The Global University of Poverty - Curricula Welcome

End Poverty is number 1 job of any keynsian and millennials; future capitalism

Gates Creative Capitalism - Oh mr g what do we do, we meant to go to Future C but you took us on to who

It seems to me that a true collaboration between Dr Yunus and Bill Gates would be the best thing for ending poverty the world could ever do. Particularly a world where Wall Street borrowed from ever community and then defaulted on its loans

But I am not sure we the people needed Creative Capitalism breeding alongside Future Capitalism. Its probably not Bill's fault that economics has sunk so low into macro junk that the mass media no longer bothers to demand defintions that have mathematical consistency. Future Capitalism is mathematically consistent. what Creative Capitalism is looks like endless noise to me but I'll eat my James Wilson hat if Bill proves me wrong

References:
the gates book coming out xmas 2008
the creative capitalism blog
it all began at the wasf 2008

Views: 30

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Here's what I observed Chris, that when CC arrived at Davos it read very much like the P-CED paper delivered to Clinton at the simplest of levels, ie use the power of the web and more inclusive (social) capitalism replacing the nonprofit approach to eradicate poverty because leaving people in poverty breeds desperation that offers opportunity to extremism.

As I've learned recently, influences for the paper were derived from the work of Maslow, Rogers, Fromm, Toffler, Kapra and Drucker whereas CC was thought up on a flight home from a conference.

CC stops short of offering any particular model, suggesting a more vague interpretation of business, NGOs and government working together. This I suspect is because it can only go so far without looking like a call for socialism, a bridge too far, even for a converted traditional capitalist.

From the debate on the CC blog, which is to become a book, it was impossible to get a word in as leading economics experts largely took the view that it wouldn't work, while I was trying to explain that what it seemed to derive from had been applied to create a bottom up USAID funded project in Russia, coming in behind Harvard's (HIID) trickle down disaster with the Defense Enterprise Fund and the collapse of the Russian economy in 1998.

CK Prahalad, who Gates seems to acknowledge as an influences now says that poor people remain poor because thay lack access to information. A point made clearly 12 years ago, long before the BOP fortune concept.

All these things can be interpreted as a spirit of the times. If Gates has come alongside with a somewhat different interpretation, he also comes with vast resource that can be put to good use. For all of us, I think it's important to acknowledge that no one particular model or personality is capable of addressing all the problems we face.

The best we can do under the circumstances is to deliver examples of best practice and performance to mop up any remaining notions that old style capitalism can do anything like as well.

Jeff
Good points Jeff. We will have to see the book. Concerns I have include:

The way heavyweight macroeconomists in the blog referenced (and in reviewing Yunus work) have been attacking clearly defined microeconomics aproach of Yunus Future Capitalism does not augur well for how they will exploit any relative vagueness that Gates may introduce

Gates is known to have spent hours talking to Yunus out his book. I think it will be sad if he fails to credit Yunus approach. I'd go further and say if he wanted to be most effective at ending poverty he would have used his fame to accelerate the open source models of Yunus and clarify their key systemic rules not set up a different book of game rules.

It was noticeable at Clinton Global that suddenly everybody was rushing to form partnerships. My father and I wish to make it clear there is a huge difference of future outcomes (whole truth of sustainability investment) depending how partnershps are governed. Future Capitalism was a way out of greenwashing CSR. Unless creative capitalism defines how partnerships or other innovation systems it promotes are hi-trust audited, it will put a lot of good intent at risk

News of the 3 capitalisms may be worth logging:
Gates references

Yunus references

References to Gates & Yunus
It is worth remembering that this is a particulary interesting week with California's technolgy museum awarding Yunus its global humanitaria... for using mobile phones since 1996 to end digital duvides,
This phenomenon is soon to be celebrated as a major pop song album of The Green Children. Unlike The New Seekers in the 1970s who could only dream of teaching the world to sing in perfect harmony, you can hear me now is also a specific strategy of using internet/mobiles for the poor

Here is a post humanitarian award interview :

Yunus : The microcredit franchise which took 7 years in bangladesh from 1976 to develop from concept to bank -We called Grameen Bank, or “village bank.”
It expanded. Now it’s nationwide, with 7.5 million borrowers. About 97 percent make their payments. The borrowers own the bank. The bank makes a profit and it goes back to the owners. There is no collateral. No lawyers. Nothing. It’s a very different kind of banking. It has spread all over the world. There are 130 million people globally who have been reached with micro credit. There are billions more who need it.

VB: In the age of the Internet, technology can make it spread even farther.

MY: Technology can do miracles. Take the case of a cell phone. The power of a cell phone alone. It can revolutionize the whole banking system, the credit system, healthcare. It can bring marketing for products, payment systems, transfer of funds. All kinds of things. This is such a powerful little gadget. It can become more and more powerful. We are just scratching the service. We are opening the flood gates.

VB: Social entrepreneurship has been very popular in Silicon Valley. I wonder what you think of venture capitalists coming into the social realm?

MY: The issue I have been raising is social business. Social entrepreneurship is much wider terminology. That’s even beyond financial. On the financial side, it could be non-governmental organization activity. It’s important for people to express themselves in a creative way. But what I’m suggesting is a different thing. To create a new concept of business. I call it social business because it is business. It is a cause-driven business, and that’s why it’s social. It’s a non-loss, non-dividend company. It’s a company, but the owners don’t take any profit out of it for their own benefit. They can take back their investment money — nothing more than that. The entire reason for creating it is to solve a social problem. If you add this into the mix, then we will have two types of business in the market. Each is based on a certain aspect of human life. Profit-making businesses are the only ones that exist now. It’s based on the selfishness of people. Everybody wants to have things come to them via business. The second one I am proposing doesn’t exist now. It’s a social business where others benefit. Nothing for me. My purpose in creating it is to make a difference in the world. Once we have these two types of businesses in the market, then all of the excesses of profit-making business can be contained. Like the present financial crisis. Everybody has said it is because of an excess of greed, to the extent the market is turning into a gambling casino. Those can be balanced by the social businesses. Social business can address all of the problems that are never addressed by the profit-making businesses: healthcare for poor people, poverty, diseases, housing for the poor, slums, street children, environmental degradations. We are so busy making money we don’t have time to pay attention.

VB: So social business is a hybrid of philanthropy and capitalism?

MY: Philanthropy is different. That is giving money away for a cause. Social business is not giving it away. I take it back. I create a business to solve a social problem. Business means it recycles. Philanthropic money has only one life. Social business money has an endless life. You can transform your objective into a social business purpose and use the same money. You get much more in return. You create an institution. You create a company. The problems that are not touched by profit-making businesses are relegated to the government in socialism. If there is a slum, government should take care of it. Now we say, we can handle that too.

VB: Is this just the beginning?

MY: I’m sure it’s a beginning. This is only one direction. They may add more pieces and have many more kinds of things that are happening.

VB: Do you think the micro credit model thrives during economic turmoil?

MY: Don’t you think that it will be much more important during the turmoil? People will be losing jobs. They will need to create their own jobs rather than sit and wait for welfare to come. They can get loans and do the jobs themselves. They don’t have to work for someone else.

VB: What do you think about the awareness of micro credit?

MY: It is much much wider now. It’s a global phenomenon. The Nobel Peace Prize has drawn a lot of attention.

People are wondering what is it and what [I did]. It made it visible. The Nobel Prize puts you in the floodlights of the world and gives you credibility.

Chris,

In response to the Gates announcement we added these points to our website:

http://www.p-ced.com/info/se/

For me one of the ironies about this comes from Davos, with the slightly less newsworthy announcement by USAID of the East Europe Foundation to support the creation of sustainable community enterprise. It cannot be other than a response to the paper entitled "Microeconomic development and social enterprise in Ukraine" delivered to US government in October 1996. This paper went direct to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where members then included Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who by all accounts understand and endorse the microeconomic approach.

So, in one way while Gates was announcing CC at Davos, alongside him at the same conference was someone announcing an outcome leveraged by the same concepts.

In the CC blog you will find my comments, as I try to explain to world experts that the CC concept has been and continues to be delivered. None of these things could have happened without the trust or moral collateral form of microfinance that Yunus pioneered.

They didn't want to publish my contribution, neither did the FT when Michael Wolfe wrote about it there afterwards. FT restrict comments to acknowledged experts in the financial field, ie they deny themselves access to information and me a channel of communication. I find much the same with many UK publications which write about social enterprise. Another irony here is that this includes the Guardian newspaper, who in another part of their group engage my profit for social purpose business as a software supplier, yet know nothing about what we do with our profit.

I could tell them that we use it to create microeconomic strategies which we send to Barack Obama, but they will probably think I'm ready for the funny farm.

Jeff
I agree Future capitalism is a noisy burden for the present capitalists.
But times are a changing...
Let look at the poors. There are different levels of poverty and it is essential to deal with the lack of different assets - physical, financial, social, human, etc. Inequality, insecurity and vulnerability must be taken into consideration
So, partnerships are critical in developing the pro-poors microfinance. The prolem is that even the poorest are viewed today as a potential market segment (a comment from my neighbour at The European Microfinance Week in Luxembourg, this week)

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sustainability's & Wondrous MicroSummiit

Can you contribute TO FC? rsvp chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk

© 2020   Created by chris macrae.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service