GST versus Econ
Perhaps you’ve heard me share this reasoning already:
Economists almost universally decry monopoly as a recipe for inefficiency and as discouraging of innovation. By this reasoning, should not Economics, the discipline itself, have at least one competitor? Enter GST (general systems theory).
That GST would compete with Economics is innovation on my part. The balance of the historical record shows at least that they’re related, perhaps to effect some positive synergy. But then effecting syntropy is my goal also.
The notion of “system” owes a lot to thermodynamics, a branch of physics. We speak of “systems” as open or closed, as entropic or syntropic. Energy is involved, with heat energy perhaps a byproduct.
Central to GST is the solar fusion furnace feeding the Earthian ecosystem with what amounts to free energy. We have no way of paying it back.
The sun is a donor more than a lender. Planet Earth is the lucky recipient of daily energy grants. Energy performs work. Think of agriculture and photosynthesis.
A Marxist critique might begin with the principle that only human labor contributes to the economic value of a good. GST is not a Marxism in this sense, as even humans themselves are not of human design.
Women do labor to grow new humans, but could not do so absent free energy and its fruits. Among these fruits, are literal fruits.
The sun provides an energy gradient, like voltage pressure, which powers Motherboard Earth. Work occurs. Humans insert their hydro-dams into the evaporation and precipitation cycle. They use the gravitational water pressure to spin up their server farms.
Some Markov schematics aim to show what comes in must go out, in terms of energy. Earth radiates as much as she absorbs.
A steady energy build-up, without a corresponding release, would result in overheating. In that case, the biosphere might undergo phase changes to become more like Venus or Mars. We hope that doesn’t happen, for the sake of our way of life, or of any life at all.
GST starts out “cosmic” and stays that way, in terms of integrating Planet Earth into solar system circuits.
Classical Economics, on the other hand, has tended to forget about such cosmic primitives while focusing on monetary concepts as supreme. “Current = Currency” we say in GST. Picture paper scrip denominated in Joules, as a mental exercise?
Chinese economists have taken on the number one priority in World Game: extrapolation from emerging electrical energy grids to a more unified global one. How long might a treatise in Classical Economics go, without ever mentioning HVDC? Is World Game even in the index?
All this talk of “replacing the dollar” may have a lot more to do with “replacing economics” as currently practiced, in that tomorrow’s wealth creating depends on thinking both clearly and cosmically about Earth’s energy needs.
Does your economics textbook talk about isotopes? If not, then how contemporary could it be? Ditto journalism. A big part of the energy picture are the chains of custody surrounding radioactive isotopes.
If I had to summarize very briefly, I’d say economics inherits from lawyers whereas GST is more the creature of engineers. Both lawyers and engineers speak of “code”. Since when might lawyers practice with version control software? Since when did software define the rules of a company?
If you want to know whether the Economics you’re reading is GST flavored, look for lots about watts. Don’t be beguiled by talk of pipelines alone.
Make sure the cited sources of wealth include such as the sun and the oceans. Money is not wealth and banks are not sources of wealth, only loans.
