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.

Knowledge is not absolute value

Let's consider socioeconomic content:



There is no pure socioeconomic type we are living in, but one or a few types may rule others.

Knowledge was, is and will be with us, but it isn't absolute value, especially if you think that knowledge is always positive (knowledge society, economy, etc.). All depends on the limitations in which people create, consider and use knowledge - is it really understandable, feasible?

The limitations aren't external to knowledge because there is no life without limitations.

And any warfare is an indicator of lacking knowledge in the true (natural) limitations.

A dream

Is it about networking/netliving?



Imagine by John Lennon:

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religon too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
In a brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say i'm a dreamer
But i'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Intangibles evolve

Let's see what professor Bruce Lloyd of the London South Bank University is talking on "Knowledge Management: What has Wisdom got to do with it?" at a Gurteen Knowledge Cafe in London on 24th January 2006:



The idea is clear: knowledge is the use of information and the right use of knowledge is wisdom.

How to achieve this?

I think so:

1. We can understand/know the variants of actions by considering the various meanings of their descriptions. A special technique to translate any description in wordings of actions can be applied, if needed.

2. Then we should decide which variant to use especially when we need passing this variant to other people in order to accept it and execute. Here the problem of values emerges. Different values (the patterns of understanding) may misrepresenting an original/necessary understanding/knowledge which is being passed to others. It may result in the wrong use of knowledge.

3. In order to eliminate such an effect of wrong use of knowledge (1) and (2) must be combined - the variants must be considered jointly by all the parties involved. The latter point (all the parties) is about where are the borders of organization, how open it is, how money serves knowledge exchange to be fruitful for all?

Being intangible, money construction defines the relationship which people use in one or another type of collaboration.

"Remember, you do not "do KM" you use KM methods and tools ..." Why?

It's a slide from Dave Snowden's Moscow presentation on Knowledge Management.

I really can't understand why only use of KM methods and tools is possible? Maybe you know?

Oil & gas money

Maybe it's a pure futuristic thought, but it came to me after reading and commenting this blog about the global political economy and future of Russia.

Imagine someone has created electronic money based on oil & gas, which are beyond central bank regulations. Why beyond? Because this oil & gas money is not for making loan based dependency. It's for trading any goods and services (in result) and for the appropriate transactions, only for that.

Here is how it might work.

Need oil & gas? Pay e-money. Don't have it? Give us this and this in exchange ...

As a matter of fact if some wealthy clans could create 100 years ago the world currency and loan based banking, why another structure can't emerge?

The main question is - who can even start thinking about it and where - in Russia, in the Arabic world, in Venezuela, in the US, EU ...?

Knowledge audit

If knowledge equals understanding and understanding is measurable, you can:

- find an appropriate content and/or personal interactions;
- connect it with a cash-flow;
- measure a monetary value of the appropriate content and how its authors/users work (or network);
- consider and correct an S-curve of competitiveness.

All you need are some skills, data and a framework for that - maybe this one.

So, the above mentioned connection: knowledge - understanding - money - competitiveness is quite simple and feasible.

Corporations, networks ... what next?

150 years ago corporations started using auditors according to the law and under control of the state. It was (and to a certain extent is) the world of separation. Access to business information/knowledge was and is a privilege of auditors and consultants. Hence not only audit and consulting emerged to assist corporations in business war for profit, markets, customers ... but (in contrast) also informal networks emerged to understand what business world is doing, as we can see from blogging and other social media. This second world has only one law – copyright and is "above" the states borders. It watches business as usual and tests new business models ...

In fact we can see 2 models:

The known model is: corporation – auditor/consultant – public.

What's the networked model?

Let's rename the parts of the abovementioned model: corporation (persons) – auditor/consultant (person) – public (person). In fact we get the "person - person" model "above" the states borders and law where personal knowledge matters – Knowledge Persons.

Why these models are different, if they look like the same but are written in 2 languages?

I think it's because corporations mostly deal with tangible things. A confirmation for this are the audit standards. It's a space for tangibles where things can be lost and therefore are being secured. Information and knowledge are also "things" here.

If networks are not being built like corporations, they (networks) are open – welcome people to join and benefit from one level collaboration, with a direct access to information/knowledge flows ... And their "person – person" model can include ideas creation, design, production, sales, explanations, consumption ... according to public contract (a network charter). Audit and consulting can be included too and must measuring, correcting knowledge that is a building unit for sociobusiness networking.

So, as we can see a symbiosis of corporations and informal networks can be. For example, some corporations can be the production units within the network.

Can the corporations acquire the open network? Oddly, but openness is an obstacle for that because corporation can't be open as the networks can.

The next entity, I suppose, will be audit/consulting for networking. It will mediate interaction of the persons again, but differently. If we do network, we should audit understanding of interaction to accept it or not and correct it to build our global sociobusiness life or netliving.

I think auditing/consulting the networks will be a function of their openness, but I don't know where is a place for the states here?

KnowledgePerson.com blog is among Knowledge Management blogs

Stan Garfield, Worldwide Knowledge Management Lead at Hewlett-Packard Co. added this blog to his list of Knowledge Management (KM) blogs.

KM is still of interest to the persons who work for global corporations.

"Knowledge Person" brand?

As you may know brands are most valuable assets in business world. But how this value can be shared?

1.A corporation as a centralized authority of its network (outsourced research and development, production, supply, call centers, etc.) takes/owns a brand name and therefore convert it in money and glory. Don't laugh – glory is important for marketing in a form of various charities (as if they are for saving the world), which support a core business. Instead of naming the participants of the network and sharing the value among them it looks like the corporation do everything (and takes almost everything). Yes, it governs the network, but who said that those who make the parts of the end goods and services can't understand governance and must be hidden? Transparency can't improve that, because it works like a shop-window – you can't enter and rearrange the order (or disorder).

2."Knowledge Person" brand can be a true networking brand to open the network participants and share the value among them. Who are the participants? - those who form a project from their own parts and agree to collaborate openly. In this case everyone can join, who is who and does what are seen publicly. Don't mix it up with transparency. It's openness that protect such the true networking business that doesn't contradict social needs because customers can participate. "Knowledge Person" brand can be a global "budget" for wealth redistribution, if to use it for luxury market where price is a second question (business apparel and accessories, real estate, for instance).

The relevant discussion you can find at Knowledge Persons group. Join!

A space for consulting

You know consulting business is usually perceived as something top oriented - writing the strategies, audit, rather expensive legal cases, etc. And therefore consulting and consultants are mainly a kind of top society, sometimes snobby – not because of rocket science, but because of affiliation to so-called top decision makers, which is difficult to connect if you're not among well known consultants or don't serve the big consulting houses.

But it's only a part of truth.

In fact there are many areas that have daily problems to solve. Sales (I'm not about MLM) or production can be the examples. Even if you're management consulting consultant without managerial dogmas you probably could find the clients in these "routine" areas.

Don't tell them that you're going to consult/teach them. Tell them that you would like to sell their goods and services, for instance, and being a smart consultant you will realize how many reserves are not yet being used ... Sales is most critical for any business and it's revenue potential ("budget") is bigger than what is being spent for audit or any other consulting activity.

The space for consulting exists even if not to use this word (consulting). Be the smart Knowledge Persons and try keeping independence.

Licensing monopolies?

Important suggestion was added to my discussion on Wikipedia:

"There's a very simple solution. If Nikolay wrote the text and posted it on his own website, then all he has to do is to post, on the same page, a statement that the page is released under GFDL. Right? Shouldn't this be a standard answer for people wanting to re-post their own work here? Cphoenix 00:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)"

Does it mean that the web is being monopolized by the major licensing projects (GPL, GFDL, Open Source, Creative Commons)?

Is there any independent consideration of their quality and impact, if it is a question of standards?

What law system (of which country) will dominate (or already dominates) in the web which isn't controlled by a country or by their group (or is being controlled)?

How all this must be?