The human mind, as I have already mentioned, is best prepared to perceive localities, small scales and limited complexity. In his context Taleb’s thesis where the power of America came from, put forward in The Black Swan, is extremely interesting. Historically – it came from optionality built by people maybe less educated, less sophisticated than, for example, in Europe, but those experimenting, discovering, not afraid of, even harsh, business failure; from taking risks and achieving goals by trial and error on a small scale and on your own account. It came from the constant and successful creativity in production – of goods, concepts and ideas.

But, Taleb adds, the globalization process allowed the United States to specialize in the creative aspect of human activity, in the field of production of concepts and ideas – the scalable elements of consumer goods. Through the export of jobs, America is increasingly identifying less scalable elements of production and outsourcing production to those nations that are satisfied with work at an hourly rate. Designing products and systems of their effective production seems to be more profitable than working at hourly rates in factories transferred to other countries, as well as the work of engineers from countries promoting high culture and mathematics(49).

The complex Democratic system yields results that nobody expects – Donald Tramp’s election and political salons being stormed by figures from outside the party establishment – such as Bernie Sanders.

In this way, globalization, despite the loss of jobs in industry, gives the United States all the economic, financial and political power. But it also generates serious imbalances inside and outside the Imperium Mundi. The entire categories of employees are declining, the American middle class – not so long ago constituted by both „white” and „blue” collars – is getting poorer. Raghuram Rajan, an American economist, in the years 2003-2007 the chief economist of the IMF, in his book Fault Lines draws attention to the deficiencies of the American education system which is unable to provide employees with the desired qualifications(50). But the use of globalization and grounding economic power more and more on export of concepts and ideas results in the shrinking of certain categories of jobs. People differ, they are born with different abilities and talents. What is more – it is natural and inevitable that even monozygotic, genetically identical twins, differentiate over time(51) (see the extremely interesting analysis of Judith Rich Harris, No Two Alike). Consequently, the progressive osteoporosis of the demand for certain types of abilities and predispositions among labor force results in accumulating social imbalances. People equipped by nature with certain talents are no longer needed in such a system. Their workplaces are valued low. According to Rajan, the related drop in income cannot be patched up by the greater availability of credit to supplement their material position and social significance or offer the pauperizing segments of middle-class a sense of status quo(52). The growing frustration of American citizens, whose capabilities the United States buys worldwide for mass-printed dollars, strikes back in the form of rapidly changing electoral preferences. The complex Democratic system yields results that nobody expects – Donald Tramp’s election and political salons being stormed by figures from outside the party establishment – such as Bernie Sanders.

Of course, the problem described above is not the only imbalance generated by the American economic and political activity. Many other imbalances created are described in the books of economists, behaviorists and experts referring to the theory of complexity, such as Rickards, or probability theory, like Taleb. So why, in spite of all these problems, complex systems – of societies cooperating, coexisting within the globalization – seem to be operating stable enough? Why, except for few periods of great crises, mutually embedded complex anthropogenic systems do not experience catastrophic breakdowns more often?

Growing imbalances that Taleb writes about, stresses accumulating in complex systems which Rickards points out, do not immediately lead to unstable behavior of these systems as long as they have sufficient resources to sustain their erroneous heuristics, false paradigms of action or outdated assumptions. The resources come from three sources – inanimate (raw materials) and animate nature (tuna, maize, wheat, etc.), human labor (formerly slavery, now inflowing from the so-called peripheries), as well as scientific and technical progress that provides the system with new, unexpected and unpredicted resources. But the resources of nature are not infinite, the scientific and technical progress capricious, its rate unpredictable, while the behavior of a complex system cannot be designed top-down or controlled.

On the one hand, the US elites that profess neoclassical economies and use the equilibrium models (their representative being Alan Greenspan, although already retired) reached imperial power, attracting the strongest in the world intellects generating scientific and technical changes that can become the basis of new, difficult to estimate resources, on the other, they generated the largest in the history, virtually unsustainable debts and world-spread imbalances with next crises potential. Is there any alternative to just successive shocks, crises, and perhaps a catastrophic collapse – the simplification of the entire global system? I cannot answer this question. But I will try to present how to apply the effect of consilience, consonance of the theory of complexity, behavioral sciences, the theory of constraints and the theory of probability to diagnose reality and how to promote the emergence of solutions.