Even ancient thinkers such as the philosopher Plato were convinced that the rules of human society had to be in harmony with basic cosmic principles. Otherwise, human endeavour would not last. In other words, models that attempt to explain social, political and economic relationships must take account of actual scientific realities. Yet none of today's social sciences do so. They focus on people and their actions and ignore technical, physical and biological reality. By focusing only on people, there are a multitude of observations and events in reality that cannot be explained by existing models.
A comparison with cosmology comes to mind: The social sciences are still at the level of the geocentric world view. Here, too, man or the earth alone was at the center of observation, and all observations of the movements of the sun, planets, and stars were attempted to be forced into this egocentric basic assumption. To make this work, Ptolemy developed the epicycle model. A model that sounds simple in principle, but in practice is extremely complicated and difficult to calculate. In addition, it had to be constantly adapted to new observations in order to maintain it. And with each observed deviation in reality, a new correction variable was added to the model, making the whole model even more complicated. Nevertheless, it took about 1,500 years before it was finally replaced by the heliocentric view of the world, in which the Earth is just one planet among many.
Similar to the geocentric world view, economics defines as the subject of its research only "the actions of people and companies to satisfy human needs". Its standard model for explaining all phenomena, quasi the epicycle model of economics, is 'Homo Oeconomicus'. This standard model has also been refuted in all its basic features and does not correspond to observations in reality. Nevertheless, only extensions that 'keep the standard model alive' with additional, more or less arbitrary assumptions, or extensions that are completely separate and incompatible with the standard model, such as 'behavioural economics', are discussed in science and even rewarded with Nobel Prizes. So far, no generally accepted alternative model has emerged. In our view, this is partly because no one has dared to question whether the basic definition of the object under consideration is at all suitable for seeking answers to the questions posed.
If our analyses of the basic principles of the structure of the world and its development are accurate, they have a number of different implications for the understanding of the economy and other areas of human society. The following articles and analyses address these fundamental questions and propose new approaches to solutions.
The question of what constitutes a "business" is pivotal to any analysis of the economy. This is linked to the fundamental question of how to describe and analyze a "business" in a "business concept." To address this question, we have developed a basic model that consists of four perspectives and distinguishes between three planes—the perspective-plane-model or 4-3 model for short. Building on this basic model, which is described below, we then plan to address further fundamental questions of economics that can be derived from it.
Comments powered by CComment