Economics - Science topic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Hernan L. Villagran

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

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

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

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

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

If you think Yes, then why you think so?

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

What do you think?

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

I think yes, what do you think?

Can economic growth occur in the short term? If the answer is no, what is the reason behind economic growth not occurring in the short term and occurring only in the long term?

Think about it, the type of market determines the who is accountable for negative or positive environmental outcomes.

Which makes the question relevant consistent with current negative environmental trends driving global warming, who will be blamed if the environment fully collapses in front of our eyes: governments or businesses? Why?

What do you think?

Imaging there is an ongoing water leak coming down the ceiling of your business, you can either fix the water leak or you can patch it through management. Suppose all businesses have the same problem. All businesses together have a huge lobbying power.

Then you can look at the fixing solutions from the free market and non-free market point of view or from the science based and non-science based point of view or from the pollution reduction market and pollution management market point of view.

In other words, you would be dealing with the situation from the naked environmentalist and from the environmentalism with a mask point of view, where proper solutions compete with improper solutions, and improper solutions win.

Which raises the question: Can the solutions to the water leak dilemma be used to stress the solutions to the environmental pollution dilemma? And used to describe the supremacy of the improper solution?

What do you think?

I am trying to find data on the main producers of clean technology and which countries they are exporting these goods to. Does anyone know of a good source to find such data?

adjusted for income and wealth levels in the U.S. and other parts of the world.

The question is normative, assuming that internal growth due either to education or religion may result in less demand for further external stimuli through consumption turnover.

Happy for insights from empirical research.

To date, the human cost of coronavirus (COVID-19) is more than 13 000000 infections, and more than 570000 death worldwide. The economic cost so far has been staggering. Many economies almost come to a halt. The impact on supply, demand, the financial market is affecting both larger and smaller firms. However, SMEs are at a disadvantage due to limited resources, existing obstacles in securing capital, and the span of time over which they can survive this pandemic compared to the larger firms.

How SMEs and new start-ups are going to handle this pandemic? Can they survive it or a great majority of them will go out of business? Should the government step in to help?

Since the start of the COVID-19 Pandemic, many governments and private organizations allocated large sums of money to fund projects dealing with various areas related to this virus. The vaccine is the most prominent area but detection, caring and monitoring of the patients revealed that the current medical equipment is not adequate and sufficient. Are these funding going to lead to invention or innovation? have you seen any report of innovation in medical technology in your community?

Economics of different countries is collapsed because of COVID-19. What you think? What will be the opportunities of funding at higher studies after this Pandemic? Please share your thoughts regarding this issue. Your valuable thoughts will be highly appreciated.

I do not see other way out of this inmense crisis within the European Union. Neither MEDE, nor Eurobonds. From an overlapping generations perspective, with children and young people (who have probability quasi-zero of being infected) being forced to stop their lives and careers, we mid-age and mature people are the ones who must bear the cost of the COVID-crisis. And this means inflation (never debt). Therefore, direct monetization of aid for the shock and partial debt relief. And then, a re-europeization of the investment flows (yes, protectionism) with a strong industrial policy direction in mind.

I am conscious of the asymetric international effects of the shock within the european partners. But, either we together, and in the current generation, bear the whole cost in the form of inflation, or our legacy for future generations (within an already highly leveraged framework) is conmdemned to a Euro-collapse in 15 years. What do you think?

The traditional economic market and individual preferences and singular welfare functions go together.......

Does the shift to green markets mean the end of singular welfare functions?

What do you think?

There seems to be widespread confusion out there about these two different definitions and one concept is usually defined as the other, for example the definition below is defining green capitalism as dwarf green capitalism, can you see why?

"" Green capitalism is an approach that attempts to use free-market mechanisms to mitigate anthropogenic climate change. Its advocates argue that the market supplies the best means to innovate technological solutions that can compete with existing polluting practices.Sep 23, 2022

Green capitalism, climate change and the technological fix: A more-than ...

📷

https://journals.sagepub.com › doi ""

Can you see the reasons why that definition is not a definition of green capitalism? If yes, please list those reasons!

Hi,

In a current paper, i'm investigating an effective model to examine the indirect relationship stemming from cultural variables to country level relationships and cross country economic decision making, but i hear it is rather uneasy to land a publication opportunity where cultural variables are involved, how true is this? what are your methodological guidance in this regard?

Imaging that for modelling convenience we take dependent variables as independent in order to simplify the world, that would lead to conflicting schools of thoughts addressing the same issue in a compartamentalized manner. In other words using independent variable thinking to address system stability analysis should be expected to lead different rootcausality, and to different, a competing approaches on how to address the same system stability issue. Think for example.of system stability frameworks based on market dynamics and population dynamics and environmental concerns. Which lead to the question: Would wrongly assuming that dependent variables are independent provide a distorted view of the problem?

What do you think?

Unethical business practices operate in different countries to varying degrees and participate in economic processes.

For many entities, market participants, business partners and consumers, they generate additional costs.

They can also be a source of gray economy growth, including avoiding paying taxes.

Thus, there are social costs for individual entities and financial for the entire economy.

On the capital markets, one of unethical business practices is, for example, insider trading, ie the use of confidential information by decision-makers with access to confidential information used to conduct transactions to purchase or sell financial instruments, including securities or other securities or other capital markets.

In individual countries, there are various instruments to combat the use of unethical business practices, the shadow economy, etc.

The effectiveness of individual normative solutions, the scale of restrictions applied, and the business mentality of market participants, entrepreneurs and businessmen are different.

Another mentality is related to the level of awareness regarding corporate social responsibility.

In individual countries, social campaigns are carried out suggesting the legitimacy of developing concepts based on corporate social responsibility.

In view of the above, please answer the following question: Is unethical business practices a negative external effect of non-ideal market structures or imperfection of the social market economy?

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

there are many statistics software that researchers usually use in their works. In your opinion, which one is better? which one do you offer to start?

Sincerely

What are the most serious problems of civilization development that should be solved as soon as possible? What are the global problems for which research should be developed and solutions to these problems resolved in 2019 and in subsequent years?

One of such research problems, which should not be postponed for an indefinite future, is the need to develop environment-friendly sustainable economic development in order to slow down the adverse process of global warming.

With the warming of the Earth's climate, the risk of more dramatic climate cataclysms, including tsunamis, increases.

Tsunami may be a derivative of the global warming problem. Global warming generates an increase in climate disasters, including more cases of tsunamis.

But not only is the risk of more violent and more dramatic tsunamis rising. Also in recent years, there has been more other types of climate and natural climate catatics, such as droughts, rainstorms, tornadoes and weather anomalies.

At present, it should no longer be asked whether global warming generates an increase in natural disasters only what rate of growth will be recorded in the future? So many data, research centers confirms the progressing process of global warming, that the problem is unquestionable.

More and more data points to the growing risk of climate change, unfavorable for human and life on the Earth, increase of climate disasters, climatic and weather anomalies, which are the result of global warming, rising average annual temperature near the Earth's surface.

Now we should just ask: How can these adverse processes be counteracted? What ecological technologies, renewable energy sources, how to help natural environments, how to rebuild them, such as afforestation, to build natural ecosystems absorbing greenhouse gases?

How to develop ecological business ventures? How to create financing systems for this type of pro-ecological projects? How to dispel international cooperation in this matter? What actions should be taken to move towards the development of a new ecological green economy?

How to develop environmentally sustainable economic development to slow down the unfavorable warming of the Earth's climate?

Please reply. I invite you to the discussion

Imagine a world where developing countries have to work under dwarf green market thinking as they do not have the resources needed to close their renewable energy technology gap and they are then stucked in a world of bearing climate change without a path to environmentally clean markets. And imagine developed countries using their resources to close their renewable energy technology gap as they have the resources to do so and work under green market thinking with a clear path to transition to an environmentally clean economy.

We can look at this bipolar world as existing under a closed system and under an open system environment. Which raises the question: Competition between dwarf green markets and green markets under closed and open systems: How does it work? Which countries would fall first?

What do you think?

Respectfully yours;

Any source/s to refer to on identifying methodological gaps/methodology gaps in research?

Please mention the links.

Thanks to high inflation, tax revenues increase in the central state budget, the main element of the state's public finances. Research centres independent of the government estimate that, thanks to high inflation in recent quarters, around PLN 5 billion has additionally flowed into the state budget. As the indebtedness of the public finance system has increased dramatically over the past few years and, in addition, during the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic, the government has injected over PLN 200 billion of additional, printed money into the economy, so the risk of indebtedness of the public finance system is growing. In the situation of a deepening downturn in Br 2023, the scale of the debt of the state's public finance system could still increase significantly. In such a situation, rating agencies operating through investment banks could significantly lower the solvency and creditworthiness ratings of public finances, which would result in an increase in the investment risk of funds invested in Treasury bonds and it would be necessary to increase the interest rate of these securities sold to foreign investors. This would significantly increase the cost of rolling over successive series of issued treasury bonds and increase the cost of servicing the debt of the state's public finance system, the cost of servicing public debt. For the government, it is better to keep inflation high, because this way the scale of the increase in the cost of servicing the public debt is smaller. Unfortunately, this comes at the expense of the rapidly declining purchasing power of the money available to citizens and economic agents. From mid-2022 onwards, the wage increases that employers are implementing for employees in companies, enterprises and institutions no longer compensate in full for the rapidly declining purchasing power of money due to high inflation. This whole process, which began with the use of so-called Anti-Crisis Shields during the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic, is the result of Poland's short-sighted and chaotic economic policy. These Anti-Crisis Shields consisted of non-refundable financial subsidies for the majority of economic entities operating in the country in the form of government subsidies to salaries of employees working mainly in commercially operating companies and enterprises and other forms of financial support aimed at limiting the scale of growth of unemployment during large-scale lockdowns imposed in Poland on selected sectors of the economy and national quarantines introduced during as many as three consecutive waves of the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic from March 2020 to early 2021. The procedure of imposing the Shields on operators in certain economic sectors during the ongoing investigations in many countries was considered questionably legitimate as so-called 'anti-pandemic safety instruments', i.e. slowing down the development of coronavirus infections. The main effect of the aforementioned Anti-Crisis Shields was an increase in inflation already from the beginning of 2021, followed by an increase in interest rates by the central bank in Poland, i.e. the National Bank of Poland, between October 2021 and September 2022. This resulted in a significant increase in loan instalments paid by borrowers to commercial banks and a decrease in the creditworthiness of new borrowers. Then, from as early as the beginning of 2022, economic growth began to decline rapidly, inflation continued to rise, investment levels began to fall and by the end of 2022 the beginning of a decline in consumption was noticeable. From mid-2022 onwards, housing developers have been reducing investment levels in the construction and delivery of new houses and flats. Accordingly, the chaotically short-sighted economic policy pursued, in which the pandemic crisis of 2020 was exacerbated by lockdowns imposed on selected, mainly service sectors of the economy, and the so-called Crisis Shield programmes applied, triggered an increase in inflation and an even more serious and economically realistic deepening of the downturn in 2022 and 2023. In addition, the applied restriction (solar energy, biofuel-based energy) and inhibition (wind energy in 2016) of the development of renewable and emission-free energy sources caused a significant decrease in the energy security of the domestic energy sector resulting in an extremely acute energy crisis of 2022, highly costly for citizens. In view of the above, the chaotic short-sighted economic policy conducted by the increasing level of state interventionism carried out by the government over the past 8 years, including the increasing level of government control of certain sectors of the economy, the increasing scale of the application of the so-called "Anti-Crisis Shield", the increasing scale of the introduction of additional, printed money into the economy without coverage led to the formation of even greater crises. As the next parliamentary elections are due to be held in autumn this year 2023, which the PIS political option in power for the last eight years plans to win, so further programmes of non-refundable subsidies for selected types of enterprises continue to be applied, which becomes another pro-inflationary factor. However, high inflation for the government apparently is the least of all problems, because thanks to high inflation, as I wrote above, tax revenues to the state budget are higher and thus the cost of servicing the high public debt is lower.

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

And what is your opinion on this?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

I have already revised some of the data streams (WDI, WID or world income inequality, Unctadstat, Ford) where quite a large number of data (yearwise) are missing. How to recover the data? Can I use data cleaning or other methods when many years of data are missing? Or, is there national data streams such as Department of Statistics which can provide the missing ones?

As a consequence of the 2012 green market paradigm shift avoidance all countries are left on their own to address the environmental crisis without a common green market framework to promote, expand, and nurture economic activity systematically.

All countries are following different versions of dwarf green markets and different definitions of green, some of them that are inconsistent with green market thinking, but politically viable....But politically viable, does not make it right as when you burn the gas you get CO2.....

For example, the EU came out with the definition of "green gas" to solve a political problem, in an environmentally unfriendly manner.. Now the US came out with the definition of "polluting gas" as CO2 from burning it is air pollution to address a political problem, but in an environmentally friendly way…. and this raises the question, .Who is wrong: The EU / Green gas or the USA / Polluting gas?.

What do you think?

Unfortunately, not all such social policies have worked effectively. For example, in the country where I operate, such a social policy programme whose official strategic goal was to counteract the rapidly declining birth rate of children and the rapidly progressing process of demographic changes in society defined as ageing since the end of the 20th century in Poland is the Family 500 Plus Programme, introduced in 2016. Apart from this, the key ongoing objective of this programme was to improve the material status of children, financially support families raising children and reduce the scale of family poverty in Poland. In the first years of the programme's operation, i.e. from 2016 onwards, this programme became one of the important factors of economic growth. The Family 500 Plus programme consists of a monthly non-refundable transfer of PLN 500 for each child in the family. I have described the strategic goals of this programme as a key element of long-term, i.e. on a multi-year scale, socio-economic policy planning and implementation in my published articles and monograph chapters on my profile of this Research Gate portal. I invite you to join me for research collaboration on this issue. However, the Family 500 Plus programme has already been in place for several years. The design and introduction of this programme drew on models of similar programmes operating for years in other countries in Europe. this programme was introduced in Poland in 2016. It is now already 2023. In 2022, the level of child births in Poland was the lowest in more than half a century, so clearly this programme is completely failing to meet the strategic goals that were set out when this programme was introduced. These strategic objectives, in addition to reducing the scale of poverty among families with many children in Poland, were to significantly increase the fertility rate in society and thus counteract the progressive ageing of the population. This programme has been implemented by the PIS government in Poland for almost eight years. In connection with the fact that, according to political scientists, the introduction of this social policy programme helped the PIS political party to win the parliamentary elections in 2015 and 2019 and the formation of the government by this party, so for years there have been considerations as to whether the introduction of this social policy programme, i.e. the programme of financial support for families in Poland, was related not to the issue of long-term shaping of social and economic policy in Poland but to the issue of winning the parliamentary elections. In view of the above, the current goals of the Family 500 Plus Programme have been achieved, while the strategic goals, unfortunately, have not.

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

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

If True , Why Is Staying Consistent A Key To Success ?

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

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

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

If yes, please share them.

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

For the UN:

"A circular economy entails markets that give incentives to reusing products, rather than scrapping them and then extracting new resources. In such an economy, all forms of waste, such as clothes, scrap metal and obsolete electronics, are returned to the economy or used more efficiently."

https://unctad.org/topic/trade-and-environment/circular-economy#:~:text=A%20circular%20economy%20entails%20markets,economy%20or%20used%20more%20efficiently.

And this raises the question: Is a circular economy focused on reusing waste a green economy or a dwarf green economy?

What do you think?

Circularity in reusing waste implies a world under ongoing waste production disconnected from green supply and green demand dynamics.

The UN works seems not to even think about the need to link circular economic thinking with clean economy thinking so as to envision one day such a transition

https://unctad.org/topic/trade-and-environment/circular-economy#:~:text=A%20circular%20economy%20entails%20markets,economy%20or%20used%20more%20efficiently.

And this raises the question: Can we transition to the environmentally clean economy through the use of reducing waste based circular economies?

I think No, what do you think?

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

Economics has been transformed in applied logic and pure mathematics. This does not help to understand how the world really works. We should differentiate between Mathematical Economics and Economic Science or Political Economy. That´s my thinking!!!

These days Nobel prizes are distributed. But at the same time there are a lot of frauds in published researches. In 2021 "Retraction Watch" in its twitter page, shared us, that there were 30000 retractions in its Database. please see the link below:

But now, in 2022, according to its own page it has 35000 retracted papers in its database (see the attachment). In just some one year 5000 retractions were added to its database.

These retractions are in any academic disciplines. Some of them in Medical Sciences, Biology, Agriculture, and Food sciences are direct threats to our health (like the book attached here about Food Fraud). While other scientific frauds pose many other long lasting threats to all of us around the world.

I have worked on dark sides of sciences and their threats to all of us everywhere (some of them in the forms of discussions and answers in RG) . Along with educating and informing, one thing that can attract attention and curiosity of all may be a World Prize in this regard.

Thank you

Happy for controversial input on the topic of trade under climate change constraints as carbon markets are heterogenous and local.

I am studying the effects of globalization on income inequality. Can I do the quantitative analysis by using GMM (Generalized method of moments) or is there any suggestions about the methods to be used by using eviews or other software packages?

Prior to the fall of the Wall, the world was divided into two economic blocs - the Western capitalist bloc led by the United States and the Eastern communist bloc led by the Soviet Union. It is understandable that the division created significant barriers to trade and investment between the two blocs.

How did the fall of this wall impact the trade in Europe as well as world trade?

The fundamental analysis used to value the intrinsic value of securities issued by joint stock companies is often enriched by the simultaneous calculation of stock market indices. Stock market ratios, i.e. the ratio of price per share to recently generated earnings per share. However, the figure resulting from the calculation of this ratio for many listed companies is in the double digits for many years. The double-digit value of this ratio can be interpreted as the estimated return period over several decades of the financial capital invested by the investor in the purchase of specific securities, i.e. usually shares or corporate bonds. The long-term interpretation of this type of stock market indicator is primarily of interest to institutional shareholders holding larger shares of stock in a specific listed company. On the other hand, minority investors owning or planning to buy a relatively small shareholding in the context of the overall shareholding usually apply a current, short-term and relative interpretation of this type of stock market indicator, which is usually determined by the shorter time horizon of the planned investment in securities. For institutional investors, on the other hand, the decades-long period of investment in securities, the long-term management of the development of an economic entity, is particularly important in the context of their investment strategies. In view of the above, considerations inspired by questions such as: should the impact of the ongoing process of global warming on the future functioning of the economic entity under consideration already be taken into account?

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

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Warm regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

What are the idiosyncratic reasons, why the high-speed railway track system is behind?

-Automotive sector lobby?

-Structural issues states, trust?

-Airline lobby?

-Railway investments crowded out?

-Cultural reasons?

-Costs?

-Fiscal?

-Income effect?

-Something else?

Green markets are markets where the environmental cost of pollution is positive and endogenous. Environmentally clean markets are markets where the environmentally cost of pollution is zero and endogenous. Which raises the question, would economic expansions towards environmentally clean markets have taken place had Adam Smith given us the theory of the perfect green market in 1776?

I think Yes, what do you think? Why?

Why is Keynesian theory not considered as a theory of economic growth? Although it simply suggests that income, which Keynesian theory assumes equals output, can be changed by increasing effective aggregate demand, it all takes the case from the demand side rather than from the supply side.

Have central banks caused in the past more climate change due to an ultra-long period of low-interest rates and QE, or have the green initiatives sidelined by more and more central banks helped contain climate change?

Cherish research.

I want to see the impact of a certain economy's govt policy on FDI inflows or to attract FDI inflows. I am a bit confused about variables that can be used as a proxy of government policy.

How are deep learning and machine learning methods currently being applied to economics research? and what are the most promising machine learning or deep learning models to be applied to economics in the future?

From 1987 WCED report to 2022 COP27 emission have gone up despite the sustainable development push, the Kyoto protocol, the original millennium development goals, the Paris Agreement, the new development goals, all COP processes…..

And this raises the question; Can we transition from the environmentally dirty economy to the environmentally clean economy without green markets?

I think No, what do you think? Why do you think so?

I ran the ARDL approach on E-Views 9, and it turns out that the independent variable has a small coefficient, but it appears as zero in the long-term equation as shown in the table, despite having a very small value in the ordinary least squares method. How can I show clearly this low value?

Imaging Adam Smith stating the theory of the perfect green market in 1776 instead of the theory of the perfect traditional market. This has current development implications in terms of current social, environmental and population issues. And this leads to the question: What are the main current negative implications of Adam Smith’s legacy? Why it turned out this way?

What do you think?

Please share your own ideas.

I think No, what do you think?.

Since the second half of the twentieth century economic theory, unable to explain economic reality, has been moved increasingly away from traditional price theory to more modern trends such as game theory, decision theory, behavioral-empirical-experimental economics, heterodox economics etc. There is no doubt that reality is always far from the ideal state of theory and any attempt to complete theory with assumptions and parameters closer to reality is welcome. But what about if a big amount of divergence between reality and theory is due to mistakes of the theory itself?

I believe that traditional (mainstream) economics have a series of serious fundamental mistakes, which, if revised, lead to a totally different theory about how economy works. And as we always need a basic theory before we proceed to any completions and improvements of it to better match reality, we should first consider this revised basic theory. To be more concrete, the fundamental mistakes of the traditional mainstream economics are, in my opinion, the following:

Price taking of course prevails in the market after the equilibrium has taken place, but the question is how the equilibrium is determined beforehand, by the forces of demand and supply, which certainly remain the same before and after equilibrium (meaning that a sloping demand curve can not be horizontal at the time of equilibrium). The revision here is simply that the individual demand for the firm is the total demand equally distributed to the number of firms, because buyers certainly do not have a preference for some firms in buying the product since it is an homogeneous product. This means that the individual demand curves for the firms are sloping and not horizontal and this has tremendous implications on the economic theory and its outcomes (the equilibrium point is not at the minimum average cost, which invalidates the maximization of social welfare and the optimization of Pareto efficiency, etc).

The question here is which the supply curve is, the average cost or the marginal cost curve? According to Marshall it was the average cost curve, but according to the Marginalists, who eventually prevailed in mainstream economics, it is the marginal cost curve. This latter however creates a big inconsistency: the equilibrium point, that is the intersection of total supply and total demand curves, does not maximize the profits of firms, as this maximization occurs at the intersection of total supply (marginal cost) and the total marginal revenue (and not the total demand). Yet, the profit maximization is a basic assumption in mainstream economics and should be hold at market level if it holds at firm level (it is simply a matter of aggregation). The revision here is that the supply curve is the average cost curve, and its intersection with the demand curve gives the zero (economic) profit, which is the fundamental feature in perfect competition with the continuous entry of firms till the zeroing of profit.

Traditional theory sought the solution of the market equilibrium question in the intersection of two curves, demand and supply, to determine the equilibrium pair of price (p) and quantity (Q), while ignoring another factor involved in the determination of equilibrium, namely the number of firms (n), which is absolutely necessary to determine the equilibrium since this factor shapes the total supply and thus its intersection with the total demand. So we need one more equation to determine the additional unknown (n), and this equation could be none other than the equation of profit maximization, that traditional theory lacks at market level as said before. Thus the system of three equations (Demand, Supply, Profit maximization) determines the three unknowns (price, quantity, number of firms); and furthermore the number of firms in perfect competition is definite and not infinite or indefinite, as the traditional theory assumes.

These revisions bring about dramatic changes in the whole economic theory and in the social welfare, with tremendous political implications. For more analysis and for the outcomes of this research, please refer to my articles (available at ResearcgGate and ssrn):

I would be very appreciative to have your opinion, thesis and comments on this discussion.

It can be said the perfect green market thinking is the one that comes from correcting the knowledge base of the perfect traditional market so as to be able to correct environmentally distorted traditional market prices to transform them in green market prices.

This is the perfect market thinking behind the ideas of green economy and green growth and green markets that were supposed to be advanced since 2012 RIO +20(UNCSD) to address environmental issues head on, but the world went the way of dwarf green markets instead.

Hence, instead of going to a perfect market(Green market) to address the environmental concerns distorting the traditional market pricing mechanism, we moved to an imperfect market(Dwarf green market) to deal with environmental issues since 2012.

In other words, instead of going the way of environmental pollution reduction markets we went the way of environmental pollution management markets.

And this raises the question, What is a dwarf green market ?

Any ideas?

Feel free to share your own views on the answer

Greetings respectable community of ResearchGate. I encountered some issues while gathering data from the World Bank Database, hence I would like to know if there are alternatives or other websites like the World Bank Database in which we can gather raw data.

The website can contain whatever form of indicators such as (developments, governance, competitiveness, economics, financial sector, etc.….) Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Using E-Views 9, I ran the ARDL test, resulting in an R-Squared value in the initial ARDL model output and an R-Squared value under the Bounds test. so, what is the difference between these two R squared values?

It can be said that all perfect markets once in place will tend to produce at the lowest price possible to maximize profits, but the link between pollution dynamics and profit making is different.

Which raises the question, can you see the difference between the way perfect traditional markets make money as compared to how other perfect markets like the perfect red market or perfect green market or perfect sustainability market do it in terms of pollution dynamics?.

Any ideas?

Please, share your own views!

Hello. In our study, there was a non-significant relationship in the data findings, so we wrote that the difference in result could be because of the study’s diverse demographic information.

The reviewer made this comment: "This idea is not elaborated. It should be explained in greater detail what the authors want to indicate.

How can I defend this?

Cherish your research.

The Kyoto protocol failed, was it because it was not binding across the board? or because it had too many loopholes? or because the USA did not sign it or because it attempted a patch to a pollution emission problem instead of a fix?

What do you think?

Hi frds,

looking for some research on how hedonism as a major motivator has changed since Veblen in the last 120 years.

Is it a corollary of industrialization, and consumerism?

Cherish your feedback.

According to the saying "the glass is half full or half empty", the description of certain economic processes in the government-controlled media as part of the pro-government information policy is presented in a certain way according to the needs arising from the goals of political marketing. Besides, according to the proverb and the question at the same time: "what comes first the egg or the chicken?" then the following research question can be formulated: Is it first the sluggish economic growth, the downturn in the economy within the framework of business cycles that generates the demand for the development of new strategies for the country's socio-economic development, within which certain interventionist anti-crisis instruments for stimulating economic growth are applied, including, first and foremost, the instruments of soft fiscal policy and dovish monetary policy? Or is it rather the reverse order, i.e., first a specific anti-crisis and/or pro-development, expansionary, pro-investment economic policy is applied and then a recovery in the economy occurs and sometimes an economic crisis also occurs, triggered by a misapplied, specific socio-economic development strategy of the country? Or do one and the other formula of the aforementioned causal sequences also work only alternately, i.e. usually in other periods, other consecutive years, phases of business cycles? In conducting discussions and debates on this issue, there may be different opinions, different theses and claims formulated by economists representing different camps of views on specific areas of economic policy and the legitimacy of the application and effectiveness of specific, individual instruments of fiscal, sectoral, social, etc. policies conducted by the government, as well as monetary policy conducted by the central bank. An election cycle of several years may be correlated with the country's socio-economic development strategy, anti-crisis and pro-development policies planned for several years, and perhaps also with the business cycle of several years of changes in the rate of economic growth, etc. The issue of the interventionist application of anti-crisis and pro-development economic policy instruments based on the Keynsian model of stimulating the economy through new state-funded investment and/or Milton Friedman's monetarist model proved particularly relevant during the various economic crises that occurred in the past. However, when, instead of new investments, most of the funds within the state's public finances are used for current purposes, social programs with increasing levels of debt in the system of state finances then this kind of economic policy in a few years' perspective can, after a short period of recovery of economic processes, lead to an even deeper crisis. In addition, when many new government programs of subsidies, benefits, subsidies, pensions, etc. are financed with printed money without coverage the result can be an increase in inflation and then a recession in the economy. Such a situation is currently occurring in some countries resulting in a significant decline in economic growth and an increase in unemployment in 2023. The change in public sentiment, levels of spending, consumption and labor force participation may also be influenced by citizens' awareness of the situation in the economy shaped by economic news reported in the meanstream media, which may be controlled by the government pursuing a specific economic policy and a specific information policy through political marketing and pro-government propaganda in the media. The psychology of citizens' consumer behavior influencing the decisions of entrepreneurs to change the scale of their business activities may change under the influence of government information policy shaped in the media. Analysis of current public sentiment is carried out on behalf of government agencies and the Prime Minister's Office usually through surveys and analysis of the sentiment of citizens' opinions expressed on various topics on social media websites and various discussion forums, and analyzed using analytics based on ICT information technology and Big Data Analytcs.

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

And what is your opinion on this subject?

What do you think about this topic?

Please answer,

I invite everyone to join the discussion,

Thank you very much,

Warm regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Cherish your feedback.

Since 2015, under the legally-binding Paris Agreement treaty, almost all countries in the world have committed to:

The Paris Agreement has a ‘bottom-up’ approach where individual countries decide what action they will take.

" """

And this means that something very important to the climate change issue/environmental sustainability is missing since 2015 Paris agreement; and actually missing since 2012 Rio +20 decision of green market paradigm shift avoidance, and something which it is still missing in COP27.

Which raises the question, what is the COP process NOT about, including COP27?

Any ideas of something very important missing that the IPCC seems to leave out all the time when calling for action?

What do you think?

Hi, I am wondering if we can "manually generate" more instrumental variables in TSLS estimation by taking high order terms?

For instance, when Z is a valid instrumental variable for X, then Z^2 must also satisfy the conditions for relevance and exogeneity. Can I make more insturments in this way?

My guess is that the answer dependents on the true relationship between X and Z, when X is linear in Z, then the additional quadratic term will not be significant in the first stage regression and hence is useless. But for cases when X has a quadratic relationship with Z, I think it is better to include the quadratic term in the first stage as well. However, I hardly see such a practice in literatures, why? Can you share some examples when quadratic or higher order terms IV are included? Thanks

There are 3 possible perfect market ways to correct distorted traditional market pricing mechanisms, and therefore, there are 3 possible ways of perfect paradigm shift avoidance, which leads to three different types of dwarf markets. The most well-known type of perfect market paradigm shift avoidance is that of the 2012 green market paradigm shift avoidance that led to today’s dwarf green markets as instead of going green markets as expected the world went dwarf green market.

And this leads to the question; Does perfect market paradigm shift avoidance creates sustainability black holes?

I think yes, what do you think?

Please share your own views on the question.

Hi frds,

Normative assessment requested:

Should Artificial intelligence be supervised and guided by a central delegated institution with a framework or shall it be left to bottom-up Laissez-faire?

Quite a different approach in the Renaissance Societies in comparison to the Confucian-influenced ones.

What is the better long-term "utility", given ethical constraints?

Cherish your ideas.

In a world of environmentally dirty markets, how we treat the pollution problem determines the nature of each market and its structure, which raises the question: Can you see the similarities and differences between Pollution production markets, Pollution reduction markets, and Pollution management markets?

Think about it, what do you think?

Public finance economists believe that the existence of monopoly in some sectors in the economy will not yield Pareto Optimality and welfare efficiency. Explain both theoretically and diagrammatically why that is the case.

I'm estimating the demand of rail passengers in long haul in Italy with longitudinal data of 25 years. I'm using an Error Correction Model since the relationship between the passengers*km and real GDP, real average fare and train*km is cointegrated. I''m using the two step methodology and I found that income elasticity is inferior in long run than in short run. Moreover in short run is not significative. The same if I use overnight stays, but in short run they are significative. It's the first time I use this type of model and I'm wonderng on the plausibility of the findings. Moreover the aim is to forecast passenger demand, since there is a cointegrating relationship, may I use the step one regression (in levels) or do I necessarly have to use the ecm regression?

Thanks.

In a world with two components, the economy and the environment such as the world of environmentally dirty markets, the nature of each components in any model determines the nature of that market, which raises the question: How can the market structure of Pollution production markets, Pollution reduction markets, and Pollution management markets be represented analytically?

Think about it, what do you think?

What are the best journals to submit short pieces in economics? Best in terms of readership, fairness, and review time.

There is an older blog on the World Bank's website that lists 10: https://blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/10-journals-publishing-short-economics-paper

A lot has changed in the last few years with the growth of open access and predatory journals. I assume there are new ones to be considered. Some journals offer different categories of submissions, e.g., health economics. There's also VoxEU...

Thanks for your help. Cheers, Kelsey