What is the title of the book they have authored on the 4 stages?

I describe this battle as: Leanomics vs Poweromics & Ignoromics

… where

* Leanomics = People taking responsibility for adding value and continuously improving the situation for others (e.g. customers, communities, overall environment), based upon fundamental values such as trust, honor, responsibility and respect.
* Ignoromics = People are either effectively ignorant of the situation (e.g. the overall environment) or not prepared to take responsibility to make sure it changes for the better.
* Poweromics = People using position and power for their own personal gain, based on poor moral values, self interest and greed.

Traditional ‘economics’ is too narrow in scope, out-of-date and effectively dead (nb Dr. W. Edwards Deming, a ‘creative outsider’ highlighted this over 20 years ago) … and following up on his work, and the above definitions … what prevails today is a lethal combination of Poweromics & Ignoromics (nb ‘partners in crime’), which the growing groundswell of ‘Worldcentric’/'Kosmocentric’ people are starting to challenge – take a look at the following about the ‘battle of values’ too for instance

http://poweromics.blogspot.com/2009/06/leanomics-v-poweromics-ignoromics_01.html

… and the wider blog below for more examples of the application of Poweromics around us (including the failure of traditional establishments such as mainstream education and the media also referred to here) and those who are starting to challenge it …

http://poweromics.blogspot.com

A link there also points to this blog too, pointing to the great work being done here (and by others) – so keep up the good work … as there’s a long way to go in this crisis before we see any significant change … e.g. in the ‘behaviours’ from those ‘leaders’ in ‘power’ (… because most of the ‘current leaders’ are unlikely to ‘grow up’ and/or will fight hard to avoid losing their ‘positions of power’ …)

However, the internet will change everything eventually, including power, politics and economics …!

David Clift, Future 500 Leader, UK

I support Jeremy’s answer to that markedly egocentric question, and tritely note that my liberties and freedoms depend on others’ duties and responsibilities, just as theirs depend on mine.

“Does anyone know how we could select for high office the World or Kosmocentric?”

Disenfranchise the egocentric and ethnocentric majority. Otherwise, at least one of their own will successfully pander to them. Shame about the impracticality of this obvious but, I fear, unique solution.

It the context of Sir John’s previous article this appears to me as a silly question as people with a wider view would seek to avoid transgressing on others liberties and freedoms, as to do so would undermine their view of themselves. If every member of the population was of similar mind, the society wouldn’t need rules, as all individuals would be self-governing, with an imperitive to protect the rights and freedoms of others. Unbounded freedom can be given to those of proven good judgement. Where this all comes horribly unstuck is the interation between those at opposite end of the spectrum- the conflict between the selfish and the selfless. The other issue is where two parties can hold opposed views, both in good faith; mercy killing vs. murder or matters of personal choice.

James May, (the journalist and broadcaster), expressed an opinion that there should be only one rule, expressed as “do not be a cock”, and that all and any transgressions should be tested against that – for some that would be a major restriction of their freedom as there would be no ‘loopholes’!

Does anyone know how we could select for high office the World or Kosmocentric?

Most business leaders are selected on the basis of the selfish chase of profit or personal power and the same can be said of politicians, although the development of spheres of influence, is most vital for politicians. Take as an example my local MP; a very clever and successful businessman, widely tipped for high office in the next government. Locally he is considered a “good man” but he has used the excuse that things were within the rules, when morally they were dubious, (think expenses and a previous purchase of ex LA property from the sitting tenant via right to buy). The previous incumbent resigned his seat to follow a career in the church, his replacement was brought into a safe seat by the party machine, who wanted a successful, photogenic, writer of right wing economic pamphlets as a replacement for a very highly regarded, but low profile, constituency MP.

It is a truism that those most suited to high office are those least likely to seek it, conversely those who should be excluded from high office will seek it, almost obsessively. Both Terry Prachitt and Douglas Adams have used this idea for comic effect, which isn’t funny after longer contemplation.

As described in various sources including in Michael Hudson’s book ‘Super-Imperialism’
(http://www.michael-hudson.com/books/ super_imperialism_II.htm), after the bankers (agents of those in the City of London) set up the US Federal Reserve Bank (in a clever maneuver in 1913) and, ever since, the leadership of that institution has managed to exercise great control the economic fate of the USA. The various strategies employed to finance the warring European parties during World War I apparently proved somewhat less than completely successful from the point of view of the USA’s financial decision-makers/controllers. However, after World War II, the leaders in the USA government and the Federal Reserve had learned a lesson and had come up with strategies to deal with many perceived economic problems by taking advantage of several institutions, especially, the AID and the IMF which, together with the World Bank, were propagandized to have been designed to provide economic aid for a number of war-torn, undeveloped and/or otherwise needy economies around the world. Eventually, over time, the USA managed to wrest control of natural resources from many sources while also gaining control of the political leadership of many countries. Segments of the economic/political leadership of this country were able to push through a military/industrial program which accompanied a plan for eventual world domination (though the domestic propaganda organs conveyed the ideas that such efforts were important to maintain world peace, to help recovery in the recipient countries and/or to permit control of US national security). Meanwhile, the main-stream-media (newspapers, magazines, etc.) were taken over by corporations which eventually did away with most of their news-reporting departments, foreign correspondents, etc. The well-known efforts of many of those who held high positions in the G W Bush administration were ostensibly designed to facilitate the ‘new world order’ in some form or another. I would not be surprised that these individuals and their backers think of themselves as having the answers needed to facilitate a ‘world leadership group’; in that context, I would guess that in a rather perverse manner they may have even considered themselves to be ‘Worldcentric’. However, such a definition of the term/word(s) is probably not what the author of this article has in mind. The reason why no member of the so-called ‘fourth-estate’ does not speak up in the US about behavior of banksters or other crooked corporate leaders may be that the media is eventually (though, perhaps, indirectly) controlled by a number of considerations including the fellows who caused the current economic crisis. The extent to which such behavior of journalists would manifest itself in the UK is beyond my ability to speculate, however, a number of people think that bankers world-wide are able to influence politicians/powerbrokers in a variety of manners, not the least of which is quite fundamental – money!