Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Monetary Macro Accounting Theory

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Money's primary function is to settle debts and obligations, not to serve as a medium of exchange, and monetary theory can be built on accounting identities rather than on a theory of money's value.

desk verdict A genuinely interesting legal-institutional lens on money as debt settlement, but the central claim that money needs no value theory rests on an unargued behavioral assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21651 v1 pith:N64LJ53C submitted 2025-06-26 econ.GN q-fin.EC

Renéee Menéndez , Viktor Winschel This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.GNq-fin.EC
keywords monetarymacroaccountingtheorydebtvorticesbillofexchangemediumpaymentdivisionlaborvaluemoneyseparationandabstractionopengames
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that money exists because production takes time: producers must pay suppliers and workers before customers pay them, so they need money to settle the debts that bridge that gap. Money's primary function is therefore as a medium of payment for obligations, not as a medium of exchange, and explaining why people accept it requires no theory of intrinsic value. Building on double-entry accounting over legal contracts, the paper develops a monetary macro accounting theory (MoMaT) in which economies are tracked as networks of obligations — 'debt vortices' that are created and extinguished — with the Bill of Exchange as the contractual instrument tying the system together. The authors claim the opposing demands of producers for money and consumers for goods naturally align, so monetary theory can rest on accounting identities rather than subjective valuations, and they sketch category theory, sheaf theory, homology, and open games as tools to make the framework rigorous.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the debt vortex together with the macro accounting invariances: an economy is a network of obligation contracts in which every loan or purchase creates a receivable for one agent and a liability for another, and money matters only as the thing that settles such relations. The Bill of Exchange, a negotiable payment order with a finite lifespan, makes the vortex concrete: its four-stage life — debt creation on product delivery, monetization by sale to a bank, transfer between banks, and settlement at maturity — is replayed at the micro, meso, and macro levels. The legal principles of Separation and Abstraction supply the formal backbone, letting the paper define money as the fulfillment thing for property-transfer contracts without attributing value to it, and the Bill of Exchange's endorsement list is presented as the historical analogue of a blockchain.

What would settle it

Run the paper's ten-step monetary vortex as a double-entry simulation with one modification: let a household or company hold cash instead of spending it. If the balance sheets no longer reset to zero and the macro invariances (receivables equal liabilities, expenditures equal revenues) break, the 'natural alignment' claim is false; the same test applies to real payment data, where a persistent money stock with no corresponding open obligations would also falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the discovery is that money is a settlement technology for debts, not a medium of exchange. Because production is sequential, suppliers, workers, and investors must be paid before a producer's product is sold, and money is what discharges the obligations created by that timing. The paper derives monetary theory from quadruple accounting over contracts: at every level the relevant objects are receivables and liabilities, expenditures and revenues, and the two macro invariances — the sum of receivables equals the sum of liabilities, and the sum of expenditures equals the sum of revenues — hold as accounting necessities rather than behavioral assumptions. Money's value never has to be explained: the monetary unit cancels out of markup pricing, producers accept money because they must repay debts, and consumers accept it because they acquire goods. The Bill of Exchange is the canonical instrument that links debt creation, monetization, transfer, and settlement across fiat and gold-based systems, and the same structure carries over to endorsement lists and blockchains.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that producers' demand for money to repay debts and consumers' demand for goods always align, so money never needs a value theory; if households hoard cash, banks freeze credit, or producers cannot sell what they made, that automatic alignment breaks down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Monetary policy should match the money supply to the volume of unsettled receivables and liabilities rather than maintain artificial scarcity.
  • In a fiat system the central bank cannot go bankrupt in its own currency, so bank runs become structurally impossible — an accidental feature of fiat money, not a flaw.
  • The unit of analysis in monetary economics shifts from the circulation of money to the creation and resolution of debts, so receivables and liabilities tracked in corporate accounting systems become first-class data for monetary policy.
  • Interest rates are reinterpreted as insurance premiums for cross-investment risk, dissolving the 'money breeds money' and 'interest on interest' critiques.
  • The Bill of Exchange structure maps directly onto blockchain endorsement lists and smart contracts, offering a transparency upgrade for borrowing.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the alignment premise holds, the textbook question 'why does fiat money have value?' dissolves not because it is answered but because the settlement function makes it secondary; search-theoretic and cash-in-advance models would then describe a secondary layer on top of the settlement mechanism.
  • The theory yields a measurable empirical signature: in production-intensive economies, the dominant share of money transfers should settle pre-existing obligations such as invoice payments and loan repayments rather than discretionary purchases, which payment-system data could test.
  • A natural stress test for the whole framework is to implement the ten-step vortex as double-entry software and add a hoarding sector; if global consistency fails, the macro invariances are equilibrium outcomes rather than accounting necessities, and the paper's strongest claim would need revision.
  • The sheaf-and-homology machinery points toward programmable central banking: local inconsistencies such as liquidity imbalances or failing banks could be detected and patched algorithmically, turning the theory into a design specification rather than a description.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a conceptual monetary macro accounting theory (MoMaT) in which money is primarily a medium of payment for obligations and debts rather than a medium of exchange. It motivates this view by the temporal gap between producers' payments to suppliers and their receipts from customers, uses the legal principles of Separation and Abstraction and the Bill of Exchange as a unifying instrument, and describes a four-sector 'monetary vortex' connecting central bank, banks, companies, and households. It then sketches category theory, sheaf theory, homology, and open games as mathematical tools, and claims that opposing demands for products and money naturally align, eliminating the need for a value theory of money. The paper contains no formal model, no estimation, and no empirical test.

Significance. If its central claims could be given formal content, the debt- and obligation-centered perspective would be a useful complement to search-based and cash-in-advance monetary theories, and the Bill-of-Exchange framework is relevant to supply-chain finance and digital-ledger applications. The paper is strong on institutional description: the BoE booking sequences, the fiat versus gold issuing steps, and the supply-chain dynamic discounting example are concrete and could inform blockchain or regulatory design. Its central invitation, to study debt vortices rather than money circulation, is thought-provoking. However, the significance is currently prospective: the claimed elimination of a value theory of money rests on an unargued behavioral closure condition, and the promised formal apparatus is not actually developed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1] The statement that 'the opposing demands for products and money between producers and consumers naturally align' is the central load-bearing premise, but no assumption or derivation establishes it. If the household sector saves a fraction s of its wage income, firm revenue from sales falls short of the wage bill and the firm cannot fully repay its loan; the accounting identities still balance only because the shortfall is absorbed as a loss, as the paper itself allows for failed investments in Section 3. The paper must either derive the alignment from explicit microfoundations, state an explicit no-hoarding or zero-saving condition, or withdraw the claim that a value theory of money is unnecessary.
  2. [Section 3.3] The macro invariances that 'the sum of receivables equals the sum of liabilities' and 'the sum of expenditures equals the sum of revenues' are double-entry accounting tautologies. They hold regardless of whether debts can be repaid or whether producers' and consumers' plans are consistent. Citing these identities as 'theoretical necessities' does not supply the behavioral content needed to support the 'natural alignment' claim or the conclusion that monetary theory can dispense with valuation.
  3. [Section 5] The paper promises mathematical rigor and a software specification, but Section 5 contains no formal definitions, theorems, or worked examples. No sheaf, no homology computation, and no open-game model of a Bill of Exchange or of the four-sector vortex is actually constructed; phrases such as 'can be ensured' and 'can be modelled' are promissory. As a result, the claimed rigor and the software specification announced in the abstract are not verifiable in the current manuscript.
  4. [Abstract and Section 6] The abstract and conclusion display definitional circularity: money is defined as the thing that settles obligation and debt relations, and the conclusion then presents 'money is the thing that settles obligation and debt relations' as the answer to 'What is money?' The paper needs an independent characterization or evidence that distinguishes money as a settlement asset from other settlement mechanisms, rather than restating the definition.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2] In the Figure 5 timeline, 't = 1.1.20015' should read 't = 1.1.2001'.
  2. [Throughout] The paper uses both 'MoMaT' and 'MoMa' without clearly distinguishing the theory from the accounting framework; define both terms consistently at first use.
  3. [References] The reference list includes several non-archival sources (e.g., [33], [34], [38]); these should be replaced by citable historical or institutional sources where available.
  4. [Section 2 vs. Section 4.1] Section 2 states that bank deposits are not money but option rights, while Section 4.1, step 4 describes banks as creating 'new money, i.e. new deposits' (with scare quotes but no precise qualification); the terminology should be reconciled.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'no value theory of money' conclusion is the paper's own definition/assumption restated: the 'natural alignment' of producer and consumer flows is asserted, not derived from the accounting identities.

  1. self definitional [Section 1 (p. 2) and Section 2.1 (pp. 4–5), with the macro invariances of Section 3.3 (p. 9)]
    "Money functions to record and settle debts arising from contracts but does not itself require having some inherent value for its role in obligation settlements. ... The opposing demands for products and money between producers and consumers naturally align and eliminate the need for a value theory of money ... The key insight is that producers demand money to repay debts, while consumers acquire goods for money. Since these flows match, monetary theory can be based on monetary macro accounting (MoMa) rather than subjective valuations of money."

    The central conclusion—that money needs no value theory—is the same as the paper's opening definitional claim that money, as settlement instrument for obligations, has no inherent value. The bridging assertion 'Since these flows match' is not derived: the Section 3.3 macro invariances are double-entry identities (sum of receivables equals sum of liabilities; sum of expenditures equals sum of revenues) that hold whether or not any individual producer's revenue covers its debts, and the Section 4.2 vortex example imposes full repayment by construction. The behavioral matching of producer money demand and consumer goods demand is therefore the premise, not the result; the elimination of a value theory is assumed into the definition rather than proven.

full rationale

The paper's institutional material—the Bill of Exchange booking sequence, the fiat and gold-based money-issuing steps, and the Separation/Abstraction contract analysis—has independent descriptive content and is not circular. The self-citations (Menéndez [16] as 'precursor'; Winschel's open-games papers [2,6,36]) are not load-bearing for the monetary claim, and no fitted parameters or empirical predictions are involved. However, the paper's flagship claim that money theory can dispense with a value theory reduces by construction: it begins by defining money as a settlement instrument without inherent value, later asserts a 'natural alignment' of producer and consumer demands, and then treats that assertion as the derivation. The appeal to macro accounting invariances does not rescue the step because those invariances are admitted to be accounting tautologies, not behavioral conditions; household saving alone can break the alignment while the accounting identities still balance. Hence the central theoretical claim is partially circular, while the surrounding institutional and legal descriptions remain independent. Score 6 reflects one core self-definitional step rather than universal circularity or a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on several domain-specific axioms, the most fragile being the automatic alignment of money demand and goods demand. There are no fitted free parameters; the numerical examples are illustrative. One conceptual entity, the debt vortex, is introduced as a new organizing metaphor without independent empirical content.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Legal principles of Separation and Abstraction (BGB) are taken as universal for all monetary systems.
    The framework applies German civil law concepts to money and debt generally, without arguing they hold in common law or other legal traditions.
  • domain assumption Money is defined as the means of payment that settles obligations, and bank deposits are only 'references' to money.
    This definitional choice drives the conclusion; it is treated as axiomatic rather than derived.
  • standard math Macro invariances (sum of receivables equals sum of liabilities; sum of expenditures equals sum of revenues) are accounting tautologies.
    The paper calls them 'theoretical necessities'; they follow from double-entry bookkeeping by construction.
  • domain assumption Banks do not create money, only references to money.
    Contested in monetary economics: the endogenous money literature holds that bank lending creates deposits, which are money.
  • domain assumption Producers' demand for money and consumers' demand for goods align automatically, removing the need for a value theory of money.
    This matching is asserted, not proven, and is load-bearing: if it fails (liquidity traps, bank runs), the central claim weakens.
invented entities (1)
  • Debt vortex
    purpose: To replace the metaphor of money circulation with a description of obligations continually created and resolved.
    It is a metaphorical framework with no measurable definition and no separate observable prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Monetary Macro Accounting Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N64LJ53C

@misc{pith2026250621651,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Monetary Macro Accounting Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N64LJ53C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21651}
}
read the original abstract

We develop a monetary macro accounting theory (MoMaT) and its software specification for a consistent national accounting. In our money theory money functions primarily as a medium of payment for obligations and debts, not as a medium of exchange, originating from the temporal misalignment where producers pay suppliers before receiving revenue. MoMaT applies the legal principles of Separation and Abstraction to model debt, contracts, property rights, and money to understand their nature. Monetary systems according to our approach operate at three interconnected levels: micro (division of labor), meso (banking for risk-sharing), and macro (GDP sharing, money issuance). Critical to money theory are macro debt relations, hence the model focuses not on the circulation of money but on debt vortices: the ongoing creation and resolution of financial obligations. The Bill of Exchange (BoE) acts as a unifying contractual instrument, linking debt processes and monetary issuance across fiat and gold-based systems. A multi-level BoE framework enables liquidity exchange, investments, and endorsements, designed for potential implementation in blockchain smart contracts and AI automation to improve borrowing transparency. Mathematical rigor can be ensured through category theory and sheaf theory for invariances between economic levels and homology theory for monetary policy foundations. Open Games can structure macroeconomic analysis with multi-agent models, making MoMaT applicable to blockchain economic theory, monetary policy, and supply chain finance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21651 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Obligation and Disposition Contracts 2 Microeconomics Macro accounting records networks of debts in economies characterised by division of labor. To understand them, we use the legal Principles of Separation and Abstraction from the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB). They delineate fundamental concepts like claims, receivables, debts, liabilities, money or payments. The Separation Principle asserts th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Money Demand in Supply Chains [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Bill of Exchange and Money Issuing 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Kruschwitz Investment of an Schumpeter Entrepreneur [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Monetary Vortex 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Planetary Vortices theory and policy challenges, we must link receivables, liabilities, expenditures, and revenues across economic micro, meso and macro layers with properly typed financial contracts. We have seen that endorsement lists of BoEs have a similar functiona…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Open Game (right to left). Decisions form one- or multi-person games, built from smaller n-person games 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Stalks represent micro accounting data atop the network of local agents, while the macro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Macroeconomic Foundation of Monetary Accounting by Diagrams of Categorical Universals

    econ.GN 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    This paper reformulates a five-agent macroeconomic accounting model in category theory and demonstrates stable convergence only by simulation for a single hand-chosen parameter set.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A categorical semantics of quantum protocols

    Samson Abramsky and Bob Coecke. A categorical semantics of quantum protocols. InPro- ceedings of the 19rd Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), pages 415–425, 2004

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Coalgebraic analysis of subgame-perfect equilibria in infinite games without discounting.Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 2015

    Samson Abramsky and Viktor Winschel. Coalgebraic analysis of subgame-perfect equilibria in infinite games without discounting.Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Bayesian open games.Compositionality, 5:9, 2023

    Joe Bolt, Jules Hedges, and Philipp Zahn. Bayesian open games.Compositionality, 5:9, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Spivak, and Rémy Tuyéras

    Brendan Fong, David I. Spivak, and Rémy Tuyéras. Backprop as functor: A compositional perspectiveonsupervisedlearning. In Proceedings of the 34rd Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Financial intermediation and credit policy in busi- ness cycle analysis

    Mark Gertler and Nobuhiro Kiyotaki. Financial intermediation and credit policy in busi- ness cycle analysis. Handbook of Monetary Economics, 3:547–599, 2011. doi: 10.1016/ B978-0-444-53238-1.00011-9

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Compositional game theory

    Neil Ghani, Jules Hedges, Viktor Winschel, and Philipp Zahn. Compositional game theory. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS), 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    The roots of lisp, 2001

    Paul Graham. The roots of lisp, 2001. URLhttps://paulgraham.com/rootsoflisp.html

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    Likelihood approximation by numerical integration on sparse grids

    Florian Heiss and Viktor Winschel. Likelihood approximation by numerical integration on sparse grids. Journal of Econometrics, 144(1):62–80

    work page

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Martin F. Hellwig. The challenge of monetary theory.European Economic Review, 37(2): 215–242, 1993

    1993

  2. [10]

    PublicAffairs, New York, 2020

    Stephanie Kelton.The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People’s Economy. PublicAffairs, New York, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    A search-theoretic approach to monetary economics

    Nobuhiro Kiyotaki and Randall Wright. A search-theoretic approach to monetary economics. American Economic Review, 83(1):63–77, 1993

    1993

  4. [12]

    Kochenderfer, Tim A

    Mykel J. Kochenderfer, Tim A. Wheeler, and Kyle H. Wray.Algorithms for Decision Making. MIT Press, 2022. 17

    2022

  5. [13]

    Kocherlakota

    Narayana R. Kocherlakota. Money is memory.Journal of Economic Theory, 81(2):232–251, 1998

    1998

  6. [14]

    Recursive functions of symbolic expressions and their computation by ma- chine, part i.Communications of the ACM, 3(4):184–195, 1960

    John McCarthy. Recursive functions of symbolic expressions and their computation by ma- chine, part i.Communications of the ACM, 3(4):184–195, 1960

    1960

  7. [15]

    Money creation in the modern economy

    Michael McLeay, Amar Radia, and Ryland Thomas. Money creation in the modern economy. Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, 54(1):14–27, 2014

    2014

  8. [16]

    Theorie des Kapitalismus als Sozialwissenschaft: Prolegomena einer sozialen Zinstheorie

    Renée Menéndez. Theorie des Kapitalismus als Sozialwissenschaft: Prolegomena einer sozialen Zinstheorie. LIT Verlag Münster, 2010. ISBN 978-3-643-10901-9

    2010

  9. [17]

    System of national accounts 2008, 2010

    United Nations. System of national accounts 2008, 2010. URLhttps://unstats.un.org/ unsd/nationalaccount

    2008

  10. [18]

    Bill of exchange act, 1882

    UK Parliament. Bill of exchange act, 1882. URL https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ ukpga/Vict/45-46/61

  11. [19]

    Electronic trade documents act, 2023

    UK Parliament. Electronic trade documents act, 2023. URLhttps://bills.parliament. uk/bills/3344

    2023

  12. [20]

    A semantical approach to equilibria and rationality

    Dusko Pavlovic. A semantical approach to equilibria and rationality. In Alexander Kurz, Marina Lenisa, and Andrzej Tarlecki, editors,Algebra and Coalgebra in Computer Science, pages 317–334. Springer, 2009

    2009

  13. [21]

    Programs as Diagrams: From Categorical Computability to Computable Categories

    Dusko Pavlovic. Programs as Diagrams: From Categorical Computability to Computable Categories. Springer, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Haufe, 2019

    Horst-Dieter Radke and Iris Thomsen.Buchführung. Haufe, 2019. ISBN 978-3-648-13618-8

    2019

  15. [23]

    Algebraic Models for Accounting Systems

    Salvador Cruz Rambaud, José García Pérez, Robert A Nehmer, and Derek J S Robinson. Algebraic Models for Accounting Systems. World Scientific, 2010. doi: 10.1142/7445

    2010 doi

  16. [24]

    Wechselgesetz, 1933

    Reichsregierung. Wechselgesetz, 1933. URL https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/wg/ BJNR003990933.html

    1933

  17. [25]

    Sheaf and duality methods for analyzing multi-model systems

    Michael Robinson. Sheaf and duality methods for analyzing multi-model systems. arXiv:1604.04647, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Springer, 2023

    Hal Schenck.Algebraic Foundations for Applied Topology and Data Analysis. Springer, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Categorical methods at the crossroad, 2014

    Dagstuhl Seminar. Categorical methods at the crossroad, 2014. URL https://www. dagstuhl.de/en/seminars/seminar-calendar/seminar-details/14182

    2014

  20. [28]

    Coalgebraic semantics of reflexive economics, 2015

    Dagstuhl Seminar. Coalgebraic semantics of reflexive economics, 2015. URLhttps://www. dagstuhl.de/en/seminars/seminar-calendar/seminar-details/15042

    2015

  21. [29]

    An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

    Adam Smith. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. William Strahan and Thomas Cadell, London, 1776

  22. [30]

    Ross M. Starr. Responding to martin hellwig’s presidential address: Smith, knapp, menger, hicks, and tobin deal with the hahn problem.University of California, San Diego, 2016. URL https://econweb.ucsd.edu/~rstarr/HahnProblemJune82016withTable.pdf

    2016

  23. [31]

    Model law of electronic trade records, 2017

    UNCITRAL. Model law of electronic trade records, 2017. URLhttps://uncitral.un.org/ en/texts/ecommerce/modellaw/electronic_transferable_records. 18

    2017

  24. [32]

    Reflexivity, 2025

    Wikipedia. Reflexivity, 2025. URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_ (social_theory)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Tally stick, 2025

    Wikipedia. Tally stick, 2025. URLhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick

    2025

  26. [34]

    Bank of amsterdam, 2025

    Wikipedia. Bank of amsterdam, 2025. URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_ Amsterdam

    2025

  27. [35]

    Jan C. Willems. The behavioral approach to open and interconnected systems.IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 27(6):46–99, 2007

    2007

  28. [36]

    Solving, estimating, and selecting nonlinear dynamic models without the curse of dimensionality.Econometrica, 78(2):803–821, 2010

    Viktor Winschel and Markus Krätzig. Solving, estimating, and selecting nonlinear dynamic models without the curse of dimensionality.Econometrica, 78(2):803–821, 2010

    2010

  29. [37]

    Randall Wray

    L. Randall Wray. Modern monetary theory: A primer on macroeconomics for sovereign monetary systems. Palgrave Macmillan, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    Thehelicalmodel-oursolarsystemisavortex, 2025

    Youtube. Thehelicalmodel-oursolarsystemisavortex, 2025. URL https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU. 19

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.