to believe

April 14, 2009 - Leave a Response

when i say, i believe in something, i mean:

based upon my experiences and gut feelings, i put a truckload of trust into something.

so much trust, that i can pursue a goal in spite of all contrary forces. i go on, even when everybody – or most people – tries to distract or talk me off doing it, and every – or most – reaction in my environment is unnerving.

i always keep up a specific place for doubt. i don’t give too much time and energy to it, but it has a place. i do not take it for impossible to be convinced out of my belief. it is an option, that i can handle. if it happens, it would strike me hard, but it would not destroy my personality.
belief = focusing energy

doubt = reality check

Advertisements

Why rich societies can’t stay rich without next democracy?

March 25, 2009 - Leave a Response

Richard Greenspan on Mancur Olson’s book

Rich and long established societies grow a feature, that inevitably slows their growth of wealth and creativity and kills them at the end.

This feature is the established special interest group.

Special interest groups need time to form, but once there, and well established, they are hard to get rid of them, and they burden the economy and the society in every step they make.

Special interest groups bring about:

  • legislation, that favor few, and destroy society in general
  • complexity in regulation, in the procedures of public administration, and in the extensive use of professional languages that deprives ordinary citizens to have an understanding of the decisions affecting all of their lives
  • lack of motivation in ordinary citizens to try to influence common causes
  • shrinking competition by raising high the entrance barrier in front of disruptors to enter both the economic and political markets
  • [this is also true for memes – in this case, innovative policies that could grow welfare, or insure sustainable economy, more security, less dependency on critical foreign resources, that could produce more happiness or eventually save the world on the long run]
  • ‘reduced the rate at which resources are reallocated from one activity or industry to another in response to new technologies or conditions’ – wanna see examples? one word: bail-outs.

Enough of the recounting of harm for today.

Protected: next democracy – constitution

January 27, 2009 - Enter your password to view comments.

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Google DC Talk – can they go beyond opinions and arrive to decisions?

December 23, 2008 - Leave a Response
Google D.C. Talks – Tech Agenda 2009: Creating New Opportunities for Open & Participatory Government  

Dec 12, 2008.


Panel II – “Changing Policy to Promote Open Government” 

Andrew McLaughlin (Director of Public Policy and Government Affairs, Google), Chris Barkley (Office of the Hon. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma)), Meredith Fuchs (General Counsel, National Security Archive), Karina Newton (Director of New Media, Office of the Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House), and John Wonderlich (Program Director, Sunlight Foundation).

 

Why RADICAL OPENNESS is so badly needed?

December 23, 2008 - Leave a Response

bailout-expend-comparisonJust found in Laurent Haug’s blog, and see, how large the price-tag of the bailout really is. When something of this size is done, the question is, what does the society get back? The delay of an imminent breakdown? And an agonizing period in the coming years?

As shown above, with this amount of money, you can change the history. You can introduce a New Deal, and put the whole American economy on a steady growing track. You can introduce a Marshall Plan, and help Western Europe recover after a world war and be a strong business partner (and buyer of American goods), and military ally in the coming decades. You can save South Korea, and screw things up in South Vietnam. And you can reach the Moon.

What goal do we have with today’s bailouts? Putting the financial system on an accountable, sustainable, secure growing track? Really? What have we done as yet to secure all these? Fancying new government agencies? When the existing ones have failed so blatantly? Why do you believe, following the same old practices, hiring the same old companies would do it?

Forget about centralized solutions, freezing regulations. Re-engineer the scene, introduce the policy of radical openness, empower disruptive companies to rise and serve the clients better than the incumbent ones.

“Fix financial system – radical openness” follow up

December 20, 2008 - Leave a Response

(This is a follow-up to the original post: How to fix the financial system? Introduce radical openness.)

Why radical openness is needed so badly?

 

Take the Madoff case, and the latest news about SEC.

 

If the community is given all the information government agencies have (and even more),

– according to the behavior of the agency – 

the community can

 

a) – if an agency open to innovation and to the wisdom of the crowds –

HELP the agency deliver a better job

e.g. crunching data in innovative ways that is not part of the agencie’s daily routine or in territories, where the agency has a sort of night blindness

 

b) – if the agency is reluctant to listen to the outer world –

PUSH agencies work better

same as above, but not only complementing in scope the work of the agency, but also competing with it in its core business

 

c) – if the agency is denying any outside influence or help –

DO THE JOB INSTEAD of a failing agency

covering the whole spectrum of the work of the agency. In this case, it is then rightful to ask, why is the named agency paid for from taxpayers’ money

 

What do you think, had the policy of radical openness been in vigor, what behavior would SEC show?

We know now, that the SEC has consistently neglected the warning signs

One whistleblower, a former exec at a rival firm, wrote the SEC as early as 1999 to warn that Madoff was running the “world’s largest Ponzi Scheme.” He repeated his warnings to the SEC through this past April. There were other critics and naysayers, including a 2001 article in Barron’s questioning Madoff’s unrealistically consistent returns. (Paul Kiel in ProPublica)

And we also heard, that – in spite the fact, that Madoff controlled 17.1 billion USD in assets with five employees – SEC has never inspected him, because the lack of resources. Fine, but if we, the community had all the data that SEC gets in raw form, real-time, there would have been quite a few biz data geeks, who would load them into a database, and run some not-too-complicated algorithms, and shoot up the red signal seeing one person handling 3.6 billion USD on the average.

Is there a future for the auto industry? Re-engineer the whole scene.

December 10, 2008 - One Response

The auto industry can not survive in its present form, that’s clear. Wanna torture yourself with the recollection of its main features: the quality (poor), effectiveness (low), competitiveness (weak), brand preception (no comment), or frugality (don’t even mention it)? Rather not.

Aggravated with the chronic disease called deteriorating dependency ratio, and you have a deadly cocktail. When taxpayers’ money is about to pour in, it is high time to have a look, what is that value that should be safeguarded, and what features can be cut down under the terms of cost control. We don’t have to look for dissillusioned voices with headlight, economics pundits overwhelmingly say: it’s been screwed for good, stop building cars. To come up with history and pride? Come on, this movie is screened in another theatre. Forget about all those “oh, but we have so many more ideas about how to fix this” – profits will not come back. There is one single value that is worth keeping: the jobs. But keeping up a loss-making industry to keep jobs is the habit of the communist systems, you will not want to go this way. And in mass production, the U.S. will not be in the black ever again. Period.

Not until workers actually work in the factories, and are not substituted in 100% by robots. Then again, what about the jobs?

So, is there a way to keep a big part of the jobs in or around this industry AND not making massive losses?

How do you like this: re-engineer the whole scene. Forget the old wisdoms of car making, and build an ecosystem open for innovation that is worthy to the 21st century, and try to keep jobs in a flexible, competitive industry.

And here is a step-by-step guide how this can happen:

Read the rest of this entry »

Google DC Talks

December 5, 2008 - Leave a Response

Tech Agenda 2009: Creating New Opportunities for Open & Participatory Government

Friday, December 12th, 2008

more info here

you can post questions here

How to fix the financial system? Introduce radical openness.

December 2, 2008 - 2 Responses

Poor Alan Greenspan – his blunder at the congress hearing makes him look like the dumbest person on the planet. To trust that the Internet would make the financial markets safer and more transparent? What a naïve idea!

Read the rest of this entry »

NextDemocracy: empowering the citizens to decide

November 26, 2008 - Leave a Response

This is the pitch of the idea of Next Democracy more or less in the form as was submitted to Google’s 10 to 100 competition.

 

One Sentence

Democracy, as done today, is a Stone Age technology in an Internet age society; with NextDemocracy we can DECIDE DIRECTLY on political issues.

 

The Itch (Issue Addressed)

With elections you buy everything in one big package. All the policies, behind-the-scenes agreements, friends and special relations come with the candidate and the party behind.

We elect representatives to make all the important decisions for us – instead of us – in the coming 4 years, and we can just hope, that the decisions are going to be good ones.

We do this, because – why exactly? Because we have so little time? Because information is so hard to get and so expensive to distribute? Because it is impossible to meet people to discuss the issues when you have a work and a family to look after?

The world has changed, the mechanism of democracy has not.

The way how democracy is done today is actually a Stone Age technology in an Internet age society. It is expensive, it is ineffective, and open to distraction or outright corruption.

Read the rest of this entry »