Simulation of Goodwin01 Minsky Model CLD in IM-172002 Compare with Part3 slide 3 of presentation in patreon. See extension Goodwin02 at IM-172145

Nobody seems to notice bubbles until they burst. One possible reason is that those caught up in a bubble are completely blinded by the grip, the overpowering logic and force excerted by the positive feedback loop that drives it. Financial bubbles occur time and time again - and nobody seems to learn. Another example on a different time scale is an argument that spins out of control and ends in violence. The participants seem to be blind to the consequences; the immediate and imperative logic of the feedback loop imposes itself. The vortex created by the feedback loop even seems to draw in outsiders, such as new investors. Is this the reason why we don't notice bubbles? This explanation is meant to stimulate discussion!

WIP Clone of Conceptualizing Capitalism Insight to summarise Thorstein Veblen's writings on the Nature of Capital and other Institutional economics concepts

This is part of series of model implemented from "Thinking in Systems" book by Donella Meadows

Ocean/atmosphere/biosphere model tuned for interactive economics-based simulations from Y2k on.

IM-168155 Summary of Ch 27 of Mitchell Wray and Watts Textbook see IM-164967 for book overview with simplified Mike Radzicki's 2003 Evolutionary Economics history article added

Based on oid 2016 report to be compared with the Just Justice Framework WIP insight

Simple tragedy ​of the commons behavior model.

WIP SD representation of Ch11 of their 2007 Monetary Economics book, as suggested by Adam K. Plan is to do a top down simple money flow SFC mmt model and successively split sectors. See also essence of MMT IM and simpler version Ch3 IM

This model is an attempt to simulate what is commonly referred to as the “pesticide treadmill” in agriculture and how it played out in the cotton industry in Central America after the Second World War until around the 1990s.

The cotton industry expanded dramatically in Central America after WW2, increasing from 20,000 hectares to 463,000 in the late 1970s. This expansion was accompanied by a huge increase in industrial pesticide application which would eventually become the downfall of the industry.

The primary pest for cotton production, bol weevil, became increasingly resistant to chemical pesticides as they were applied each year. The application of pesticides also caused new pests to appear, such as leafworms, cotton aphids and whitefly, which in turn further fuelled increased application of pesticides.

The treadmill resulted in massive increases in pesticide applications: in the early years they were only applied a few times per season, but this application rose to up to 40 applications per season by the 1970s; accounting for over 50% of the costs of production in some regions.

The skyrocketing costs associated with increasing pesticide use were one of the key factors that led to the dramatic decline of the cotton industry in Central America: decreasing from its peak in the 1970s to less than 100,000 hectares in the 1990s. “In its wake, economic ruin and environmental devastation were left” as once thriving towns became ghost towns, and once fertile soils were wasted, eroded and abandoned (Lappe, 1998).

Sources: Douglas L. Murray (1994), Cultivating Crisis: The Human Cost of Pesticides in Latin America, pp35-41; Francis Moore Lappe et al (1998), World Hunger: 12 Myths, 2nd Edition, pp54-55.

Simpler view IM-70351 combined with Economic ViewIM-69774 in preparation for integrating with Prevention Investment Framework (private) IM

 Goodwin cycle IM-2010 with debt and taxes added, modified from Steve Keen. THis can be extended by adding the Ponzi effect of borrowing for speculative investment.

WIP Dynamic map from Steve Keen's Minsky at 100 Lecture video and slides and later Emergent Macroeconomics papers

Simple model of the global economy, the global carbon cycle, and planetary energy balance.

On the occasion of th G20-meeting in Toronto, the German Economics minister Herr Schaüble said that without restoring confidence it would not be possible to get consumer spending and business investment going. Similar remarks were made by David Cameron and Señor Zapatero of Spain. All maintain that confidence is a pre-requisite to get growth going and that, therefore, it was imperative to reduce fiscal deficits. Reducing the fiscal deficit will restore confidence at first. However, reducing the deficit very quickly will introduce a dynamic that may cause the economy to decline - and perhaps depress  consumers demand even further.  It will actually destroy confidence: few businesses are inclined to invest in a shrinking economy. Cutting the deficit too rapidly or too steeply can lead to a confidence trap.

NOTE: A big experiment is now taking place in the UK - the government has cut public spending severely! Will this lead to hardship and, perhaps, social unrest? 

Wealth can be seen as the factories, infrastructure, goods and services the population of a nation dispose of. According to Tim Garrett,  a scientist who looks at the economy from the perspective of physics, it is existing wealth that generates economic activity and growth. This growth demands the use of energy as no activity can take place without its use. He also points out that the use of this energy unavoidably  leads to concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.  All this, Tim Garrett says,  follows from the second law of thermodynamics.  If wealth decreases then so does economic activity and growth. The CLD tries to illustrate how wealth, ironically, now generates the conditions and feedback loops  that  may cause it to decline. The consequences are  inevitably economic  stagnation (or secular recession?). 

You can read about the connection Tim Garrett makes between 'Wealth, Economic Growth, Energy and CO2  Emissions' simply by Googling 'Tim Garrett and Economy'.

The macroeconomic ruel: SPENDING = INCOME = OUTPUT, WHICH DRIVES EMPLOYMENT is presented here in a schematic form. Output can be taken to be equivalent to  GDP. In order to maintain output it is necessary for all the income earned to be spent. If this is not the case, then companies find they have excess unsold stock on their hands and will cut back on production. This, in time, will lead to an increase in unemployment as companies need fewer employees. The shortfall in spending can be made up by any of the three sectors that contribute to total output. However, in cases where  a country has a trade deficit and where the private sector is not spending or investing enough, the only option is for the government to Net Spend i.e. to spend more than it collected in taxes causing a fiscal deficit.

ECONOMIC GROWTH feeds on itself, provided the growth engine is fed with materials and finance. In this highly simplified representation  some of the factors that influence economic growth are show in the incircled green fields. Governments can influence economic growth positively via investments  and payouts. The most obvious tool which governments can use to slow an overheated economy is taxation.

Calculating EOQ using classical inventory model