This is how I call my theory. :-)
World now is in this stage. Complexity became unmanageable.
You can fight it by improving managment, improve help factors or reducing complexity.
Or rebuild the system so managment could cope with existing complexity.
Best way to do all of this.
Yet current elites use interesting approach. They fight for help factors - energy and resources, reducing access by others to them (more tensions).
Increase corporate and bank mergers as much as they can (to make complexity even more unmanageable).
And try to reduce soverinity of most countries. As they fear that people could get the idea that having all controls in their hands can be very advantageus.
Worst thing is that it won't work.
COME ON @Vitaliy_kiselev show your idea for god sake!!
I'll show later much more elegant solution.
As for 100% (even 70-80%) tax idea - it is awful for reality.
The only solution is to take excessive reward out of the system. I propose a 100% tax on all income over $100k US, worldwide. When there is no additional excessive reward at the end, efficiency instead will be the key motivator. The driver will become "how efficiently can I work to get my $100k, then go play..." Imagine spending most of your time going out, with people, have a drink, and listen to some live music every night (played by local musicians that also make $100k a year...) Utopia.
And imagine if no elected official had access to more than $100k of money per year. Imagine what good they could do with the world's wealth.
Tax isn't bad. Maybe it's the only realistic solution to human greed. Maybe it's the best driver beyond of the animal like hunter/gatherer evolution/explosion we have been through.
It will never happen. But then, I will never make a major movie alone either. But I can dream...
Plus ...They'd have to be at least a billionaire
Exactly in reverse. They will be forced by law as ANY other goverment clerk to be dog-poor.
Nor they or their families could own anything, only necessary, goverment owned things, are provided.
Plus ...They'd have to be at least a billionaire. Know any smart/credible billionaires?
Idea of collective ruling has really one target only - stability of existing hierarchical system. Same for very short terms for elected people, plus strange and frequently moving of smaller guys.
If you need big changes you need someone not caring for existing system much, and you also need to give him credibility and time.
I can totally see that too. Because in chaos, we seek strength / purpose / conviction, and if someone has it, it gives us a false reassurance and keeps our anxiety at bay.
Also our political, financial and moral / religious institutions have either failed or are failing us, and who remains for us to turn to? Assuming we need to turn to anyone else of course!
@bubba : hehe, exactly. And it happened before.... by the end of the 18th century, the great powers of the world had gotten into a balance (decline of the United Provinces, rise of England despite losing USA) and situations got extemely complicated (France helped the americans revolt against England and gain independence, and then there was a revolution in France, which brought a lot of chaos)...
Eventually, a strong man arose, and his name was Napoleon Bonaparte... he said "guys, stop fussing around, let's make war", and he beat the crap out of every other european country untill he sent 300.000 men to die in the Russian winter, and got beaten by England and Prussia... this is where England took momentum and became the n°1 power in the world.
Despite that, Napoleon brought some fundamental progressive reforms in France, like equal justice for all, the end of privileges, the fact that one had to earn a high ranking position in administration (via exams).
And i'm afraid this will happen soon again.....soon another Napoleon or Hitler will arise, bring progressive reforms, and use that popularity to make us go to war.
We need a "Strong Man" to arise! Someone who can reassure us that they know how to get things done ...and can handle the complexity. We need someone who can restore order! Are there any failed art students from Vienna among us?
How do you know if something is complex or simple?
Best thing with my approach is that you don't have to :-) State is bad if complexity can't be managed. And it can be exactly same thing and same managers, just with changed factors.
Like, bump oil price to, say $1000. And situation in many areas will become unmanageable :-)
A system is group of 2 or more elements; this can be in concept as in fisical world. When this elements interact in time its always a dynamic system,Those elements interact with each other, this brings changes in the system itself through space and time, via degradation, or evolution, it doesn’t matters it will always change its an intrinsicall characteristic of his dynamic nature.
So.
Anything complex is a system, its in its nature, for complexity you need more elements, if not is only simple. If no elements no system. The only complex system that can in time maintain itself its an idea, better if written in paper, even though this can degrade in time with ink, cos each one of this are systems and complex ones for itself. Paper is complex, ink for shure is if its modern one. So in time even your secure written idea can change literally.
So
Even if the idea prevale in time, and dont change, then it will become obsolete, cos in the nature for systems to change. If this systems are complex they will be more prone to change because of its quantity of elements and its emergent properties ( the new elements that are created by 2 or more elements inside the dynamic system )
So any idea you have @vitaliy_kiselev IT MUST CHANGE CONSTANTLY IN TIME just like software versions. If not will fail just like church ( no changes or minimal ones ) old fashioned schools, socialism, etc. Those systems complex ones are falling down cos one idea must never be the same in time. They bécame obsolete, they never changad.
So i assume your approach isn’t static one with radical only way solution ideas, cons in a complex system that wont work IN TIME. Also maybe in this time holistic approach must be considered.
My approach is very different. He tried more traditional planning. You'll see my absolutely different approach to planning later.
This is how I call my theory. :-) World now is in this stage. Complexity became unmanageable. You can fight it by improving managment, improve help factors or reducing complexity. Or rebuild the system so managment could cope with existing complexity. Best way to do all of this.
It's a good theory. Stafford Beer came up with something like this and the theory became known as management cybernetics.
Complexity is inherent in dynamic systems because their processes are often non-linear and therefore hard to observe and control. However, the only way to overcome complexity is to realise its existence in the first place. Knowledge about how regulation, control and communication function in every form of system needs to be applied – this knowledge is known as cybernetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_cybernetics
In 1970, Stafford decided to work independently, consulting in North America, Europe, India and South America. His outstanding commission, from President Salvador Allende was to be named Scientific Director of a project to manage Chile’s social economy as a real-time information system. By the time of the CIA sponsored coup on September 11, 1973, seventy-five per cent of nationalized industry was brought into the system with economic information not more than a day out of date, Many critics at the time dismissed this claim as impossible, based on the assumption that project Cybersyn ran on a traditional massive data base. They did not reckon on the selectivity of cybernetic modeling, particularly the Viable System Model, that limited data reported to the next level to around a dozen indices. In total, the Chilean models encompassed eleven levels of recursion from the shop floor to the national economy...
After Suez, and even more after Chile, he became disenchanted with the ability of the so-called establishment to look honestly at the situations before them and respond according to its own stated principles. He analyzed and criticized both the absence of political and economic justice in the world and the poverty of public and political debate. He was especially frustrated at the insistence of authorities that complex situations could be resolved by simple means. In one paper, he coined a word ‘ culpabliss’ to stand for culpable and willful ignorance of the certainty of unintended outcomes to poorly thought out programmes. But he was also committed to action. He advised people trying to improve the political process in Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela and Uruguay. Many became personal friends.
He also worked to incorporate democracy into group decision making. His design of the Team Syntegrity process was based on the need to provide requisite variety to the discussion of common issues. Syntegration is a non-hierarchical process where everyone plays a unique and equivalent role. He believed that cascading Syntegrations of thirty people each could provide an effective answer to the lack of requisite variety and of participation in public debate. His insistence that Syntegrations begin with an unconstrained focus and that the participants themselves develop the agenda was testimony to his belief that we must make the road as we walk and that people of good will can come up with the best answers for their own problems.
You can see the "financial innovations" of the last 20-30 years as an attempt by large institutions to make complexity unmanageable by anyone but themselves
No, all "innovations' had been made to fight with existing complexity. And they kind of work, temporary.
Unmanageable complexity is a seed to chaos.
Nope.
You can see the "financial innovations" of the last 20-30 years as an attempt by large institutions to make complexity unmanageable by anyone but themselves -- to make themselves, in effect, Masters of the Universe, and the only Masters of the Universe.
We saw how that one turned out.... And unfortunately, we seem to have gotten the worst of all possible outcomes -- unmanageable complexity, but still very high dependence on those same corrupt self-serving institutions. The fact that they can't manage that complexity makes them even more dangerous and parasitic than if they could.
Don't know for the "elite" agenda, but here in particular when you have to reduce complexity, you're facing a phenomenon known as "path dependency"* ; you can see that many times (if not always) : when one as to make a decision, he's partly dependent of past decisions even if they are completly irrelevant nowadays.
I do not completely get your point.
Yes, every complex system has big number of dependencies. Hence they are complex.
But if unmanageable complexity situation happens simple evolutional approaches, meeting and committee and other shit, won't work. It just follows from the name of situation - unmanageable. Normal managment approaches can't handle situation. Yet, look at corporations and political elites, it seems like each year they double number of meetings and conferencies.
"You can fight it by improving managment, improve help factors or reducing complexity."
Don't know for the "elite" agenda, but here in particular when you have to reduce complexity, you're facing a phenomenon known as "path dependency"* ; you can see that many times (if not always) : when one as to make a decision, he's partly dependent of past decisions even if they are completly irrelevant nowadays.
Best example (well... best scholar example) is the QWERTY/AZERTY keyboard. If the system was relevant with early mechanical writing machine to prevent clash of neighboring typebars of commonly used letter-pairs, the first and only purpose of this system is completly useless with our electronic keyboard. Better (or more efficient) system exist like the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard... yet QWERTY rules.
The whole eco-system around QWERTY (from the habits of the final user to the interest of producers : manufacturer & company selling specific training courses for typewriters since decades, etc.) it seems that change the system is more expensive than the immediate gain it would allow.
Paul Pierson was the first to import this concept in sociology from economical theories (in "Dismantling the wellfare state", 1984). Although I don't like his conclusions (nor the political bias of the whole school of "organizational theory") it remains a very interesting reading along many books of this branch of sociology on specifics state administration/business company, etc.
PS : I'm sure that you can find online good description of the "path dependency" theory : i.e. in english not in froglish like mine :-)
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!