Nanoeconomics
Mainstream economics, in its macroeconomics part partially inheriting the focus of political economy on such aggregate phenomena as unemployment, inflation and economic growth as its problems in focus, added with the microeconomic problem focus on rational choice in allocation of resources, etc., suffered thereby from narrow focus on predominantly superficial level of manifested economic processes and phenomena or the layer of economic phenomenological symptoms only, which the aforementioned problems are. Nanoeconomics with its principles, methods and models summarized below and currently in development, on the contrary takes a highly non-trivial and ontic/onticological line of attack on the two root causes as follows, which are furthermore highly likely to turn out to be dual : one is the systematic undervaluation of quality in the markets, an observation and thesis dating back to George Akerlof followed by many others, due to consistent loss of surplus value, and the other is the value-added-redundant monetary coverage of specifically trade in an economy, i.e. non-grounded money mass/circulation for the medial exchange part of the economy. Another problem diagnosed is a metastructural disbalance: both goods and money in circulation are endowed with exchange values while only the former are endowed with use values, rendering the sum of exchange values in economy exceeding the sum of use values approximately twice, and this gap might be attributed or mapped to the foregoing non-productive monetary coverage of medial/B2B trade. A series of major - indeed many of the most common - economic problems arise therefrom directly and indirectly, two of which are non-discrimination between value-adding and non-value-adding uses of capital and the unavoidable need for inflation for demand-supply stimulation and economic growth. There is a range of other principal divergences of nanoeconomics from most of broadly mainstream economics such as the following: economic agents treated as oscillators versus as material points; use of scheme versus spontaneous symmetry breaking; use of the same converse symmetry breaking as a mechanism and process for both symmetry breaking and symmetry restoring or emergence of order versus separate spontaneous symmetry breaking and emergence of spontaneous/extended order; other.
Nanoeconomics is defined on two levels or by two inter-related logics - one literal and the second metaphoric. In literal terms, nanoeconomics conceives commodities and their values featuring quantum wave-particle dualism. Particle nature or constituent is represented by exchange value and wave nature or constituent is represented by surplus value, together making up use value. Surplus value is the crystallization or condensation of hypostatic mode labor performed in production in the commodity and is propositional/procedural and hence eludes any market-style standard declarations like specifications, quotations, etc., is not manifested in the market phase, but are recovered through abstraction in exchange or social synthesis further into consumption. Exchange value or price on the contrary is always manifested. Surplus value is thus noumenal and analyzable noumenologically skipping the market per se but being recovered in exchange if it is arranged somehow off-market or ex-market, while exchange value/price is readily available and visible phenomenally all the way through and accordingly analyzed in conventional economic phenomenology. Surplus value or the respective wave function of the commodity is collapsed when measured, that is when the commodity is bought, and is subsequently often lost in pure-market capitalist economy. This amounts to the key law of nanoeconomics: when in physics there are laws of conservation for conserved quantities for physical continuous symmetries giving rise to processes, in nanoeconomics there is the law of conservation of conserved qualities for economic discrete symmetries giving rise to events, where conserved qualities are related to the aforementioned hypostatic production/labor modes and their embodiment in commodity. So nanoeconomics, unlike neoclassical and other mainstream economics, has a symmetry structure analogous to physics: when in physics you have classical conservation laws for energy, momentum, etc. as quantities, in nanoeconomics you have quantum conservation law of information as qualities. One of the consequences of the shift from quantities to qualities immediately introduces non-convexifiable non-convexity. Thereby nanoeconomics makes the move from ontics via ousia into praxis.
Nanoeconomics represents at the same time the phase of economy of and focus of economics on the individual scale for both creation and use of value of commodities, or in other words their use values. This is dually linked with nanoeconomics being the economics of single transactions : e.g. in B2B contexts a producer/supplier customizing or tailoring the value of his/her products as per the use value requirements, expectations and desired of individual industrial users.
Nanoeconomics is metaphorically defined as the post-analytic discourse, economic theory and post-normal transdisciplinary science of molar single transactions, non-conservative choice and innovative behavior of economic agents/decision-makers in quantum-inspired formalization. Whereas in microeconomics analysis is performed on the level of individual firms or decision-makers who take decisions and act vis-a-vis their markets which are abstracted aggregations of many players, in nanoeconomics analysis is performed on the level of individual transactions, incl. their lifecycles with concurrent choice segments, which are considered and carried out by individual firms or decision-makers who take those respective decisions and act vis-a-vis other single players as their counter-agents, not aggregated as/into markets. So on the one hand nanoeconomics lies at one level below that of microeconomics, on the other hand it runs a one-to-many or multi-binary scheme of interactions versus that of microeconomics which features unary though abstracted model of interaction. While microeconomics is linear, nanoeconomics is thus non-linear. Nanoeconomics is oriented on such ad hoc, temporary networks of interactions centered around transaction threads/fibers with lifecycles rather than transactions as one-time events. Thereby transaction threads are not totally empirical but also notional. A set of one-to-many threads add up to a many-to-many industry granule in the empirical-notional space or manifold of an industry. This difference and departure from classical microeconomics also have implications as for transaction cost analysis as well as possibly in terms of inframarginal positive externalities.
Nanoeconomics is effectively the quantum economics of mesoeconomy - the scale of economy at the aforementioned industry or sector granules, an update of the concept of mesoeconomic plexuses.
Nanoeconomics can be thought of as input-output economics but augmented with one more dimension - the dimension of separable spec value ranges cut into quantized/discretized intervals or value granulations, thus forming interval preference vectors or functions of use values and the respective space. In this space the problem of economic surplus value is solved by performing narrow banding or precision intervalling operations over that space to harness the frugalities or sparing effect from interval-concatenated cost/price syndication for a given cohort of economic agents with partially heterogeneous supplies/demands.
One can discriminate between post-normal science featuring coherence in structure and arguments and multidisciplinary consilience, on one side, and fringe science, on the other. Nanoeconomics draws on sciences and disciplines as varying as econophysics, thermoeconomics, ecological economics, affective science, complexity economics, non-equilibrium thermodynamics, biosemiotics, decision science, neuroeconomics / picoeconomics, neocybernetics, design science, complex networks and graph theory, complexity and information theories, etc. It combines hard science and soft science perspectives, approaches and models.
Nanoeconomics problematizes sustainable innovation, novelty-making and broadly authenticity production. A possible strategy currently under investigation is stimulation of divergent selection on both individual human and textual/molar actant levels.
Nanoeconomics is largely a normative science informed by ecocentric system of values and covers at least partially ententional development and allocation of embodied natural resources such as virtual water. Among its goals are ecological dematerialization, economic demerchandization, trade decommoditization, industrial dehomogenization. Nanoeconomics offers a non-price mechanism alternative to green economy/growth.
Nanoeconomics follows the mode of thinking of . Overall, abstraction or discursive virtualization is part of nanoeconomic methodology and conceptualizations. In particular, the paradigm of granular information processing underlies the general method of nanoeconomic analysis.
Implementation of non-conservativity or innovativeness is arranged at the level of B2B trade, where the system of interactions is closed and modeled as differential games. Quantum-inspired analysis of differential games suggests a non-Newtonian characterization of intelligent agents as self-supervising and their behavior as entangled, demonstrating emergence of randomness/novelty and providing for use of information force in human factor-based decision-making.
A major pillar of nanoeconomics is the science of diversity, inc. multi-way metric of diversity as the generalization of hyperconvexity. The virtual units of analysis at the cultural or eco-downstream plane of nanoeconomics is 'text particles/granules' of multi-specification, multipartite and multi-lifecycle product SKU portfolios and clusters, which have bound structural information content as the encoded correlate of a product's local embedded contextual or ambient expressivity from affective choice perspective of the consumer or shopper. Text particles can be conceived as local partitions or communities in the text graph that usually have the structure of hypertree with hyperedges of homologous convariant product items normally with power law distributions. Thereby those nano-particles are frictional among themselves and conformational in change as well as behaving as colloid particles. Also they qualify as L-particles. The latter are characterized with a non-conservative mechanism of quantum potential or information force. From it arises randomness and emerges novelty by violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics thus working toward the aforementioned and below-mentioned normative goals of nanoeconomics of fostering innovativeness and eco-economic decoupling. These nanoeconomic granules also have qualities of hyperobjects. The function of these local granule texts is to deliver surprisal to the consumer/shopper and one of the tasks of nanoeconomic engineering is to maximize that surprisal subject to constraints of the global portfolio and other strategy, business and commercial constraints. Thereby consumer demand is modeled as molarized survival process being the dual of the merono-taxonomic matrix of heavy-tailed product text, using such objective priors and pursuant to the principle of insufficient reason.
Nanoeconomics is defined separately for B2B/industrial space and B2C/consumer product space: in the former the key quasi-resource is embodied physical/natural eco-exergy and in the latter it is embodied virtual/social exergy. This formulation parallels Karl Polanyi's substantive definition of economics. The foregoing and following coverage concerns B2B. The substrate in both cases is embodied complexity or bound structural information of either products or product portfolios for products with naturally and/or technologically varying spec values and for products with no relevant variation within specs or attributes, respectively. However, in B2C, while the substrate is likewise complexity or information content, it is however taken in the virtual - strictly post-positivist - domain. Namely, consumer products and services allow and suggest representation or presentation in terms of sparse multi-dimensional conceptual-linguistic holons much in the fashion of 4th-order cybernetics. These are akin to the concept of product brand names and stories, whereby the latter are matched and mapped dyadically against consumer or shopper archetypes. This is in line with normative flavor of nanoeconomics calling for qualitative individualization of consumers and shoppers while at the same time delivering against another of its mission or purpose, decommoditization as well as dematerialization.
As for the global texts of product portfolios or clusters with heterogeneous constitution, they behave or act as semiotically self-referential, quantum-like amorphous computers/media supplying abduction power for innovation. Those abstract text machines have complex network motifs and themes/modules making them susceptible to discretization for allagmatic brand identity/idiom and evolutionary computation. Those global texts evolve in punctuated patterns toward increasing complexity measured for example by self-dissimilarity in conjunction with biological degeneracy. These global text graphs represent the econophysical 'genetics' of a downstream/B2C company and 'genomics' of an industry/market. The punctuated evolution of portfolio/cluster graphs in eco-economic fitness landscapes have embodied virtual exergy as its dynamic ecosemiotic orientor as a Lagrangian consisting of local information contents and global graph energy and flows under inertial/rhizomatic/holonomic/conservative recombinant crossover and tangential/frictional/arborescent/non-holonomic/dissipative/symmetry-breaking mutation operators whereby the embodied virtual exergy is built up in quantitative expansion and consumed in qualitative/phase shifts.
Nanoeconomic particles induce, by way of conjugation, laminarity in consumer choice, hence the nanoscopic scale of discourse and analysis with its quantum effects, incl. high viscosity and fluctuational reversibility. On a known level of abstraction these product portfolio/cluster texts are assumed to be surfaces of respective commercial entities/identities allowing further to harness the holographic principle to informationally completely characterize, model and analyze nanoeconomic subjects, dynamics and evolution by such supervenience, where the underlying structures may resemble or be akin to algebraic holography. Those texts usually have power law distribution which is the basis of many applications of nanoeconomics such as crisis prediction, resilience and robustness planning and risk management for product/SKU portfolio-carrying brands. Nanoeconomics aspires to attain post-scarcity or abundance economy, which is contrasted with steady-state economy and degrowth. Current research in nanoeconomics tries to take it even further and leverage quantum-like discord as nanoeconomic resource in the macro-world to design for and achieve post-scarcity through eco-economic decoupling and development of regenerative environments.
On the natural or eco-upstream stage the nanoeconomic operation is tasked to perform quantized recovery of default bound micro-diversity of eco-upstream products of natural capital by calculational mining of nanoeconomic surplus value and its valorisation. Such embodied eco-exergy is considered as the ultra-renewable resource in nanoeconomics.
On the cultural or virtual plane or eco-downstream stage nanoeconomics tries to accomplish engineered ecomimetic re-institution of similar micro-diversity in virtual texts of eco-downstream products as emulated imputation of natural bound micro-diversity in the latter realm of products. The latter are characterized then with virtual exergy, virtual emergy, etc. as eco-evolutionary orientors as well as qualitative predictors in business/brand competitiveness and strategy.
The term was first proposed by Kenneth J. Arrow in 1987, but framed exactly at the scale of individual or single transactions by Richard H. Lucas within the discourse of Lucas critique, and later picked up and developed further by :ru:Клейнер,_Георгий_Борисович|Georgе B. Kleiner, :ru:Иншаков,_Олег_Васильевич|Oleg. V Inshakov and others.
The term has also been used to describe a level of analysis below traditional microeconomics, and to describe the economics of nanotechnology.