National brands and world money

Lyndon LaRouche predicts a big crisis in autumn and he speaks about a risk of world war.



According to LaRouche the crisis may occur if dollar will collapse and no problem if euro will collapse. It was a conversation in Moscow.

Alan Greenspan is in Allianz now.



Allianz suggests to sell dollars and buy Russian rubles.

And what if the problem is in the national brands? This kind of intangibles is or may be equivalent to the considerable part of money emitted.

Can the major national brands compose the world money (something like that):

world money = (national brand * national tangibles) * (national brand * national tangibles) ...

and restructure the empty trust to normalize the situation? Or is it absurd?

Knowing trust

Who issues trust? In principle everyone can, but mostly the notes of trust (money) are being issued by bankers and governments. You may say trust is not only about money. Yes, the representation of trust (banknotes) doesn't cover trust itself in the whole. My answer - people issue trust. By fixing the past relationships in accounting people can build the future based on the past.

Does it mean the bankers and governments are not interested in direct (person to person) trust in the networks? I don't know exactly. If people can't store the past independently, they need those who can and where is a warranty that the history will not be rewritten to support the kind of the trust that is being issued?

But how to find a source of trust, if the history is infinite? In God we trust? You have the right to do that. You have also the right not to do that, but who is a provider?

Intangible God is materialized in the banknotes (I don't mean the U.S. banknotes only). The tangible natural basis for trust as well as the intangible knowledge stream organized historically are probably needed to ensure the freedom of choice and true democracy in the age of the global networks.

Can consulting prevent wars?

Yes, really - to prevent. Consulting may assist to win or lose the war, but what about its prevention?

The examples I posted in these comments don't cover all the situations and are about the representations of the wars. "The paradox" of any war (I think) is that any war is being started from its representation - you know about this managerial term - "strategy" (the war term). And this fact means that other solutions can be elaborated, if consulting business really can create or even reuse knowledge.

That's why I think wars can be prevented. But here is a dilemma - if the strategy is about taking away money or other resources from other people, the consultants get rich when elaborate this strategy. If the consultants don't assist in strategies, how they can be wealthy? In other words the consultants are among those who causes wars. Are they guilty?

A technical problem in preventing wars is knowledge about initial content/message. If it has, say, 2 variants of understanding (but who really knows how many it has in various cultures?), it means that there is 50% risk of misunderstanding and therefore unexpected actions. But before thinking about any technique, do think about the value that consulting really provides.

Measuring innovation

The U.S. Department of Commerce seeks public input to measure innovation in the economy. The major categories are:

"1. Improvement of the underlying architecture of the U.S. System of National Accounts to facilitate development of improved and more granular measures of innovation and productivity;
2. Identification of appropriate economy-wide and sector-specific statistical series or other indicators that could be used to quantify innovation and/or its impacts;
3. Identification of firm-specific data items that could enable comparisons and aggregation; and
4. Identification of specific "holes" in the current data collection system that limit our ability to measure innovation".

From my point of view it's a task to overcome limitations which businesses reach from time to time in order to remain competitive - look at the possible variants explained in the framework for collaborative self-consulting:



Individual S-curves (from each businesses) could be aggregated by sectors, national and international economies (to compare and correct). This interoperability of the mentioned framework (it's under way towards 2.0 version) might require next generation consulting services.

Why so?

Because innovation is a natural human ability and was/is not being considered as for everyone in the industrial age where people was and still are closed within hierarchical levels and organizational borders.

I remember a problem of proper indicators for innovation in the Soviet Union. Since it was the economy of one owner there was an opportunity to rearrange the sector-specific borders and allow to develop the flat structures (networks). Unfortunately the discussions I knew were within 2 dogmas - plan and market.