Me, in favor of and against... free market think tanks

I believe profoundly in that our world is driven forward by the risk-takers operating in a free market. And as typical risk-adverse citizen it behooves me to fight for that to be happening.

And that is why even though I admire profoundly many free-market think tanks, their silence on two issues extremely important for me, drives me nut.

1st. I hate it that when free-market supporters imply that if only there was a free market supporter in charge of the government, he would be able to overcome the problems that the concentration of power in governments cause… like that of 98% of all my nation’s, Venezuela, exports going into the government coffers. That is intellectually dishonest of them!

2nd. I hate it when free-market supporters ignore the distortions in the allocation of credit to the real economy that risk-based capital requirements for banks produce, and have it in their minds, that someone should stop their banks from taking risks, so that their money is safe. That is also intellectually dishonest of them!

The Hugo Chavez Revolution cheated the poor

And before “Chavistas” stop reading this let me point out that the title does not imply that Hugo Chavez, as a person, deceived the poor, all the time, since for sure he himself was also much deceived by some of his most dedicated followers.

So let me explain the Great Deception.

If there is one thing that the Chavez Revolution holds, is that it foremost works for the poor of Venezuela... and it congratulates itself with reports where the Gini coefficient evidences that inequality has declined in Venezuela. Well ... that is completely false unless you want to argue that this was achieved by impoverishing many of those who had something more.

(PS. In fact some Bolivarian Revolution revolutionaries have confessed their need of keeping the poor poor)

But the Gini coefficient in itself contains falsehoods. As an example, its calculations, for “methodological" reasons, does not include the income of those who became rich via corruption and deviation of funds, like the “boli-bourgeois” (the new rich) and the “briefcase companies” (a name for those who have abused the foreign exchange controls)

And I can argue the Great Deception even stronger.

Imagine that the government had not directly given dollars to other countries or purchased services at inflated prices (Cuban doctors and nurses)

Imagine that the government had not given away the gasoline in Venezuela ($ 6 cents per gallon, € 1.5 cents per liter) and had sold it at its international price.

Imagine that it has not sold cheapo-dollars to those traveling abroad

Imagine that it has not sold cheapo-dollars for imports, those who benefit criminal importers, for instanbce those who over-invoice, or good faith importers, by providing very generous distribution margins ... and which all ultimately delivers only a tiny portion of benefits to the population which, precisely because it is poor, consumes less imports.

And imagine instead that all these resources just HAD BEEN distributed equally in cash among all Venezuelans.

In such a case, I assure you that the Gini coefficient would have shown a vastly larger, more real and more sustainable reduction of inequalities in Venezuela.

So you the poor of Venezuela and you the middle class in the process of being part of the poor in Venezuela, demand your share of the net oil revenues, in cash, in dollars.

And please, I beg you, stop being so naïve as to believe the story that some experts, no matter where they come from, no matter how beautiful they speak to you, know better than what you know what to do with an amount that can represent 150-250 dollars monthly for each one of you 

PS . Reading about some new government efforts to further indebt our country, I beg our students: “You, who would be the surest payers of this debt, declare that debts, incurred only to postpone much needed corrections are "odious", and that therefore you have not the slightest intention of sacrificing yourself by paying these.

PS . Some thoughts during Christiane Amanpour’s interview of Nicolas Maduro:

How can one ask other countries for respect when one disrespects one’s own countrymen?

How can one ask for a multi-polar world while requiring a single-polar country?

How can a government which manages 98% of all the exports of the country, declare itself so innocent of its problems?

How can you say to sleep like a baby and wake up with such large bags under the eyes?

Do you think that Hugo Chavez would sleep happy as Maduro says he does, when so much unhappiness abounds?

Some countries have governments that washes brains, Venezuela has one which is brainwashed

Translated from El Universal

https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2014/07/today-i-was-censored-in-my-homeland.html

USA, if you are not the policeman of the world, why should we hold so mindboggling many of your “In God We Trust” dollars?

My father, arriving as a polish prisoner on the first train to Auschwitz on June 14 1940, number 245, was liberated by the Americans from Buchenwald, April 14, 1945. So I might certainly be biased, in favor of the United States acting as the policeman for the world. At least biased in favor of the United States I believe existed, and still hope and pray for that exists. (So I guess I just confessed that I might not be the so "radical of the middle" on all issues.)

And that is why I keep on warning about that if the United States reneges on being the policeman for the world, or becomes ashamed of its strength, then the world might renege on trusting the US to such an extent as to hold a mind-boggling amount of its dollars, backed by a "In God We Trust". Approximately China holds $1.3 trillion, Japan $1.1 trillion and the rest of the world $3.1 trillion. And so you see, there might be quite a lot of subconscious quid pro quo involved here.

PS. Obama ended his September 10 speech saying “America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.”

And frankly, to act only when only “modest effort and risk” is required, is not what has made America so great, at least not in the eyes of this small human being, who much owes his existence to the huge and brave sacrifices of America.

PS. It is also absolutely clear that Putin, when ending his Op-ed in the New York with “we must not forget that God created us all equal”, after referring to “big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy”, has exclusively those who are governing the countries mind, those who so often shamelessly hide behind the skirts of sovereignty; and not for a second, not even remotely, is Putin thinking about the citizens who are governed, those who were the prime concern of America's founders.

And so, if "America is not the world’s policeman"...should Europe declare a state of emergency?

And please, if as a policeman, one one occasion, for your own reasons, want or need to restrict the punishment to something symbolic, is not that it is only symbolic, sort of the last thing you would want to say? 

And this is not the first time I have raised the issue of the dollar and America's military strength... and will to exercise it. Here in a letter in Washington Post

http://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2013/01/handcuffed-by-triple-rating.html

Oh, and just in case. I am not talking about a war against Syria, but a war against the use of chemical weapons.

And to fight and punish the use of banned chemical weapons, requires a willing, and, hopefully a strong, firm and good policeman, with a great sense of justice.

Or, are we telling our mostly dead grandfathers, their Geneva Protocol prohibiting chemical weapons was pure nonsense? Do we now want it repealed? I pray not.

And America, please do not confuse war with servicing as a police. A police detains when there are infractions… he does not build nations.

And if the United States is not willing to be the policeman of the world, to help enforce laws they have also agreed with, would the world have to pray for some vigilantes to do that?

Surely all human rights criminals who hide behind the skirts of sovereignty, must be celebrating the USA not wanting to be the policeman of the world! 

And in reference to the case of Syria, below I quote from “Questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask” by Max Fisher, The Washington Post, September 1, 2013 "What’s the big deal with chemical weapons?" 

"War is going to happen. It just is. But the reason that the world got together in 1925 for the Geneva Convention to ban chemical weapons is because this stuff is really, really good at killing civilians but not actually very good at the conventional aim of warfare, which is to defeat the other side. You might say that they’re maybe 30 percent a battlefield weapon and 70 percent a tool of terror. In a world without that norm against chemical weapons, a military might fire off some sarin gas because it wants that battlefield advantage, even if it ends up causing unintended and massive suffering among civilians, maybe including its own. And if a military believes its adversary is probably going to use chemical weapons, it has a strong incentive to use them itself. After all, they’re fighting to the death.

So both sides of any conflict, not to mention civilians everywhere, are better off if neither of them uses chemical weapons. But that requires believing that your opponent will never use them, no matter what. And the only way to do that, short of removing them from the planet entirely, is for everyone to just agree in advance to never use them and to really mean it. That becomes much harder if the norm is weakened because someone like Assad got away with it. It becomes a bit easier if everyone believes using chemical weapons will cost you a few inbound U.S. cruise missiles."

What a sad bunch of “progressives”, and what a sad bunch of “free-market supporters”, you both groups are

Current capital requirements for banks favor the access to bank credit of “The Infallible”, like the sovereigns and the AAAristocracy, those already favored by markets, because they are perceived as “absolutely safe”; and thereby discriminate, odiously, against the access to bank credit of “The Risky”, like the small businesses and entrepreneurs, those already discriminate against by the markets, precisely because they are perceived as “risky”.

What a sad bunch of “progressives” you are, not caring about widening the gap between “The Infallible” and “The Risky”

What a sad bunch of “free-market supporters” you are, not caring about how the current bank regulations distort.

“Oh but it is all to make our banks safer” Bullshit! Our banks are never ever threatened by what is perceived as “risky”, only what is considered “absolutely safe” cause major crises.

"The ‘Mistake’ that shall not be named” Journal of Regulation and Risk - North Asia 

To download the whole Journal of Regulation and Risk - North Asia, Volume V Issue II Summer 2013: here

God make us daring!

Is not the interest that is not earned on public debt because of public policies a tax?

In terms of taxation, who is affected by a higher real tax rate?

Someone earning 5 percent in interest on public debt and, supposing a tax rate of 20 percent, then has to pay 1 percent in taxes, resulting in net earnings of 4 percent, or, 

Someone only earning only 3 percent on public debt, because of QEs, lower capital requirements for banks when lending to sovereign, and other fancy stuff causes lower interest rates on public debt.

You tell me, or better yet, tell them! on public

Should not capital, under some circumstances, also have the right to political asylum?

Sir, Philip Hildebrand, in “The Sheriff has spoken - and the Swiss must submit” June 10, discusses the recent US “ultimatum giving Swiss banks 120 days to hand over the identities of presumed US tax evaders”. And reaching his conclusion he bring up the image of John Wayne.

But, what if the Sheriff is not a good straight shooter like John Wayne, and the Sheriff works for a bandit? Just as individuals have a right to political asylum, should not capital have it?

Whatever the Swizz legislator comes up when creating the bridges necessary to solve the current impasse I sure hope somewhere somehow sets a very high bar for what a government has to do in terms of governability and fair treatment of its citizens, before it can apply for some information to be conveyed. And of course, what governments need to do in order to keep those rights. For instance some countries to not allow the expulsion of even convicted criminals if that could mean that a death sentence could be imposed on him.

I hope the US, and John Wayne, do not rush into a duel without giving full consideration to all its ramifications. In fact I wonder whether this is really an issue between governments, with their many conflicts of interests. Should it not be much more an issue between the citizens?

PS. Nothings as powerful against tax havens than tax heavens

On the voice of the indigenous

Just to be perfectly clear about it, I do not feel less indigenous to this planet than anybody else.

And I sure hope and expect that the World Bank will “listen with heart and soul” to my voice too.

On a global scale, on an accumulated basis, there is certainly some need for tax-havens, meaning for some Sherwood Forests

Not everywhere, but truth is that in the majority of countries, the need of many citizens for a safe-haven, a Sherwood Forest, so as to escape from bad Prince Johns’ Sheriffs of Nottingham who, skimming them, just waste away fiscal income, surpasses by far the needs of all citizens for Robin Hoods able to skim some of the “filthy” rich. 

You have to make up your mind whether you are a Sheriff of Nottingham, or a Robin Hood, you can´t be both. 

Nothing as effective against tax-havens than tax-heavens

There is an underlying and never questioned premise that guides most discussions today, and that is… If all profits are taxed and all taxes are paid then the world is saved. 

I do not want to be a party pooper, and I definitely do not suggest, much less instigate, we should evade paying our taxes, but... are we really sure that a tax paid will be more productive than a tax withheld? 

What if we all have to go the route of an economia sommersa, and not pay taxes, in order for the world not to collapse? Do we not at least owe our children and grandchildren asking that question? So as to at least put some pressure on our governments?

There was a time when indeed a Robin Hood tax was contemplated but that has now only evolved into a questionable Sheriff of Nottingham-Prince John tax. 

The famous infamous progressive gap wideners.

Banks currently need to hold much more capital against exposures to “The Risky” than for exposures to “The Infallible”, and this even though “The Risky” already needs to pay higher interest rates, get smaller loans and accept harsher terms. That only hinders growth and widens the gap between the haves, the old, the history, the developed, “The Infallible” and the have-nots, the young, the future, the not developed, “The Risky”. 

Those who do not care about it, or even feel it is correct, are de-facto complicit of crimes against humanity. 

Among these we find some Nobel prize winners’ like Professors Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman. 

In UK some banker's knighthoods are being recalled, perhaps some Nobel prizes should be recalled too.

You, the young, you need to denounce these stodgy aprės nous le déluge baby-boomers.

I tweeted as I have never done before

I have heard and read a bit here and there about “What happened in Benghazi?”, but I do not know sufficiently in order to have a firm opinion on it. Of course, for someone who comes from Venezuela, just the fact that there was a public congressional questioning on that issue, transmitted on TV, was something to marvel at. 

And I might have just been expecting too much, but when I saw one of the questioner, and I will not say who, seemingly doing the utmost to stir the questioning in such a way that nothing could come out of it, then I just felt such a deep disappointment that, like I never do, I shot out a barrage of #Benghazi tweets. 

Now the day after, from some distance, I am not sure I should have done that, though I suspect that, facing the same all over again, I would.

Never make a rhetorical question on the web

You will get hundred of unwanted volunteers willing to answer it :-)

Hugo Chavez and the poor of Venezuela

Now upon his death, we often hear news-media reporting in reference to Hugo Chavez, that he helped to pull a lot of Venezuelans out of poverty. That is simply not true. 

Hugo Chavez did indeed help many poor to live better in poverty, good for him, but that is far different than pulling poor out of poverty. To do so exceeded by far Hugo Chavez’s capabilities, and that of his collaborators. 

Those Venezuelans who did manage to pull themselves out of poverty, did that entirely on their own, or with the help of oil revenues and corruption and very little else.

Who picks what is cut by "Sequestration 2013"?

Huffington Post sent me an amazing list of cuts in Maryland that “Sequestration 2013” would bring. Who picks some of these utterly dumb cuts? Is there not something more worthy of the ax?

Can the mighty US really crumble into pieces because of an $85bn lowering of its budgeted growing fiscal expenses? It could be, because from what I read everywhere, they seem to be intent to cut many of the last things that should be cut.

Call 1-877-JOE-4-OIL

If there are Venezuelans going through horrible darkness, as surely there are, and they can't find a job, and the prices of the essentials only go up, perhaps they should give a little call, asking for a little help, to former United States Senator Joseph P. Kennedy II, at 1-877-JOE-4-OIL

The JOE that, by way of a “Citizens Heating Energy Program”, is dedicated to a fabulous job of helping the poor in various American cities.

On the website of that organization we find, for example, the following testimonials:

Laura Austin: "Throughout the entire process I found a staff who was attentive and able to listen to our misfortunes and always ready with helping hands."

Tonya Wilson: "God uses people and organizations like yours as a blessing to those in need and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Thanks to you, we are able to stay warm on cold winter nights."

Karin Paine: "Four days ago, I ran out of oil. Two days later, I received my voucher. It brought tears to my eyes because now I can continue to recover from very serious surgery and not worry about how to stay warm."

However, the point is that according to the expensive television spots that are broadcast every so often, this program is announced as financed by Citgo, the Venezuelan people and by the currently absent Cacique on duty... and that last thing makes me angry. Even when you accept that Citgo may have an advertising interest, when it comes down to it, the program is financed exclusively by the Venezuelan people.

The absent Cacique, as a Venezuelan citizen, what he has put in is only about a thirty millionth part of our barrels and, the Venezuelan people, everything, everything else. So, what right does that Cacique have to do so much publicity for himself with what belongs to others?

Am I complaining about that JOE? Not! He also takes advantage of this program for personal advertising, but who can complain about someone helping their own, even when is is done at the expense of others.

During the week Venezuela has devalued the official rate of the bolivar, which is not the same as a devaluation of the bolivar, since that presumes that such official rate was a reflection of the real value of our bolivar, and that is not. The bolivar rate is the result of dividing all the bolivars used in Venezuela by all the dollars purchased. The fact that we do not know that rate, because some do not want it to be known, does not make it any less certain. Moreover, reducing what is given away via the official rate may even result in a revaluation of the real bolivar.

And another lie that circulates is the one that says that the poor are the ones who will suffer the most from the devaluation of the official rate, and as if the poor were the ones who would have benefited the most from an exchange system, which could have been justified. in a moment of acute crisis, it is maintained only on account of its usefulness to extort favors, and allow enrichment that is definitely not that of the poor.

I had always been a defender that the country should operate with its own currency, since not doing so would mean sacrificing a very useful monetary policy instrument in times of crisis. However, the continued ineptitude of our governments has led me to think that perhaps we should become dollarized, or since the dollar may also be somewhat doubtful, distribute our oil results in gold morocotas among the citizens.

Translated from El Universal

https://www.citizensenergy.com/meet-the-team

 

The Nobel Prize Committee should do an ego check on the candidates.

Perhaps the Nobel Prize Committee should previously to awarding the Nobel Prize do an ego check. If the candidate is going to be humbled by the prize that is Ok but, if this is going to inflate his ego too much, it might better refrain from awarding him the prize. 

When I look around I find it amazing how often Nobel Prize winners, with egos inflated by the Nobel Prize so often opine straight bullshit, on issues completely outside of what made them be Nobel Prize winners, and even so are listened to, only because they are Nobel Prize winners. 

And this clearly creates more dangers than the benefits implicit in recognizing big minds.

Alternatively the Nobel Prize Committee should reserve itself the right to ask for the return of the Nobel Prize, though not the prize money.

The homeland defense

Recently, the commander in chief of the armed forces of Sweden opined his country could probably defend against a foreign invasion for about seven days. Seven days! No more? As you can imagine heated discussions began. 

As my mother is Swedish and therefore speculating I know something of the realities of this country, my first reaction was: It all depends on who the invader is. If for example Norway brought along the oil Sweden does not have, perhaps not even a single bullet would suffice, as no one would like to register the death of a single Norwegian soldier died. If instead the invader was the "archenemy" Russia, they may wish to have ammunition for 7 months, if for 7 or 70 years is not possible. 

And I wondered: For how many days are the military in Venezuela prepared to defend their homeland? I imagine that there the answer would depend on who answers ... and we might be better off not hearing it. 

Back to Sweden: If the preparation of the military is just for seven days, for how many days is the Swedish citizen willing to defend his country? I say this because this is as or even more important than the capacity of the military for the final result, and countries such as Sweden who have abolished compulsory military service, might be signaling some lack of wanting. 

And I ask: How many days would the Venezuelan be willing to defend? Would it be the same regardless of whether the invader is Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, the United States, Russia or China? 

Getting back to Sweden: Today, what means preparing for war? I ask this because if I were Defense Minister of a country, before asking more from the military, I would perhaps wish to prohibit all youngsters between 11 and 18, during one full year, to use all modern digital communication tools. And this in order to make them learn about the real world, in a real way and not only by virtual means. For example so they learn to orient themselves with a compass and must not always depend on a GPS to tell them where they find themselves.

And I wondered: what does it mean in Venezuela to defend the country from a foreign invasion, when we can’t even defend the access of our youth to their own streets, leaving these in the hands of the underworld? 

Back to Sweden: And are the territorial boundaries the most important frontiers to defend? What about communication boundaries, or regulatory boundaries? A country such as Sweden which became what it is because of the ability and willingness of its citizens to take risks, and in whose churches they prayed "God make us daring", now, and without realizing it, has allowed all its banking system to be invaded by a Basel Committee which with its regulations imposes a stupid aversion to what they perceive as risky. What can be more risky for a country than an exaggerated risk aversion? 

And I wondered: And are the borders of our land really so important when some military and some civilian, without one single bullet, seem willing to give up so much of our national sovereignty to another country? 

And I calmed myself somewhat by thinking that in truth seven days are few and insufficient days, only if the invader’s invading capacity is of eight days or more. 

PS. By the way my mother does not harbor any fear that hordes from the Venezuelan plains, commanded by a Genghis-Zamora-Khan, would invade Sweden. Phew what a relief!

Translation from El Universal, Caracas

Negotiations at the Fed’s pawn shop

From what we hear some want the US government to go to the Fed’s-pawn-branch and pawn, for 1 trillion US$, a freshly minted commemorative platinum coin that has a face value of 1 trillion US$, and use the money to pay part of what it owes to the Fed. 

Some say that would not be inflationary since “none of the money represented by that coin could be spent until appropriations were passed by Congress and signed by the President.” 

Why did I not think of it before? I have an old beautiful and magnificent painting painted by an aunt of mine who passed away a long time ago, and which must be worth a real fortune. Why do I not take it to the bank and have them take it in partial payment of my credit card debt, so as to allow me some availability of funds under the debt ceiling they have imposed on me? In return, me and my wife would promise not to use that window of opportunity... except for things really important... :-) 

Of course, if the transaction is carried out, both me and the bank must keep this very quiet since if my neighbors would find out, there could be a run on the bank, as they for sure would not want to run the risk of having their savings for their children being paid back tomorrow with that old lousy ugly painting that I have had to keep hanging in my house only because my family wants me to respectfully commemorate my aunt’s works.

Really, how would markets react to the US substituting “In a trillion dollar platinum coin (or two) we trust” for “In God we trust”?

When you have a painting hanging on the wall that the markets, for their own reasons, have decided is worth a lot, and based on that they lend you money, you do not even talk about hanging a new painting on your wall without running severe risks.

PS. That said, bank capital/equity requirements with decreed risk weights of 0% Federal Government and 100% We the People, topped up with QEs, dooms America, sooner or later, to try to find a friendly pawn shop.

In order to maximize the power of redistribution in the society, what is the optimum dependents to maintainers ratio?

Is it where the curve of the marginal benefit of the dependents touches the marginal cost curve of the maintainers?

For instance, as an economist, if I wanted to be a dependent, which by itself is not something to sneer at, I would like the number of dependents set at that maximum number which maximizes my benefits as a dependent, or at least where it does not fall under what would be my expected benefit, as the least successful of the maintainers.

Hearing so much about the power of redistribution, it would be interesting to see for instance a study that tries to determines the optimum ratio of dependents to maintainers in a society, and how that ratio might change over time, and under which circumstances. For instance, are there some societal benefits to be expected from educating the dependents to be really good dependents? Like Dependency 101?

PS. As percentages might be discussed, just so there is no confusion, If I could chose, I would of course prefer to be part of the one-percenters, on the top, and this even though I might have to maintain some few more dependents.

Crony academic research

Crony research is when academic researchers cross reference papers that really add nothing to nothing… in “I reference You - You reference me”, “I invite you as a prominent expert – You invite me as a Prominent Expert” and “We publish you – You publish us” rituals. 

Crony research shamefully clogs up the system impeding the view of truly important research, and often leads sometimes for the debate on important issues to be dangerously monopolized by charlatans with a PhD or past luminaries who once in their life had an interesting and fresh thought and have been living on it ever since… thanks to crony research 

I am not an academician and so there might actually be some rules that apply and could stop a runaway crony research, but, if so, I am certain these are not sufficiently enforced.

PS. Other names for that would be: Network Incestuous Research, Mutual Admiration Club Research or 100% Guaranteed Group-Think Research.

PS. Beware of how artificial intelligence might lead us into incestuous relations... with ourselves.

It looks like we’re toast!

As a former Executive Director of the World Bank, 2002-2004, living close to Washington, writing articles and being an assiduous blogger, I’ve been in the middle of many discussions about those many challenges our world faces. And, my friends, I am sorry to say, our prospects to solve these problems, do not seem good.

One of the main reasons for that negative outlook, is that I have been able to witness how the discussion of many of these problems, no matter how urgent they are, so often get hijacked by a political agenda, or by a group that decides making a business, or a living, out of it. 

If we cannot break out of this mold, unfortunately, the world is toast, and this is of course not only meant from a global warming perspective.

Cantinflas, he really deserved a Nobel Price!

A true radical of the middle… a true extremist of the center

Why should government give a 40 hour job to anyone while there are citizens with not even a one hour job?

If government takes on some responsibility for creating jobs, it should do so by gradually increasing the minimum amount of hours of work for all workers. Start with one hour and move up from there! 

If government takes on some responsibility for creating jobs, it has no role in creating more hours of work to one who already has more than the average hours of work.

Please read “We need worthy and decent unemployments”

Standards and quality rating agencies for Knowledge Networks

How to guarantee the good quality of knowledge networks? was a question posed in the recent Mobilizing Knowledge Networks for Development at the World Bank.

At our table we conversed about the need for a Quality Standard, a sort of an ISO 9000, so that each participant was able to better identify what knowledge network he was getting involved with, so as not to lose his valuable time and efforts, or end up unwillingly exploited.

We also conversed about the possibility of having knowledge-network-quality rating agencies, rate the networks, initially based on some few but important variables, like the following:

Clarity of purpose

Clarity of rules of engagement

How it complies with the above (A network Ombudsman?)

True diversity (and respect for differing opinions)

If there is an interest out there in this community to further the discussions on this issue, at least I would be glad to participate, but someone else would have to manage that process, since because of other engagements I would not be able to get a good quality rating doing so.

perkurowski@gmail.com     

We might need a Global Web Constitution, and Inspection Panels, to get along well with the Googles and Facebooks of this world

The role of a Constitution is foremost to defend the citizens from government abuses. In this respect, and since one of the most important issues of our time is how to guarantee acceptable relations between us, the small users, and they, the gigantic information and or knowledge dissemination machines that govern so much of how we communicate, and handle so much of private information on us, like Google and Facebook, one could say that we are in a dire need of a Web Constitution. 

Also, “Don’t be evil”, is for instance, a company motto of Google and which supposedly precludes them from manipulating rankings to put their advertising or content partners higher in their search results. That sounds great… exactly how it should be… but, how can we make certain that the supposedly is for real and that a company follows its motto and declared principles, and that we can trust it as much as we should, for ours and theirs benefit? Perhaps Google and Facebook should establish something like the Inspection Panel of the World Bank, which is there to guarantee, to the rest of the world, that the World Bank follows the rules and principles it has itself declared to follow. 

The last thing we citizens need is for these tech-giants to enter into joint venture agreements with Big Brother.

PS. This is a speculation which resulted from a conversation with my daughter Alexandra Kurowski

PS. And, for me, when managing knowledge, it is also extremely important to make sure that does not pose any treat to the biodiversity of knowledge development… as we can never know where the next world saving idea can come from.

PS. Below more comments related to this theme!

https://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2019/05/i-have-some-ideas-about-what-could.html

http://teawithft.blogspot.com/2014/07/facebook-i-want-to-be-happy-so-if-you.html

http://teawithft.blogspot.com/2007/06/in-search-of-answers-on-search-engines.html

http://teawithft.blogspot.com/2014/05/if-erasing-google-must-be-sure-it-is.html

http://teawithft.blogspot.com/2013/12/we-need-personal-drones-more-than.html

http://teawithft.blogspot.com/2007/09/some-of-gods-greatest-gifts-are.html
http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2014/06/should-not-google-and-other-public-eyes.html

Dear Michele and Barack, your accounts must have been hacked!

Little me, not even a US citizen, keep receiving kind emails signed very personally by one of you. Though I would love to think these emails were for real, which might mean I’d be someone important, since they keep asking me for money, not a lot mind you, just a couple of dollars, I still guess I should better inform you that seemingly your emails accounts must been hacked! 

By the way if its serves as any consolation Newt seems to have suffered the same fate. 

Best regards 

Per

What a great business model!

You put up two blogs, one conservative and the other liberal, and you yourself, using two different aliases, make sure your aliases are the ones hitting the hardest and most outrageously against each other, and each of your aliases asks for contributions from their respective supporters… it is all a non-transparent reality show which can’t go wrong in a love-the-divisiveness country!

And though one has quite a good inkling of when one is facing those who are in this business, and those sincere believers and fighters who are not… sometimes it is really hard to keep them apart… and so, if I ever get to be suspicious of an innocent one, please forgive me.

The World needs a World Bank

As a former Executive Director of the World Bank, 2002-2004, I assure you that more important than who is the president of the World Bank, is getting the world some representation there. The real problem of the World Bank is that, at its Board of Executive Directors, the world at large, and the human race, are not truly represented there, only geography bound parochial governmental interests are. 

If we are going to have a chance to rally support for such global critical issues as world-wide sustainability and job creation for our youth, I do believe we need some sort of World’s World Bank, and, a good start, just for starters, could be adding to the Board some independent voices who do not report to a government, or, much worse, to a single ideology. 

Would such a proposal be feasible? I haven’t the faintest! But, if we cannot get the human beings to cooperate and work as one, on some vital issues, across the borders, our chances of all humans making it are much reduced… and so let’s not kid ourselves.

We need worthy and decent unemployments

What politician does not speak up for the need to create decent and well paid jobs for young people? But, if that's not possible, and the economy is not able to deliver that on its own ... What on earth do we do?

Society must of course do its utmost seeking to solve the problem of youth unemployment ... including taking leisure to levels never thought of… six months vacations! But it also needs to prepare itself to handle a growing number of unemployed, not cyclical but structural, that is, those who never ever in their life will have a chance to get an economically productive job.

Two decades ago, concerned about growing unemployment, half in jest, in an Op-Ed in El Universal of Caracas, I asked something like whether it was better to have one hundred thousand unemployed running each on his side as broody hens, or to seat them all in a huge human circle where everyone would scratch the backs of one of his neighbors, charging a lot for his services, while his own back was scratched by his other neighbor, at an equally high price. The tragedy is that this question seems to me now less and less hypothetical.

And is not necessarily an act of desperation to think about what to do with the unemployed ...because sometimes, in seeking to unravel a tangled twine, starting with the other end, may be the best way to release the first. Which is better: educating for a source of employment likely to be absent and therefore only create frustration, or educate for unemployment, and suddenly perhaps reaching, when on that route, the pleasant surprise of some jobs?

The power of a nation, and the productivity of its economy, which so far has depended primarily on the quality of its employees may, in the future, also depend on the quality of its unemployed, as a minimum in the sense of these not interrupting those working.

That the gentleman of the leisure class to which Thorstein Veblen referred did not work, was essentially a result of them being free of economic needs. But that does not also mean that the economy and the social peace of the moment, were not also in need of these men not competing for the fewer jobs to be had resulting from an industrial revolution.

The gentleman was encouraged to study philosophy and art by means of the social status he gained when knowing about such matters. In this respect, one of the most important challenges we currently have as a society is how to create social status and other incentives, for the unemployed to become solid and worthy unemployed citizens?

And we need to imbue the unemployed with special pride, because only this way will we keep them from making impossible economic demands... so far I have found no clues about how to handle a bargaining with their union representatives.

Given that we do all have to guard against the dangers of idleness, since the last thing we need is for the structurally idle to be idle, even circumstantially. Many of the current unemployed youth keeps busy with their smart-phones, and we do not want them not to be busy… and so using what is really their net oil revenues, to help them to immediately upgrade to an iPad, sounds like a good start. 

Friends, Venezuela should aspire to good jobs, but also to have the world's best unemployed.

Translated from El Universal, Caracas
PS. July 30, 2014 the new shareholders of El Universal, friends of Chavez and Maduro censored me, and all links to my 14 years of Op-Eds were erased.

PS. Minimum wages helps cause minimal wages.

PS. To get more jobs and higher salaries: Call on all capitalists to exploit any low salaries, for as much as they can. J

PS. Throw out the useless credit-risk-weighted capital (equity) requirements for banks and… if you absolutely must distort, then use potential-of-job-creation-weights instead (and throw in some sustainability-weights too for good measure). J

PS. A Universal Basic Income, since that is not a not-having-a-job-or-not related social contribution, could be a part of the efforts needed. That said these would be my minimum minimorum rules on a UBI

PS. Increased tariffs and minimum wages are superb news… for robot manufacturers L

PS. Perhaps we must put payroll taxes on robots to permit us humans to compete for jobs on more level grounds.

PS. Once social cohesion breaks down it is too late. As a Venezuelan I should know.