A Proposed U.N. Dollar

This post began from reading a recent article by Warwick Powell on his Substack, titled: “US Government Deficits and Bonds: America can’t go broke. It’s worse than that - Exploring the nexus between government spending, the bonds market, domestic entropy and global financial fragility,” June 5, 2025. I suggest you read it (and subscribe!), it’s a good brain exercise. In his essay of 7300 words, he comes to my same conclusion (in far less words) that the U.S. is entering a period of a much-lower standard of living - America gets poorer, and there is no going back. He arrives at three possible outcomes, a “trilemma.” I finished reading that one night, and said, no there must be a 4th way, another outcome. But it’s very complicated, so I had to sleep on it, and sort it out in deep reasoning. I don’t use AI systems at all in writing these posts, I don’t need to, my brain works in a very similar manner, reducing any topic to its core elements. If someone lays out a detailed argument on some topic, it seems that it is my duty to talk right over their heads. And if they reply at a higher level, I must go right over that as well, that’s just how it is. Is there an upper limit to this? Don’t know never went that far. Anyway, you get a ring-side seat for reviewing Prof. Powell’s paper. In the comments, let me know if I botched this, or especially, if you can see a better outcome.

Do keep reading since this topic covers the quagmire of debt which will, from now on, deeply impinge on your life, your savings, your retirement, the fate of the nation, any chance of ending over-consumption (degrowth) and the fate of humanity itself.

Warwick Powell is Adjunct Professor at Queensland University of Technology and a Senior Fellow at Taihe Institute, Beijing. He is the author of "China, Trust and Digital Supply Chains" and "Dynamics of a Zero Trust World."

Powell’s principle assertion is that America is not going “belly up” - there is no technical insolvency risk, but he says the problem is worse than that. He qualifies the insolvency issue by saying that the US cannot involuntarily default on its debt. In other words, another entity cannot petition it into bankruptcy. He says that the US is the issuer of its own sovereign currency, but I’m challenging that with certain qualifications which I will get to below. That fact supposedly renders default arguments incoherent, since a currency sovereign can always make interest payments in dollars that it itself creates. Can you see the problem here yet? We’re talking about trust, and trust is the central issue here.

According to Powell, the problem isn’t government insolvency, it is economic and social entropy. The concept of social entropy is borrowed from thermodynamics, where entropy refers to the amount of energy in a system that is unavailable for doing work. In a social context, it reflects the degree to which a society is struggling to maintain its structure and function. <- These two sentences from a Google search. For more on the topic of social entropy, see Dinga et al., 2020¹. Various people have been warning of a coming societal collapse, but I think it’s already occurred, with the nuclear bombs of 1945. Westerns societies cannot run at an equilibrium, they must embody fantasy - an outcome to strive for, which not only overlooks social-structure decay, but deliberately distracts from it. One social binding agent up to 1945 was the generalization of warfare among the warring tribes of Europe. It ran like inter-national sport. But that activity was shunned after 1945 - major wars between leading nations could no longer be fought as they were previously. Society’s leaders had to come up with other activities to keep the populace focused and maintain social cohesion (thus keeping them in power). A major contribution to maintaining social cohesion was the identification of the next “threat” (which still for some reason remains socially acceptable) for whatever reason such as “containing” communism (Domino effect), and other socially-directive activities such as Space races (to Moon, etc.), new consumer distractions, climate change and biodiversity goals, AI, etc. And the most successful social distraction and atomizer of social coherence is the new soma - the “smart phone.” But society has collapsed and is in disarray with no meaningful social structure - therefore, entropy.

The main content of Prof. Powell’s paper is divided into a Q&A format. In Q-1, he explains where money comes from:

“Put plainly, what we understand to be money does not exist prior to its creation by way of Congressional appropriations or by credit creation by legally authorised chartered banks.”

No prior stock of money is required, at least for government spending, but banks are required to hold a certain level of liquid assets which they leverage when they create loans by way of the fractional-reserve banking system. For government spending all that is required is congressional authorization for Treasury to spend, which it does by instructing the Fed (Federal Reserve Bank) to create bank accounts. This can be done because the U.S. Government is a money sovereign (Powell’s claim) but I have to add to that - it is also the monetary hegemon which implies the allegiance of monetary vassals. Again, trust is the key ingredient. Which gets to Powell’s Q-2, about why Treasury issues bonds at all. For that matter, if the US is a true monetary sovereign, why have taxes such as income tax, why not just print all the money you want? Again, trust intervenes.

And to repeat, all money in existence derives from debt. This is largely what differentiates fiat money from gold. All fiat money arises from debt, while gold can be found in nature and once refined and certified, has the same value as any gold bullion in a bank vault. Actually, many countries are now selling USTs (U.S. Treasury bonds) and buying gold to hold as reserve currency. As I write this paragraph on June 10th, in the past week, due to lack of buyers for USTs, the Fed has had to take in $43.6 Billion in bonds of various maturity dates, as the buyer of last resort. This represents a first stage in a soft default, and the issue, again, is trust (or actually, the lack thereof). According to Basel III rules, gold is considered a Tier-1 asset but don’t confuse that with a Level-1 asset which would be a security as liquid as a 30-yr UST. But bear in mind that a UST’s value is in part a measure of trust and that it is a debt asset rather than like gold which is a property asset. While gold has liquidity in being convertible to cash, there are buy/sell commissions, and gold is not an “investment” but rather a hedge. Someone forgot the “l” (ell) in the motto: “In God We Trust” so that it would read: “In Gold We Trust.”

In another issue with tradable money, fiat money, arising only from debt, economic “growth” requires an ever-increasing use of debt. Not just financial debt, unfortunately, but industrial-scale environmental debt (extraction of resources) just to satisfy the ongoing operation of the economy.

Back to the topic of Powell’s Q-2: why issue bonds? He asserts that bond issuance isn’t really necessary, but is done to meet statutory requirements which could be changed to decouple deficit spending from bond issuance. He claims that the government could spend without issuing bond securities, but chooses not to and that the present system works to the benefit of capital markets and big investors, since those fat-cats are the recipients of the interest payments on the bonds debt, leading to further income inequality and opportunity cost of what that stream of dividend payments could have supported. This concept of decoupling feeds straight into Powell’s third solution to his “trilemma” as discussed below, after we get through a few more points.

In Powell’s Q-3, he comments on the idea of government “running out” of money.

From his Q-3:

“The idea of the government “running out” of money is a category error, confusing households or firms (which must earn or borrow) with the issuer of the currency. The government ‘owes’ what it itself creates. Let that basic proposition sink in. It has foundational ramifications to the mental model of how reality actually works.

The persistence of this myth reflects:

A deep cultural legacy of gold standard thinking;

Political narratives that emphasise fiscal “discipline” while obscuring distributional politics; and

A misunderstanding of the monetary system’s accounting logic.

There’s always a buyer of last resort, but it’s not a ‘free lunch’.”

But there’s a big problem with these concepts. The problem lies in applying the concepts of the issuer of the currency to government accountability. Such application exists because of the elephant in the room - a deep-seated conflict of interest. The same entity should not control both the issuance of currency and the management of government operations. What should have happened years ago, after the founding of the UN, perhaps around the time of the “Nixon Shock” (1971), the full operations of the Fed should have been passed over to the United Nations which would then become the actual working issuer of the currency, the money sovereign and money hegemon. The United States would become one-of-many money vassals. Obviously this would compromise America’s demand to control a unipolar world, so would have been unthinkable. The UN would have been the issuer of world dollars, perhaps now called the “U.N. Dollar” and could issue bonds to fund its activities and be manager of the world’s reserve currency. Being supported by representation of all members of the General Assembly, it would have conquered the trust issue and eliminate monopolization of the money supply by one very conceited nation.

Consider how the money sovereign works, as presently constituted. In one example, last year, the Swiss bank USB had a financial crisis and needed a bailout. The Swiss central bank didn’t have room on its balance sheet for a transaction of that magnitude so it opened its central-banks’ swap line with the Fed and the Fed issued the needed funds. This “lender of last resort” function (and others) should have long ago been handed over to the UN. If that had happened, the Biden sanctions disaster could not have occurred which has separated the world into separate trading blocs (BRICS+, etc.) with them trying to establish payments systems outside of SWIFT, BIS, etc., such as BRICS PAY and others, somewhat involving gold as a means of settlement.

Regarding “fiscal discipline,” consider that through previous history, other nations (money vassals) were required to conform to fiscal discipline (balance of revenue/spending) under threat of the stick carried by the U.S.-controlled IMF. Ask Greece and Argentina how much fun that has been. Normal countries who are not monetary hegemons, who do not contain the lender-of-last-resort, who have a secondary-level central bank, do have to operate under normal bookkeeping constraints as a business does, to balance income and expenses otherwise they must borrow money on the open market, (bond issues) running up national debt. The U.S. has been walking both sides of that line, between hegemon and vassal in a deep conflict of interest. But it is that side of the issue, fiscal discipline, that the US tries but fails to achieve, that could give the nation financial credibility and resulting trust in that they could manage their financial affairs. If they lose international trust that they can manage their finances, the value of USTs begins a downward spiral. An international investor, sitting there holding a UST, should be thinking “This is my investment in the going concern and future of America” rather than holding worthless paper. It all hinges on trust. How can the world trust a nation that elects a cabal of fools as government? How can the world trust a nation in which it is even POSSIBLE to elect a cabal of idiots to government? If the mantle of being monetary sovereign were to be hived off onto the UN, America would face the same fiscal constraints of any other normal nation. If it were actually possible to be a true money sovereign and print whatever you need, if you said that quiet part out loud two things would happen: the rest of the world would want to KILL you because of the example you set, and, you would lose all trust and international investment and cooperation. Trust is not a stand-alone emotion - it needs an object and a reason. At this point in time, the U.S. needs international investment and cooperation more than ever, yet it tries to alienate everyone. And if the money sovereign sat there and printed all the money it wants in its new isolationism, that script will be worthless for payment of its imports and it is difficult to imagine America sans imported toys. Consumption trumps all else.

In Powell’s Q-4, the question is what happens if private markets refuse to take up US bonds on issue? Does that imply loss of “market confidence”?

Well, we’re seeing that play out in real time now, with the Fed having just swallowed almost $44B in USTs. The currency swap lines with other central banks might be fine in normal times, but that’s over now. Some other central banks are lowering their exposure to dollars rather than taking on more. He says: “a failure of private bond market uptake does not imply an imminent fiscal crisis or default scenario.” But the US is talking up using a “stablecoin” backed by USTs to get USTs into the hands of retail investors which is socializing and internalizing the debt. Acts of desperation such as gutting government agencies (similar to burning your furniture to heat your home) and shifting the purchase of your debt from external investors to in-house investors, represent a soft default. As well, they are implementing extra taxes on dividends owed to foreign investors in equities and bonds, which is actually a form of currency control - another soft default. As for USTs, as per Miran’s paper, they are hoping to replace maturing USTs with century or “forever” bonds - another type of soft default. They would still be paying you interest on the bond that you can never redeem, but also may start charging you a “user fee,” a deduction on the interest due, as your payment for the pleasure of holding the bond - yet another type of soft default. It has been a long time since the Fed has actually redeemed bonds from bond-holders; their favourite practice is to simply replace the maturing bond with a new issue. Constant re-finance is another form of soft default.

Since none of these schemes seems to be adequate, they are thinking of making use of the huge hidden asset value of private property in the country. Using the value of private property holdings to fund USTs amounts to extinction of private property rights without compensation. A tax on property, championed by certain groups as the superior form of taxation, is an attempt to extract a cash flow from a fixed asset. You cannot sell off fractions of your property every year to realize this cash payment. If a government is trying to extract a property tax, they have in essence, seized ownership of the property and are now extracting rent payments from you, without compensating you for loss of ownership. That’s theft and another form of default. But people in government, besides being a permanently revenue-hungry entity, constantly confuse capital and property, always trying to apply a capital-gains tax to an increase in a property’s value - it is a property asset, not a capital asset and they are hugely different - a capital “asset” is actually a debt asset, that term already being an oxymoron.

More trouble on the horizon from this rogue regime: Financial Stability Oversight Council and Office of Financial Research are being gutted by OBBBA (One Big Beautiful Budget Act):

“The Office of Financial Research (OFR) is the only organization with the authority to collect its data on repurchase agreements from across market participants. The OFR has automated, fully audited pipelines for high-frequency data ingest, transformation, and validation from 80+ industry reporters. These connections are governed by tailored Memorandums of Understanding and interagency agreements, supported by the OFR’s statutory authorities. Transferring or modifying the authority, necessary agreements, and final rules for the OFR’s data collections would likely seriously delay or disrupt the collections.” - Stacey Schreft

“Treasury repo markets are the anchor of US funding markets and financial market liquidity, and SOFR provides market-sensitive information each day on the cost and conditions in that market. We should not be dismantling repo data collections at this time, when Treasury market debt is growing rapidly and concerns about market liquidity are increasing. Instead, we need to continue to improve Treasury repo data, including adding the new data from OFR on uncleared bilateral repo, which has been a key source of fire sale risks in recent years.” - Nellie Liang

All quotes from Notes on the Crises by Nathan Tankus.

Powell’s concluding section:

The American Trilemma: Three Roads to Decline

All of this points to a sobering reality: the U.S. is caught in a structural trap of its own making, a trilemma from which there is no painless exit. There are only paths of redistribution, disruption or decay. And from there, possibilities of renewal.

The Austerity Road

The U.S. could chose the pathway of austerity, to demonstrate fiscal discipline and rectitude. If the U.S. chooses this path to satisfy the bond market’s appetite for “fiscal responsibility,” the consequences will be declining public services and infrastructure (already in a parlous state); ongoing rising inequality and mass precarity; slower growth overall and diminished economic dynamism; and consequently, a deeper social entropy as public trust, institutional legitimacy, and political stability erode.

America gets poorer, and the system frays.

The Expansionary Road (Without Reform)

If the U.S. keeps expanding deficits through the current bond-financed system, it drives interest payments to the wealthy accelerating inequality. This also triggers global market backlash, higher rates and currency instability. The dollar’s status may continue to erode slowly or suddenly, but the net effect is the same: American pays more for imports, they pay more for private debt and the country sees its real wealth diluted. Unsurprisingly, social cohesion continues to unravel and existing divisions solidify. (The asset rich won’t be directly affected, of course.)

Again, America as a whole gets poorer and the system frays.

The Reform Road (Severing the Nexus)

If the U.S. takes the bold step of cutting the legal and institutional link between government spending and mandatory bond issuance, the upside is that it regains monetary flexibility and can target investment where it’s needed most. But it also undermines the foundational logic of the U.S. dollar as the world’s notionally neutral reserve asset, backed by a “market-disciplined” Treasury market. This may trigger accelerated de-dollarisation, hasten the rise of parallel financial systems and eventually lead to the need for capital controls. The U.S. becomes just one among many, without special privilege or leverage.

Again: America gets poorer. Over time, American can work at becoming more self-reliant and its political economy reconfigures accordingly.

No Return to the Old Normal

The postwar fiscal-monetary order, built around USTs and the dollar, cannot be resurrected. The U.S. cannot continue to act like a household, nor can it count on markets to underwrite the old illusions forever. The question is not whether America gets poorer. It’s how it does. And as it does, we wonder whether it uses that transition to rebalance, democratise and rebuild, or whether it allows the current institutional inertia to pull it deeper into a vortex of inequality, unrest and decline.”

I was going to include something more about “social entropy” and some remedies, but I think not. American physical chemist Thomas Wallace² argued that "societal entropy," as determined by the second law, mandates the spontaneous direction of all processes of nature and society and the generation of greater complexity and disorder. I have already covered the collapse of civilizations by increase of complexity in The Deceit of Progress. But the root of social entropy especially as manifested in USA is the (non)functioning of citizen engagement in the political sphere - politics has been run as a spectator sport there since WW-II at least. The political “energy” has become too diffuse to perform meaningful work.

As Warwick Powell says in his Q-12:

“…the expansion of credit and investment gets increasingly linked to central bank behavior, not underlying productive capacity. Market participants take this as a green light to chase leverage and speculative gains, deepening the divide between finance and the real economy.”

“All of this builds pressure on the social contract. Rising interest income for the wealthy, visible constraints on real public investment, and a narrative of fiscal limits (despite monetary reality) produce perceived and real unfairness. This fuels political polarisation, cynicism about governance institutions, and opens the door for populist narratives that channel anger away from structural reform. The result is a slow drift into social entropy; that is, a breakdown in institutional trust and political cohesion, despite the theoretical availability of policy tools to address these issues.”

To summarize: I assert that having the U.S. maintain dollar hegemony along with faulty fiscal discipline is a severe conflict of interest and continues the decline of trust in the currency. As well, no single nation should have absolute control over the world’s reserve currency as well as being allowed to print all the money it wishes. Therefore I propose that yes, “sever the Nexus” except do this by unplugging the Federal Reserve en masse from the U.S. and plugging it into the United Nations as the Reserve Bank of the World (RBW), to manage the world-reserve currency, which becomes the U.N. Dollar. Existing US$ continue in circulation but new issues are printed with the new name. The UN may issue bonds to fund its activities. The US uses the Treasury as its central bank, which operates like all other central banks as a money-vassal to the RBW which operates as the lender of last resort. This ends the charade of US dollar hegemony and its unique ability to issue money, and requires the US to maintain the same obligation of fiscal discipline that it imposes on all other countries via the IMF.
Yes, very disruptive, but so are any of Powell’s three outcomes, and my proposal has better long-term consequences for all involved.

Wait, don’t go yet! Since this took so long to write, Professor Powell has written a follow-up to this last one!

You really should read Prof. Powell’s latest post, From Liquidity to Ontology, More on Bonds, Systemic Credit, Liquidity Management and System Chaos, June 14th, in PDF, only 5877 worlds and every line is a shocker. If you read his report, you might note that I have re-arranged the paragraphs significantly.

At one point he says:

“With over $30 trillion in marketable securities outstanding, and an ever-shrinking set of real surplus-generating sectors in the U.S., the Treasuries market floats untethered from the productive base that might justify it… Add to this the global value of FX trades in which daily turnover as of 2022 was in the order of $7.5 trillion per day, providing an annual turnover of over $1.875 quadrillion - that’s 20X global GDP (https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt2212f.htm). By way of contrast, global trade value is in the order of $34 trillion. The global derivatives market is valued at over $1 quadrillion. The point is simply to say that the value of fictitious capital far exceeds the value of global trade and global output.”

Think that through - these over-leveraged debt instruments are being tossed around like hot potatoes - the music is going to stop and you have no chair.

More quotes from June 14th article:

“The U.S. Treasuries market today functions as a textbook example of what Jean Baudrillard called the simulacrum. It has become a system of signs that no longer bears any relation to the real. Bonds are no longer instruments tied to future productive capacity or public investment. They have become floating signifiers: self-referential claims on liquidity, used as collateral to back further claims, recursively feeding on themselves. What we are left with is a hyperreal market that pretends to represent security and stability, but in actuality is detached from any underlying sacramental order of reality.”

“Financialisation is the simulacrum par excellence. The UST market, in turnover terms, now dwarfs the real economy several times over, not because real surplus or capital formation has expanded, but because layers of abstraction - derivatives, rehypothecation and margin finance - have turned fictitious capital into the dominant economic terrain. In this world, liquidity is not a property of substance, but a mirage of trust. When that trust evaporates, the collapse is not of debt alone, but of the entire symbolic order that holds the system together.”

“At the heart of the global financial system sits the U.S. Treasury bond. Once a modest instrument to finance public goods, the Treasury market has metastasised into a global collateral engine, powering dollar-based liquidity across borders. But this transformation has come at a price. Today, Treasuries are no longer claims on future U.S. productivity; they provide holders with rights to make claims on a hollowing economy, backed by central bank alchemy and speculative belief.”

“The argument here is that the Treasuries market is structurally outsized; the U.S. cannot produce sufficient real surplus to justify its continuation at scale; and liquidity reforms are cosmetic at best. The central issue then becomes how to transition out of a UST-centric global order without systemic rupture.”

“The current market structure, dominated by a shrinking oligopoly of dealers, flooded with algorithmic trading, and reliant on central bank intervention, is not sustainable. The reason isn’t because there’s no buyer of last resort - there always is - but because the inflated valuations of U.S. Treasuries cannot be propped up indefinitely without ever-greater distortions to capital allocation and risk pricing. Sustainability here means alignment with real productive value. The UST market has long since decoupled from that. What we are witnessing is not a liquidity problem or a delinquency problem in financial accounting terms, but the slow implosion of credibility in the very idea that these instruments represent real wealth. The Federal Reserve has become the market’s last buyer of consequence.”

“We may be entering a phase where the Treasuries market is too big to save, and any attempts to preserve its former function will only deepen systemic fragility. A shift away from UST-dependence, while painful, is not only inevitable, but desirable if we are to restore a semblance of alignment between financial claims and real economic capacity. This isn’t just a matter of fixing liquidity; it’s about rethinking the role of public debt in an economic system that can no longer promise unlimited future surplus.”

It is interesting that Prof. Powell has brought up a point I’ve been pondering for a couple months - debt Jubilees. That is a forgiveness of debts after a defined period which puts term-limits on debt. He brings in that possibility since correcting the over-leveraged UST market will result in many holders of USTs seeing their “portfolios values impaired.”

“There are losers too, of course. Chief amongst the losers are bondholders and financial institutions. With fewer bonds issued, or with reduced interest rates, the flow of risk-free income to capital holders declines sharply. The bond market currently offers a privileged position to private capital as an extractor of public money. Severing the nexus removes that privilege for Wall Street traders of fictitious capital and global rentiers. Dollar-based global financial institutions are also likely to experience adverse impacts. The credibility of the U.S. fiscal regime rests in part on the narrative of “market-determined” borrowing. If that disappears, the entire structure of global dollar-based wealth management may weaken, including reserve portfolios, SWFs and private offshore wealth channels. Last but not least, foreign central banks holding USTs are likely to see their portfolio values impaired.”

“There is likely to be a need for global UST holders to accept impending impairments, and be willing to gradually write down their notional USD-denominated wealth. Foreign holders, particularly those in Asia and the oil-rich Gulf states, must begin to wind down exposure not by dumping into thin markets, but by gradually ceasing to accumulate.”

“If we accept that money is created through both public appropriation and commercial credit, then liquidity policy must be built to dynamically absorb and redirect flows so as to support real capacity expansion while mitigating distributional harm. The underlying principle is to anchor monetary value in productive reality not arbitrary scarcity. And herein lies the fundamental problem that the ever-expanding bonds market points to.”

“If the bond nexus is broken, how is system liquidity managed and why does it matter? In a fiat monetary system, the question is never “where does the money come from?” It’s “how is liquidity managed once money has been created?” If the institutional bond-deficit nexus were severed, thereby allowing the government to spend without issuing bonds, liquidity management would not disappear; it would merely shift from a relatively crude constraint to the need to consider a more precise and purposeful set of tools.”

“Unchecked liquidity, whether from public spending or private credit creation, risks fuelling demand beyond the economy’s real capacity, triggering inflation. But not all liquidity is equal. Its impact depends on who receives it, where it flows, and what it activates (investment, production, consumption or speculation). Thus, liquidity management isn’t about limiting money creation per se. Rather, it’s about shaping how liquidity enters and exits the system, and how it's distributed across sectors, classes and localities.”

So there you have it - the end of the fourth SCA (Systemic Cycles of Accumulation) as per the Galanis et al. paper³, that being the systems involving the Italian city-states, The Netherlands, Great Britain and latest, the USA.

“SCA start with an initial material expansion and endogenously lead to financial expansion where large sums of capital are transferred to the rising global center of accumulation, providing the economic foundation for the hegemonic transition. Importantly, each of the Dutch, British, and US hegemonies have been the outcome of a competitive struggle for world leadership. This struggle creates the conditions for chaos and hegemonic crises, gives rise to new SCA and new hegemons, and also creates an ever-greater global concentration and consolidation of economic and political power.”

So can we now drop this form of financial control and instead of building yet another SCA, implying a new global hegemon, transfer the monetary and trading mechanisms to world governance at the UN? And whatever the outcome (besides the inevitability of the U.S. becoming poorer) we need to get off this cycle of perpetual “growth” fueled by ever-increasing levels of debt, both financial and environmental, if any life at all is to continue to exist. The existing central banker’s cover story is to keep inflation (exponential growth) within a certain range, while Scott Sumner suggests that the Fed should engage in keeping GDP within a certain range. But both those strategies are simply papering-over the underlying malady. But with the U.S. sliding ever-deeper into irrationality, it is looking like a hard-collapse of international finance is unavoidable.

All these posts are mirrored on my web site at https://www.mccroskey.ca/limitstoprogress.htm Note that Substack counts this as “read” only if you click on the title and view in your browser. If you don’t dislike this post, click on “Like,” this gives a higher-ranking in substack search.

1) - Dinga E, Tănăsescu CR, Ionescu GM. Social Entropy and Normative Network. Entropy (Basel). 2020 Sep 20;22(9):1051. https://doi.org/10.3390/e22091051 PMID: 33286820; PMCID: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7597123/

2) - Wallace, Thomas P. (2009). Wealth, Energy, and Human Values: the Dynamics of Decaying Civilizations from Ancient Greece to America (pg. xi). AuthorHouse.

3) - https://www.qmul.ac.uk/sbm/media/sbm/documents/CLaSP-WP2-2023_Galanis-et-al_Systemic-Cycles-of-Accumulation-and-Chaos.pdf

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/brics-considers-new-cross-border-payment-system-report/3520720