World Energy Consumption by Source, based on Vaclav Smil estimates from Energy Transition: History, Requirement and Prospects together with BP Statistical Data for 1965 and subsequent. The biofuel category also includes wind, solar, and other new renewables. Graph from Gail Tverberg (2012c), 'World Energy Consumption Since 1820 in Charts.' 

Contexts in source publication

Context 1

... treat the two systems as constituting alternative techniques of producing commodity c and we suppose that entrepreneurs will chose which of the two techniques, under whatever conditions prevail, is the more profitable. (We may refer to them as "systems 1 and 2" or, alternatively, as techniques 1 and 2: no matter -here "system" and "technique" signify the same thing.) (1 + r) + 60w = 200p c ---------------------------------- 80k' + 100L With respect to choice of technique it is relevant to compare the capital-labour ratios associated with the two techniques. Again we encounter a state of affairs unrecognised and inexplicable in a neoclassical world. Table 7 shows how the capital/labour ratios (value of equipment per worker) of the two techniques do not stay constant in relation to each other, but vary with the distribution of income. Thus we cannot say, without knowing distribution and relative values, which technique is the more "capital intensive". At lower rates of profit 1 is more capital intensive than 2, but at high rates the situation is reversed, with the value of capital per worker higher in 2 than in 1. It is this variability in the relation to each other of the two capital/labour ratios that underlies the reswitching which, as we are about to show, can occur between the two techniques. Given the availability of these alternative techniques for the production of consumer good c, entrepreneurs will select whichever technique is the more profitable under the particular conditions (with regard to distribution of the surplus) that happen to obtain. The relative profitability of the two techniques depends on the going rates of profit and wages. How their respective profitabilities vary as wage levels alter is shown in Figure ...

Context 2

... 2 provides a metahistorical framework for the political alliances {P, P}, {E, E}, and {E, P} in Figure 1. A quadrumvirate of four historic, metaeconomic philosophies are in constant competition for economic, political, and social hegemony: conservatism (paternalistic authority), communitarianism (paternalistic rights), liberalism (humanistic authority), and libertarianism (humanistic rights). These four are postulated to historically inform America's Nash dynamics in Figure 1: {P, P} alliance : because of concern over social unrest and fear of revolution in the thirties, if they did not to make middle class interests a priority, the ruling elite were coerced into doing so. During this historical interval the nation's ideological ground in politics, gradually evolving toward being both less liberal and more libertarian; under the impetus of an economic momentum that became less libertarian and more conservative; was countered by a populist gravitas (egalitarian, centrist forces for change) that became less conservative and more communitarian -cumulating in the 60's and 70's as an extreme, anti-authoritarian communitarianism ('make peace not ...

Context 3

... 2 provides a metahistorical framework for the political alliances {P, P}, {E, E}, and {E, P} in Figure 1. A quadrumvirate of four historic, metaeconomic philosophies are in constant competition for economic, political, and social hegemony: conservatism (paternalistic authority), communitarianism (paternalistic rights), liberalism (humanistic authority), and libertarianism (humanistic rights). These four are postulated to historically inform America's Nash dynamics in Figure 1: {P, P} alliance : because of concern over social unrest and fear of revolution in the thirties, if they did not to make middle class interests a priority, the ruling elite were coerced into doing so. During this historical interval the nation's ideological ground in politics, gradually evolving toward being both less liberal and more libertarian; under the impetus of an economic momentum that became less libertarian and more conservative; was countered by a populist gravitas (egalitarian, centrist forces for change) that became less conservative and more communitarian -cumulating in the 60's and 70's as an extreme, anti-authoritarian communitarianism ('make peace not ...

Context 4

... more benevolent, utopian-like alliance in Figure 1, {P, E}, in which middle class support for ruling elite interests is reciprocated by ruling elite support for middle class interests, apparently is inherently unstable due to the avarice that is intrinsic to humanity. {P, E} can represent in principle the inherently unstable state of any utopian-inspired social order that, if somehow were entered into, would, depending on the relative size of opposed populist and elitist forces, ultimately transition (decompose) into {P, P} or {E, E}, or {E, P} ...

Context 5

... Basu states in Beyond the Invisible Hand that "in economics, the need for intuitive understanding is much greater than most economists would have you believe. Good economic policy requires a 'feel' for things over and above" a mathematical understanding of economics (2011: 14). Understanding the Darwin metaeconomy of Figure 1, including in particular the subversive role played by ruling elite collusion in economics, politics, and the larger society, requires a subjective feel for structural forces presently not mathematically tractable; but which nevertheless can be intuitively understood to a considerable degree. Indeed, this theory suggests that the mathematics of Nash equilibria currently pursued in neoclassical theory is on the wrong track, fundamentally; because, quite falsely, it treats the economy as if it operates completely independent of political and social forces. The real-world Darwin metaeconomics of Figure 1's Nash dynamics manifests political logic that ultimately must take precedence over abstract mathematical models whose 'economics' is devoid of real-world content. Figure 1's ruling elite, working behind the scenes architectonically through Wall Street's Darwin metaeconomy, eschew ethics and morality for the sake of wealth, power and privilege. Unseen and publicly denied, America's ruling elite are unified in and through their collusion against the middle class and populace generally, through diverse mechanisms of architectonic collusion embedded in society structurally. The Darwin metaeconomy thus understood, which can be unconscious in part and conscious in part, intertwine the economic, political, and social sectors such that an historical, elite-populist 'balance of power', labeled the 'Nash dynamics of American exceptionalism' in Figure 2, is maintained between the forces sustaining and the forces working to change the status quo. Figure 2 is the long-term metahistorical framework of Figure 1's "Nash dynamics of the most wealthy, powerful, and privileged", whose ruling elite are Wall Street's wealthiest 1%. Taken from the NSF-SBE white paper 'The Critical Geography of American Democracy: Tectonics of the Economic, Social, and Political (Zaman 2010), Figure 2 diagrams the dynamic balance of power argued to be maintained by America's ruling elite over the under classes during the past 400 years; which this essay regards as 'American exceptionalism' truly: in which the economic 'momentum' of the ruling elite, through the political 'inertial forces' of government de facto controlled by the elite behind the scenes, has consistently minimized -but never eliminated -socially 'impressed forces' for progressive, egalitarian change. American exceptionalism in this view is Janus-faced: it is a Jekyll that in public promises equality and freedom for all, but behind the scenes is a Hyde that delivers much less of both than it ...

Context 6

... Basu states in Beyond the Invisible Hand that "in economics, the need for intuitive understanding is much greater than most economists would have you believe. Good economic policy requires a 'feel' for things over and above" a mathematical understanding of economics (2011: 14). Understanding the Darwin metaeconomy of Figure 1, including in particular the subversive role played by ruling elite collusion in economics, politics, and the larger society, requires a subjective feel for structural forces presently not mathematically tractable; but which nevertheless can be intuitively understood to a considerable degree. Indeed, this theory suggests that the mathematics of Nash equilibria currently pursued in neoclassical theory is on the wrong track, fundamentally; because, quite falsely, it treats the economy as if it operates completely independent of political and social forces. The real-world Darwin metaeconomics of Figure 1's Nash dynamics manifests political logic that ultimately must take precedence over abstract mathematical models whose 'economics' is devoid of real-world content. Figure 1's ruling elite, working behind the scenes architectonically through Wall Street's Darwin metaeconomy, eschew ethics and morality for the sake of wealth, power and privilege. Unseen and publicly denied, America's ruling elite are unified in and through their collusion against the middle class and populace generally, through diverse mechanisms of architectonic collusion embedded in society structurally. The Darwin metaeconomy thus understood, which can be unconscious in part and conscious in part, intertwine the economic, political, and social sectors such that an historical, elite-populist 'balance of power', labeled the 'Nash dynamics of American exceptionalism' in Figure 2, is maintained between the forces sustaining and the forces working to change the status quo. Figure 2 is the long-term metahistorical framework of Figure 1's "Nash dynamics of the most wealthy, powerful, and privileged", whose ruling elite are Wall Street's wealthiest 1%. Taken from the NSF-SBE white paper 'The Critical Geography of American Democracy: Tectonics of the Economic, Social, and Political (Zaman 2010), Figure 2 diagrams the dynamic balance of power argued to be maintained by America's ruling elite over the under classes during the past 400 years; which this essay regards as 'American exceptionalism' truly: in which the economic 'momentum' of the ruling elite, through the political 'inertial forces' of government de facto controlled by the elite behind the scenes, has consistently minimized -but never eliminated -socially 'impressed forces' for progressive, egalitarian change. American exceptionalism in this view is Janus-faced: it is a Jekyll that in public promises equality and freedom for all, but behind the scenes is a Hyde that delivers much less of both than it ...

Context 7

... Basu states in Beyond the Invisible Hand that "in economics, the need for intuitive understanding is much greater than most economists would have you believe. Good economic policy requires a 'feel' for things over and above" a mathematical understanding of economics (2011: 14). Understanding the Darwin metaeconomy of Figure 1, including in particular the subversive role played by ruling elite collusion in economics, politics, and the larger society, requires a subjective feel for structural forces presently not mathematically tractable; but which nevertheless can be intuitively understood to a considerable degree. Indeed, this theory suggests that the mathematics of Nash equilibria currently pursued in neoclassical theory is on the wrong track, fundamentally; because, quite falsely, it treats the economy as if it operates completely independent of political and social forces. The real-world Darwin metaeconomics of Figure 1's Nash dynamics manifests political logic that ultimately must take precedence over abstract mathematical models whose 'economics' is devoid of real-world content. Figure 1's ruling elite, working behind the scenes architectonically through Wall Street's Darwin metaeconomy, eschew ethics and morality for the sake of wealth, power and privilege. Unseen and publicly denied, America's ruling elite are unified in and through their collusion against the middle class and populace generally, through diverse mechanisms of architectonic collusion embedded in society structurally. The Darwin metaeconomy thus understood, which can be unconscious in part and conscious in part, intertwine the economic, political, and social sectors such that an historical, elite-populist 'balance of power', labeled the 'Nash dynamics of American exceptionalism' in Figure 2, is maintained between the forces sustaining and the forces working to change the status quo. Figure 2 is the long-term metahistorical framework of Figure 1's "Nash dynamics of the most wealthy, powerful, and privileged", whose ruling elite are Wall Street's wealthiest 1%. Taken from the NSF-SBE white paper 'The Critical Geography of American Democracy: Tectonics of the Economic, Social, and Political (Zaman 2010), Figure 2 diagrams the dynamic balance of power argued to be maintained by America's ruling elite over the under classes during the past 400 years; which this essay regards as 'American exceptionalism' truly: in which the economic 'momentum' of the ruling elite, through the political 'inertial forces' of government de facto controlled by the elite behind the scenes, has consistently minimized -but never eliminated -socially 'impressed forces' for progressive, egalitarian change. American exceptionalism in this view is Janus-faced: it is a Jekyll that in public promises equality and freedom for all, but behind the scenes is a Hyde that delivers much less of both than it ...

Context 8

... Basu states in Beyond the Invisible Hand that "in economics, the need for intuitive understanding is much greater than most economists would have you believe. Good economic policy requires a 'feel' for things over and above" a mathematical understanding of economics (2011: 14). Understanding the Darwin metaeconomy of Figure 1, including in particular the subversive role played by ruling elite collusion in economics, politics, and the larger society, requires a subjective feel for structural forces presently not mathematically tractable; but which nevertheless can be intuitively understood to a considerable degree. Indeed, this theory suggests that the mathematics of Nash equilibria currently pursued in neoclassical theory is on the wrong track, fundamentally; because, quite falsely, it treats the economy as if it operates completely independent of political and social forces. The real-world Darwin metaeconomics of Figure 1's Nash dynamics manifests political logic that ultimately must take precedence over abstract mathematical models whose 'economics' is devoid of real-world content. Figure 1's ruling elite, working behind the scenes architectonically through Wall Street's Darwin metaeconomy, eschew ethics and morality for the sake of wealth, power and privilege. Unseen and publicly denied, America's ruling elite are unified in and through their collusion against the middle class and populace generally, through diverse mechanisms of architectonic collusion embedded in society structurally. The Darwin metaeconomy thus understood, which can be unconscious in part and conscious in part, intertwine the economic, political, and social sectors such that an historical, elite-populist 'balance of power', labeled the 'Nash dynamics of American exceptionalism' in Figure 2, is maintained between the forces sustaining and the forces working to change the status quo. Figure 2 is the long-term metahistorical framework of Figure 1's "Nash dynamics of the most wealthy, powerful, and privileged", whose ruling elite are Wall Street's wealthiest 1%. Taken from the NSF-SBE white paper 'The Critical Geography of American Democracy: Tectonics of the Economic, Social, and Political (Zaman 2010), Figure 2 diagrams the dynamic balance of power argued to be maintained by America's ruling elite over the under classes during the past 400 years; which this essay regards as 'American exceptionalism' truly: in which the economic 'momentum' of the ruling elite, through the political 'inertial forces' of government de facto controlled by the elite behind the scenes, has consistently minimized -but never eliminated -socially 'impressed forces' for progressive, egalitarian change. American exceptionalism in this view is Janus-faced: it is a Jekyll that in public promises equality and freedom for all, but behind the scenes is a Hyde that delivers much less of both than it ...

Context 9

... 1 diagrams the macro-social 'Prisoner's Dilemma' in American politics currently. In this two-player 'Nash dynamics' the state mutually most beneficial to both the ruling elite and populist middle class is the utopian alliance {P, E} (see Figure 1 below for key to letters). However, if the ruling elite were to fail to follow through in choosing P, then {E, E}, the alliance most favorable to the ruling elite and less favorable to the middle class, would follow. Similarly, if the middle class were to fail to follow through in choosing E, then {P, P}, the alliance most favorable to the middle class and less favorable to the ruling elite, would follow. So that, in order to most assuredly work toward a state of the nation that is most favorable to their respective class, regardless of what the other class does, each class must choose the strategy favoring their own, which political disconnect between the ruling elite and populist middle class today has resulted in the real-world Nash equilibrium {E, P}; which unfortunately appears to be the only 'state of the nation' that is logically possible in America's two-player metaeconomics. Given the real-world Nash equilibrium {E, P} in Figure 1 current today, neither player -elite or populist -can do better by unilaterally changing its strategy. The populist-favored alliance {P, P} and elitist-favored alliance {E, E} are different alliances of elites and populists having differing degrees of relative benefit for the two players involved. The utopian alliance {P, E} requires a degree of cooperation between the elite and middle class, based on mutually felt benevolence for each other, that will be difficult to engineer in America's ultra-competitive society in which wealth, power, and privilege are all that count in the collective mind of the ruling elite. Strategy P: create legislation, implement policies, and carry out political agendas that 'promote the general welfare' of society's populist middle class; including the economically dispossessed, politically disenfranchised, and socially disempowered of the ...

Context 10

... 1 diagrams the macro-social 'Prisoner's Dilemma' in American politics currently. In this two-player 'Nash dynamics' the state mutually most beneficial to both the ruling elite and populist middle class is the utopian alliance {P, E} (see Figure 1 below for key to letters). However, if the ruling elite were to fail to follow through in choosing P, then {E, E}, the alliance most favorable to the ruling elite and less favorable to the middle class, would follow. Similarly, if the middle class were to fail to follow through in choosing E, then {P, P}, the alliance most favorable to the middle class and less favorable to the ruling elite, would follow. So that, in order to most assuredly work toward a state of the nation that is most favorable to their respective class, regardless of what the other class does, each class must choose the strategy favoring their own, which political disconnect between the ruling elite and populist middle class today has resulted in the real-world Nash equilibrium {E, P}; which unfortunately appears to be the only 'state of the nation' that is logically possible in America's two-player metaeconomics. Given the real-world Nash equilibrium {E, P} in Figure 1 current today, neither player -elite or populist -can do better by unilaterally changing its strategy. The populist-favored alliance {P, P} and elitist-favored alliance {E, E} are different alliances of elites and populists having differing degrees of relative benefit for the two players involved. The utopian alliance {P, E} requires a degree of cooperation between the elite and middle class, based on mutually felt benevolence for each other, that will be difficult to engineer in America's ultra-competitive society in which wealth, power, and privilege are all that count in the collective mind of the ruling elite. Strategy P: create legislation, implement policies, and carry out political agendas that 'promote the general welfare' of society's populist middle class; including the economically dispossessed, politically disenfranchised, and socially disempowered of the ...

Context 11

... Figure 2's metahistorical framework for Figure 1 may be suggesting is that the current Nash equilibrium of America's two-player Darwin metaeconomy is the latest in the perpetual struggle of true democracy against capitalist oppression of the masses, worldwide; oppression fully supported today, conspiratorially behind the scenes, by ultra-conservative religious fervor in the last ditch effort of Western religion -Christianity in particular -to regain the oppressive, political hegemony it had in 17 th century Europe, prior to capitalism's emergence as Western society's ruling paradigm. The coalition of conservative Christians in America today, it seems, regard the most wealthy, powerful, and privileged of capitalism's corporate elite as its political savior; which responsibility the corporate elite very willingly accept. Reconstruction America core value --social equality ascending liberal middle tier triggers liberal realignment ...

Context 12

... us illustrate this interaction of business and industry with a simple example. Political economists, both mainstream and Marxist, postulate a positive relationship between production and profit. Capitalists, they argue, benefit from industrial activity -and, therefore, the more fully employed their equipment and workers, the greater their profit. But if we think of capital as power, exercised through the strategic sabotage of industry by business, the relationship becomes nonlinear -positive under certain circumstances, negative under others. This latter relationship is illustrated, hypothetically, in Figure 1. The chart depicts the utilization of industrial capacity on the horizontal axis against the capitalist share of income on the vertical axis. Now, up to a point, the two move together. After that point, the relationship becomes negative. The reason for this inversion is easy to explain by looking at extremes. If industry came to a complete standstill at the bottom left corner of the chart, capitalist earnings would be nil. But capitalist earnings would also be zero if industry always and everywhere operated at full socio-technological capacity -depicted by the bottom right corner of the chart. Under this latter scenario, industrial considerations rather than business decisions would be paramount, production would no longer need the consent of owners, and these owners would be unable to extract their tributary earnings. For owners of capital, then, the ideal, Goldilocks condition, indicated by the top arc segment, lies somewhere in between: with high capitalist earnings being received in return for letting industry operate -though only at less than full ...

Context 13

... these latter aspects are equally important, and here, too, business sabotage often operates to restrict the human potential by forcing social activity into trajectories that are as harmful as they are profitable. And lo and behold, what we see is very close to the theoretical claims made in Figure 1. The best position for capitalists is not when industry is fully employed, but when the unemployment rate is around 7 percent. In other words, the so-called 'natural rate of unemployment' and 'business as usual' are two sides of the same power process: a process in which business accumulates by strategically sabotaging ...

Context 14

... Nash dynamics of Figure 1 thus is suggestive that, in the real-world economy, the Nash equilibrium may be best understood as being, rather than something maintained over the long term in a stable society, something that is the precursor to radical change in economics, politics, or society in general. The political realignment A' in Figure 2 (circa 2050), in which 'postmodern America' transitions into what possibly will be a radical 21 st rethinking of colonial American conservatism, may be what transpires after the nation escapes from the current two-player, metaeconomic Nash equilibrium {E, P}. Figure 2 is elite political theory that shows the need for an ongoing 99% movement which opposes the middle class's historical economic dispossession, political disenfranchisement, and social disempowerment by Wall Street's ruling elite, its wealthiest 1%. The '99% movement', composed of the economically dispossessed and politically disenfranchised, and socially disempowered on Main Street, if it is to be effective, requires a radical critique of the ruthless Darwin metaeconomy that elaborates in principle what this movement is up against, shows what it therefore must do to succeed, and indicates what are the movement's long term prospects. Figure 2 give some indication of what may be required. The ruling elite today, in their overweening desire for wealth, power and privilege, have created a momentum that is libertarian in character, yet at the same time is pointed towards a future society that is ruthlessly conservative. Wall Street's ruling elite are doing this, in the name of economic freedom unrestrained by government regulation or oversight; by falsely persuading the public of the benefits to the middle class of the government unencumbered ...

Context 15

... Street all along has been engaged in conspiracy against the middle class about what or who rules America -whether what actually rules the nation is the free market economy or an elite capitalist class. Its deception is based on an implicit denial that there exists a two-player Darwin metaeconomy in which the corporate elite rule over the middle class, ruthlessly behind the scenes. There is, they claim, no such thing -only the free market economy over which no one rules. The effort of conservative Republican politics today, however, to bring the American government under President Obama to a complete stop until they regain power (absolutely), is in fact Figure 1's political disconnect {E, P} of the corporate elite; which as well is a Machiavellian-inspired, real-world 'Nash equilibrium' that neither the middle class nor the ruling elite desire to sustain, both are currently trapped in the 'Prisoner's Dilemma' -which the American public alone can resolve next November in the 2012 ...

Context 16

... In the Nash dynamics of Figure 1 then, placed within the metahistorical framework of Figure 2, the 'fittest' (aka capitalism's wealthiest) survived by establishing a 'metahistorical momentum' that, through ruling elite architectonic collusion, worked to create and maintain (circa 1981-2008) the elite favored alliance {E, E} most desired by capitalism's fittest (the wealthiest, most powerful and privileged), the momentum of which successfully worked against populism's prior 'metahistorical forces' for progressive, egalitarian change (circa 1933-1980). America's populist middle class, those seen by capitalism's most fit to be 'less fit' than themselves, earlier in the years 1933-1980, sought and achieved a populist favored alliance {P, P} possessing a substantively different metahistorical momentum. Appendix 3 briefly describes the alliances and equilibrium in Figure 1 thus placed within the metahistorical framework of Figure 2. Figure 2 is a dynamic 'balance of power in which the forces involved -for and against radical economic, political, and social change -are constantly evolving over time. This balance is one in which the nation's metahistorical momentum, driven by ruling elite avidity, moves society forward continuously against weaker populist forces for egalitarian change in a radically different direction, toward a more just society. The metahistorical balance of forces thereby maintained over the long term in Figure 2, by the wealthiest 1% on Wall Street and their minions in politics against the 99% on Main Street, thus is dynamic. Figure 2 takes 'progress' (social movement in whatever direction) as a given in human affairs; but it presents ruling elite avidity as having more generally energized this progress, behind the scenes historically from colonial days to the ...

Context 17

... In the Nash dynamics of Figure 1 then, placed within the metahistorical framework of Figure 2, the 'fittest' (aka capitalism's wealthiest) survived by establishing a 'metahistorical momentum' that, through ruling elite architectonic collusion, worked to create and maintain (circa 1981-2008) the elite favored alliance {E, E} most desired by capitalism's fittest (the wealthiest, most powerful and privileged), the momentum of which successfully worked against populism's prior 'metahistorical forces' for progressive, egalitarian change (circa 1933-1980). America's populist middle class, those seen by capitalism's most fit to be 'less fit' than themselves, earlier in the years 1933-1980, sought and achieved a populist favored alliance {P, P} possessing a substantively different metahistorical momentum. Appendix 3 briefly describes the alliances and equilibrium in Figure 1 thus placed within the metahistorical framework of Figure 2. Figure 2 is a dynamic 'balance of power in which the forces involved -for and against radical economic, political, and social change -are constantly evolving over time. This balance is one in which the nation's metahistorical momentum, driven by ruling elite avidity, moves society forward continuously against weaker populist forces for egalitarian change in a radically different direction, toward a more just society. The metahistorical balance of forces thereby maintained over the long term in Figure 2, by the wealthiest 1% on Wall Street and their minions in politics against the 99% on Main Street, thus is dynamic. Figure 2 takes 'progress' (social movement in whatever direction) as a given in human affairs; but it presents ruling elite avidity as having more generally energized this progress, behind the scenes historically from colonial days to the ...

Context 18

... in terms of modern economic (game) theory, in a macro two-player Darwin metaeconomy, the United States today has established a real-world 'Nash equilibrium' (Basu 2011: p. 60-66; Nasar 2011: Ch. 10; Nash Equilibrium, Wikipedia): one player being the ruling elite on 'Wall Street', the other the middle class and populace more generally on 'Main Street'; each seeking survival in a ruthless competitive environment -a two-player Darwin metaeconomy in which the wealthiest survive collectively -in which Wall Street's ruling elite are economic and political predators of America's middle class and the populace generally (society's populist, more egalitarian-minded citizens). which counter-reaction has produced a 99% movement that is pushing the United States toward a new 20 th century alliance {P, P} that is strongly opposed by capitalism's ruling elite, who are pushing back toward regaining the previous elite favored 19 th century alliance {E, E}; the opposed forces of which today now constitute the real-world, elite-populist Nash equilibrium {E, P}, which is the current political disconnect of the ruling elite from any alliance with the populist middle class, other than a renewal of the previous alliance {E, E} that caused the 2008 Great Recession. It is beyond the scope of the present essay, but the historical transitions in Figure 1, surreptitiously from {P, P} to {E, E}, and now onward to {E, P}, provide an overarching analytical framework for explaining in considerable detail the political warfare that has been ongoing behind the scenes, historically, between the Republican and Democratic parties, from the Great Depression to the present. Appendix 1 lists all strategic transitions that are in principle possible in the Nash dynamics of Figure 1, very few of which actually occur, ...

Context 19

... in terms of modern economic (game) theory, in a macro two-player Darwin metaeconomy, the United States today has established a real-world 'Nash equilibrium' (Basu 2011: p. 60-66; Nasar 2011: Ch. 10; Nash Equilibrium, Wikipedia): one player being the ruling elite on 'Wall Street', the other the middle class and populace more generally on 'Main Street'; each seeking survival in a ruthless competitive environment -a two-player Darwin metaeconomy in which the wealthiest survive collectively -in which Wall Street's ruling elite are economic and political predators of America's middle class and the populace generally (society's populist, more egalitarian-minded citizens). which counter-reaction has produced a 99% movement that is pushing the United States toward a new 20 th century alliance {P, P} that is strongly opposed by capitalism's ruling elite, who are pushing back toward regaining the previous elite favored 19 th century alliance {E, E}; the opposed forces of which today now constitute the real-world, elite-populist Nash equilibrium {E, P}, which is the current political disconnect of the ruling elite from any alliance with the populist middle class, other than a renewal of the previous alliance {E, E} that caused the 2008 Great Recession. It is beyond the scope of the present essay, but the historical transitions in Figure 1, surreptitiously from {P, P} to {E, E}, and now onward to {E, P}, provide an overarching analytical framework for explaining in considerable detail the political warfare that has been ongoing behind the scenes, historically, between the Republican and Democratic parties, from the Great Depression to the present. Appendix 1 lists all strategic transitions that are in principle possible in the Nash dynamics of Figure 1, very few of which actually occur, ...

Context 20

... the 'Nash alliances' of Figure 1, {P, P} and {E, E}, the contrary economic and political forces of self-interest, ruling elite v. populist middle class, were collectively unbalanced in one direction or another; resulting in the creation or modification of societal momentum directed more toward the interests of one than the other. In today's Nash equilibrium however, divergent forces of self-interest are equal in magnitude and point in different directions, one toward a future alliance {P, P} and the other backward toward {E, E}. The ruling elite in this effort intend to maintain the momentum generated by the alliance {E, E}, while middle class populists intend to create a new momentum toward a 21 st century alliance {P, P}. Class conflict in this essay's Darwin metaeconomy thus understood is an instinctively pursued 'Nash dynamics' that can be elaborated further within a Newtonian conceptual framework of 'metaeconomic' momentum, force, and ...

Context 21

... Figure 1, the transition during the 1980's, from the middle class favored alliance {P, P} to ruling elite favored alliance {E, E}, occurred because the ruling elite were able (very conspiratorially) to convince, falsely according to the evidence now available on middle class income inequality (Stiglitz 2012), the middle class that {E, E}, interpreted by neoliberals as the New World Order to be supported by all peoples, is more beneficial to it than {P, P}, the old economic and political order supporting American workers in the 50's, 60's and 70's; the collusion of which was accomplished by the ruling elite post 1981 through the conservative Republican ideology of Reaganomics; and which collusion by the ruling elite is today pursued politically even more forcefully by the Republican 'Tea Party.' The evidence of America's post World War II economy, nevertheless, strongly supports the old economic order of {P, P} of American workers as being the economy that benefits the middle class most, relatively speaking in terms of full employment and less pronounced income inequality; which nonetheless over the past thirty years, through conservative, ruling elite collusion, has been progressively transformed economically and politically into the elitist favored alliance {E, ...