Economics - Science topic

Mansfield, Harvey. "Niccolò Machiavelli". Encyclopedia Britannica, 30 Apr. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Niccolo-Machiavelli. Accessed 8 May 2024.

1)The most consistent politicians don’t get to the highest office(President):

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Ron Paul". Encyclopedia Britannica, 29 Apr. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ron-Paul. Accessed 8 May 2024.

McNamee, Gregory Lewis. "Bernie Sanders". Encyclopedia Britannica, 8 May. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Bernie-Sanders. Accessed 8 May 2024.

2)Liberals correctly interpret authority as necessary evil thus, liberalism is the dominant ideology

At least in the economic arena, by this time the norm should have been green microeconomics and green macroeconomy since 2012 Rio +20 as the tools to be taught to deal with the environmental crisis as consensus on paradigm change to green market, green growth, and green economies was reached/RIO +20 Conference/UNCSD 2012, but traditional economic thinking and traditional macroeconomic thinking is still the norm, which means that universities knowingly or not are normalizing paradigm shift avoidance, and blocking the growth of knowledge a la Thomas Kuhn; and this raises the question: Paradigm shift avoidance and universities, do they have a duty to science based paradigm evolution of knowledge?

what do you think?

Simply state Yes and give your opinion on why you think Yes or say No, and state your opinion on why you think No.

As the level of pro-climate and pro-environmental awareness of citizens increases, so does the number of companies and enterprises that portray themselves in advertising campaigns as business entities pursuing specific sustainable development goals, in line with the trends of green transformation of the economy. To a large extent, these issues are highly correlated with each other and act in feedbacks to each other. On the one hand, the growing level of pro-climate and pro-environmental awareness of citizens motivates business entities to add to their missions and development strategies the issue of achieving sustainable development goals, undertaking business ventures that are part of the green transformation of the economy. On the other hand, in a situation where more and more companies, enterprises, financial and public institutions are presenting themselves as green business entities presenting in various brand promotion activities and advertising campaigns informing about the company's product and/or service offerings also descriptions and characteristics of green business ventures, presenting the business entity's implementation of certain sustainable development goals and green investment projects undertaken, where they develop their own energy sources based on renewable and emission-free energy sources, building wastewater treatment plants so as not to generate waste that pollutes the environment, developing and improving waste segregation and recycling techniques, carrying out economic projects involving environmental reclamation and restoration in post-industrially degraded areas, reforestation of industrially exploited areas and implementation of other green economic activities that are part of the processes of green transformation of the economy. however, as an institutional system for assessing the level of “greenness” of the aforementioned activities presented as realizing the goals of sustainable development and/or being part of pro-climate, pro-environmental, pro-ecological economic ventures has still not been built, so a significant number of business entities are overemphasizing the issue of presenting themselves in the framework of company brand promotion campaigns as green entities implementing ventures that are part of the green transformation of the economy. In recent years, there has been a strong increase in the number of companies, enterprises and financial institutions that portray themselves as green economic entities pursuing certain goals, including pro-environmental and pro-climate sustainability goals, while the scale of real activities in this regard is negligible or almost nonexistent. In addition, the introduction of mandatory expanded, non-financial ESG reporting motivates business entities to pursue green business ventures, which are often not green in reality. This is because a system of verification of the level of “greenness” of companies and enterprises, the level of factually inconsistent portrayal in the media and advertising campaigns carried out by business entities as green, pursuing sustainable development goals, respecting norms and standards for the protection of the climate, biosphere and environment, has still not been built to effectively systemically reduce the development of greenwashing, i.e. the so-called “eco-cheating”, eco-lying.

I am conducting research on this issue. I have included the conclusions of my research in the following article:

I invite you to discuss this important topic for the future of the planet's biosphere and climate.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this issue?

Please answer,

I invite everyone to join the discussion,

Thank you very much,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

1. World Order has shown changes, especially after 2020 in almost all major fields of Politics, Economics, Social, Geopolitical etc.

2. Where the world order in real is diverting?

3. What will be the ultimate outcomes?

4. The alteration & changes of systems on Earth will change anything in Space?

5. Which systems will lose centuries-long grounds and what new will rise?

6. Is the current scenario being same as the Rise/Fall of Nations, Games of Thrones etc. or there is something significantly different this time?

7. Ultimately what impact will the Next World Order make on the entire human race and especially on the Bio-sphere?

8. How much was any World Order got impacted/formed/shaped through/by religious education directly/indirectly and why did such neuroplasticity/mind exercises base practices remain an integral part of World Orders in past? Can humans afford to continue past practices to build any new future?

9. What changes do you suggest in Next World Order, and Why?

10. Are Human going to accept defeat & surrender in front of Alien powers like gods, AIs, energy, any other life forms etc.?

11. How long more humans have the current status of rapidly shrinking freedom?

12. Will the current form of human life exist after such surrenders and what will be the expected shape of any of such life?

13. Its understood that human have to sacrifice current systems and life forms for existence, but, Is it necessary? Any workable solutions ?

Just as in the case of greenwashing where people can get tricked because the word GREEN sounds good, the same can be said with respect to the current move from linear economic thinking to circular economic thinking where some people may be tricked because the word CIRCULAR sounds good.

But those familiar with science based revolutions a la Thomas Kuhn should be able to spot WHERE THE TRICK IS.

And this raises the academic question, Why the current move from linear economic thinking to circular economic thinking is inconsistent with Thomas Kuhn's paradigm evolution loop?

What do you think?

Can you see the inconsistency?

And hence, can you see the trick?

Those familiar with that greenwashing is and the consequences of greenwashing should be able to see whether the answer to the question is short yes and why or a short no and why no without contradicting themselves while answering.

What do you think the answer is? Yes and why or No and why no.

Whites(more specifically Northwestern Europeans) are the most privileged, least indigenous and most recessive, MAYBE all because they are the last derivative people.

Sources:

1)

2)

3)

4)

Are capitalists responsible for pyramid scheme?

Why parsimoniously does fertility negatively correlate with socioeconomic status? How?

With these stats probably A LOT:

1)

Me encuentro realizando una investigación sobre La Historia del Comercio Internacional de Colombia, En el Primer capítulo me encuentro abordando los imperios Latinoamericanos precoloniales como el Azteca, Inca y Maya; busco información relacionada en temas Geopolíticos, Económicos y similares de Latinoamerica Precolonial.

How do I monetize my ResearchGate account?

How do I monetize my ResearchGate account?

AD Scientific Index is a reliable quality measure or a valuable tool for assessing institution and research quality, so it could soon become a significant factor in assessing both institutions and researchers.

1)

2)

How would you start your own accredited university?

1)

1.5)

2)

I’ve been trying to login multiple times but, I keep failing.

1)

2)

The Contingent Valuation Method is primarily used in environmental services. It is a survey tool employed to estimate the willingness to pay for intangible values in environmental services, such as recreation and ecosystems. Do you think it can be applied within the scope of Facilities Management? For instance, could it be used for servicescape upgrading in a commercial building, such as enhancing the business environment?

How do we define heritage, and who decides its parameters? Scholars have pointed out that heritage is a dynamic process and not a mere monumental object.

Part of this "anti-monumentalist" approach is our appreciation of heritage. Hence, the question is: Can heritage be found in non-heritage contexts?

What if we look at our socio-economic dynamics? Let's say, we take a look at the spontaneous movement of people through an outdoor market, or a public bus moving through the metropolis, or a street football pitch?

Is heritage only associated with a specific timeline? Is it culturally justified?

The growth of science based knowledge or contribution to knowledge a la Thomas Kuhn is foward looking as FLAWED paradigms(STATUS QUO) enter the Kuhn's paradigm evolution loop under academic integrity, where abnormalities are removed to solve critical problems like social and/or environmental sustainability problems leading to new paradigms and knowledge as the old knowledge base is left behind, backward moves and paradigms avoidance moves are inconsistent with Thomas Kuhn's thinking.

Therefore, the move from a flawed paradigm backwards in the face of critical social and/or environmental problems is ao flawed paradigm to another even more flawed paradigm.

We know formally since 1987 WCED that the traditional market thinking/linear market thinking was a flawed paradigm socially and environmentally. Hence a move from linear economic thinking to circular economic thinking is a move from a flawed paradigm to a flawed paradigm without forward looking growth of scientific knowledge a la Thomas Kuhn as the status quo paradigm/linear traditional market goes into DEEP double down flawed paradigm/circular traditional market regardless of the history of economic thought 1987-2023.

What do you think? If No, why do you you think so? If Yes, why do you think so?

Hi fellows,

I am looking for two co-authors for a research project (50% done) that will be submitted to The 2024 15th International Conference on E-business, Management, and Economics (ICEME 2024, https://www.iceme.org/index.html). It is an excellent opportunity to come and visit China.

The topic's focus is Multinational Corporations (MCs), and the offer is valid until February 20th (11:59 pm, China time).

Doubling down on the traditional economic thinking that as documented by the WCED 1987 led to the critical social and environmental sustainability problems of the day they tried to fix with sustainable development thinking and according to the UNCSD 2012 Rio +20 had led to the environmental sustainability problem they prioritized to fix with green market thinking or to manage it through dwarf green market thinking, just by making it circular. If you bend a line with dots as problems and make it a circle, the circle still has the dots problems that are or were on the line

.

Hence, defining traditional economic thinking as circular does not solve the problems associated with it and it goes against the paradigm evolution rules that Thomas Kuhn advance as IT GOES FROM STATUS QUO PARADIGM(Broken circularity by assumption based traditional economic thinking/Economy only market) TO STATUS QUO PARADIGM(Circularity based traditional economic thinking/Economy only market) WITHOUT REMOVING THE ABNORMALITIES CREATING THE SUSTAINABILITY PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE WORKING OF THE STATUS QUO PARADIGM, abnormalities that now 2024 are in worse state than in 1987.

Just calling something green does no make it environmentally friendly like defining pollutants as non-pollutants does not make them environmentally friendly, they are still pollutants or just by calling a pollution production market a circular market does not stop it from being a pollution production market.

Going from linear traditional capitalism to circular traditional capitalism when we should be in higher level paradigms as the WCED 1987 indicated as the social and environmental system continue to deteriorate to extreme points feeds in the pretending story that is being used and will be used to justify overthrowing capitalism to save society and the environment from total destruction from, what it will be called, by an out of control circular capitalism.

And this leads to the question, should we expect the imposition of circular economy-based capitalism to lead to a tsunami of different types of Marxism threats in the future all over the world as social and environmental systems deteriorate to critical points?

I think Yes, what do you think?

Notice, this is an academic question, not a political one

A human can only aspire to fluency in so many different languages before mixing up words due to code switching. Thus, MAYBE those who cannot learn so many languages turn to linguistics and coding to earn money.

Direct confrontation often ONLY generates resentment. I think my premises, although somewhat derived from philosophy(as all science is), are rigorous(examples are all my publications on ResearchGate). I come to my conclusions with EMPIRICAL evidence AND logic. I also still seek a PhD by publication.

The combination of various analytical techniques, ICT information technologies, Industry 4.0/5.0, including Big Data Analytics, cloud computing, multi-criteria simulation models, digital twins, Business Intelligence and machine learning, deep learning up to generative artificial intelligence, and quantum computers characterized by high computing power, opens up new, broader possibilities for carrying out complex analytical processes based on processing large sets of data and information. Adding generative artificial intelligence to the aforementioned technological mix also opens up new possibilities for carrying out predictive analyses based on complex, multi-factor models made up of various interrelated indicators, which can dynamically adapt to the changing environment of various factors and conditions. The aforementioned complex models can relate to economic processes, including macroeconomic processes, specific markets, the functioning of business entities in specific markets and in the dynamically changing sectoral and macroeconomic environment of the domestic and international global economy. Identified and described trends of specific economic and financial processes developed on the basis of historical data of the previous months, quarters and years are the basis for the development of forecasts of extrapolation of these trends for the following months, quarters and years, taking into account a number of alternative situation scenarios, which can dynamically change over time depending on changing conditions and market and sectoral determinants of the environment of specific analyzed companies and enterprises. In addition to this, the forecasting models developed in this way can apply to various types of sectoral and macroeconomic analyses, economic and financial analyses of business entities, fundamental and technical analyses carried out for securities priced in the market on stock exchanges. Market valuations of securities are juxtaposed with the results of the fundamental analyses carried out in order to diagnose the scale of undervaluation or overvaluation of the market valuation of specific stocks, bonds, derivatives or other types of financial instruments traded on stock exchanges. In view of the above, opportunities are now emerging in which, based on relevant historical economic data, generative artificial intelligence can be trained so as to build a system that automatically conducts sectoral and macroeconomic analyses, economic and financial analyses of business entities, fundamental and technical analyses for securities priced on stock exchanges.

I described the key issues of opportunities and threats to the development of artificial intelligence technology in my article below:

OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE APPLICATIONS AND THE NEED FOR NORMATIVE REGULATION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this issue?

Please answer,

I invite everyone to join the discussion,

Thank you very much,

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

I no longer feel attracted to women nor men. I prefer robots. Liberals rightfully oppose racial animosity while acknowledging heritability to further DEI. If I make a controversial claim and no one directly opposes it then they may be silently agreeing. For right or wrong "As (insert morally superior identity) then argument" translates to "my word has more credibility because of my identity." As one of the MOST disliked people by the Nazis, I opine about race relations. Whether overt or covert, North Western Europeans("NWE") are highly eugenic and or transhumanist, hence in their most exclusionary known ideology (Nazism) they especially want to either castrate and or kill people that look like them yet have subtle non-NWE ancestry and or disabilities. Because subtle non-NWE ancestry and disabilities are both possibly hereditary. I have both subtle non-NWE ancestry and at least one(maybe multiple) disabilities(all probably hereditary), hence my right to opine about race relations. Few actually believe in martyrdom and would go through with it. A true martyr would be fired for holding integrity, courage and honor all over reputation. I will respect the authority for the common good. I also am not heterosexual, thus adding to my right to opine about race relations. My asexuality may make me a better Catholic because I seek to be fruitful and multiply(via robot sex) without acting on lust. Sir Francis Galton(Anglo Liberal and Darwin's cousin) invented eugenics. Sir Julian Huxley(Anglo Liberal, both brother of author Aldous Huxley and grandson of Darwin's Bulldog(TH Huxley) started the transhumanist movement. Sir Julian Huxley also coined the term transhumanism. Some argue principles only count if the actor's needs are met. I think principles only count if the actor's needs are met. Hence, I do not believe in nor practice martyrdom. Financial blackmail may be worse than the emotional kind because the latter usually comes from a less powerful person. More power means more potential culpability.

Warning somewhat of a pun: Being self-owned is often both literal and figurative because the autonomous often self deprecate.

You are probably familiar with the concept of greenwashing, which took relevance just before, on, and after 2012 Rio + 20/The future we want, where ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY TOOK THE FRONT STAGE.

Now 2024 traditional economic thinking has been resurrected after being left behind by the 1987/WCED/Our Common Future as it had the root cause of the socio-environmental sustainability problems they documented embedded in it, BY SIMPLY MAKING IT CIRCULAR. nothing else required related to the embedded problem still at play:

And this raises the question, Why circular economy thinking is more than greenwashing?

Any ideas? Feel free to share them.

I think No, what do you think?

The definition of socialism as big government doesn't make sense. Absolute monarchs were big government.

Who agrees disincentives are the biggest factor in human behavior? How? Why?

Life is a journey of continuous learning. Like an experienced doctor who can see the cause of a disease at a glance, Dalio has found the same core logic that has been interpreted over and over again in these many seemingly independent and unrelated events. By analyzing multiple cases at each economic stage and searching for commonalities, we can better envision and test their causal relationships, think about where crises come from and how to avoid risks. So that when the next crisis arises, we can better cope with it.

History is always strikingly similar, and the optimism in the US about beating inflation always comes a little too early. Thinking about this while reading the book, as someone who is preparing to immigrate to the United States, I am a bit worried about whether the future of the United States is optimistic?（Inflation Similar To The 1970s）

#money #inflation #America #USA #Economy #wealth

Would workers desire labor unions less if Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs guided distributing an economic basis for each individual? How? Why?

workers work but the profits go to non workers. The higher the money from investors the more profit they get. The amount of work done by workers doesn't affect the salary of workers

When it comes to climate change decision makers always tell you follow and respect the science.

When it comes to pandemics like Covid 19 decision makers always told you to respect and follow the science, ...

BUT when it comes to economics, decision makers are not calling for follow and respect the science. They quietly have apparently moved away of requiring economics to stay a science.

Since 2012 when decision makers avoided to shift from traditional market thinking to green market thinking, the science based evolution point a la Thomas Kuhn as there was consensus then for paradigm change, they have slowly move away from science by going dwarf green markets a la environmental externality management first, and now it seems they are going to square one, circular economic thinking, a thinking totally delinked from the problem we are supposed to be trying to solve, the environmental problem.

Hence, there are science based ways to fix the environmental problem and there are non-science based to patch and manage the environmental problem.

But science follows the scientific truth, if the science does not support what those decision makers want to do, no matter how much they play with the theory and the practice, why support thinking not based on science aimed at perpetuating the problem?

And this raises the question: If climate change action is based on science and the economy to implement it is not, is that good for the environment?

Think about it, the WCED 1987 told us among other things that to be environmentally friendly we have to go beyond business as usual using sustainable development means, which by 2012 Rio + 20 the world had agreed that the WIN-WIN economy and environment model was the way to shift to a world under green markets, green growth, and green economies, BUT then soon since 2012 the environmentally sustainability pretending began as instead of green markets the world ended up with green dwarf green markets, dwarf green growth, and dwarf green economies. But now that PRETENDING seems to be coming to an end AS the world, against 100% the Thomas Kuhn's paradigm evolution loop expectation seems ready to go back to square one as in 1987, but now with CIRCULAR traditional economic thinking and academic tunneling. And this raises the question, Does going traditional circular economic thinking means the environmental sustainability pretending is over?

What do you think? Yes, and why you think so? No, and why you think No?

Will a 5% ten year in 2024 and a impending maturity wall of required U.S.Treasury refinancings lead interest on the debt overtake Defense, Social security，and Medicare as the single largest line item in the Federal budget？How can a government so indebted pay a mkt rate？

Under dwarf green markets if the system is leading to market failure, should we expected the governments to act as environmental externality policy correctors and enforcers in the face of social pressure?

I think No, what do you think?

If you think outside the box, it is possible to see similarities and differences between the economy model used by china after the fall of the soviet bloc and the economy model used by the USA then and now. Knowing and understanding these similarities and differences can help to see the nature of inverse paradigm dynamics that may play in the future.

And this raises the question: In terms of equality and freedom, what are the similarities and the differences between the Chinese economy model and the USA economy model?

Can you see the similarities and the differences in this context?

If yes, please share them.

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

In my opinion, both unfavorable processes, ie the global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer in the atmosphere will increase in the future.

However, there is still some time to implement the necessary pro-ecological reforms to slow down these processes. It is estimated that there has been a decade of time to carry out the necessary pro-ecological investments, thanks to which it would be possible to implement sustainable pro-ecological development in the global economy.

Hedgehogs do not take these actions in the next decade, then these unfavorable climate processes will accelerate in the future and become permanently irreversible. Then, at the end of the twenty-first century, there will be a global climate cataclysm that will threaten the life of all humanity and a large part of other life forms that inhabit the planet Earth.

The problem is therefore serious and underestimated by politicians, entrepreneurs, industrialists and many other social groups. The problem of global warming and decreasing ozone layer in the atmosphere is too little publicized and the educated society is not educated enough.

In view of the above, the current question is: Are the biggest global problems of the future underestimated and ignored?

Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.

The WCED 1987 documented traditional economic thinking as the source of social and/or environmental sustainability as it turned out to be socially and/or environmentally unfriendly.

This is because traditional market pricing only account for the economic costs at a profit, and hence, traditional markets are externalizing social and/or environmental cost associated with economic activity. AS TRADITIONAL MARKET EXPANDS, THE SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXTERNALITIES AND THEIR SUSTAINABILITY GAPS EXPAND.

Hence, Making traditional economic thinking circular still has the social and environmental externality problem associated with it SO IT CAN NOT BE THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEMS IT CREATES. This means that selling circular economic thinking as the solution of sustainability problems requires either paradigm shift knowledge gaps or willful academic blindness as the drivers of willful academic tunneling as the mean to present it or promote it.

And this raises the question; Can we make circular economic thinking the solution of critical problems like the environmental unsustainability without the use of alternative academic facts?

I think No, what do you think? Yes, why you think so? No, why you think so?

Out of nowhere apparently came at the same time in 2023, researchers from different countries, governments from different countries, different international organizations and banks, all are praying in the name of CIRCULAR ECONOMY at the same time, from different angles and levels.

Probably some of them are the same researchers, countries and organizations that in 1987 were praising the SCIENCE BASED call *WCED 1987 Our Common Future to move away from traditional economic thinking as the only way to correct its social and environmental market failures are now endorsing.

Perhaps some of them are the same researchers, countries and organization that in *2012 UNCSD Rio +20 conference The Future We Want were endorsing the SCIENCE BASED decision to go green markets, green economies and green growth to solve the environmental market failure embedded in the pricing mechanism of the traditional market.

THEN THEY apparently forgot that, and they are now PROMOTING THE PROBLEM AS THE SOLUTION, BUT THIS TIME THE PROBLEM IS CIRCULAR, an apparent contradiction.

Keep in mind that the environmental market failure associated to the traditional market that go uncorrected by going circular economy MEANS now that under CIRCULAR ECONOMY THINKING we formally have a life under a PERMANENT MARKET FAILURE that is profitable for those polluting and for those cleaning after them.

Is this science or ideology? Can the root cause of a sustainability problem be made the solution to that problem just by making the problem circular?

And this raises the question: Is the 2023 circular economy push perfect academic tunneling?

I think yes. What do you think?

The WCED 1987 documented that business as usual was socially and/or environmentally irresponsible and needed to be made socially and/or environmentally responsible by means beyond traditional economic/development thinking.

The current circular economy thinking appears directed at magically, without addressing the root causes of social and/or environmental problems highlighted by the WCED 1987/Our Common Future, making the irresponsible traditional market thinking responsible just by making it circular.

A linear pollution production problem is solved by a circular pollution production problem apparently, do you see the signs of an academic paradox/contradiction?, which raises the question: Can an irresponsible market/the problem be made responsible/the solution just by making the problem circular?

If you think yes, why? If you think no, why?

I think No!

In the 21st century, the dominant model of economic development in many countries will be based on a combination of the concept of a social market economy with the realization of the goals of sustainable development and a smoothly carried out green transformation of the economy. There is still much room for improvement on many issues, both at the level of economic policy taking into account the realization of the goals of sustainable development and the process of green transformation of the economy, i.e. at the macroeconomic scale, as well as in the effective operation of economic entities that implement green economic ventures and are socially, climatically and environmentally responsible, i.e. at the microeconomic scale. Many issues at the aforementioned various levels of research are still to be improved in order to increase the efficiency and accelerate the implementation of the process of green transformation of the economy and activate economic entities, including companies, enterprises, financial institutions and also public institutions to undertake green investments, implement the principles of sustainable development, the principles of green closed-loop economics, increase social climate and environmental responsibility, switch manufacturing processes to generate less greenhouse gas emissions and environmental pollution, etc. The new green technologies and eco-innovations being created can increase the possibilities and improve the efficiency of the aforementioned processes of green transformation of the economy. With the aforementioned new green technologies and eco-innovations, there may also be increased opportunities to combine the concept of a social market economy with commercially operating private companies and enterprises, public institutions and the government pursuing certain social and economic policies with the realization of the goals of sustainable development and efficient green transformation of the economy.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

And what is your opinion on this topic?

What is your opinion on this issue?

Please answer,

I invite everyone to join the discussion,

Thank you very much,

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Every enterprise has main internal systems or functional areas. There are many theories trying to define which are the main ones. How the main systems are connected between each other . Which are their sub systems or sub sub systems.

Let's discuss on which are, in our opinion, the main systems (functional areas) in an enterprise and how they are connected. Maybe even see what they consist of?

This is similar to our human bodies which all have digestive system, cardiovascular system, respiratory system, skeletal system, etc. even though on the outside we are all so different.

Lets begin with understanding money as liquid, which is how CHINESE describes MONEY as WATER.

The expression "money is like water" is often attributed to Chinese culture, and it reflects a particular mindset about wealth and its fluid nature. While not everyone in China may use this expression, it does capture a common attitude towards money. Here are some reasons why money is sometimes metaphorically equated with water in Chinese culture:

If we conceptualize CO2 as liquidity rather than a gas or vapor, we are essentially considering carbon dioxide as a form of tradable liquid asset that represents environmental impact. This approach adds an additional layer to the integration of CO2 into a financial system. Here's how this could be incorporated into the concept:

This conceptualization aims to integrate the idea of liquidity into the carbon economy, treating CO2 as a tradable liquid asset with a value that can be influenced by market forces. It introduces the dynamics of supply, demand, and liquidity management into the broader context of environmental sustainability. As with any innovative financial system, careful planning, regulation, and adaptation are crucial for its successful implementation. Additionally, it's essential to consider potential unintended consequences and continually assess the system's effectiveness in achieving environmental goals.

Here's a conceptual approach to a real-world system where money is pegged to CO2 supply and demand:

It's important to note that while this concept provides a real-world approach, it is highly complex and would face numerous challenges, including international cooperation, regulatory frameworks, and the need for a robust infrastructure to manage the carbon credit system.

Pegging an international currency to a conception of CO2 reduction involves linking the value of the currency to the success and progress of global efforts in reducing carbon emissions. Here's a conceptual framework for how this might be achieved:

Implementing such a system would require significant coordination, cooperation, and commitment from the international community. It would also involve addressing challenges such as varying levels of economic development, differing national priorities, and potential resistance to adopting a new international currency system. Additionally, technological advancements in monitoring and verification of carbon reduction efforts would play a crucial role in the success of this conceptual framework.

Pegging CO2 as liquidities to currency exchanges could potentially introduce innovative financial mechanisms to overcome hurdles in CO2 reduction efforts. Here are ways in which this approach might help address challenges:

How it Helps: By pegging CO2 as liquidities to currency exchanges, you create a market for trading carbon assets. This introduces market-driven incentives for businesses and nations to reduce emissions, as they can profit from selling excess carbon liquidities or face costs for exceeding their allocated limits.

How it Helps: Liquid markets are often more flexible. This flexibility can be harnessed to adapt to varying circumstances, allowing entities to buy or sell carbon liquidities based on changing economic conditions or technological advancements. It provides a dynamic system that can adjust to evolving emission reduction challenges.

How it Helps: A liquid carbon market could facilitate global collaboration. Countries with a surplus of carbon liquidities can trade with those facing challenges, promoting a more efficient allocation of resources for emissions reduction. This approach encourages a collaborative, international effort to achieve overall reduction targets.

How it Helps: The concept of CO2 liquidities as a tradable asset could attract investments in sustainable and low-carbon projects. Financial instruments backed by carbon liquidities, such as bonds or green funds, may become attractive to investors, funneling capital into initiatives that contribute to emission reduction.

How it Helps: Liquid markets often operate with a high degree of transparency. This transparency could help overcome challenges related to verification and trust. It ensures that the buying and selling of carbon liquidities are conducted with integrity, minimizing the risk of fraudulent activities.

How it Helps: Establishing reserves of carbon liquidities can act as a stabilizing mechanism. During economic downturns or unexpected challenges, entities can tap into these reserves to meet emission reduction targets without facing excessive financial burdens, promoting long-term stability in carbon markets.

Economic Growth with Emission Reduction:How it Helps: Liquid carbon markets could provide a mechanism for balancing economic growth with emission reduction. As economies grow, they may need additional carbon liquidities, which can be acquired through the market. This allows for economic development while ensuring adherence to overall carbon reduction goals.

How it Helps: Liquid carbon markets could attract greater participation from the private sector. Businesses can actively engage in emissions reduction efforts by buying and selling carbon liquidities, aligning their financial interests with environmental goals and contributing to a more sustainable economy.

How it Helps: The creation of financial instruments backed by carbon liquidities, such as carbon futures or options, could provide businesses and investors with tools to manage and mitigate risks associated with emissions. This can enhance financial planning and encourage long-term sustainability.

How it Helps: A liquid carbon market could be designed to include public participation, allowing individuals to buy and sell carbon liquidities. This engagement can increase public awareness and encourage environmentally conscious behavior, as individuals see a direct link between their actions and the carbon market.

While pegging CO2 as liquidities to currency exchanges introduces potential benefits, it's crucial to recognize that implementing such a system would still require careful design, international cooperation, and ongoing monitoring to ensure its effectiveness in promoting meaningful CO2 reduction. Additionally, considerations for potential market manipulation, regulatory frameworks, and social equity issues should be addressed in the development and implementation of this approach.

A political economist would likely analyze the concept of pegging CO2 to currency exchanges from a multidimensional perspective, considering the economic, political, and social implications of such an approach. Here are some aspects a political economist might consider:

Analysis: A political economist would assess whether pegging CO2 to currency exchanges promotes economic efficiency by creating market-driven incentives for emissions reduction. They might evaluate the efficiency of the proposed carbon market in allocating resources and encouraging innovation in low-carbon technologies.

Analysis: Political economists would scrutinize the distributional effects of the proposed system. They might investigate how the costs and benefits are distributed among different socioeconomic groups, regions, and nations. Consideration would be given to whether the approach exacerbates or mitigates existing inequalities.

Analysis: Political economists would study the feasibility of achieving international cooperation through a liquid carbon market. They might analyze the political dynamics and power structures among nations, assessing whether the proposed system provides sufficient incentives for countries to collaborate on emission reduction efforts.

Analysis: Political economists would examine the choice of policy instruments within the proposed framework. They might consider the use of market-based mechanisms, regulatory approaches, and the role of government intervention. The analysis would explore how different policy instruments align with political and economic ideologies.

Analysis: Political economists would assess the political will required to implement and sustain such a system. They might analyze potential political resistance, lobbying efforts, and the ability of governments to commit to long-term emission reduction targets, considering the political economy of climate change policies.

Analysis: Political economists would scrutinize the environmental justice implications of the proposed approach. They might assess whether the system disproportionately affects vulnerable communities or if it addresses historical disparities in environmental burdens.

Analysis: Political economists would consider the role of the private sector within the proposed framework. They might analyze how corporations influence policy decisions, whether the approach aligns with corporate interests, and how the involvement of the private sector may impact the effectiveness of emission reduction efforts.

Analysis: Political economists would evaluate the stability of the proposed system over the long term. They might consider the potential for policy reversals with changes in government or economic conditions, assessing the resilience of the system to political volatility.

Analysis: Political economists would examine the global governance structures and institutions needed to support the proposed system. They might explore the role of international organizations, the effectiveness of existing institutions, and the need for new forms of global governance in managing a liquid carbon market.

Analysis: Political economists would consider how the public perceives the proposed approach and whether it aligns with democratic principles. They might assess the level of public engagement, participation, and the legitimacy of decision-making processes in shaping climate policies.

In essence, a political economist would analyze the proposed approach within the broader context of political and economic systems, considering its implications for power dynamics, social equity, and the overall political economy of climate change mitigation. This multidimensional analysis would provide insights into the feasibility, effectiveness, and potential challenges associated with pegging CO2 to currency exchanges.

Image Source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currency-peg.asp

Ontological model should be a complete theory of how an enterprise is structured and how it functions as whole. It should describe through formulas the objects, subjects, processes, and all the elements in an enterprise, as well as the relationships between them. A structured way to define and organize the enterprise, allowing people to study it, but also computers to understand it. A holistic and comprehensive ontological model of the enterprise.

To be able to deal head on with the social and environmental sustainability failures linked to NON-CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY thinking the Brundtland Commission in 1987(WCED) led us away from that type of thinking by recommending sustainable development tools....The WCED did not recommend then to go CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY THINKING to solve the social and environmental problems created by traditional economic thinking as in both economies you are not accounting for the social and environmental costs of doing business.

To be able to deal head on with the environmental sustainability failures linked to NON-CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY thinking the United Nations Commission on Sustainabiled development in 2012(UNCSD) was leading ust the way of circular green markets through green markets, green growth and green economies, away from business as usual.....The UNCSD did not recommend then to go CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY THINKING to solve the environmental problems created by traditional economic thinking as in both economies you are not accounting for the environmental costs of doing business.

In other words, the WCED was trying to fix a social and environmental sustainability problem by using sustainable development means to leave traditional thinking behind; and the UNCSD was trying to fix an environmental sustainability problem using green market thinking.

If the circular economy thinking has the same problems as the non-circular economic thinking of Adam Smith in social and/or environmental terms, how can circular economy thinking be presented today as the solution to the problem that the circular economy is also contributing to?

And this raises the question, Does CIRCULAR ECONOMY THINKING means a WORLD living under permanent social and environmental market failure?

What do you think? If you think No, why do you think so? If you think Yes, Why do you think so?

The Brundtland Commission told us in 1987 in "Our Common Future" that the traditional development model has failed us as it has brought with it deep social and environmental sustainability problems, and to leave TRADITIONAL ECONOMIC THINKING BEHIND they recommended sustainable development thinking, sadly they did not set priorities such as to focus sustainable development thinking to fix the social sustainability problem first, then the environmental sustainability problem or to focus on the environmental sustainability problem first, and then the social sustainability problem or focus on solving both problems, the social and environmental sustainability problems at the same time.

Notice, the WCED did not recommend to go CIRCULAR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT to lead traditional thinking behind.

This lack of foresight led to a very active competition between different sustainable development schools of thoughts, where in 2012 Rio +20 the WIN-WIN ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENTA MODEL or the ECO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL OF THOUGHT WON the sustainable development contest; and they indicated the need to go green market, green growth, and green economies in THE FUTURE WE WANT(UNCSD 2012) as now, there was a priority, to solve the environmental sustainability problem first through green market circularity as WIN-WIN meant that now the environmental cost associated with economic activities were going to be reflected in green market prices.

Notice, that RIO +20 conference did not recommend to go CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY then because they knew it is not pollution reduction friendly as it only account for economic cost of production; and hence it is not consistent with the environmental responsibility priority they had set to advance now environmentally friendly development models.

Both the WCED 1987 approach and the UNCSD 2012 approach are approaches leading the world away from BUSINESS AS USUAL as both of them knew that the sustainability issues they were tasked to solve are driven by irresponsible market behavior in social and/or environmental terms.

Now like if the WCED 1987 process and the UNCSD 2012 process never took place, out of no where the world is systematically pushing the idea of CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY to solve the development problems IT HAS CREATED as documented by those 2 different but linked processes.

They are presenting the idea of the CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY as a solution to the environmental market failure the WCED and the UNCSD linked to traditional market thinking under broken circularity in practice, but circular in theory by the environmental externality neutrality assumption given to us by Adam Smith in 1776 and under which his market can expand for ever without producing environmental externalities. Hence, it seems like the market supporting this CIRCULAR TRADITIONAL ECONOMY is no longer a traditional market, and hence, it is no longer AN ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION PRODUCTION MARKET.

And this raises the question, What type of market and price structure is behind this current push on traditional economy circularity?

What do you think?

An enterprise output can be a 'good' or a 'service'. Let's discuss on how we calculate the full cost for an enterprise and find out where we have overlap and were we have divergence.

In manufacturing, a given processed metal part, as a final product, can be both a good or a performed service.

I am curious to see everyone's opinion on the importance of economic science and management to be able to differentiate goods from services clearly and how this can help an industrial enterprise with production planning, cost calculations, major optimizations, etc.

Greetings, I hope everyone is having a great day. Just wanted to share my joy of my paper being published in the field of open data and economics and would be happy to share the work which is on "https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01518-z".

Also, welcome any feedback or opinions from fellow colleagues and researchers.

Avoiding the shift from perfect traditional market thinking to perfect green market thinking since 2012 RIO +20 has created a deep green market paradigm shift knowledge gap.

Flipping perfect traditional market thinking to imperfect dwarf green market thinking since 2012 to avoid the shift to perfect green markets has created a deep dwarf green market paradigm flip knowledge gap too.

These knowledge gaps are apparently helping those researchers and institutions implementing development under permanent environmental market failure as well as confusing environmental stakeholders on proper place for action and protest as the responsibility of governments, of businesses and of consumers are changed, and even inversed depending on the market in question.

And this raises the question, green market paradigm shift knowledge gaps and dwarf green market paradigm flip knowledge gaps, are they academic tunneling/willful blindness push helpers?

What do you think?

A lot seems to be coming out in publications about the circular economy or sustainable development and the circular economy or circular economy and sustainability or circular economy, sustainable development and global warming...and so on.

All researchers and publications seems to have the same theme of directly or indirectly indicating that the broken circularity traditional market economy can be made circular by non-green market means; and hence, they advocate circularity without indicating where the circularity problem came from or comes from; hence, without indicating whether they are fixing a broken circularity problem or patching that broken circularity problem plus their circularity thoughts seem to be disconnected from the need to one day transition away from the pollution production based economies to the pollution free economies....

They seem to start with addressing the consequences of the broken circularity problem without any regards with respect to fixing the root cause of the broken circularity problem.

And this raises the question, Can you have a circular green economy without green markets? If No, why No? If Yes, why yes?

Currently, there are many definitions of what are goods and services. Some of them define them as two completely different things. Others, like the Wikipedia page on this topic, state it is impossible to say that an item is either a good or a service, and there is a service-goods continuum. Another thing is the term product, which some say is a good, but most sources give two dimensions of a product - a service and a good

Let's discuss it!

The flipping from traditional perfect market thinking to imperfect dwarf green market thinking instead of shifting to perfect green market thinking in 2012 RIO + 20 transformed the role governments play when dealing with market failures and the way they would react when facing democratic and huma rights protest in response to the market failure,....

Which raises the currently important question:Did 2012 Rio +20 transform all governments in the Paris agreement from environmental externality policy correctors and enforcers INTO environmental externality cleaners and enforcers?. If Yes, why? If not, Why?

What do you think?

Everything In The World Is Made Of Mathematics. True Or False ?

Under perfect green markets if there is a market failure, should governments be expected to act as market failure correctors and enforcers in the face of social pressure?

I think yes, what do you think?

whether the development of international industrial corporations and large international banks and investment funds operating internationally will be the main factor of economic globalization in the 21st century?

What other determinants will shape the processes of economic globalization in the 21st century?

Please, answer, comments.

I invite you to the discussion.

I have described these issues in recently published publications:

I invite you to discussion and scientific cooperation

Best wishes

Dear researchers,

As we know, the term "Progressive" and "Regressive" are frequently used in judging whether a tax policy would be more beneficial for the poor instead of the rich. Based on this, I was wondering whether these 2 terms can be used in decribing an infrastructure investment project? Because some of the infrastructure are funded by the tax paid by the people, and they may also lead to some different inpacts to the rich and the poor. Is that a correct “transfer” from tax to infrastructure investment?

Thank you!

Every single industrial enterprise has its own business model. They are the specific way an enterprise functions. In engineering we have 3d and 2d models which we design and develop and put into manufacturing. What is the knowledge that helps us along the way of first designing a business model of a new enterprise and then guides us into realizing this same business model by establishing a real enterprise with numerous of employees, buildings, machines, know-how to use it all and to realize the product we create according to our idea for a business model?

The Brundtland Commission knew or should have known in 1987 they were dealing with a sustainability problem when they concluded that we needed to go beyond business as usual to solve the social and environmental crisis associated with business as usual since 1876, they knew or should have not that this needed a sustainability fix not a sustainable development patch.

If they would not have mixed up a sustainability problem with a sustainable development problem they would have had 3 choices: a) to recommend going red markets if they were giving priority to the social sustainability problem they documented; b) ) to recommend going green markets if they were giving priority to the environmental sustainability problem they documented; and c) ) to recommend going sustainability markets if they were giving priority to the socio-environmental sustainability problem they documented. Instead, they recommended sustainable development, a patch to the issues, that does not take us neither close to the beyond business as usual model they asks us to go.

Then, the Rio + 20 process came along settling the sustainable development discourse by prioritizing the environmental issue and hence, deciding to go green economies, green growth, and green markets.

And this raises the question, Will the period 1987 to 2012 be known in the history of economic thought as a great sustainability thinking failure period?

What do you think?

Dear researchers,

I have a question on the concept or definition of 2 similar terms, which are effects and impacts, respectively. To the best of my knowledge, the "effects"means some sort of single and direct influence caused by a policy or an event, while "impacts" means a comprehensive influence of a policy or an event. Is that correct? If not, what is the clear concept of these 2 terms?

Remark_1: science is not only about publishing papers dealing with problems that are acceptable (well seeing) by the "normal" academic canon or, on the other hand, with problems that are, relatively speaking, much easier to solve or, at least, it is not highly complicated to try to "solve".

Remark_2: scientists from the developing world, regardless the discipline, might start thinking farther on what does the "hard" Sustainable Development (SD) version mean for their countries, and how bad is to replicate (to support) discourses that comes from communities (whether interested stakeholders, nations, international organizations, think-tanks...) that want to keep the high rates of economic growth regardless any physical, ecological, and climate-based constraints. Much to my regret, there is a concerning amount of advocates to such an approach (outer-space mining) in Latin America as a whole... We need to rethink what development is all about and what will be the fate of the Latin American nations under such sustained trend of a lack of governance of the outer space domain.

- Is it really necessary to go far beyond Earth atmosphere to carry out very risky outer-space mining activities...?

- Why specific sectors are pushing for investing in the outer space mining when it is highly visible and measurable (at naked eye) the amount of thrash that it is piling up and surrounding all cities in the world...?

- What about the amount of metal, plastic and other "strategic" material (including wood/timber) that should be recycled at great scale in all continents and regions in the planet...?

- What education policies should transfer the current effort aimed at funding already useless careers and titles to empower the next generation of skilled workers, technicians, and experts in recycling al at levels of the society....? What impede that transformations in the labor force worldwide...?

- To the fans and advocates of the circular economy scheme: (1) have you already thought about the huge amount of energy that would be required for such a large-scale recycling (The thermodynamics laws always will matter despite economics could claim)...? (2) Shouldn't be a maximum number of human population that make circular economy feasible...? (Human population trends) are not in the equations of the hard SD version). (3) Do we (humans) have time for a step-by-step circular economy development (more action and less "floppy" business papers)...?

As I have pointed out in all my questions, the 2030 SDGs agenda is already compromised and no major advancement is being achieved regarding the speeding up overlapping and non-linear climate and Earth's ecology breakdowns, therefore, why humanity should embark in another wishful-thinking reckless economic push within the "New Space Economy"...?

As we keep trying to keep humans outside the equations..., all what be published regarding sustainability (science), governance, and the so-called cutting-edge research on Climate Policies and Action will be just a futile act of absolute incompleteness and despair.

Thus, I call scholars from all the disciplines to carry out their major effort in adding the humans into their equations (schemes, models) and start writing as we are the root of the current problems , but also the solutions to those human-sparked messes... A major shift must be empowered in the way science is made... Science has being under crisis for twenty years or so... We all know by 2000 the problem will be greater and will advance faster than our potential response as a species... All has been an unprecedented large-scale denial...

Willing to interact to write more realistic (with policy implications) papers and for teaming (network-building) in searching for implementing sound "cutting-edge" research proposals whenever funds will be available.

Regards,

Hernan L. Villagran

The sustainable development discourse released by the Brundtland Commission in 1987 ended in 2012 RIO +20 with the agreement to go green markets, green growth and green economies, WHICH MEANS that the sustainable development model that won the competition was the win-win eco-economic model.

Yet since then, people do not longer talk about the circular green economy or the still broken circular dwarf green economy as ways of fixing or patching respectively the environmental pollution problem we are supposed to be trying to address.

Researchers and institutions as seen in research shared in Researchgate have decided to use a general term that means nothing and everything at the same time, THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY without indicating what they are trying to fix as they should know what the root cause of the traditional market broken circularity is or at least saying they are still talking about saving the traditional economy that was left behind in 2012 Rio +20, the one the Brundtland commission said in 1987 we should go beyond from as it had not worked.

Keep in mind, there is fully broken circularity, there is partially broken circularity, and there is true circularity, but this is found within the green market paradigm shift knowledge gap that was created when shifting from perfect traditional market thinking to perfect green market thinking.

And this raises the question, Can you go from fully broken circularity to unbroken circularity in any market, including in the case of perfect traditional market and the environmental problem, without internalizing the externality costs associated with production?. What do you think?

If you think Yes, then why you think so?

If the answer is NO, are then the CIRCULAR ECONOMY thoughts being advance more often now in and outside Researchgate as a good sustainable development or sustainability or climate change tool based on alternative academic facts?

What do you think?

Is Time Money? Does Using Your Time Adequately Impact Your Financial Performance?

I think yes, what do you think?