Recent Updates Page 2 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • feedwordpress 07:38:55 on 2016/10/05 Permalink  

    How will Theresa May reform Capitalism? 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/pb/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    "We can choose to not reform capitalism, leave human beings to die from deprivation – where we are now – and understand that that puts people in self-defense mode.

    "When in self-defense mode, kill or be killed, there is no civilization at all.  It is the law of the jungle, where we started eons ago.  In that context, 'terrorism' will likely flourish because it is 'terrorism' only for the haves, not for the have-nots.  The have-nots already live in terror, as their existence is threatened by deprivation, and they have the right to fight back any way they can.

    'They' will fight back, and do.  "

    This was the warning made in 1996 to US President Bill Clinton. A warning repeated at the 2010 conference on Economics for Ecology in Sumy,  

    We learn today, that British PM Theresa May says we need to reform capitalism

    'Businesses can harness ingenuity and innovation to meet the challenge of climate change, and conduct their operations in such a way that improves and adds value to their local communities. Of course government must continue to deliver for society, but the contribution made by responsible corporate behaviour is more important than ever.

    This is recognised by our new prime minister. Theresa May made reforming capitalism a key theme of her truncated leadership campaign and has returned to the “industrial strategy” put in place during Vince Cable’s tenure as business secretary. She has promised a crackdown on irresponsible corporate behaviour, with new regulations to increase transparency, curb executive pay and secure representation for workers and customers in corporate governance. When a right-wing Conservative appoints a minister for corporate responsibility, business needs to take the hint.'

    The Sumy presentations and study guide to the economic crisis were a small part of what people-centered business contributed in Ukraine. The largest by far was the life of founder Terry Hallman.

    In 2007, with a blueprint for replicating the people-centered business model on a national scale, P-CED delivered a 'Marshall Plan' for Ukraine  Sharing online prompted a remarkable response, as did the story I shared about it for McKinsey's Long Term Capitalism challenge - Re-imagining capitalism: The new 'Bottom Line'

    I chose to describe it as the 'New Bottom Line' because of the recurring emphasis on taking the bottom line past profit to people. For example in our 2004 business plan, with a message for the New Labour government.

    "Traditional capitalism is an insufficient economic model allowing monetary outcomes as the bottom line with little regard to social needs. Bottom line must be taken one step further by at least some companies, past profit, to people. How profits are used is equally as important as creation of profits. Where profits can be brought to bear by willing individuals and companies to social benefit, so much the better. Moreover, this activity must be recognized and supported at government policy level as a badly needed, essential, and entirely legitimate enterprise activity.”

    And in the Marshall Plan:

    'An inherent assumption about capitalism is that profit is defined only in terms of monetary gain. This assumption is virtually unquestioned in most of the world. However, it is not a valid assumption. Business enterprise, capitalism, must be measured in terms of monetary profit. That rule is not arguable. A business enterprise must make monetary profit, or it will merely cease to exist. That is an absolute requirement. But it does not follow that this must necessarily be the final bottom line and the sole aim of the enterprise. How this profit is used is another question. It is commonly assumed that profit will enrich enterprise owners and investors, which in turn gives them incentive to participate financially in the enterprise to start with.

    That, however, is not the only possible outcome for use of profits. Profits can be directly applied to help resolve a broad range of social problems: poverty relief, improving childcare, seeding scientific research for nationwide economic advancement, improving communications infrastructure and accessibility, for examples – the target objectives of this particular project plan.'

    What Sir Richard Branson and Paul Polman of Unilever say today is remarkably aligned with this people-centered approach to business and Ukraine. 

    People-Centred business, business which puts people first, has also been embraced by Cooperatives Europe and Fair Trade International.         

    Harriet Lamb, CEO of Fair Trade International, explained: “Businesses alone are not enough to tackle poverty; the EU should foster people-centred businesses. Cooperatives and Fair Trade have shown that they put high standards and strict rules on businesses, that they put people first, and still they are successful.” 

    I describe people-centered business as business as if other people mattered. 

    So much for the rhetoric. Founder Terry Hallman had taken putting other people first quite literally when he spoke out about corruption and neglect in Ukraine's orphanages.

    'The author of breakthru report “Death camps for children” Terry Hallman suddenly died of grave disease on Aug 18 2011. On his death bed he was speaking only of his mission – rescuing of these unlucky kids. His dream was to get them new homes filled with care and love. His quest would be continued as he wished.'

    When finally, the story reached mainstream media, we were informed that no-one was speaking out:



    This was far from the truth. In 2010 David Cameron had been petitioned for support, for example.

    USAID and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations had been called on for support in 2008:  

    'Then there’s another kids issue, that of baby parts. Allegations against maternity hospital number six here in Kharkiv, for one example I happen to know due to close proximity, have been investigated and confirmed by BBC and rapporteurs from Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe regarding killing healthy babies in hospital at birth and disappearing body parts into an international black market. At least one mass grave was located and disinterred, showing babies chopped to pieces with brains, internal organs, and apparently bone marrow having been removed. This was exposed by way of extraordinary bravery on the part of one young lady affiliated with Kharkiv Human Rights Group (KHPG). Why there is no criminal case about this, I do not know. Ask Kyiv, and observe what happens. BBC and PACE have all evidence.'

    People-Centered business was introduced to the UK in 2004 as a free to use model.

    Who will build their own reputation by passing it off as their own?

  • feedwordpress 08:09:17 on 2016/09/17 Permalink  

    Embracing Humane Capitalism 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/pb/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    When I read the article yesterday, on Campaign and 2Degrees, I thought of a former colleague who once asked in a presentation - what is a consultant?

    "It's someone who walks into your business, mugs you and leaves behind a report recommending that you're mugged by 3 of his closest friends"

    This is perhaps never more true than in the case of sustainabilty consultants. 

    Yesterday, marked the 20th anniversary of People-Centered Economic Development, when founder Terry Hallman delivered his position paper to the White House.  In the core argument, our manifesto since the 2008 crisis - he concluded:  

    "Economics, and indeed human civilization, can only be measured and calibrated in terms of human beings.  Everything in economics has to be adjusted for people, first, and abandoning the illusory numerical analyses that inevitably put numbers ahead of people, capitalism ahead of democracy, and degradation ahead of compassion.

    "Each of us who have a choice can choose what we want to do to help or not.  It is free-will, our choice, as human beings."

    Putting people over profit maximisation , he reasoned, could be done by any business provided it was with the consent of shareholders and directors and such purpose was stated in the corporate charter. It began with a question about purpose:

    "At first glance, it might seem redundant to emphasize people as the central focus of economics. After all, isn't the purpose of economics, as well as business, people? Aren't people automatically the central focus of business and economic activities? Yes and no.

    People certainly gain and benefit, but the rub is: which people? More than a billion children, women, and men on this planet suffer from hunger. It is a travesty that this is the case, a blight upon us all as a global social group. Perhaps an even greater travesty is that it does not have to be this way; the problems of human suffering on such a massive scale are not unsolvable. If a few businesses were conducted only slightly differently, much of the misery and suffering as we now know it could be eliminated. This is where the concept of a "people-centered" economics system comes in."

    The paper had been his contribution as a volunteer, to the steering group for the committee to re-elect the president and delivered to the White House on 16th September 1996. From there, the next step wasn't building brands or writing books, but putting it into practice with the Tomsk Regional Initiative:

    "I sent the proposal to President Clinton, who had been an unswerving ally in prior efforts (accounting for POW/MIAs missing in Southeast Asia.)  I asked him to refer it on to appropriate US agencies if he found it worth considering.  Tomsk was awarded the fourth and final USAID Regional Initiative in Russia three months later in December 1999.  That initiative encompassed the three critical objectives I had outlined, along with 34 other components.  The result was the Russia/US Regional Initiative in Tomsk oblast. "

    For the record. Hallman had gained Clinton's attention and invitation to serve, through his efforts to trace the fate of a C130-AC gunship crew, in which his father-in-law Charles Stoddart Rowley had been among the crew.


  • feedwordpress 14:07:57 on 2016/09/15 Permalink  

    Bayer, Monsanto and Ukraine 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/pb/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    Stepping back a decade to 2005, it was P-CED founder Terry Hallman in his Maidan article' Really Betraying a Revolution' who warned of US neoliberal intentions in Ukraine.

    "What economic hit men will surely try to do is persuade Ukraine to give up lucrative state assets to private buyers – and thus lose most of that revenue base – in exchange for the “privilege” of borrowing billions of dollars and going into debt to Western governments, particularly the US. That’s the deal, and that is what and all is going on with most of this noise against Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko at this point in time. God forbid that she have the courage to do the right things for Ukraine. It is simply not done in many countries, including the US, which will likely be one of the main sources of vitriol against her in coming weeks and months unless her government relents on strong, progressive social policy and gives in to demands to give up lucrative state enterprises.

    Someone is surely interested in the “betrayal of a revolution.” But, there is no credible evidence that it is Yulia Tymoshenko and her government, whereas there are more than enough grounds for suspicion towards outside troublemakers and profiteers, from both sides of the world."

    The man who warned Bill Clinton years earlier about the risk of global uprisings was right again, though he died in 2011.

    In 2014, IMF loans opened the door for Monsanto and their aquisition of land which until then had been not for sale:

    As Frederic Mosseau of the Okland Institute put it in 2014:

    "Announcing a 3.5 billion dollars aid programme on May 22, World Bank president Jim Yong Kim lauded the Ukrainian authorities for developing a comprehensive programme of reforms, and their commitment to carry it out with support from the World Bank Group. He failed to mention the neo-liberal conditions imposed by the Bank to lend money, including that the government limit its own power by removing restrictions that hinder competition and limiting the role of state control in economic activities. "

    Now Bayer, in the "biggest offer ever" of $55bn is poised for a Monsanto takeover.  

    The 2005 article focussed on Anders Aslund, director of the Carnegie International Endowment for Peace,

    'Mr. Aslund comes across as an economic hit man.  I recently became a bit concerned about his grasp and representation of simple factual evidence in reading another article from him in Kyiv Post, “Aslund discusses Ukraine’s economy.”  Therein, he states at the start that “the Orange Revolution was not about economics…It was all about freedom, democracy, against corruption and for a Western choice, a European choice.” It’s only a matter of opinion, at best, as to whether the revolution was about economics: the whole point of freedom and democracy, as far as I could see and hear, assumed economic improvement as a result of freedom and democracy. If everyone in Ukraine had a nice home, a nice car, plenty of food, good income, good health care, there would have been no need for revolution – nor would there likely have been one. Too many people were being crushed by the old regime, their voices and opinions were rarely if ever listened to by an utterly corrupt government, and the only conceivable solution was freedom and democracy as an essential first step to change things. The “Western choice” was not about idealistic ideology, it was very pragmatic looking to superior economic standards common across Europe and the West. To say the revolution was not about economics is patently absurd.'

    On the ground in Ukraine, with his 2007 proposal for a 'Marshall Plan' for Ukraine, Terry had called on USAID and the Senate FRC their support with what today would be recognised as social investment: 

  • feedwordpress 14:44:16 on 2016/09/01 Permalink  

    Doom and Revolution 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/pb/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    Doom and Revolution

    February 25, 2005
    Kharkiv, Ukraine

    I hadn't much intention of doing anything with the following letter except keeping it stored on my near-decrepit hard drive, still with me faithfully after all these years and now in Kharkiv, Ukraine. That's more than I can say for some women I know, who as I understand it are deservedly wretched now.

    Then, Hunter S. Thompson checked out five days ago.

    This letter would likely have remained deep inside information `for eyes only' of a privileged few in the US otherwise.


    "US expat"
    North Carolina, USA
    Kharkiv, Ukraine


    Vice-President John Edwards
    Washington, DC

    September 27, 2004

    Re: Predators, parasites and weasels in the US White House; straight talk; Turning Point

    Dear VP Edwards:

    A few weeks ago, near the end of the Democratic National Convention, I received messages first from President Clinton, then the next day from you. Both invited me to contribute something to the campaign, be it cash or other. In that I've already offered up my life to fire up the poverty `issue' for you, along with the pending question of economic rights in America, and in that both of you should know better than to ask me for input if you don't want serious input, I am responding accordingly. Look at this from a gonzo perspective for best view. As far as I can tell, gonzo pretty much sums up the current state of the US nation at this point, in the weirdest version of America to date. If you don't know what gonzo is, ask Dr. Hunter S. Thompson. He is a professional, after all.

    Here we go.

    First, one thing clear: this isn't intended to be polite, but merely effective. Right about now, I figure effective counts for far more than polite anyway. You're in a tight race which, for the life of me, I cannot understand why it's so tight. Or at least I couldn't until I forcibly sat myself down and thought about it. The answer struck me fairly quickly, but I've had to think about it for a few weeks to be sure I have it right. Fortunately for you, President Kerry and President Clinton, I'm almost always right about everything, so we needn't worry too much about the veracity of all of this. President Clinton knows that, or at least he knew it at one point. Maybe he remembers. I expect so. He has a mind like a steel trap.

    You're in a campaign that should be a hands down, slam dunk win for us Democrats. It shouldn't be closer than 8 points in our favor at this point, but, polls say it's pretty much tied. We even have to worry about the pathetic Nader Factor!

    I can tell you have Gore's campaign team at work for you. Fortunately for me, I'm in exile, by Absolute Necessity or I'd have suffered completely to death in the US by now. Credit due and payable to Brit friends who saw fit to keep me alive when almost nobody in America saw the same. I'm eight time zones east of the US just now, in the former Soviet Union to be precise, so if America goes to hell in a handbasket by way of another Bush theft plus Democratic incompetence, I've hedged my meager bets insofar as possible. If Dems in the US can't fend off this Cheney/Bush cabal, I don't know what to do except maybe surrender and concede that we Dems are all hopelessly, terminally stupid. That's a distinct possibility.

    But, I'm not quite ready to concede that point. Tempted, yes. Ready, no. Which, of course, is why I'm writing this.

    Here's the way I see things: hoodlums versus good guys, us being the good guys. Again, fortunately, I'm in the former Soviet Union, and am therefore quite more familiar on a daily, routine basis with the crisp distinction between hoodlums and good guys than are most Americans. In fact, I'm deeply concerned that nearly half of the American populace have gone mad, as evidenced by polls indicating that almost half of US voters apparently want Bush as US president.

    Thinking back over US history, I realize that the Constitution was created more than 100 years before the advent of modern psychology via William James. Thus, our Founding Fathers had no basis by which to anticipate that a significant portion of the US voting populace might be clinically insane at any given point in time.

    Nobody is perfect, I suppose.

    And here's what I see wrong with the current campaign, and why we're not up by high single digits or low double digits: you and President Kerry tend to wait for the Bush side to attack, slander, lie, mislead, and generally twist reality beyond recognition, and then you respond defensively to try and put things right again.

    Too late!!! It's ALWAYS too late in such a case, because the bad guys got the upper hand and everybody sees it, which in turn makes our intelligence and capability suspect. And rightly so. It becomes difficult to distinguish us Dems from blithering idiots. We already have one of those in the Oval Office. So why change? Nearly half of US voters apparently can't see why either at this point. And so the polls show a dead heat, a tie, and a real chance that the Bush cabal just might prevail, after all. If we can't fight off these guys, even knowing for certain what they'll do, how they operate, who and where they are, how can we be expected to fight off nebulous international terrorists?

    Whatever happened to taking the first shot against bad guys who we know are out to get us? There is the danger of running a campaign on the high road: our opponents LIVE on the low road, that's all they know, it's their genetic predisposition, and that is therefore all they can do.

    Did you know that?

    Take the first shot, from now to November 10 to be on the safe side. Preemptive warfare is risky foreign policy, but useful and pragmatic US domestic election policy because it's kept only in our own backyard - not something we want or need to export, but a messy little slice of necessity nonetheless. The Bush side has already figured that out, in spades, but they use it domestically and internationally. If they get their way on the goofy and deadly-expensive political distraction of the Mars mission, it's almost certainly the first thing they'll ship out, bombing rocks and dirt if nothing else is found.

    Keep the high road, but that doesn't mean not kicking those dogs where they live. They just don't know any better than to do what they do, to say what they say, and to twist the Truth beyond all recognition even after DNA analysis. On our side, American voters are mostly figuring that if we Democrats don't know this, or some brilliant or at least capable Democratic minds can't figure it out, then we don't deserve the US White House. And they're absolutely right, of course, even if nearly half are insane at this point. Good Lord, the current state of affairs is enough to drive anyone crazy!

    This election should go down in a landslide in our favor as Dems because the Bush side has so much negative baggage as to make them not only untenable but nauseating. How can this have not come to light by now? Who the hell are you paying to run the campaign aside from the previous Gore miscreants? We Dems are right and the other side is wrong, and if you don't believe me, ask Jim Carville. He knows. Where is he, anyway? God forbid he's come under the thumb of his dear Republican other half. More likely he just isn't able to care any more, and has already conceded that we Dems have become hopelessly, helplessly stupid. I know the feeling. Maybe he's right. But, again, I'm not ready just yet to concede that point.

    Here's what to do, which you're NOT doing already: hammer hell out of the opposition and keep them on the defensive instead of the other way around. We've got crooks, scumbags, sociopaths, psychopaths, and thieves - a.k.a. predators, parasites, and weasels, and I'm being charitable - in the US White House, and you're sitting around waiting for them to do what we all KNOW they're going to do - lie, deceive, distort, and generally malfunction - and then we put up a pansy defense, on grounds that we're trying to maintain the moral high ground by not attacking them the way they so richly deserve and require in the minds of manly, red-blooded US voters and their families.

    Think blitzkrieg times two. Hit hard, fast, repeatedly, incessantly, two more strikes while they're seething and scurrying like rabid rats from the last one.

    Bombs away! The bad guys should be on the defensive, constantly and then some and then some more, NOT US, so get it right! Damnation, John, this isn't rocket science.

    If your paid staff can't figure out the necessary details FAST (48 hours maximum), flog all of them, bring me in, and we'll all be happy on November 2 and beyond. Or, bring me in, I'll flog them for you, and we can all then proceed toward our well-deserved, manifest destiny win in November. Whatever it takes. You can all thank me later by meeting my demands, and my demands will be to cut poverty in the US in half during your first four years, plus implementation of international terrorism prevention through programs of development assistance for promising, emerging democratic communities. I have an almost uncanny knack for spotting them, even in the USSR remnants. Waiting until they misbehave and then bombing them is too late, again. I have a business/game plan already worked out during seven months in London and Prague this year, it's already passed first muster in London, and it will work. That's my price. Otherwise, with another Cheney/Rove/Bushie term, America is finished. If your `official' campaign staff can't figure that out, have a hard reality check with them, and bear in mind that we're all doomed otherwise. Don't be shy, but discreet is acceptable.

    Listen: there's a huge difference between the moral high ground and pest control. In fact, not identifying and removing vermin is unhealthy and unsanitary. Stop being so damned nice! MOST (not all) US voters know the cut of Bush/Cheney's cloth, and if YOU're not hammering that point effectively, we/they (voters) have to conclude that there's something seriously and sufficiently deficient and deranged in your/our analysis of the current egregious and outrageous state of US affairs that spells America 2004 such that the Cheney/Bush cabal might just as well continue in the White House. What's the difference?

    Are you hammering them already, or do you think you are? If so, the hammer must be a bit spongy, or maybe Styrofoam.

    Alternately - and there's only one alternative, believe me - challenge Cheney for your part to demonstrate one - just ONE - bit of evidence that he has any concern whatsoever for anything or anyone in America not directly connected with looting the US treasury for his own benefit and those in his cabal. Can you think of anything? I've tried, honestly, I have. I can't think of anything, I can't find anything. The only humane, positive efforts from the current White House that I can think of - and not from Cheney, mind you - are faith-based initiatives touted by Bush. And even those aren't original , they're embedded in the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, which as I recall Clinton and Kerry both supported, and Clinton pushed over the goal line.

    God knows I've tried to coach you - and nobody else, only you - against Cheney, since 2000, far in advance of where you find yourself against him now. But at least I had that suspicion and foresight. Who else? No one I ever heard of. And we both should understand by now that Cheney is a complete waste of oxygen, kept alive like a Frankenstein monster by a relentlessly reliable pacemaker.

    The guys in the White House now are there for One Reason: to feed at the Public Trough. There's no more to it than that. Mon dieu, it isn't even complicated! Hammer them on that, they can't possibly prove otherwise. They can't show anything they've done that hasn't or doesn't line their own pockets and isn't in their direct personal private interests and those in their cabal. Everything else has weakened, harmed, and rotted America in only four years to the point that American citizens can barely even think straight anymore. In our heart of hearts, most Americans know it's true, but our side hasn't just come right out and said it. Make that theme our New Mantra, and play and play and play it, incessantly. It's easy, because it's so obvious. And, it's True. If we can't see it, say it, and bring it to glaring light, voters have no business voting for our side. And even so, nearly half are already going to vote for us Dems! That means they already know it's True.

    What happens when Cheney/Bushites feed themselves to the point of collapse of America? Nothing, for them. Absolutely nothing. They're fat enough to breed and prosper for generations to come, and the demise of America is irrelevant for them. The rest of us are expendable pawns.

    Moreover, as they trash the economy and run up lethal public debt, how do we afford to fight terrorism? Answer: we don't. We can't. We're approaching end game, and no one in the current White House has any reason to care about that, nor is there any indication that they do or should. They're okay, regardless. And our side is not sounding the alarm loudly, clearly, in the light of day for all to see and hear, when we're the only people who can possibly do it.

    Hammer the @#$%& on that point alone, and you'll get more traction, poll points, and votes in the end. Trust me on this. I haven't steered you wrong yet, and I'm not about to start now.

    These guys have pissed off half the world and alienated the other half, minus only those of the US populace and a very few Cabal Fellows around the world who still think the Bush cabal is a good idea. Here in Ukraine, for just one example, West-friendly Yushchenko might now lose the Ukraine presidential election because his wife has an American passport! Only three years ago, having a US passport was considered a badge of honor, an item of envy surpassing even a Ferrari or new Corvette. Now, it's an albatross for the poor guy because of the New Reputation of Bush/Cheney Incorporated's version of USA, Inc. We are now seen as a country far beneath what we were before Bushites stole the previous election - and we are coming under scrutiny and observation of the international community for the first time in history, so they can check if B/C Inc. steals another one. Well, `elections' get stolen all the time around the world, or are so laughable as to be useless in the first place. So why should we be any different in the US?

    Because we were - but are no longer - THE champions of humanity and THE standard bearers of democracy. If we can't get it right, who will? And, if we Dems lack the collective wherewithal to correct the Bush cabal's takeover and destruction of the US, America has no chance to continue as a great nation. None, zero, nada, zip. We risk becoming a ragged has-been, indebted to foreign nations to the point of being crushed to second-rate status. And that's optimistic, I think. Our fat military can't protect us, because there comes a time in the court of international public opinion - which most Americans arrogantly sneer at just now - when military might and hubris are viewed as borderline or full-blown authoritarianism. How to square democracy with that? Simple. It can't be done, and everybody knows it. The more we answer conflict with military response, and of course dilute and weaken our military capability in the process, the weaker we become, not stronger. We can spend ourselves completely to death or irrelevance. Half a trillion a year for defense? That alone proves we've seriously screwed the pooch on foreign affairs and relations. What the hell are we thinking? Has anyone in DC seriously questioned why so many people want to destroy us? It isn't because we're free and democratic, it's because we've demonstrably become @#$%&.

    No nation ever believes such a thing as demise or falling to second or third tier can happen to them, until it does. Then, it's too late. It always is, after the fact. Nobody is ever that smart in advance. But maybe, just maybe, this time could be the exception. I'm just telling you in advance, in the hope that it matters this time and will make a difference for us, and for all of those whom we love and care about so deeply, both at home and abroad.

    We are the world's best and brightest hope, and we're fading fast.

    Depending on the competence, or lack thereof, of your current campaign staff, I remain available for call-up and duty as needed, no funding required on your end except for travel costs to and fro, same as for any other US warrior. Food and shelter would be nice, but, I'll camp out if necessary and eat what I can find, not unlike the care and concern currently given to many of our current combat forces and their families, and a few tens of millions of Americans living on death's doorstep in poverty. We're brothers and sisters, after all, just with different weapons and ordnance. Our combat forces have to use metal and explosives, whereas mine are words, ideas, good will and what I hope might be Common Sense in a 2004 rendition of Tom Paine.

    We'll see which are more effective, I reckon.

    As I told you a little over a year ago, the Halliburton puzzle and the US economy are the two key factors to winning this election. Polls now say it's terrorism and the economy. But: with a decaying economy, crushing and misspent defense expenditures to bomb recalcitrant communities rather than supportive humane assistance for positive but struggling communities around the world (of which there are hundreds, and I'm in one now), US defense, foreign and economic policies are fundamentally misguided - unless you think of them in terms of a private cabal without regard to the best interests of US citizens or anyone else in the world outside said cabal.

    That cabal has a wide spread, and America is expendable.

    You've pretty much figured out the Halliburton puzzle: it is the Cheney/Bush cabal, with Halliburton being the most visible, obvious and egregious symbol. The cabal has methodically and deliberately trashed the robust Clinton economy. Know why the economy hit a downturn when Clinton was leaving office? Mainly because Clinton was leaving office, and America merely paused to see what might be coming next. Simple! We all knew what it had been before our beloved Economic Genius was elected, and we all doubted what might become of us after His departure. Now, we have our answer. Bush's so-called `plans' are specious nonsense and @#$%&. He's still running on the remaining momentum of Clinton's genius, and that momentum is not intended to endure much past the next election if the Bushites get their way. They don't care for anyone but themselves, and again I say we are ALL expendable toward their ends.

    Tell THAT to Bush and Cheney. There's no way they can defend it, and it's true enough prima facie to strike a loud, broad, deep and resonant chord in the American psyche just about now. And that will get poll points and votes, in the hope that votes aren't stolen or misplaced this time around.

    Diebold has apparently promised otherwise. Look out.

    Nail these @#$%&, John. Hammer them, nail them, no mercy. A positive campaign has to include spraying parasites and pests when necessary, just as in any healthy household, and that's where we are now. Get me there with you to help guide things if necessary, since no one seems to be doing it so far, just get this election done and won, take my advice fast from afar or as near as you need, and we'll all be better off for it. We need you and Kerry in the White House. That is my singular focus in life at this point, because I love America, I love my fellow citizens, even most insane Republicans, I love the rest of the world, you and President Kerry do too, and the Bushites do not and cannot.

    The distinction now is between evil/greed and positive/progressive. We can't get the latter without bashing the former in the teeth. It's the only thing they understand and respect, and the American public are sitting like spectators in a Roman coliseum awaiting the insight, wisdom and correct response of would-be leaders. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was...

    Just get into the White House where you belong, and let's go from there. I see Kerry/Edwards through the next eight years, and Edwards/whomever (Hillary's chomping at the bit...) for another eight, so stay fit and do plenty of push-ups.

    America cannot continue to exist in the bowels of the current Beast. Four more years of the current cabal means fatal US public debt and foreign policy that guarantees increased terrorism, and that's that. We wait in the crosshairs, with less and less resources to defend ourselves because they were and continue to be borrowed and then misspent on bad, fatal policy.

    In the end, which can be near, it matters not at all to the Bush cabalists. They're fat and sassy in any case. For America, we end not with a bang, but a whimper, quite like the former USSR. It can happen to us, too. So it goes. I'm sure you understand.

    You think we have friends in this world who won't let us sink? Think again. It all changes once credit comes due and we can't pay up, and we're now only one or two more stiff recessions from irretrievable tailspin. And Herr Greenspan has already warned that we can no longer expect to honor our social security commitments, to which all American workers have paid in good faith, and who will now be robbed. And, unfortunately, he's right, thanks to the Cheney/Bush cabal. This was not in question when Bush stole the last election, just four long years ago.

    Let's make this take-no-prisoners hard-assed hard-edged clean-up and pest control attitude OUR little October surprise. God alone knows what the opposition has in store, but whatever it is, it's sure to be mean and very, very nasty. Letting through another attack would all but seal the election for them. Remember, as FDR said, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Our opponents know that, so, they supply plenty of it, to hold their position.

    Keep in touch. I am with you 110%, and will come to your side quietly and discreetly, at your sole discretion, any time you want.

    With best wishes,

    "US expat"

    Kharkov, Ukraine


    Don't be afraid of us mavericks. We're not the same as loose cannons. Don't forget, it was us mavericks who created the US to begin with. No regrets, it's been a good run. You have a real chance to keep it going.

    For now, just think of me as something like a Lee Atwater, without the brain disease - as far as I know. He, you, Clinton and I are all from the same neighborhood, but Atwater's dead now and long gone. Maybe there is a God.

    And: ask Colin Powell to stay on as Secretary of State. He's one of the good guys. He just might accept.

    Peace, love, and hard whoop-ass on the bad guys.

    Yours in service, balls to the wall,




    John Edwards, and by default JohnKerry, at least took most of my advice, the part of fighting, attacking, hammering the opposition. The record will show that attitude took root and started full bore around the first of October, a few days after my letter first hit Edwards' Senate office. But they lacked the courage to hammer the Bush cabal and say right out in front of God and the whole world - and especially US voters - who and what those people really are and what they're really doing. Nor did the feckless Edwards/Kerry campaign summon the good sense and insight to get me on board the campaign so I could goad, cajole, and generally irritate the living hell out of them on a daily basis. But I would have done it, because it was a Good Cause. And, we would have won. But they decided to play it cautious, safe, and be more polite, against the Dark Side. They refused to see the doom that awaited, and were just too afraid to point it out.

    Unless maybe some on the Dem side are also part of the Bush cabal. It's not a strict partisan thing, after all. Anybody can go rotten and join in, red or blue.

    The cause was lost. Just like I told them. But I still feel sick as hell about America's pending doom. It was a hard loss, and I don't think there's a snowball's chance in Hell that US Dems are going to figure out what went wrong. It was this: they/we failed for lack of courage to Tell The Truth to US voters. All the Truth they needed was in my letter, and I was surely not the only person to point it out one way or another. I figure I was probably more terse and succinct about it. Dems have run out of courage, our spine has collapsed from some dark strain of cowardice and cynical message calculation. How damned hard can it be to just stand up and tell the Truth, rather than tailor it a thousand different ways for how it will play to this, that or the other audience of voters on hand? God forbid, common consensus seems to be that US voters concluded that Cheney/Bush, among the lowest forms of human life, are more decent and moral than Kerry/Edwards. And all Edwards wanted, and wants, is for America to be a decent place for all Americans to live and call home sweet home. I still don't know what the hell Kerry wanted, exactly, but he's a good, decent man and one of the finest human beings ever to grace the Washington, DC cesspool. But, the Dems allowed exactly what I warned against, letting the Bush cabal twist and distort Truth beyond all recognition. If Dems had just told the Truth themselves, ALL of it, things would have worked out just fine.

    Edwards went on to become head honcho at University of North Carolina's new Center for Poverty, Work and Opportunity. Good, because I personally lit a fire under his ass about poverty in the US in November 2003, while languishing stateside in Chapel Hill. So there's a nice synchronicity. He stormed out of the gate with a sudden passion and fury about poverty and One America the following month, December 2003. Passion and fury are what he lacked. His campaign suddenly caught fire, and he ended up being the only serious competition for anybody-but-Bush Kerry. So be it.

    Colin Powell, the only good guy in Bush's administration, went on to resign immediately after the election. Good luck and Godspeed, Sir.

    Yushchenko went on to win the Presidency in Ukraine, because that was the righteous outcome to the Orange Revolution that demanded integrity, honesty, fair play, and an end to corruption. History is witnessing the emergence of a Great Man in Viktor Yushchenko. He survived poisoning by still only God knows who (but evidence is pointing to Russian conspiracy) and a massive propaganda campaign against him at the hands of one-sided government-controlled media, to emerge victorious by way of the hearts and minds of millions of Ukrainians who had the innate good sense and courage to know, and stand up for, right versus wrong, Truth versus lies, integrity versus corruption. Yushchenko had the courage to stand up in front of God and the whole world and tell the Truth. If US Dems had the same courage and moral compass, US history would have gone a very different course. Now, the US will be lucky to survive the Bush cabal, and a very decent man in Viktor Yushchenko will have to deal with men in US power who are just as bad and ruthless as the opponents he just displaced in Ukraine. Possibly Yushchenko will rub off on Bushites and somehow, to some degree, set them somewhat straight. It would be a bona fide miracle.

    I went on to get back to Ukraine in time for their Presidential election, which as I told a British friend in London one year ago had a real chance of turning into a revolution. I knew this baby from the inside out, via ways and means just too dark, vile and complicated to go into here. That's another story. The revolution unfolded magnificently. Ukraine's Orange Revolution stood in stark contrast to America's malaise and pending doom. Millions of people - people, ordinary citizens! - in a country of 48 million stood or camped in freezing weather for 19 days to refuse a stolen, rigged election, to insist that their voices, their votes, their will, be heard and recognized. Ukrainians got it right, at least enough to be headed full speed in the right direction in something near to real democracy. I have an uncanny knack for spotting these things, after all. I never even considered Iraq, and still don't, where people are dropping as often as shrapnel in the midst of war they didn't want, over democracy they don't really want, that all happened as a result of Cheney/Bush Inc. lying through their teeth about reasons for doing it to begin with. They finally came up with democracy as the real reason, when all other lies had failed.

    Is it possible to impeach an entire administration for lying to Congress and the American people? That could be America's last-ditch saving grace.

    The phrase "Nader Factor" went on to become a buzz phrase in print media, and therefore easier to marginalize and dismiss - along with Nader's campaign for truth, honesty, and integrity in US politics. He's a heretic, of course.

    Hunter S. Thompson, who had to be mentioned in the opening salvo of the letter in order to set the only possible context for any intelligent assessment of the 2004 election season, went on to check out entirely on February 20, 2005. I know the feeling. America has become too mildewed, dank, dark and foul to contain HST any longer. At some point, enough had to be enough, and I figure he knew better than anyone just when that time had arrived.

    Somehow, I'm thinking of a canary in a coal mine.



  • feedwordpress 09:04:49 on 2016/08/24 Permalink  

    The British Council, Social Enterprise and Trust 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/pb/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    "Paid for by The British Council" introduces the recent Guardian article from Rohan Martyres in which he questions the complacency of UK social enterprise when it comes to fraud.

    Paid for by an organisation supported by government funding should perhaps read "paid for by you taxpayers"  

    He's right to do so, however, from my experience of social enterprise in Ukraine.

    Within months of our introducing our social business model to the UK, we'd arrived in the midst of the Orange Revolution alongside local civic activists.

    Founder Terry Hallman had been involved in international social enterprise since 1999, and described his success in a 2004 interview about Russia and Crimea

    His articles on 'Death Camps for Children' spoke out about corruption within state childcare and he followed up with a proposal for social enterprise development which was in government hands by February 2007. It was described as a 'Marshall Plan' for Ukraine.

    It was published in a popular Ukrainian web journal in August 2007 and subsequently introduced directly to other parties which included USAID , the European Union, The British Council and Erste Bank.

    Introduction to the British Council should have been straightforward. We were already "doing business" in that the revenue generating component of our business supplied their offices in Manchester with a software product. It took time to get paid for our support.

    Sharing the Marshall Plan with the British Council in 2010 was a response to thei public solicitation for social enterprise partners.

    We soon learned that The British Council and USAID were partnering on social enterprise in Ukraine, bringing in PwC and Erste as partners.

    Terry wrote to PwC reminding them of the extent of corruption in Ukraine and our IP. 

     "I understand PwC is working with East Europe Foundation and British Council on BC's SE Project in Ukraine.

    I'm pleased to see this effort, and commend you on volunteering.

    However, there are some unaddressed legal issues involved. Namely, copyright. The entire project derives from

    I'm not sure it would be appropriate to call the project to a halt on grounds of Intellectual Property Rights violations because the project is so badly needed for Ukraine. I am sure that the Ukrainian side will not think twice about IPR violations. Ukraine remains among the worst locations in the world for such violations. Without IPR protections, it is extremely unlikely that social enterprise can take root in Ukraine. Reason: any social enterprise project, anywhere in the world, which is capable of turning a profit can have the 'social' part stripped out in favor of increased financial profit. If you understand Ukraine, you surely understand that is instinctive. There is no cognitive loop involved. Ukrainians see no point and assign no importance for IPR. IPR theft is an Ukrainian sport."

    In February 2008, it was a letter to USAID which introduced both our social enterprise plan and the extent of corruption in childcare which included reports of organ stripping from aborted foetuses, for a trade in body parts.  it was copied to the Senate FRC, where Joe Biden and Barack Obama were then resident.

    From there parrtnership was expanded to Ukraine's oligarchs and some of our Uk organisations like the John Smith Fellowship and Business in the Community.

    It also brought in the US Ukraine Business Council. As you may read in very recent news, this is where Paul Manafort would be found on the board. Manafort has recently been linked with resistance to free the imprisoned forrmer PM Yulia Tymoshenko    

    What Rohan Martyres says about cherry picking aligns interestingly with what we told PwC

    First, can we trust the social sector to eschew the borderline unethical practices that are all too common when UK and US public commissioners contract out social services? Examples include contractors that cherry pick only the most profitable parts of the commissioned services, or the more sophisticated strategy of “creaming and parking,” where contractors focus only on beneficiaries who are very easy to help and would likely have progressed anyway (the cream), and ignore (or park) beneficiaries that are more difficult to help. "

    A point that was also made by Terry Hallman when interviewed by Axiom in 2010:

    "Considering that businesses that issue no shares and therefore distribute no dividends may still offer a financial return, Hallman says he sees ROI as the preferred form of non-dividend financial distribution.

    “When we get into divvying up financial profits it’s too easy to get sidetracked by a myriad of possibilities along those lines,” Hallman tells Axiom News.

    “In that case there is distraction from the primary objective of any given project, the social concerns for people at risk of exclusion, or already excluded, from the opportunity to have a decent, safe, secure life.”

    Hallman adds that if “a lot of emphasis is placed on financial returns, the usual suspects can and will get in, figure out to how strip out the social aspects of social businesses and keep all profits to themselves.”

    “Think of the corporate raiders on the loose in the U.S. in the 1980s. Same thing. That mindset is the driving force that has created such need for social businesses to begin with.”

    Dealing with the problems of childcare reform, is where the British Council and their partners didn't want to go with their corrporate palliative. Neither did USAID:

    “UNICEF was willfully blind to the matter because it was just too dangerous to bother to intercede  Powerful interests remained entrenched with enforcers to make it dangerous.  Jurists were correct, in my view.  It was more a mafia operation than anything else, aimed at misappropriation and laundering of large money.  That was perfectly congruent with how Ukraine operated before the revolution.  USAID wanted nothing to do with it, nor would they fund any organizations or activists who might try.  Some things could be done and some things could not be done.  Helping these children was something that could not be done.  So, I exposed it and made it the central focus and metric of Ukraine’s microeconomic development blueprint.  In that context, it was far more difficult to ignore, dismiss, or argue about.  For about six months, I really did not expect to survive.  Nevertheless, Ukraine’s government finally conceded the point and announced the opening of more than four hundred new treatment centers for children who were theretofore invisible under tight and deadly enforcement.”


  • feedwordpress 14:51:29 on 2016/08/23 Permalink  

    Is social enterprise a palliative? 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/pb/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    In the following interview with the late Pamela Hartigan,  we may hear her question the effectiveness of social enterprise which requires it to be beholding to a sponsor.

    Twice she uses the term palliative to describe how disruptors are rendered accountable to their contracter and risk being coopted:  

    As most will know , the Skoll Centre at Oxford which Pamela headed, is sponsored by billionaire Jeff Skoll, co-founder of Ebay 

    More than a decade ago, it was a Black Women's group leader, Ruthie Gilmore of Incite! who drew our attention to the nonprofit industrial complex and how neoliberalims drives it. They had been unable to find a way to seed  and propagate change that was autonomous. Hence - "The Revolution Will Not Be Funded"

    "Noeliberalism is not new nice guys, it's new mean guys"

    it was on the Skoll Social Edge forum a decade ago, that advocates and practitioners for autonomous social innovation shared views on Profit for a Purpose

    it came at a time when we'd completed our proposal for a 'Marshall Plan' for Ukraine, which included this quote from General George Marshall in 1947

    "Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist. Such assistance, I am convinced, must not be on a piecemeal basis as various crises develop. Any assistance that this Government may render in the future should provide a cure rather than a mere palliative. Any government that is willing to assist in the task of recovery will find full co-operation I am sure, on the part of the United States Government. Any government which maneuvers to block the recovery of other countries cannot expect help from us. Furthermore, governments, political parties, or groups which seek to perpetuate human misery in order to profit therefrom politically or otherwise will encounter the opposition of the United States."

    As our late founder would point out in this paper. simply resolving the most urgent problems was not a permanent solution. we needed to think about how capitalism could be redirected for permanent change.

    Rather than becoming a McKinsey consultant, I simply shared what we'd bewen doing for their Long Term Capitalism initiative, where Re-imaginging Capitalism - The New Bottom Line became one of the most popular contributions:

  • feedwordpress 09:23:51 on 2016/08/20 Permalink  

    Housing development in the Forest of Dean 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/pb/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    Tuning in recently to the argument over a new development in Yorkley, I was reminded of what has been described as an open capital partnership.  A vehicle for shared investment and reward which isn't dependent on major financial investors:


  • feedwordpress 06:49:13 on 2016/08/14 Permalink  

    Closing Orphanages: Charity or Social Investment? 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/pb/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    When author JK Rowling discovered how children were mistreated in Czech orphanages, she was moved to act, creating a charity with the objective of closing down these insititutions. In 2006, a homeless man, rejected by UK immigration as a suspected economic migrant came across the same situation in Ukraine he first spoke out, then devised a plan to place all chidren in loving family homes through social investment . Terry Hallman was the founder of a social business, which applies profit for social outcomes. He would put his life on the line to make it happen.

    As JK Rowing, writing for the Guardian asks - Isn't it time we left orphanages to fairy tales?

    In Ukraine, these institutions called Psychoneurological Internats, had been described by a visiting NGO as resembling concentration camps  His series of articles on 'Death Camps for Chilidren would explore the conditions in which disabled children were kept and the corruption which excacerbated the problem.

    Terry Hallman's work was recognised in the BT Better World campaign:

    'Working in the Ukraine, he discovered that the standards of care given to disabled children in many orphanages were extremely poor, and that children often stood little chance of surviving into their teens.

    Terry wrote an insightful and shocking article, ‘Death Camps for Children’, which explored and exposed the key reasons behind the issue, such as a lack of funding, limited medical knowledge and large-scale corruption.

    He advocated immediate intervention, in particular for the creation of an adopters’ allowance to make caring for disabled orphans a more feasible option for Ukrainian families.

    This has since been announced as a policy statement by the Ukrainian Government, along with the introduction of more than 400 homes for disabled children.

    Thanks to Terry’s efforts, the future for some of Ukraine’s orphans looks brighter.'

    As Terry and JK Rowling have observed, the majority of orphans are only orphans in an economic sense, having parents who simply can't afford to look after them.

    For Terry, the answer was in part, investing not only in childcare reform, but in tackling poverty and corruption such that sustainable wealth could be created "bottom up", through local economic development.

    Childcare reform became the primary focus of a 'Marshall Plan' for Ukraine, which was delivered to government in February 2007  

    'This is a long-term permanently sustainable program, the basis for "people-centered" economic development. Core focus is always on people and their needs, with neediest people having first priority – as contrasted with the eternal chase for financial profit and numbers where people, social benefit, and human well-being are often and routinely overlooked or ignored altogether. This is in keeping with the fundamental objectives of Marshall Plan: policy aimed at hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. This is a bottom-up approach, starting with Ukraine's poorest and most desperate citizens, rather than a "top-down" approach that might not ever benefit them. They cannot wait, particularly children. Impedance by anyone or any group of people constitutes precisely what the original Marshall Plan was dedicated to opposing. Those who suffer most, and those in greatest need, must be helped first -- not secondarily, along the way or by the way. '

    (To be continued)



  • feedwordpress 09:13:21 on 2016/08/09 Permalink  

    The paradox of Long Term Capitalism 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/pb/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    In 2012 McKinsey's Long Term Capitalism initiative was a call to action, following an article in Harvard Business Review which warned of the potential crisis between business and society.  It would echo the concerns made some 15 years earlier, in my late colleague's treatise for Bill Clinton, warning of social unrest:

    "Modifying the output of capitalism is the only method available to resolving the problem of capitalism where numbers trumped people – at the hands of people trained toward profit represented only by numbers and currencies rather than human beings.  Profit rules, people are expendable commodities represented by numbers.  The solution, and only solution, is to modify that output, measuring profit in terms of real human beings instead of numbers."

    By the time I got to know about it,  The  awards had been made.  Interestingly one of the entries described what's know as the Fourth Sector, business which operates for social benefit

  • feedwordpress 08:20:48 on 2016/07/29 Permalink  

    Does the RSA really want Economics for Everyone? 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/pb/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    It was my late colleague Terry Hallman at the first of his presentations to the  International Economics for Ecology conference who said:

    "The question at hand is what to do next, and how to do it.  We all get to invent whatever new economics system that comes next, because we must."

    In 1996, Terry has conceived people-centered economic development and at the second of his presentations in 2010, the core argument from his position paper was preceded by this comment:

    "My 2009 presentation to this conference was titled “Economics in Transition: The 'Triple-Bottom Line' of financial, social benefit, and environmental benefits. Among three main areas of economics, the financial sphere remains dominant over social economics and environmental economics. The reason for this is very simple: in order for any system of economics to be sustainable over time, it must first be financially sustainable. If a system costs more than it produces, it requires infinite inputs over time. Infinite inputs are not available in a finite world, and we live in a finite world. If we pursue a system that costs more than it produces financially, it must and will necessarily collapse. But now, the financial system itself is broken: it costs far more than it produces."

     His paper concluded: 

    "Each of us who have a choice can choose what we want to do to help or not.  It is free-will, our choice, as human beings."

    In 2011, David Attenborough spoke at the RSA on the matter of infinite growth on a finite planet, quoting Malthus,


    "All people need and deserve, food, water, energy and space" said Sir David, noting the explosive growth of population.

    It also aligns with what people-centered economics argued about the need for a business model that puts people over profit maximisation:

    'It is only when wealth begins to concentrate in the hands of a relative few at the expense of billions of others who are denied even a small share of finite wealth that trouble starts and physical, human suffering begins. It does not have to be this way. Massive greed and consequent massive human misery and suffering do not have to be accepted as a givens, unavoidable, intractable, irresolvable. Just changing the way business is done, if only by a few companies, can change the flow of wealth, ease and eliminate poverty, and leave us all with something better to worry about. Basic human needs such as food and shelter are fundamental human rights; there are more than enough resources available to go around--if we can just figure out how to share. It cannot be "Me first, mine first"; rather, "Me, too" is more the order of the day.'

    The `1996 paper raised the question as to who could be considered of lesser value and disposable:

    “This is a tricky question. Except in the case of self-defense, if for any reason we answer “Yes”, regardless of what that reason is, we are in effect agreeing with the proposition of disposing of human beings. Whether disposal be from deprivation or execution, the result is the same for the victim. If we agree that sometimes, for some reasons, it is acceptable and permissible to dispose of human beings, actively or passively, the next question is “Which people?” Of course I will never argue that one of them should be me, though perhaps it should be you. You respond in kind, it cannot be you, but maybe it should be me. Not only can it not be you, it also cannot be your spouse, your children, your mother or father, your friends, your neighbors, but, maybe someone else. Naturally I feel the same way. Maybe we come to an agreement that it shouldn’t be either you or me, or our families and friends, that can be disposed of, but perhaps someone else. While we are debating this — passionately and sincerely, no doubt — a third party comes along and without warning disposes of the both of us, or our families, or our friends. And there is the trap we have fallen into, because whether or not we approve of our or our families’ and friends’ demise is irrelevant. It is fair because we accepted the principle of human disposability. We just didn’t intend that it be us who are tossed, but if we or our families and friends die, it is in accordance with principles that we ourselves have accepted and so must live — and die — by. “

    In 2004, an interview with a Crimean diaspora leader was among the things that introduced people-centered economics to the UK:

    "Essentially, P-CED challenges conventional capitalism as an insufficient economic paradigm, as evidenced by billions of people in the world living in poverty in capitalist countries and otherwise. Under the conventional scheme, capitalism - enterprise for profit - has certainly transformed much of the world and created a new breed of people in capitalist societies, the middle class. That is a good thing. But, capitalism seems to have developed as far as it can to produce this new class of fairly comfortable people between rich and poor, at least in the West where it has flourished for quite some time.

    The problem is that profit and money still tend to accumulate in the hands of comparatively few people. Money, symbolically representing wealth and ownership of material assets, is not an infinite resource. When it accumulates in enormous quantities in the hands of a few people, that means other people are going to be denied. If everyone in the world has enough to live a decent life and not in poverty, then there is no great problem with some people having far more than they need. But, that's not the case, and there are no rules in the previous capitalist system to fix that. Profit and numbers have no conscience, and anything done in their name has been accepted as an unavoidable aspect of capitalism."

    There was also our business plan to tackle poverty, calling on the New Labour government for support: 


compose new post
next post/next comment
previous post/previous comment
show/hide comments
go to top
go to login
show/hide help