Review of sustainability debate in a Swedish main newspaper 21th march 11

Review of sustainability debate in a Swedish main newspaper
Professor and GM in Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and consultant, dr.techn. Anders Wikjman,active even in the private Tällberg Foundation,
have today 03/21/11 written an debater in one of the main Swedish Newspapers,

Svenska Dagbladet (SvD).
Their thesis is: The global resources are nearing the end of usage.
As I have criticized before some of Tällberg Foundations debates-without being commented publicly-

I´ll take up shortly the main points of the high valued writer´s discussion here. My criticism contains shortly following:

  1. Their conceptual categorization is grounded on the nowadays paradigm of science. Why they don’t take up the factual situation that I have put forward and tried develop with my limited resources the new paradigm? With new,theoretically broader ground their thesis above is shown by me to be both oldfachioned and theoretically over won.
    With new theories there will be another kind of sustainability discussion,new kind of solutions,new kind of categorizations.
  2. Their practical proposals-fe. to the new leadership of the Socialdemocratic party in Sweden,is too narrow. With new paradigm the S-party-locally and globally-have possibilities to became a global spearhead to new view of the longterm,global solutions to fe. the climate crises or economical problems confronted today in Sweden,in the regional EU (European Community)-politics,and further even globally.
  3. The media focus- a scoop story- is thus given: how is it possible that in the Swedish democracy the establishment has been so successful and by refutation practice in science,media,business life towards the radically new ground,hindered the global evolution. Further: what about the unethical practice of marginalizing the alternative thinker´s possibility to develop further the new paradigm by his private company Vidorg platform? By stealing by authorities shortcomings his allocated resources as the market hasn´t followed it´s officially valued rules of democratic discussions or respect for UN declaration of human values,the politicians have stolen the future of the planet,if the new ground passes by in death of the grounding father and the window to the new level of global cultural evolution is closed say for 1000 years.
    By limiting the public discussions to the thesis and concepts of the establishment-by authoritarian kind of emotional thinking referring to social statuses,degrees and networking,the democratic content of the western world is shown in it´s real content and thus maintains the appeal to terrorism and fundamentalism in it´s various forms and practices. Let new generations come forward,with new ideas,practices and concepts before our common planet is suffering it´s Armageddon. 

    1. The old fashioned theoretical ground
      of conceptual frame is shown in their dichotomizing thinking. In setting mans activities in contrary relationship with the nature. In my many-dimensional view of both economic theory (new theory of value,thus synthesizing the economic theory and economic anthropology,continuing the tradition of Talcot-Parsons et.alt) and my many-dimensional,new ecology theory gives a better ground how to analyze the current problems. Our nowadays paradigm,with its dichotomize thinking materialism in contrary relation with values or personal experiences,not verifiable by physical evidences directly,limits our both definition of problematics as proposals for solutions.
      According to highestemed writers our societies or the planet is nearing the absolute limits of resources for sure kinds of materials (by this they possibly mean access to water,metals,food of basic kind etc. physical resources).If we don´t stop is over reaping these,the end will be near,probably within the nearest 100 years. Possibly,this could be the case,if we don´t switch to the new level of cultural evolution,created by the new paradigm and the new kind of solutions based on it or deduced from it,the many-dimensional view of man and reality. 

      For example:
      in my new ecology theory the overall view of ecology is an adaptive kind of movement of the social totality,in it´s various levels: economical,political,social,cultural. Adaptation is maintained by interactive forces on and between these levels,not only in reaping the physical resources. As my new economical theory,by it´s new value theory,and various models deduced from it fe. in capital matrix-model (by structural kind of thinking,

      not nowadays piecemeal,functional one) the economy could be reformed even in societies. Fe. by my many-dimensional NMEP- spiral of longterm,sustainable growth where the physical in-and outputs are only one part of solutions beside fe. investments in new kind of infrastructure building,building many-generation housing,stronger local democracies etc. Thus the concept of work-defining the payment for educational practices,not so much on consuming physical resources,the economic life could get another kind of practice,not nearing the limits of the planet. Further,by reforming fe. the political ideologies by this new view of man and reality-the new conceptual results of the new paradigm by relativism of the whole philosophy behind our sciences,the value base of our various party ideologies could change. Renewed parties-by new social applications based on the new paradigm such as my new model of public sector,put forward in my refuted university SINUS-paper 1990 at the university of Uppsala,Economic History,the active support of individuals could be possible,instead of nowadays “orders from above” from the authorities,implementing and interpreting the usage of limited resources by their partial views of social life,based on their only functional kind of thinking of social activities by sector wise practices fe. in taxation models-private,companies,public sector-or time limited to short periods of budgeting as factually people economizes their usage of resources by value based references or many-generational investing or risk-taken.

    2. Proposals for new sustainable practices
      some suggestions how to get better kind of social and economical practices which could help in prevention of the ultimate crises,now nearing in a near future.
      They suggest more emphasis on cross-over solutions or perspectives of collaboration by various sciences together. Why only this-even if it´s good and practiced even by me? The new paradigm is theoretically the new,next step in the evolution of sciences by using Einstein´s kind of relativity thinking to the whole background of all sciences-to the philosophical ground behind them. In spite of this the resulting product doesn´t give up the base of sciences: search of truth or law like principles or search of new theories which could then be applied to various practical problems or give perspectives to new hypothesis. Se my tentative steps to a new kind of DNA-theory,which is needed according to me-together with new kind of chemical structure-in explanation of the anomalous empirical data in parapsychology fe.
      (precognition-knowing the “happening” beforehand- or explaining the various empirical data supporting the reincarnation of many-dimensional entity of soul-mental level of self-the double kind of evolutionary theory).Or in a new kind of astrophysics,where Dunne´s view of time is conceptualized in my new view of time (stepwise,path wise,in system time of the space-time world and by 4th dimensional time,which connects or goes through the various space-time worlds,gravitating towards the omega-point,going over the the change to another level of universe evolution or reciprocal transfer of particles from and to with the mirroring universe,where the many-dimensional entities of man goes in physical death of the body,and come back later,and are coded back by the new kind of DNA and chemistry to a new physical body of the self which is thus seen in broader perspective than in nowadays sciences or valued social practices by social status or behavior. 

      What could an active individual do in this kind of new framework,giving new kinds of hope,values,solving of the basic problems of nowadays society how to solve the unemployment,or give support to the adaptive kind of ecological life. Pracically: use bicycle in town if your travel is withing 10 kilometer,let it be with the car. Eat more vegetarian or lac to-vegetarian kind of food which doesn´t use so much physical resources,and-if the tradition of spiritual thinkers-by the new chemistry and DNA-theory is shown to be true-is better for both your body and for your many-dimensional evolution making it easier to use and evolve the psi-abilities,latent in your self.

      What about politicians? By using the new definition of work and paying more for educational practices-fe. payment for education instead of loans-the unemployment could be solved in the new kind of knowledgesociety. Further: by usage of my new model of taxation-a structural view-instead of nowadays functional one as the taxes are sectorized by categorical differences to private,public,business life entities or piecemeal points of references: marginal taxes,taxes on properties,financial activities and transactional costs etc. the new kind of taxation could take a new kind of unifying perspective. By given better emphasis how to invest more in practices helping to maintain health,innovation of new knowledges,helping the poor etc. Se my former discussion of this in resulting in a new model of public sector by relativizing the nowadays model of welfare society in the new view of”Partially marked directed (allocated) public sector”,discussed in my SINUS-paper.

      What about more active perspective towards business life,which isn´t discussed so much the the highestemed writer´s debate article.
      According to me if my M.O. (Management Option) kind of project payment-which is at the same time a new kind of derivate instrument which could be sold on the market in a new kind of exchange-the historical period of financial,global crises wouldn´t happen at all.
      Further,by using this kind of solutions in new innovative projects the bonuses could be sold an a wider market than towards the highestemed GM´s or administrators of new inventions-giving thus both more ethical base to the business life and more financial resources,better regulated by the new instruments rather than “regulations from above”, from the political world not understanding so much the dynamics of business life and innovational entrepreneurial perspectives.

      3. A Scoop-story ?
      As I wrote above,the establishment-in all sectors of the nowadays societies-haven´t been interested to take up to the official,public dissussions the new situation when their own ideas,theories,political pracitices or finansial solutions or high bonuses are critised or shown oldfashioned.At the same time they are searching new solutions to the common problems. Are they socially blind,not letting new generations of thinkers or social mobility of foreign born individuals to get trough in their democracies,or are the quality of their thinking or caliber of their personalities too narrow or low vis a vi their positions in the public life? Possibly the conceptual filter in our physical brains limits the data which can be experienced by the establishment-the hypothesis put forward fe. by anthropologist Levi-Strauss in his descriptions how people think by dicothomical kategorisations. But-even if i define myself by my own definition of my deeper soul-identity in my “Avatar of Synthesis”-role,by being at the same time conscious both of the evolutionary step of my own evolution and the ethical meta-motivation motivating me fe. in my b logging-informational practices as other ways to social influencing are closed by discrimination or economical marginalization towards alternative thinker who questions the nearly 2000 years old paradigm of science. But-isn´t it contra productive to stubbornly continue in the old way,as the planet is nearing it´s ultimate limits as writers so rightly put it? Strategically thinking persons should-according to me-be open even towards these radically new kinds of proposals or solutions.
      Thus-at the same time-the question is about respect of our basic values,declared at UN rules of rights of man. If stubborn,unethical practices in the public life is shown to be a crime towards humanity,and media doesn´t react,who are supposed to react? Is the end defined by military actions in the multi focused world political contradictories or terror actions,by dictators put against the wall or seeing the truth-that democracies themselves doesn´t work as they say themselves to work? A story for leading newspapers on the wider level of the world than local Swedish ones?

      Lasse T. Laine
      philosopher-social scientist,
      social entrepreneur,owner,CEO in Vidorg


Monas (s-partiordf.) fyra,nya mål- Lasses (fd s-lokalt ordf.) rev. komment

Lasse T. Laine: Monas (s-partiordf.) fyra,nya mål- Lasses (fd s-lokalt ordf.) komment

My Notes|Notes about Me|Lasse’s Profile

Uppsala Ti 13 april 2010, med Postscript den 14 april 2010

Till DN Debatt

Mona Sahlin,partiordförande för Socialdemokraterna i Sverige, skriver i dagens DN Debatt att
”Vi har omprövat politiken- här är våra fyra nya mål”.
Som fd. ordförande i en lokal soc.dem.förening i Uppsala (1984-88 för finskspråkiga socialdemokrater på orten) och intresserad av att utveckla soc.dem. Partipolitiska programmet mm från utgångspunkten av mitt ”livsprojekt” att skapa, utveckla och förmedla applikationer (i vid mening) för det nya vetenskapsparadigmet (sedan 1974-), glädjer det mig att Mona är öppen för förnyelse. Jag har tidigare på mina WordPress com blogg diskuterat om detta- bl.a. ang. reformering av sjukvården som intresserar mig då varit aktiv i den sektorn och fortfarande försöker knyta kontakter för att utveckla den på olika tillämpningsfronter (se tex. Mitt projekt Vidorg H.C. på Googles fria sajt, vilket jag försöker anknyta till det nyss startade U-CAN, Cancervårds Consortium projektet,drivna av lokala kliniska doktorer i samverkan med andra forskare i Uppsala och Umeå).

Alla punkter som Mona tar upp- inklusive hennes kritik av dagens regering om ökade klyftor i det svenska samhället som resultat av drivna skattepolitiken- är värda att noteras.

1.Att öka insatser för fler jobb. Här är nog Allians regeringen på samma linje, fast deras åtgärdsprofil är annorlunda, mera ekonomi-perspektiv inriktade: genom att sänka skatter, är arbetslösa och andra undersysselsatta mer intresserade att komma in på arbetsmarknaden,varvid statens ekonomi förbättras och det skapas utrymme för fortsatta reformer. Monas och den alternativa röd-gröna blockets profil är härvid mer fokuserad enligt mig.Hon lyfter upp bl.a. särskilda insatser för unga och nyanlända svenskar som har svårt att etablera sig på arbetsmarknaden.- Eftersom jag är också intresserad av att reformera socialdemokratiska insatser och har genom egna erfarenheter som arbetslös, som akademiskt utbildad socialentreprenör erfarit brister på detta område, har jag tidigare i min komment av Alliansens program på detta område lämnat tallrika förslag hur åtgärda detta centrala problem (se mina WordPress blogg). Det glädjer mig att Mona talar för förnyelsen här: det gäller ej att betona så mycket bidragsgivandet, utan om andra insatser nedan.

2.Mer utbildning. Mona beskriver rätt hur god tillgång till utbildning är viktigt. Att dem som har råd, kan alltid få tillgång till spets- och kvalitativt bra utbildning bl.a. i högskolor.
Dem som ligger i samhällets nedre klass blir antingen utsatta för omedveten diskriminering, eller av brist på socialt stöd i hemmet tex har svårt att bryta gällande snedrekrytering till högre utbildning.- Alliansens reformförslag bl.a. på universitetsområde har varit att tex ge rektorer större möjligheter att lyfta upp olika alternativ eller oförväntade spetsprojekt.
Detta har kritiserats bl.a. av universitetslärare som är rädda att fakultetsråd där förvärvad fou-och utbildningskompetens samlas, blir i längden skrotade eller förbisedda.- Jag skulle säga så här: mer utbildning i sig räcker inte heller. Det gäller att tex lyfta upp skillnaden mellan kunskap, erfarenhet och förståelse (den som vill kan få en sida av mina svar på eMBA-utbildning på min kompletterande utbildning i Gävle Högskola). Erfarna universitetslärare och professorer- utbildade i det gamla paradigmet- kan vara de värsta motståndarna för förnyelsen i vetenskapen och – genom dess roll i samhället som bl.a. givande impulser för vår människosyn och värderingar- utvecklandet av den globala kulturen och gemensamma civilisationen. Det kan vidare hävdas att traditionell utbildning är- följande det gällande vetenskapsparadigmet- fokuserad på fördjupningar på enskilda områden. Att kunskapen växer och byts betyder inte automatiskt att våra erfarenhetsvärldar och förståelse av verkligheten, dess olika utmaningar (etiska utmaningar kan räknas in här vid sidan av kunskapssökande och samhälligt tillämpande) blir bättre. Jag skulle vilja att socialdemokraterna skärper sin syn här i fråga om utbildning tex genom att öppna sig för det nya vetenskapsparadigmet även samhälleligt. Det blir dyrt att ignorera innovationer och skapande förnyelse som kan i början upplevas som konstigt eller hotande på våra förutfattade eller traditionella meningar. Tillika, koplad till förra punkt, gäller det enligt mig att förnya även vår syn på ekonomivetenskapen- mitt arbete på det nya paradigmet har startpunkter på detta bl.a. i förnyelsen av den grundläggande värdeteorin i ekonomisk teori, samt skapandet av en mer abstrakt teoribyggnad för ekonomivetenskap genom att fortsätta traditionen att förena ekonomisk antropologi och ekonomisk teori. Detta skulle betyda att
tex gränsen mellan arbete och utbildning tas bort- se mitt hållbara tillväxtprogrammet NMEP (kopian kan fås av mig- tidningar och dagens universitets- och fou-värld har varit tyst om detta. På 80-talet ville socialdemokraterna ej heller kommentera. Kanske Monas omprövning av partiet sträcker sig till dialog om detta förslaget att skapa en ny grund för
fortsatt tillväxtekonomi på den fler-dimensionella, hållbara grunden?

3.Minskad barnfattigdom. Bra förslag eller fokusering. Barnen är vår framtid- detta lyfts upp även i min nya värdeteorin.

4.Minskad socialbidragsberoende. Tillika här. Bara den som har upplevt detta pga sin arbetslöshet tex. vet hur det känns av att behöva gå på assistentens mottagning och bli utsatt för den välfärdstolkningen. För min del kan jag tex berätta om den erfarenheten då jag ville hjälpa en bidragssökande gentemot socialen. Jag blev utsatt för hot från assitentens sida: ”om du kommer in här (som hjälpande medmänniska med samhällsvetenskaplig universitetsutbildning), kallar vi polisen”. Lät bli,gav råd för den svagare parten hur betee sig gentemot socialassistenten,vilka rättigheter man hade. Som ironi sökte sedan jobb som chef för denna byrå och publicerade min arbetsansökan på webben med tallrika förslag hur
förnya deras verksamhet (togs emot senare på ett annat håll i landet, men utan att jag krediterats eller fick adekvata arbetsuppgifter på arbetsmarknaden motsvarande min dubbla
akademiska utbildning).

Till slut några övergripande frågeställningar till Monas förnyelse av socialdemokratin inför valet 2010. Då jag har även näringslivserfarenheter (genom mitt firmabyggandet utan starta eget bidrag)- vid sidan av mina andra erfarenheter som forskare, politiskt intresserad samhälleentreprenör och media inriktad skribent, skulle jag vilja se dessa fyra mål från ett mer övergripande, strategiskt perspektiv. Betraktad från perspektiv av min nya, fler-dimensionella ekologiteori då den lyfter upp samhällets relation till naturen i dess samhällstotalitet på dess olika sfärer- ekonomiskt, politiskt,socialt och kulturellt- i dess historiska utvecklingsgång gentemot naturens bärande gränser, betee sig Monas förnyelse att innefatta tv bara den sociala och ekonomiska sfären, betraktad sedan från den offentligas perspektiv (dvs. politikers perspektiv i deras egenskap av förvaltare och ev. utvecklare av den offentliga sektorn).

Sociala sfären eller dimensionen kunde tex. förnyas ytterligare genom att utveckla vidare olika kvalitetssäkringar. Dagens DN lyfter fram i en annan artikel detta då regeringen vill begränsa
det Finanspolitiska Rådets befogenhetsbeskrivning (se DN, Ti 13 april 2010, Ekonomi:s. 8).
Den föreslagna departementsutredningen föreslår härvid en mindre lyckad version av ekonomiuppföljning av regeringens politik. Breda utvärderingar av regeringens politik från Finanspolitiska Rådet har teoretiskt sett bra att ha dess nuvarande befogenheter, vilka kan ge underlag för bla. Riksdagens granskning av Regeringens politik. Kortsiktiga konjunkturbedömningar kan tex vara bra att bli utsatt för långsiktiga, strategiska utvärderingar.
Personligen skulle jag gärna ha motsvarande utredningar tex angående olika myndigheternas agerande,såsom i mitt ”rättsskandal” då den lokala skattemyndigheternas tolkning vann gehör hos Länsrätten och vidare Kammarrätten genom sitt nollställande av mina investeringar som tv var negativa då marknaden har ej blivit vuxen än för att kunna inlemma det nya paradigmet och dess talrika förnyelseförslag vilka- om mottagna och tillämpade- hade givit flera miljarder årligen för samhället- utan att säga att min konsultfirma Vidorg (sedermera privatkonsernbyggande) hade fått uppdrag och fått betald som alla andra företag på marknaden.
Den politiska sfären kunde vidare tex utvecklas vidare i personalval hänseende och kanske även i lokalparlament, nämnda i mitt ovansagda NMEP- tillväxtspiralprogrammet. Fördjupning av demokratin i skolor och vid universitet vore ett annat inslag (själv- som -68 student i Finland, före invandring hit som gäststuderande och sedermera svensk medborgare- lämnade ett förslag på förnyelsen av universitetsvärlden i Finland på sk. 3-bens grund. Att universitetslärare, anställda och studenter skulle gemensamt förvalta universitetet).

Den kulturella förnyelsen skulle behövas också. Enligt mig kommer socialdemokratin- för att kunna attrahera tex ungdomar- en förnyad, bredare människosyn än dagens myndighetssyn eller etablerade aktörers ekonomiserande syn tex med statsbidrag kontroll. Kanske är denna brist bakom uppkomst av en annan snäv lobbyinggrupp ang. internet rättigheter ? Som skribent tillåter jag gärna att man skriver ut mina bidrag här på dessa bloggsidor, men att jag skulle gärna vilja att man blir även socialt krediterad för detta- tex.i mediarefererandet. Detta kunde hjälpa i mitt firmabyggande ”mot alla odds” i det fria samhället som det sägs vara här. Där tex förnyelsen från radikalt annorlunda, oväntade håll från den sociala perifering tas tillvara och komma till uttryck och tom tillämpning.
Kanske skulle man därvid även tränga undan den sociala och etiska likgiltigheten som skapar
utanförskap och missbruk i samhället utan att säga ungdomsvåld som myndigheterna sedan försöker bemästra utan att förstå åtgärda grunderna för det.

Tack Mona (s) för din diskussion om socialdemokratins fyra, nya mål. Förhoppningsvis mina kommentarer, ämnade att stödja reformering av socialdemokratin, tas emot i positiv anda som jag menat och ev. påverkar senare i det röd-gröna blockets fortsatta aktioner inför valet 2010 och efter.

POSTSCRIPT: med anledning av kommentarer i dagens SvD av Maria Eriksson, den 14 apri 2010 : “Nu är det 2006, 2002 0ch 1968 igen”- en ledarekommentar.

Jag håller med Maria. Den reformation som jag förespråkar för socialdemokratin, utgår från en verklig förnyelse, med hjälp av en ny syn på verkligheten och människan, grundad i förändring av den grundläggande filosofiska synen som är bakom våra vetenskaper. Genom att starta detta paradigmskifte socialt- dvs. att socialdemokraterna vore positivt inställda till det och vara med att driva samhälleliga tillämpningar för det nya paradigmet- skulle partiet vara ett radikalt parti igen. Dess grundläggande värderingar- som Mona tar upp- om frihet, jämlikhet och jämställdhet- skulle få mer stöd än i dag. Nuvarande syn- genom dess förgivet tagna, “ontologiska axiomer” (ontologi- läran om verklighet och dess struktur mm, ett område i Teoretisk Filosofi)- gör tex en skarp skillnad mellan “fakta” och “värderingar”, vilken skillnad förekommer inte i det nya, mer abstrakta paradigmet.

Detta betyder dock inte, att det nya paradigmet går här på samma linje som sk. postmaterialism, med dess sk. konstruktivistiska linje på vetenskapen (“allt är relativt” eller att “det är frågan om olika perspektiv på att betrakta verkligheten” eller dylikt) vilket är enligt mig en högerinriktad, populistisk filosofisk strömning som lanserades efter att jag skapat grunderna för ett nytt vetenskapsparadigm. Verkligheten har grundläggande struktur- det kan vi forska i- ävenom dess empiri, data, är fler-dimensionellt och kan inte alltid reduceras, konstateras med fysiska sk. verifieringar. Ett exempel på detta är återfödelseforskning inom parapsykologi, där sanningar tar form av sk. strukturella invarianser- att det förekommer likartade beskrivningar av saker i fråga oberoende av kön, klass, ålder.

Tolkad tillbaka till soc.dem-partiet- och dess nya, reformerade grund (0m den startas på denna grund som jag föredrar framför “nygamla tolkningar” som Maria skriver om i sin ledarekommentar om Monas fyra,nya förslag) : två viktiga, strategiska frågor från Lasse:

– är gamla gardet tillämpad att leda partiet till en verklig reformation av socialdemokratin ? Vilka av dem skulle kunna komma med?

– det kan tänkas att även andra partiers medlemmar och ledare kan öppna sig för denna övergripande förnyelse (eftersom den- enligt mig- skulle vitalisera samhällslivet och kulturen i alla dess olika sfärer som jag skrivit om ovan) : kan soc.dem. partiet- om det skulle behövas- tillämpa samma taktik som nu öppnats för i Stockholm med anledning av befarad valseger för Sverigedemokraterna och deras ekonomiserande syn på invandrarna mm. ?

Än hinner socialdemokraterna att fördjupa sin förnyelse, fast det börjar bli bråttom nu om dem tänker komma tillbaka med röd-gröna blocket till regeringsmakten igen.

Tack för mig,

Copyright: Lasse T. Laine, Vidorg, Uppsala 2010

Underskott i Ackis- ett systemfall ?

Upppsala Sö 14 mars 2010

Insändare UNT (Uppsala Nya Tidning)

till insändare-/ debattsida UNT :

Jag heter Lasse T. Laine och arbetar fn. hos UNT som tidningsbud (sedan dec-01).
Jag läste i dagens ledare (14 mars -10) om Ackis underskott och eftersom sjukhuset intresserar mig
(har varit tidigare anställd där: som extra och sommarvikarie sedan 1970 och senare som “diskmästare” vid
Centralköket, och kortare tid som expertkonsult i LUL-infostab ang.projektet  invandraranställda och
programmering- intervjuandet i det mm. ).

Då jag ville förkovra mig mer (har FK-examen motsvarande den dubbla från det lokala universitet),
studerade jag vid sidan av mitt heltidsjobb i ekonomisk historia vid Uppsala universitet och skrev en
C-uppsats om LUL:s planeringssystem SINUS vilket används bl.a. i Ackis.

I ovansagda SINUS-arbetet 1990 lade jag fram grundläggande analys av systemet, och
föreslog vidareutveckling av det genom ett datoriserat planeringssystem med utökade antal nya moduler.
Dessa moduler var fler-dimensionella och kopplades även ihop med mina förslag på förbättringar ang.
sjukhusets organisering och kultur.
Genom att betrakta och analysera sk. systemkritik föreslog jag även reformering av själva landstingssystemet,
vilket ledde mig till framläggandet av en ny samhällsmodell kallad “delvis marknadsstyrd offentlig sektor”.

Då jag hade tidigare under -84-88 varit ordförande i en lokal soc.dem-förening för finskspråkiga socialdemokrater
i Uppsala,var jag även intresserad av att utveckla vidare socialdemokratin (lokalt och globalt) genom denna
nya samhällsmodell.

Min uppsats-utredning (totalt ca. 300 sidor) kompletterades även av en strategisk intervjuanalys av landstingets
ledning på flera organisatoriska nivåer (uppföljningsintervjuer skedde även senare 2003-04 då studerade
i en annan kompletterande utbildning i eMBA-programmet i Gävle högskola).
Allt detta- konkret och teoretisk analys, mina förslag på reformering i sjukhuset (ekonomisk uppföljning genom
det utökade och effektiviserade planeringssystemet) och landstingen skulle- enligt mig- ha sparat ca. 7 miljarder
årligen om man tog tillvara dessa förslag och genomfördes i hela landet ! Ett standardiserat,datoriserat planeringssystem
där olika intressenter hade omedelbar uppföljning av ekonomin skulle således förhindra nuvarande praxis
där översikten fås ca. ett år efteråt i landstingets budgetsystem.

Vad blev det av dessa förslag? Ingenting. Jag fick inte bättre arbete motsvarande min dubbla akademiska utbildning
hos landstinget/sjukhuset. Pressen publicerade inte mina förslag och landstingschefer hänvisade till regeringen efter att ha
konfronterats med mina förslag i ett seminarium. Den dåvarande regeringen var passiv ävenom regeringspartiets
soc.dem.partisekreterare Bo Toresson skickade ett vänligt brev till mig efter att ha fått motta uppsatsen.
Universitet i sin sida godkände inte uppsatsen och krävde omskrivning av den vilket jag inte kunde (orkade) göra
vid sidan av heltidsarbete (eller ville, då hade lämnat in den även som D-uppsats- dvs. på forskarnivån-
eftersom den innehåll en ny samhällsmodell som syntetiserade det bästa från båda politiska huvudinriktningar men genom
dess teoretiska grund i ett nytt vetenskapsparadigm var inte hopkok av dessa).

Så det blev inget samhällssparande,underskott fortsatte vara återkommande problem hos LUL, jag fick inte
påbörja doktorandstudier och blev till slut marginaliserad, med ett låglöneyrke som har inget samband med
min breda,tvärvetenskapliga utbildning skaffad genom föräldrars uppoffringar då dem lät oss barnen utbildas till studenter
och senare genom egna investeringar i köpta böcker, nedlagd tid och extra arbeten vid sidan av studier samt studielån.

Så jag gratulerar UNT:s ledare att de uppmärksammar problemet, vilket har återigen blivit aktuellt vid Ackis.
Förslag på lösningar funnes men ingen tog på allvar invandrarakademikers förslag. Tävlade jag med lokala förmågor?
Var jag för integrerad då ville inte skriva en urvattnad version av arbetet där kritik lyftes bort tillika som mina egna förslag?

Ska man säga: grattis- diskriminering kostar eller tyvärr “tiden var inte mogen”.
Är den mogen nu då? I begynnande högkonjunktur eller inom EU här den nya ledningen vänder varje sten
för att hitta på nya lösningar som skulle effektivera och ytterligare demokratisera samhället och även
lösa de problem som finns “inom systemet” (tex. sjukhus-systemet) (Jag har även andra nya lösningar i förväntan,
efter att ha skapat ett nytt derivata-/ projektinstrument, samt mitt förlag på fou-programmet i healing- dvs.
ett praktiskt sätt att komplettera dyra lösningar med alternativa, grundade i ett nytt, bredare vetenskapsparadigm. Jag har
försökt intressera USA:s Healt Care- reformatorer för dessa dock utan att lyckas tv. Kanske lider även dem av denna
fil.dr-syndrom- dvs. ändast tankar och förslag från doktorerade ska tas upp till diskussion- sk. legitimitets- trovärdighetsproblemet
som ytterst grundar sig på auktoritetstro-filosofens värsta “fiende”).

Personligen kan jag tillägga att jag har gått runt lokala media och skriver mest på engelska- direkt till världen,
via nätet. Ifall intresse finns där, och mitt stulna firmaunderskott (av lokal skattemyndighet och rättsväsen)
skulle kunna användas utomlands efter återstart av den nu vilande firman där?
Kritisk och proaktiv (positivt tänkande och handlande) som jag är, skickar detta bidrag till insändare- alt. debattspalten
hos UNT och hoppas på tryckning trots mina tidigare tidigare negativa erfarenheter ang. den lokala pressfriheten.
Försöka duger !

Lasse T. Laine

Copyright: Vidorg, Uppsala 2010

Overview to The Openended, Balanced Copenhagen Climate Deal (OO-BC-CD)

By Lasse T. Laine Uppsala                                                                                          Thursday 17th december2009
Copyright: Vidorg, Uppsala 2009

Overview to The Openended, Balanced Copenhagen Climate Deal (OO-BC-CD)

Summary for the masses

There has been a great deal of discussions in public media, non-parliament actions

and politicalactivity around one of the greatest global focusing point in the modern

history: the Copenhagen Climate conference. This question concerns at the same time

both the traditional perspectives ofeconomic wellfare and it´s future, nature and it´s

worsening conditions from point of view of the social- economic- ecological perspectives

of human societies, the valuation of needed actions from perspectives of both unfair

conditions for different societies (Developed- Undeveloped) and the

continuation of Status Quo- the maximation of wellface for nowadays and future

generations.Shortly, one of historical moments when we- the current humanity-

shall decide about our future.

The meaning of this overview is give somekind of synopsis to the ongoing

political process and – hopefully- make somekind of synthesis (abstraction

work from ”Avatar of Synthesis”) which could help in search of political compromice

which opens further perspectives to this still ongoing conference. As such it´s

my avatar- perspective here and now, not projiced to future, concerning

those others, non-humans,aliens against us or it´s changed polarized

mirrorperspective: ourselves in the future, against those others, other

cosmic cultures. In this needed perspective shifting I mention even the

potential of a new cultural , quantum like evolutional stage, deduced from

my proposal forthe new paradigm of science. If the lager, many-dimensional

view of reality and man is taken,the decision would open new possibilities for

sowell the diminishing co2 – measures, the new kinds of financing of the green

climate actions on the global scale, the new kind of theories for our sciences

from which we could deduce the new, needed solutions and get ethical support

for our common future.

This overview has four parts:

I   With referens to the situational analysis of the last days political bargains in seach of the Deal, done in one of the main newspaper´s reporter Susanna Baltscheffsky (Svenska Dagbladet,Sweden,17th dec ”Tiden är knapp för att nå klimatavtal”- translated maybe ”Timewindow is closing to the Copenhagen Climate Deal”): description of the blocked discussions. The criticism of G 77 countries- especially the China perspective (the coming superpower in the future world ?), and the EU- strategy which asks for a new deal and a global, juridically binding action plans for all countries, with focus on the common perspective: the maximum + 2 Celcius perspective and the minimum 20 % diminishing of co2- emissions to 2020. The criticism of two NGO´s- published on the same Swedish newspaper is also referred and discussed from perspective of one of my former course books in Social Antropology, the marxistic- structuralistic perspective (my own theoretical perspective is even more general, concerning the whole, theoretical ground of the nowadays sciences- and fe. The developemental economy- shortly the new perspective of a new basic value theory and it´s longterm risks- perspectives. This alternative point is making the background to the last section IV, see below).

II   A short discussion of the pareto-optimizing compromice-deal, with a needed deal of the common standard how to measure the co2- emissions in such a way than both Developed and Less Developed Countries could feel the deal as a real turning point forward- to the ongoing process for positive,balanced, global change which could be materialized in it´s various dimensions (as syntheticed by my new, many-dimensional ecological theory, put forward in my student paper in Socialantropology 1980, so called Structural Matrix Theory, handling about the relation of society to Nature, in a historical, balanced , ongoing cycle, as done in one of the natural societies, the empirical background to my abstraction work).

III   In this part I´ll take up the financial solution to the searched climate deal: both on the global scale- fe. In the context of WorldBank or InternationalMonetaryFund- in the new kind of solution,
referred before during my consulting discussions about the Kosovo-crises in Europe, 1998, in my
Vidorg FAQ- discussions (you can possibly find this on the backups of the Net- if not- available from me and my now passive consulting company Vidorg, my only social-economical platform for developing my new paradigm- lifework). This funding solution has even a connection to my new kind of synthetical derivate intrument M.O. (Management Option),created 1990, which- if discussed, referred and used by various both local,regional and global institutions in financial markets, had prevented the current financial crises. My M.O.- perspective could thus be implemented locally, fe. In the reformed Co2- Exchanges.

IV  In my last ”chapter”- somekind of learning by doing- perspective, I refer to the need of holistic, cultural perspective. In search of ongoing, openended process for modernization of the global scene, the various actions of both NGO´s, people´s concerned in it´s different focal points (shortage of food, water, energy; genus- perspective), better energyefficiency solutions from business life, and the alternative theories and perspectives of marginalized thinkers or political critics in their search of better lifeconditions for us all could be noticed. For those with religious focus, the different ”chorus of people” could be seen as the base of political work: without consciousness of the needed change, nothing can be done or done with success. At the same time this part underwrites the role of media: if continued censorship, the idealism can lead to negative fora, with violent actions, leading nowhere.

Political memorandum- an avatar- perspective

I Collaboration needed

Is the polarized confrontation the only strategy leading forward in the now blocked discussions for the Copenhagen Climate Deal ? The two different perspectives here are the following, according to the newspaper article, referred above: G 77- group points to the possible ”marginalizing agenda- strategy” of the rich Developed Countries: first by wanting to write a new deal- instead of deepening the current Kyoto- protocol and it´s content and approved actions, the rich countries try to change the focus from the unfair description of the path to the + 2 Celcius- aim: all countries cannot be measured by the same definition as the rich countries have already reached the needed level of wellfare from which the needed actions can be done. Not so for those poor countries which need more cheap energy, new infraststructure of transportation, industrialization etc, which they cannot pay for if their resources aren´t paid in a fair amount. Secondly- especially for the porest countries among the LDC´s (Less Developed Countries) the question is about the existence: they are confronted with the done polution from industrialization of rich countries, which have now shifted to the new economy of services and automatized, it- directed infrastructures where the manual labor force is needed in lesser and lesser amount. In the same time- according to the criticism of the two NGO´s in the same newspaper (Martina Kruger, Greenpeace Nordisch Countries and Ylva Jonsson Strömberg, ActionAid Sweden: ”Fult spel bakom klimatåttaganden“) EC (EU)- by defining the financial solutions by aid-procedures, let the porest countries and their people pay the transferred new technical solutions from aid-money, in stead of ”new money”. The two ngo- officers will see the paid financial aid as a kind of damagepayment because the poorest “enjoy” the fruits of the done co2 emissions.

As a theoretical discussion of the economical conditions in LDC, I refer to the marxistic- structuralistic discussion in one of my course books in socialanthropology (David Colman,Frederick Nixon: Economics of change in Less Developed Countries,Philip Allan,Oxford 1982) where they make fe.

The following differences:

-in defining the developement: they refer to ”what are the necessary conditions for a universally accepted aim, the realisation of potential of human personality”(p. 3, Seers)
-in discussion of the stages of economic growth, they criticise the Rostow´s publication of The Stages of Growth: A Non-Communistic Manifesto, according to which all countries are located in one of a hierachy of developement stages.

-In their discussion they criticise the ”test of ´goodness and usefulness´ : the path to the progression is not similar between rich countries and among LDC. Secondly: the diversity among LDC makes it unlikely that a single theoretical model is applicable to all of them (p. 36-37).Shortly: the definitions and rules of measurement need to be changed when moving from the context of DC (developed countries) to LDC´s, as fe. the absence of certain institutions and attitudes could be defined as variables to be acted upon rather than measuring parameters (as the EC/EU- common aim of + 2 C- is asserting, together with the strategy to measure the co2- polution with the same amount of decrease if possible, without considering the historical- social-economical context.
Instead of western, neo-classical economical analysis they will point to the fact of both local existence of social classes and the external relations imposed to the LDC´s fe. in financial,technical,cultural etc. relations : the pyramidal structure of socio-political dominance in the capitalistic world collaborates with the domestic ruling class and their interests (p. 47). Their theoretical solution is ”to move forward to.. a more clearly defined
relation between theory and practice.In Ley´s words, what is needed is a genuine historical
theory which ‘ will allow us to analyse the process of combined and uneven developement of capitalism on a world scale” (p.48).

According to my own new historical theory the progress is many-dimensional: by ideology, evolution of production (ie. Marxistic analysis) and mental- double kind of evolution (by my new theory of evolution: physical interacting with mental-ethical evolution. Se fe. the critics of LDC: there are even bright, ethically and politically high-calibre minded there, trying to trancend the social context (and by doing that- marginalized in the same way as in the rich countries).

Thus: it´s in the interest of the common world that people of both DC and LDC collaborate with
analyses which don´t hide the other side of the coin of unfair climate deals. Put differently: it´s in the interests of political elites that they deliver solutions which are theoretically fruitful with process views, open-ended contexts and technological-finansial solutions with measure both the base and infrastructures of needed solutions: by M.O. kind of loans or co2- exchanges fe.

II Optimize the deal

Somekind of compromice could thus be the pareto-kind of solution: let the rich countries lay on the higher part of diminuationing of the co2-emissions curve, and the LDC´s on the lower curve. Thus the aim to co2- diminishing for DC´s would be to extrapolate to the upper part of the z-scale, and to the LDC´s to the compromice between nowadays for rich coutries and their own situation now (by pareto optimizing). Historically the LDC would move then to the current positions of rich countries etc. in a historical process.

III Technological shifting by global loans- financing

The new kind of financial solutions (by defining the payments back to the loans of IMF/WorldBank by reach evolution in the broad sense would possibly make the change more quick than current seach of absolute kind of scales (EU/EC- perspective)- for this kind of discussion see my Vidorg FAQ- pages.

IV Ongoing balancing of a new ecology

The ethos of Copenhagen Climate Deal would thus change:

instead of various functional procedures or measures and juridically binding deals with ahistorical measurement, the solution could be  structural and historic, by collaborating procedures and culturally focused in a holistic, socialtotality perspective.
My new many-dimensional ecological theory (presented in my C-D- studentpaper in Socialanthropology, 1980) could help here. By presenting the structural framework which could define the continual, historical adaptation of human societies to the nature in the different aspects of the social totality: in economical, social, political and cultural dimensions. In the same way as the natural people of New Guinea did in their society, described by R.A. Rappaport in his famous book: Pigs for Ancestors Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People, Yale Univ.Press,New Haven and London 1971).

Mayby my ”Avatar of Synthesis work” towards the Copenhagen Climate meeting 2009 could thus be understood as the work done here: to abstrahete the new overview to the needed theory, and political framework for the new kind of  many-dimensionally adapting ”modern rituals”, as the whole conference of Copenhagen could be understood in this way: as a meeting in the ongoing,open-ended process where the new kinds of perspectives, with new, broader kinds of theoretical analyses went through- by collaborating actions of people, critics of LDC´s and alternative,marginalized theoreticians of the world and world´s politicals officers.

Maybe the movies in the future could thus describe the successful happenings in the history, instead of seeking referens points in the polarizing future as in the new, coming movie of Avatar ?

The Swedish Pirate-party sends a representativ to the EC-parliament

The Swedish Pirate-party sends a representative to the EC-parliament

by Lasse T. Laine, Uppsala , Sweden,Thu 11th June 2009

After the latest EC-parliament election in 7th June, the Swedish Pirate-party-

a newcomer in the Swedish democracy, elected mainly by young men

(Dagens Nyheter,ledare,Johannes Åman: Ett riktigt enfrågeparti,Thu 11th June),

sends one (possibly two) representatives to the EC-parliament.

The piratebay discussion- the central question in the party´s beginning and

valuebase: the freedom to download material from the Net, evenif presented under

copyright (read: with minimal costs for the downloader) had expanded to the

personal integrity- discussion. That means: ”keep the Net free from political

and economic interests of the governmental parties or the powerful state,

allowing free discussion without being supervised by the state-authorities with

different arguments such as national interests, religious or political tabus, or

directed press and masmedia liberties by the strong men of power.

As I sympathize with the later personal integrity question (a wide question which

could be dissed even from philosophical perspectives with such as which view of man

the debates keep unquestioned) I criticize the free downloading practice which

infringes the copyright rights.

In the same,main Swedish newspaper an reserch fellow, Ph.dr Magnus Wiberg (from

Stockholm´s and Harvard-university) presents his analysis of the downloading question,

maybe as a kind of ad hoc- argumentation for the Pirate-party, seeking to make it´s

valuebase rational and scientifically proper (Dagens Nyheter, Thu 11th June: Fildelning

kan vara bra för samhällsekonomin).

I – for my part- without being in position to give referens to the Ph.dr-degree or accepted

career position in the public scientific hierarchy, have another opinions. And not only

opinions, as I in my analysis of the article try to show the presented argumentation false

or lacking consequence. As my criticism wouldn´t be published in the Swedish media,

I publish it here on the WordPress blogs in the true spirit of the Net.

Wiberg´s main thesis is that it is questionable if the copyright rights are really needed

in the nowadays market economy. For the consumers the non-existence of the copyright

rights would be positive,-according to him and his analysis- evenif the different owners of

the rights- maintaining with their copyright rights a timerestricted monopoly of their products-

would lose some of the economic payments as a consequence of their rights.

My critical argumentation is based on the following: his view of the economy or the

economy as a science is too narrow (and based on the current paradigm of science,

laborating with narrow theories of it´s base- fe. the central theory of value); his dicotomic

(either-or) philosophical argumentation- based in the current paradigm- is false

from point of view of the creator´s practices , the owners of the copyright rights; his examples,

meaned to strengthen his argumentation are not really in place. And- in summary-

his conclusion that the copyright rights are not economically needed- or intellectually

proper or conclusive- is false. Shortly- his ad hoc argumentation for masking the value base

of the winning Pirate- party of Sweden is not neither ethically or scientifically proper.

In his first argumentation Wiberg gives his definition of the science of economy: the old one,

current: ”it´s about the householding with limited resources”. According to me, the definition is

too narrow- both against the current evolution of the science (based in my case on the broader

paradigm, giving a new value theory as a better base of the science of real economy- a new economy

which unites the current theory of economy and the economic anthropology with the new value theory,

presented by me in one of my refuced studentpapers ) and against the second big question above:

the personal integrity question.

I can describe this in an example: if I – with limited economic resources (as a consequence of the

unfair discussion practices in the Swedish democracy for me) – would write a novel – a short story

of my outsider life here- and publish it on the Net (without having resources to set up a payment

system of my own for an own website- that is: the readers and downloaders should pay for the

my digital product, and – in the construction of the file- being unable to copy it for sending it

wider or selling it further)- I would use my limited time. There would not be the question of

”unlimited physical existence” (att immateriella tillgångar har.. inte någon fysisk begränsning)

as Wiberg describes this case to be. Philosophically: the reality has more factual dimensions than

a physical one.

Wiberg takes up indirectly even an ethical aspect of the current theory or science of economy:

through it´s positivistic- functional definition of non-rivality in consuming. The copying of my

novel shouldn´t limit another person´s copying or usage of my novel. Yes, it is true and praticed

by pirates on the net, but is it fair or ethical toward the creator ? If I could get paid- or mentioned

publicly in the media fe thus creating interest for my services through my discriminated company-

I would be able to continue this kind of proper,creative life instead of selling my body in my manual,

tiring, lowpaid job which diminishes my possibilites to create new novels, theories or poems.

Whose definitions counts- which kinds of interests are defended by this kind of ”non-valuing

science ” of economics in the spirit of now old fashioned paradigm?

Wiberg´s referens to Hume in his criterium for owner rights is simply an elementary fault,

which we- the philosophy students in the Helsinki university of Finland- learned to be unconclusive

kind of argumentation (argumentum ad hominem- referencing to a valued person in stead to the

case, it´s conditions and the discussion). The case here is about Internet- economics, the globalised

world, the question of scientific evidence from economic history which says that on the contrary-

the question of owner rights and the proper defence of copyright rights made the positive growth

of economies in the western democraties possible. (see fe. Douglass C. North & Paul Thomas:

The Rise of the Western World- A New Economic History, Cambridge Univ.Press, 1980)

The positivistic touch of the non-valuing science is nonsense- and philosophically passed in the tradition of philosophy. With the new paradigm the current practices of pirates would even be classified as usage of serfs: oldfashioned, unethical practices of onesided men, keeping others in lower positions, and thus maintaining the unfair status- quo in the world which would need a new value base and a broader paradigm of science for being able to solve the current crises or unsolved problems in the world. Let the old-fashioned economy go- create a new economy of global minded people, creators who care about the common resources in the world but not creating them by infringement : it´s my thesis here.

The second point: Wiberg´s examples in defence of his thesis above, are non-conclusive.

Fe. the Red Hat case. The Red Hat company isn´t the creator of the Linux- base- they are further

developers and supporters and thus not giving the point against or for the copyright rights.

Further: there should be given a difference between a private person creators and companies.

If I write a video poem – as a private person- it´s proper to hold a copyright for the product.

In the future some publishing company could pay for it- or- possibly- by proper media or net-

practices- giving credit evenif not payment – would make it possible for me to wake my

sleeping company (in this case as a kind of integrity defence against discriminating public authorities in Sweden,

defending majority people´s companies or by old-fashioned, short- time

perspective of economy for getting maximal payment for the state-interest (tax payments), defended

by non-educated juridical institutions “not seeing the forest for trees ” so to say.

Third argument: Wiberg´s scientific practice doesn´t give a right description of the creator´s life.

Se my example above about my current lifeconditions here (by referens to the state interests of Sweden

I don´t describe the picture in the whole : social-economically, psychologically, by

referens to intellectual life or history in the world- shortly by referens to both personal and

family integrity and interests of humanity). If I could get paid- or a proper citation in media fe.-

I would have better conditions to develope further my products or creative part of my life.

Fe. use my time better as not day-dreaming of another kind of future, in another state, where

I could get paid for my analysis, new model of society or socialenthrepreneurial proposals-

not the imitators who mostly are career-people in the system, or unethical opportunists who

are not rightly using their positions ”in the system” by not speaking of the better alternative…

In summary: I symphatize with the Pirate-party about the integrity question, but am critical

about the free, unlimited downloading- which is counterproductive according to me.

The state- if it would really care about it´s members- would fe. give every creator or copyright

owmer an own id and a free,gratis,payment system, and make the net productive, in the same sense

as music- creators are getting paid. This kind of solution- combined id and payment possibility

(thus even making it profitable to the state by getting taxes) – could be free to select: not by force of law.

The solution could even be implemented as a revision or corrollary to the common declaration of human rights of UN.

As the Pirate-party representativ eats his luxury lunch- let him send a positive thought to the loner

in Sweden, defending and trying to develope further his valuebase by broader argumentation than

in the article, published by the DN 11th June in Wiberg´s case.

Commitment with the world

Commitment with the world- by Lasse T. Laine, Uppsala, Tu 19th May 09

walking around with Soros and consulting EU for the better handling of crises

No,no- I´m not in the same position as Soros- the worldknown multibillionaire as

he, according to the leader article in one of the main newspapers in Sweden( DN,

Su 17th may, Peter Wolodarski: ”Soros räds EU- förlamningen”), walks around and

meets the influential people in EU-countries in search of better and sooner remedies

for the worldcrises.

But we have common our commitment with the world- get the crises ended and start

a new boom or social-economically positive growth. Our differences are even that

as he has his wellknown and accepted business and media platform- and contacts-

I have only this internet waterhole in my intellectual internal excile in Sweden as a

second class people in building up my solutions and consulting company ”against odds”.

But differences aside- which perspectives unite us for giving consulting tips or proposals

for EU- politicians to solve the worldcrises or – at least- give a hand from EU-side to

solve ”the problem”.

According to Soros there are 3 main questions here on the agenda:

first the difference between a short time and long time perspective. In the near time

perspective the state(s) must leave loan quaranties to the various big companies with

liquidity problems (as a consequence of the financial crises). EU- states are in the good

way to solve the problems of banking system with loan quaranties or other kinds of

supporting steps (thus making it possible for banks to open up the loanpossibilities again

for the citizens and minor companies- thus supporting the needed demand for growth as

the consumption is the central actor in the modern economies for new products and services

and in the further developement of technological solutions). Soros criticizes the main

politicians of EU of being afraid of inflation in doing this. He sees ”that the wagon must

first be got in motion- then can we push on brakes ” so to say.

The second perspective concerns Euro- the common currency in the European Union.

He sees that thanks for euro the EU has maintained a stability in the world scene.

Fe. by preventing speculation with the various currencies, which was behind the former

crises. He criticizes the main politicians and EU-actors (EIB- European Investment Bank,

Commission, different national banks?) that there are lacking both the effective control of

financial market and the speculative loan giving system of banks (one of the main causes

behind the world crises according to experts evenif there was even other reasons for the

collaps- fe. structural discrepancies between export-import in the main flows in the world

trade thus creating further possibilities for ”national speculations” fe in the USA- markets

from China and rich oilcountries ). He asks for better EU-wide budget system for

counterfighting the shorttime financial fallacies (my term here, not Soros´) in stead of that

main EU-countries (Great Britain, Germany, Franch,Italy ) would work for own cases only.

The third perspective in his consulting ”walking around- trip in EU” handles about the risk

of protectionism. Today the risk is about the financial system(s) as the former protectionism

was about the tradeprotectionism (at 1930´s) (see former perspective in search of effective

new financial instruments or regulations against financial speculations). According to Soros

the solution should be EU-wide financial regulation-system, not leaved to the different nations

(the point which is presented and hold even by the Swedish government).

But how- what to do to materialize the commitment with the world for solving the

the worldwide crises ? Here I try to- if not walking side by side with Soros (I cannot- I

have my lowpaid nightjobb every day or blocked consulting company by the national

authorities here)- so leaving my ”macro-consulting tips” for EU- and worldwide solutions.

The question of Euro: according to the DN- article today by the partysecretary Erik Ullenhag,

the Swedish Liberal party Folkpartiet (Tu 19th may ”Svenskarna vill ha en ny

folkomröstning om euron”), majority of swedes are positive to having a new referendum about the euro.

That is for voting euro to be used even in Sweden too- one of the countries not yet joined the

euro- solution in EU. According to him- the coming influential politician in Sweden?- the positive

attitude for euro has won support from 51 % of citizens in Sweden.

The positive support for euro in Sweden is spread evenly in the population: both by young

and older people, by women and men, by different parties. According to the telephone

inquiery the majority of people here even see it needed to held the referendum in the near

future: at the latest 2011.

Good for that- combine now the search of new EU-wide solutions for the positive growth

spiral and positive reciprocity among the old and young EU- countries (27 at this stage).

As I have before put forward my own proposals (se fe. My Facebook Lasse T Laine about

the ”consulting tips” before last the G 20- meeting), I could see here the double-sided

solution for EU- the world. For EU: reforme the euro for spreading the risks (in alternative

perspective: for maintaining the ”positive reciprocity” between rich and porer countries,

old and new ones). The current solution as the different national currencies are locked and/

or maintained in parity vis a vis euro are ahistorical or counterproductive according to me

(as a philosopher who has put forward or created grounds for the new paradigm of science

and further deduced from it a ground for a new economic theory by the new kind of value-

theory which connectecs both the short and long time perspectives in the valuation processes-

the point which is a crucial one according to Soros, the multibillionaire, too.

Yes, thanks, send a billion for me- a poor alternative thinker – so I could sit at a desk and work

for a socially better accepted statussolution than a theory put in print in a refuced studentpaper

SINUS 1990 In the Economic History department of Uppsala university ).

The other side ( world- perspective) would be the same kind of internal help-system as I

have put forward for the IMF at my ”Vidorg FAQ- consulting comments” during the Kosovo

crises 1998- 99 (not discussed at the local newspapers or in the world news so far as I know..

not to say premied by the Nobel prize…). This solution would possibly be the solution for

EU-wide ”budget-system” (so far), the solution which Soros asks.

Steping behind Soros or Obama ( read it: by helping with my alternative ideas and hoping for

future demand for my consulting company Vidorg, a passive one so far as not

understood- whether by intentions or by solutions ) I would even put forward bold projects

or understanding for the new, broader ground for the world community, grounded in the

new paradigm of science. EU- officials could start the research-project in developing further

the new ground: hopefully during the time as I´m a live and could help in it. The

paradigm project could probably have positive influences in economics too- especially if

the high-tech project- proposals would become true and maintained by my new M.O. (Management Option-

projectpayment and derivative instrument) which could be understood as the reformation of

the financial system if you like (my M.O.-instrument was created in 1990, but neither it got any

publicity in the local news or newspapers or was taken up by the Swedish economical sphere or

science, politicians (which could have spreaded then to the rest of world and prevented the current crises..).

These were my proposals for positive solutions for the world crises. See them as

”a hobby project” if you like- for me this webbwriting is ”a spiritaul waterhole” and keeps me alive too

by giving meaning to my life even if not bread and water or social platform for

positive integration here. But nobody knows- maybe I´ll walk side by side with Soros

in the future, or be asked to be governmental consultant for USA- Obama administration ?

So, thanking you in reading this and spreading the word..

Lasse T. Laine

philosopher-social scientist, entrepreneur (passive so far)

newspaper deliverer in my halftime jobb, Uppsala, Sweden

On the European Day- vote for future

Voting for future- notes on the margin on the European Day Lasse T Laine, 9. may 2009

Because the Swedish primeminister Fredrik Reinfeldt (Moderaterna,on the Swedish right wing) has wished or pronounced for the temporary silence or witheld of internal criticism of the government and it´s work before and during the coming period of EU- leadership from 1. july and 6 months forward when Sweden helds the presidency of EU in it´s rotational period (borgfred in Swedish), I´ll not criticize his opening newspaper article in the rightwing newspaper Svenska Dagbladet today (Europa måste ta klimatansvar- valet till EU– “Europe must take the responsibility for the global climatework- selection for the EU” ). Yes, I´ll follow his wish, evenif I am not involved in the Swedish powerelite or in any influential work for that part- only a marginalized member of the local scientific- socialeconomic community, with minimal possibilities to get my notes published here.

As I opened yesterday my own ”cause” on the internet: ”Support marginalized alternative thinkers”, I´ll put forward my alternative ideas there- how to go forward in reforming the EU- work and presenting ideas or alternative thoughts behind my own sciencebased proposals how to solve the current, global crises- and take up somekind of meta- analysis work here, on the internetpages of With meta-analysis I mean somekind of overview- basic questions or perspectives why to continue my own marginal work on this line of alternative paradigm work ( my other lines of work (not paid) are litterature and social work and – of course- the ongoing work for bread during the rest of my workingyears after the studenttime and some years as a homefather). Other bloggarticles can be analysis of ongoing works whether here in Sweden or globally, later on.

Why to continue the alternative paradigmwork

To be successfull as a scientist you must be integrated in the scientific community with a position in the academic hierarchy (with the Ph.dr degree and paid teaching- research jobb). This kind of jobb needs resources too for you to be able to study both the traditional works on your subject- areas and to be able to follow the current research- by reading, writing, visiting conferences. Your works must even be published in the most respected journals on your researchareas, be commented and criticized (alternatively replicated if working in the natural science line).

But be optimist- for philosophers there are possibilities even to live on the margin- in a quiet life- and possibly get your thoughts discussed by the future thinkers, not bounded anymore by the social conventions or reciprocial relations with the professors or colleagues when selecting each others for the prestigefull posts in the academies or in the scientific hierachies. Maybe your uncommented works even help in the unseen mental dimensions, where the new, created ideas or thoughts influence or opens the paths for the future generations of scientists. It´s always easier to get your own ideas forward if you can set them in relation to what someone has done before.

What the alternative paradigm can do for the political sphere

During the crises there are new possibilities to take up new kinds of ideas how to solve the crises. Fe. – as I have done in presenting or putting forward my broader view of economic theory: a synthesis of economic anthropology (how people factually economize or survive) and economic theory ( built on sure, given axioms how scientists suppose economy to work- on which principles or basic thoughts, axioms such as maximation of profit or positions for the social self in the short time calculations). Take fe my comments on my Facebook (Lasse T Laine) before the latest meeting of G 20- members when the agenda was a search of ideas how to solve the current global crises.

By working on the lines of the new, broader economic theory and it´s new value theory – as the world leaders did by giving more resources for IMF to help the economic growth of undeveloped countries, the results will be better materials from these countries, groving demand for products from G 20´s, diminished political crices in these countries, which means gains for the rich ones when there are no more needs to protect the own positions by power politics or military violence.

The technological change in the cultural context

There is even a question of basic valuation of the man here. Fe. what kind of immigration policy or fortress EU you can do, if the technological changes makes it irrelevant. We are marching with the steady steps forward to the society of knowledges, as the it- technology is automatically regulating the physical production by machines. To diminish unemployment you must possibly have a new kind of wellfare system, based by new kind of payment systems, such as paying for education instead of physical work or products measurable in physical outputs. You could be even more successfull in your search of further reforms in EU if you could put theses kinds of inputs in a structural, open-ended system, such as my NMEP (new matherialistic economic policy)- spiral of growth, put forward in my studentpaper but not noted or commented by elites as not published by gatekeepers of the current paradigm. And what about the possible, new kind of transportation system in the future: if ”flying cars” could freely cross the boundaries of EU- countries, which kind of view of man would be needed to protect the fortress of EU ? Surely, the change would be global and there would be a need to revaluate the current valuations of man too- both in the alternative view of many-dimensional reality and man (based on continued work of the new paradigm and it´s new theories on diffent sciences). Otherwise the technological change couldn´t be successfull: see the net and spamming fe. The old values and ethics (non-ethics) makes the new, bright it-solutions counter-productive as the values or views of man are not evolving on pair with the it- change. Life could be more colourful, more powerful if your search of ”right solutions” or ”right reforms” (valued by which principles, by which view of man) would leave the democracies work on the right path of positive reciprocity ? Vote for future EU- vote for real change in the globalized EU and world on the new ground in a dialogue with the developers of the new basic paradigm.