SWorldTV - Sustainability Resource Centre

Abrahan Philocrat

noreply@blogger.com (SWorldTV - Sustainability Resource Centre) — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:57:00 +0000

With a solid background in Philosophy, Abraham Philocrat is a Consultant and Researcher on Sustainability at the Philocrat Sustainability Research Institute. He has researched and developed unprecedented new generation of theories on all aspects of sustainability, covering such issues as environment, economy, education, design, culture, Law, governance etc, just to mention a few.

He is currently working on and developing a completely new mathematics he labelled "Sustainability Calculus" which measures and reconciles Equity in Value Creation, Maximisation, Distribution and Retention over time. He is also buidling online calculators to demonstrate some aspects of this calculus. http://philocrat.com/sworldtv

in reference to: Google (view on Google Sidewiki)

noreply@blogger.com (SWorldTV - Sustainability Resource Centre) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:36:00 +0000

Is UK PLC Easier to Run than TESCO? » create free polls
Tags : sustainable management sfs economy education value development politics and business political office management public servant pay education information service knowledge survey

Sustainable Value (SV)

noreply@blogger.com (SWorldTV - Sustainability Resource Centre) — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:26:00 +0000

By definition, Sustainable value (SV) is the intrinsic qualitative value of a thing, design or an event from the point of view of its functionality.

However, due to the fact that human beings are also sometimes influenced in their decision process by the physical appearance of things, you may take this into account as well.
The physical appearance of a thing is its extrinsic value. So in your account you may say that the sustainable value of a thing or a design, or a system or an event is a combination of its intrinsic qualitative value and its extrinsic outward value. Strangely as this may sound, in our value allocation and decision processes, we tend to add value to both the physical appearance and the functionality of things. For example, a car manufacturer may continue to improve one of his car models both in terms of the functionality of it to increase performance and in terms of the physical appearance of it to make it prettier. So, the sustainable value of this car is measured by:

(1) Improved functionality which results in increased performance and safety of the car.

(2) The number of beneficiaries from the point of view of usage. The theory of sustainability says that 100% qualitative intrinsic value of a thing should in principle and in practice yield 100% beneficiaries.

(3) Improved appearance helping to encourage and attract greater number of beneficiaries.

However, parameter (3) is controversial in that it poses a huge metaphysical and epistemological problem in philosophy.
Although we generously included it here and tried to justify it to a point, controversy still exists as to whether it should play any genuine role in the quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the sustainable value of things. The strongest argument put forward by philosophy against its inclusion is the fact that its removal does not affect the intrinsic qualitative value of the thing in question. For example, in the car example, if you make a car functionally 100% safe and 100% pretty in outward appearance, when the car is involved in a fatal accident, the appearance will play no part or role whatsoever in the overall safety of the passengers, however physically beautiful that car may be.

Get this widget!

Speculation as Surpluses over SFS

noreply@blogger.com (SWorldTV - Sustainability Resource Centre) — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:23:00 +0000

In a sustainable economy only surpluses over and above its sustainable funding streams (COP and COC) should be speculated on the world market. But should there still be any need for one to go ahead with speculation, only a measured percentage of your economy should be speculated on the world market, for the greatest risk that a sovereign country can take is to speculate 100% of its economy on the world market.

A conservative estimate is either proportion of the economy's sustainable output capacity, which in this case could be its sustainable balance, or surpluses above SFS (COP &COC). Anything beyond this pushes your economy further into the ‘Boom-Bust Boundaries’ where all the underlying components of it become fully exposed to all the unpredictable external market forces. This means that you can import or outsource your sustainable balance, and trade with your sustainable surpluses provided you do these sustainably, which means to either use it to shorten your TP if you are still growing your COP and COC or use it to help other organizations who are still growing theirs (COP and COC) to maturity. You may even use it to encourage other unsustainable organisations to start adopting sustainable economic principles and become sustainable, such as saying to them that you would give them the order of your Sustainable balance to fulfill if they install sustainable economic practices. If they accept this contract on your term, this is a good thing because you have helped to recruit another sustainable organisation.

Contribute to Global Sustainability Fund (GSF), which can be used both as a Cost of Prevention (COP) and as a Cost of Cure (COC)...a reasonable method of consolidating your funds outflow to service your international obligations, if any.

The very notion or the inherent fear or concern that speculating only a minimal percentage of a country’s economy, surpluses or deficit in the sustainable output capacity on the world market will lead to economic protectionism thereby leaving a huge number of countries (especially the undeveloped and less-developed countries) economically disadvantaged is not only untrue but also unfounded. This is because countries who fully localize and develop a larger percentage of their economies up to post-TP where they become self-sufficient, self-sustained and self-financing, can help other countries do the same via a wide range of international sustainable initiatives such as contributing regularly into GSF (Global Sustainability Fund), Knowledge and Technologies Exchanges, Sustainable development partnerships, time and resource donations into World Time and Resource Banks, and so on.

Equally, the very notion and belief that charities and NGOs will continue to bear the burden of picking up the pieces of incompetent and unsustainable commercial activities and bad governments around the world forever is very misguided and fallacious indeed. All these are misguided notions and beliefs. Instead of charities creating and maintaining Time banks and Resource Banks as it is currently the case in some developed countries, it is the United Nations that should create and keep such banks. A World Time Bank (WTB) is universally sustainable because it contains professional times donated by both individuals around the world and by governments who genuinely care and desire to help undeveloped countries develop, unsustainable countries become sustainable. This is better than forcibly turning developing and less-developed economies into markets.

The World Resource Bank (WRB) is also universally sustainable because it contains donated technologies, machineries, tried and tested agricultural resources such as genetically improved seeds and plants, medicines, valuable research documents, etc. Like in other sustainable developments processes, WTB and WRB can be given sufficient Transitional Periods to fill up and mature. Over the same periods and post-TP, all the undeveloped and less-developed countries can tap into the resources of these two banks and take full advantage of them so that when, for example, some countries fail to do so and are left behind due to bad governance they will have only themselves to blame.

Get this widget!

Sustainable 'Infladeflation'

noreply@blogger.com (SWorldTV - Sustainability Resource Centre) — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:42:00 +0000

Inflation and deflation are the opposite extremes of the devouring beast that every economist and policy maker wish to avoid. But the fact of the matter is that in a sustainable economy nothing can inflate or deflate beyond its natural sustainable limit.

For example, if a company has a mature SFS (COP and COC combined), it is naturally impossible for the prices of its services and goods to inflate or deflate beyond their natural sustainable levels because all their underlying potential variants are already naturally absorbed by the company’s matured SFS, COP to be precise. As I have explained elsewhere, an SFS such as COP is designed to police and absorb variants before they cause problems in the business or the whole economy.

Classical economics leaves many economists intellectually very vulnerable, and, under the current global crisis, unable to understand even the very basic implication of this natural ruling.

Personally, if you ask me, I think that the classical model needs to be undone to help them see this in clearer context and light.

Quantitatively, sustainable inflation and deflation are a ‘Zeroflation’, the topic seperately dealt with elsewhere.

Zeroflation is defined by two significant factors:

(1) Variants Absorption by C O P SFS
(2) Intrinsic Qualitative and quantitative Values of Assets

Sustainable Growth

noreply@blogger.com (SWorldTV - Sustainability Resource Centre) — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:35:00 +0000

Ideally, Sustainable Growth (SG) is a value over and above the Sustainable Funding Streams (SFS), COP and COC, of a business operating under a Sustainable Economic Model (SEM).

However, an existing business operating under the classical Unsustainable Economic Model (UEM) can be converted to a 'Sustainable Size' (SS), which is a proportion of its current size.

The UEM to SEM converstion tool is flexible and it allows every business to set its own SS as a proportion of its current size or growth level without having to adhere to a strict computational rule. The resulting liquidity value from the conversion is the SFS of the business. A Business can grow as normal but, under sustainability rule, this should be done relative to the SFS Growth level, such that when measured both stay or remain approximately the same.

Get this widget!

Sustainable Multilateralism

noreply@blogger.com (SWorldTV - Sustainability Resource Centre) — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:24:00 +0000

Sustainable Multilateralism is any social, political and economic action that fully facilitates;

A complete fulfilment of local needs and;
A complete fulfilment of a country’s international obligations such that when the Sustainability Values of (1) and (2) are calculated and consolidated it yields the highest Sustainability Performance Index (SPI) for that action.

Multilateralism is a solution-intensive thinking and behaviour. It is neither based on shallow thinking nor on an empty practical gesture. The current practice by many internationalists is the assumption, wrongly or rightly, that by partially catering for or fulfilling (1) and (2), everything is OK. Well, not quite. For such an assumption will be blown wide open when the SV’s of (1) and (2) turn up in the resolution pool with negative values for consolidation into the SPI of the action in question. For example, if you turn up at the global stage to negotiate a trade deal on behalf of your country, the resulting agreement must completely meet both your country’s local needs and your international obligations needs. It’s pointless negotiating a deal that leaves one or the other worse off.

No one denies the fact that every man’s first gut reaction instinct naturally tends towards always thinking about your own country first, hence consequently, you would always tend towards getting the best deal for your country with little or no thoughts about your opponents. But the reality of this is that if you pick up the courage to calculate the SPI of your action post-trade agreement, you would be shocked to see how the consequences of a partial agreement that puts your opponent at a disadvantage may very well discount and degrade the Sustainability Performance Index of your action potentially to unsustainable level.

A clear thinking and clean-minded Internationalist ought to fully embrace and always think of (1) and (2) as an essential and unavoidable criterion of Sustainable Multilateralism. Thinking about and actioning one without the other naturally piles up negative values over time that immediately and subsequently defeat the whole purpose and essence of Sustainable Multilateralism.

Frankly speaking, before seeking international co-operation and collective action on any issue, it is advisable and prudent to always arm oneself with clear thoughts and full appreciation of (1) and (2).

Get this widget!

Sustainable Speculation

noreply@blogger.com (SWorldTV - Sustainability Resource Centre) — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:19:00 +0000

A title or name of this kind would give even an alien spieces from outer space stomach ache. In reality there is no such thing as 'Sustainable Speculation'.

For the sake of making any sense of it, the title is just a generous but diplomatic way of distinguishing between a licenseable gambling and intrinsic qualitative value traceable to a real tangible transaction in the real world. Ideally, speculation should be avoided at all cost, but if you insist for any reason best known to you, then it should be an indulgence or value over and above the SFS (COP & COC) of your business or economy.

In a sustainable economy only surpluses over and above its sustainable funding streams (COP and COC) should be speculated on the world market. But should there still be any need for one to go ahead with speculation at a value below SFS levels, only a measured percentage of your economy should be speculated on the world market, for the greatest risk that a sovereign country can take is to speculate 100% of its economy on the world market. In fact, simply put, speculation is an affordable risk. If you cannot afford it, don't speculate!

Get this widget!

Sustainable Economy in Brief

noreply@blogger.com (SWorldTV - Sustainability Resource Centre) — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:42:00 +0000

Sustainable Economy (SE) is defined as the type of economy whose underlying variable components are fully facilitated using sustainable measures. The variable components of sustainable economy are kept at sustainable levels using a sustainable funding stream (SFS) called ‘the cost of prevention’ (COP) and the whole economy itself is fully insured or protected using another type of sustainable funding stream called ‘the cost of cure’ (COC). Both COP and COC are sustainable funding streams that must be setup from outset - that is, from the very first day that the development of the economy begins or at any point in time when the whole economy is ready to reschedule and rejuvenate itself. Both require predetermined Transitional Periods (TP) to grow to maturity.

When does COP Mature? COP matures at a level equals to the total liquidity value or subsidies required to keep the variable components of the economy such as prices of assets, goods and services, salaries, shares, debentures, bonuses, wages, deposits, contracts values and interest rates at sustainable levels. For example, in a financial institution it is reasonable to summate that COP matures when its cumulative value is at a level equals to the sum of its investors’ deposits. Consequently ,COP at maturity is what every financial institution needs to prevent or avoid the so-called ‘bank runs’, a notorious and most feared market phenomenon largely blamed for being the main cause of bubbles in the financial market and in the wider economy. A COP grown to the same level as the total amount of deposits held by each financial institution is an extremely powerful financial instrument that can prevent not only the internal ‘deposits runs’ but also the ‘bubbles’ in the wider financial market. My gut reaction instinct is that if the depositors or investors rush to withdraw a huge amount of their deposits from the financial institution as they usually do whenever a volatile economic climate causes them to fear the worse, any financial institution with a matured COP already in place will not be affected. Well, even in the worst case scenario where all the deposits are completely withdrawn by the investors, I predict that the financial institution in question will still not be affected because they have a COP the size of the total deposits withdrawn by the investors. The financial institution has the liquidity value needed to survive the storm and only those without it will bite the dust.

When does COC mature? COC on the other hand matures when its cumulative value equals the total value of the business. COC is a very strange sustainable financial instrument because not only does it retain its liquidity status (ready-to-use cash status) but also it is a ‘do-nothing-while-you-wait’ raw cash. To keep cash the size of your total business value not only in liquid form (ready-to-use) but also almost completely idle (do nothing) is very strange indeed and it is every investor’s worst nightmare. It is a taboo that every investor would dread confronting, let alone accepting it as the most powerful financial security on the planet. It is a sustainable funding stream designed from day one and grown to maturity specifically to protect and rescue a business or the whole economy from total failure. People who wonder what sustainable funding streams are and why they are very powerful tools for keeping business variants in check while at the same time fully protecting the whole business from total failure should sit down and do a little bit of thinking themselves. They should ask themselves these questions:

All the businesses (large and small) that collapsed throughout the human history of applying the current problematic business concepts, would they have failed if they had matured COP and COC sustainable funding streams already in place?
What other suitable economic mechanisms are there for securing equity in wealth redistribution that we often crave for?
Can people think of any other means by which we can cure all types of economic problems (downturns, bubbles, rogue trading, inflation, depression, debts culture, unemployment, phantom transactions just to name a few) that are usually associated with the current economic model?

The suspicion that haunted my conscience since childhood is that it is the unpredictable and uncontrollable underlying variable components of the classical economic model that constantly shake the very foundation of businesses and subsequently to their failures. When the variable components of a business or an economy repeatedly shakes its very foundation what result are a wide range of economic problems that lead not only to business failure but also to unnecessary human hardship. My own view is that COP and COC sustainable funding streams are powerful tools worth considering. We could at least do a pilot test to see if they work, that is, if they can be used to update and breathe a new lease of life into the current problematic economic model with countless fluctuating and unpredictable parameters.

NOTE: This is just a brief description or definition of Sustainable economy and the basic fundamental principles that drive it. I must also point out that careful use of the topics on the main category or link category section along with some of the main pages should systematically reveal the whole picture as you work from one topic to the next. Besides, there is a follow-up topic to this which details and distinguishes sustainable economy from unsustainable economy on the main page called “How to Immunise an Economy”. And for additional information, see the definition page on the top menu called “Defining the Key Terms of Sustainability”.

How to Immunise an Economy

noreply@blogger.com (SWorldTV - Sustainability Resource Centre) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:56:00 +0000

When an economy is operating using Unsustainable Economic Principle (UEP), the natural state of the economy would appear on the scale of measure like this.

But when an economy operate using Sustainable Economic Principle (SEP), the natural state of it would appear within the spectrum of measure like this.

Immunising your economy is therefore the first rule of sustainability. When your economy is fully immunised everything else falls into place. But how do you do this? You can immunise your economy in the following suggested ways :

PRICE UNCERTAINTY: Put a price tag on everything that causes the essential economic components to vary not only unpredictably but also problematically. These are your economic risks otherwise called the ‘Run Risk Ratios (RRR)’. Uncertainty = Habits(Greed, ignorance, sabotages, wars, and rogue trading) + Acts of Nature(earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, accidents, droughts, etc). Throughout the history of the boom and bust cycles, these bags of excuses are often quoted and used to justify all types of fluctuations in the financial market, inflations, interest rates increase, stock prices, prices of assets, goods and services, labour costs,. They drive human expectations back and forth the spectrum of uncertainty. When these classes of excuses are priced, the human expectations are automatically priced as well. Summary: Uncertainty = (Habits + Nature). Price it!

INSURE UNCERTAINTY: Once you price your uncertainy, insure it. Because this fully priced uncertainty is the RRR of your business that can either make or break it, it is important that you devise, install and grow Sustainable Funding Streams (SFS) to maturity, which includes (1) the Cost of Prevention (COP) and (2) the Cost of Cure (COC). Both SFS’s need a highly disciplined Transitional Period (TP) to grow to maturity. COP reaches maturity at a level equals to or above the level of subsidies required to keep unsustainable business variants at sustainable level. If SFS exists in an economy or in a business sector, no stock broker, no service provoder, no products producer, no raw material farmer, no components or spare parts manufacturer can use uncertainey in the natural process or uncertainty in the human behviour as an excuse to drive prices of goods, assets, services and labour up or down indiscriminately as it is often the cases in various sectors of the economy. An economy or a business with a mature SFS is not only self-insured but also self-financing.

AVOID DEBTS DURING TP: During the transitional period, when you are cautiously and painfully growing your COP and COC sustainable funding streams to maturity, it is advisable to avoid debts altogether. That is, adopting sustainable economic principles such as SFS requires that you avoid debts creation completely. But if you are really pressed for whatever reasons best known to you, the risk level permitted, both in theory and in practice, is a value proportional to your current SFS value. For example, if you have £50,000,000 as your SFS target and your SFS growth level is currently at £25,000,000, then this current SFS growth level of £25,000,000 is the level at which your currently incurred business debt must not exceed. If you haven’t got any SFS installed in your organisation and start incurring debt from day one, then your business is twice as risky, as you have neither an SFS to track and keep your problematic business variants at sustainable levels nor an SFS to rescue your business from total failure. The price you pay for this is that you have a funding stream to cover your debt should it suddenly becomes necessary for you to pay it back on short notice but you are left in a highly fictional position where your organisation is pretending to have SFS but which in actual fact is without one.

AVOID CONFLICT BETWEEN BUSINESS GROWTH AND SFS GROWTH. Once you install SFS in your business and start to grow it, allow your business to grow relative to your SFS growth level. Ideally, a genuine business growth is a value over and above SFS at maturity post-TP. However, if you find it still necessary to grow your business at the same time as you are growing your SFS during the TP, then prudent and clear thinking suggests that both should be grown relative to one another at the highest operational safety level possible. That is, your business growth must be at a level equals to one third of your current SFS growth level.

For example, if you have £50,000,000 as your SFS target before it matures and your SFS growth level is currently at £25,000,000, then your current business growth level should, in theory and in practice, not exceed (∑λ x ⅓),(£25,000,000 x ⅓), (25,000,000 x .333333333) = £8,333,333.33, where ∑λ = the sum of cumulative values of SFS over TP. Is this the golden rule? No, it is just a cautious estimate of the level of risk that a business that has adopted sustainable economic principles is prepared to take with its SFS during the TP. Of course, every business is free to set its own cautions business growth level during the TP, provided the chosen level neither undermines the purpose for which SFS was designed in the first place nor the ability for SFS to actually serve that purpose, either currently or subsequently. If it does, then this is equivalent to returning your business back to square one….to a risky and unsustainable operational or functional level. Up to very recently, many business owners, investors and policy makers used to mistake the size of business or the size of an economy for sustainable financial security. "Size is security!", we used to hear comapny directors and managers brag. Well, this is no longer the case. Since Neil Leeson collapsed 125 years old British Bank under a split second leap of reckless trading madness and inevitably kick-started the process and sent a loud and clear message to the whole industry, it is no longer true that Size is Security. And the recent events of the past few weeks when the biggiest financial institutions collapsed one after another around the world, have sealed the fate of those who believe in size as a measure of growth and financial security. Size is neither a genuine growth nor security because the events of the recent times have demonstrated beyond doubt that it takes a single rogue trader to collapse a 200 year old financial institution, and it takes a handful of rogue traders to collapse the entire world market.

CALCULATE AND CONSOLIDATE THE SUSTAINABLE VALUES OF YOUR ECONOMY: Analyse all the sectors of your economy to establish their (1) Sustainable Capacities, (2) Sustainable Balances (deficits in the overall output or service capacity of each sector), and (3) sustainable values. Some sectors may be running deficits and some may be running surpluses. Sectors that run below their full capacities may create economic problems usually associated with undercapacity, and those that run surpluses may generate both economic and environmental problems associated with overcapacity. For example, overcapacity may generate both environmental and economic wastes in terms of financial costs and environmental impact. It may also be indicating or pointing to the fact the sector itself has attained its 'Saturation Point (SP)' and is about to collapse. It may also be an indication that too many producers or service providers are chasing too few customers. Sector analysis, therefore, would reveal all types of problems that each sector may be experiencing.

Sustainable Values consolidation (SVC) usually applies in situations where a problem may have several aspects to it before it is considered completely solved and declared sustainable. In this case, each aspect of the problem will be treated as possessing some qualitative intrinsic value such that when resolved the sustainable value of it will be calculated separately and expressed as a percentage value. It is treated as a separate entity or parameter with 100% solution value. Repeat the same process with the remaining aspects of the problem, calculate and consolidate their sustainable values as shown here:

Worked Example 1:

SV = Σ(μ + λ + …. n) ÷ (n x 100) x 100.

μ= Sustainable Value for aspect 1: λ= Sustainable Value for aspect 2

μ=90: λ=87: n = 2

SV = Σ(μ + λ) ÷ (100 x 2) × 100

SV = (90 + 89) ÷ 200 × 100

= 89.5%

The Value Write-off Effect occurs when an aspect of a problem turns up in a ‘Resolution Pool’ with a negative value, which is a value that is substantially less than the maximum (100%) solution value or sustainable value. The Sustainable Principle says that under normal circumstances every aspect should contribute 100% sustainable value into the resolution pool, unfortunately in real life this is rarely the case. When there is more than one sustainable value applying to one thing or event, then all the derived values can be consolidated into a single sustainable value. Such consolidation has the consequence of causing the negative values to write off the positive values in the resolution pool, hence lowering the result to unsustainable level. The next worked example shows precisely this:

Worked Example 2:

A car maufacturer, after many years of investments and continual improvement of one of their car models, eventually produced a car with 100% safety but only 33.33 percent of car drivers could afford this car. From the point of view of sustainability, the car manufacturer has produced a car with the highest intrinsic qualitative value with regards to the car's overall functionality and performance, but the car was overpericed such that only a limited number of drivers could afford it. The sustainable value of this car is naturally a relation between the overall functional performance valule and its beneficiaries. Sustainable Values calculation must take both into acount and consolidate the resulting values accordingly as shown here:

SV = Σ(μ + λ + …. n) ÷ (n x 100) x 100.

μ= Sustainable Value for the Car's performance: λ= Sustainable Value for the affordability.

μ=100: λ=33.33: n = 2

SV = Σ(μ + λ) ÷ (100 x 2) × 100

SV = (100 + 33.33) ÷ 200 × 100

= 66.67%

The negative value of 33.33% has written off or discounted a substantial value from the consolidated result. The manufacturer, if they genuinely want this 100% life-saving car to be fully sustainable, should apply sustainable methodologies to bring the price down and increase usage. The same will be true of a drug company that finds a miracle cure for any type of disease and manufactures the drug but only 20% of all the sufferers from that disease can afford the drug. Or a sweet manufacturer that manufactures a special pack of tasty sweets to help relief the busy population of hunger but which at the same time is costing the nation's health service billions of pounds in obesity and dentistry bills. In the first example, the negative value generated by the overpriced drug with 20% low usage will write off susbtantial part of the positive value of the drug from the consolidated result. Equally, if relieving the busy population's hunger with a pack of tasty sweet is going to land the health service with budget-busting obesity and dentistry bills, then the negative value generated by this will discount the postive value from their calculated and consolidated sustainable values. Both manfucaturers (drug and sweet) should consider applying sustainable economic principles to rectify these dilemmas.

NOTE: Some things or events or systems that were designed to solve a specific type of problem while in their normal functioning states may create a completely different type of problem or a set of problems without people involved knowing this. The take home lesson from this is that people should think of things and systems in a holistic way, especially at the design and implementation stages, for you may end up creating a thing or a system that causes more problems than it solves. If you do, then you are naturally obliged to quantify and consolidate the sustainable values of all aspects of the thing or system in the manner just demonstrated.

LOCALISE YOUR ECONOMY AND GROW IT TO SUSTAINABLE LEVEL: Localising your economy and growing it to sustainable level while at the same time contributing towards meeting your international economic and political obligations is probably the best way forward. This means budgeting yourself very carefully and contributing reasonably into the ‘Global Sustainability Funds’ and donating your country’s technologies, knowhow and expertise to the World Resource Bank (WRB) and World Time Bank (WTB.) Your local economy should concentrate on developing economic infrastructures to produce and meet its basic local needs (energy, water supply, clothing, footwear, food stocks items, drinks, medicines, medical equipment, mobility, transportation, communication systems and equipment etc,), with all raw materials and intermediate manufactured components and spare parts locally sourced.

SPECULATE ONLY A MEASURED PERCENTAGE OF YOUR ECONOMY. Ideally, from the point of view of sustainability, you are better off avoiding speculation altogether. However, if you do insist on going down that route, you should speculate only a tiny percentage of your economy. This is the percentage of losses that if they do occur will not damage your economy to unsustainable level. In fact, sustainable principle says that speculation is an affordable risk. If you cannot afford it, don’t speculate. It is a rich man gambling, to put it in perspective. Instead, focus on localising and growing your economy to sustainable level as suggested above

AVOID SPECULATIVE STOCK MARKET AS A FUNDING SOURCE: Avoiding speculative stock market as a source of raising funds for your business may be a wise and sustainable thing to do, especially if your business is new. The sustainable advice for all businesses is the same as in (6). Investors and business owners who wish to speculate their businesses on the stock market should speculate only a measured percentage of them. Using the stock market to raise funds for your business is not only dangerous and risky but also it is structurally and functionally unsustainable because history has demonstrated beyond doubt over and over again that the speculative components of the financial market periodically piles up negative values that subsequently bust and trigger the domino effect in a chain of business failures. One failed business triggers a chain of other failed business and eventually grinding the entire financial market to a halt as we have seen in the last few months and weeks (see the recent media archives for details).

AVOID NEGATIVE OUTSOUCING: It is perhaps a good idea to outsource only the sustainable balance (SB) of your sustainable capacity (SC) if you have to. Sustainable Capacity is the production or service capacity of a sector or business in an economy and the sustainable balance is what you need to complete or balance the deficit in the sustainable capacity of your sector or business. There is no doubt that there are still some countries these days that have not yet properly analysed their economies on a sector-by-sector basis to quantify and establish their sustainable needs. Ideally, you should fulfil the SB of your SC locally by increasing your production and service capacities, but if you really have to outsource you should do so sustainably. This means that you can outsource your SB to another economy or company with sustainable economic practices installed with surplus production or service capacity. This usually happens in economies or companies with mature SFS (COP & COC) that are now busy building up surplus savings and funds for themselves. In this case, this is regarded as an immature sustainable economy using a mature sustainable economy to grow its SFS (COP & COC) to maturity. You may also use your SB to help unsustainable economy or business to become sustainable by telling the manager or the owner that you will offer them your SB orders to fulfil if they adopt sustainable principles in their production system or service.

When you fully analyse a sector you would get a clear picture of what is really going on there. In this wheat production sector example, the table and the graph reveal (1) the number of companies in the sector, (2) the production capcity of each company, (3) the Sustainable Capacity of the whole sector and (4) the sustainable balance for the sector. After the sector has been fully analysed, it is quite clear now that the whole sector can be reorganised and rescheduled to make it more efficient. We put upper and lower ceilings to inform the analysts of the limits that if exceeded signals to them that there is an overload in the system or that there is a problem of undercapacity in the production workload of each company. In our own example, two companies

(Philocrat Co and Phantomi Co) are operating below their production capacities, that is, below the lower limit of 4mtons of wheat, so their current production capacities can be consolidated without overloading the system. In fact, we can do one of two things; either we unite the two companies into one company or transfer some of the workloads from the overloaded companies like Foliabay Ltd (10.4 mtons) and Memax Ltd (10.8mtons) to them to increase their production capacities. Either way, the whole sector would become more efficient as shown here in the second table and graph.

For the purpose of this example, I have opted for the second option, which is to relieve all the overloaded companies of their excesses and transfer them to companies with less output capacities without incuring any overloads. Please see the table for details. The graph is also automatically adjusted to this effect.

Of course, the system has a sustainable balance (SB) of 7.7 mtons outstanding. All that the analysts have to or can really do is to increase the sector's capacity by this amount via redistribution or starting a completely new company to produce and fulfil this deficit in the sector's sustainable capacity.

NOTE: For additional information see the main theory development on the sister blog SWorldTV - Theory and Practice.

Defining the Key Terms of Sustainability
Sustainable Economy in Brief
The natural distinction between intrinsic value and extrinsic value
Sustainable Value WikiAnswers
Posted on September 2nd, 2008 in Extrinsic Value (EV), Intrinsic Value (IV), Sustainable Capacity (SC), Sustainable Economy (SE), Sustainable Principle (SP), Sustainable Value (SV), Sustainble Education by Abraham Philocrat