Showing posts with label exploring options. Show all posts
Showing posts with label exploring options. Show all posts

Friday, December 27, 2013

The Snowden Saga Heralds A Radical Exposure Of Expanding National Options Worth Exploring, Not Just A Shift In Capitalism

   (Commentary posted by Roger Erickson)



Pandora's new, virtual box has been open for decades. People are just beginning to grasp a fraction of what that means.

Seems to me that capitalism is not the real point either. We have huge populations creating new methods for group discourse, the basis of Group Intelligence ... and yet national groupings are not yet selecting fittingly audacious Desired Outcomes to achieve, through use of our newly emerging methods.

Our Capabilities Gap is so large, we can't see it.

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

"TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS REPORT" - from the US State Department

Commentary by Roger Erickson

This report by our State Department is as fascinating for what it omits, as it is for the oft horrifying abuses it includes.

The report includes many provocative memes and abuses, from the "cost of a job" to sex slavery and child prostitution. Unfortunately, a comprehensive "desired outcome" is not spelled out. Consequently it is not possible to comprehensively address all the seemingly disconnected needs with a coordinated list of goals, policies, strategies and tactics, plus a set of operations able to drive a continuously evolving campaign to achieve the - unstated - outcome state.

That may be a failure of omission, or it may be a purposeful effort to divide and conquer, by continued distraction.

So let's describe our own, desired outcome. Our State Dept. is incapable, so this is a job for all of us. Are we a nation of innovative citizens, or just a collection of people with no common rights and interests, ruled at will by idiot savant merchants incapable of imagining what a nation is capable of doing?

What do we want? The world will never be perfect, so it's a battle of statistics. How about this as at least one of many suggestions to consider? We want to be able to optimally manage the statistical variance in citizen options, so that every nation and culture can become all that they can become?

How do we achieve that? Simple in concept, untrackable in all details. We want to enable the net quality (including tempo) of distributed decision-making to constantly improve. There's 99% consensus that such achievement requires distributed democracy and optimal use of all citizens in coordinated teamwork. Dissent comes only from an "interested" 1%, and their abused, "trafficked" acolytes, concentrated in BOTH Red States and Blue Cities. Are the GOP/DNP really all that different than the Sinaloa/LosZetas, or the TBTF/ECB for that matter - or are they simply an order of magnitude more sophisticated in their highly rationalized "trafficking" methods. Recent disclosures have finally driven home the reality that, with enough rationalization, you can make a religion or a Royal family out of sin itself.

Now we can jump to tactical interactions.

There's a whole spectrum of human trafficking abuse, ranging from the distributed "disappeared" fractions held beneath our noses, all the way to the 99% held overtaxed and underfund at the insistence of the 1%. At one tail of the spectrum, kidnappers don't have to transport individuals in order to "traffic" them. At the other tail, Wall Street banksters don't have to physically move serfs or the poor to economically "traffic" in their manipulation and economic abuse.

Since these issues are all socially connected, via the "connective-tissue of cultural coordination, the same distributed solution applies to all. The need for more organization. Everything connected to everything, or at least re-connected, on demand, just-in-time, just-as-needed. That's called cultural agility, and it's what we need most of all.

The best way to help any and all forms of the disappeared or the looted is to help ourselves, so that we don't LACK THE RESOURCES to simply protect our own citizens, neighbors and family members ... from the 1% or so in all categories, that prey upon their own 99%. The simplest and most effective response is to reconstitute the middle class in the USA, and then encourage all countries missing a vibrant middle class to follow suit. Anything less constitutes random, ineffective tactics that cannot usefully sum to a whole greater than the sum of their parted efforts.

And, once pursued, all will agree. It's what all secretly want, even those uselessly hoarding the most.

Ironically, criminologists say that it's not uncommon for crooks of all sorts - from those practicing ignorant violence to those perpetrating artfully distributed fraud - to thank "regulators" of any sort, for finally stopping them! They're often grateful that someone stopped them from doing what part of them didn't really want to do, but the rest of themselves couldn't restrain from doing. Being of a truly social species, few humans indeed truly want to be isolated by their own actions. 99% prefer group acceptance, and the security of belonging. No amount of hoarding (of static assets) can replace the need for dynamic assets (social affinity).

The private/public feedback balance which defines Social Species, quite obviously extends into every form of interaction existing among our citizens. We should not shirk from admitting that fact, and using it to scale up the unlimited potential of a truly Open Source Society.



Monday, February 11, 2013

Bureaucracy and Mercantilism – the Spreading Tentacles of Social Boredom

commentary by Roger Erickson

In an interesting essay, Bill Mitchell examines his own experiences exploring the seamy underbelly of Sport and doping – the spreading tentacles of capital.

Like all good essays, it raises more questions than it answers. So, in response, I've written a public letter to Bill, to specifically ask and try to answer at least a few of the follow-on questions implied in his essay, about 'why' all this happens so predictably.

Bill,
The phenomenon you saw has been seen repeatedly. It's basically what Wallace & Darwin wrote about.

You used the phrase: "... the [cycling news] site I started lost its meaning. It created a new meaning, which is more consistent with the dominant paradigm in the sport – corporatism and profit ..." That phrase can be perfectly well re-summed as follows.

Evolution of .. we the people .. tracks recombination rate.

Seems to me that there is a simple cycle at work here (pardon the pun). If communities don't stay busy setting goals commensurate with their exploding capabilities, and coincidentally reinvent their institutions in the process, then they're soon left with institutional bureaucracies with rapidly declining purpose. Such meaningless institutions always regress to rule by merchants, as the default. So it's our own rate of change, our Adaptive Rate, which is our primary method for controlling our own merchant, would-be rulers.

Once a community loses purpose and lacks bigger goals, it starts pouring it's spiraling capabilities into feeding everything from house plants to public temples and sporting associations. It's not so different from small children building forts, damming creeks, making mud pies or organizing neighborhood teams - just finding ways to express and satisfy their innate drive to cooperate. People of all ages are happy when they do that. No one minds, because children very quickly go on to new games and goals, and along the way continually master new tools and practices.

What if you placed children in a prison, where all they could do is continue making mud pies, even as they grew up and aged? The mud & water merchants would soon rule the stalled prison society.

When adults do the same, there's a danger if they don't change their goals, tools and group practices fast enough. In that case, their bureaucracies become simply another icon to feed, until even the adults lose interest. However, once a bureaucracy is being fed, and - out of boredom - isn't being replaced by new goals, then there are merchants involved who inevitably dominate the social process - precisely by default, because of the lack of change. In most communities worldwide, today, the merchants have won. All our communities and humans are bored, lack goals, and are on the verge of becoming bureaucracies themselves. That could conceivably be fatal. Increasingly, the most visible remaining option seems to be war, and the merchants even run that too as a MICC bureaucracy. It helps to take a step back and ask why all this occurs.

Neolithic people, before agriculture, could organize in huge numbers and construct astounding static, physical achievements such as Stonehenge and the many similar megalithic, physical constructions since rediscovered. Then they got bored & abandoned them for new and better challenges. People will inevitably abandon all of our current, merchant-run organizations too, including our nation states ... UNLESS we set audacious goals commensurate with our spiraling group capabilities. A busy society is a happy society. A bored society, not changing fast enough, is quickly ruled by it's attendent merchants.

What did the neolithic mega builders move on to, in general? Note that megalomaniacal physical construction sites are static value efforts that coincidentally trigger dynamic value practice. After they were built, all megalomaniacal construction efforts seemed to have spawned human diversion into further recognition and capture of the distributed methods delivering dynamic value. When that happens, return-on-coordination favors selection of new and better goals. Vast distributions of subtle and more diverse techniques ensue. Farming. Organized irrigation systems? The list is endless and continuing.

Today, little experiments such as flash-mobs can be viewed as examples of such spontaneous, distributed self-organization. Increasingly organized civil disobedience, whistleblowing and volunteer oversight are also signs of dynamic value being expressed, again allowing people to satisfy their innate drive to cooperate on new and improved goals. People are still happiest when they do something that has greater meaning than what they were doing yesterday.

We could just abandon both bicycle racing and war, and invest in exploring our massively recombinant options ... instead of reverting into mercantilism, and rule by merchants? If we're going to invest in doping, why not dope our imagineers and leaders, so they can imagine greater goals and lead in exploring them? We'll see how long it takes for enough people to become bored with our current ritual of megalomaniacal merchant feeding, and turn to better options.

It seems that human populations are still in a process of exploring how to perfect methods for achieving dynamic value, and how to select dynamic value goals worthy of our capabilities. More than anything else, we need suggestions for what to apply our collective imagination to, instead of to bureaucracies - simply so we can practice, as groups, working on more fulfilling things to do. We need to generate a higher rate of introducing mega-challenges in more dynamic rather than static dimensions. Othewise, what's our choice? To regress and be consumed by our own merchants? Why? Clearly, many people hate and fear change, but we can't go back, and we can't stay here. So what's our choice?

Pick things to change, many things, and then charge into selecting from all the recombinant options that change triggers? That could be unpredictably interesting. You never know. Meanwhile, instead of worrying about the merchants, just leave the merchants behind, so that they are scrambling to serve us, not rule us out of boredom.


Friday, February 8, 2013

Can't Get More Straightforward Than This

commentary by Roger Erickson

A Question, Answered by Warren Mosler

Japan, US, ECB, they're all just bureaucracies doing what they do ... nothing ... until absolutely forced to, kicking & screaming.

Plus, it gets worse. It's hard to self-tune & select well from a pool of options you refuse to adequately fill. If you limit your options & reduce baseline diversity ... voila ... you steadily degrade the statistics & probability of making high quality selections. Duh!

Selection & option-diversity go hand in hand, inseparable, catalyzed by threshold liquidity & distributed initiative.

What part of 2-stage optimization don't bureaucrats get?
It doesn't matter what wave you select if you don't paddle your surfboard far enough out into the damn ocean!

This ain't rocket science. Just bureaucracy in inaction.

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Richard Wolff — Yes, there is an alternative to capitalism

There is no alternative ("Tina") to capitalism.
Really? We are to believe, with Margaret Thatcher, that an economic system with endlessly repeated cycles, costly bailouts for financiers and now austerity for most people is the best human beings can do? Capitalism's recurring tendencies toward extreme and deepening inequalities of income, wealth, and political and cultural power require resignation and acceptance – because there is no alternative?
I understand why such a system's leaders would like us to believe in Tina. But why would others?
Of course, alternatives exist; they always do. Every society chooses – consciously or not, democratically or not – among alternative ways to organize the production and distribution of the goods and services that make individual and social life possible....
Capitalism thus entails and reproduces a highly undemocratic organization of production inside enterprises. Tina believers insist that no alternatives to such capitalist organizations of production exist or could work nearly so well, in terms of outputs, efficiency, and labor processes. The falsity of that claim is easily shown. Indeed, I was shown it a few weeks ago and would like to sketch it for you here.
Read the rest at The Guardian (UK)
Yes, there is an alternative to capitalism
by Richard Wolff
In short, MC worker-members collectively choose, hire and fire the directors, whereas in capitalist enterprises the reverse occurs.
Interestingly, a very similar distinction is manifest in religious denominations — between "low" churches that are congregational and "high" churches that are hierarchical. In the congregational modle the congregation chooses the minister, and in the hierarchical model, authority is centralized and imposed from the top, with parishioners required to be subservient and to conform.