Our research at Gävle University into introducing the circular economy in a region would benefit from the ceiling and floor metrics approach. At the same time a multi-capital approach is showing to provide good materiality. Finally, we have searched for a way to express the metrics as normatives. All this is discussed in this discussion document. Look forward to hearing comments.
I reckon that the diagrams and illustrative tables that are presented in this recent paper do nothing to explain in quantitative terms how our social system of macroeconomics actually works. What is needed is a kind of a compromise between the kind of material that is presented and the amounts of business activities in terms of numbers, that take place. That is why I also find that the doughnut expression fails to properly explain more of this self-same topic. It is all very well to provide platonic explanations and reasons for what is happening, but until you can balance some numerical results about it you will never know which parts of it are the most important and which other parts are of little significance.
The basic idea of having a representation through a circular social system is good, but in order to properly understand how it works we need to both simplify it and present it in an easily understood way. Unfortunately neither the above-provided paper nor the doughnut model do not achieve this goal, although they certainly do try to achieve more that the older ideas of political science fail to manage.
The model that I have discovered and use does not have one circuit in the form of a doughnut, but many more (actually 46 being possible), so that the connections between all the functional and aggregated entities (of which there are only 6) can cause the reciprocal flows of money and goods to pass and cycle through the whole of the macro-economy in a logical and mechanical way that allows one to better understand their relationships.This model not only reduces what was regarded as a complex situation into something that is possible to envisage in the mind’s eye, but which also allows one to explore the effects when a change is deliberately made or a disturbance arrives unwanted to the balance of the whole system.
The model of this system is shown here but to get a better grasp about what it is all about please see SSRN 2865571 “Einstein’s Criterion Applied to Logical Macroeconomics Modeling”, and my 310 page book “Consequential Macroeconomics” which I will gladly send in e-copy form to any interested persons (for free), when they send me a simple message to email@example.com
The diagram of this circuits is in both of these references, and I don;t seem able to include it directly here, not being much of a computer addict.
I read your post as saying that diagrams and tables lack more numbers. I take that as you need full dataset for validation. Then you go that the original document needs to be simplified and made easy to understood. Then instead of addressing any of these claims you just go on on that you have some model that is “shown here” and send the reader to some 310 page book with a single two star review on Amazon.
I just want to tell you that I find this shameless promotion and thread hijacking behavior annoying.
The level of annoyance that you describe is nothing like as serious as the way that the humble doughnut is taken to be applicable to what is actually a more complicated system of our actual macro-economy. This is my main point which you seem to be unable to recognize.
You could abrogate on how the macro-economy is tilted towards degradation of natural resources and away from their preservation and regeneration ?