ENERGY, CAPITAL & PHILANTROPY

On January 2017 meanwhile an investment request was written, my conclusion was: Capital and Energy can be study on analogous basis, even when another information references were used and the issue objectives are different, following the main ideas:

"CAPITAL IS ENERGY, on the very Physics meaning, both must flow to produce POWER, the capacity to do WORK; FLOW needs a GRADIENT; that is why some level of inequality is built into capitalism. If capital does not flows a wealth-decaying dynamic of successful industries and people occurs. Store each one (Energy & Capital) is difficult, they accumulate quickly like a snow ball, energy eats energy, capital also feeds more capital, and when inequity reaches high massive GRADIENT: explodes. This is my answer to the questions: what level of inequality (gradient) is acceptable? And when does inequality start doing more harm than good? Fortunately we have CATALIZERS for ENERGY GRADIENT CONTROL and also ENERGY EQUILIBRIUM CONCEPT.

This is the main idea which coincides, with:

SISTEMA ECONÓMICO GLOBALIZADO, S XXI

ORIGEN DE LA GUERRA SILENTE
10 ESTRATEGIAS DE MANIPULACIÓN MEDIÁTICAS

Even when the first idea was older, own & independent.

Energy and Capital are not absolute words. The same way we have, nuclear, solar, electric, kinetics, potential energies we could figure a lot of Capital forms, here is where fits differentiate among different kinds of capital with different social utility. 

Talking about FOREIGN AID/ PHILANTHROPY, As Pope Francisco told: Land, roof and work are sacred rights. You are correct and deeper: Consumption data represent the goods and services that people buy, including food, clothing, housing, education, and health and can add a lot of depth to our understanding of how people actually live. There is where philanthropy must sense and aim. The same things any person wants for the children. Also could be the bottom limit for aid, once this objective is reasonable reached, COMES A MORE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND SECOND STAGE, people has to do their work on his own capital and produce for themselves; the GLOBAL COMMERCE FIGHT MUST WAIT UNTIL THEY ARE ABLE TO COMPETE. DEVELOPMENT never can be granted, must be earned. Even our grown kids ought to develop or build up themselves.  At last, Global Capitalism earns customers and the gradients or inequities will tend to equilibrium. So CATALIZED PHILANTROPY will DEVELOP MARKETS, a better controlled Economy for all and progress in HUMANITY DEVELOPING.

However, unfortunately not all of the aid can be catalyzed philanthropy for development, when this support does not come at the right time or on a continued time, until program is concluded, capital is lost. Then philanthropy aims to cure insanity, and avoid bath death like Mother Teresa did, even this kind of help is good and must be enhanced.

Seems Deaton probably documented quite well about innovations but tried to include also philanthropy at The Great Escape getting One Big Flaw. Off course innovations reach only those who can afford to pay for them, because they cost too much. Also that has led to great inequality, but only at the very first, as time goes by, innovations will spread (Microsoft is the best example), it is necessary people has reached the DIFFICULT SECOND STAGE, they must be customers, if their market is not allowed to grow you will get a big mistake. By that moment Catalyzed philanthropy had succeeded and ended time ago. Regards to measure human welfare, consumption data is thebest, like you assumed. Countries do not grow on philanthropy; aid gives only a start line. Nothing happens without this. For poor people, Catalyzed Philanthropy is like the Bing Bang for Universe. 

The Great Escape applies to growing economies, the same way GDP does. Deaton is right to point out some problems with aid, but he fails on the goals and the frame or surrounds study, leading to quite wrong assertions. 

Deaton states: “Too much aid goes to upper-middle-income countries rather than focusing on the poorest people”.

Seems like an absolute true, let’s see the context: If we are talking about philanthropy for poorest people, it is exact, nevertheless when the problem is catastrophic aid, health, and even improve education, the statement simply does not apply. Furthermore HELP is a right and also a duty that is why concerns to any income level of people or country. Upper and middle developed nation’s aid never can be a mistake, as long as some people starves or have epidemics, aid is the same like philanthropy, yet when they live on the must evolved Empire, however talking about capital inversion efficiency Deaton is quite right, but  the objective makes the difference, too  population target.

While is not yet a system, looks me like a good start: 1. - Measure population target by Consumption data, classify, for example: group (A) poor people; sub group (a) non developed country; 2. – Establish goals, and select one. 3. - Put an adjective on AID or specify characteristics of HELP. We can use philanthropy word for develop purpose, help for catastrophic conditions, an aid for no urgent or less demanding conditions, like improve education.  

At the end, we will have something like this:"

The case of very poor population, at undeveloped country with epidemic problems (pink selection) S. D. rates 50 000, (Social Development Rate); A catastrophic problem also counts even at the highest level society. This is only a hint, more carefully work can be done, measure values could better chosen and rate results calibrated, for precise conclusions. However, a system would be developed from this; we can add population and country development, subcategories, aid objectives scale, but the result will be the same.  

The dark green remarked area upper left border shows the goal for catalyzed philanthropy at middle countries, an acquisitive power enough to get CUSTOMERS from poor people. At non developed countries or low consumption power societies, STAGE TWO must operate allowing their market grows. This stage is difficult because demand increases and market fight is progressively rude, here is necessary that big global market let domestic grow, otherwise we will have demand, but no customers (Like toilet at India). That is one of the reasons because nowadays world can produce food for all of us, but cannot distribute it, leading to starvation a lot of people. The book, One Billion Hungry, by Gordon Conway, about creating “the enabling environment”, sustainable agricultural development suggest me that the problem is no technology, the problem is marketing, perhaps we must allow the poor people produce for their self consumption, at least let grow their own food market. Global markets also suffer ruin because they don’t sale, offer rises and price sunk. (Like happen at America’s Agriculture crisis). That is bad for all. EQUILIBRIUM must be reached; otherwise inequity will rise exponentially, not like as snowball rather as a nuclear explosion, with almost similar risk. Societies will degrade quickly; violence and even revolutions will emerge, a lot of people will lose hope, any good will disappears.

When working on this green area, no more developing aid is needed but productive investment will give earnings, some of this could be feedback to return part of the spent capital: the CATALYTIC ASSET, an evaluation on this gives a measure of past philanthropy program efficiency. Positive capital investment is the KEY during this second stage; assures the conversion of the poorest communities on CUSTOMERS, sound markets will DEVELOP. Global commerce benefits by growing market, better and steady EQUILIBRIA on Global Economy are possible. That is the approach I will use for my own business and philanthropy plan. Thanks you, Bill, again your blog gave me the hint.

I got a bunch of doubts when Piketty explains about inequity and wealth accumulation: “Governments can play a constructive role in offsetting the snowballing tendencies if and when they choose to do so.” That is right, also: “Governments can play a destructive role in escalating the snowballing tendencies if and when they choose to do so.” Can governments opt or it is their responsibility? What is the State commitment about inequity and economic growing, security, welfare, education, health or philanthropy? What happens if people at government only want get their own wealthy? That is democratic?

TRANSFORMATIVE TECHNOLOGIES: Wonderful words combination, let’s start with the adjective, transform ingredients on non harm or diseases causing products, besides gets better sanity, living and working conditions, the ambient is also changed. Now Technology, comprehends knowledge, skill and the tools, equipment and machinery applied on working at Agriculture, Health, Energy, Communication, Education themes. 

As more and High Technology the best, nonetheless for a business point of view, must gave profits. For DEVELOPMENT aim the technology level must be affordable, a reference from Doulate Koné;, Senior Program officer; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation: “The sanitation system as we know it in the developed world cannot work in developing countries what we need in developing countries is a very simple system”.

 Another good reference comes from the book “Getting Better: Why Global Development is succeeding?” by Charles Kenny about the spread of new technologies and ideas. Because of many of “the best things in life are cheap”. Mr. Kenny recommends focusing development aid on helping to spread such ideas and the cheap technologies that can measurably improve quality of life; the real successes of aid, and the benefits that additional smart investment can bring. (An idea: Perhaps catalyzed assets on small business, with different social utility concept, closing the loop of catalyzed philanthropy). There is a confirmation at your statement about consumption on: food, shelter, health, education, security and other factors that contribute to human well-being, is the best measure for philanthropy, even when he talks about income. Both (income and consumption) are related but are not the same.

Discoveries in computer science lead to new software and hardware that communicate and add work capacities to the people, powerful new technologic machinery. You are one of the fellows responsible of this. The flaw starts with: “Innovations reach only those who can afford to pay for them. And that has led to great inequality”. That is wrong, you are guilty of spread this technology around the world, even when a lot of us cannot pay all of the real high value these products reach.

For hardware, small is beauty (Transistor and Computer revolution). Often the best software solution is a simple program, or better a cluster of straightforward programs. These are important lessons that must be considered when any kind of Technology is transferred.

One of the consequences of such innovations is the cellular design for mobile phone. I believe such design approach on other fields will give important advances, because of communication between the cells is possible.

AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT, TOILET/ WATER, SANITATION & HYGIENE, joint with some comments about Global Greenhouse and Sustainable Development and Energy are issues that I will threat from a certified BIG HISTORIAN view:

INGREDIENTS + GOLDILOCKS -> NEW COMPLEXITIE

Physic’s best word for GOLDILOCKS: FIELD, is a set of physical quantities or variables that has a value for each point in space and time, variable value can be zero, but still exists and interacts with others. Almost the same, but where is the beauty blond? Where the tenderness of baby bear? What about the dangerous Daddy Bear? Well, all shared the soup. Is a variable to share?

THRESHOLD also is a quite suggestive word, means porch or entry same as edge, beginning and dawn. Looks a very interesting way of describe physical interactive conditions on a FIELD.

These outstanding approaches make Big History by David Christian, John Green, (ET AL) an interesting nice educative work.

Let’s opening a plan for the rural poor people, my suggested necessity S. D. Rate about 50 000:

INGREDIENTS	GOLDILOCKS	NEW COMPLEXITIES
3-12 People + Little ground surface +Modest cultivable, poor soil + Some water + A few of any kind cattle + Work	Philanthropy + Proper technology + Agriculture improvement + Sanitation + Sustainable energy + Motivation + Education	Better food availability + Soil enrichment + Health improvement + Work efficiency + Ambient preservation + Higher consumption + More Income + Land love
= OLD THRESHOLD (50 000 rate level)	= DEVELOPMENT	= NEW THRESHOLD (29 100 rate level)

Time is forever. As in the old beautiful song is write down. Also space always is there. Neither are not an ingredient, nor a field, are complexities never new. Time must be considered dealing with any kind of project. All the goldilocks are Fields, no doubt. About new complexities, all of them are quite good results, where is complexity? The word means difficulty not implies bad or good things.

Like History, this handling makes loops; work on cycles, once new threshold is reached a new iteration would be start, until the specified program goal is reached. When the Social Development Rate level approaches 1 500 Philanthropy becomes Catalytic possibilities, poor people are able to sale their products, on their own market. They reach Customer level, but capital is needed for catalyzed assets, local business results; utilities will measure all the program efficiency and a split would be retrofitted considering different social utility concept, customers will be also Citizens and real Democracy could be possible. There is my Chemical Engineering Services business plan is realizable, under the dark green area, as people development progress more and high technology is needed and affordable.

All of the new complexities of the last table are defined, except Love land. As people development opportunities are reached, they will keep living in rural land and the old and big trouble of crowded misery belts over the cities will disappear, with all the health, sanity, violence, security, delinquency and big inequity problems solved. There is cellular and information technologic and business approach shines. This would be globalized.

To good for be true, candid thinking. Nothing is so easy; as I told second development stage is high complex, the inequity decreases, but gradient for capital grew flow diminish, snowballing tendency gets lower. Here is where class fights are enhanced, communism and capitalism false arguments are mass supposed and supported on both sides, context is lost and HUMAN DEVELOPMENT is reversed causing crisis cycles for Capital and also for People.

The crisis on Economy extents to Social and Politic fields enhancing corruption, violence and insecurity for wealthy and poor people. Democracy is lost. Explosive goldilocks lead to bad thresholds.

Nowadays these thresholds are developing around the world, over middle countries, even on Europe and First World Nations poverty is growing. Mexico government’s figure reaches 50% population, and their aid program has electoral goals, against Pope Assertion.

Deaton lost context states: “Too much aid goes to upper-middle-income countries rather than focusing on the poorest people”. “Look at all the startups that go under! Venture capital is such a waste. Let’s shut it down.”Countries fail to grow because of aid”.

All of this argument worse the improvement opportunity for all countries, aid is never a waste, countries fail to grow because catalytic assets on the over the green are not evolved not because of philanthropy .Their undermined institutions or democratic values are lost because the “bad goldilocks” not by aid.

Middle consumption power (not income) even high developed countries poor population investment on catalytic assets will end the aid need, reach the philanthropy goal and realize the positive business field. That’s the site where Capitalism and Democracy flourish. 

Nevertheless here is when Equilibrium can be reached, but facts must be faced, an agreement ought to be reached even both sides lost a lot of things. Even when costs are assumed this solution requires that love to poor people extends to respect and also love to the other, and a real Democratic value be accepted from both sides. Dream: great challenges.