James B. Quilligan The Brandt Report, The Brandt Equation, The Financial Commons and Blockchain.




The Brandt Report was updated in 2001 by James B. Quilligan, who was the director of Brandt Commission Research, a public information agency on the Independent Commission on International Development Issues between 1980 and 1987. His report, ‘The Brandt Equation – 21st Century Blueprint for the New Global Economy’ can be downloaded here as a PDF file.


Brandt Report

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Willy Brandt, the creator of the Brandt Report

The Brandt Report is the report written by the Independent Commission, first chaired by Willy Brandt (the former German Chancellor) in 1980, to review international development issues. The result of this report provided an understanding of drastic differences in the economic development for both the North and South hemispheres of the world.
The Brandt Report suggests primarily that a great chasm in standard of living exists along the North-South divide and there should therefore be a large transfer of resources from developed to developing countries. The countries North of the divide are extremely wealthy due to their successful trade in manufactured goods, whereas the countries South of the divide suffer poverty due to their trade in intermediate goods, where the export incomes are low.
The Brandt Commission envisaged a new kind of global security. It built its arguments on a pluralist perspective that combines several social, economic and political perils together with classical military perils.

The Brandt Line[edit]

The Brandt line, division of world on rich north and poor south.

The Brandt Line is a visual depiction of the North-South divide between their economies, based on GDP per capita,[1] proposed by Willy Brandt in the 1980s. It encircles the world at a latitude of 30° N, passing between North and Central America, north of Africa and India, but lowered towards the south to include Australia and New Zealand above the line.

The Brandt Equation[edit]

Twenty years later, in 2001, the Brandt Report was updated by James Quilligan, who was Information Director for the Brandt Commission between 1980 and 1987. His updated report was called “The Brandt Equation”.


  1. Jump up^ Pal, Saroj Kumar (2005-01-01). Lexicon on Geography of Development. Concept Publishing Company. ISBN 9788180692109.

External links[edit]


Chairman: Willy Brandt Former Chancellor of West Germany
Members: Abdlatif Y. Al-Hamad (Kuwait), Rodrigo Botero Montoya (Columbia), Antoine Kipsa Dakoure (Upper Volta), Eduardo Frei Montalva (Chile), Katherine Graham (USA), Edward Heath (UK), Amir H. Jamal (Tanzania), Lakshmi Kant Jha (India), Khatijah Ahmad (Malaysia), Adam Malik (Indonesia), Haruki Mori (Japan), Joe Morris (Canada), Olof Palme (Sweden), Peter G. Peterson (USA), Edgard Pisani (France), Shridath Ramphal (Guyana), Layachi Yaker (Algeria).
Ex – Officio Members: Jan Pronk (Netherlands), Goran Ohlin (Sweden), Dragoslav Avramovic (Yogoslavia).

An Overview

The best selling book to date on International Development issues, the Brandt Report is a broad based analysis of the state of the world, with a necessary emphasis on the failure of the world economic system to provide social and economic equality for humanity. It highlights the economic trends that need to be reversed, and the solutions and strategies that urgently need to be implemented to resolve the income disparity between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, financial and economic instability, and the growing problem of global poverty.

Free Software, The Commons , Free Money and Liberty v Tyranny. Tyranny of the Geek, Web 3 ?

A feasible government response to GFC2 will be to introduce a new central bank issued digital currency, the ‘e-£’, and set a depreciating exchange rate against old £ notes.
Old £ held in bank accounts will be converted at 1:1, as will old £ notes within a set period, say 12-months; however, after said period, the e-£:old note rate will decrease, say 1:0.9.
The effect will be obvious: all holders of currency will pay in their notes within the first 12 months to get the better exchange rate. Once all cash is voluntarily removed from the system, negative interest rates can then be introduced.
The ‘war on cash’ has already started, but banning it will be problematic. This approach will be far more effective and less costly in terms of resources.
Personally I suspect this is what is being planned, because aside from the effectiveness, the biggest beneficiaries will be 1) Government: all financial transactions can be tracked and hence tax dodging and other criminal activity becomes impossible; and 2) banks: will have an influx of liquidity when all the old £ notes are paid in, bank runs will be a thing of the past, and banks can really start screwing account holders because there is no alternative to keeping money in a bank account.
It will be sold to the technology-obsessed public as ‘futuristic and modern’, maybe that its ‘blockchain’ or ‘crypto’ (it looks like there is intentional confusion in the MSM between these terms and digital currency), as well as being able to stop crime and terror attacks.

  • I also think it is possible, and there are some signs that the NSA and other government organizations are behind the blockchain technology (they are associated with some of the original white papers). So it may seem like a conspiracy theory, but there is enough real evidence and it does make perfect sense. And the people using it now who think they are “avoiding using the system” seem to be test driving the system’s next technology.
  • In all but name the currency systems of the Washington Consensus and rest of the world come under the Bank of International Settlements Central Banking system. 97% of all circulating Money ( not Cash) is Digital. This currency is created electronically ( Digitally) by Centralised Bank Ledgers. The Only Difference with a Blockchain system is that it can potentially be distributed on a Network, that is all BlockChain is, a distributed network ledger system.
    In the UK the Banking act of 1844 barred coining or printing of Cash by private banks reserving, therefore, seniorage benefits to Government.
    The System in the US and The system for the EURO are all slightly different but all Clearing Banks in the UK and Europe create digital money out of thin air The Basle Rations (Capital Ratios) are honoured more in the breach than the observance but even where there is observance collateral is a very broad brush when it comes to what Central Banks will accept acting as Lender of last resort.)
    The NSA has a Patent on the SHA 256 algorithm which is the security encrypting algo’ used by Bitcoin
    https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/SHA-256 , The ethereum Dagger Hashimoto algorithm is open source. https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Dagger-Hashimoto
    Why Be Memory-Hard?
    The main reason why memory hardness is important is to make the proof of work function resistant to specialized hardware. With Bitcoin, whose mining algorithm requires only a simple SHA256 computation, companies have already existed for over a year that creates specialized “application-specific integrated circuits” (ASICs) designed and configured in silicon for the sole purpose of computing billions of SHA256 hashes in an attempt to “mine” a valid Bitcoin block. These chips have no legitimate applications outside of Bitcoin mining and password cracking, and the presence of these chips, which are thousands of times more efficient per dollar and kilowatt-hour at computing hashes than generic CPUs, makes it impossible for ordinary users with generic CPU and GPU hardware to compete.
    That last bit might seem overly technical but it is very important. Money Circulates and its velocity is important regarding how much activity a notional fixed sum of money can participate in. Velocity will go up and down with confidence levels but can lead to large swings in economic activity which are undesirable. Currency issuance is a way to iron out these swings in confidence, in a decentralised issuance system swings in sentiment will even out on average and the control mechanism will necessarily have less extreme undershoots and overshoots. A fixed money supply is not though a good idea, the Gold Standard was a big fat failure in most respects.
    A Joke.
    a physicist, an engineer, and a statistician out hunting. The physicist calculates the trajectory using ballistic equations but assumes no air resistance, so his shot falls 5 meters short. The engineer adds a fudge factor for air resistance, and his shot lands 5 meters long. The statistician yells “We got ‘em!”
    With the existing Crypto / Blockchain Infrastructure and Hierarchy there is a problem of concentration of Economic Power, This group are known as Whales.
    The exchange of Crypto Currencies for FIAT and their price level are maqnipåulated by Fairly small volumes as the distribution is one with a very fat tail that fat tail wags the Market Dog. Mining or distribution through say a universal currency dividend would ensure that first-mover advantage for newly issued currency is not concentrated to a privileged in-group, this happens with FIAT and it is also happening with increased centralisation of Crypto Mining power on all networks, SHA 146, Dagger Hashimoto, Skrypt etc.
    Blockchain Transactions are quite traceable and piercing the anonymity veil not so hard, the trip wire is any conversion back to FIAT. There are though DASH and Monero both of which preserve anonymity much better even within the blockchain space, Governments make a big mistake if they think getting rid of Cash will stop people finding an analogue ( Cigarettes ) ( Pokemon Cards ) Red M and M’s
    anything will do, Silver Dollars, You get the idea.
    Web 3 is properly distributed network computing uncensorable and a space where Tyranny will find itself in some trouble save for the Tyranny of the Geek. The Tyranny of the Geek is quite scary. Google Richard Stallman to see why Open Source is the antidote to Geek Tyranny
    At this stage here in Sweden Cash is almost finished with I have a project Forres/Lagom which will fill the huge gap extinguishing cash will leave Crytpo Complimentary currencies are rather more healthy than Cigarettes although that said who smokes currency but then that’s the same problem with using any store of value that becomes a speculative object.
  • http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/James_Quilligan_on_Finance_as_a_Commons



Learn More about the Free Software Foundation Here. https://www.fsf.org/


Click Here For Images

Hi Mike,

Cryptos are under the spotlight the US regulator recently ruled that Ethereum is not a security but Bitfinex and Tether are still under investigation.
The Whales are not stupid and the range within which Cryptos are trading plus or minus 10 per cent is still very profitable for those in control.
The Downside is always Zero, will all go to Zero? I think it unlikely, though some have and some still will.
I had this exchange with Craig Wright the other day ( I think he is one of the People who are Satoshi collectively, A collective of at Least 2 and the actual team over the first year or so of Bitcoin was a core of at least 5 Cypher Punks.

If you look at the general attitude of comments in Crypto compare and those who drive the sentiment ( people like Mc Affee, Verr and Wright, They more or less all think in terms of backing the Final Victor. I find this strange in that Distributed Networks demonstrate the theory of Anti Fragile (Robust) Diverse systems with Many points of Failure relying on the Law of Large Numbers to survive over Centralised systems with their efficiencies but single catastrophic points of failure.

The Upside for Crytpo/Blockchain relies on Two things Adoption ( Critical Mass) and Being better as an alternative to the existing system. ( Cleaning House)

Both Main Flavours BTC and ETH are working on their functionality and easier usage and hence adoption, Generally they see the main problem as a Scalability of transactions on the networks. I am much less worried about Scaleability than Diversity, Decentralisation and fair distribution.
The scaling of Proof of Stake is attractive but is that likely to lead to centralisation? This comment on Crypto Compared the other day Nails the question.

“Here’s my opinion on how they pulled this off. Most sensible people around the world, but Americans in particular, don’t want to be seen as stifling innovation. The current US government is under Republican control, and Republicans are anti-regulation, anti-taxation and pro-small-business, so they do not want to be seen coming down hard on tech startups or small businesses. 
Based on the way that Ethereum got away with it, and just my opinion here, at your own risk, but If you are serious about starting a company and not just trying to get rich quick and scram, you can start from scratch and raise funding to get your gig off the ground via an ICO. If you already have access to significant VC funding, and could afford to do an IPO properly, you may be on thin ice. The catch is that you need to convert your product into something decentralized on or near launch that changes the ERC20 token into something that is definitely NOT a security and is definitely NOT controlled by you or any single entity by more than say 5% per owner entity at most”.
“That last point, that Ethereum isn’t centralized means something very significant for Casper PoS. I’ve complained in the past about the need to have a very low minimum amount required to participate in “Staking”. The situation with the US SEC and their recent statement means that in addition to a low minimum amount, staking also needs to have a *maximum* amount, which somehow prevents any single entity from acquiring more than a certain amount of control over the network, or else they will be at risk of being declared a centrally controlled organization that is effectively issuing securities with their coin”.

Your point is a good one, but that’s where the legal subtlety comes in. There was an analysis by a securities lawyer I posted a while back that said that it’s simply not the SEC’s style to “go back in time” or “pick winners” by enforcing laws retroactively for behaviour in the past. If you’re careful about it and stay off the SEC’s radar, for example by using disclaimers for US customers like EOS did, you can get away with funding your development via an ICO. The key bit though is that you must decentralize at launch. EOS did so in a minimal way and took on too much risk in my opinion. I would probably have decentralized by at least 10x more than they did. If your entity is controlled by at least 200 different people or organizations, it’s pretty impossible to call it centralized in my opinion, and therefore it’s impossible to call your coin a security. The further you go beyond 200, the less risk you have of someone coming after you. 1/200th of $50B is $250M. That’s enough for me :)”



The way Ether is structured is quite Strong I think the ERC tokens referencing back tho ETH and ETC, I also see the Bitcoin Forks as something to be embraced. Where the Value of the whole top 20 is more evenly spread rather than between 33% and 40 % dominance to Bitcoin and 15% to Ether, with that sort of spread I think that a reference basket or index of all coins would serve as a sort of reserve currency pool to iron out swings in price to something more stable. This then becomes a key to referencing Crypto Currencies and the Value of the Block Chain Marketplace as a commons. Instead of valuing the security based upon conversion to Either, Dollars, Euros or Stirling.

At the moment conversion back to FIAt is essential and inescapable as if you want to buy things you need FIAT most of the time. That’s the linkage that needs to be broken to break it more utility has to come into the network, If you look at the State of the Dapps many of the Dappps are trivial they are games and pretty mundane analysis and moving tokens from a to b toys.
1629 projects.


The final Point is the Chicago Mercantile BTC futures, this is at below 7000 for Bitcoin nothing is going anywhere until Bitcoin starts going up and Bitcoin has the Biggest Whale Problem and also the most infighting BTC, BTG and BCH until both

Bitcoin and Ethereum communities and other decentralised Mining Currencies and also the centrally Distributed ( XRP/Cardano ) camps realise they are a symbiotic system and act accordingly the utility will not evolve as quickly and smoothly as it can.
http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/equity-index/us-index/bitcoin.html sept contract 6120-7030 approx.

Looking at the progress of Web 3 there is a lot of good stuff being done I think a speculative rise in prices right now would be counterproductive its time for the System to put up or shut up, I think it will and then the real value will grow from real adoption for real services.

Just grazing the surface here Mike I have been getting into the Web 3 ecosystem Truffle and Aragon and the GitHub repositories quite deeply You might recall this link form a while back. It represents the scaleability view, Diverse synergy is I think much more important for value added.

https://media.consensys.net/the-state-of-the-ethereum-network-949332cb6895 interesting update on Ethereum truffle looks good  ( This lik is broken for me might work for you, its a very good article but the site seems down at the mo.)

this is another good one https://medium.com/@matteozago/why-the-net-giants-are-worried-about-the-web-3-0-44b2d3620da5 and here is a discussion I had on the Seeds blog. http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.com/2018/05/blockchain-is-world-wide-super-computer.html

New one starting here.

That’s my 5 penneth worth anyhow Mike.