Scientists admit to physical world!

A bit tongue in cheek about a serious subject.   It’s following from my comment to Dot Earth about how all the climate mitigation plans do actually allow for a mysteriously silly expectation that reducing CO2 could be funded by an economy causing all other economic impacts to endlessly multiply.

++++

Dateline: No York Times 5/12/10

Scientists admit to physical world

Scientists have finally admitted there might be a physical world, in addition to the existence of scientific theory, long used to explain the source of all information.

Despite there being no information to explain it, as theory is ample by itself, scientists admitted today that there was also no information to deny the popular notion that there might be a physical world.   It “could be creating natural phenomena and not just our theory” Dr Hyper Foible said. Continue reading Scientists admit to physical world!

What’s there to look for? – useful principles of change

Discussion of systems thinking principles. See Bump on a curve notepad” for others


what if you were in the first generation of humans to realize that we now need to steer

Make believe that you are in a vehicle, born there, and didn’t realize it needed to be steered or even could be.   Somehow you realize if it guided itself before, you not need to start steering it around various hazards ahead, and find yourself part of the first generation of humans to realize that.

With there being no established method for doing it, no one else can tell you how. What would you do?

The first thing is to familiarize yourself with all the parts you had just taken for granted before, like all the amazingly common complex things that take care of themselves and never needed tending before. We need to look at them with fresh eyes, as if we were new born and dropped unexpectedly into a new environment. Continue reading What’s there to look for? – useful principles of change

How to build a “multiverse”, the general case

Responding to a somewhat ‘edgy’ physics blog post, How to build a Multiverse, about the “creation of adjacent spaces with their own laws of physics”. here’s my “general case” posted as #comment-219799

++++++++++

It’s actually a lot less ‘hokey’ than it sounds, that one might discover small worlds with their own original “laws of nature”.  It not hokey because it’s also not in the least bit uncommon. It might even be said to be the most commonly unrecognized thing in the world.

“universal laws” may often be “local laws”, of the system from which an observer is part of

Unique explanatory models would ALWAYS be are needed where natural systems emerge with their own original interior sets of relationships.  That’s the real problem of emergence, and local originality which we observe in all sorts of both expected and unexpected places.   What such “local laws of nature” might include or discard relative to what conventional theory says is instructive, and a bit disturbing.

It appears much of what people have come to think of as “universal laws” are not at all, but actually “local laws” of the system which an observer is part of.   So it seems it’s our own self-serving questions that lead us to seeing them as universal. Continue reading How to build a “multiverse”, the general case

Keynes’ “widow’s cruse” – capitalism to natural growth

Supplemental notes for 3/12/10 Economies that Can become part of Nature

_______

How an economy can relieve growing internal and environmental strains that would trigger a wider than local collapse.

It’s a subject enough people need to understand before the shrinking time to respond slips away.

5/18/19

Current economic thinking on Keynes “widow’s cruse” repeatedly misses the whole point. Keynes illustrated his discovery that capitalism would have natural limits of overinvestment with the parable from 1 Kings 17 about Elijah granting God’s gift to an impoverished old widow, of an inexhaustible jar of flour and jug of oil, to last until rains came again.   In Chapter 16.V of The General Theory, he directly states what he meant, saying that to avert the worst crises of capitalism as growing returns from exploiting people and the earth reached limits:

“In so far as millionaires find their satisfaction in building mighty mansions to contain their bodies when alive and pyramids to shelter them after death, or, repenting of their sins, erect cathedrals and endow monasteries or foreign missions, the day when an abundance of capital will interfere with an abundance of output may be postponed.

It is clear he is talking about the world economy becoming managed as a healthy cash cow, solving the “tragedy of overinvestment in the commons” by spending returns on investment.  That is the better choice than letting the share of income earned by capital continue tending to infinity as the productivity of exploiting people and the earth shows diminishing marginal returns.   To put it crudely, you might simplify the parable to “better to be a cash cow than dead meat.”   Better a circular money economy, as in naturally balanced systems, than endless compounding of worthless promises.

For the owners of the world the choice is to either be generous enough in spending their profits to relieve the people and environment of ultimately unproductive demands – caring for the earth, or alternately to drive their exploitation to exhaustion, leading the earth into an all-consuming plague of plagues as growing ealth extraction becomes more disruptive than constructive.  In Chapter 16 Keynes also said that time we would face that would not be far off, and now it appears we see he was right.

Historically the Romans and the fabled “Egyptians” of the Exodus seem to provide the real world models for owners of the world, making the wrong choice as their fortunes reached natural limits.   The actual Egyptians, thriving for ages giving good work to their population during the annual floods, seem to offer one example of the other choice.   Nearly all of us make that basic choice in our careers, learning to back off from making excessive demands on our environments as a key investment strategy to use, letting other things flourish, all the time.

Of course, there are lots of other principles to follow in maintaining the productivity of a network of resources, such as not spending all the profits on unproductive services.   Equally tough moral choices lie in needing not to accumulate overhead that depletes your energy returns on energy invested, EROI.   It would seem very easy to bankrupt a big and otherwise seemingly healthy business, culture, or whole economy, letting its energy costs rise to equal its energy returns.

6/15/11

J.M. Keynes devoted the concluding theory chapter of his design for modern economics, Chapter 16 of The General Theory, to describing the natural limits of money in a free market system .

It seems economists were generally confused as to why Keynes would consider that, and didn’t study what Keynes had to say about where following the rest of his theory would lead. He pointed to why a market economy will continue to have growing savings and keep making growing investments even when natural limits and environmental conflicts make that increasingly unprofitable for the system as a whole.

He also described the alternative that would allow the whole system to remain profitable in the long term. Either way the expansion of wealth and money would reach a climax. Either investors would continuing to accumulate savings until they produced no net returns and businesses failed, or by spending enough assure the long term profitability of the whole.

The one choice is utterly disastrous and the other a bit unappealing to some but a way out of a real trap.  It’s counter intuitive in many ways, and forces us to recognize that every part of an economic system depends on the good health of the whole. Continue reading Keynes’ “widow’s cruse” – capitalism to natural growth

“Distoppley”, the game after “Monopoly”

“Distoppley” is a game that starts from bankrupting the economy as at the end of Monopoly, when you then get to figure out a more successful end.

– from a The Finance Lab conversation responding to a finance learning game idea raised by Mark Gater –

Phil Henshaw on 3/18/10

How about if you made it fairly realistic, allowing money holdings to continue growing normally even when the amount of product doesn’t, as it we have now. Keynes proposed his change in the rules for that circumstance, for how to coordinate the emergence of “peak stuff” with a matching “peak money”. Do you think it would be worth designing a money game to see what winners would do with their multiplying ownership of finite goods in that case, and if they’d discover the way out? Continue reading “Distoppley”, the game after “Monopoly”

On why global systems are becoming unstable

3/15/10 This is an edited foreword for my 3/13 post and a P.S.   It’s really about deflecting the false impression made by an unfamiliar view of historic data, so not of general interest, I think.

A recent note came from Charles Hall, with two interesting things. He passed along thePeak Oil Review pointing out again how oil prices are edging upward even as the economy slips.  Continually rising prices is a natural symptom of trying to grow with diminishing resources as I offered a theoretical basis for in “Profiting from scarcity” last year.

Then he mentioned a provocative series of graphs from Nathan’s Economic Edge. These are graphs of first derivative rates, with the one below showing rates of increase of US national income fluctuating wildly as “steady growth” has been frequently broken by recessions. It also gives an impression like the increasing roller coaster experience of keeping up with economic change.

The real question is why would the irregular rate of economic growth remind us of the increasingly desperate struggle it has been,

Continue reading On why global systems are becoming unstable

Economies that can become part of nature

from my Finance Lab blog posts

Nov 2013 note:  Since this popular post was written I’ve kept pushing my search for better explanations.  It’s basically a very simple universal principle for how growth leads to stability.   Every successful ‘project’ in nature, of any kind or scale, starts with using its resources to build more access to resources, expanding on itself, and then stabilizes by changing its strategy before it is overbuilt.    It’s easy to recognize that turning point in one’s own projects or new relationships.  It’s that point when you “have enough to manage” and can turn to bringing it to fruition, not taking on more for seeing good reason to secure what you already have.   Taking on more for no reason would threaten what you began.    

As a shift from taking territory to homemaking

Your self-investment strategy begins with searching for how to expand on a great beginning, using gains to expand your gains, and is uninhibited at first.  It’ll only succeed if sensitive to the approaching need to stabilize and switch to “homemaking”, and creating a secure “niche” in the environment for what was built.   What changes in the investment strategy is its “targeting radar” for the best use of its resources.  

As the organization is built up it first prospers by expanding its control of its environment, creating new internal organization and overhead costs.   The value of building by bigger and bigger steps (creating more overhead while depleting the availability of resources) naturally reverses.   Then like homemakers who “see success in sight”, the radar shifts to caring for what they built as a whole and that “near environment” it needs to be secure.  It’s a switch from taking territory and building bigger things, to caring for how things fit together and work smoothly throughout the whole, from aggression to caring.  

 ____________

Mar 12 2010: Twenty-five years ago I learned that Keynes had come to the a similar conclusion I then had had, about how to achieve a stable steady state economy.  At the same time I found out Ken Boulding, the leading economic theorist and leader of the General Systems Theory community, had been talking about it for decades after Keynes too.   But their efforts had gotten culturally buried.

Because it was pure systems ecology, without any cultural roots in the business or finance community, his proposal seemed utterly radical.  He first called it “the widow’s cruse” after a biblical story about Elijah giving an old widow an inexhaustible cup of oil and bowl of flower (1, 2).

How natural systems can remain profitable at limits to growth.

Keynes’ had realized that capitalism would produce an over-investment crisis when the environment started producing diminishing returns.   At that time acting to stabilize growing investment, as his main work had been about, would destabilize the economy as a whole.

The real crisis would come from those with wealth continuing to increase their investment savings and so multiplying their investments and demands on the productive economy for growing returns.   The Increasing demands on the non-growing economy would then undermine the economy’s profitability to the breaking point.

It was called “the fallacy” by everyone around him, though, and so it broadly remains considered today, by the few who know of it.

Continue reading Economies that can become part of nature

We assumed the purpose was growth, so it wasn’t studied

Reposted from my Finance Lab blog

 

The way social customs develop, and community standards, what to expect is formed by agreement and not by research all the time. Then people teach what others before them agreed on.

I think that could be the main reason why for a few hundred years everyone assumed the right thing for economies would be regular % change just because everyone wanted steady improvement. It seems the effect of multiplying economies on the earth was never really studied, but just whether it to fix the problems that arose or not.

As a physicist in the mid 70’s I was watching the curiously creative behavior of a lot of uncontrolled natural “economic systems”, heat transport by convective currents inside buildings. I spent a couple years doing of 24hr micro-climate fingerprints of buildings, closely studying how their air current networks competed for flow channels and evolved new organization several times a day as the sun moved around.

Every individual air current begins with a little feedback loop, that animates the development of its heat transport system… Continue reading We assumed the purpose was growth, so it wasn’t studied

Switching the “spender of last resort” when government goes broke…

Sometimes it pays to recognize circular arguments with no escape, and realize one or more of the core assumptions causing that needs to be questioned.

The presently brutal and worsening job market in the developed countries is often discussed with a circular argument: that stimulus isn’t working so we need more, but governments run a risk of collapse if the jobs are not productive… That is now heard over and over, and it’s worth looking at it as painting a circle of common assumptions that everyone would like to escape.

The problem caused by economies becoming unresponsive to Keynesian stimulus was actually brilliantly studied by Keynes… His simple conclusion was that when stimulus provided by governments filling in as “spenders of last resort” didn’t work then investors would need to take that role, even to the point of ending the accumulation of investment to make economies physically sustainable. The assumption that is not variable is that we live in a finite world. Continue reading Switching the “spender of last resort” when government goes broke…

What to do… to steer our unmanageable world

How we can reduce our negative impacts on the world is by finding the right question to ask.

Choosing the right things to spend on doesn’t really do that, for two very good reasons.

Most money you spend will have about average impacts per dollar anyway. If you think where money goes and how each product takes so many kinds of inputs, every dollar really uses the whole economy, and on average, now produces about 1.0 lb of CO2!

Because it generates profits it also stimulates economic growth at around 3% a year, made possible by a similar increase in what we are trying to take control of in nature, per dollar. So buying expensive “green” products does more harm than cheap products by having nearly the same average impacts throughout the world, per dollar. You could buy cheaper products, but because you’d then buy more there’s no escape… either way.

Continue reading What to do… to steer our unmanageable world

New systems science, how to care for natural uncontrolled systems in context