Browse by subject:
FRAMEWORKPaper #69
Postnieks’s Law
The cross-domain result: in any bilateral game satisfying the three Missing System axioms, the time to system collapse T* is inversely proportional to βW. Higher beta means faster collapse.
THEOREM TYPE
Framework
physically/biologically binding
SOURCE STATUS
Summary + deck generated
verified by paper record
Reading welfare beta
Welfare beta, written as βW and pronounced beta W, means annual system-welfare loss divided by annual industry revenue, written as Π and pronounced capital pi. Revenue is the denominator, never profit; ΔW and Π must use the same domain, same time period, and same activity boundary. See the welfare-beta methodology manual.
OPEN HTML DECK ↗Deck mode is an on-site reading view, not a PowerPoint download.
Theorem status: evidence-traced claim under the cited paper's assumptionsFalsification: show the same game preserving system welfare without changing the payoff structure
KEY FINDINGS
POSTNIEKS’S LAW
∀G satisfying Private-Systemic Tension-1, Private-Systemic Tension-2, Private-Systemic Tension-3: ∃K ⊆ {employees or whistleblowers, CEOs and boards, plaintiff attorneys, shareholders, regulators, policymakers, and communities and the affected public} with |K| = k* ≤ 7 such that simultaneous activation of all agents in K makes σ_HW (Hollow Win strategy profile) strictly dominated by σ_WWW (Win-Win-Win alternative).
PLAIN ENGLISH
Every Hollow Win can be ended by a coalition of six or fewer agents. The Whistleblower breaks information asymmetry. The Plaintiff monetizes the welfare cost. The Regulator redesigns the game. The Legislator alters the legal payoff matrix. The Investor reprices capital. The Supranational solves jurisdictional arbitrage. No single lane suffices, but the required coalition is always finite and always small.
EVIDENCE & LIMITATIONS
- Theorem status: evidence-traced claim under the cited paper's assumptions
- Falsification: show the same game preserving system welfare without changing the payoff structure
REFERENCES / CITATION STATUS
Reference counts for this manuscript have not been published yet. Treat its citations as unverified until a source list is available.
Loading curated reference section…
SOURCE QUESTIONS
SSRN not yet postedDeck ↗
WHY THIS MATTERS
For the economist
A structural claim about when bilateral optimization degrades the shared system. Read the formal statement and its stated axioms.
For the regulator
The constraint is physical or biological, so disclosure alone will not internalize it. The policy lever is to bound exposure, not to price it away.
For the executive
This is where a privately efficient decision can degrade the system the business depends on. The governance question is which decision records would make that system cost visible before it is normalized.
For the teacher
An on-site HTML deck and the expanded curriculum cover the argument, the evidence, and the measurement. Use the deck as a self-contained class session, then route deeper through the 45-50h core course or 100+h full curriculum.
For the affected community
In plain terms: who gains from the current arrangement, who pays for it, and what rule change would alter that split. The summary states each without jargon.
© 2026 Erik Postnieks · Independent Researcher · Salt Lake City