Complexity, Cybernetics and Economics

Opening Statements:

Humans have limitations on how much complexity we can parse. One can't be certain about how much complexity an economy can involve before Chaos and Emergence become an issue with stability; thus a systemic limitation where convolution becomes an issue may be beyond what humans can detect, select and affect for. Correlating Ashby's Law of Requisite Complexity with Occham's Razor would suggest an effective axiom for required complexity, but what degree of complexity becomes a convolution matrix in general systems? It seems clear that the human limitations are going to produce issues, as has been observed in hundreds of years of economic crises. Modernly it's been observed that pools of investors have lost track of markets, allowing dangerous bubbles in markets, that are extremely difficult to correct. This needs to be explained, and the old world investment model, the corporate model, being the common denominator, is of course the most likely influence.

Natural Growth Rates:

We have been aware of the fact that the ruling classes have demanded more return from the economies than the economies have been capable of producing. This has been expressed as natural, human greed, not so much to explain it, but rather to excuse it, and obstruct efforts to address it. The expectations of growth in economies are based in what is temporarily possible. That's the way that the judgements appear to develop. This is commonly explained with the "Hot Hand Fallacy", where one expects current returns to continue indefinitely, without any reason, what so ever, to believe it. This belief is paired with the "no one can see a bubble" belief, sealing the fate of an economy, to eventual, extreme over leverage and collapse. Scientifically, this is all based in Malthusian denial of systemic constraints and human limitation and neuro-psychological issue.

Collapse As an Attractor:

It's not entirely clear how much complexity an economic system can involve before Chaos and Emergence make prediction generally unlikely. It is however extremely clear that the methods used are resulting in cyclic crisis. The notion of what a system can take is not entirely relevant for prediction in the first place. The interface to our economies requires our ability to understand it, if we are to be the ones making decisions concerning it. The observer is part and parcel of the observation; and the degree of complexity that the observer can parse is as relevant as any other aspect. A combination of human limitation and technological progress has been accelerating the number of instances of crisis, in a given time frame, over hundreds of years. It wasn't a large concern at the beginning of the 17th Century when the corporate model was conceived, but now crises and market bubbles plague economies. The information given to the public is blame of individuals and institutions, when the model itself appears to be unsustainable, in that, it is incompatible with the limitations of the humans that run the systems. A system that reinforces the "Hot Hand Fallacy", and allows excuses for the inability of humans to account for the complexity that results from it, while allowing those inadequate humans to run the system that is in essence running them, into crises, over and over again, is a lesson for the learning.

Closing:

What is a convolution matrix is determined at least partially by the mathematician's ability to parse the output. The mathematician is the one who determines whether or not convolution even exists in the output. This is something to seriously consider, with expectations on humans who are expected to be accountable for their part in financial organization. It's a fact that the model the system is under, both promotes and makes excuses for incompetence. It's only more recently that it has become of particular concern, as the consequences have become more frequent in a particular time frame. This is a revolutionary time, in which persons of interest will be blamed for consequences, and credited for progress; when the concerns of the collective consciousness is what demands the attention and reform. The reform that appears to be needed is deprecation of a 17th Century model that has matured beyond it's ability to produce lasting abundance. The model is the common denominator in all directions of study of both economic and financial crisis. It is what collapsed the global economy last time, and what is collapsing it now. If we humans are to be accountable for the failures of our systems, then we need to be capable in our abilities to make corrections in them. Accountability without culpability is the essence of a scapegoat, and that is what the main stream asserts.