Markets - Science topic

Aimad, given your comment and the article shared, the following article takes those issues to the next level, you may find it interesting:

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;

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;

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

Maria, good day. Thank you for taking the time to comment.

I wrote the article to leave that fact and knowledge out there since 2017 as the issue will not go away, you can avoid it for a long time while worsening the problem you are avoiding to fix in the first place and according to Thomas Kuhn's paradigm evolution loop sooner or later the abnormality we choose to manage instead of fixing will be addressed with the proper paradigm shift....

To support the ideas in this paper you need to leave the traditional economic knowledge base behind an go to green macro economics and green microeconomis or go to red macro economics or red microeconomics or go to yellow macroeconomics and yellow microeconomics and think in terms of perfect green markets, perfect red markets and perfect sustainability markets or yellow perfect markets respectively, and for these reasons I expanded the ideas in that article with the following ones to close the paradigm shift knowledge gaps created when you shift to higher level model thinking, which you may find full of food for thoughts:

Thank you Mohamed for taking the time to comment.

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Mohamed, in perfect market thinking, NO GOVERNMENT INTERNVENTION, responsibility is in the market, both PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS such as the case of the TRADITIONAL MARKET A LA ADAM SMITH or in the case of the PERFECT GREEN MARKET. Only when there is Market failure, traditional market or green market, the government has to intervene to correct it. So under perfect market the goverment is the market monitor/promoter of market efficiency and corrector and enforcer when there is market failure where he is not part of. Hence, here there is no conflict of interest between environmental responsibility and government action.

In non-perfect market thinking such as DWARF GREEN MARKETS in different forms, there is ongoing government intervention, which means RESPONSIBILITY FALLLS ON THE GOVERNMENT.

So if you shift from perfect market tools(perfect traditional market or perfect green market or perfect sustainability market, all free markets) to non-perfect market tools(such as dwarf green markets or dwarf red markets or dwarf sustainability markets) the responsibility for market failure shifts from corporations and consumers to governments as governments set the management targets....

So under non-perfect market the goverment is the market monitor/promoter of market efficiency he is affecting and corrector and enforcer when there is market failure that he has created: Hence, here there is a direct conflict of interest between environmental responsibility and government action.

For example, ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE 2012 RIO + 20 UNCSD fell on corporations and consumers as their interaction determines the market price under perfect market thinking, then after 2012 then environmental responsibility shift from corporation and consumers to governments as governments set the pollution management targets the market has to meet making corporations and consumers in essence price-takers.

I do appreciate you took the time to write,

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Thank you for taking the time to write.

Respectfully yours;

Alyaa, thank you for taking the time to write.

Respectfully yours;

Answer to the Question:

Dear Lucio,

Thank you for bringing attention to your intriguing 2015 article on the True Sustainability Wheel Theory. This concept seems to offer a structured approach to unifying sustainability efforts across economic, social, and environmental dimensions.

While I have not yet had the opportunity to read your article in detail, its focus on step-by-step mapping towards sustainability is highly relevant in the face of growing global challenges. I’m particularly interested in how the framework defines "true sustainability" and how it addresses the balance between development needs and resource constraints.

If possible, could you share insights into the practical applications of the True Sustainability Wheel? Specifically:

I look forward to exploring your article further and discussing its applications.

Invitation to Join Dailyplanet.Club:

I’d also like to invite you to join Dailyplanet.Club, a platform for researchers and innovators dedicated to fostering collaboration on global challenges, including sustainability.

As a member, you can:

Membership is just £5 per year, which supports the growth of this collaborative community. Visit Dailyplanet.Club to join and contribute to ongoing discussions.

Looking forward to your participation and potential collaboration!

Best regards, James Henderson Mitchell CEO, MJ HSA Ltd

In 2012, a profound shift in economic thinking began to emerge as societies grappled with sustainability issues & the shift highlighted a critical examination of our reliance on traditional economic models that prioritize short-term growth over long-term ecological stability. One of the primary reasons for this regression in economic thinking is the pervasive reliance on outdated metrics, such as GDP, which often overlooks environmental costs & social well-being. Further complicating this issue is the tendency to view sustainability as a niche concern rather than an integral component of economic strategy. As policymakers and businesses prioritize immediate profits, sustainable practices are frequently sidelined, leading to a cycle of exploitation and degradation of natural resources. Additionally, the influence of powerful lobbying groups often skews the conversation, hindering the advancement of innovative, sustainable practices. While we have the tools and knowledge to forge a sustainable path forward, the inertia of old economic paradigms, coupled with resistance to change and a lack of interdisciplinary collaboration, has caused us to stagnate. Addressing these challenges requires a fundamental rethinking of our economic principles, integrating sustainability as a core value rather than an afterthought, and fostering a holistic understanding of the interconnectedness of our economies, environments, and societies.

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

Interesting!

Thank you for taking the time to write Alina.

You may find in the paper some good food for thoughts.

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

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!

Dear Lucio,

In my opinion, Thomas Kuhn's paradigm evolution loop can indeed be a valuable tool in understanding the future development (or decline) of so-called “dwarf green markets.” Kuhn argued that science (and, more broadly, cognitive paradigms in society) develops through revolutionary change rather than gradual evolution. In short, when the current paradigm ceases to explain reality and its internal contradictions become too severe, a crisis arises, leading to the emergence of a new paradigm.

In the context of sustainable development, the issue has long struggled with theoretical and practical inadequacies, as was clearly evident since the 1987 Brundtland Report. Despite efforts to implement sustainable development solutions, issues such as pollution and climate change continue to worsen. In this sense, as you yourself note, there is a growing inconsistency between sustainability theory and actual results. In Kuhn's model, we could interpret this as a sign of a growing crisis in the paradigm of the traditional market economy, which is unable to respond effectively to environmental challenges.

Besides, “dwarfing green markets” could be seen as an attempt to patch up the existing system, which is itself structurally flawed. The traditional market model, based on Adam Smith's principles that reward short-term profits and ignore long-term environmental costs, distorts the real prices of green goods. Green markets, which are largely part of the current system, do not offer a full paradigm shift - rather, they represent a minimal modification of the paradigm, attempting to introduce green principles into a model that was not designed with sustainability in mind.

Viewed from Kuhn's perspective, these “patched” systems have limited sustainability. If the price distortions and imperfections of the traditional market model continue to worsen, as seems inevitable in the face of growing ecological problems, the current paradigm could enter a crisis phase. This leads to the possibility of the collapse of “dwarf green markets” as too weak to survive, and the need to replace them with a new, more radical approach to sustainability.

In view of the above, it can be concluded that Kuhn's paradigm evolution loop actually suggests that the future collapse of dwarf green markets is highly probable. In the longer term, there may be a breakthrough that will replace the current imperfect solutions with a new paradigm based on more fundamental economic and social changes that will be better able to respond to the challenges of sustainable development.

I would hereby like to add that Thomas Kuhn's paradigm evolution loop can be interpreted as a key model to explain both the potential demise of “dwarf green markets” and the need to implement a fundamental green transformation of the economy. Sustainable economic development, the green transformation of the economy, and the development of fully green markets are concepts that go beyond Adam Smith's traditional market paradigm, based on short-term profits and ignoring long-term environmental costs. The rationale for pursuing a green transition is based on the fact that only by building a zero-carbon, circular and environmentally responsible economy will it be possible to meet the challenges of sustainable development and minimize further negative impacts of climate change and ecosystem degradation.

To summarize these considerations of mine, Kuhn's paradigm evolution loop can be seen as an argument that without implementing fundamental changes in economic thinking, current “patched” models of sustainability, such as “dwarf green markets,” will not survive. Their place will be taken by more holistic and responsible economic models that are better suited to the challenges of the modern world. A circular economy, zero-carbon, based on renewable energy and integrated with corporate social responsibility, is the future that will truly achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

I pointed out various aspects of this important issue for the future of the planet, the future of the planet's climate and biosphere, and for the future of future generations of people in my article:

I invite you to join me in scientific cooperation,

Kind regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

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

It is my guess only Lucio Muñoz that any golden Trojan paradigm in science has to cover the need of theoretical unification for a certain stage of cognitive human development, e.g. relativity in physics, evolution in biology, behaviorism in psychology. In this sense, the traditional market thinking a la Adam Smith did fit very well into the emergence of the industrial age, in terms of ideological unification.

______

Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.

Edward Abbey

A clean market is not 100% clean, but it is less harmful. Lucio Muñoz

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.

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

Yes, Lucio Muñoz ,because the linear economic thought model is still dominant as per applied accounts of the society.

The following link could be of interest for your research project, dear Lucio Muñoz .

http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/135644#:~:text=Nature%3A,economic%20independence%2C%20and%20by%20ideology.

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

Dear Trung thank you for commenting. Linear economy based capitalism/traditional market thinking had a social sustainability gap and an environmental sustainability gap, but since in 1848 when Karl Marx came out with the red marxism idea the environmental issue was not a critical issue so he used the social sustainability gap as a point of entry to flip capitalism thinking from economic freedom without equality to social equality without freedom.

In 1987 when the WCED advised us to go sustainable development thinking to leave fully socially and environmentally unfriendly economies behind.....we are now back to instead of linear traditional economies circular economies, with social and environmental sustainability gaps still embedded in them as going from linear to circular does not fixed the embedded sociall and environmental unfriendliness as social issues and environmental issues ARE EXTERNAL FACTORS to traditional economic thinking, be it linear or circular.

The existence of social and environmental sustainability gaps means that the circular economy will face red marxism treats or green marxism threat or yellow marxism threats each using the specific sustainability gap they need as point of entry and flip.

So if going circular is part of pretending to be socially and environmentally friendly and the social and environmental sustainability gap get worse and worse as the circular market expands as expected, then the threats will become if not really, real pressure point for paradigm shift to higher level models like green market, red markets, or sustainability markets.

Time will tell.

Thank you for commenting

Lucio

Check link

Harry thank you for commenting. If you know that capitalism puts the economy first and only, you can state is market structure, both in terms of supply and demand or in terms of market equality and freedom. If you know that red socialism puts society first and only, then you can indicate its market structure, if you know that green marxism puts the environment first and only, you can express its market structure, if you know that yellow marxism puts society and environment first and only, then you can state its market strucrure....If you know that ecomarxism aimes at protection society and environment, you can state its market structure.....

This question is about only ECO-SOCIALISM and GREEN MARXISM, and the question is a very specific one and the answers are simple and short ones: Is Eco-socialism Green Marxism? Do they have the same model structure?

Yes, Arzaz, the answer is No as dwarf green markets are markets under permanent government intervention and if things go wrong it is the government responsibility; and therefore we should expect the government TO PROTECT ITSEL when policing and monitoring itself, and you should also expect goverments to be harsh on those calling for accountability/responsibility when on the way to a worsening of the market failure such calls for environmental accountability.

Thanks for taking the time to participate.

In many areas of social significance, both the US and China are not number one. Far from it, the two often find themselves way down the list when compared to other countries. It is critical that we not lose sight of the fact that in many areas of life – from governance to healthcare to crime to the environment – the two countries have a lot of catching up to do.

Happiness is not the be all end all of life, but it’s not irrelevant either. And on this score the US and China do not fare particularly well, ranking 18 and 94, respectively, far behind Finland. The US ranks higher than China on metrics of democracy and freedom, but even there the US is far from preeminent, something we’ve witnessed in vivid terms the last few years.

The Gini coefficient, one of the most widely used metrics of inequality, shows that in 2019 the United States (0.481) and China (0.465) both still have highly unequal income distributions in absolute terms and relative to other countries.

Inequality was far lower in China in the late 1970s, but then soared following the launch of the “reform and opening” policies. Marketization succeeded in delivering decades of high overall growth, but a number of factors – among them corruption, credit policies favoring a shift of wealth from households to companies, privatization of SOEs, and an insufficient availability of welfare services – have raised inequality far higher than would otherwise be the case. It likely resulted in the share of public wealth (as a portion of national wealth) to drop from about 70 percent in 1978 to 35 percent by 2015.

Trends in the United States are similarly concerning. The bottom 50 percent of wage earners experienced a collapse in their share of the nation’s wealth between 1978 and 2015, from 20 percent to 12 percent of total income, while the top one-percent’s income share rose from 11 percent to 20 percent. Inequality was exacerbated by educational and wage policy failures, resulting in insufficient support for the underprivileged. In addition to this, as in China, the United States lacks a well-funded welfare state when compared with other advanced industrialized economies.

Ref/

My best wishes Lucio Muñoz good question as almost all of yours 👍

Alright, let's dive into the depths of economic philosophy, my friend Lucio Muñoz. I am ready to share some unfiltered thoughts on economic linearity, economic circularity, and their environmental impact.

Now, consider this: both economic linearity and economic circularity can potentially pose environmental challenges. Let's break it down:

1. **Economic Linearity:**

- This refers to the traditional linear economic model where resources are extracted, used, and then discarded as waste. The "take, make, dispose" approach.

- Why it's potentially environmentally unfriendly: This model often leads to resource depletion, environmental degradation, and a significant increase in waste generation. It's a one-way street that doesn't account well for the finite nature of resources on our planet.

2. **Economic Circularity:**

- The circular economy is designed to minimize waste and make the most of resources. It emphasizes recycling, reusing, and reducing consumption.

- Why it might still be environmentally challenging: While circularity is a step in the right direction, the challenge lies in the complete decoupling of economic growth from resource use. Even in a circular economy, there's still resource extraction and energy use. Additionally, some recycling processes can have environmental costs.

So, are both environmentally unfriendly? Well, it's a nuanced situation. Both models need careful management to ensure they truly align with environmental sustainability goals:

- **Overconsumption:** Regardless of linearity or circularity, if consumption rates are unsustainable, both models can be problematic.

- **Resource Management:** The key is how well we manage resources. Circular economies need to ensure that the processes involved in reusing and recycling don't contribute to pollution or excessive energy consumption.

In essence, it's not about the model itself being inherently bad but about how well it's implemented and whether it genuinely addresses the root causes of environmental degradation. Sustainable practices and mindful consumption are essential, whether we're dealing with a linear or circular economy.

There you Lucio Muñoz have it, a whirlwind tour through economic philosophies. Now, let's stir up some more thoughts or venture into a different realm if you Lucio Muñoz wish!

Am in agreement with your analysis Lucio Muñoz =no; just adding a sustainability option to an unsustainable economic system is not enough.

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

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.

The ongoing collapse of dwarf green markets due to government intervention raises concerns about the potential criminalization of democratic rights, such as the right to protest. However, it is important to recognize that criminalizing these rights would be a grave violation of democratic principles and would undermine the very essence of a free society. Therefore, we should not expect government policy to move towards such measures.

The right to protest is a fundamental aspect of any democracy. It allows citizens to express their grievances and dissent against policies they perceive as unjust or harmful. Criminalizing this right would suppress the voices of the people and stifle any form of opposition or criticism towards the government's actions. This would create an environment where dissenting opinions are silenced and authoritarianism thrives.

Furthermore, criminalizing protests would set a dangerous precedent for future encroachments on civil liberties. Once governments start restricting one democratic right, it becomes easier for them to infringe upon others. This erosion of democratic values can lead to an autocratic regime where citizens have limited freedoms and are subject to oppressive rule.

Moreover, history has shown that suppressing protests through force or criminalization only exacerbates tensions within society. When people feel their voices are not being heard through peaceful means, they may resort to more extreme methods in order to make themselves heard. This can result in violence and further instability.

Instead of criminalizing protests, governments should focus on addressing the root causes behind public discontentment. By engaging in open dialogue with citizens and actively listening to their concerns, policymakers can work towards finding mutually beneficial solutions that address societal issues without compromising democratic rights.

In conclusion, while dwarf green markets may collapse due to government intervention, it is imperative that we do not expect government policy to move towards the criminalization of democratic rights like the right to protest. Such measures would undermine the principles of democracy and lead to a more authoritarian society. Instead, governments should prioritize open dialogue and address citizens' concerns in order to foster a healthy and inclusive democracy.

Reference:

Smith, J. (2021). The Importance of Protecting Democratic Rights. Journal of Democracy, 25(3), 45-62.

Maxim, good day, Could you please read the context provided under the question to be able to guide you into the nature of this question? You need to know what is a green market and what is a dwarf green market as they are not the same, and you need to be familiar with the current 2023 green marxism threat to dwarf green capitalism.

About green markets and dwarf green markets

Robert, good day. I see you agree that period was a massive failure in terms of sustainability thinking sending us the way of sustainable development instead of sustainability based development. The Brundtland commission sent the world in 1987 into 6 different additive school of thoughts competing for development as each of them reflects a different form of sustainable development.

The confusing approach to sustainability issues the commision gave us in 1987 led in the end to given priority to the environmental sustainability issue, where in the Rio +20 Conference it was agreed that the way to go was green markets, green growht, and green economies, but in the end they avoided going this way, where we are now.....Since 1987 to 2012, the environmental sustainability issue went towards worse.....From 2012 to now, the environmental sustainability issue has gone even worse....

The common aspects in both periods is that decision makers have been focused on managing the consequences of the root cause driving the environmental sustainability issue, not on fixing the root cause of the pollution production problem issue.

Robert, have you ever seen the articles below?, they have some good food for thoughts

Good day Tetiana, thank you for taking the time to write.

Do you know that there is green markets and there is dwarf green markets, there is green growth and dwarf green growth, there is green economies and dwarf green economices, there are green jobs and dwarf green jobs. This is because since 2012 RIo + 20 conference/UNCSD we decided to go green markets, but then after the agreement to go green markets they went dwarf green markets. Do you know that green markets are pollution reduction markets, dwarf green markets are pollution management markets, and that the traditional market of Adam Smith is a pollution production market? My publications provide some good food for thoughts in these areas.

In short the market cleared by the green market price is a green market, any market not cleared by a green market price IS NOT A GREEN MARKET, so there is no actual confusion for scientist who follow the scientific truth.

Respectfully yours

Stephen thank you for commenting.

Had I been alive in 1776 when Adam smith gave us the theory of the perfect traditional market, the one that can expand for ever without producing social and environmental exernalities I would have told him he was proposing the perfect environmental pollution production market and I would have showed him why... then if the business and ACADEMIC community had still gone along with it...the environmental crises highlighted by the Brundtland commission in 1987 would not have come as a surprise and they would had to reccomend going green markets to solve the environmental sustainability problem to create a circular green economy instead of sending the world FISHING now decades using a thinking inconsistent the the sustainability nature of the problem they were TASK to solve....they should have know that any sustainable development approach is a PATCH, not a fix.

As scientists, if the academic truth leads you to reccomend a fix you have to reccomend a fix WHETHER IT IS POLITICALLY DIFFICULT OT NOT. A scientist would call a patch a patch and highlight that the problem is not just still there when there is a patch, but it is unconnected to the patch. If a scientist presents a Patch as a Fix he or she is not acting outside science and tending into the ideological/political world, and to stay in that world you need to use ALTERNATIVE academic facts...

Had Adam Smith giving us the theory of the perfect green markes and the world would had embraced it....we would be talking today about how to make the green economy socially friendly instead of trying to leave SCIENCE behind to keep the traditional economy who we know has not worked and green thinking says it will not work outside it STILL RUNNING as long as possible knowing that the planet existence is at stake when we avoid to fix the environmental problem head on...

Respectfully yours

Stephen, thank you for commenting, My views and the reason for bringing to the attention this idea that bringing circularity to a linear problem without addressing the root cause of linearity or the broken circularity goes deeper than accounting principles as it comes from the inside the model, The root cause is distorted traditional market prices as they reflect and have always reflected only the economic costs of production at a profit. If markets are linear because they are based on distorted market prices, then making circular distorted market prices can not be the solution as the root cause is still in place and active..... As you know environmental cost internalization leads to green markets and to green market circularity as now the environmental issue is an endogenous and profit making issue.

In the coming years I will address views of great thinkers in the past from the sustainability point of view to highlight that as paradigm shifts take place, previous ideas are left behind or need to be adjusted due to the closing of paradigm shift knowledge gaps that are created and which is needed to be able to operate in the higher level paradigm.....It is a fact, traditional market thinking is inconsistent with green market thinking....For example, a shift to green market thinking affects ideas such as the working of corporations/monopolies and other market forms as green market entities or the ideas of pareto optimality or ideas like the Tobin tax or Q ratio as green concepts or the ideas of the thinkers you mentioned when looked from the distorted market price point of view.

In summary as related to the question here, addressing linearity by bringing external circularity leaving the internal root cause of linearity problem in place may give us the opportunity to see the environment collapsing in front of our eyes as the world pretends to do something.

I do appreciate your comment

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Lakshmi, good day. Can you please take the time to read the context below the question on which this specific question is based? The type of market guides you to see where the responsibility are for consumption and production action and for addressing market failures when they happen. In the type of market we are living in, Who will be blamed if the environment fully collapses in front of our eyes: governments or businesses? Why?

Good day Chuck, thank you for taking the time to comment.

Did you read the context below the question on which the question is based? Your comment indicate you did not read it.

If you understand that the water leak dilemma has two solutions as indicated there, then the question relates to can you use it to make an analogy substituting water leak dilemma for environmental pollution leak dilemma to stress the solutions to the environmental problem.

Can you see how based on the context how an analogy related to the environmental pollution dilemma can be put together? If you see it, the answer to the question is then yes. If you can not see it, still the answer to the question is yes.

Thank you for taking the time to write.

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

The shift to the green economy does not necessarily mean the end of singular welfare functions. In fact, many green policies are designed to promote social welfare and reduce inequality. For example, policies that promote renewable energy can create jobs and reduce energy costs for low-income households. Similarly, policies that promote sustainable agriculture can help small farmers and improve food security

Green capitalism refers to an economic approach that seeks to reconcile economic growth and profit-making with environmental sustainability. It proposes that businesses and industries can adopt environmentally friendly practices, technologies, and products while still generating profits. The underlying idea is that market forces and private enterprise, when directed towards environmentally friendly solutions, can lead to positive environmental outcomes.

On the other hand, "dwarf green capitalism" is not a widely recognized term or concept in mainstream discourse as per my knowledge. It's possible that it could refer to a niche or emerging theory or be used in a specific context that is not widely known.

Dear Xiaojie and Michael. Thank for commenting. I asked the question with the variables market dynamics and population dynamics and their impact on development problems in mind. If taken as independent variables it leads to having two independent independent root causes driving system stability, positive or negative. If the nature of populations dynamics is driven by the nature of market dynamics, then there is only one root cause affecting system stability as then populations dynamics, positive or negative is a consequence of the nature of market dynamics, positive or negative.

As you may know the traditional view is that they are independent variables, a view that began in 1776 with Adam Smith traditional market thinking, which continues today with frameworks like the UN responsible production and responsible consumption framework. On the other hand, extreme population dynamics based frameworks like the ecological overshoot work under market dynamics neutrality assumptions. I think that facts show that those variables are not independent, which leads to a systematic view of how the issue of system stability like environmental problems should have been looked out by the Brundtland commission in 1987 "our common future", but instead it was looked out through sustainable development theory that works under population dynamics neutrality assumptions. So if dependent variables are taken as independent variables it would lead to distorted policy recommendation and compartamentalization.

Thank you for commenting.

Lucio

Jordi, good day, Thank you for taking the time to think about it and give it a detailed try. If we were comparing dwarf green markets in developing countries vrs dwarf green markets in developed countries, you comment is perfect and detailed, but the question is about dwarf green markets vrs green markets having just for example developing countries setting up and implementing dwarf green markets and developed countries setting up and implementing green markets.

The note at the end of context in question reads: Note:

Jordi, you can find ideas about the differences between these two different types of markets and about green market thinking and dwarf green market thinking in general in the following articles, Take a look at them when you have time:

I will present a research paper about this topic I need help and

references please?

Dear Ange, good day, Thank you for writing and see you are familiar with related material by me. My goal this year is to expand those ideas in terms of equality and freedom.

I have written and share several articles on how to give structure to all possible dominant component based development models, and link those structures to paradigm shift and paradigm shift theory from the point of view of dominant component equality and freedom.... For example, red socialism as you know it is a social equality without freedom model so you can represent it by a social dictatorship structure. Democratic capitalism is an economic freedom without equality model so you can represent it as a liberal economy model. Non-democratic capitalism is an economy without freedom and equality so you can represent it as an economic dictatorship.

Once you know how to write or express those structures in terms of dominant component equality and freedom, then you can provide analytical support to all the things you listed in your comment as well as be able to answer the current question using this freedom and equality thinking.

One of my goals this year is to expand these ideas and apply them for example to state the paradigm evolution path of red socialism had it had been able to win the cold war by going economy friendly and what would have come next and what is at the end or to state the paradigm evolution path of non-democratic capitalism if it were to outsmart democratic capitalism and what would come next and what is at the end or what is the paradigm evolution path of democratic capitalism if it loses to non-democratic capitalism and what comes next and what is at the end.

Attached I shared the figure 3 of a paper I am working on to present the theory on where to base and complete those goals of the year mentioned above, notice that democratic capitalism(DC), red socialism(RS), and non-democratic capitalism(NDC) are not yet represented there in terms of equality and freedom yet:

How the models needed to answer the relevant question here can be stated in terms of equality and freedom and how paradigm evolution in this case is expected to work can be found at:

A circular economy focused on reusing waste can be considered a green economy, as it promotes sustainability and reduces waste and resource consumption. However, whether it is a full-fledged green economy or a "dwarf" green economy depends on the scope and extent of the circular economy practices.

A green economy is an economy that is low-carbon, resource-efficient, and socially inclusive, and aims to promote sustainable development while reducing environmental impacts. A circular economy can contribute to these goals by reducing waste and promoting resource efficiency. However, to fully achieve a green economy, circular economy practices must be integrated with other sustainability practices such as renewable energy, sustainable land use, and reducing pollution.

Therefore, a circular economy focused on reusing waste can be seen as a step towards a green economy, but the full transition to a green economy requires a more comprehensive approach that addresses a range of environmental and social issues.

In the middle of the 18th century, the combination of economic issues with ecology was somewhat absent. Ecological threats did not appear to be something important at that time. For Smith and his contemporaries, the main problem of political economy was to break down the supply barriers of the economy and lift humanity out of poverty. Therefore, his main work is The Wealth of Nations.

Good day Guoyu, thanks for writing.

After 1987 WCED "Our Common Future" we knew that social unsustainability (social pollution) and environmental unsustainability (environmental pollution) were clear signs the traditional market development model had not worked as expected so the WCED commission asked the world to go beyond business as usual to solve these pollution problems/internalized them once and for all.

In 1997 the world tried to deal with the environmental pollution part by addressing pollution emission issue, by not by setting up environmental pollution reduction markets(green markets) to transition the environmentally dirty economy to the clean economy, a full or dominant renewable energy based economy, but by dealing with emissions in a way that allows the dirty economy criticized by the WCED in 1987 to continue running..... When you deal with emission in a way to keep the dirty economy running you are not fixing the environmental pollution issue embedded in the traditional market pricing mechanism, you are just PATCHING the problem....

Because I saw the Kyoto protocol as a patching mechanism, not as an environmental fix to the traditional market way of thinking, I was expecting it to fail in the long term regardless as the environmental sustainability gaps created by the patch are delinked from the global warming goals/targets and you can have the situation that YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING yet the emission levels may still increase regardless, which is what happened here....

Emissions increasing despite the protocol can be explained by the fact that patching the emission problem while the dirty economy is still polluting is a good business opportunity for businesses as they can make money without taking full responsibility for the full environmental cost associated with their business activities….As long as they can pass the patching cost to consumers they are fine….and they were fine with the protocol until it failed…

Guoyu, as you may know the 1997 Kyoto agreement was reached, signed and failed.

So the question is “Looking back, why did the 1997 Kyoto protocol actually failed?”

Do you think that you can solve the pollution emission problem from inside the dirty economy while the pollution generation mechanism is still active?

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

.

Dear Michael, please read the context on which the question is based to see the nature and consequences of paradigm shift avoidance. Then you can share your view on the answer to this specific question and why.

About your comment on economic revitalization in Nigeria, you may find some food for thoughts in the following article:

I would like to remind you that as much as what is written, the results on the field are at least as important as what is written. Applications produce results that are at least as important as what is written. After all, if there is an expectation of the perfection of the field on the subject, the results in the field are open to discussion.

Dear Lucio, I too am a scientist, and I understand your position. How does equality, beyond that of opportunity, work in any economy? What perpetuates an economy without innovation? Hopefully, your list of publications can provide some insight.

Good luck.

Good day Yusuf, thank you for writing.

The context on which this question is based is:

“In a world with two components, the economy and the environment such as the world of environmentally dirty markets, the nature of each component in any model determines the nature of that market…”

And based on this context the question is: How can the market structure of Pollution production markets, Pollution reduction markets, and Pollution management markets be represented analytically?

They are 3 different types of markets, different model/market structure, different price structure, different choice structure, and different cost structure. But the question for simplicity is focused only on their different market structure and how to represent it analytically...

If you would like to share your ideas on how this question can be answered, please do it.

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

"marxism targets only flawed forms of capitalism" This statement makes no sense to me at all. Marxism provides a critique of capitalism in ALL its forms; there are no "unflawed" forms of capitalism in Marx's analysis. Furthermore, I don't read those talking about taking Nature more into account than Marx did - what I assume you mean by "green Marxism" - as juxtaposing that (as you are doing) to some preoccupation with " saving society". Even in Marx's own analysis society and nature are analyzed as interwoven and part of his critique of capitalism was a critique of how capitalism ruptures the natural metabolism of human/nature inter-relations. So your "yellow Marxism", defined as "saving society and nature at the same time from capitalism" has been there from the get-go, in both Marx and Engels' writings. The neglect/exploitation of Nature by what you are calling "red" Marxists, which I take to mean Soviet-style Marxists, flowed from their abandonment of Marxism as anything other than a convenient ideology serving to hide their pursuit of the same goals as Western capitalism, i.e., maximum exploitation of workers AND nature via increased management by the state, which resulted in a new form of "state capitalism". Lenin, after all, was frank about following the German model of state capitalism, with the Soviet Union differing only in the ASSERTION (but not the reality) that the state would be controlled by workers instead of capitalists. Result: the same kind of exploitation of both humans and nature as the rest of capitalism.

Dear Lucio,

Yes, under dwarfing green markets, consumers are now often misled and/or deceived. For example, food sold in supermarkets as being made from the raw materials of crops grown in fields under a sustainable, pro-environmental organic farming formula and unfortunately this is not always true. This is due to the low level of public awareness of farming according to the formula of sustainable, pro-environmental organic farming and to imperfect quality control systems and ecological issues. Besides, why is it that the costs of using plastic in packaging are still being passed on to consumers and not fully borne by producers. The costs of using plastics in packaging are not only production costs, but also costs resulting from environmental pollution by microplastic particles, costs for the treatment of diseases resulting from environmental pollution, costs related to waste sorting and recycling. Another issue is the increasing practice of companies, businesses, banks and other economic operators to portray themselves in advertising campaigns as economic operators who operate in accordance with business ethics, pro-environmental and pro-climate corporate responsibility, pursue sustainable development goals, applying the principles of the green closed-circuit economy, when this is often not entirely true. In this way, consumers operating in dwarfed pseudo-green markets are misled. Consumers buy products and services on the assumption that they are thus part of a growing sustainable, green, emission-free, pro-environmental closed-loop economy. They purchase products and services offered by economic operators who advertise themselves as companies, firms, banks, etc. that have sustainability, green economy, climate change, etc. as part of their mission. However, the data describing the overall activities of these economic operators show that these issues of sustainability, green economy, pro-climate transition often represent only a small part of their activities and not the whole. Consumers do not have the time or opportunity to verify this. It is therefore necessary to strengthen the control systems carried out by the state's public institutions. Another issue is the pro-climate transformation of the energy sector. Due to the current energy crisis, instead of accelerating the development of renewable and emission-free energy sources, it is the state that is taking a step backwards and developing subsidy systems for rising fossil fuel prices, thus again supporting the development of dirty, emission-intensive energy based on burning fossil fuels. In addition, over the last few years there has been an anti-climate and anti-environmental policy of deliberately slowing down, restricting or blocking the development of renewable and emission-free energy sources. This is the case, for example, in the country where I operate. In view of the above, unfortunately, green markets are still imperfect, overrated and lacking systemic state control.

Warm regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Dear friends, at the end of the context provided on which this question is based and found just below the question it says: "Please share your own views on the question, not third party views"

Understanding these differences between green economics and dwarf green economics can help us to see if the current economic way in which we are approaching environmental issues like climate change is the right one from the perfect green market theory point of view or not, and if not, why not.

On Climate Modeling: During the last few years, a number of publications have been already devoted to the evaluation of the CIMP6 models, on the basis of historical climate data over different time periods spanning from 1850 to 2014 (Bock et al. 2020, Brunner et al. 2020, Laurent et al. 2021, Cusinato et al. 2021, Ashfaq et al. 2022). Ashfaq et al. (2022) confirm the ability of CMIP6 models (37 ESMs) to robustly represent observed patterns of oceanic and atmospheric modes associated with natural forcing (NAO, ENSO, PDO). Similar results are reported by Cusinato et al. (2021) from 24 CMIP6 models. Bock et al. (2020) show that the CIMP6 models reproduce well the recent increase in temperature. These results appear to be consistent with CIMP6 models evaluation by Laurent et al. (2020) (29 ESMs).

Ashfaq, M., Rastogi, D., Abid, M. A., & Kao, S. C. (2022). Evaluation of CMIP6 GCMs over the CONUS for downscaling studies.

Bock, L., Lauer, A., Schlund, M., Barreiro, M., Bellouin, N., Jones, C., ... & Eyring, V. (2020). Quantifying progress across different CMIP phases with the ESMValTool. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125(21), e2019JD032321.

Brunner, L., Pendergrass, A. G., Lehner, F., Merrifield, A. L., Lorenz, R., and Knutti, R.: Reduced global warming from CMIP6 projections when weighting models by performance and independence, Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 995–1012, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-995-2020, 2020.

Cusinato, E., Rubino, A., & Zanchettin, D. (2021). Winter Euro‐Atlantic Climate Modes: Future Scenarios From a CMIP6 Multi‐Model Ensemble. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(19), e2021GL094532.

Laurent, A., Fennel, K., Kuhn, A. (2021). An observation-based evaluation and ranking of historical Earth system model simulations in the northwest North Atlantic Ocean. Biogeosciences, 18(5), 1803-1822.

They are not green markets because they are not cleared by a green market price, they are environmental externality management based markets.

Dariusz, the way you try to share your material is not helpful for sharing ideas ...you say Yes, In will leave it there.

Dear Lucio,

I too believe that what you have described as the nature of human population dynamics is dependent on the nature of the dynamics of the traditional market structure that serves them. Well, in the short term (months and quarters) it is citizens who adjust their functioning to seasonal changes in the level of production, income, purchases made etc. In the medium term (several to sometimes a dozen years), changes in the rate of economic growth that take place as part of business cycles translate into changes in citizens' income and consumption levels, and this then influences citizens' decisions to start a family and have children. On the other hand, in the longer term (from several years to several decades), the long-term economic processes, the changing sectoral and industry structure of the economy, the significantly changing level of economic development, production, income, etc., translate into significant changes in the living standards of citizens and the prevailing purchasing, housing and living standards. Subsequently, these significant changes in the economic processes taking place, in economic development, including the public products and services offered by the state (education, health care, public utilities, social assistance) and consequently also in the living standards of citizens largely determine the fertility rate, housing standards, the product and service structure of purchases made, the length of the average life expectancy of citizens, possibly also the process of population ageing and other changes in the social structure. Consequently, there are correlations between economic development and structural changes realised in the medium and long term in markets and economic sectors and changes in citizens' living standards, changes in consumption standards, living conditions, economic decisions made, fertility levels, citizens' life expectancy, social processes, etc.

Regards,

Dariusz

Dear Lucio,

Answering your question, I say that in my opinion the scale of avoiding the green market paradigm by companies and enterprises is still very large in the country where I operate. Many commercially operating companies and enterprises, if they are not forced by legal norms or if their clients still have a low level of pro-environmental transformation, still ignore the paradigms of the green market, they ignore the principles of ecological social responsibility, the principles of business ethics, green economy, sustainable development goals. On the other hand, some companies, corporations, banks and other financial institutions promote themselves in advertising spots as green and meeting specific goals of sustainable development. This is not always true. Usually, the scale of the transformation of business from classic to green is small and in advertising campaigns certain economic entities present themselves as fully green and implement on a large scale the goals of sustainable development. However, a more serious problem is that this type of misleading customers, citizens, this type of unreliable advertising campaigns and brand promotion campaigns as well as product and / or service offers are also used by government-controlled state-owned companies and some public institutions. The negative effect of such situations is misleading customers and citizens who, when buying products and / or services of a specific company, bank, enterprise, etc., assume that they are buying a green offer from an entity that pursues sustainable development goals and runs a green business, which often does not. is truthful. In addition, companies and enterprises use non-returnable financial subsidies for the implementation of pro-environmental economic ventures, for the creation and implementation of new eco-innovations, new green technologies, etc. However, there is no system of precise determination of what is green innovation and new green technology and what is not. Often, these subsidies are granted to companies and enterprises that fictitiously implement green economic ventures or the scale of pro-environmental business is negligible. On the other hand, there is a lack of financial resources for carrying out a systemic pro-environmental transformation of the economy, for the construction of new power plants generating electricity and / or heat from renewable and emission-free energy sources, for the development of electromobility, for the development of sustainable ecological agriculture, for afforestation of civilization degraded areas, for technology improvement. recycling and creating biodegradable substitutes for plastics, etc.

Best regards,

Dariusz

Dear Lucio Muñoz , let me bring in my simple point that economics is still not a science, but a profession, based on certain accounts and accounting methods of society. Even medicine is not a science, but more a science-based practice of empirical evidences via testing procedures. With respect to natural and exact science, I need to mention that the basic assumptions of biological evolution, physical thermodynamics and mathematical information theory are contradictory.

The ideological trap for scientific research and researchers is based on the financial decision: which research and researcher gets funded? Most scientific research is funded by government grants , companies doing research and development, and non-profit foundations; in a perfect world, money wouldn't matter — all scientific studies (regardless of funding source) would be completely objective.

---------

Great moments in science: Einstein discovers that time is actually money.

Gary Larson

--------

Dear Lucio

What I tried to say is that, in my view it is characteristic to the sustainability-related discussion in economics to disregard the factor time when talking about pricing and equillibrium.

Regards

Michael

From a systemic point of view, Green Markets are one of finalities of Green Economy. So, there is a two-way relationship between the both concepts, Green Market is created and enhanced by Green Economy, and this latest could not be implemented without Green Market. By other words, Green Market is a sub-system for Green Economy. - Anouar.

Also check..

Development of the Organic Food Market in Romania during the...

Steven, nobody is accusing anybody here. When you say that an entity has more power than another in the market and that is why there is no equality and freedom, by definition you are not talking about Adam Smith's perfect market...

If you look carefully at the pareto efficient and optimal point/conditions of the perfect traditional market, you can not be there without freedom and equality, but if you assume equality away you can be there only with freedom.

Let's leave it here. I am here to exchange ideas, not to impose ideas.

Respectfully yours;

Thanks; I agree with you, we need to leave here.

Have a nice evening.

Mohamed

Dear, Lucio Muñoz

In my modest perception, Pareto's Law describes that with only 20 percent of the overall effort, 80 percent of the performance can be achieved. At 80 percent work, the remaining 20 percent success takes the most effort. That is why it is also known as the 80/20 Rule. Pareto's law in a perfectly pro-ecological economy, in a totally sustainable economy formed according to the concept of green and circular economy, either they do not work at all or they work in a very limited way.

Financial flows would tend to suggest that the degree of internationalization of financial markets has increased over recent years to reach levels broadly comparable to those seen in the period of marked financial market integration which preceded World War I. As mentioned at the outset, however, quantities alone cannot be a good indicator of globalization because the law of one price may still not apply when cross-border financial flows become more widespread.

The impact of what is known as the psychology of the financial markets was seen during the initial phase 1 of the pandemic. When in March 2020 the World Health Organization announced the state of a global epidemic, i.e. the state of the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic, then there was a strong sell-off of stocks and commodities on commodity exchanges. The stock market crash resulted from the predominance of investors' fear and uncertainty about the situation in the markets and the economy. The aforementioned crash was characterized by a large amplitude of decline in stock exchange indices, but it was relatively short-lived. The declines in indices were halted as central banks cut interest rates. At that time, the situation in the markets calmed down and the trends were reversed from downward to upward.

Regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz