Model based on the Sustainable Money System.

Model showing the effect of bank lending of deposited money as a multiplier in the creation of new money. Multiplier effect is shown as related to the bank reserve requirement on deposited funds.

This model simulates the competition between logging versus adventure tourism(mountain bike riding) in Derby Tasmania. The purpose of this model is that focus on the relationship between the timber industry and mountain bike tourism in adventure. It also reflects how well these two industries co-exist. 

'Efficiencyism’  can be described as a blind belief in the effectiveness of efficiency measures without taking into account circumstances and the wider context.   The graph on the left shows how the frequent use of the term 'efficiency' at the level of local interactons can lead to the emergence of  'efficiencyism' through upward causation, denoted by the arrows pointing upwards.  However, there is also downward causation from the global level depicted by the red arrows which can increase the blind application of efficiency measures at the local level. In other words, efficiency for the sake of efficiency becomes a dominant idea.  The tyrannical influence of 'eficiencyism' affects all of us to varying degrees and unfortunately can often have very negative side effects, such as an increase in unemployment, social injustice and even increase inequality.  Of  course, well-thought-out efficiency improvements can also bring great  benefits.   I recommend reading an excellent article by Dr. Charles Chandler, who explains the term 'efficiencyism' with some excellent examples and also points to some  of its undesirable effects.

The statement that there can be no economic activity without  energy and that fossil fuels are finite contrasts with the fact that money is not finite and can be created by governments via their central banks at zero marginal cost whenever needed.

An important fact about COAL, GAS and OIL (especially when produced via fracking) is that their net energy ratios are falling rapidly. In other words the energy needed to extract a given quantity of fossil fuels is constantly increasing. The falling ratio 'EROI' (Energy Return on Energy Invested ) provides yet another warning that we can no longer rely on fossil fuels to power our economies. In 1940 it took the energy of only one barrel of oil to extract 100. Today the energy of 1 barrel of oil will yield only 15. We cannot wait until the ratio falls to 1/1 before we invest seriously in alternative sources of energy, because by then industrial society as we know it doday will have ceased to exist. An EROI of 1:1 means that it takes the energy of one barrel of oil to extract one barrel of oil - oil production would simply stop! 

When people talk about a government deficit, they forget that this is only one side of the ledger. On the other is a corresponding non-government SURPLUS. The money the government spends is not lost but shows up in the private sector as income. When one talks only of the deficit then one can understand that many think it should be reduced or even converted into a surplus, but reducing the government deficit reduces private sector income and a government surplus forces a deficit on the private sector with a potentially devastating effect on private sector wealth and economic activity.  Unless the economy is overheating, government deficits are usually healthy. For countries that run traditionally a trade deficit, such as the US they are necessary to maintain economic activity. Consider this fact: for almost all of past 40 years the US and the UK have run deficits without any harmful effects!

Model showing the effect of bank lending of deposited money as a multiplier in the creation of new money. Multiplier effect is shown as related to the bank reserve requirement on deposited funds.

Scratch build of a stock-flow consistent model of a closed economy, based on a current transactions matrix

The following is a start to modeling the investment funds and work flow cycle for a company. This simulates how a fixed resource gets distributed among 3 investors and how the investors can lose those funds back to the investment system. The model assumes at this stage that the amount of money available for investment is fixed over the time period in which the dynamics is unfolding. This can be adjusted as the model is further developed.

The upper diagram shows the principal factors that have an influence on the budget deficit and indicates what needs to be done to correct it. But this is not the full story. The diagram below shows that  cutting public expenditure reduces aggregate demand and  increases unemployment. The reduction of aggregate demand  reduces  economic activity which has the effect of reducing  tax revenue.  In addition, the state has to pay out funds as there is a need for more unemployment benefit payments.   The result of these austerity measures  is often the opposite of their intended purpose: they can increase rather than decrease the budget deficit.

There is plenty of empiric evidence to show that this has happened time and time again. For instance, a report from UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) found that between 1990 and 2000 in all the  cases examined where cutbacks in public spending and tax increases were used, the fiscal situation did not only not improve but worsened. Despite such repeated evidence, unfortunately calls for  austerity measures continue to be heard. 

Model supporting research of investment vs. austerity implications. Please refer to Modern Money & Public Purpose Video.

Follow us on YouTube, Twitter, LinkedIn and please support Systems Thinking World.

The statement that there can be no economic activity without  energy and that fossil fuels are finite contrasts with the fact that money is not finite and can be created by governments via their central banks at zero marginal cost whenever needed.

An important fact about COAL, GAS and OIL (especially when produced via fracking) is that their net energy ratios are falling rapidly. In other words the energy needed to extract a given quantity of fossil fuels is constantly increasing. The falling ratio 'EROI' (Energy Return on Energy Invested ) provides yet another warning that we can no longer rely on fossil fuels to power our economies. In 1940 it took the energy of only one barrel of oil to extract 100. Today the energy of 1 barrel of oil will yield only 15. We cannot wait until the ratio falls to 1/1 before we invest seriously in alternative sources of energy, because by then industrial society as we know it doday will have ceased to exist. An EROI of 1:1 means that it takes the energy of one barrel of oil to extract one barrel of oil - oil production would simply stop! 

How the 4-H club became a marketing thingy for DuPont

Model supporting research of investment vs. austerity implications. Please refer to additional information on the SystemsWiki Focus Page and Modern Money & Public Purpose Video.

Simplified Causal loop diagram (from CLD 1 Insight) after quantitative simulation experiments from Fig 5.20 Dianati, K. (2022) London’s Housing Crisis – A System Dynamics Analysis of Long-term Developments: 40 Years into the Past and 40 Years into the Future UCL PhD Thesis and Video presentation

Model supporting research of investment vs. austerity implications. Please refer to additional information on the SystemsWiki Focus Page and Modern Money & Public Purpose Video.

Update 24 Feburary 2016 (v3.1): This version has biomass, hydro and nuclear continuing at pre-transition maxima, rather than increasing. The combined emplacement rate cap for wind and PV is set at a default value of 5000 GW/year.

Major update 12 December 2015 (v3.0): This new version of the model overhauls the way that incumbent energy source (fossil sources plus biomass, hydro electricity and nuclear electricity) supply capacity is implemented. This is now based on direct (exogenous) input of historical data, with the future supply curve also set directly (but using a separate input array to the historical data). For coal and natural gas fired electricity, this also requires that the simple, direct-input EROI method be used (i.e. same as for coal and NG heating, and petroleum transport fuels).

Note that this new version of the model no longer provides a historical view of the emplacement rates for energy supply sources other than wind and PV, and therefore no longer allows comparison of required emplacement rates for wind and PV with incumbent energy sources. Output data relating to this is available in model version v2.5 (see link below), for the specific transition duration built into that version of the model.

The previous version of the model (version 2.5) is available here.

The original "standard run" version of the model (v1.0) is available here.