I have conceptual problems to follow the mainstream.

In a previous post I have tried to make a succinct explanation of why, in my opinion, we are inside a K cycle, and even a 2K cycle. Perhaps it is known more as the 4th industrial revolution, but from the perspective of economics (history), we speak of cycles. You can read the post here https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/we-one-long-kondratiev-cycle-two-diego-vallarino-phd-he-him-his-/?trackingId=RlZGLIfaT8K2BWLJCvAW8g%3D%3D. This implies that many of the tools that are being used today do not have the expected result that they had in the past.

As I have also mentioned, my “professional world” is at the convergence of economics, history, and advanced data science (as a quantitative analysis tool). But my analysis is usually far from the economic mainstream (that's why I only do this hobby for those who want to read my LinkedIn profile).

But through this post I want to expose under what parameters I analyse the economic, political and social reality. I am one of those who believes that it is essential to be clear about the lenses through which what surrounds us is interpreted.

My analysis of reality occurs through the intersection between the following currents of economic thought: the Neo-Schumpeterean current with the New Keynesian Economy (explicitly differentiated from Neo-Keynesianism), under a clear approach to the Economy of Complexity, a tool that allows me to understand the economic facts of our society.

Along with the ideas exposed by Schumpeter, we must also add as a source of inspiration for the neo-Schumpeterians those elaborated by Kuznets at the beginning of the 20th century, basically two. In the first place, the one referring to the change and development of economies, especially to the idea that inequalities are produced in the first phases of the development of a country, this is the so-called Kuznets Curve (Kuznets, 1955). Second, the concept of structural change with respect to changes in productive structures as a consequence of alterations in the temporary composition of employment, or, in general terms, to the modification in the temporary composition of the production of productive factors (Kuznets, 1973 )

New Keynesian economics or New Keynesianism is a school of economic thought that seeks to provide microeconomic foundations for Keynesian economics. According to David Colander, for New Keynesianism the neoclassical and neo-Keynesian concern with wage and price flexibility is irrelevant. Instead, it focuses on institutional or systematic coordination failures, macro-externalities, and interdependence of economic factors and elements, leading to the recognition of multiple points of economic equilibrium, all of which change the nature of the macroeconomic debate.

Complexity economics rejects many of the aspects of traditional economic theory. Instead, this model sees economies as open complex adaptive systems with endogenous evolution. Complex systems do not necessarily achieve a state of equilibrium – even ideal deterministic models can exhibit chaos, which is distinct from both random (non-deterministic) and behavioral analysis.

Obviously, this way of understanding economic, social and political reality often makes me disagree with traditional or different visions of conceiving everyday life. That is why I have chosen to do my PhD in Economic History (not in Economics), and I try to apply this vision with Data Science tools. Something I also do in my classes and in industry.