Whither Economics - Social or Anti Social Inter-Generational Exponential Design
What systems determine some places to be job (livelihood) rich and others poor? An first version of question started to be exciting for our species to ask from 1700. Before that most people lived at subsistence levels. Over the next quarter of a millennium to mid 20th century, some peoples grew over 100 times more health and wealth, and others grew barely at all. Reasonings include:
- Colonisation -where markets over time designed trades to coloniser's gain and colonised's lost
- Laws or their governance designed for the few not for all the peoples to flourish-Alternatively constitutions where many gained but an underclass was spun (inside or outside the place's borders)
- Wars externally or intwrnally (including lack of personal safety and communal care for the child)
- Changes in technology designed future-carelessly with respect to some or most peoles livelihoods
- Short-termism with regards to the next commons or infrastructures ( note risk of selling off a commons as a short-term gain for one generation and a long-term degradation of livelihoods)
- Failure to value family drive in which capiatl structures savings to invest in next generation having better livelihood opportunities than their parents
- Failure to design in sustainability into what the purpose of scientific innovation and open society is driven by
We can all know of listings like these. For example scottish alumni of adam smith diarised them. Scotland in early 1700s got colonised by London. Over the next century most scots had to go abroad to develop livelihoods. Scots were there in US of A to celebrate how and why the declaration of independence ended market colonisation- the first sentence reference to happiness and freedom voices the goal fof designing a livelihoods rich place by and for all peoples.
You can then watch how the US suffered internal war and then design of underclass (ie blacks, and gun-ridden places) whilst in other respects celebrating fastest development around the biggest national market- until middle of 20th century- when a new crossroads of humanity started to map a borderless world
Back in the 19th century, additional views were recorded out of the continuing epicentre of Empire and the hope that transformation to commonwealth could be the greater good that industrial revolution would share around the world. By 1843, the scottish enetrepreneur and statistician James Wilson came down to London to mediate the future of livelihood transparency and expel from parliament the majority of MPs by then sponsored by vested interests. His journal : The Economist. The first centenary autobiography in 1943 is a wonderful resource if you are concerned with livelihood Economics
From 1946, a new challenge to livelihood investment emerged - one Keynes denoument of general theory had such foresight in warning about. A breed of macroeconomist changed their number 1 purpose. Instead of maximising livelihoods for all, they hired themselves out to various forces concerned with the big get bigger.
Coincidentally, humanity started its greatest gamble ever- what was to become that of spending 4000 times more on global communications technology in 2030 than in 1946 -see EconomistUniversity.com for how to report on this changeworld dynamic
By start of last quarter of 20thC, humanity's most valuable question came into view : would global and local communications spends had been systematically designed to end poverty by 2030 (ie end wasted livelihoods wherever children be born)? Would the vast majority of human race unite around this endeavour so as not to globally fall into Big Brother's endgame -spinning loss of sustainability of humanity.
This most exciting mediation challenge and valuation of leadership is the curriculum which The Economist from 1972 debated as Entrepreneurial Revolution of the Net Generation