Success to the successful archetype represents two reinforcing structures which may be in a delicate balance though as soon as one gains a small advantage the resource allocation favors the more successful and the result is then rapidly skewed in the direction of the more successful. See also Archetypes.
There are numerous influences which work against the possibility of sustainable capitalism though there are a few that might be put in place to actually support its emergence.
An introduction to what seems to be our typical approach to dealing with problems that arise unexpectedly when we're focused on dealing with other immediate issues.
This model was started at the STIA+ Conference in Seattle on April 18th by Rebecca Niles of Leverage Networks for discussion at her Open Space session. The intent is to continue that open space here in a virtual context.
A Growth and Underinvestment structure is simply an elaborated Limits to Growth structure where the growth inhibitor is part of another Balancing Loop with an external standard and some delay. The real nasty thing about this structure is that the two Balancing Loops form a single Reinforcing Loop which inhibits growth.
Simple bathtub model to show the difference between Stock and Flow. Run the model with various values for filling and draining to see the implications.
A small change in one variable can have a marked impact on multiple variables. Run the model (with height=0) and consider the output. What happens if you change to height=5. Run the model to find out. Was the change what you expected?
The goal seeking structure endeavors to bring a balance between a current state and a desired state. This is one of the two foundation archetypes. The other being the growth structure. See also Archetypes.
Investigations into the relationships responsible for the success and failure of nations. This investigation was prompted after reading numerous references on the subject and perceiving that *Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty* by Acemoglu and Robinson seem to make a great deal of sense.
OK, we have a problem. Yet, do we really know what the problem is? More often than not we look at the symptoms, consider them the problem and attempt to fix them. This actually dooms us to failure because they're only symptoms.
