Whilst i achieved my MA in statistics from Cambridge Corpus Christi, may i congratulate on being awarded Schwarzan
college partnership for ethics in AI chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk dc humanAI whataapp +1 240 316 8157 GAMES worldrecordjobs.com
a partership of Norman Macrae Foundation goal 1 sub-editor of The Economist www.2025report.net www.7worlds.net onebeltusa.net alumnisat.com
breaking news: economics which doesn't develop people everywhere has no place in our sustainable world
* Skoll 10th world champinship-s honor Yunus as a global treasure welcome to oxbridge.tv a sustainability education and media project of Norman Macrae Foundation, with AlumniSat.com alibabauni.com and Quarterbilliongirls.com Norman Macrae Foundation The Economist's pro-youth economist 5801 Nicholson Lane Suite 404 N.Bethesda MD 20852 ning http://normanmacrae.ning.com twitter Tel 240
316 8157 email chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk skype chrismacraedc Facebook microeconomics Linkedin UNwomens search webs rowp.tv smbaworld.com brac.tv wholeplanet.tv yunus.tv obamauni.com communitiesforall.com valuetrue.com worldcitizen.tv jackmatv.com chinathanks.com beltroadtech.com and 20 Economist practice webs for working on youth's micro economies now that the world is investng 1000 times more on communications
tech than 1946! | From 2015 we accompanied chinese students discussions of sustainability
goals they took us from UN in New York to Beijing 7 times, changsha (home of mao's declaration that women lift up half the
sky and of brilliant green building designers, korea's asian infrastructure investment bank summit, wise@ beijing , madrid, oman - china has 500 million under 30's livelihods
to sustain- the good news is these youth know their livelihoods depend on sustainability solutions for youth everywhere -
look at communitiesforall.com to explore this entrepreneurial revolution - help co-publication in chiense and engluish of world record book of jobs
creators In 2008-2013 we accompanied
muhammad yunus to 40 of his youth enetreperenur and future of education summits from oxford's Sheldonian to Glasgow University
where the idea of celebrating a journal of social businesds was co-launched with adma smith scholars and the univeristy's
vice chancellor anton muscatelli, from paris (the co-origin of global social business leader partnerships to Dhaka to youth
entrepreneur comoetitiona across hisdtirically black university states of Barack Obama's America.. Some questions of that
period relevant to the 45 year old curriculum of Entreprenurial TRevolution started in The Economoist in 1972- how could
oxbridge contribute to youth sustainability entrepreneur revolutions as the 4th Industrial Recolution (from blockchain to
smart mobile webs spiralled across cultures of Death of Distance's global village world? how could british aid as the world's
number 1 social business network investor between 1972 and 2013, how could the bbc rediscover world service purpose in celebrating
info on replication sustainability solutions? would the Euroepan Union ever reform itself beyond Pope Francis accurate criticism
of society designed round haggard infertile grannies? More recent questions in 2017 http://economistuniversity.com how can we linkin all of the worlds education
summits connerned with the greatest #LearningGeneration, how can english-langiahge and chiense langiage and francisdcans help
their majority of worldwide youth co-create sustainability jobsd and free market channels around small eneterprises. If Norman
Macrae could chose his last project connecting entrepreneurial frevolution curriculum from The Economist of 1972 today instead
of 2008 then in all likelihood he woprld have suggesyted sampling 2000 books, 10000 dvds, 15000 joutrnal copies on jack ma of China
but then we wouldnt have realsied that sustainability girls will only wholly be achoieved by 2030 if the girls empowerment
solutions mobilised by bangladesh are integrated into every economic decision and teachers curriculum |
OXFORD UNION DEBATE Growth depends on never letting politicians spend more
than one quarter of GDP, May 1996For the Motion: Mr Norman Macrae (aka The Economist's Unacknowledged
Giant) : references 1 "Mr President, Sir, On the night I was conceived in
1922, by a then junior British diplomat in New York, the lucky Americans similarly enjoying themselves around him had only
8% of their GPs spent by politicians. So Americans in that decade brought the world's cleanest environment revolution, as
they triumphed over that pollutant vehicle the horse, put mankind on motor cars' wheels, and built sudden industrial strength
which alone meant that Hitler, who by my 18th Christmas in 1941 held Europe from Atlantic to 20 miles from Moscow, was not
quite strong enough to shove into gas ovens tiresomely argumentative people like me - and it would later, sir, have been you
and all those so happily arguing still in this House. After the war, we dinosaurs doddered.
As I think the second oldest speaker tonight, I am properly desolate, sir, that we hand on to you of my granddaughters' generation
an advanced world, at present divided into what comprehensive schoolteachers would call three halves. In the 15 countries of our west European home, politicians spend between 42% and 63% of our GDPs, in deadening ways
so job-losing and so sclerotic that - has old Oxford not noticed this, or does its brain hurt? - unemployment, especially
for those whose European youth has been less gilded than yours, rises at each comparable stage of each successive trade cycle,
and must thus continue until you see why. Politicians' spend of GDP dwindles to "only"
35% in Europe's next two clear competitor countries. In America and in Japan which I briefly economically advised 35 years
ago when its real GDP at yen exchange rate was one eighth of what it is now. The surge after 1950 by Hiroshimaed Japan in
(eg) life expectancy (49 years for a Japanese in 1950, way over our 79 for its old ladies now) - plus its leapfrog beyond
us in living standards, in education for its humblest inter-city children circa six times better than ours, in lower crime
- was to us who tended it then by far the most exciting sudden forward leap in all the economic history of the world. Do note
that it started, and had its main impetus, when its politicians spent only 24% of its GDP. In both Japan and America state
spending has been subjected to an upward creep - a good soubriquet, that, for Clinton and Blair and Hashimoto - but since
politicians' GDP pinch is still curbed to only 35%, both still exceed Europe in faster innovation and thus fuller employment. The 1950s-1960s role of Japan is now carried forward by the third group of competitors poised
to pinch our patrimony. The Hong Kongs and Singapores, which were coolie countries when I first saw them, have duly passed
Britain in living standards, in inner city non-yobdom, in far better education than ours for the mass of their 17 year olds
- even though, no sir, because their politicians spend, by IMF valuation, only 18% of their GDPs. Has the penny really not dropped among Oxford's dreaming spires? When technology surges forward as in this computer
age, the new wealth of nations springs from three main manifestations of human wit. One, a relentless daily search among a
million competing profit centres on how best next to improve use of that technology next morning. Second, maximum competition
in forecasting and guessing and experimenting with what the future may bring. Never allow politicians' monopoly in that. Third,
I am sorry if this offends, avoid yesterday-cuddling trade unionisation of who does which, when, at what fixed price, and
traditionally how. In our lifetime, it has been proven (a) that free markets bring forth those three qualities circa six times
more efficaciously than when politicians say "let's appoint a monopoly organisation to produce some bright wheeze like
a channel tunnel", ooh; and proven (b) that international institutions and politicians (of all parties) fib incredibly
about the statistical results of this. When Brussels said that communist East Germany
had surpassed Harold Wilson's Britain in prosperity, and Ted Heath and a credulous BBC trilled agreement, I went to East Germany.
Anybody who noticed a Trabant was not worth a Mercedes, could see East Germany outproduced even Wilson's Britain only in pollution
and steroid-drugged lady shot-putters. In its most showpiece factories I assessed productivity at some one-sixth of Wilson's
Britain's factories per man and per almost every other unit of input. When the Berlin Wall came down, my assessment proved
to have been a little too kind to socialism as usual. If you compared the state factories of North Korea with the private
factories of South Korea, you'd get the more dramatic figures typical of Asia. In the early 1990s the nationalised telephone
utility of India had 40 times more employees than the privatised telephone utility of Thailand, although little Thailand was
then just passing mighty India in the number of telephones actually working. In Europe,
we have the usual figures which might seem rude to the right honourable ex-member of Ebbw Vale. In the dozen years since British
steel was privatised, its productivity per man has risen six times. If he says this is because of wicked sackings and shuttings,
remember that Oxford's Attlee in 1947 told Britain's then 367,000 coalminers that coming public ownership would ensure nobody
producing such valuable stuff as coal would lose his job this century. It is only the long overdue privatisation that can
save even 12,000 of those jobs now, but don't let me claw at scabs of old wounds. The
question for your generation, sir, is whether you are going to drive ever more underclass Britons into unemployment by allowing
five vital industries (accounting for three quarters of public expenditure) to be run by politicians at circa one sixth the
efficiency that freer markets would bring. These are (1) social security insurance; (2) education; (3) health insurance; (4)
a regulatory bureaucracy now five times larger than in Kaiser Wilhelm's Prussia; (5) crime non-prevention. In education you will have to move to competitive vouchers, with payments highest for those who set up competitive
schools in the worst inner cities, where state teaching of both facts and behaviour has incredibly declined in the past 50
years, while private industry has spread once unimaginable durables like colour tvs from 0 to 98% of households. One part
of education (assessing by computer a particular child's learning pattern, seizing from that the next questions or facts to
impart) will become telecommunicable from far countries. Bovine politicians don't see the same is true of social security
insurance (if clients choose to stick to behaviourial norms like staying in married families, you can insure them and theirs
far more cheaply against most social ills), and in health insurance (where doctors from Singapore will diagnose the right
medical and diet regimes for the tummy from Wigan just X-rayed down their screens). The world's greatest experts on these
three and other telecommutable subjects will congregate in the lands with lowest taxation, and all of you voting against tonight's
motion will just be brutalising, ruining and killing poorer people if you say that's jolly unfair to British politicians'
monopoly welfare state. Crime rates will depend on whether you elect over-arrogant politicians.
In the first decade of my life America produced gangsterdom as well as boom, because its politicians (in a folly my dad said
would never be repeated) decreed alcohol could only be sold by Capone's vicious criminals. In this last decade of my life
two-thirds of British crime is drug-related, because politicians decree sales of other drugs must be profitably reserved only
for criminals. Under any sensible tax plus licensing regime such as we now have for alcohol, you don't get 15-year olds hooked
on a wild and muggery-necessitating £200 a day alcohol mania, because a pub, fearing a loss of licence, would refer
any such client for special treatment. In crime prevention we will also have to move to the methods of Japan, which has one
seventh as many lawyers as we, a court system based on "did he do it, and how most cheaply to stop him doing it again?"
which does not include stuffing hordes into expensive British prisons which statistically make inmates more likely to reoffend. Can you see any other trade apart from heavily trade unionised British prison screws who have
actual negative gross production? Yes, a few feet away. A chart from that Swedish Royal Commission chaired by the profs who
award the Nobel prize in economics showed that the most effective number of members of parliament for a country of Britain's
size would be 90-something. We have 651, and for the imminent general election they have pushed it up to 659 jobs for the
boys. I'd like to end on a more kindly note. If I'd been told in youth that politicians
would spend 42% of Britain's GDP, which is more than Hitler spent of Germany's GDP in 1937, I'd have assumed we would by now
be living under a monstrous tyranny. After 50 years of reporting on parliament, let me end with my favourite story which shows
it just as an elephant's joke. The story is denied by the two self-credulous politicians concerned, but confirmed by the Americans
who observed it. One day in the mid-80s, a party of American tourists was as usual being shown reverently around the palace
of Westminster. The Lord Chancellor of England appeared in full gig on a staircase above them, and he needed to talk, on some
matter of altering a timetable, to the Right Hon gent's successor as Labour leader who was disappearing down a corridor the
other way. so Lord Chancellor Hailsham, in full-bottomed wig and black and gold robe, called to the other by his Christian
name. Over the heads of the American tourists, he bellowed "Neil". Instantly,
and without hesitation, all the American tourists in the middle fell fully to their knees. A similar obsequiousness is not
required to all the forecasts I have shouted at you this evening. A small genuflection will suffice to the simple rule by
which your generation could octuple Britain's real national income during the 40 years of marvellously increasing computer
technology which will be your working lives. That rule, sir, is never, never, allow politicians to pinch and spend more than
a quarter of GDP. Everything will be so easy for the poorest of your contemporaries if only you understand that." Source: Growth depends on never letting politicians
spend more than one quarter of GDPOxford Union Debate of 30 May 1996
For the motion : Norman Macrae (CBE and Japanese Order of the Rising Sun),
economist, market futurologist, writer of over 2000 editorials, mainly retired after 5 decades of journalism at The Economist
and The Sunday Times Against the motion: Rt Honourable Michael Foot, UK Member of Parliament
for Plymouth (1945-1955), Ebbw Vale (1960-1983), Leader of the Labour Party (1980-1983) and succeeded by Rt Hon Neil Kinnock
(1983-1992) collaboration projects - The Journal of pro-youth economics and social business
edited by adam smith scholars click to download chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk |  Washington DC 1 301 881 1655
| 
click to download |
what
entreprenurial mediation did nobel and other great alumni wish oxbridge youth would learn from them? - OXFORD & Myanmar & Dhaka 1 2 (family note Norman macrae's first jow was naigating airplanes in world war 2 above modrn day
banagladesh and Myanmar; he then went up to cambridge corpus christi was mentored by keynes, married daughter of Barrister
of Law who mediated india's independence with Gandhi over 25 year period; norman then spent his working life before retirement
at The Economist)
- Cambridge & ...
To start 2012, two
good news leads we have on job creating universities are: 1) help build our tour of MIT (western world's number 1 job creating institute); about 10 of the top 50 projects hubbing around Muhammad Yunus (for many entrepreneurial revolutionaries the number 1 job creator of the last third of a century) involve stimulating
students to turn universities into job creating hubs. Yunus has a strong tradition of celebrating students in Oxford and London
- any ideas on how to make the Uk spirit of job creation the other main take away of tourists in UK's Olympics year? chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk |
download: interactive guide to videos .THE ENTREPRENEURSHIP PARTY 4th July 2010 Microeconomics
Summit- Glasgow questions/errors all attributable to chris macrae M Corpus Christi Cambridge , Statistics; chris.macrae@yahoo.co.uk host of yunus 1000 bookclubs http://worldcitizen.tv/ What Muhammad Yunus and Fazle
Abed did while Bangladesh was in its infancy as a nation was to set up The Entrepreurship Party without being
a political party. This was a very Gandhian idea whose diaries resonate with : if there is any point to politicians
they should transparently design systems to discriminate positively and wisely towards the poorest. It chimes also
with the thesis that Manmohan Singh developed at Cambridge University in the 1950s : exploring how to design
economics models so that they compound no underclasses with or cross national borders. continued below
Sofia as you know I dont do people politics at all well. I just reform global
corporations with exponentials maths and economically making their biggest secrets open to win-win-win questioning once they
let me in to their info; so please make of what;s below what you all at LondonCreativeLabs Job camp franchises you will;
although a july 4 glasgow embargo could be ideal if that stage is set , you choose. The Joan Robinson book I gave you is the one Manmohan Singh will have been tutored around in 1950s cambridge. My dad recalls
her tutoring as a bit muddled but dealing with the problem that keynes was already out of date (since his economics was system
design fit for a world where govs spent under 25% of their people and communications messaging were one millionth of today's
madoff intensity)
meanwhile
: I am putting it up at oxbridge.tv as it reminds me of 2 days I spent following dr yunus in the tales of 2 cities : Glasgow-
Oxford 1-2 Dec 2008: leaflets adam smith lecture glasgow and romano lecture the sheldonian oxford. Of course if you and lesley
can help jonathan spread this as tale of 25 cities that would be bloody marvelous timing for all our collaborations in Building
Social Business http://the-hub.net http://worldcitizen.tv (oops -excuse my franglais)
If you need help from young yunus journalists I would particularly commend Alexis
in new york who knows both Yunus and his publisher and made it so difficult for us to get seats at the first yunus booktalk
Jan 2008 in borders where 9 year olds turned out to be smartest questioners http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKXXsINFoHQ , estelle in paris activist with you of yunus 69th birthday dialogue in dhaka, and caitlin in
swarthmore , america's first economics student to host a year long social business club; if you need political or ecclesiastical
(and ministry of peace) help tailored to UK culture I would suggest john bunzl www.simpol.org or fellow royal automobile club celebrant of dad and yunus peter challen ;
I am sure that if others (eg Nick, Sam, Zasheem, Hans) recognise
their story in this terribly rough script they can help you, and you can help them -after all job creation in capital cites
round the world is your life's story and what the values dr yunus asked us in 2006 to collaboratively live with in our action
group with mostofa http://yunusforum.net - impossible becomes possible when right people time action place .
And yes above and below all - errors are only mine.
cheers chris
THE
ENTREPRENEURSHIP PARTY What Muhammad Yunus and Fazle Abed did while
Bangladesh was in its infancy as a nation was to set up The Entrepreurship Party without being a political party. This was
a very Gandhian idea whose diaries resonate with : if there is any point to politicians they should transparently
design systems to discriminate positively and wisely towards the poorest. It chimes also with the thesis that Manmohan
Singh developed at Cambridge University in the 1950s : exploring how to design economics models so that they compound no underclasses
with or cross national borders The simple rule by which your generation could octuple Britain's
real national income during the 40 years of marvelously increasing computer technology which will be your working lives. That
rule, sir, is never, never, allow politicians to pinch and spend more than a quarter of GDP.
Everything will be so easy for the poorest of your contemporaries if only you understand that." Norman “Beyond
Normalcy http://yunusforum.net/?p=80 " Macrae, 1996 Oxford Union Debate with the
Honorable Michael Foot Opposing the Motion Three
of the greatest microeconomists to have played on our planet’s most humanly energising stages were 2 Scots James Wilson
(Entrepreneur, MP, Founder of The Economist to boot out 90% of Peer Maps) and Adam Smith (he of how to build communities and
Free markets) and Walter Bagehot (first professional editor of The Economist –an institution whose purpose as well as
shares was owned by sisters in law for two generations demonstrating that alongside social business, another goodwill multiplying
model befitting entrepreneurship cam be family business) . These men whose process became governed by an empowering feminine
culture transformed a nation’s constitution (its ruling monarchy) from the worst of empiring over people
,which included slavetrading, to commonwealth. In so doing, they prevented the bloody origin of the word entrepreneurship whose “between
take” of assets refers to the big questions of Liberation & Equality the French were set to
debate almost endlessly: having cut off the heads of monarchy who were monopolizing productive assets , will we compound better
social and business models? Salut The French, and particularly European hero Jean Monnet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cquLPtZ3tkA who had to patently wait to 2005 for the commencement of a full resolution to their global entrepreneurial challenge
- when France’s and the world’s first sustainability luncheon was hosted, a story books such as Building Social
Business will be made of for centuries to come. For transatlantic citizens
it is also fitting that the first Global Microeconomist summit is rumored to occur on 4th July
2010 in Glasgow . Of course the Boston Tea Party was relatively bloodless and so a highly economical way to launch the brand
DNA of the greatest entrepreneur nation humans had constituted. It thrived generating sustainability’s rising exponentials
for nearly 2 centuries until it ultimately got drowned in too much commercial tv spotting. http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/ REPRISE: THE MOST OPTIMISTIC ENDING OF A MILLENNIUM Yet
in entrepreneurial worlds, hope springs eternal with each new generation, the more they discover how to network
micro to inter to macro not mass media's other dumbing down way round. Thanks to the rather unlikely trio of Crusaders ( musician
Sam, politician Hilary and queen Sofia of Spain) the greatest ever networking series of peoples summits
started in 1997 and have spread that yes we can ideology: “our communities can
plant and compound microeconomic systems" , and we can declare millennoum goals and relentlessly demand that all 7 billion
people help to action or testify to their achievement So:
Why Not Enjoy The 2010s by celebrating the start to an order of magnitude more economic networking age as long
as all of our children know which are entrepreneurship’s "whole truth" stories. The microentreprenuerial ones
most worthy of our time’s social dramatics becuase they help everyone to communally live to discover our creativity
insides. Then, entrepreneurship parties may unite in the best of collaboration and competition all over the world in races
with greatest goals such as poverty museums everywhere . If Peter Drucker’s knowledge co-worker maps are correct (and
readers of Von Neumann’s biography know that they risk little by betting that they are), such above zero-sum games will
openly and naturally lead to 50 times more productivity for all within 2 generations. Credit for the future is also due to the New Vikings http://www.knowledgeboard.com/item/2556/23/5/3 . In 1996, Norwegians played a serendipitous role in the greatest global village happening yet to mend digital divides-
Grameen' Mobile telephone lady who set to out to turn the bank’s 125000 village market centers into networked knowhow
hubs. Ten years later shocked by a Norwegian corporation’s uncaring use of Grameen brand, the Nobel Prize committee
decided the least they could do in recompense was to award each of Dr Yunus and the nearly 8 million female members of Grameen
half a Nobel prize. Noble futures are curioser than history. First,
the Nobel Prize Committee corrected a wee mistake in summer of 2008 – they had forgotten to include Bangladesh’s
model youth generation in the celebrations so they came to Dhaka and opened poverty museum inviting 1000 youth
to be its inaugural guests. Unless you are familiar with “herstory” of Microcredit’s mothers and daughters,
fathers and sons, you my feel tht The Nobel Jury then test marketed the biggest future shock in their history. In 2009, they
awarded the Noble prize to what seemed to many to be the bailout drowning President Obama. As innovation inflection points
transform, American’s greatest community builder knew how to use such a worldwide prize just as Aladdin would
a lamp. Within 6 months he was launching the President’s Entrepreneurship summit between 60 Eastern
and Western nations. The great success of the inauguration of this in April 2010 will get better and happier – next
stop Turkey 2011. http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2010/April/20100426195555sblebahc0.6099207.html | OXFORD UNION DEBATE Growth depends on never letting politicians spend more than one quarter
of GDP, May 1996For the Motion: Mr Norman Macrae (aka The Economist's Unacknowledged Giant) : references 1 "Mr President, Sir, On the night I was conceived in 1922, by a then junior British diplomat in New York,
the lucky Americans similarly enjoying themselves around him had only 8% of their GPs spent by politicians. So Americans in
that decade brought the world's cleanest environment revolution, as they triumphed over that pollutant vehicle the horse,
put mankind on motor cars' wheels, and built sudden industrial strength which alone meant that Hitler, who by my 18th Christmas
in 1941 held Europe from Atlantic to 20 miles from Moscow, was not quite strong enough to shove into gas ovens tiresomely
argumentative people like me - and it would later, sir, have been you and all those so happily arguing still in this House. After
the war, we dinosaurs doddered. As I think the second oldest speaker tonight, I am properly desolate, sir, that we hand on
to you of my granddaughters' generation an advanced world, at present divided into what comprehensive schoolteachers would
call three halves. In the 15 countries of our west European home, politicians spend between 42% and 63% of our GDPs,
in deadening ways so job-losing and so sclerotic that - has old Oxford not noticed this, or does its brain hurt? - unemployment,
especially for those whose European youth has been less gilded than yours, rises at each comparable stage of each successive
trade cycle, and must thus continue until you see why.
Politicians' spend of GDP dwindles to "only"
35% in Europe's next two clear competitor countries. In America and in Japan which I briefly economically advised 35 years
ago when its real GDP at yen exchange rate was one eighth of what it is now. The surge after 1950 by Hiroshimaed Japan in
(eg) life expectancy (49 years for a Japanese in 1950, way over our 79 for its old ladies now) - plus its leapfrog beyond
us in living standards, in education for its humblest inter-city children circa six times better than ours, in lower crime
- was to us who tended it then by far the most exciting sudden forward leap in all the economic history of the world. Do note
that it started, and had its main impetus, when its politicians spent only 24% of its GDP. In both Japan and America state
spending has been subjected to an upward creep - a good soubriquet, that, for Clinton and Blair and Hashimoto - but since
politicians' GDP pinch is still curbed to only 35%, both still exceed Europe in faster innovation and thus fuller employment.
The 1950s-1960s role of Japan is now carried forward by the third group of competitors poised to pinch our patrimony.
The Hong Kongs and Singapores, which were coolie countries when I first saw them, have duly passed Britain in living standards,
in inner city non-yobdom, in far better education than ours for the mass of their 17 year olds - even though, no sir, because
their politicians spend, by IMF valuation, only 18% of their GDPs. Has the penny really not dropped among Oxford's dreaming
spires? When technology surges forward as in this computer age, the new wealth of nations springs from three main manifestations
of human wit. One, a relentless daily search among a million competing profit centres on how best next to improve use of that
technology next morning. Second, maximum competition in forecasting and guessing and experimenting with what the future may
bring. Never allow politicians' monopoly in that. Third, I am sorry if this offends, avoid yesterday-cuddling trade unionisation
of who does which, when, at what fixed price, and traditionally how. In our lifetime, it has been proven (a) that free markets
bring forth those three qualities circa six times more efficaciously than when politicians say "let's appoint a monopoly
organisation to produce some bright wheeze like a channel tunnel", ooh; and proven (b) that international institutions
and politicians (of all parties) fib incredibly about the statistical results of this.
When Brussels said that
communist East Germany had surpassed Harold Wilson's Britain in prosperity, and Ted Heath and a credulous BBC trilled agreement,
I went to East Germany. Anybody who noticed a Trabant was not worth a Mercedes, could see East Germany outproduced even Wilson's
Britain only in pollution and steroid-drugged lady shot-putters. In its most showpiece factories I assessed productivity at
some one-sixth of Wilson's Britain's factories per man and per almost every other unit of input. When the Berlin Wall came
down, my assessment proved to have been a little too kind to socialism as usual. If you compared the state factories of North
Korea with the private factories of South Korea, you'd get the more dramatic figures typical of Asia. In the early 1990s the
nationalised telephone utility of India had 40 times more employees than the privatised telephone utility of Thailand, although
little Thailand was then just passing mighty India in the number of telephones actually working.
In Europe, we
have the usual figures which might seem rude to the right honourable ex-member of Ebbw Vale. In the dozen years since British
steel was privatised, its productivity per man has risen six times. If he says this is because of wicked sackings and shuttings,
remember that Oxford's Attlee in 1947 told Britain's then 367,000 coalminers that coming public ownership would ensure nobody
producing such valuable stuff as coal would lose his job this century. It is only the long overdue privatisation that can
save even 12,000 of those jobs now, but don't let me claw at scabs of old wounds.
The question for your generation,
sir, is whether you are going to drive ever more underclass Britons into unemployment by allowing five vital industries (accounting
for three quarters of public expenditure) to be run by politicians at circa one sixth the efficiency that freer markets would
bring. These are (1) social security insurance; (2) education; (3) health insurance; (4) a regulatory bureaucracy now five
times larger than in Kaiser Wilhelm's Prussia; (5) crime non-prevention.
In education you will have to move to
competitive vouchers, with payments highest for those who set up competitive schools in the worst inner cities, where state
teaching of both facts and behaviour has incredibly declined in the past 50 years, while private industry has spread once
unimaginable durables like colour tvs from 0 to 98% of households. One part of education (assessing by computer a particular
child's learning pattern, seizing from that the next questions or facts to impart) will become telecommunicable from far countries.
Bovine politicians don't see the same is true of social security insurance (if clients choose to stick to behaviourial norms
like staying in married families, you can insure them and theirs far more cheaply against most social ills), and in health
insurance (where doctors from Singapore will diagnose the right medical and diet regimes for the tummy from Wigan just X-rayed
down their screens). The world's greatest experts on these three and other telecommutable subjects will congregate in the
lands with lowest taxation, and all of you voting against tonight's motion will just be brutalising, ruining and killing poorer
people if you say that's jolly unfair to British politicians' monopoly welfare state.
Crime rates will depend
on whether you elect over-arrogant politicians. In the first decade of my life America produced gangsterdom as well as boom,
because its politicians (in a folly my dad said would never be repeated) decreed alcohol could only be sold by Capone's vicious
criminals. In this last decade of my life two-thirds of British crime is drug-related, because politicians decree sales of
other drugs must be profitably reserved only for criminals. Under any sensible tax plus licensing regime such as we now have
for alcohol, you don't get 15-year olds hooked on a wild and muggery-necessitating £200 a day alcohol mania, because
a pub, fearing a loss of licence, would refer any such client for special treatment. In crime prevention we will also have
to move to the methods of Japan, which has one seventh as many lawyers as we, a court system based on "did he do it,
and how most cheaply to stop him doing it again?" which does not include stuffing hordes into expensive British prisons
which statistically make inmates more likely to reoffend.
Can you see any other trade apart from heavily trade
unionised British prison screws who have actual negative gross production? Yes, a few feet away. A chart from that Swedish
Royal Commission chaired by the profs who award the Nobel prize in economics showed that the most effective number of members
of parliament for a country of Britain's size would be 90-something. We have 651, and for the imminent general election they
have pushed it up to 659 jobs for the boys.
I'd like to end on a more kindly note. If I'd been told in youth that
politicians would spend 42% of Britain's GDP, which is more than Hitler spent of Germany's GDP in 1937, I'd have assumed we
would by now be living under a monstrous tyranny. After 50 years of reporting on parliament, let me end with my favourite
story which shows it just as an elephant's joke. The story is denied by the two self-credulous politicians concerned, but
confirmed by the Americans who observed it. One day in the mid-80s, a party of American tourists was as usual being shown
reverently around the palace of Westminster. The Lord Chancellor of England appeared in full gig on a staircase above them,
and he needed to talk, on some matter of altering a timetable, to the Right Hon gent's successor as Labour leader who was
disappearing down a corridor the other way. so Lord Chancellor Hailsham, in full-bottomed wig and black and gold robe, called
to the other by his Christian name. Over the heads of the American tourists, he bellowed "Neil".
Instantly,
and without hesitation, all the American tourists in the middle fell fully to their knees. A similar obsequiousness is not
required to all the forecasts I have shouted at you this evening. A small genuflection will suffice to the simple rule by
which your generation could octuple Britain's real national income during the 40 years of marvellously increasing computer
technology which will be your working lives. That rule, sir, is never, never, allow politicians to pinch and spend more than
a quarter of GDP. Everything will be so easy for the poorest of your contemporaries if only you understand that." Source: Growth
depends on never letting politicians spend more than one quarter of GDPOxford Union Debate of 30 May 1996
For the motion : Norman Macrae (CBE and Japanese Order of the Rising Sun), economist, market futurologist,
writer of over 2000 editorials, mainly retired after 5 decades of journalism at The Economist and The Sunday Times Against
the motion: Rt Honourable Michael Foot, UK Member of Parliament for Plymouth (1945-1955), Ebbw Vale (1960-1983), Leader of
the Labour Party (1980-1983) and succeeded by Rt Hon Neil Kinnock (1983-1992)
1 YunusPartners in Future Capitalism | "Almost all social economics problems of the world will be addressed through the social business system" , Muhammad Yunus, Nobel Peace Prize, Acceptance Speech "The challenge is to innovate business models in such vital
contexts as health care for the poor, financial services for the poor, information technology for the poor, education and training for the poor, marketing for the poor, renewable energy for the poor.. " Free for Oxbridge students : be one of 10000 owners of dvd sharing the 25 good news videos - info@worldcitizen.tv | PM Gordon Brown meets Winner
and founder of Grameen Bank, Muhammad Yunus, to discuss the potential for microfinance and social business
|
|
2
| 3
| 4
| 5
| 6
| 7
| 8
| 9
| 10
| 11
| 12
| 13
| 14
| 15
| 16
| 17
| 18
| 19
| 20
| *21
| *22
| *23
| *24
| *25
|
 | As host of Yunus 1000 bookclub and co-host of Yunus10000 dvd dialogue, I can confirm the maths and maps of Dr Yunus change the world . But they also require every profession
to change and outdate a lot of expensive education that MBAs and others pay for. Can we collaborate so that Oxbridge youth become lead collaborators in achieving millennium goals whilst not getting chained to old conventional
wisdom and its own vicious type of subprime devaluation traps.. chris & norman macrae info@worldcitizen.tv | . |
. Tuesday, June 26, 2012 our entry for oxbridge at http://yunuscity.ning.comwe welcome questions/editing suggestions chris.macrae@yahoo.co.ukFoundation Norman Macrae Family Tree has more associations with Oxbridge than any other alma maters. see our web http://www.obridge.tv one of the first branches of entrepreneurial revolution to split from The Economist's 1976 vocabulary was the "social entrepreneur" according to diary correspondence: bill drayton claims to have coined this term in 1978 around 2003 jeff skoll proposed that 16 dvds be made of 6 top world
entrepreneurs - the 2 bangladeshi greats sir fazle abed and muhammad yunus; bill drayton and apparently 3 choices of drayton's
ashoka - 2 reflecting his legislation culture peter eigen (german whose experience at world bank led him to retire to create
transparency intenational) and american Tepper-Marlin (of social accountability international) and ashoka's Brazilian friend Oded Grajew (a co-founder of world social forum) = skoll who had made hundreds of millions as first ceo of ebay
then went on to make oxford an academic base for world championships of social entrepren... -neither of Marlin's or Grajew's attempts to reform Corporate Social Responsibility have had anything like the impact
of John Mackey' Conscious Capitalism network- nor have they related to the economic modeling challenge of compound risk first punlished year 2000 by brookings/georgetown
as unseen wealth- a movement that would have been as war,ly welcomed if AL Gore had become president than it was by Bush (sponsored as he
was by texan oil, arms, enrons, and andersens) back in usa this rather mixed group of 6 (of whom only yunus and
abed have behavioural characteristics normally valued by entrepreneurs) led to lots of support including that from bill drayton's
old gandhian friend when they were young in the 1960s " larry brilliant" who had just been headhunted for google.org
- thus attention got diluted from the extraordinary win-win-win modelling of abed and yunus over in switzerland
- the extraordinary energies of brazilian ptresident lula -led schwab to set up a special entrepreneur foundationwing as one thread of its world economic forum back in usa larry brilliant left google.org to go world with skoll
at his division of reality disaster movies of which Gore's Inconvenient Truth had been an early case today al
gore's sustainability investment for generationig has a british arm led by david blood who is pioneering social impact bonds with sir ronald cohen (social finance UK US BIgSociety Capital SafeBanks) that the eu claims to be its last chance to get youth back to world on the most vital social solutions needed by communities all
over the continent 1:53 pm edt
Saturday, December 13, 2008 After a 20 month absence, Dr Yunus returned
to the Sheldonian 2 Dec 08 - this time to be celebrated by youth and the vice chancellor - they cheered his message differentiating social busiess
entrepreneurships from other social movements and unsustainable business systems including wall street's global banking. below we bring back an oxford union debate from the macrae family archives and then display some notes which
the Romanes oxford talk motivated us to send to DR Yunus in Dhaka for publication in a leaflet on why soicial business
is the missing solution of human sustainability if only we can get enough people who make decisions in trillion dlar marketplaces
to partner with it The Oxford
(& Cambdrige ) Union Debates, at their best , free up curiosity way beyond conventional wisdom. As it increasingly looks
as if globalisation's conventional wisdom has spun a wrong spiral, now would be the best of times if people everywhere were
empowered by this excellent dialogue format Here's a golden oldie (well 1996 if that's old!) Growth
depends on never letting politicians spend more than one quarter of GDPOxford Union Debate of 30 May 1996
For the motion : Norman Macrae (CBE and Japanese Order of the Rising Sun), economist, market futurologist,
writer of over 2000 editorials, mainly retired after 5 decades of journalism at The Economist and The Sunday Times Against
the motion: Rt Honourable Michael Foot, UK Member of Parliament for Plymouth (1945-1955), Ebbw Vale (1960-1983), Leader of
the Labour Party (1980-1983) and succeeded by Rt Hon Neil Kinnock (1983-1992)
Original
text for debate forwarded by Norman Macrae "Mr President, Sir, On the night I was conceived in 1922,
by a then junior British diplomat in New York, the lucky Americans similarly enjoying themselves around him had only 8% of
their GPs spent by politicians. So Americans in that decade brought the world's cleanest environment revolution, as they triumphed
over that pollutant vehicle the horse, put mankind on motor cars' wheels, and built sudden industrial strength which alone
meant that Hitler, who by my 18th Christmas in 1941 held Europe from Atlantic to 20 miles from Moscow, was not quite strong
enough to shove into gas ovens tiresomely argumentative people like me - and it would later, sir, have been you and all those
so happily arguing still in this House. After the war, we dinosaurs doddered. As I think the second oldest speaker tonight,
I am properly desolate, sir, that we hand on to you of my granddaughters' generation an advanced world, at present divided
into what comprehensive schoolteachers would call three halves. In the 15 countries of our west European home, politicians
spend between 42% and 63% of our GDPs, in deadening ways so job-losing and so sclerotic that - has old Oxford not noticed
this, or does its brain hurt? - unemployment, especially for those whose European youth has been less gilded than yours, rises
at each comparable stage of each successive trade cycle, and must thus continue until you see why. Politicians'
spend of GDP dwindles to "only" 35% in Europe's next two clear competitor countries. In America and in Japan which
I briefly economically advised 35 years ago when its real GDP at yen exchange rate was one eighth of what it is now. The surge
after 1950 by Hiroshimaed Japan in (eg) life expectancy (49 years for a Japanese in 1950, way over our 79 for its old ladies
now) - plus its leapfrog beyond us in living standards, in education for its humblest inter-city children circa six times
better than ours, in lower crime - was to us who tended it then by far the most exciting sudden forward leap in all the economic
history of the world. Do note that it started, and had its main impetus, when its politicians spent only 24% of its GDP. In
both Japan and America state spending has been subjected to an upward creep - a good soubriquet, that, for Clinton and Blair
and Hashimoto - but since politicians' GDP pinch is still curbed to only 35%, both still exceed Europe in faster innovation
and thus fuller employment. The 1950s-1960s role of Japan is now carried forward by the third group of competitors
poised to pinch our patrimony. The Hong Kongs and Singapores, which were coolie countries when I first saw them, have duly
passed Britain in living standards, in inner city non-yobdom, in far better education than ours for the mass of their 17 year
olds - even though, no sir, because their politicians spend, by IMF valuation, only 18% of their GDPs. Has the penny
really not dropped among Oxford's dreaming spires? When technology surges forward as in this computer age, the new wealth
of nations springs from three main manifestations of human wit. One, a relentless daily search among a million competing profit
centres on how best next to improve use of that technology next morning. Second, maximum competition in forecasting and guessing
and experimenting with what the future may bring. Never allow politicians' monopoly in that. Third, I am sorry if this offends,
avoid yesterday-cuddling trade unionisation of who does which, when, at what fixed price, and traditionally how. In our lifetime,
it has been proven (a) that free markets bring forth those three qualities circa six times more efficaciously than when politicians
say "let's appoint a monopoly organisation to produce some bright wheeze like a channel tunnel", ooh; and proven
(b) that international institutions and politicians (of all parties) fib incredibly about the statistical results of this. When Brussels said that communist East Germany had surpassed Harold Wilson's Britain in prosperity, and Ted Heath and
a credulous BBC trilled agreement, I went to East Germany. Anybody who noticed a Trabant was not worth a Mercedes, could see
East Germany outproduced even Wilson's Britain only in pollution and steroid-drugged lady shot-putters. In its most showpiece
factories I assessed productivity at some one-sixth of Wilson's Britain's factories per man and per almost every other unit
of input. When the Berlin Wall came down, my assessment proved to have been a little too kind to socialism as usual. If you
compared the state factories of North Korea with the private factories of South Korea, you'd get the more dramatic figures
typical of Asia. In the early 1990s the nationalised telephone utility of India had 40 times more employees than the privatised
telephone utility of Thailand, although little Thailand was then just passing mighty India in the number of telephones actually
working. In Europe, we have the usual figures which might seem rude to the right honourable ex-member of Ebbw
Vale. In the dozen years since British steel was privatised, its productivity per man has risen six times. If he says this
is because of wicked sackings and shuttings, remember that Oxford's Attlee in 1947 told Britain's then 367,000 coalminers
that coming public ownership would ensure nobody producing such valuable stuff as coal would lose his job this century. It
is only the long overdue privatisation that can save even 12,000 of those jobs now, but don't let me claw at scabs of old
wounds. The question for your generation, sir, is whether you are going to drive ever more underclass Britons
into unemployment by allowing five vital industries (accounting for three quarters of public expenditure) to be run by politicians
at circa one sixth the efficiency that freer markets would bring. These are (1) social security insurance; (2) education;
(3) health insurance; (4) a regulatory bureaucracy now five times larger than in Kaiser Wilhelm's Prussia; (5) crime non-prevention. In education you will have to move to competitive vouchers, with payments highest for those who set up competitive schools
in the worst inner cities, where state teaching of both facts and behaviour has incredibly declined in the past 50 years,
while private industry has spread once unimaginable durables like colour tvs from 0 to 98% of households. One part of education
(assessing by computer a particular child's learning pattern, seizing from that the next questions or facts to impart) will
become telecommunicable from far countries. Bovine politicians don't see the same is true of social security insurance (if
clients choose to stick to behaviourial norms like staying in married families, you can insure them and theirs far more cheaply
against most social ills), and in health insurance (where doctors from Singapore will diagnose the right medical and diet
regimes for the tummy from Wigan just X-rayed down their screens). The world's greatest experts on these three and other telecommutable
subjects will congregate in the lands with lowest taxation, and all of you voting against tonight's motion will just be brutalising,
ruining and killing poorer people if you say that's jolly unfair to British politicians' monopoly welfare state. Crime
rates will depend on whether you elect over-arrogant politicians. In the first decade of my life America produced gangsterdom
as well as boom, because its politicians (in a folly my dad said would never be repeated) decreed alcohol could only be sold
by Capone's vicious criminals. In this last decade of my life two-thirds of British crime is drug-related, because politicians
decree sales of other drugs must be profitably reserved only for criminals. Under any sensible tax plus licensing regime such
as we now have for alcohol, you don't get 15-year olds hooked on a wild and muggery-necessitating £200 a day alcohol
mania, because a pub, fearing a loss of licence, would refer any such client for special treatment. In crime prevention we
will also have to move to the methods of Japan, which has one seventh as many lawyers as we, a court system based on "did
he do it, and how most cheaply to stop him doing it again?" which does not include stuffing hordes into expensive British
prisons which statistically make inmates more likely to reoffend. Can you see any other trade apart from heavily
trade unionised British prison screws who have actual negative gross production? Yes, a few feet away. A chart from that Swedish
Royal Commission chaired by the profs who award the Nobel prize in economics showed that the most effective number of members
of parliament for a country of Britain's size would be 90-something. We have 651, and for the imminent general election they
have pushed it up to 659 jobs for the boys. I'd like to end on a more kindly note. If I'd been told in youth that
politicians would spend 42% of Britain's GDP, which is more than Hitler spent of Germany's GDP in 1937, I'd have assumed we
would by now be living under a monstrous tyranny. After 50 years of reporting on parliament, let me end with my favourite
story which shows it just as an elephant's joke. The story is denied by the two self-credulous politicians concerned, but
confirmed by the Americans who observed it. One day in the mid-80s, a party of American tourists was as usual being shown
reverently around the palace of Westminster. The Lord Chancellor of England appeared in full gig on a staircase above them,
and he needed to talk, on some matter of altering a timetable, to the Right Hon gent's successor as Labour leader who was
disappearing down a corridor the other way. so Lord Chancellor Hailsham, in full-bottomed wig and black and gold robe, called
to the other by his Christian name. Over the heads of the American tourists, he bellowed "Neil". Instantly,
and without hesitation, all the American tourists in the middle fell fully to their knees. A similar obsequiousness is not
required to all the forecasts I have shouted at you this evening. A small genuflection will suffice to the simple rule by
which your generation could octuple Britain's real national income during the 40 years of marvellously increasing computer
technology which will be your working lives. That rule, sir, is never, never, allow politicians to pinch and spend more than
a quarter of GDP. Everything will be so easy for the poorest of your contemporaries if only you understand that."
what is social business and what are the famous 5 collaboration movements that Yunus and 100000 Bangaldeshis
have united the sustainability investment world round in the last 30 years? 1 What is SOCIAL BUSINESS? The most exciting entrepreneurial
game people play ... | 2 What is MICROCREDIT? Designing the safest banking
system so that the poorest are also included in developing the world | 3 What is MICROSUMMIT? Designing human processes around opportunity to gravitate collaborative
networking to the most urgent sustainability goals of our worldwide generation | 4 What is FUTURE CAPITALISM? Designing partnerships to innovate
the most vital human services that integration of global and local free markets can sustain | 5 What is Trillion Dollar Industry Sector Sustainability? Joyfully mediating markets to be free to engage in severe contests between intelligence, which presses
forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress. |

1 What is Social Business? The most exciting entrepreneurial
game people play. |
To
be a success, Social Business requires integration of 3 challenging solutions into one organisational design:
A) Serving
a purpose so important to human life that you’re entrusted a free loan to bring the organisation to life | B) Prove business model’s sustainability
by achieving a communal surplus of cashflow every cycle | C) Reinvest surplus to improve system or to replicate its networking reach with partners who will need
collaboration support |
If
you are successful in focusing invention, sustenance and open replication of a Social Business, you will be involved in integrating
one of the most purposeful organisational systems in the world. However micro your organisation: aim to become a market’s
or a network’s centre of gravity capable of wholly attracting communal pride. Just do it by truly
connecting individual passions to make a difference - web weaving together the future of people’s productive lifetimes. FREE MARKETING OF END POVERTY Muhammad Yunus Nobel Laureate
Acceptance Speech 2006
Almost all social economics problems of the world will be addressed through the social
business ...
The challenge is to innovate business models in such vital contexts as health care for the poor, financial
services for the poor, information technology for the poor, education and training for the poor, marketing for the poor, renewable
energy for the poor ------------------------------------ Gordon Brown to Muhammad Yunus, 10 Downing Street 21
April 2008: There is so much goodwill around what you are doing | Being a Social Business means that positive cashflow recycles every social business dollar
invested over and over. This is in stark contrast with the dynamics of the traditional charity with its one-time spend of
every dollar fundraised. However in many other respects, the social business strategy dares to selectively break with rules
that MBAs are trained to standardise. A better for the
world organisation does not need to be fronted by image-making advertisements: reality-making is the purpose which
a Social Business inspires people to gravitate around. The Social Business investment celebrates community-rising exponentials, ie sustainable growth
over time. The organisational system needs to be mapped the other way round from management powering over people. Quite simply,
empowerment’s authority to lead is seen through the transparency of an open win-win-win system - one that networks through
local franchise replication. It does this to continuously generate the most service buzz and to multiply more human goodwill
than competitors whose performance is only measured by quarterly extraction. |
more at http://www.egrameen.com/id37.html & http://yunus10000.com 4:30 pm est
Thursday, November 13, 2008 12:38 am est
|  | 2012.06.01 | 2008.12.01 | 2008.11.01 
|
I'll make changes to this site on a regular basis, sharing news, views, experiences, photos...whatever
occurs to me. Check back often! 
Yes We Can YunusUni.com : can we unite alumni of Yunus, Obama, Mandela and Clinton Global Uni across 4 hemispheres? If the global meltdown of Wall Street does not indicate it is time for microeconomics and a globalisation that is built to sustain every community, when will
we every network around goodwill multiplication exponentials and not just quarterly extraction Collaboration Citizens World Roadtour - Oct: NY. Nov: California, London
|