professionalized above them. Once you accept that model - by all means inventions in terms of health care and the wisest forms of education you can serve to children may be made form around the world - but they must prove themselves in terms of being serviceable by workers who are in the community and loved by the community and know any diverse contexts which give that community special sustainability opportunities.

ABC of WORLDwide ECONOMICS   There are 3 connecting ways that World Economist encourages everyone to value true leaders. A) Hi-Trust - Does leader truly understand entrepreneurial gravity- how to govern trust-flow around an uniquely valuable purpose, so that the system keeps spinning ever more lively productivities and demands without all the elasticities  snapping, or bigger taking over from deeper communal service? B) TRANSPARENCY: In Death-of-Distance's blossoming internetworked world, does the leader understand the critical transparency of boundary flows ? And how transparency's zero tolerances for conflicts & misinformation will wave ever more vitally as value multiplies through networks C) SUSTAINABILITY: Does the leaders understand compound future exponentials as the integral measure wof where everyone’s productivity and demands will curve sustainably up or down towards death of the organisational system and any other systems linked into it which in globally connected markets can be whole sectors (witness dotcoms or indeed the planet witness climate crisis What happens if you discover a leader does not understand all these? You can either try to help this person learn or you can advise everyone in your communities and social networks to get away from that leader as fast as possible. Unfortunately goodwill is not yet measured in a truly systemic way and until its (known) maths is adopted by open source movements you may need to appeal to everyone’s co-creativity in exploring the truth. With all due haste and presence, as Al Gore has given us one extraordinary demonstration of, and youth 1 2 3 gives us more. Any questions, chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk or dad (world economist) at N.A.Macrae.42@cantab.net (NM1)

The most crucial valuation measurement of a system connects with how fast its spinning future growth, or destruction. Mathematically, a purposeful gravity of human relationships compounds over time and can be modelled through value multiplication of its coordinates. A healthy coordinate has constructive tensions (trust-flow elasticity) with all other coordinates - give it an index above 1; an unhealthy coordinate is in conflict with other coordinates or disconnecting from gravity, give it an index below 1 where 0 means it will zeroise the whole system. Most organisations or networks in today's service economy and globally networked markets can mathematically model their system's future value like this: valuetrue=K1*K2*K3*K4*K5*V1*V2*V3*V4*V5 Knowing how these quintuple helixes of productivities & demands will flow ever way round over time's lifecycles has extremely interesting impacts on choices of investors, strategists, cross-disciplinary organisational designers, regional policy making and indeed every communal role in which people interact with productivities and demands. The compound valuation consequences become 10-win or 10-lose for singular organisational systems and at least 100-win or 100-lose for networks of systems*systems. This model and map provides the simplest open source standard for resolving the Unseen Wealth challenge (2000) that has caused crises (1) amongst experts in intangibles valuation, risk analysis, sustainbility investment fund selections, political leaders and all their professional counsels, let alone 6 billion human beings forever more connected by whether we virtuously develop or viciously extract the globe's natural footprint. learning games Inputs serving Outputs demanded K1:Work by Individuals V1:Employees K2:Work by Groups V2:Customers K3:Organisations V3:Owners K4:Networks of Organisations V4:Business Partners K5-:Societies/Cultures V5:Local Societies & World Citizen Partnerships 1-3 : Service Economy 3-5 : Global Economy of Networked Localities ; K4*V4*V5 - Grameen's No Loss Corporation

http://worldeconomist.net email info@worldeconomist.net delicious: tour of world economist debates
WorldEconomist Live ABC: A B C D E F G G1 H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
World Economist Historic ABC: E Keynes Smith Wilson

inquiries chris macrae info @worldcitizen.tv us tel 301 881 1655 ; us office 5801 nicholson lane suite 404, North Bethesda, MD 20852 USA - uk 80 queens road, suite 30, wimbledon, london sw19 8lb

---

 Mapping is a process of discovery. It explores how to make the invisible principles and practices of real wealth creation visible, and therefore useable. Our planet needs case studies underline the search for new win-wins that build ‘system integrity’
Trust-flow is the unseen wealth to invest sustainability in. Tranpsaremtly mapped it develops a goodwill gravity  tyhat invites with roleplayer in a community to multiply goodwill while sustaining their own cashflow.. Trust is not some vague, mushy, abstract warm-hearted sentiment. It is an economic powerhouse – probably just as economically and socially important as oil.
The point is, there are specific things you need to do to get trust flowing, just as there are specific things you need to do to get oil flowing. And like oil trust has a dark side. Right now, the world is awash with the carbon emissions which threaten the stability and sustainability of its ecosystems. Right now, the world is also awash with the ‘carbon emission’ of trust – mistrust. Indeed it may well be that our ability to tackle the one issue – the threat of environmental catastrophe – depends on our ability to tackle the other issue: how to generate, deepen, extend and sustain trust.>br>But what is the best way of doing this? One thing is for sure. You don’t build and sustain trust via some sentimental exercise of goodwill to all and sundry. There are three very simple principles at the heart of effective trust generation. 
First, trust is generated via win-win relationships. It’s virtually impossible to generate or sustain trust without mutual benefit for those involved. But beneficial outcomes are not enough in themselves. For trust to be built and sustained, both sides need to signal a demonstrable commitment to finding win-win ways forward. Such a  commitment may require real changes to what we say and do. Second, real ‘win-wins’ are hardly ever purely financial or material. You don’t build trust simply by walking away with more cash in your pocket. Trust works at all the dimensions and levels of human exchange. Yes, it’s about financial and material rewards. But it’s also about purpose (what people want to achieve). It’s about politics with a small ‘p’: the use and abuse of power, the crafting and application of rules of fair play. And it’s about emotions: the sometimes overwhelmingly strong emotions, both positive and negative, that are generated when people deal with other peopleWhat’s constitutes a ‘win’ – a sense of real improvement – is therefore highly specific. It depends absolutely on the details of who the parties are, what they are trying to achieve, in what context. Building trus, therefore involves discovering these specifics. Just as oil doesn’t flow out of the ground, get refined and pump its way into motor vehicles automatically and without effort, so identifying and doing what is necessary to get trust flowing requires dedicated, skilled effort. It requires a disciplined, structured process, not a vague sentiment.

3) Third, even if we do steps 1) and 2) there’s still a good chance it won’t succeed. Why? Because it ignores an invisible third factor. In the real world, purely two way bilateral relationships don’t exist. There is always a third party whose interests or outcomes are affected by what the other two parties do but who is not a party to the contract. The environment is a case in point. Producers and consumers may both benefit from buying and selling to each other – but what happens if, in doing so, they destroy the environment they both depend on?

This raises a hugely important question. When two parties pursue win-wins and build mutual trust, are they doing so in a way which creates a win and builds trust for the third party at the same time? Or are they simply pushing the problems – and the mistrust – further down the line on to this third party? Building vigorous, healthy networks of trust is a different kettle of fish to ‘you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’ win-win conspiracies. It requires a Map of all the key relationships plus careful consideration of knock-on consequences. It requires a different perspective.

These three simple, basic steps do not happen automatically. They need to be worked at. The territory needs to be deliberately Mapped and explored. What’s more, there are obstacles in our way – mental and practical obstacles that need to be cleared. Prevailing economic theories about ‘rational economic man’ for example, deny the need to commit to win-win outcomes. Instead, they promote supposedly ‘rational’ (i.e. narrowly selfish behaviours) which actively undermine trust The same theories insist that the only valid measure of human benefit is money, thereby excluding from consideration many of the biggest opportunities for improvement. Meanwhile many vested interests do not want to extend the circle of trust to third parties and complete networks because their positions of power depend on their ability to take advantage of the weaknesses of these third parties. That’s another job for Mapping: helping to identify and mount such obstacles.
The potential benefits of doing so are unthinkably huge. They start with a simple negative: the relief that comes from when you stop banging your head against a brick wall. Mistrust breeds wasteful, wealth destroying conflict that tends to feed on itself. Anger and hatred engender anger and hatred. Simply easing or stopping the terrible waste of mistrust would transform prospects for many millions of people. We desperately need to find ways of doing this. Then there are the positive benefits. Understanding the real nature of human wealth – all those dimensions of purpose, ‘politics’ and emotion as well as money and material comfort – means we can start being human again; human in the way we think, and act. What’s more, many of these intangible benefits won’t cost a penny. They’re there for the taking, if only we puts our minds to it.
But there’s more, because trust is also an economic superpower in its own right. In the pages that follow we will show conclusively that material and financial riches are also dependent on trust. In fact, we will argue the case for going one step further. We will say that material and financial riches are a by-product of trust: the visible fruits of invisible, intangible human exchange. Once you understand that sustainable cash flows are a by-product of sustainable trust flows, your understanding of what makes a successful business is transformed.
Separately, each of these three fruits – reducing the waste of conflict, unleashing the potential intrinsic benefits of human exchange, and energising the sustainable creation of material wealth – are massive in their own right. Put them together and they represent a vast new continent of opportunity.
As we said, this book is addressed to entrepreneurs and system  innovation revolutionaries. Wherever you happen to be, whatever the change you want to make is, the principles explored in this book apply. The wish to change and the will to change are not the same as being able to change successfully. For that you need to understand your territory. You will need new Maps.

Powered by Register.com