Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 0710.1307

Common Markets, Strong Currencies & the Collective Welfare

Esteban Guevara Hidalgo
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The so called "globalization" process (i.e. the inexorable integration of markets, currencies, nation-states, technologies and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole) has a behavior exactly equivalent to a system that is tending to a maximum entropy state. This globalization process obeys a collective welfare principle in where the maximum payoff is given by the equilibrium of the system and its stability by the maximization of the welfare of the collective besides the individual welfare. This let us predict the apparition of big common markets and strong common currencies. They will reach the "equilibrium" by decreasing its number until they reach a state characterized by only one common currency and only one big common community around the world.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.GNphysics.soc-ph

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Esteban Guevara Hidalgo. 2016-12-08. Common Markets, Strong Currencies & the Collective Welfare. https://arxiv.org/abs/0710.1307

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

How Well Do LLMs Perform in Peer Review? Evidence from Finance and Accounting

Referees increasingly use large language models (LLMs), while finance and accounting journals disagree about whether to allow it. We ask which part of a referee's job the models can do. GPT-4o, whose training data end before the 2024 conference season, referees the papers presented at the 2024 AFA and NBER finance meetings, and we compare its verdicts with publication in the top-three finance journals over the next two years. Papers the model scores one standard deviation higher are 44\% more likely to be published, net of author reputation. The result is not driven by look-ahead bias, as the model does not recall the outcomes. The information comes from its judgements of correctness and exposition. Its judgements of originality and significance carry none, and a referee guide that stresses importance does not help. The split between correctness and contribution holds for accounting papers and for a newer model, GPT-5. LLMs can check whether research is right, but not whether it matters. The technical check can go to the model, while the judgement of contribution stays with people.

q-fin.GN↗
arXiv2026

The Evolution of Technology Portfolios and Firm Profitability in the European Power Sector

Power firms' generation portfolios are long-lived and change slowly. We study how this inertia shapes profitability as market conditions shift. Linking plant-level data to financial accounts for over 1,300 EU power firms over 2002-2023, we find renewable- and fossil-oriented firms earned similar returns until 2018. Thereafter, renewable-oriented firms earned about 3.2 percentage points higher return on assets. Exposure to rising carbon and gas prices accounts for roughly 60% of this divergence. Durable portfolios thus turn market shifts into sustained profit differences.

q-fin.GN↗
arXiv2026

Multi-Agent AI as a Nested Principal-Agent Problem in Private Wealth Management: Mandate Representation and Evidence Control in Switzerland, Germany and Austria

In private wealth management, a manager delegating to artificial intelligence (AI) acts as the client's agent and the system's principal. We introduce a model-independent formulation that combines nested principal--agent delegation with constrained joint maximisation as the task assigned to the AI system. The objective represents client and manager outcomes separately over portfolio--workflow pairs. Legal duties, mandate requirements and evidence sufficiency determine admissibility, with Switzerland, Germany and Austria supplying the legal context. Weights and reference-service floors make the trade-off explicit; concession accounting separates their effects on the client. Analytical constructions and a simulation using public-market observations illustrate the approach. Across eight decision states from four constructed mandates, omitted client liabilities caused two liquidity violations, omitted manager terms caused two capacity violations, and mistranslated weights changed four otherwise admissible choices under faithful optimisation. At the declared weights, six states selected a higher service tier than the client-best alternative, with client concessions of EUR 1,178 to EUR 2,264 and manager gains of EUR 3,062 to EUR 10,381. Three instruction forms each reached all 32 specified decisions under shared numerical, evidence and simulated approval controls; professional instructions matched explicit nested delegation on accuracy and clarification count. Subsequent 2022 exchange-rate and yield paths, combined with constructed growth scenarios, produced lower client outcomes than the reference service although the selected services met the decision-time forecast benchmarks. These examples suggest that the approach could help make mandate choices and their consequences easier to examine. Professional and field studies could assess whether this improves oversight and client outcomes.

q-fin.GN↗