Wednesday, January 7, 2026

World-System (1960-2010) Stabilizing the Brazilian BAU Economy






 Stabilize the (LU - KOF) Controller


Stabilize the System





Notes

Exercise

Ex1: See if you can find a way to stabilize the BRL20_BAU model without creating collapse?

Wikipedia


BRL20 Measurement Model

Three state space components explain 99% of the variance in the BRL20 indicators variables: BR1 = (Growth), BR2 = (LU+KOF-Q-HDI), Unemployment-Globalization Controller and BR3 = (EF+HDI-CO2-Q) Environmental Controller.




A time plot of the BRL20 BAU model (above) shows that the growth component (BR1) seems to be reaching a steady after 2010. The Unemployment-Globalization Controller (BR2) reached a peak around 2000. And, the Environmental Controller (BR3) collapsed after 2000.

BRL20 BAU Model



The BRL20 BAU model (System Matrix above) is unstable and has one clearly unstable controller, the the Environmental Controller (BR3).

BRL20 AIC Statistics


The AIC Statistics are not entirely clear cut for the BRL20 model. There is a strong Random Walk (RW) model and the BAU model is in second place. However, the stable models are the Latin American Regional Model (LAC) and the China Model (CN). Some other versions of the US model are also competitors (I'll cover these in future posts).

You can inspect the BRL20 LAC Input model and the BRL20 US_LM Input model along with the BRL20 BAU model on the Google sites. 

Sunday, December 28, 2025

World-System (1700-Present) Political Change and The French Republics

 


Political Change in France since the late 1700s has been solidified by the creation of new Republics (I-V) triggered by specific crises. The graphic above plots the overall French growth component, FR1, with the Five Republics and their durations. A Sixth French Republic is being proposed as a successor to the current Fifth Republic to correct perceived systemic problems (see Notes below).


Formation of each prior Republics had been triggered by a specific crisis (see ChatGPT table above). It would be reasonable to assume that any Sixth Republic would also need to be triggered by a crisis.


Notes

FR (0-2000) Measurement Matrix

The FR1 index (0-2000) is a relatively equal weighting of seven indicator variables based on the Kaya Identity. The FR2 and FR3 index Capture Historical Controllers for the French Economy. FR2 = (Q-X) - (N-U+HOURS+L), a Malthusian Export Employment Controller and FR3 = (Q+U-HOURS-X), an Urban Production Employment Controller. 

For descriptions about how the state variables and models are constricted, see the Boiler Plate.


ChatGPT Chronology

Here is the Chronology produced by ChatGPT with notation.



















Monday, December 1, 2025

How is Debt Controlled in Great Britain?





 In a prior post (Is Britain Heading for Another Debt crisis?), I found that the overall Debt controller (DEBT1 = DEBT-GDP) is stable and will return to balance after a Debt Crisis (Debt Shock). A recent article in the Observer (here) describes the process by which the UK Current Budget was formulated. Aside from all the chaos, it seems that there were three options facing the government: (1) Stimulated Growth to reduce debt (shock DEBT1=(DEBT-GDP), (2) Decrease Government Expenditure to reduce debt (DEBT2=(GDP-G) and (3) Increase Taxes (DEBT3=Q+G-TAX). In this post, I explore options #2 and #3.

Either decreasing Government Expenditure or Increasing Taxes would reduce DEBT but not by very much.

In terms of mu UK_DEBT model, options #2 and #3 involve negative shocks to the two DEBT components (DEBT2 and DEBT3) on the DEBT1 controller. The results are presented in the graphic at the beginning of this post. Negative shocks would decrease DEBT1 in less than a 0.50 standard deviation and would have about three years to reach full effect. 

The Business-as-Usual (BAU) Model is not the best model, but it seems to describe how the government is reacting to the budgetary process. The best model for explaining DEBT1 is the World Input Model see path AIC statistics below) but the EU Input model (returning to the EU) also was a good model and was briefly discussed (and rejected) during the Budget formulation process.

One way to explain all the handwringing over the UK Budget is that it is fallout from Brexit(the UK Leaving the EU). The EU has rules about Debt that are always in the background on budget discussions. The UK is now going it alone and has only itself to blame for budget chaos.

Notes

Google AI



More Background


Handwringing:


Debt Crisis Indicators



Debt Crisis Measurement Model


DEBT1 = DEBT-GDP, DEBT2 = GDP-G, and DEBT3 = Q+G-TAX


EU


WL20







Debt Crisis Models











AIC Statistics Debt Crisis








Thursday, November 27, 2025

Is Britain Heading for Another Debt Crisis?

 


The NY Times reported yesterday that Britain Raises Taxes by More Than $30 Billion in Push for ‘Stable Economy’. What is meant by "Stability" in this context is the prevention of yet another Debt Crisis. From the perspective of Systems Theory, all the handwringing raises the questions of (1) What is a Debt Crisis? (2) Can we measure it? (3) Can we define "Debt Crisis Stability" a little more precisely? And, (4) Should something be done about it?

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) argues that for a Country that issues it's own currency (Britain does and it is the Pound Sterling) Debt is never a problem because the country can always print more money if there are slack resources (unemployment, excess capacity, etc.) in the economy. From the perspective of Systems Theory  whether or not Debt is an economic issues is not as important as whether it acts as an historical controller. A simple controller model would be (DEBT-Q) where Q=The Economy and DEBT= (Revenue-Expenses). In other words, does the Political System monitor the controller and then do something about deviations.

The simple controller can be expanded to include a number of other measures (see the Debt Crisis Indicators in the Notes below with series taken from the World Development Indicators).

When DEBT1 = DEBT-GDP (explaining 60% of the variation in the indicators, see the Debt Crisis Measurement Model below) is plotted over time, the first half of the graphic at the beginning of the article (up to 2015) is displayed. There are a number of spikes in the graph: (1) The Iran-Iraq War (1980s), (2) The 1990s Recession and (3) COVID-19 Pandemic. Each of these events produced a Debt-Crisis, as captured by the DEBT1 index.

Britain withdrew from the European Union (Brexit) in January 2020. Since Britain never adopted the EU Currency (the Euro), from the standpoint of MMT, Brexit should have been a non-event. From the standpoint of Geopolitics, however, Britain had to seek new Alignments and the choices were basically to go it alone (BAU), the US, the World System (W) or return to the EU. The potential effects on DEBT1 are forecast in the graphic above after 2020.

The BAU model (no alignment) and returning to the EU are not much better than a Random Walk (RW, muddling through) and would have kept DEBT1 at current high levels. Alignment with the World System (W) or the US would have resulted in large secular declines in DEBT1 (to historically low, unrealistic levels by 2060).

Exactly what level of DEBT1 would reduce the handwringing in Britain is not clear. What we can ask is what the effects of DEBT1 on the UK Economy (UKLM Model) would be. The best model would be a Random Walk (see AIC Statistics Effects of DEBT1 below). The effects of DEBT1 on the System states (see Effects of DEBT1 on UK_SYS model) would be minimal and best described by Random Error.

Is Britain heading for a Debt Crisis? Since Debt Shocks are random events and since the response to the (Q-DEBT1) controller is a Random Walk, continued muddling through is the most reasonable forecast. If DEBT1 stabilized at current levels, would that be too high? As long as the Government can continue responding the (DEBT-GDP), the Deficit is under control. Is DEBT1 creating Instability? If we define Instability by shocks (World Market Shocks, Recessions, Pandemics, etc.) and if DEBT1 returns to trend after the shocks, the Political System is functioning appropriately. The basic process of responding to the (DEBT-GDP) controller is systemically stable (see the System's models below).

One interesting question is how the Debt Controller would function if the British Economy reached a Steady State. How high a level of debt would be tolerable and would the Debt Controller operate in the same way? You can experiment yourself with the UKLM Model and see whether you think the model is approaching a  Steady State

Notes

More background:

Handwringing:


Debt Crisis Indicators



Debt Crisis Measurement Model


DEBT1 = DEBT-GDP, DEBT2 = GDP-G, and DEBT3 = Q+G-TAX


Debt Crisis Models







AIC Statistics Debt Crisis




AIC Statistics Effects of DEBT1



Effects of DEBT1 on UK_SYS model


Compare the System matrix to the UK_LM model here (they are very similar).


Google AI

The UK faces a debt crisis driven by both high public and personal debt, with the national debt exceeding 100%of GDP and millions of households struggling to cover basic expenses due to rising costs and stagnant wages. This is a result of factors like the cost-of-living crisis, which has led to a sharp rise in personal debts such as council tax and energy bills, and government borrowing during events like the pandemic. The situation is exacerbated by factors such as high borrowing costs, a challenging fiscal outlook, and a need for significant consolidation steps, according to Goldman Sachs.
Public debt
  • High debt-to-GDP ratio:The UK's public debt is high, currently at 101%of GDP, which is historically high outside of major wars.
  • Contributing factors:Government spending on measures like the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme ("furlough scheme") significantly increased the national debt.
  • Fiscal outlook:The deficit was 5.7%of GDP in 2024, the third-highest in Europe, and high borrowing costs make the fiscal outlook challenging.
  • Path to stabilization:Stabilizing the debt will require significant consolidation steps and achieving a primary surplus, which the UK has not done since the early 2000s.
Personal debt crisis
  • Soaring council tax debt:Outstanding council tax debt has surged, with over four million people now behind on payments, notes Debt Justice.
  • Struggling households:Millions of people are in debt due to the cost-of-living crisis, unable to cover essential costs like rent, energy, and food without borrowing.
  • Causes:This is not due to irresponsibility but is a result of economic pressures like frozen wages and rising costs, with public spending cuts forcing households to rely on private debt to make ends meet, says Debt Justice.
  • Consequences:The crisis leads to anxiety, exhaustion, and a loss of dignity, and contributes to rising homelessness.
Broader economic context
  • Recession:The UK entered a recession partly due to people cutting back on spending, highlighting the impact of economic pressures on households.
  • Inflation:High inflation makes it harder for the Bank of England to lower interest rates, which can further strain government finances and household budgets.
  • Policy:The government's withdrawal of support is seen as a key driver of the household debt crisis, as private debt fills the gap where public spending should be, argues this YouTube video.






Wednesday, November 26, 2025

Technology Long Waves

  


The Kondratiev Wave is an important element of World-Systems Theory. The graphic above is taken from Andreas Goldschmidt and gives historical specifics for technological cycles. Goldschmidt's formulation allows for the idea to be tested (one of the models I always test), is partially consistent with economic Growth theory (particularly if we do not assume a functional form for exogenous disembodied technological change in the Solow-Swan Model) and I can present some examples.

Monday, October 6, 2025

How much Government Expenditure is Too Much in Argentina?

 


In a prior post (here), I looked at President Javier Milei's attempt to impose Shock Therapy on the Argentine Economy. A central argument of Milei's policies is that government expenditure must be cut quickly because, given Neoliberal Theory, government policies and expenditures interfere with the growth of a free-market economy. But, Shock Therapy is based on an untested assumption: How Much Government Expenditure is Too Much?** In this post, I'll look at the question from the standpoint of Systems Theory.

From the perspective of Systems Theory, government expenditure in Argetnina is out of control.

At the same time, increased government expenditure (G) would have helped Argentina grow but was inhibited by Regional Latin American forces (LAC)

Typically, the How-Much-is-Too-Much debate is conducted in terms of percentages, for example, 90-100% of GDP is too much debt. ChatGPT summarizes the recommendations above and concludes that 55-60% of Govt. Spending/GDP is "Too Much". However, in a qualifying sentence, ChatGPT concludes:


And, I would add, Latin American Regional Conditions (LAC). In other words, Milei's "Chainsaw" is a bit too much of a blunt instrument.

System theory has more general answer to the  How-Much-is-Too-Much question and it involves: (1) constructing alternative attractor paths for Overall Growth in the Economy (AR1 in Argentina, see the Measurement Model below in the Notes, AR1=(Growth-EF) where EF is the Ecological Footprint) and (2) investigating which path (to include Government Expenditure driven) is best (using the AIC criterion). 

Two paths for AR1 are presented in the graphic at the beginning of this post: (1) AR1 driven by Government Expenditure and (2) AR1 driven by the Latin American Regional Economy (LAC, the best). In other words, more Government Expenditure would create more growth for the Argentine Economy but that growth is limited by the Latin American Regional Economy.


And, the relationship between growth in Argentine Government Expenditure and the LAC Regional Economy is unstable. In other words, government expenditure will keep growing unchecked, exponentially, forever (see the forecast above and System model in the Notes where the dominant eigenvalue is greater than 1.0, F[1,1]=1.089).

So, although more government expenditure might increase growth of the Argentine Economy, growth in Government Expenditure is out of control. Whether Milei can get it under control is another question. And, as is often the conclusion from Systems Models (see the Limits to Growth), slowing down growth rates, not slashing budgets, is what will bring spending under control.


Notes

** Readers familiar with the This Time is Different Controversy will recognize the "How Much is Too Much" debate as a familiar theme in Economics: How much Debt is too much? How much Inflation is too much? How much Financialization is too much? etc. etc. etc.

AR State Space:


System Matrix and Input Matrix for Government Expenditure:





Saturday, October 4, 2025

World-System (1960-2010) Argentina Takes a Random Walk

 


In a prior post (here), I investigated the Geopolitical Policy Space for the Economy of Argentina and explored President Javier Milei's use of Shock Therapy to transition Argentina to a Free-Market Economy without Government Planning. But, is there evidence that Shock Therapy actually works or is it just a pretext to destroy institutions and create anarchy? In this post, I explore the question for the Economy of Argentina.


In general, the ChatGPT AI System doesn't report that Shock Therapy has been very successful (above). But what happens when it is unsuccessful? My argument is that Shock Therapy takes the country on a Random Walk (RW) where the outcomes are unpredictable (graphic at the beginning of this post). For Argentina, using the ARL20 BAU model,  there is a 3 in 10 chance of a positive result and a 70% chance of failure (declining systemic growth)--not very good odds.

You can experiment yourself with the  ARL20 BAU model creating various types of Random Walk Models with the instructions in the code.


Notes