Return   Go on

8.2 Short discussion for continuing the problem

The formulation of the productive forces has already shown that the amount of data to be obtained and processed has increased considerably. Scalar parameters became vectors, a vector became a matrix, and a two-dimensional matrix became one three-dimensional or two two-dimensional matrices. The further differentiation of the data structure naturally also results in a further multiplicity of variants of the possible relationships between these data. The selection of it can be debated because the reality usually lies somewhere in between. This would become evident when we formulate the conditions of production, which would come next. But I don't want to go down this path any further for now, because it's a huge task.

Perhaps a hint of a little problem as a sample: The multiplication factor fa was given for all members of society. However, it is possible, e.g. through differentiated remuneration of the productivity groups, that different supply rates occur and thus different actual multiplication factors of the productivity groups occur. Does it make sense to let the productivity groups grow differently accordingly, or does the structure of the skills of society (represented by the relationships in the vector ap of the productivity group sizes) remain constant? I would go for the latter. But one can also see it differently.

This is the opportunity to point out a general problem: Generally, everyone tries to develop models that are as accurate as possible in the interest of the accuracy of the representation of reality and to go further and further. In doing so, however, one also runs the risk of losing track of the actual goal, namely applicable insights, when trying to present details correctly. So you have to think carefully about whether or when to go one step further.

Apart from the fact that in the near future I will not have the time to deal with the further processing of the extended model formulated here, it is also not yet time. The informative value and the possible variations of the simpler models have not yet been exhausted. In addition, it is time to draw at least preliminary conclusions for a societal alternative from what we have learned so far.

From the extended model, however, I expect interesting insights into the more complex intrinsic movement of a market economy in the future.

Return   Go on