A simple example of network analysis of impact over economy structure of fiscal political provisions.
Many can agree that in the context of European fiscal crisis today’s rise in VAT may be a necessary evil. Moreover, we can disagree that indirect taxes such as VAT are less harmful.
According to S. Strogatz theory of social networks VAT should menace the weak ties (which are the cement of economical society) between economical operators/agents preventing mutually beneficial exchanges from taking place.
Also economical hubs could be menaced. For example, Italian government raised VAT to 21%. Here the problem: why not considering the theory of social network of Strogatz as mathematical reason against this provision?
The theory forecasts that an attack (fiscal in this case) against the hubs (enterprises and businessman) of a social network (economy network) can make the network collapse.
A second example of network analysis can come from FAO politics against poverty.
If we try to define type of wealth or poverty, the issue is: are they referred to material sources and goods or to intangible ones?
We agree only partially. Poverty regards entire person, so both consciousness, body, social condition, culture, food availability, safety, wellness, sanity.
Our conjecture is that a new perspective (network analysis) for FAO should be fighting against groups of political and economical concentration (hubs), into developing nations, which prevent population from epidemical diffusion of wealth, information, education and sanitary assistance.
These hubs are actual Governmental or local administrators into developing nations of Western society aids.
Network analysis could demonstrates that economical systems too much aristocratic (the corrupted central-African governments are such hubs collecting western aids) inevitably crash. Richs become richer, and poor poorer.
While a more chaotic (but not excessively chaotic) distribution of aids could bypass the hubs, and enrich populations.
This is an appropriate model of logic and math capable to enable a scientific conjecture abut deep structure of social sciences and of humanities.
Because humans and societies are, also, networks.
Social science and small worlds theory: a new math for humanities?
Graphs and networks, hubs and epidemical diffusion of poverty. Could FAO challenge poverty and unequal distribution of prosperity?
Think to what would happen if Bakunin and other socialists had guessed to possibility of math of social networks! See this quick introductions:
A proposal: Two political models of individual interaction inside economical networks
We heard that Warren Buffett recommended to “know when quitting an investment”, this seems humility applied to economic individual operators, a formula for poverty relief and a caution against speculation.
It seems opposite to S. Ambrose (c. 340 – 4 April 397, archbishop of Milan) rule of sacrifice in favour of the poor, which seems humility applied to economic “collective” operators. The saint wrote « The land was created as a good for all, for wealthy and poor: why, you rich, have exclusive pretension over the land? […] You [rich] does not give the yours to the poor [when you make charities], but you give back each to his own; namely, the property is common, and it was released in common use, while you only have the use of it» (Naboth, 1,2; 12, 53).
Calling B1 the first rule and A2, the second, let say that if we consider these rules as dramatically opposite, then the prevalence of B1 humility type would give raise to wild capitalism, the prevalence of A2 humility type to communism, – while the cooperation between the two rules would entail a sort of “strange” cooperation between capitalism and workforce (anything similar to “Rerum Novarum” Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor as sketched by encyclical issues of Pope Leo XIII on May 15, 1891).
Recently reading any essays of George Soros about the logic of Boom-bust of economic bubbles, we couldn’t avoid to recognise in this kind of Strange collaboration of capital and workforce the same “borderline area between order and disorder” of a economic bubble in the phase of his development, when it is far from the equilibrium, is growing incorporating false perceptions and influences over the fundaments of the market.
Two enemies (capital and labour) in a reciprocal attempt to be humble?
Whoever can imagine what could come from such socio-political strange cooperation?
A response to global crisis?
A coordination between order and disorder?
A disastrous bust of actual capitalistic views, which gave rise to global crisis?
An explanation about Self-sacrifice, as model of interaction inside economical networks
Sacrifice, as humility and generosity, implies a certain just degree of solitude and self-denigration or passivity. This is clearly a sufferance (which is a sort of evil), but deserves respect considering the greater outcome of, without immediately advancing this humble man’s fortune, advancing both the same humble and his society peace and goodness, which outcome will be coming from a reciprocal help (with reciprocal just disadvantages).
Hume’s rejection of humility as social factor was just an empirical impression (a sentiment or a Hume habitude), arbitrary and a mistake as whatever empiricism, which believes to habitudes.
Effectively, definition of humility seems reinforce the idea of paradox into it, when pointing out that realism of humble own self does not give raise to overestimation of the same self in interpersonal behaviour. This seems a strange kind of realistic sacrifice, very similar to George Soros minding structure of his realistic adaptation to crisis and disasters of Boom-bust of economic bubbles: the humble prevents a bust, and sacrifice himself best before the booming bubble of his ego explodes at the contact with reality.
Not only economic success, but also cultural, political and religious hope can be improved by this kind of humility.
In our opinion, the position of antireligious view, which sees religion (and his natural concept of humility) as a tool of power, which tries to incorporate religion into politics, is fruit of a clearly known north European tradition (initially Dutch, then British and finally American, via your WASP tradition).
It was the Peace of Westfalia in 1648 to stabilize this tradition, after Thirty Years of religious war, started because sovereigns wanted to decide religion views of their subjects.
The Westfalia treaty, paradoxically (this deserve a specific consideration) stated and consolidated the “same” confusing and apparently peaceful principle “cuius regio eius religio” (each single power of each crown can decide religion of their subjects), which principle was the same confusion which pumped up the booming bubble of the war…the same false perception for which in this chat it seems that nobody knows that humility is “religion”, over, before and after any kind of politics or economic success.