Marconomics is built on a basic foundation of both evolutionary theory and Economics - ie. The principle that independent individuals (be they money based humans or selfish genes) acting independently and/or selfishly can be analysed collectively as a system. I expand on such concepts as Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" and yet others as the results of evolution being complex organisms, from essentially "undirected" genetic variability being given direction via the environment and natural selection.
Marconomics sees these and many more general systems as extensions of "game theory" with multiple "players". For instance, economics on a smaller scale (a card game with gambling?) may demonstrate concepts useful in a large scale. Marconomics sees the rules of the game as the primary determinant of stability and direction of the large scale system, rather than the skills/attitudes of the individuals playing the game. For instance, a primary Marconomic principle is that technological progress has not come about, nor accelerated due to individual clever ideas or people, but through the complex economic system of rewards, legal frameworks, stable societies etc. that embody modern society. These complex systems have evolved over time mainly via "survival" (less successful systems become extinct) or other lamarckian short-cuts.
Axioms
1)Marconomics rejects Logical Positivism, as a basis for philosophical argument. Marconomics regards a call to the concepts that form its basis as cheating. On the one hand, it defines reality in terms of observations, yet ignores its problems of self-consistency.
2)Perception is NOT reality. "Political" or policy arguments on which large numbers of individuals have a perceived interest are correctly placed on a continuum LINE. This is because people's views tend to be highly correllated (with their peers on the same part of the line). This is the only practical way to come to conclusions when there are a large number of individuals in the argument. Marconomics states that it is both possible and likely that no conceptual point on the line has got any of the right combination of facts or logic. Correllation in viewpoint is not the same as a logical statement. For instance if there are two logical statements A and B - even if everybody within a peer group believe both A & B, this does in no way prove (and should not even be assumed) the "if A then B" logical statement in a scientific context(even if those in the peer group are scientists).
3)Ideas as a volume in Idea space - Rather than as points on a line, Marconomics views ideas more accurately as a multidimensional volume in idea space. Whether it be a concept of God as an idea, or views on the environment, or a description of a behavioural disorder, ideas need the freedom of movement in several dimensions to better grasp reality.
