Business & Economy

What is happening in this category

>

Richard Mochelle is now contributing to a Challenge Private

>

Bill Wyatte is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

Bill Wyatte commented on the Challenge Dispersed Expertise

Perhaps more exploration of the problem may confirm that there are many pathways towards solutions.

Bureaucracies are advantaged by power funnelled to them via delegation.  People in advantaged groups tend to defend and bolster the status quo and discourage alternatives.  This can create boundaries to inputs, thinking and behaviours.  In Government, this is the disconnect from the diversity of knowledge and awareness of the people it serves.

I believe permeability and diversity are antidotes, but require conscious choices that have not yet been made. 

>

James Dowsett is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

Peter Grimbeek commented on the Challenge Dispersed Expertise

I immediately envision an on-line democracy not only with instant crowd-sourced votes but also with in-depth crowd-sourced discussion of policy options.

Some would say that this envisioned world might move a bit too quickly. Perhaps we need non-online deliberations at a slower pace.

In some ways, this is an Obama vs. Trump kind of moment. Obama deliberated slowly and possibly painfully about how to proceed but his actions were fruitful. Trump on the other hand favours instant responses that might or might not be fruitful (except in a bitter way). 

>

Peter Grimbeek is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

Richard Ferrers is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

Richard Ferrers commented on the Challenge Dispersed Expertise

As a value researcher, I am interested in what people value, and how it changes over time. 

The digital revolutions have empowered and connected adults this century, in the way widespread education did in the 20th Century. Yet government in Australia has barely if at all changed since Europeans came to Australia.

I think there is a lot to learn from the Swiss who are experimenting with several attempts at more direct democracy. Government moves far too slow for a always connected, wikipedia and google at our fingertips, open data type world.

If government was to ask what do people need, it is an ongoing consultation with their representatives, rather than every three years. Government should tap the crowd for ideas, priorities, and time to reduce services we don't need, and prioritise those we do.

We need an ongoing community discussion about reinventing government for a new century, for a always connected, data deluge world.

>

Ed Bernacki is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

Gail Fairlamb is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

Sharon Zivkovic is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

A new Solution was published Dispersed Expertise

>

Kate Crawford is now contributing to a Challenge Green Rush

>

William Bell is now contributing to a Challenge Green Rush

>

Bob Dick commented on the Solution Regulating Banks

It might not even be essential that cooperatives could compete with the big banks on price.  With sufficient publicity, competing on service and on reputation might be enough to make a difference.

I wonder if GetUp would be interested in a campaign to support banking cooperatives.

>

A new Solution was published Regulating Banks

>

Dina GREY is now contributing to a Challenge The MindHive Book

>

Bill Wyatte is now contributing to a Challenge Following the money - Does Trump/Russia = Australia/China?

>

Bill Wyatte commented on the Challenge Following the money - Does Trump/Russia = Australia/China?

My personal thoughts on this include that regulation may be the response - or it may not. 

Before jumping to solutions, we need the discussion about what our society is and consensus about what we expect of it and its institutions.

Few Australians comprehend what we have and how it is intended to work and even fewer of us appraise the gaps between the intended and the actual.  The things that will bite us are likely to inhabit those gaps, as recent reportage about the behaviours of our captains of commerce illustrates. 

 Transparency is one key factor - Transparency International didn't take its name through happenstance. 

Finally, regulation doesn't set or repair culture.

>

Peter Grimbeek is now contributing to a Challenge Following the money - Does Trump/Russia = Australia/China?

>

Peter Grimbeek commented on the Challenge Following the money - Does Trump/Russia = Australia/China?

I wonder sometimes if the fear of Chinese investment and Chinese influence in Australia is overblown. While the totalitarian nature of the Chinese State and its influence on Chinese business via organs of the state such as the People's Liberation Army is somewhat sinister, perhaps its investment in Australia is just part of doing business, and the use of Chinese money to influence politicians is no more scary than the use of American money to do the same thing.

If that is the case, then do we need to tighten up regulations as per the proposed Foreign Interference Law or should we continue with business as usual?

>

Jane Holmes commented on the Challenge Private

Private Comment
>

A new Solution was published Private

>

Bruce Muirhead is now contributing to a Challenge Private

>

MindHive commented on the Challenge Private

Private Comment
>

Jane Holmes is now contributing to a Challenge Private

>

Peter Grimbeek commented on the Challenge Complicit: the workers paying the price for our mobile phone obsession

Bob, having looked more closely at the idea of a job guarantee vs. the idea of universal basic income, I agree that both are needed.

>

Bob Dick commented on the Challenge Complicit: the workers paying the price for our mobile phone obsession

Hello Peter.  A job guarantee (JG) resembles a universal basic income (UBI) in some respects.  For both, the government provides an income to people.

They differ as follows (among other ways)...

Job guarantee.  The government provides a job, at legislated minimum wage, to anyone who wants one. As soon as a better job turns up, anyone is able to leave the JG job and take up the better one.  I’ve already mentioned some of the many advantages that I believe a JG provides.

Universal basic income.  Everyone, not just the unemployed or underemployed, is paid a regular income by the government.  There are no conditions.  The UBI, if large enough, would give everyone a subsistence income.

The most common criticisms of the UBI are about the cost to the economy, and that even the very wealthy would receive the UBI.  The first of these is contentious -- government can create money out of nothing, so and need never run short.  (The government does have to avoid competing for scarce resources, which would risk inflation.)  In response to the second criticism the wealthy would (in theory!) pay tax on the UBI.  And in my view a case could be made for far higher taxes in high (and especially unearned) incomes.

Some supporters of the UBI think that it could substitute for welfare payments.  Personally, though I don’t really know, I doubt it.  Some people would have a reduced need for welfare payments, I would expect.

My own preference would be for the government to provide both UBI and JG.  The UBI provides some income to those unable to work but not qualifying for other support.  The JG provides income (at the level of the legislated minimum wage) for those who take up the government’s offer of work.

As I’ve already said, I believe that a JG could be set up in such a way that its advantages could be substantially increased further.  Suitable skill development for team leaders of JG teams would provide future-relevant leadership skills.  Team-based jobs, led by the people trained as facilitative team leaders, would be satisfying and productive.  But that’s a whole other topic.

I suspect the greatest current obstacle to both JG and UBI is that the rich and powerful would lobby against them.  Currently they seem to have more influence on both major parties than the rest of us do.

 

>

Jonathan Hill is now contributing to a Challenge Complicit: the workers paying the price for our mobile phone obsession

>

Adrian CV commented on the Solution Is there a better business model?

I'm in favour of this: there is a ton of socially-useful work that needs to be done.

 
Show More Category Activity ▼

Business and economy are vehicles of growth for a nation. Shared intelligence will be the driver of growth in times to come and business processes will be designed by an empowered population that will re-invent the future in a way that will positively impact our society.

Using the MindHive platform, companies can develop real linkages between the products, and services, they offer with the needs of their existing, and potential, customers. MindHive is a platform of diverse possibilities; allowing the crowd to be the driver of change. Policymakers harness the power of the MindHive crowd to develop business and economic policy that embodies a true community perspective.

The major challenges

Are you sure you want to do this?