This model shows the operation of an extremely simple economy. The system produces and consumes each item (or good) at a fixed rate.

When production exceeds consumption, consumer goods accumulate in stocks. Trading may occur between actors in this system. That will not, however, affect the quantities of the stocks of goods. It only affects ownership (not a concern of this model.)

Spending by the government creates its own 'financial resource' as the process of crediting an account in the private sector takes place. This may sound like nonsense, but in fact it is 'monetary reality'. This premise is supported by Bell (1998; 2000) and Wray (1998a) who argue that the Treasury does not need to collect or borrow funds in order to spend, but crates new funds as it spends.

Perhaps the following thought experiment  helps to understand how this is possible.  

If you imagine two drawers, each representing an account. The first drawer contains 100 gold coins and the second is empty. Also imagine that there are no other gold coins available at this time. Let's call the first drawer account A and the second account B. Now if you want to transfer 30 gold coins from account A to account B, you would actually first have to take the coins out of drawer A and then place them into drawer B. Account A will then necessarily have 30 coins less in it. Now imagine accounts A and B are held in a computer as electronic money. Instead of 100 gold coins, account A only contains the computer generated number '100'  and account B shows '0'. To get account B to show a balance of '30', it would now simple be necessary to change the '0' to '30' on the computer. The need to raid account A and to take '30' from the number '100' before you could credit  account B does not exist. Money is created as it is entered in B's account irrespective of whether A's account is debited before or after this process or not at

An initial study of the economics of single use coffee pods.

Jay Forrester's "Market Growth as Influenced by Capital Investment" model as rebuilt by Eric Stiens

During the 'big recession' many governments have deliberately repressed salaries, usually via structural reforms, in order to gain competitivity. However, repression of salaries increases inequality, social discontent and often has counterintuitive effects. Salaries are a cost for companies, but they are also the basis for the demand for the goods and services they offer: people with little income cannot afford them. Scientific studies have shown repeatedly that economic growth generated via salary increases does not endanger the creation of employment, but rather reinforces it. In most countries, the 'positive effect of salary increases' eclipses any possible negative effects on export competitivity and even any detrimental effect on investment. A good example of such a study is the work of ONARAN and OBST on Wage-led Growth in the EU15 Member States (2016).  This positive dynamic has been highlighted in the model by prominent arrows. The policy implications for governments are clear! 

Brief Summary of Albert O Hirschman's Book

WIP Ideas from Science Special Issue May 2014

From Schluter et al 2017 article A framework for mapping and comparing behavioural theories in models of social-ecological systems COMSeS2017 video. See also Balke and Gilbert 2014 JASSS article How do agents make decisions? (recommended by Kurt Kreuger U of S)

Fig.5 Generic resource allocation structure from Khalil Saeed and Oleg Pavlov's Dynastic Cycles SD model paper  See also  the SD Model Insight

This model compares direct exchange prices to money prices. It demonstrates the distortion that monetary expansion or contraction has on the information contained in monetary pricing.

THE NEW SCIENCE OF PLEASURE Daniel L. McFadden NBER Working Paper 18687

A simple budget planning system.  What additional complexities can you add?

This model shows the operation of a simple economy. It demonstrates the effect of changes in the fractional rate of consumption (or the converse the fractional rate of saving.)

In summary, lower rates of consumption (based on production) result in higher rates of production and consumption in the long-run.

This is a simplification of the Austerity vs Prosperity model in the hope that it will be easier to understand.

This model also shows the operation of a simple economy. It differs from Model 1 primarily in the representation of all goods in the economy by units of measure of a higher level of abstraction. Thus, the same model can represent economies at different levels.

The simulation demonstrates how differing rates of consumption affect Savings.

Like Model 6 this model shows the operation of a simple economy. It demonstrates the effect of changes in the fractional rate of consumption (or the converse the fractional rate of saving.)

In summary, government "spending" tends to slow growth of production and consumption.

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!

I propose we grow this sim model (or similar) over time to help ourselves better understand the opposing investment and austerity strategies now being advocated for the U.S. government. The hope is to build as simple a model as possible that subsumes the major underlying feedback loops that probably exist in the mental models of proponents of each of these positions. Starting this model was inspired by this Investment vs. Austerity discussion http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Investment-vs-Austerity-How-can-4582801.S.157876413

OVERSHOOT GROWTH GOES INTO TURBULENT CHAOTIC DESTRUCTION

The existing global capitalistic growth paradigm is totally flawed

The chaotic turbulence is the result of the concept of infinite bigness this has been the destructive influence on all empires and now shown up by Feigenbaum numbers and Dunbar numbers for neural netwoirks

See Guy Lakeman Bubble Theory for more details on keeping systems within finite limited size working capacity containers (villages communities)

Unfortunately, this model only produces the illusion of functioning, but I did manage to get it to give me the graph. However, because of the use of flows, if you change the time step to and the simulation length to anything other than the same numbers, you'll find the graph showing something that looks more exponential. This is due to the function referencing itself in regards to time, so inevitably each time consumption grows it changes the outcome on the other side of the equation. Still, this is a convincing mock up. I added a "45 degree" line so that one could conceivably see (and also change) the difference made by altering the level of autonomous consumption.

CLD exposition of Goodwin01 from Steve Keen's August 2019 course on Introduction to Economic Dynamics and Minsky software See video and powerpoint slides. Based on IM-2011 Minsky FIH and IM-168865 MacroEconomics CLDs. SeeIM-172005 for Simulation

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!

This model shows the operation of a simple economy with two modifications made to Model 2 -- 1) feedback from production rate to consumption rate and 2) the use of a fractional rate input for calculating consumption rate. 

In summary, lower fractional rates of consumption (based on production) result in higher levels of Savings.