Microeconomic measures can produce counterintuitive 'emergent' effects at the macro or systemic level. The commendable act of saving money by individuals during uncertain economic times has the perverse macroeconomic effect of making a recession  worse: in aggregate there will be less money available for spending, suppressing demand for goods and services. Economists call this effect 'the paradox of thrift'. Similarly, logical efforts by companies in such conditions to reduce their wage bill or their postponement of investment decisions will reduce spending in the economy  and deepen the economic downturn.

What can be done to counteract this harmful dynamic? The missing spending can be replaced by government spending: governments have it within their power to effectively counter economic downturns!

Neoliberalism uses a deceptive narrative to declare that money the government spends into the economy in excesses of the taxes it collects creates a ‘government debt’. In fact, the money the government spends into the economy in excess of the taxes is an income, a benefit for the private sector. When the government issues bonds, the money the private sector uses to buy them via banks comes from a residual cushion of dollars that the government already spent into the economy but has not yet taxed back.  If this were not the case, if the government had taxed back all the money it spent into the economy, then the economy could not function. There would be no dollars in the economy, since the government is the sole supplier of U.S. dollars! In the doted rectangle in the graph you can see that the dollars paid to the government for bonds sits in a dollar asset account. When the government issues bonds it simply provides the public and institutions with a desirable money substitute that pays interest i.e. Treasury bonds. It is a swap of one kind of financial asset for another. To register this swap the government debits the dollar asset account and credits the bond account.  When the time comes to redeem (take back) the bonds, all the government does is revers the swap, and that’s all!  When you look at the total amount of finacial assets in the private sector,  these remain constant at $ 25 BN  after the payment of $ 5 BN taxes. This implies that  no lending of financial assets of the private sector to the government has taken place during the swap operation. The money was always there. The debt mountain is an illusion!

To maintain economic wealth (roads, hospitals, power lines, etc.) power needs to be consumed. The same applies to economic activity, since any activity requires the consumption of energy. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the burning of fossil fuels was responsible for 79 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. So whilst economic activity takes place fossil fuels will be burned and CO2 emissions are unavoidable - unless we use exclusively renewable energy resources, which is not likely to occur very soon. However, the increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will have negative consequences, such droughts, floods, crop failures, etc. These effects represent limits to economic growth. The CLD illustrates some of the more prominent negative feedback loops that act as a break on economic growth and wealth.  As the negative feedback loops (B1-B4) get stronger, an interesting question is, 'will a sharp reduction in economic wealth and unavoidable recession lead to wide-spread food riots and disturbances?'

Modern Monetary theory (MMT) has shown how modern monetary systems actually work. It has shown  that governments that issue their own currency, such as the US, can never run out of money or be forced to default on debt issued in their own currency. It has also demonstrated that government spending to stimulate the economy is logical and that the resulting deficit is irrelevant - the government always has the monetary means to eliminate it. This directly contradicts neoliberal doctrine that wants to limit government spending and posits that deficits destabilize the economy. Neoliberalism often constitutes a 'worldview' and 'personal identity'. Those who hold such strong beliefs cannot be persuaded to abandon them using rational arguments and facts - psychological reasons usually impede it as research has shown. The worldwide dominance of the doctrine, vested interests and psychologically grounded opposition suffocate MMT and rational arguments showing its superiority are seemingly of no avail. 

How the 4-H club became a marketing thingy for DuPont

Model in support of an article being written about Investment vs Austerity.

@LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube

A detailed description of all model input parameters is available here. These are discussed further here and here.

Update 29 June 2016 (v2.6): Added historical emplacement for wind and PV capacity. The maximum historical emplacement rates are then maintained from year 114/115 until the end of the model period. This acts as a base emplacement rate that is then augmented with the contribution made via the feedback control mechanism. Note that battery buffering commences only once the additional emplacement via the feedback controller kicks in. This means that there is a base capacity for both wind and PV for which no buffering is provided, slightly reducing the energy services required for wind and PV supplies, as well as associated costs. Contributions from biomass and nuclear have also been increased slightly, in line with the earlier intention that these should approximately double during the transition period. This leads to a modest reduction in the contributions required from wind and PV.

Added calculation of global mean conversion efficiency energy to services on primary energy basis. This involves making a compensation to the gross energy outputs for all thermal electricity generation sources. The reason for this is that standard EROI analysis methodology involves inclusion of energy inputs on a primary energy equivalent basis. In order to convert correctly between energy inputs and energy service inputs, the reference conversion efficiency must therefore be defined on a primary energy basis. Previously, this conversion was made on the basis of the mean conversion efficiency from final energy to energy services.

Update 14 December 2015 (v2.5): correction to net output basis LCOE calculation, to include actual self power demand for wind, PV and batteries in place of "2015 reference" values.

Update 20 November 2015 (v2.4): levelised O&M costs now added for wind & PV, so that complete (less transmission-related investments) LCOE for wind and PV is calculated, for both gross and net output.

Update 18 November 2015 (v2.3: development of capital cost estimates for wind, PV and battery buffering, adding levelised capital cost per unit net output, for comparison with levelised capital cost per unit gross output. Levelised capital cost estimate has been substantially refined, bringing this into line with standard practice for capital recovery calculation. Discount rate is user adjustable.

Default maximum autonomy periods reduced to 48 hours for wind and 72 hours for PV.

Update 22 October 2015 (v2.2): added ramped introduction of wind and PV buffering capacity. Wind and PV buffering ramps from zero to the maximum autonomy period as wind and PV generated electricity increases as a proportion of overall electricity supply. The threshold proportion for maximum autonomy period is user adjustable. Ramping uses interpolation based on an elliptical curve between zero and the threshold proportion, to avoid discontinuities that produce poor response shape in key variables.

Update 23 September 2015 (v2.1): added capital investment calculation and associated LCOE contribution for wind generation plant, PV generation plant and storage batteries.

**This version (v2.0) includes refined energy conversion efficiency estimates, increasing the global mean efficiency, but also reducing the aggressiveness of the self-demand learning curves for all sources. The basis for the conversion efficiencies, including all assumptions relating to specific types of work & heat used by the economy, is provided in this Excel spreadsheet.

Conversion of self power demand to energy services demand for each source is carried out via a reference global mean conversion efficiency, set as a user input using the global mean conversion efficiency calculated in the model at the time of transition commencement (taken to be the time for which all EROI parameter values are defined. A learning curve is applied to this value to account for future improvement in self power demand to services conversion efficiency.**

The original "standard run" version of the model is available here.

This is a model which explains the difference between Mountain bikes riding compared to logging in the Tasmanian forests.

Scratch build of a stock-flow consistent model of a closed economy, based on a current transactions matrix

The following is a start to modeling the investment funds and work flow cycle for a company. This simulates how a fixed resource gets distributed among 3 investors and how the investors can lose those funds back to the investment system. The model assumes at this stage that the amount of money available for investment is fixed over the time period in which the dynamics is unfolding. This can be adjusted as the model is further developed.

There is a concern that Logging has an adverse effect on the experience of tourist mountain bikers looking for nature experiences in Derby, Tasmaina.

Trying to look objectively how tax changes to the wealthiest could lower debt and any impact to the economy.

Model supporting research of investment vs. austerity implications. Please refer to Modern Money & Public Purpose Video.

@LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube

The effect of austerity in the wrong place

Basic Brain Drain System Dynamics Diagram

'Efficiencyism’  can be described as a blind belief in the effectiveness of efficiency measures without taking into account circumstances and the wider context.   The graph on the left shows how the frequent use of the term 'efficiency' at the level of local interactons can lead to the emergence of  'efficiencyism' through upward causation, denoted by the arrows pointing upwards.  However, there is also downward causation from the global level depicted by the red arrows which can increase the blind application of efficiency measures at the local level. In other words, efficiency for the sake of efficiency becomes a dominant idea.  The tyrannical influence of 'eficiencyism' affects all of us to varying degrees and unfortunately can often have very negative side effects, such as an increase in unemployment, social injustice and even increase inequality.  Of  course, well-thought-out efficiency improvements can also bring great  benefits.   I recommend reading an excellent article by Dr. Charles Chandler, who explains the term 'efficiencyism' with some excellent examples and also points to some  of its undesirable effects.

http://www.ageofoe.com/010-efficiencyism-holds-us-back/

Peak oil will occur when it is too expensive to bring oil to the surface and not when reserves reach their limit. Companies must make a profit to be able to extract oil and stay in the oil business.  However, that endeavour is becoming more and more difficult because of diminishing returns. They have to dig ever deeper to get to the oil  at ever increasing costs, and the oil they find deep down is of a lesser quality.  We have now reached a point where the price needed by oil companies to make a profit and stay in business is far higher than the price  the market can bear. That price is probably about $ 100 per barrel - and rising every year! A market price o $ 100 will almost certainly cause a sharp recession and cause the price of oil to fall back beyond the point of profitability. For example, the combined profit of ExxonMobile, Chevron and Conocophillips fell from 80.4 billion in 2011 to only 3.7 billon in 2016 - see URL below. What the market can bear depends on the spending power of the mass of non-elite workers. The CLD shows the negative feedback loops that prevent oil prices to rise above the level of  affordability. If non-elite workers cannot afford the goods and services offered,  then there will be no demand for them and by extension for oil.  In this situation the market price will not the cover the cost that oil companies need to extract oil. Oil supplies will decline and so will economic activity!

https://srsroccoreport.com/the-blood-bath-continues-in-the-u-s-major-oil-industry/

This is a reconstruction of the SIMM model presented in Chapter 2 of Feedback Economics (Contemporary Systems Thinking)

This is a simulation of monetary flows for a business that uses Circular Money.

Model supporting research of investment vs. austerity implications. Please refer to additional information on the SystemsWiki Focus Page and Modern Money & Public Purpose Video.

Overview: