top of page

eCon 300 —
Particle Physics Model of Socionomic Systems

eCon posits socioeconomic systems that operate in a quasi chaotic manner as the economic actors in a system encounter and interact with one another. Hence, this Particle Physics Model of Socionomic Systems posits a structure to evaluate the efficacy and evolutionary progress of any given socionomic system, and especially the policies and trade-offs available to it. Such a model will make our voting decisions dramatically smarter, thus boosting communal welfare.

The Organic-Inorganic Duality of Socionomic Systems

Political and economic actors have the characteristics of particles in a particle physics model. They exert forces on each other, forces that compel or retard action and that transmit information. These actors can be conceptualized inorganically.

The basic atomic model provides a suitable nomenclature, albeit the Particle Physics Model of Socionomic Systems isn’t strictly atomic, where a given set of electrons orbit one and only one set of nucleons. Yet the particle names of the basic atomic structure work well for this eCon exercise. Electron connotes the dynamism of people as individuals or families in a socionomic system, while nucleon connotes the centralizing power of government, business and religion. 

Now to their organic nature: People aren't machines. Rather, electrons and the staffs of nucleons in socionomic systems are humans, the ultimate organic being. Hence, socionomic systems are also socionomic organisms.

Socionomic Electrons

Electrons include individuals and families. Though families include more than one individual, they are considered electrons because they operate in society as cohesive social units. Well, families ideally operate as cohesive social units, especially while raising children. Plus, healthy families are essential to healthy social organisms. 

Socio-electrons come in all genders, sexualities, ethnicities, religions and creeds.
They mostly have modest individual power and intelligence, but are vastly more numerous than nucleons.


Self-direction should be the goal for electrons. People should rarely have to think to ask permission in a perfect dCon system. Instead, they should be throttled by their personal risk-reward tolerance. dCon stimulates dynamism and the commonwealth, not to mention is conducive to the successful pursuit of happiness for individuals and families. Plus, it is 100% natural in terms of human nature. Said another way, dCon is organic. cCon isn’t, not even close.

cCon is unnatural, GMO socionomics. That’s why it requires not just centralized control to enforce, but often actual force and violent suppression to keep individuals in line. Communism killed 100 million people wrote David Satter in a 2017 WSJ essay, going on to state that “the Bolshevik plague that began in Russia was the greatest catastrophe in human history.”

Socionomic Nucleons

Nucleons are centralized power centers: governmental, business, and religious institutions, often of great power and run by people of elite intelligence. Axiomatically, centralized power centers are few in number, vastly fewer than electrons.

Nucleons are necessary, but often overbearing. They are the malefactors of cCon, not necessarily harmful, but often injurious, sometimes catastrophically so. Even well-intentioned, they tend to discourage self-direction in electrons, retarding organic dynamism and therefore health, wealth and well being. But not always. Virtuous nucleons enable electron self-direction. 

  • Government does this through the basic dCon innovations of democracy, property rights, and federated power.

  • Business does this by stimulating competition and therefore delivering choice, convenience and innovation. 

  • Religion instills meaning through morality, purpose, community and family. Religion at its best strengthens the individual, in part by binding them into strong familial and community relationships. These profoundly human relationships inform healthy risk-reward calculations, which is why historically successful dCon societies are traditionally religious societies, America most of all.


Religion here is an expansive term referring to “Sin Sayers”, moral arbiters that exert centralized authority over conceptions of sin and thereby hold effective religious power. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Veganism, PETA & #JustStopOil are examples. Unlike the Bible-thumpers of yore, today’s Sin Sayers don’t stop at sex, let alone diet. For instance, #CarbonEnergy is now considered sinful in many affluent circles, just as divorce was sinful a century ago.

Author’s Note: The above list highlights socionomic nucleons on their best behavior. It’s a very short list. Their list of bad behaviors is literally infinite, meaning it’s not just not complete, it’ll never be complete. Yet it can be characterized, someday.

Particle Properties

This structure of socionomic electrons and nucleons allows the collective intelligence and operational capability of socionomic systems to be modeled. First, each particle – electrons and nucleons – has four operating properties.

  • Data: information available to the particle

  • Bandwidth: ability to absorb and communicate information via connections and sensors

  • Intelligence: ability to process data, and to ideate actions and reactions

  • Powers: purchasing power, legal and taxing authority, commercial power, police and military power, etc.

Quantifying Socionomic Systems

Since all economic policy decisions are economic control decisions, this Particle Physics Model can inform an analytic engine for evaluating political-economy policies and trade-offs regarding their impact on collective intelligence and operational capabilities. That engine requires a canonical model of an eCon system, which can then be applied to a target universe.

eCon Modeling

eCon modeling starts by quantifying the Per Capita properties of the four classes of particles. Thus the first table below quantifies the Per Capita data available to electrons and each class of nucleons, their bandwidth to other particles in the target universe, their intelligence and a monetary representation of their powers. The forms of power vary by particle.

  • Electrons typically only have purchasing power.

  • Governmental nucleons have taxing, regulatory and policing powers.

  • Business nucleons have commercial power, representing the totality of their procurement and sales power.

  • Religious nucleons have moral power that influences how other particles exert their powers.


Note: These example numbers are drawn from eCon 310 – Energy Economy, which uses the California energy economy as a target universe.


Now that the base/center case is characterized, the next step is to characterize the cCon and dCon cases. These relate to the base case by eCon Factors that specify how the per capita properties vary under the cCon and dCon regimes.


Lastly, the En Masse property values of the three cases are calculated by multiplying the per capita values by the population of each particle. As to particle populations, note that those vary by case. For instance, GovNukes are more populous under cCon and less populous under dCon, while the opposite is true of businesses.


Target Universes

For starters, it would be great to model the Energy Economy and the Medical Economy. There is severe dissonance between the Right and the Left about each that eCon can clear up. To get the ball rolling, eCon 310 is an initial attempt at modeling the energy economy.

Energy Economy (See eCon 310 — Energy Economy — eCon Analysis)

  • The Left advocates centralized control over the energy economy to save us from Climate Change.

  • The Right advocates decentralized control over the energy economy to keep prices low and energy security high.


Medical Economy

  • The Left clings to cCon like ObamaCare and now proposes the extreme cCon of Medicare for All to address better medical outcomes for the entire population.

  • The Right advocates dCon to drive down prices, while keeping innovation high and service strong.


eCon modeling applied to these sectors provides quantified analysis of the collective-IQ of cCon and dCon policy alternatives.

bottom of page