I imagine what sort of introduced complexity can be understood to cope better realities, stay manageable, promote and protect democratic ways, as the best ways to humane economics. Sort of complexities that will bear enough common understanding, care flexibility in positive interpretations and secure democratic commitment. Also to include enough essential scientific knowledge to help consistency and balance roles of different actors. This to prevent rigid and unfair social asymmetries. Means of management must not stay far away from understanding of common human practices. Formally this is about sorts of processes as mentioned in "a new kind of Science" (S.Wolfram) and "Road to Reality" (R. Penrose). Determinist illusions, too simple or too asymptotic infinite algebra are not playing well at our level of concern of human complexity and are misguiding. Also now that computed tools can support shared practices of humane reasonable communities.
Humans and environment
What Would Be
What Would Like
What Could Be Done
Philosophy of Methods
Above: 3 columns. One considers common sense of traditional concepts of economics. Second may review previous common concepts under a perspective of complexity. Third carries some practical suggestions for popular management.
Now, never miss our complicated ways. Because global world of information increasing complexity makes vain and a waste of time so much rhetoric poorly useful when you are legitimately dedicated to solving the problems of your environment. Our introductory lessons are filled with abuses. Many excerpts generally between quotations marks " ..." are made and are not referred . This would be plagiarism be if were pretending to demonstrate with that these ideas are ours. In fact extremely few human are really able to innovate in terms of essential ideas and they are more often known by their formula and poorly if ever paid meanwhile many already well paid professors on public funds still want more: make them ideas they often took in conversations when not obscure thinkers. Many of honest thinkers have been forgotten by History and other well known have been well misinterpreted. Now, for this "suggestive lessons" what is not between "..." is generally our but we do not proceed systematically or axiomatically for making and promoting our own system of logic and determinist ambitions.
Now also think that www makes quite easy to check if some piece of text match another ones available on the web, and there the author. With pictures trust me, slight forms changes makes numerous authors for same looking like contain. Also have in mind that we are not opposed to "free" collaboration and demonstrated authorship may well appear in a simple name rather than our "nfm" (not from me), as well in the hope that future could make more for hard workers of compact reformists of information in a visual way, with our ideas to let text and demonstrations to demonstrated private authors other frames can well be half public and respect conflicting interests
Good if it can be useful to your honest practice, especially if not taken as a piece of first order of logical system. The coherence is the one your actions or inactions should have in your field of concern. Finally it is also to observe that the Revolution of Information still lacks of plenty of wise adaptations to what it means in terms of ethical management of shared ideas, knowledge, information, communication and savings of paper as well economics of intangible.