Ideally there should be a resource for those threatened by bloggers or their associates. My colleague and I operating as a social enterprise in Ukraine have been harassed by a blog based smear campaign for the last 3 years since speaking out about corruption and neglect in the care of disabled children in Ukraine.http://eng.maidanua.org/node/581  We know the identity of the blogger on p-ced.blogspot.com but are prevented from naming him by a UK barrister who threatened litigation against us for publishing her client’s personal information.  It turns out that the barrister is his sister. Meanwhile our efforts have achieved some progress as I describe with links to our progress in Ukraine.http://people-centered.net/About.aspx

My impressions like conches above, are of a paternalistic view where accrual of vast wealth justifies dealing with the problems that in many cases derive from this accrual in the hands of a few. Let us look back at recent World Economic Forums and observe the emergence of philanthrocapitalism.   At Davos 2008 Bill Gates called for a more inclusive capitalism that “would have a
twin mission: making profits and also improving lives for those who
don’t fully benefit from market forces.”At Davos 2009 speaking at the Ukrainian Lunch, Richard Branson said “Capitalism is the only economic system that really works”, and that the downside of the capitalist system is
accumulation of great wealth in hands of relatively small number of
people.Both of these conclusions could have been found on the web, 5 years ago in an interview with P-CED founder Terry Hallman, describing his 1996 white paper on a new economic paradigm.  At this point he’d already delivered proof of concept in sourcing a highly development aid initiative in Russia which leveraged 10,000 small businesses with the assistance of microfinance.”Essentially, P-CED challenges conventional capitalism as an
insufficient economic paradigm, as evidenced by billions of people in
the world living in poverty in capitalist countries and otherwise.
Under the conventional scheme, capitalism – enterprise for profit – has
certainly transformed much of the world and created a new breed of
people in capitalist societies, the middle class. That is a good thing.
But, capitalism seems to have developed as far as it can to produce
this new class of fairly comfortable people between rich and poor, at
least in the West where it has flourished for quite some time.

“The problem is that profit and money still tend to accumulate in the
hands of comparatively few people. Money, symbolically representing
wealth and ownership of material assets, is not an infinite resource.
When it accumulates in enormous quantities in the hands of a few
people, that means other people are going to be denied. If everyone in
the world has enough to live a decent life and not in poverty, then
there is no great problem with some people having far more than they
need. But, that’s not the case, and there are no rules in the previous
capitalist system to fix that. Profit and numbers have no conscience,
and anything done in their name has been accepted as an unavoidable
aspect of capitalism.

“I disagree. In 1996, I simply set up a hypothetical ‘what if’
proposition. What if some businesses decided to change their practices,
or institute themselves as new enterprises completely, for the sole
purpose of generating massive profits as usual and then using those
profits to help people who have little or nothing? That’s the way to
correct and improve classic capitalism for the broadest benefit
worldwide. It’s now called social capitalism, or, social enterprise. I
still call it the same as I did in 1996: people-centered economic
development, and that remains the name of my organization and my web
site.”The entire point of this model was to create “new businesses that do
things differently from their inception, and perhaps modify existing
businesses that want to do it”Now let me return to Davos and the Ukrainian Lunch where Matthew Bishop will be found among VIPs in the audience. Back in 2006, the same author delivered a strategy paper describing a microeconomic ‘Marshall Plan’ for Ukraine which included the concept of a social enterprise investment fund mechanism. It went public in 2007 and here’s the news article, from a site which vanished this morning:http://web.archive.org/web/20070819110647/http://en.for-ua.com/analytics/2007/08/09/110003.htmlWhat Ukraine got instead of “a social-benefit fund under oversight of an
independent board of directors, particularly including representatives
from grassroots level Ukraine citizens action groups, networks, and
human rights leaders” was a new USAID foundation.I wonder why?Jeff Mowatt   

Ideally there should be a resource for those threatened by bloggers or their associates. My colleague and I operating as a social enterprise in Ukraine have been harassed by a blog based smear campaign for the last 3 years since speaking out about corruption and neglect in the care of disabled children in Ukraine.http://eng.maidanua.org/node/581  We know the identity of the blogger on p-ced.blogspot.com but are prevented from naming him by a UK barrister who threatened litigation against us for publishing her client’s personal information.  It turns out that the barrister is his sister. Meanwhile our efforts have achieved some progress as I describe with links to our progress in Ukraine.http://people-centered.net/About.aspx

My impressions like conches above, are of a paternalistic view where accrual of vast wealth justifies dealing with the problems that in many cases derive from this accrual in the hands of a few. Let us look back at recent World Economic Forums and observe the emergence of philanthrocapitalism.   At Davos 2008 Bill Gates called for a more inclusive capitalism that “would have a
twin mission: making profits and also improving lives for those who
don’t fully benefit from market forces.”At Davos 2009 speaking at the Ukrainian Lunch, Richard Branson said “Capitalism is the only economic system that really works”, and that the downside of the capitalist system is
accumulation of great wealth in hands of relatively small number of
people.Both of these conclusions could have been found on the web, 5 years ago in an interview with P-CED founder Terry Hallman, describing his 1996 white paper on a new economic paradigm.  At this point he’d already delivered proof of concept in sourcing a highly development aid initiative in Russia which leveraged 10,000 small businesses with the assistance of microfinance.”Essentially, P-CED challenges conventional capitalism as an
insufficient economic paradigm, as evidenced by billions of people in
the world living in poverty in capitalist countries and otherwise.
Under the conventional scheme, capitalism – enterprise for profit – has
certainly transformed much of the world and created a new breed of
people in capitalist societies, the middle class. That is a good thing.
But, capitalism seems to have developed as far as it can to produce
this new class of fairly comfortable people between rich and poor, at
least in the West where it has flourished for quite some time.

“The problem is that profit and money still tend to accumulate in the
hands of comparatively few people. Money, symbolically representing
wealth and ownership of material assets, is not an infinite resource.
When it accumulates in enormous quantities in the hands of a few
people, that means other people are going to be denied. If everyone in
the world has enough to live a decent life and not in poverty, then
there is no great problem with some people having far more than they
need. But, that’s not the case, and there are no rules in the previous
capitalist system to fix that. Profit and numbers have no conscience,
and anything done in their name has been accepted as an unavoidable
aspect of capitalism.

“I disagree. In 1996, I simply set up a hypothetical ‘what if’
proposition. What if some businesses decided to change their practices,
or institute themselves as new enterprises completely, for the sole
purpose of generating massive profits as usual and then using those
profits to help people who have little or nothing? That’s the way to
correct and improve classic capitalism for the broadest benefit
worldwide. It’s now called social capitalism, or, social enterprise. I
still call it the same as I did in 1996: people-centered economic
development, and that remains the name of my organization and my web
site.”The entire point of this model was to create “new businesses that do
things differently from their inception, and perhaps modify existing
businesses that want to do it”Now let me return to Davos and the Ukrainian Lunch where Matthew Bishop will be found among VIPs in the audience. Back in 2006, the same author delivered a strategy paper describing a microeconomic ‘Marshall Plan’ for Ukraine which included the concept of a social enterprise investment fund mechanism. It went public in 2007 and here’s the news article, from a site which vanished this morning:http://web.archive.org/web/20070819110647/http://en.for-ua.com/analytics/2007/08/09/110003.htmlWhat Ukraine got instead of “a social-benefit fund under oversight of an
independent board of directors, particularly including representatives
from grassroots level Ukraine citizens action groups, networks, and
human rights leaders” was a new USAID foundation.I wonder why?Jeff Mowatt