A Thermodynamic Model for the Global Economy and Its Implications for Macroeconomic Theory and Policy Formulation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over recent decades the share of income produced by global the economy has increased for capital and decreased for labour. Picketty’s analysis of wealth and income data implies that there is increasing inequality in income share developing in economies including advanced economies. Further investigation by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), International Labour Organization (ILO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) confirms that capital’s share of income is increasing versus labour’s share but the data does not fit with Picketty’s r > g growth model, instead indicating that technology is involved. This paper presents a physical model concept for an economy and the global economy that explains how and why capital’s share of income is increasing at the expense of labour and what policymakers need to do to adjust this trend. The macroeconomic policies that correct this trend have also significant concomitant benefits—they address strategic risks such as global warming which are physically linked by the way the economy currently functions through technology. Current policy is driving and increasing income inequality. Physical evidence based macroeconomic policymaking such as that advocated in this paper, can manage these long term risks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it