The End Of Britain:: The downward slide has begun


Britain is about to be flattened by a tidal wave of debt. It doesn’t matter if you vote Conservative, Liberal, Labour, UKIP – or for no party at all. The facts are the facts.

Let’s take a look at some numbers…

Two and a half years ago, when the Coalition government formed, we were already in a huge amount of debt. In fact, the previous government had left the country sinking under £700 billion’s worth. Take a look at the following chart:

UK_Public_Debt.jpg

Source: ukpublicspending.co.uk Read more of this post

The Other Financial Crisis – Project Syndicate


The author is far better qualified than I to comment on the matter but I do believe I have a worthwhile, if not ‘contribution’ then, comment or question. Money is no more than a promise based upon the assumption of future economic growth. Is the enabler of innovations (driven by new thinking, collaboration and technology) required to fuel that growth but is constantly being devalued as a result of the current economic climate, so is in short supply: how do we expect to achieve the required growth? Doesn’t that make ideas and innovation a more bankable currency than conventional money? My conclusion: This IS an ‘Innovation Economy’ where ideas are worth more than money but will be left to whither on the vine without it!

Proper access to credit for productive segments is an integral part of a well-functioning economy. Without it, growth falters, job creation is insufficient, and widening income and wealth inequality undermines the social fabric. That is why any comprehensive approach to restoring the advanced countries’ economic and financial vibrancy must target the proper revival of private credit flows.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/advanced-countries–private-credit-crunch-by-mohamed-a–el-erian

Micro, Macro, Meso, and Meta Economics – Project Syndicate


If classical economics is known to be ‘incomplete’, so deeply flawed or theoretical to be useful in the real world WHY do they still try to tell us…anything? WHY do we still place so much store in what Economists tell us?

The British economist Fritz Schumacher understood that human institutions, as complex structures with dynamic governance, require systemic analysis. He defined meta-economics as the humanizing of economics by accounting for the imperative of a sustainable environment; thus, he included elements of moral philosophy, psychology, anthropology, and sociology that transcend the boundaries of profit maximization and individual rationality.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/new-thinking-in-economics-by-andrew-sheng-and-geng-xiao

Ontonix have, recently, developed a tool to deal with Large Ecosystems: MetaNet™

Schumpeter, interrupted:: the impact of “destructive creation”


Euskara: Joseph Schumpeter ekonomialaria

Euskara: Joseph Schumpeter ekonomialaria (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I wrote a couple of articles last year, citing the lack of creative destruction in UK Finance and Insurance as a problem, so it is very interesting to read this article. Also good to know that the trend for non-conventional thinking is flourishing at Bank of England.

destructive creation: the type of self-serving innovation intended to improve [short term] returns at the expense of or with out benefit to the customer.

I use the term “unconventional” but, when reading this paragraph, I was reminded of Gresham’s Law. Further food for thought perhaps…

If this is true, it suggests that the economy is suffering from a failure to innovate. Joseph Schumpeter, the granddaddy of innovation economics, first described the innovative process of one of creative destruction, of good ideas driving bad ones to the wall and of capital being reallocated, often rapidly and disruptively, from the old to the new. Broadbent’s analysis suggests that we need more of this if the economy is to recover.

via Schumpeter, interrupted. – Nesta.

Public managers should stop telling people how to behave | guardian.co.uk


Dave Clements has flagged-up further evidence of, what we [at Ontonix] have come to recognise as, EXCESSIVE COMPLEXITY. The inevitable culmination of years [and layers] of mismanagement, fluctuating budgets, changing legislation, increasing regulation, conflicting strategies – often driven by Corporate interests and, of course, a healthy measure of ill-conceived (often purely politically motivated) knee-jerk reactions to the latest crisis.

All-in-all a hybrid form of institutional abuse…the kind that kills trust, fails service users, drains frontline initiative, hurts society and paralyzes the institution!

“Thumbs up” to a transparent Big Society, built from the bottom up: collaboratively. But a “double thumbs down” to a prescriptive, top down approach.     

A truly active citizen acts of their own accord and not according to the imperatives of public management. The good news is that by ditching the policing of people’s behaviour we might emulate the vision of a big society in which responsible citizens take the reins. This is why we should adopt an alternative approach: one that genuinely enables people’s autonomy rather than smothering their initiative.