Planck Foundation | About Us



What we do? We design economic sector specific development models for states. So are we practising the rebirth of the old communist 5 year plans 2.0? Yes and no. Yes, as we strongly advocate economic planning as a good thing. Yes, as we do economic sector development plans for nations. No, as we think in the potential of entrepreneurial driven economies. No, as we think the market and its demands is in almost all cases should have the leading role. No, as businesses/entrepreneurs in a nation could join voluntary the facilities the models are offering them if they are interested. No, as the models are super open for discussion and have no dictates what ever. So, we’re market potential and entrepreneurial potential driven economic developers. Do we believe in communism? For sure not. Do we believe in the winner takes it all Chicago Economics model? For sure not too. Extreme views are not that good/stable/sustainable economic soil.

How we do it? We find underdeveloped sectors (where growth is possible) in national economies and develop the needed (total horizontal and vertical column) business models for it, organize the funding for the business models and train the potential enterpreneurs for the business models. All in an open realm: we're not that much into patents / closed science/technology: open science/technology boost economies. We deliver to governments the economic progress that its leadership has promissed in the heat of election times.

We’re Rhineland Economic Model thinkers/realizers: Middle of the road people, who think that there’s more at stake than shareholders interests i.e. that there are even important as shareholders interests. Profit, people, planet. The Anglo Saxon model (and its extreme version of Chicago Economics) is not our cup of tea: looting can’t be a foundation for a good/stable/sustainable economy. Are we socialists? No, we like the market model a lot, but yes to a certain extend. But the market (with its huge potential) should be regulated somewhat (at least minimal) to prevent a Mad Max kind of looting focused unstable world based on the rights of the strongest. Who are the thinkers that made the foundation we build on? Alexander Hamilton (who had an huge influence in early national development in the USA) and Friedrich List (who had an huge influence in early national development in Germany, Russia and Japan).

Planck Foundation is founded and funded by Gijs Graafland in Amsterdam in 1999. PF is a cooperative structure that gathers, hosts, facilitates and organizes highly talented people that deliver economic/financial/monetary models and do this with a somewhat broader than the Anglo Saxon / American mainly ‘shareholders value’ and 'Western Hegemony' driven world perspective that had the main lead in the Global West in the last decades. Everybody involved in PF is financial independent.

We operate in a daily office-less mainly virtual framework. Our seniors (mostly social rich former executives/bankers/politicians/centralbankers) have lived a life with excess traveling and like the non-traveling way of producing (their work is interconnected model design: something that grows more while walking the dog than in offices: this is why companies call us: the office often is a complex of deep cart tracks and change is thereby very difficult). Our juniors (mostly social poor nerds or too social rich designers) never functioned very well in an structured office environment at all (their work is interconnected producing): they're a kind of people that live in another (digital or cultural) world than the rest of us.

As explorers/frontrunners/developers/modellers of new directions we have some currently not yet mainstream ideas/visions/concepts/models. We would be obsolete if we were just ordinary mainstream the models of today describing researcher/modellers. There are too much others out there that could do the same: any office internally is full of people who could do that. So think of us as some steps ahead of the crowd. This head start is our USP. We're different, we know more about tomorrow: picturing/making tomorrow is our realm.

What will tomorrow look like? In two lines: Some of the today's mainstream developments will decline very severely: just as they have not that well thought foundations. Some of today's not yet mainstream developments will rise in importance/influence at fast pace: just because the fit the future more than the old developments/models. Let's highlight some of those two:

We like the productive capitalism perspective (making things delivers sustainable prosperity), within the productive capitalism realm we like the PPP (people, planet, profit) view on economy very much. This non-anglo-saxon view on things doesn’t change the fact that we perform above average in analyzing and modelling. The narrow perspective of only shareholder focus delivers not that good quality at all (as we all know since 2007).

On the other hand we don’t like financial capitalism that much: we think it’s destructive towards both it’s environment and itself (making money with money is just parasitic behavior that ruins the system): we think financial capitalism's credit driven ‘growth’ is no growth at all, but just perishing while anaesthetized: after this ‘party’ the bills have to be paid and the means to do it are declined.

We like businesses and corporations. We think they could deliver prosperity for people and owners/shareholders. But the Anglo-Saxon model leads to financial and moral bankruptcy. We're more of the multi stakeholders focused Rhine-Land model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine_capitalism). We think that brands are no longer served that well by Anglo-Saxon behavior. These days are over. One clear example that touches every corporation: Paying no taxes was a brand value increasing strategy, it now is getting more and more a brand value undermining facet: Consumers don't except any longer that they need to pick up the whole tab.

We like sovereign governments that serves their inhabitants interests. We think free market extremists and anti-market communistic extremists both are not that much useful in building market driven wide prosperity. We're not globalists, nor imperialists. We believe not in empires nor in imperial state agendas (that always creates a ruling elite at the cost of the homeland people: empires tends to create crony capitalism that delivers a wider spread of inequality both home and abroad). We like the independent nation state (government close to and transparent for the inhabitants) that achieves as much mutual interests based bilateral relations as possible: bilateral relations that thrives mutual economies. Bilateral relations also deliver a tailor cut balance tool: am economic switch board that can deliver the best for both: we believe strongly in mutual interests serving relations: they are the only ones that are sustainable on the long run.

We're not that much straight/direct into Adam Smith: There's nothing wrong with free trade, there's a lot wrong with the combination of free trade and patent legislation: as that favours the imperial elites of the US and UK. A selective interpretation of 'free' trade is not ours: ruining the weak and protecting the strong is not a that good/sustainable model. Free trade often is not real free trade, but an US patent hegemony promoting movement: a wolf in sheep clotting. We like free trade, but only is it's real free trade. So if they want to demolish national trade policies, they should demolish patent legislation too. Otherwise it's just installing patent hegemony at the end of the dollar hegemony: the Global West against the Global Rest. Imperial focused trade and stifling imperial patent schemes have nothing to do with free trade and building global prosperity and have more to do with creating imperial client states. The last thing the world needs is a global looting system by patent legislation, that represses and taxes any development anywhere in the benefit of financial capitalism. Patents are not that much on free trade either.

We're not believe in state ran economies too: the USSR was not a success. The state never can run an economy: the nature of an economy is too complex and civil servants are not the best inventors (understatement). Governments only can steer the direction/nature of economic development by facilitating infrastructure, rule of law, education and credit. Government should govern. Businesses should perform. A merge between government and (selected/preferred) businesses pollutes both governments, those businesses and the environment for other businesses. It creates a bad functioning non fair playing field.

We’re more into the national economic development models of Alexander Hamilton and Friedrich List that are focused on market driven national innovation (see https://www.google.com/search?q=friedrich+list+national+innovation or see Hamilton's Report on Manufacturers on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_on_Manufactures). Their models have proven to be successful in the industrialization of the USA, in the industrialization of Germany, in the industrialization of Russia and in the industrialization of Japan. Germany for example grew due to these models from almost no industrialization in 1870 in a time frame of only 40 years to industrial nation #2 of the world in 1910 (passing both the UK and France). More on Alexander Hamilton's and Friedrich List's their national economic models can be found on the internet (see for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_List#Economics_based_on_nations).

Furthermore we like the economic self-development models of the 20th century English economist E.F. Schumacher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._F._Schumacher) and the financial self-development models of the 19th century German economist F.W. Raiffeisen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_Raiffeisen): who made the industrial revolution of Continental Europe possible by creating rural food surpluses that could feed the emerging cities with his usury free self-development finance system. Raiffeisen's system of local development could be used for national development too.

In line with Hamilton, List, Schumacher and Raiffeisen we strongly believe that national resources (raw materials and energy resources) exploration should not only benefit financial capitalism, but also productive capitalism. Resources rich nations need revenues to build infrastructure and perform as government. States should have 50% of the revenues on the exploration of their national raw materials and energy resources. Further in line with this perception we think the state should do state things and the businesses should do business things. Mixing those delivers mal-functioning crony capitalism for some select few with government ties and bad economics for the rest. Self regulation of economic sectors is another bad mal-functioning perception of merging governments and businesses: it doesn't work, even for the companies (who find themselves sooner or later in huge law suites as result of this). We're not that big a fan of labour taxation: we think that jobs are the best/fastest/cheapest (overhead free) method of market driven prosperity distribution.

We think that the governments of the Global West (including Japan) are heading towards severe financial dire straits. The concept of still growing budgets in a zero growth economic environment is that not sustainable: everybody who gives this some thought will confirm this: governments unfortunately don't want to hear this and let advise themselves by 'soon it will be better' advisers that don't understand both the global economy and monetary system that good.

The same can be said of the current financial system of the Global West: the Global West has a financial system that is designed for growth: if growth is absent (or even reversed: growth became decline) and this model stays in place a coming derailing becomes a safe prediction. This a financial model technical issue that needs some explanation: The money for each loan is created on birth of the loan by the issuing bank, but the money for the interest payments is not created and must come from growth. But as growth is no longer there in the Global West (all data saying that there's growth is just massaged/manufactured data to hide the decline): the current financial model will derail sooner or later.

The governments and the financials of the Global West will need a reality check, they both need a new model (as the old models don't perform anymore). A model that's based on maintaining their existing wealth (as growth is over: the economic sun shines in other parts of the world, with 5 till 10 % growth figures). They need an economic full grown model to replace their economic growth model.

If you want to label/box us, that would be difficult: We're not that much into retelling others PR driven views without any rethinking based research. If you like that: you should stay with your current advisers. Some examples that highlights some differences: We're a pro bilateral cooperation type of antiglobalists (we don't like the USSR nor USSA model). We're a pro environment type of anti globalists: we don't like Al Gore with his $ 33k monthly power bill: he even don't know that there's something like geo/solar/solarsystem/cosmic physics: (he is television preacher that blackens/blocks the future view of our children while making a load of money doing that). Based on solar physics we think global cooling will be the climate tendency of the 21st century and not global warming. Also we don't see CO2 as air pollution, but just as a part of the chain of life, but we dislike air pollution very much: (visit Beijing to see air pollution far beyond any urban environmental nightmare). We're a pro solar power type anti solar subsidy solar roll-out model makers. We're a pro technology in agriculture type of anti gen technology researchers (biodiversity is what will keep us alive: gen tech will destroy that: gentech is about patents and volume in homogeneity). We're a pro government type of critical governmental advisers (we don't like the global government/governance elite too: government that is too far of the people is corrupt by design: visit the Hill if you want proof of this).

To continue regarding the above mentioned not so easy to label facet: We're a libertarian pro business type of socialists (we think widening the prosperity gap delivers severe turbulence, but we're certainly not of the free money for all perspective). We're libertarian socialists. Only planning = jailing and repression. Diversity = strength and performance. We're a pro cultural diversity type of defenders of cultures (we think enforced migration delivers huge problems: migration should be governed like mayonnaise is made: quite slowly with the right balance of ingredients and by the right temperature otherwise it fails). We're a pro central banks type paper to assets model makers. We're a pro trade type an anti aid modellers (self-esteem is a very positive force, aid equals corruption). We're a pro small and medium businesses type of global corporation advisers. We're a pro percolating up by EQE/EBS non-toxic non-inflationary QE type of anti trickling down QE monetary economists. To make a long story short: labelling us is quite difficult: We're not that much mainstream (mainstream views are often based on poor assessment rather than on deep research). We think twice (and encourage others to do so too) and we research independent (no governmental subsidies that 'guide' us in certain directions).

What Madison Avenue is for the realm of corporate advertising, we are for the realm of corporate or governmental strategy. We’re quite different than the rest. Most of us don’t wear suits, some of us don’t shave every day. We think tailors don’t sell analysis nor strategy. If you want suits and Oxford accents: you've come to the wrong place: please call EY of some of the other big names. If you want a symbiosis of talented brains with many horrible (american, chinese, persian, german, frence, italian, australian) accents from very different disciplines: we should talk. We have some high skilled autistic talents with huge feeling for mathematic/numeric issues within the organization. We have some former anarchists with 'imagination without borders' within the organization. We have some super on structures addicted former jarheads (military people) within the organization. So we’ve quite wide root and thereby operational system: we host the above average talents that could not survive one day in regular corporate structures.

Most of our daily work is about developing/modelling new structures. Most of our work is not done for corporate clients, but for ourselves (or should we say: our children and grandchildren?) and we pass the results of our work on to governments. We search for economic, financial and monetary models that could deliver sustainable global prosperity to mankind in the 21st century. Examples? We like to green the deserts of the world, we like to establish food supply security, we like market/jobs driven realization of less inequality, we like more health, we like a transition of the financial and monetary systems, we like a multipolar world with less monopower influence, we like less global tensions, we believe strongly in self determination of nations by development of nations, we think that trade prevents tensions, we don't like cartels that much, we like good and affordable food for everyone, we like peace, we like life supporting wages for everyone, we like good and affordable healthcare for everyone, we like maximal employment, etc, etc: just the normal stuff every non-pathological person likes. Dark theories, practices and attitudes like malthusianism, colonialism and imperialism are not our cup of tea.

Once every half year we take one market driven corporate project for a large corporation. Large corporations are not that good in change/innovation direction/realization. One line explains why: large organizations have by their nature very deep cart tracks: that make any change/innovation very hard to direct/realize. We only do market jobs when three for use crucial demand regarding this are met: 1) The corporation’s CEO must back us. In most cases that's no problem: the CEOs who talk with us, know that we in 5 minutes understand their business model, in 10 minutes understand their challenges and in 15 minutes start to talk about solutions. 2) The board must be willing to make real changes: We’re not in the market of functioning the excuse factor for a board that wants to stick to the problems. 3) We must like the effects the job will deliver for the world: We don’t want to be a part of the problem, we want to be a part of the solution (so if you’re a weapon manufacturer: we hope you go bankrupt, but if you’re a weapon manufacturer who wants to go into energy production: we’ll like to realize these changes for you). If these three demands are met we’re open for business. The corporate change project teams mostly have a project office in one of the European cities (Amsterdam, Brussels, Paris, Basal or Bern).

Our approach in corporate projects will be based on external realization: we don't waste time in writing reports and we don’t waste time in converting those who don’t want to be converted too. Development could be done so much more effective/faster if done without the prison of existing structures. We just make the new business model and than together we graft it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafting) on the exiting root system of the corporation. This approach delivers the best of both worlds: the structured volume of the corporation merged with the innovative capacity of Planck Foundation. Our business model is also based on this: we hold 50% of the stock in the new company till the corporation wants to acquire these stocks too.

If some corporation's business model is somewhat or severely outdated and the board know that something has to change at fast pace: they could consider the Planck Foundation option. We’re not cheap both in realization and exit, but we deliver better and faster than everybody else. Why? We’re different. Need proof of this? Browse through our site.

If governments in the Global East or Global South want national economic development: they could consider our free available models. If governments in the Global West want to adjust their economic/financial/monetary models to their new realities: they could consider our free available models. For governments (economic development) and central banks (non-toxic QE models, percolating up instead of trickling down QE models, bilateral currency swaps, paper to asset models, etc) our operational models (development and implementation) is of course quite different than our corporation change models.

Governments in the emerging nations of the Global Middle, Global East and Global South could consider our instant development models. They are based on the PPP (Public Private Partnership) model. Not a merge, but a symbiosis: The governments do what they do best: initiating and controlling. The markets do what they do best: performance within these governmental bounderies. This model makes an instant development boost (huge progress) possible in energy, minerals, agriculture, manafacturing, etc. Most of the PPP models are based on state guarantee and a central bank covered LC. This combo makes it possible to deliver instant productive capitalism based economic development that develivers market driven (jobs based) general prosperity at fast pace.



Some more on Gijs Graafland (copy/paste of his own words as this information is requested a lot by media):

"As a college dropout (too much more interesting things were going by….) I started in the early 80ties a computer business. Very soon after starting that business I did more in components than in computers. This was because in those days there were scarcities a lot (leading to supply interruptions). In those pre internet days chain supply information was not that good. European and American electronics manufacturers had not yet that good access to Japanese and Korean component manufacturers. It was a time of telex (no fax, no email) and the main air route to the East was via Alaska (18 hours flying out of Europe) of via South Asian hubs (even more hours of flying).

I knew some European manufacturers as I ordered systems and parts by them and they always had short supply of (mostly) the new components (which was the by definition the most performing technology). They explained me why they had manufacturing/delivering problems (missing components). I travelled to the Global East and worked actively in building good relations with the wholesale/distributors over there. They could mostly supply the components the European (and lateron also the American) manufacturers wanted (but could not buy in their continent yet). They were happy, the European/American system manufacturers were happy and I was happy. European/American manufacturers liked it al lot: it gave them many advantages in their ‘time to market’ battle. As people moved from the one company to the other (both here and there) my network grew automatically.

The telex was my biggest technological tool (lateron fax), I was very fast in operating that thing, but the most import business facet was building relations. That was needed as new components first where distributed in the home markets before they where delivered to the export markets. That’s where I came in. Having a much a possible relations with as much as possible wholesalers/distributors over there. In the East they like to show around their friend from Europe: so I’ve seen a lot of karaoke bars. The fact that I only ordered soda for myself they forgave me (I just can’t drink the way they drunk).

The manufacturers delivered me by any visit to them books on the use they wanted on the specific component (as sometimes I needed to find a substitute if the first wanted item was not available, not even by the national wholesale/distribution companies over there). So also on first X-25 and X-400 (the abandoned ITU packet switching protocols: IBM hold on to it for long) and lateron on TCP. I’m quite an easy learner so when the internet rose I saw that happen by the components needed (and books given to me on the component functions), and I understood the technology (and thereby the potential).

The rise of the internet slowed down the component transactions but rose the internet related revenues. Company management/boards wanted to understand what the internet was and how they should respond to it. So my activities developed steady in that direction, based on the same network I had build (and which extended every year: people recommended me to their customers: as that would enlarge their tech sales, so I moved from components slowly towards telecom and also distribution over here). In those times my agenda was full months ahead and even people where getting angry with me if I couldn’t meet them earlier.

The one golden era (component knowledge/relations) replaced itself with the other (internet knowledge/relations). Hardware became software. But the basics stayed the same: knowing technology and knowing people and making deals. Did I do other things too? Yes. I sold printer sound covers (they made really some noise back than) to governmental organisations and head offices of large corporations. I direct mailed new technology (the laser printer, large format printers, the color laser printer, etc) a lot. I sold DRAM to large corporations (when Excel started to demand more memory they bought massive DRAM). Etc. Etc.

Do I still advice corporate boards? Yes. Telecom boards on the ‘telco out the cloud’ technology and its use for new revenue streams for them (if you’re interested: diagrams available, very boring stuff). Global food brand operators on sourcing (if you’re interested: diagrams available, very boring stuff too). Etc. Etc. Base line: I know how to network and (better said: which is) how to maintain relations based on mutual interests. I’m not that slow in adapting/processing loads of new information, not that bad in making relations between information flows and I’ve seen a lot of boardrooms inside (with ditto information/experience).

Started as a left wing hippie with long hair, developed in a right wing business man in suites, I started to miss the old ‘drives’ year after year more. Business is very interesting, but dollars are less interesting (they’re all the same). In the 80ties I wrote a development model (Global Development Organization) and from 1995 on I started gradually to go back to those roots, business only started to satisfy me less and less each year. Using economic practices for public interests became mine primary area of interest: how to get left wing results by solid economic practices became the thing that drove me more and more.

In 1999 I started Planck Foundation as way to contribute to global economic development by developing economic development models. I have dug into monetary economy, developing models that merged the monetary systems with the energy systems by the financial systems. As many areas of science are quite isolated/compartmented all these three realms are not that quick in picking up these new interdependencies. In the global monetary world they know my work, but realization of the models by central banks is far, very far away. 10 years from now the merge of these 3 realms will be standard/mainstream. Physics is still important facet of my life, but not a daytime activity. Backing the monetary system with real economic development (as replacer for both fiat money and gold) is the line throughout all my work in the last 2 decades. As a technology oriented man I believe strongly in the power of models/templates: they channel realization efforts and have a documented learning curve. Most of the developed models are as open source publications and papers available for download on the website."



Back to Main Site