Science topic

EU & European Studies - Science topic

EU & European Studies
Questions related to EU & European Studies
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Interested in outside the box academic ideas on how exism movements can lead to the death of normal liberal democracy from within in the quest for permanent access to power?
Perhaps you should read this DRAFT paper
Rethinking democracy 107: Placing the post 2016 liberal democracy landscape under independent rule of law variability system to indicate when to expect peaceful transfer of powers and when not when parties lose elections(UNPUBLISHED).
Relevant answer
Answer
Arta, when you have time take a look at the paper shared, you may find it interesting as it is a new way of seeing what you seem to understand.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2020. Sustainability thoughts 108: Can we approach socially friendly capitalism through social externality management? If yes, how can this be done?, In: CEBEM-REDESMA Boletin, Año 14 Nº 8, December, La Paz, Bolivia.
Relevant answer
Answer
Taoreed, thank you for commenting.
Did you make time to read the article? Your comment is not directly related to the article.
You are right in what you indicate , and as Thomas Kuhn in his structure of scientific revolutions said you need to think outside be box or you need some one from outside the box to see what can be done that you can not be seen within the environment you are living in...That is why this paper is written FROM OUTSIDE THE BOX, so that the socially unfriendly capitalism box can be corrected to be socially friendly and how that could be done.
Respectfully yours;
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2020. Sustainability thoughts 109: Linking perfect green market theory to the circular green economy, In: CEBEM-REDESMA Boletin, Año 14 Nº 7, La Paz, Bolivia.
Relevant answer
Answer
The 2020 idea linking perfect green market theory and circular green economy explores the potential for fully sustainable markets where resources are continually reused, minimizing waste. Current academic discussions often overlook the integration of these theories, focusing instead on incremental improvements or more narrowly defined models, potentially due to academic tunneling (focusing on limited, specialized topics) that leaves broader interdisciplinary frameworks underexplored. Revisiting this idea could offer a holistic view of economic sustainability.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Do you know the externality structure and market illusion of markets other than the traditional market?
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2020. Sustainability thoughts 105: An overview of the externality structure of all possible markets and of the specific market illusion under which each of them operates, Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 14, No.6, November, La Paz, Bolivia.
Relevant answer
Answer
Muhammad, thank you for taking the time to write.
I am focused right now just on sharing new ways of looking at the same development or methodological issues from the true sustainability angle. If you see some ideas you find interesting feel free to come up with either different way to expand them or to apply them.
Respectfully yours;
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
What is the circular green economy? What is the circular environmental externality management-based economy? Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2020. Sustainability thoughts 107: Comparing the structure of the circular green economy with that of the circular environmental externality management-based economy to identify differences as well as to point out the market implications of these differences, Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 14, No.6, November, La Paz, Bolivia.
Relevant answer
Answer
Nimananda, thank you for taking the time to write.
Notice that the concepts circular green economy, circular environmental externality based economy, and circular economy are different concepts, WITH different market structure in terms of pricing, choice, and paradigm structure.
Please take the time to read the article and you will see why.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
8 answers
Have you ever read this article related to solving the environmental sustainability problem?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2020. Sustainability thoughts 106: Can we solve an environmental sustainability problem by managing the consequences of that problem? If not, why not?, Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 14, No.5, May, La Paz, Bolivia.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear A.K, the article is about proper economic thinking and improper economic thinking to solve environmental problems, one fixing environmental problems, and the other one managing consequences of environmental problems without fixing the root-cause of the problem.... Even just looking at the abstract you can see it is about good and bad economics to address critical problems.
A.K I appreciate you taking the time to comment
Respectfully yours;
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2020. Sustainability thoughts 112: How can the hidden unequal nature of the liberal market model be detailed step by step? , Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 14, No.4, April, La Paz, Bolivia.
Relevant answer
Answer
Charles, thank you for taking the time to write, but your comment seems not to be directly related to the article. But in my other papers I have mentioned that energy is the blood of markets as without energy there is no production, nothing to consume, no money(no dollar), not enough energy means economic black outs......but that line of thinking would not affect the ideas in that article,,,
Respectfully yours;
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
15 answers
Have you ever read this article? They help to understand when exism movements like Brexit and Usexit should be expected to take power under majority rule liberal democracy thuinking
Muñoz, Lucio, 2018. True Democracy and Complacency: Linking Voting Outcome Expectations to Complacency Variability Using Qualitative Comparative Means, Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 11 No. 1, January, La Paz, Bolivia.
Relevant answer
Answer
Damian, all my articles have a list of operation concepts if you read the article covering the concepts being used to help readers GO BEYOND TRADITIONAL DEMOCRACY THINKING.... in the case of rule of law:
11) Independent rule of law system, the factual based system that ensures that the laws of thecountry are respected no matter who is in power or may come to power.
12) Non-independent rule of law system, the system that overlooks facts if needed to place ormaintain or preserve a specific movement or ideology in power (PDF) Rethinking democracy 105: Stating the structure of authoritarianism and democracy-based systems in terms majority rule driven voting systems under biding present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law qualitative comparative boundary conditions. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386345334_Rethinking_democracy_105_Stating_the_structure_of_authoritarianism_and_democracy-based_systems_in_terms_majority_rule_driven_voting_systems_under_biding_present-absent_effective_targeted_chaos_and_ind [accessed Jan 11 2025].
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2019. From Traditional Markets to Green Markets: A Look at Markets Under Perfect Green Market Competition, Weber Economics & Finance (ISSN:2449-1662), Vol. 7 (1) 2019, Article ID wef_253, 1147-1156
Relevant answer
Answer
Wendy, thank you for writing. I noticed that comment you do not mention the need overlooked even by the WCED 1987 to transition from pollution production economies to pollution-less economies such as the transition from environmental pollution production economies to environmentally clean economies, for which you need first to set up POLLUTION REDUCTION MARKETS LIKE GREEN MARKETS, which then can be driven towards environmental pollution-less markets by closing the renewable energy technology gap to make environmental pollution reduction A PROFIT MAKING OPPORTUNITY...
I appreciate the comment.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Have you ever read this article normal democratic outcomes and extreme democratic outcomes?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2017. Majority Rule Based True Democracy Under Complacency Theory: Pointing Out The Structure of Normal and of Extreme Democratic Outcomes Analytically and Graphically, Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 10, No. 8, October, La Paz, Bolivia.
Relevant answer
Answer
Amel, thank you for taking the time to comment.
Take a look at this article when you have time, it has the founding theory behind a series of articles on the structure, working, and dynamics of exism movements born inside liberal democracies ausing effective targeted chaos to induce full true majority complacency as the point of original entry, and then while in power focus attention on dismantling democratic institutions and the rule of law to remain in power in case they fail to sustain effective targeted chaos permanently,,,and normal democratic thinking keep making the original mistake since 2016 UK, THINKING THEY ARE COMPETING AGAINST ANOTHER NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME,,,And issue I am addressing currently systematically with my series RETHINKING DEMOCRACY....
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2016.  Paradigm Evolution and Sustainability Thinking: Using a Sustainability Inversegram to State Paradigm Death and Shift Expectations under Win-Win and No Win-Win Situations, In: British Journal of Economics, Management & Trade 12(4): 1-15, Article no. BJEMT.24697, London, UK.
Relevant answer
Answer
Eper, thank you for taking the time to comment.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
4 answers
Muñoz, Lucio, 2003.  “Stakeholders, Attitudes, and Sustainability: The Need for Attitude Convergence”, Sustainability Outlook, Warren Flint (PhD)(Ed), Issue No. 22, February, Washington DC, USA
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you Mohamed for taking the time to comment.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2016.  Karl Marx Vrs Sustainability Markets: Who Would Have Won this Cold War? Would the World of Karl Marx Have Existed Then?, Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 9, No. 6, July, La Paz, Bolivia.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you for taking the time to write Kaddijatou.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
4 answers
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2016.  Beyond Green Market Thinking: What would be the Structure of the Perfect Sustainability Market?, In: International Journal of Science Social Studies Humanities and Management (IJSSSHM), Vol. 2, No. 5, May,  Ed. Dr. Maya Pant, India.
Relevant answer
Answer
Ani, I see you perhaps did not take a look at the perfect sustainability market article before commenting as your comment is about the workings of imperfect financial markets, but your comment is relevant as it can be seen from the opposite side imperfect sustainability markets...
But deb management or any type of management of a crisis without FIXING THE ROOTCAUSE of the crisis like with the 2008/2009 financial crisis means soon we will be in the situation "HERE WE GO AGAIN"....
Thank you for taking the time to write
Ani, given your comment, you may find some good food for thoughts in the following article:
Beyond Traditional Financial Market Thinking: How An Ideal Financial Market Structure Would Look Like After Ending the Traditional Market Monopoly?
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2016.  Understanding the Death and Paradigm Shift of Adam Smith’s model: Was Going Green the Only Option? If not, Is This Option the Most Sustainable One?, Weber Economics & Finance (ISSN:2449-1662 ), Vol. 2 (3) 2016, Article ID wef_169, 540-546.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you for taking the time to write.
Respectfully yours;
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
4 answers
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2015. Did Adam Smith Miss the Chance to State the Goal and Structure of Sustainability Markets in His Time? If Yes, Which Could Be Some of the Possible Reasons Behind That?, Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, Año 8,  No. 11, November 30, 2015, La Paz, Bolivia.
Relevant answer
Answer
Alyaa, thank you for taking the time to write.
Respectfully yours;
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
4 answers
Muñoz, Lucio, 1999. Understanding Sustainability Versus Sustained Development by Means of a WIN Development Model, In: Sustainability Review, Warren Flint/PhD(ed), Issue 1, September, USA.
Relevant answer
Answer
Nice to hear that El Mahi. You may see some good food for thoughts still relevant today.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Have you ever read this article? Some food for thoughts here:
Muñoz, Lucio, 2015.  Moral and Practical Sustainability Gaps: Implications for the Current Liberal Development Model, Weber Sociology & Anthropology (ISSN:2449-1632), Vol. 1 (4) 2015, Article ID wsa_149, 317-320.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you for taking the time to write. Hope you find some good food for thoughts in that article. Today I am writing about RETHINKING DEMOCRACY to understand the post 2016 Brexit and USEXIT structure of the liberal democracy landscape.....
Sharing here one of five already out there:
Rethinking democracy 102: What are the 3 fundamental lessons learned from facing exism movements and dictatorship threats 2016-2024?
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
4 answers
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2013.  Utilitarianism, Raw Liberalism, Moral Liberalism, and True Sustainability: Basic Paradigm Foundations, Changing Assumptions, and the Evolution of Development Paradigms, In: The Mother Pelican Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, January, Ed. Luis Gutierrez, PhD, USA.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you Giannoula for writing.
Lucio
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2014.  Understanding the Road Towards the Current Dominant Non-Renewable Energy Use Based Economy: Using An Inversegram to Point Out a Step by Step Strategy Towards an Efficient Dominant Renewable Energy Use Based Economy, Boletin CEBEM-REDESMA, No. 11, December 23, La Paz, Bolivia.
Relevant answer
Answer
Osama, since 1987 WCED the world knew that there was a need to transition systematically, locally and globally, to clean economies and leave pollution production economies like the coal based economy and the oil based economy behind. No plan has ever been made, even the paris agreement avoids going beyond managing externalities a la sustainable development.... The paper is above a step by step way to do it if one day the world has to do it..... The sustainability crisis under management sooner or later will backfire and force a more painful and faster local and global transition from pollution production economies to pollution reduction economies and then to clean economies....You can see the trend of the crisis from bad to worse by looking at data WCED 1987 and 2024....while the problem has been under management instead of being fixed....
Thank you for taking the time to comment
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
4 answers
Have you read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2011.  From Dying to Eternal Economies: When Should the Paradigm Shift from the Non-Renewable Resource Based to the Renewable Resource Based Economy Take Place?, En: Desastres Naturales, REDESMA, Vol.5(2), October, La Paz, Bolivia.
Relevant answer
Answer
In 2011, economic discussions often centered on the challenges faced by economies heavily reliant on non-renewable resources, such as oil and minerals. These economies, sometimes referred to as "dying economies" due to their vulnerability to resource depletion and market volatility, were contrasted with more sustainable or "eternal" economies that diversified their economic activities.
Key Concepts:
  1. Resource Curse: This theory suggests that countries abundant in non-renewable resources may experience slower economic growth due to factors like volatility in commodity prices, governance challenges, and neglect of other economic sectors.
  2. Dutch Disease: A phenomenon where a resource boom leads to currency appreciation, making other export sectors less competitive and potentially stunting overall economic development.
  3. Economic Diversification: The strategy of broadening an economy's base by developing various sectors to reduce dependence on a single resource, thereby enhancing resilience and sustainability.
Transition Strategies:
To move from a non-renewable resource-based economy to a more diversified and sustainable one, several approaches have been proposed:
  • Investing in Human Capital: Enhancing education and skills to support the development of new industries.
  • Developing Infrastructure: Building transportation, communication, and energy infrastructure to facilitate economic activities beyond resource extraction.
  • Strengthening Institutions: Improving governance and regulatory frameworks to support business development and attract investment in diverse sectors.
  • Promoting Innovation: Encouraging research and development to foster new industries and technologies.
Case Studies:
  • Botswana: Successfully utilized diamond revenues to invest in education and infrastructure, leading to diversified economic growth.
  • Chile: Managed copper wealth prudently and invested in other sectors, achieving a more balanced economy.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Muñoz, Lucio, 2012.  From Traditional Sweatshops to Green Sweatshops: Is this a More Socially Friendly Strategy? In: The Mother Pelican Journal, Vol. 8, No. 6, June, Ed. Luis Gutierrez, PhD, USA.
Relevant answer
Answer
Interesting!
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Have you ever read this article?
Muñoz, Lucio, 2008.   Agriculture and Global Warming:  Should the Biofuel Route Be Expected to Be a Socially Friendly Agricultural Policy?, In: Biocombustibles, REDESMA, Vol. 2(2), Section VIII, July, La Paz, Bolivia.
Relevant answer
Answer
Good day Gokhan, nice to see it got your attention.
Take a look at this old article, you may find some interesting food for thoughts.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Muñoz, Lucio, 2010.  Where Should Donors Place Their Monetary and Trade Incentives to Encourage Developing Countries to Implement Balanced Pro-Rich/Pro-Poor Development Programs?, Journal of Sustainability, Issue 3, Number 2(Fall), Rio Rancho, New Mexico USA.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you for taking the time to write Alina.
You may find in the paper some good food for thoughts.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
14 answers
You read current ACADEMIC PAPERS on sustainability written like if the concept never existed before despite being available with just a simple RESEARCHGATE SEARCH OR ACADEMIA SEARCH OR GOOGLE SEARCH since before and after WCED 1987 called for moving away from business as usual. Ignoring the past to advance concepts as new is not consistent with Thomas Kuhn's paradigm evolution loop. And this raises the question, Is the current sustainability research agenda in support of business as usual based on academic tunneling?
I think Yes, what do you think?
Relevant answer
Answer
Chuck, thank you for taking the time to write.
This is a Yes, and why or No, and why not question? This is not criticizing just for criticizing.
Do you have a view on the answer to the question here:
Is the current sustainability research agenda in support of business as usual based on academic tunneling?
What do you think? If you reply, I will reply.
Remember we are here, at least I am, to share ideas not to impose my ideas.
Respectfully yours;
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Muñoz, Lucio, 2003.  Building the Basic Foundations of Global Sustainability, Sustainability Outlook, Warren Flint(PhD)(Ed), Issue 29/July, Washington DC, USA
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you for writing Dariusz. The period between 1987 WCED report and the future will become known as the period of sustainability paradigm shift avoidance in the annals of economic thoughts that were ignored and the cause of future human misery.....
Have a nice day!
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Here some good food for thoughts!
Muñoz, Lucio, 2010.  What If Markets Have Always Been Distorted? Would It Then Be a Good Fix to Add Fair Trade Margins to Correct Distorted Agricultural Market Prices?, Journal of Sustainability, Issue 2, Number 4(Spring), Rio Rancho, New Mexico USA.
Relevant answer
Answer
Geoffrey, thank you for taking the time to comment.
Keep in mind, the margins once internalized by all producers/ firms or agricultural producers/firms do not remain static, trade margins become the drivers of fair trade production towards maximizing fair trade profits at the lowest fair trade market price possible, meaning at the lowest fair trade margin possible; and hence, making that way fair trade margin reduction a good fair trade profit making opportunity while driving those markets towards clean fair trade markets as the fair trade margins added tend towards zero.
I do appreciate your comment
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
These days, when talking about the circular economy, they use talking points without even mentioning the pollution production problem associated with the working of the traditional market or with economic activity which it is also present in the working of circular markets or circular economic activity...See how the UN CLIMATE CHANGE PROMISE talks about a circular economy with no link to its pollution production problem nature and with no mention of the need to move one day to pollution-less economies....
" What is circular economy and why does it matter?
And this raises the question: Imagine you are the environment, can a circular pollution production solution/circularity fix the linear pollution production problem/linearity you face?
What do you think? If you think Yes, please indicate why. If you think No, please indicate why no.
Note;
This is an academic question, not a political one.
Relevant answer
Answer
Check the article when you have time Wilfred,
Have a nice day!
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Look at today 2024 and compare it to the ideas shared here and you may see what it should have been from 2008 towards RIO + 20 UNCSD 2012 and after if we were REALLY INTERESTED in slowly transitioning POLLUTION PRODUCTION ECONOMIES to the fully renewable energy-based economy.
Muñoz, Lucio, 2008.   Renewable Energy Vrs Social Needs: What Do Environmentalists Must Do to Induce the Development of a Sustainable Market fueled only by Renewable Energy?, In: Agrocombustibles, REDESMA, Vol 2(1), Section VII, March, La Paz, Bolivia.
Relevant answer
Answer
Souyene, the article is full of food for thoughts about what environmentalist should focus on achieving consistent with social needs to ensure a responsible renewable energy based world, BUT IT WAS NOT DONE so now we can look back at what went wrong and the cost, environmentally and socially of unsystematic renewable energy policies and unsustainability linkages
When you have time, take a look at the article
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Muñoz, Lucio, 2003.  Linking Sustainable Development Indicators by Means of Present/Absent Sustainability Theory and Indices: The Case of Agenda 21, GDS, IIG, Spain
Relevant answer
Yes, I'm definitely interested in the old formal theory of sustainability and indices from 2003, prior to Rio+20. I haven't seen the article yet, but I would love to take a look. Could you share the link or more details about it?
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Muñoz, Lucio, 2003.  Eco-Economic Development Under Social Constraints: How to Redirect it Towards Sustainability?,  In: THEOMAI, Issue # 8, October, Argentina
Relevant answer
Answer
Good day Trishika, thank you for taking the time to write.
The article has some good food for thoughts still relevant today, but thinking outside the box.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
4 answers
Muñoz, Lucio, 2000.   Unprotected Areas, Protected Areas, and Sustainability Under Green Development Policies: Which are the Expected Impacts?, In: THEOMAI, No. 2, Argentina
Relevant answer
Answer
Valerij, thank you for taking the time to comment.
The article provides a systematic take of the issues using sustainability thinking and tools from outside the box.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
10 answers
The current trend appearing to have come from nowhere in 2024 promoting economic circularity to solve a sustainability problem embedded in it is mind boggling, which leads to the question: If a linearly polluting society is not sustainable, how can a circularity polluting society be sustainable?
Perhaps someone promoting economic circularity can explain
Note:
This question is academic, not political.
Relevant answer
Answer
While a circular economy has the potential to reduce waste and promote sustainable resource use, it is not a guaranteed solution to sustainability challenges. It must be implemented thoughtfully, considering its broader environmental impacts, and integrated with other sustainable practices to ensure it contributes positively to ecological health and social well-being. This comprehensive approach can work towards a truly sustainable future, moving beyond merely circular or linear paradigms.
Transitioning to a circular economy requires a shift in mindsets and behaviors. If individuals and companies continue to consume at an unsustainable rate, even within a circular model, the overall impact may still be negative. An effective circular economy demands changes in consumer behavior, business practices, and policies to foster sustainable consumption.
Circular processes, such as recycling, can often be energy-intensive. If the energy used in these processes comes from fossil fuels, that could lead to significant carbon emissions, making the idea of circularity less sustainable overall.
It's crucial to consider that sustainability is not just about reducing pollution, but also about social equity, economic viability, and ecosystem health. A circular model must integrate these broader perspectives to be truly sustainable.
Sustainable circularity should be synergistic with other sustainability models, such as regenerative practices, which focus on restoring ecosystems, and principles of social justice, ensuring that the benefits of economic activity are equitably distributed.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
4 answers
Muñoz, Lucio, 2002. "The Meso-American Biological Corridor and Regional Sustainability: An Overview of Potential Problems and Their Policy Implications", Issue 32/August, DHIAL Journal, IIG/Spain
Relevant answer
Answer
Good day Prem, thank you for writing. Wish you find some good food for thoughts in it.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Muñoz, Lucio, 2002.   “Maximization, Partial Regulation, and System Dominance: Can They Be Drivers of True Sustainability?”, In: International Journal on Environmental Management and Health, Walter Leal Filho, PhD(Ed), Vol. 15, No. 5, Pp. 545-552, MCB University Press, Germany/Sweden
Relevant answer
Answer
Shadrack, good day. If you read the article that aspect you describe is call the maximization driver, which is not consistent with true sustainability as true sustainability is about optimizing, not about maximizing....
Have a nice day!
Lucio
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
4 answers
Muñoz, Lucio, 2002. “Are We Appropriately Assigning Causes to Global Warming?”, In: Sustainability Outlook, Issue 16, November 13, Warren Flint(PhD)(Ed), Washington, DC, USA.
Relevant answer
Answer
James, thank you for commenting. The reason I wrote that article in 2002 was that I saw moved towards a single focus on human causes only isolated from even the idea that earth is more than humans.
All the aspects you highlighted Jams are consistent with the implication of the simple formula I shared in the article and the piece by piece puzzle implications.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
14 answers
Think about willful academic blindness(ACADEMIC TUNNELING) vrs willful democratic blindness(POLITICAL TUNNELING)....
The first type/academic tunneling seems now normal, taking place at universities, thinktanks, international organizations, governments....which will lead to the death of science in a way that THOMAS KUHN was not expecting, BUT IT IS NOT BEING SEEN AS A THREAT TO THE SURVIVAL OF SCIENCE as it seems we are now in a non-science based world as science or not, they still will push what they want to push.....
The second type/political tunneling is SEEN as an existential threat to liberal democracy as political tunneling does not work under democratic rules just see the political dynamics under political tunneling processes under exism movements like Trumpism....
Hence, willful political tunneling with the support of alternative facts is seen as a serious threat to democracy from within, but willful academic tunneling with the support of alternative academic facts is not seen apparently as a serious threat to science from within, which makes you wonder, why.
And this raises the question, Why willful blindness is taken as a serious threat to the survival of democracy, but not the survival of science?
What do you think?
Note:
This is an academic question, not a political one.
Relevant answer
Answer
Good morning Harry, thank you for writing. The reasons you provide justifying silence of the part of scientists have merits as they are direct or indirect pressures, be it professional, economic, and political, which is why the world needs now more than ever INDEPENDENT SCIENTISTS so that the record of the history of economic thought and development does not leave out the fact that since 1987 WCED we started a process of trying to manage sustainability problems instead of fixing the root cause creating then with continued with UNCSD 2012 Rio + 20 conference where instead of creating and implementing green markets they continue with the ideas of managing the consequences of environmentally distorted traditional markets, a green market paradigm avoidance process that continues today 2024...
Harry, you may appreciate the following set of articles written with a simple goal of pointing out the irony of promoting non-science based ideas to solve sustainability problems as science based.
Sustainability thought 170: What happens to the Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm evolution loop under willful academic blindness? What are the implications of this?
SuSustainability thought 170: What happens to the Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm evolution loop under willful academic blindness? What are the implications of this?
Sustainability thought 171: How to state the structure of the Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm evolution loop for the traditional market of Adam Smith when shifting to sustainability markets, to red markets, and to green markets under academic integrity?
Sustainability thought 172: What is the structure of the general Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm evolution loop when the traditional market is a golden paradigm and when it is a flawed paradigm?
Sustainability thoughts 143: Pointing out the different roads towards sustainability markets when placing the traditional market model of Adam Smith under the Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm transformation loop analytically and graphically
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
4 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you for commenting Nzabirinda
Have a nice day
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
4 answers
Muñoz, Lucio, 2000. Rationality, Responsibility, and Sustainability: When Can Human Behaviour Have a Chance to Be Sustainable?, In: Sustainability Review, Warren Flint/PhD(ed), Issue 20, May, USA
Relevant answer
Answer
Louise, thank you for writing.
Have you heard about the green economic man's theory? How green rationality works. It came around same time WCED 1987 and was around during the UNCSD 2012 Rio + 20.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
You have seen the comings and goings now of Trumpism, Brazilianism, and Brexism, 2016 to 2024 and the common theme is why they failed to persist in power ONCE THEY CAME TO POWER. You have seen the direction that exism movements take towards permanent authoritarianism. And you may be familiar with the environment in countries with permanent authoritarianism.
If you look at the evolution of democracy theory since 2016 paradigm shift from normal to extreme liberal democracies in some countries you and you adjusted your previous democratic thinking as now EFFECTIVE TARGETED CHAOS and THE NATURE OF THE COURT SYSTEM IN A CONJUNCTURAL CAUSALITY MODE play a key role. And you compare this environment to the one found in countries UNDER permanent authoritarianism you may see some similarities in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions for them to keep power for ever between the structure of permanent authoritarianism from within and well as from outside.
If you take into account this, then you may be able to see that the necessary and sufficient conditions for permanent authoritarianism to stay in power for ever using this new thinking has technically not changed, it is the same before 2016 and it is now in 2024..
And this raises the question: What is the necessary and sufficient condition for permanent dictatorships to remain in power regardless of opposing democratic movements?
What do you think the necessary and sufficient condition is?
Note: The answer is short.
Relevant answer
Answer
Some may be interested in the food for thoughts found in this article, related to the question:
Rethinking democracy 103: How can the present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law framework be used to point out key aspects related to the theoretical nature of democratic and non-democratic systems, their interactions, and implications.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
11 answers
Are you concerned about the future of democracy, locally or globally?
What do you think the fundamental lessons learned for democracy are since 2016 BREXIT?
How can we come out with a permanent shield for the continuation of democracy regardless of type of future threat?
Perhaps they coincide with my thinking.
The question is: What are the 3 fundamental lessons learned from facing exism movements and dictatorship threats 2016-2024?
What do you think?
The answer should be short as my answer is short.
Note: I am currently putting these ideas together in one article.
Relevant answer
Answer
Some may be interested in the food for thoughts found in this article, related to the question:
Rethinking democracy 103: How can the present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law framework be used to point out key aspects related to the theoretical nature of democratic and non-democratic systems, their interactions, and implications.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
Since 2016 Brexit, the world needed to change the thinking behind traditional democracy as the democratic landscape changed, yet traditional democratic thinkers and actors have been acting as if the competition for power is STILL BETWEEN NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOMES that are happy to live within an independent rule of law system, when it is no longer the case as now a new variable came into play, legal targeted chaos, that when effective it is a game changer as it leads to extreme democratic outcomes that should be expected to be unhappy living under an independent rule of law system.  To be able to answer general questions as the one here, we need to rethink democracy thinking.
And this raises the question: In terms of chaos, what is the necessary and sufficient condition for authoritarianism, permanent or temporary, to come to exist and persist?
What do you think is the answer to this question is from the point of view of just CHAOS?
Relevant answer
Answer
Some may be interested in the food for thoughts found in this article, related to the question:
Rethinking democracy 103: How can the present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law framework be used to point out key aspects related to the theoretical nature of democratic and non-democratic systems, their interactions, and implications.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
1 answer
You see some democratic countries since 2016 Brexit failing to deal proactively to avoid or reactively to neutralize internal democracy threats like local exism movement or deal with external democracy threats like permanent authoritarianism and temporary authoritarianism or the cooperation of authoritarianisn. In 2016 perhaps Brexit came as a surprise because of knowledge gaps in democratic theory, but maybe 2016 Trumpism should not have been a surprise as THE SAME PLAYBOOK was at play, and this should have been a wake up call to traditional democracy theory based thinkers to adapt liberal democracy thinking to absorve to the coming new liberal democracy landscape where normal democratic outcomes are competing for power, no longer against other normal democratic outcomes as before 2016, but AGAINST EXTREME DEMOCRATIC OUTCOMES.
It seems in the UK, in the USA, in Europe as a whole, they have been treating extreme democratic outcomes as either normal democratic outcomes or abnormal outcomes without probably realizing that if certain conditions are met, extreme democratic outcomes can become long term temporary authoritarianism periods, and if some other especific conditions are met, democracy will end and extreme democratic outcomes will become permanent authoritarianism. The liberal democracy landscape changed in clear ways in 2016 yet democratic countries keep running the system the same way as they did in the past giving space to exism movements not just to materialize by to gain power. And this raises the question, relevant to all democracies and democratic thinkers: The rise of effective target chaos in 2016 and the failure for democracies to adapt and deal with it, how are they link to exism movements?
Relevant answer
Answer
Some may be interested in the food for thoughts found in this article, related to the question:
Rethinking democracy 103: How can the present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law framework be used to point out key aspects related to the theoretical nature of democratic and non-democratic systems, their interactions, and implications.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
1 answer
You see internal and external dynamics in majority rule-based countries with actual extreme democratic outcomes at play and in countries with want to be extreme democratic outcome around, all majority ruled based countries, but even though this has been going on since just before 2016 BREXIT and 2016 USEXIT and continues today with the coming of an extreme democratic outcome in Argentina...
Yet politicians in normal democratic outcome run countries have not yet CLEARLY figured out that the idea that DEMOCRACY is a mess within democratic competitors like NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME AGAINS NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME, where both are normal democratic outcomes with the best interest of the majority at hand but different approach has CHANGED as when competition is between A NORMAL DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME VERSUS AN EXTREME DEMOCRATIC OUTCOME the nature of the MESS changes as the extreme democratic outcome is not restricted or bound or it does not believe in the democratic values and rules under which it is born; and hence, cometition has a different structure. Hence, the way democratic outcomes compete with extreme democratic outcome needed to change since 2016, but it has not changed yet.
It seems normal democratic outcome run countries appear to be still following normal democratic theory when competing with EXTREME DEMOCRATIC THEORY/ exism theory, which indicates why they have been more often than expected been taken victim of the Murphy’s law under efficient targeted chaos.
Hence, everything changes when we shift from normal democratic outcome to extreme democratic outcome in majority ruled based countries, both internally (extreme democratic outcome vrs normal democratic outcome) and externally (extreme democratic outcome-based country versus normal democratic outcome-based country, and there is a reason to rethink to keep democratic norms where the best interest of the majority, not the minority, rules under majority rule democratic based systems.
And this raises the question: Does paradigm exism theory explain why normal democratic outcome-based countries should not be expected to get along with extreme democratic outcome-based countries?
What do you think? What is your view on the answer to this question.
Relevant answer
Answer
You may find the following article interesting:
Rethinking Democracy 101: How can a general present-absent effective targeted chaos and independent rule of law quadrant-based framework be built to capture the necessary and sufficient conditions for democratic and non-democratic models to come to exist and persist in power once in power?
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
3 answers
Any ideas?
Relevant answer
Answer
You may find the following article interesting
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
1 answer
You have seen the comings and goings now of Trumpism, Brazilianism, and Brexism, 2016 to 2024 and the common theme is why they failed to persist in power ONCE THEY CAME TO POWER.
If you look at the evolution of democracy theory since 2016 paradigm shift from normal to extreme liberal democracies in some countries you and you adjusted your previous democratic thinking as now EFFECTIVE TARGETED CHAOS and THE NATURE OF THE COURT SYSTEM IN A CONJUNCTURAL CAUSALITY MODE play a key role.
If you take into account this, then you may be able to see that the necessary and sufficient conditions for normal liberal democratic outcomes to come to exist and persist has changed as conditions have changed.
And this raises the question: What is the necessary and sufficient condition for normal democratic outcomes to maintain power regardless of the coming and going of exism movements and dictatorship threats?
What do you think the necessary and sufficient condition is?
Note: The answer is short.
Relevant answer
Answer
You may find the following article interesting
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
6 answers
It seems that since 2012 Rio +20 Conference, the world has been moving away from science based perfect market thinking, a moved that apparently has been helped by the confusion created by the 2012 green market paradigm shift avoidance move or the green market shift avoidance period 2012-2024, and this raises the question, Is science based on a political definition science?
What do you think? Yes, why? No, why not?
Relevant answer
Answer
Science is all knowledge obtained through observation and the systematic and reasoned study of nature, society, and thought. Science is fundamental to understanding the world around us and improving our lives. Its objective is to discover the laws that govern the phenomena of reality and understand and explain them. It uses verifiable norms and criteria to study phenomena based on observation, formulation of hypotheses, experimentation, and conclusions. It aims to understand the general principles that govern phenomena, from mathematics to natural or social sciences. It values ​​the knowledge accumulated from previous research and considers the background as a starting point. It produces knowledge necessary to interpret reality and stimulate human and social development.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
8 answers
We know that there are flawed paradigms and golden paradigms. A pollution production market is a flawed paradigm and a pollution-less market is a golden clean market paradigm.
And this raises the question: Is a circular non-renewable energy dominant based economy delinked from social friendliness a golden clean market paradigm?
What do you think? Why?
Relevant answer
Answer
A clean market is not 100% clean, but it is less harmful. Lucio Muñoz
Onipe Adabenege Yahaya
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
8 answers
Imagine the WCED 1987 would have set only one sustainable development goal, closing the renewable energy technology gap to make renewable energy a permanent substitute of non-renewable energy as soon as possible and address pollution production head on by transitioning out of dirty economies.
Imagine 2012 RIO +20 would have made only one goal to support the implementation of green markets, to set up a system around implementation, financing, and monitoring of the closing of the renewable energy technology gap in each country as soon as possible to address pollution reduction head on by making pollution reduction a profit-making opportunity.
Imagine the 2015 Paris agreement had only one goal implemented in a socially friendly manner, to close the renewable energy technology gap as soon as possible to lead the dirty economy behind and stop providing benefits to those making money from dirty development.
Instead, attention has been placed on managing the consequences of pollution production markets which keeps renewable energy as a permanent complement and send dirty markets under permanent dirty market failure.
And this raises the question, should making renewable energy a permanent substitute be a clear and practical SDG goal?
What do you think?
Relevant answer
Answer
Yes, making renewable energy a permanent substitute should be a clear and practical Sustainable Development Goal (SDG). Renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, and hydro power, are essential for addressing climate change, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and promoting environmental sustainability. Transitioning to renewable energy can also enhance energy security, reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and create economic opportunities through green jobs. Furthermore, widespread adoption of renewable energy can improve public health by reducing air pollution and its associated health risks. Setting a specific SDG for permanent renewable energy adoption would provide a focused, actionable framework to guide global efforts towards a sustainable and resilient future.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
4 answers
Imaging a world under perfect red market thinking or under perfect socially friendly capitalism since 1776 had Adam Smith giving us that model then instead of the perfect traditional market, would that have created environmental sustainability problems too by 1987/WCED?
What do you think?
Yes, and why do you think so? No, and why do you think so?
Note:
This requires a little thinking outside the box
Relevant answer
Juan Domingo Perón, además de ser el creador de un movimiento nacional único en el mundo, también fue un escritor prolífico. En sus obras, abordó temas estratégicos para Argentina, incluyendo la sostenibilidad ambiental y la responsabilidad social.
En 1972, desde su exilio en Puerta de Hierro, España, Perón publicó un mensaje en el que cuestionaba la marcha suicida de la humanidad debido a la contaminación del medio ambiente, la dilapidación de los recursos naturales y el crecimiento sin freno de la población. En este mensaje, enfatizó la necesidad de invertir la dirección de esa marcha mediante una acción mancomunada internacional1.
Además, durante su tercera presidencia, Perón aprobó el Plan Trienal, que incluía la problemática ambiental como uno de los problemas centrales. Creó la Secretaría de Ambiente Humano y Recursos Naturales, la primera agencia ambiental estatal de Latinoamérica y una de las pocas existentes en el mundo en ese momento. Esta secretaría implementó una política ambiental innovadora durante el breve período entre septiembre de 1973 y las postrimerías de su muerte en julio de 1974.
Perón subrayaba la necesidad de contar con “nuevos modelos de producción, consumo, organización y desarrollo tecnológico” que priorizaran la satisfacción de las necesidades humanas esenciales, racionaran el consumo de recursos naturales y minimizaran la contaminación ambiental. Su visión ambientalista sigue siendo relevante hoy en día, especialmente en el contexto de la Cumbre de la Tierra COP26 en Glasgow.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
5 answers
Under perfect market paradigm shift avoidance, the responsibilities of governments and of corporations in development change, which raises the question: Under perfect market paradigm shift avoidance, who is to be blamed if social and/or environmental systems collapse, governments or corporations? Why?
Who do you think is to be blamed? And why do you think that is the case?
A short answer who and why is the best.
Relevant answer
Blaming either governments or corporations exclusively for social and environmental collapses under a perfect market paradigm shift avoidance oversimplifies a complex issue. Both entities play significant roles in shaping policies, regulations, and practices affecting these systems (Bäckstrand & Lövbrand, 2016). Governments are responsible for setting and enforcing regulations to protect society and the environment, while corporations must prioritize ethical and sustainable practices (Amaeshi et al., 2016). Failure often stems from a lack of collaboration and accountability between them, highlighting the need for shared responsibility and cooperative solutions (Bansal & Hoffman, 2012). Thus, assigning blame should focus on encouraging collaboration rather than attributing sole responsibility.
  1. Bäckstrand, K., & Lövbrand, E. (2016). Researching the Politics of Climate Change: Where Are We Now and Where Do We Go from Here? WIREs Climate Change, 7(1), 23-42.
  2. Amaeshi, K., Adegbite, E., Ogbechie, C., & Idemudia, U. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility in Challenging and Non-enabling Institutional Contexts: Do Institutional Voids Matter? Journal of Business Ethics, 134(1), 135-153.
  3. Bansal, P., & Hoffman, A. J. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Business and the Natural Environment. Oxford University Press.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
6 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
Alexander, thank you for taking the time to comment.
David did not answer the question directly, yet I politely still reply to him as he at least express his opinion.
The question is about green market paradigm shift avoidance since 2012 Rio +20 and university duties to the growth of science based knowledge that leaves traditional economic thinking behind, and you have not tried to answer the question at had here, which is: Paradigm shift avoidance and universities, do they have a duty to science based paradigm evolution of knowledge?
What is your opinion, Yes and why you think so or No and why you think so.
Then we go from there.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
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?
Relevant answer
Answer
You can summarized your comments using Kuhn's language: IT DOES NOT REMOVED THE ADNORMALITIES AFFECTING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF ITS PREVIOUS FORM, which means it circular economy is a pollution production market just as the linear was and is.
I am bringing new ideas in my next few papers to understand these issues in simple terms to add to the growth of knowledge, regardless of whether it is ignored or not.
If you have a flawed paradigm FLP = AiT and a golden paradigm GOP = T and you subject them both to the Thomas Kuhn's paradigm transformation loop(TKPTL) under academic integrity AND no paradigm shift knowledge gaps you get the following results:
I[A1]
TKPTL(FLP = AiT)----------->GOP = T
TKPTL(GOP = T)------------->GOP = T
NOTICE, the TKPTL loop removes the abnormalities Ai from the flawed paradigm through externality internalization to transform it in the end into the golden paradigm, where the knowledge that work in the flawed paradigm is left behind as it does not work in the golden paradigm world. There are no abnormalities to be removed from golden paradigms. I have published on how this works and a new paper is coming out focused on the move to circular economic thinking as a status quo paradigm deep double down to scape the thomas kuhn's paradigm transformation loop.
See that in the case of the linear traditional FLP = TM = aBc, we can subject it to the thomas kuhn's loop and based on priorities we reach different golden paradigm structure, that can be used as step by step evolution or a one step evolution: for example, if the social issue is the priority removal, then you first go to a red market/socially friendly capitalism, and then you need to remove the environmental externality to end up in the sustainability market, or if the enviromental issue is the key issue to remove first, you go to green markets, and then the need to remove the social abnormality leads you again to sustainability markets or if you make removal of both social and environmental abnormalities the priority as the WCED 1987 SHOULD HAVE DONE, we would had go in one step to setting up sustainability markets.
TKPTL1(FLP = TM = aBc) -------> different routes towards
sustainability markets
Since going from the traditional market structure(TM = aBc) to the circular traditional market structure (CTM = aBc) does not removed the socio-evironmental abnormalities the WCED 1987 said should be addressed by placing traditional economic thinking under full social and environmental responsibility and inclusion....
So the move: traditional market to circular traditional market
TM = aBc------------------->CTM = aBc
Not consistent with TKPTL as the abnormalities that are the problem are still the problemI[Ai = 0), which means that the move to circular economic thinking assumes Thomas Kuhn's paradigm transformation loop NEUTRALITY.
not consistent with TKPTL as I[Ai = 0)
TKPTL(FLP = TM = aBc)-------------------->CTM = aBc
I appreciate your interaction Stephen
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
9 answers
Can you see the why? If yes. please share your thinking.
Note:
You need to understand first what was wrong with traditional market thinking, which 1776-1987 had led to a critical socio-environmental sustainabiility problem as indicated by WCED 1987/Our Common Future
This is an academic question, not a political one.
Relevant answer
Answer
The following link could be of interest for your research project, dear Lucio Muñoz .
Have recommended your research article on paradigms; my focus is on economic methodology, i.e. am in support of your assumptions.
Wishing you continued success ! Best: stephen
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
6 answers
Think of the environmental sustainability problem the Brundtland Commission highlighted and documented in 1987(WCED) in “Our Common Future” as an environmental pollution production market problem, the consequence of a market failure that was always there and which has always been there embedded in the perfect traditional market thinking, but it was assumed away using environmental externality neutrality assumptions. A problem that can only be solved by internalizing the environmental cost of production in the pricing mechanism of the traditional market to shift it to green market pricing. Hence, only when we fix the root cause of the environmental pollution production problem, the environmentally distorted traditional market prices, we address the environmental pollution problem head on as when doing this we are making environmental pollution reduction a good business opportunity for green producers.
Since we have not fixed the root cause of the problem yet as there are no green markets in place today to transition green economies towards the environmentally clean economies; then this raises the question: Is the current traditional circular economy thinking push worse for the environment than the perfect traditional market economy thinking of Adam Smith that created the environmental problem in the first place?
If Yes, why? If, No, why not?
What do you think?
Relevant answer
Answer
With due respect, Prof.,
Certainly no.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
4 answers
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.
And this raises the question: Will the move from linear to circular economic thinking be remembered in the historty of economic thought as a backward deep paradigm double down?
What do you think? If No, why do you you think so? If Yes, why do you think so?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Stephen, then you could have said that the answer is yes, as what you described there are the characteristics of the BACKWARD DEEP PARADIGM DOUBLE DOWN as it is a move inward from a flawed paradigm to a flawed paradigm, a move that can only work under a break in academic integrity and academic tunneling as it is technically paradigm tunneling.
The reason why I asked the question is that I know there are people that know what is going on as you do, but let things go uncalled,,,,you have seen I guess the coordinated push, specially as seen in researchgate without those who know calling it out as it is and not allow those promoting the ideas to do it in the name of economics as backwasrd paradigm double downs are not science based moves.
For instance, from my point of view, all economists that came after Adam Smith and who did not call attention to the fact that you can not expect economic growth without creating social and economic externalities, yet THEY KEEP SILENT until the WCED 1987 call it WRONG and in need of fixing,,,,, KEYNESS know or should have known too that the original assuptions were wrong so any work or nobel prize based on wrong assumptions has been part of the knowledge that exacerbated the consequences of the original wrong assumptions as they knew or should have known that there was a need to internalize the cost of those externalities, but keep working on addressing those externalities from the outside....So following your thinking and quotation, Keynes was among those practical men and / or defunt economists that you imply.
I am working on a series of articles on forward and backward paradigm moves to close the knowledge gap that preven the average person to understand those moves, including paradigm shift avoidance moves, in simple terms, coming later this year
Have a nice day
Lucio
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
13 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
Trung, good day. Can you please take the time to read the context on which this question is based?
I see you understand the concept of greenwashing, but keep in mind that the part "more than" means "worse than" as greenwashing is a NEGATIVE CONCEPT. Hence, you need to think a little bit more carefully.
Keep in mind, greenwashing works becomes the the world GREEN sounds good.
We know since 1987 WCED that traditional economic thinking has led the social and enviornmental issues of the day and that is why we haven been trying(1987 to 2023) to leave it behind,
the circular economy has the same problems, BUT THE WORD CIRCULAR SOUNDS GOOD.
Respectfully yours;
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
10 answers
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?
I think No, what do you think? If you think Yes, why? If you think No, why no?
Note; This is an academic question, not a political one.
Relevant answer
Answer
Janusz, you are contradicting your self, each time you bring examples related to how to manage the pollution production problem. If your goal is a world under PERMANENT pollution production management, then your thinking is fine. If the goal is to fix the root cause of the pollution production problem then you need GREEN markets, pollution reduction markets.
Since You think is okay to implement a science based climate change program to address the environmental crises using market tools that FEED the pollution crisis, let's leave it here and agree to disagree.
Respectfully yours!
Lucio
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
4 answers
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?
Relevant answer
Answer
Paul, I see you have no presence in researchgate. so please ignore my question.
Respectfully yours;
:Lucio
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
4 answers
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?
Relevant answer
Answer
The moment you assign a cost to environmental consequences (eg. a carbon tax) via regulatory or accounting standard mechanisms, you can close this perceived gap. In reality, market pricing needs to reflect all taxes, tariffs, etc.
It is worth observing that traditional economic thinking already fails to accurately account for the dynamics that occur in economic activities related to natural systems.
For example, green assets (such as trees) appreciate in value over time (either for use as lumber, syrup, or nuts) due to natural growth and the increase in value occurs (even in the context of inflation) -- in marked contrast to the traditional notion that the value of an asset in future should be discounted.
For example, a mature maple tree employed for maple syrup production produces more maple syrup (litres) than a younger tree, and the price of that syrup per litre floats with inflation because it is a commodity. So that tree, when viewed as an asset, increases over time instead of depreciating.
One way to bridge this gap, within traditional economics, is to model nature as an economic joint venture partner that contributes value to an activity. Nature absorbs the cost of maintaining and improving the green assets, while the firm remains on the hook for maintaining and improving the black assets employed in the economic activity.
This opens the door to admit impairment of value when green assets are compromised. The impairment is a cost factor that can be applied in an economic analysis.
Note that this occurs directly when green assets are employed by an economic activity and indirectly otherwise. For example, insurance companies are already pricing in higher costs due to natural hazards occurring more frequently, which creates a direct cost from an indirect consequence.
While this does not fully answer your question, it may provide some angles to consider in working thru it.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
17 answers
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?
Relevant answer
Answer
Lucio
Excellent, concise and unfortunatelly true your comment.
I have to agree with you.
But what do we have to do?
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
7 answers
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!
Relevant answer
Answer
Am in agreement with your analysis Lucio Muñoz =no; just adding a sustainability option to an unsustainable economic system is not enough.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
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?
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you Stephen, for commenting, We agreed then GOING CIRCULAR ECONOMY THINKING means formalizing a world under permanent market failure A LA BUSINESS AS USUAL but circular.
But the WCED 1987 "Our common future" and the UNCSD 2012 "The future we want" aimed for a world AWAY FROM TRADITIONAL MARKET THINKING as the only way to correct social and/or environmental market failures, one by going the way of sustainable development, and the other by going the way of green markets. Both of them were geared to leave the traditional market idea behind because it has embedded in its pricing mechanism the root cause of social and/or environmental problems: DISTORTED MARKET PRICES, Prices that do not reflect the social and/or environmental cost associated with the working of the traditional market,
GOING TRADITIONAL ECONOMY CIRCULARITY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF TRADITIONAL MARKET CIRCULARITY BY ASSUMPTION is a punch in the face to the recommendations the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development and to the 2012 United Nations Commission on Sustainable development BECAUSE DOING that is GOING FROM POLLUTION PRODUCTION MARKETS WITH BROKEN CIRCULARITY OR LINEAR TO POLLUTION PRODUCTION MARKETS BUT CIRCULAR,
In a traditional economy, in the case of the environment, the good produced are not green and the goods consumed are not green. In the circular traditional economy the good produced are not green, the good consumed are not green, and therefore, the good recycled are not green. The environmental system may collapse in front of you under the circular economy thinking, but while the system is collapsing the corporations will still be making money by externalizing environmenal costs and those cleaning after corporations to close the circle with also be making money while externalizing their environmental externalities, two layers of environmental externalization now,
Thank you for commenting
Respectfully yours
Luico
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
6 answers
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?
Relevant answer
Answer
Thanks Prof. Lucio. I appreciate your contribution quite very well. I understand perfectly the essence of green economy and that was why I mentioned the adoption and utilistation of green fuel as substitute to hydrocarbon fuel to enforce an environmental sustainability all the world over. Thanks once again for your submission Sir.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
5 answers
There is an environmental pollution problem linked to the environmental pollution production market of Adam Smith the world has been trying to solve ongoing since 1987/Our Common Future and later in 2012/RIO +20 The Future We Want. Both the WCED 1987 and the UNCSD 2012 recommended solutions other than CIRCULAR ECONOMY THINKING. They did this as they knew that this thinking is not environmental pollution reduction friendly and it is not pollution-less market/environmentally clean market friendly.
In other words, both the WCED and the UNCSD knew that the working of the traditional economy, circular by assumption or by definition leads to environmental problems, reason why the WCED asked us to go beyond traditional economic thinking, circular or not, to solve the sustainability issues of the day.
Yet today October 2023, the circular economy is presented, contrary to the facts above, as the solution to environmental problems caused by the traditional economy that feeds them or will feed them as now polluting is profit making and cleaning pollution is also profit making. This makes the circular economy a predetermine or science-less approach that can only be supported by alternative academic facts as it is not aimed at fixing the root cause of the environmental problems.
And this raises the question: Is the current circular economy thinking push a current example of academic tunneling?
What do you think? Yes, and why you think so? or No, and why you think so?
Relevant answer
Answer
Since polluting is profit-making and cleaning pollution is also profit-making, the circular economy theory hasn't solved the problem but provided short-term succours. For instance, those in the pollution-cleaning economy such as those converting plastics to other products, need a continuous supply of plastic waste to remain in business. The best way is to address the issue from the source of pollution not bringing back the pollutants into the environment in a modified form.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
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?
Relevant answer
Answer
The concepts of "Green Market Paradigm Shift Knowledge Gaps" and "Dwarf Green Market Paradigm Flip Knowledge Gaps" represent critical areas of concern in the context of environmental sustainability and market dynamics. These knowledge gaps signify the disparities in our understanding of the evolving green economy and the challenges it presents.
The "Green Market Paradigm Shift Knowledge Gaps" pertain to the lack of comprehensive insights into the transformative changes occurring in the global economy as it increasingly shifts towards sustainability, eco-friendliness, and renewable resources. Addressing these gaps is crucial for policymakers, businesses, and researchers to harness the potential of this green transition effectively.
On the other hand, "Dwarf Green Market Paradigm Flip Knowledge Gaps" refer to the often overlooked or underestimated aspects within this shift, which could have significant impacts if ignored. They signify a potential blind spot in academia and policymaking, which, if not recognized, might hinder progress toward a truly sustainable global economy.
Both these knowledge gaps underscore the importance of robust research and comprehensive understanding in shaping a more sustainable and environmentally responsible future, ensuring that we do not inadvertently hinder our progress by neglecting critical aspects of the green market paradigm shift.
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
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?
Relevant answer
Answer
Umesh, thank you for commenting. We agree then, under perfect marketing thinking, including perfect green market thinking, the only way government intervention is appropriate is when addressing market failures.
Let's flip the coint, What do you think the government would do if DWARF GREEN MARKETS, which make the environmental market failure permanent while externality management is going on, tend towards clear collapse,,,,should we expect them to act as market failure correctors and enforcers?
  • asked a question related to EU & European Studies
Question
2 answers
The dirty economy is an economy running on dirty energy and the clean economy is an economy running on clean energy.
To seriously address the pollution generation problem of the dirty economy to go beyond living under polluting environments we have to transition it to the clean economy so one day we can be living in clean environments as living under polluting environments for ever is a daunting idea. Which raises the question, Is the idea of going carbon neutral through for example sequestration a clean market friendly idea?
What do you think?
Relevant answer