Advances in Systems Science and Application (2015) Vol.15 No.2 148-163

Living and Banking Systems Comparison: Prisoners’
Dilemma “Win-Win” is not the Solution

Pierre Bricage
International Academy for Systems and Cybernetic Sciences, IASCYS, Vienna,

Austria

Abstract

To survive that is ‘to eat and not to be eaten’ so as to live on. Whatever its
spatial and temporal level of organization, every living system owns 7 invariant
qualitative degrees of freedom. Any living system is formed by embedments and
juxtapositions of pre-existing systems. The same goes for man banking system-
s! How are the local quantitative laws of the spatial-temporal structuring and
functioning of banking systems associated with the basic law of survival of living
systems? How do the local actors become mutually integrated into their global w-
hole? And reversely (systemic constructal law), why and how is the global whole
reciprocally integrating the local parceners? Is victory a strategic success? What
are the roots of interdependence, conflicts and strategic order challenges?How is
emerging a new power balance? Can banking systems survive as parasitic sys-
tems? Like a “food chain” is a “money chain” a way of violence escalade? The
evolution of living systems is often seen as a “cooperative evolution” resulting
from altruist behaviours. It could be modelled and simulated using games such
as the prisoners’ dilemma game, a game that shows why 2 individuals might not
cooperate, even though it appears to be in their best interests to do so. Is the
prisoners’ dilemma game justifying extortion? What can we learn from Rein-
forcement Learning Dynamics in Social Dilemmas? In reality, humans display a
systematic bias towards cooperative behaviour, much more so than predicted by
models of “rational” self-interested action. Models based on different kinds of
payoffs and driving forces (where people forecast how the game would be played
if they formed coalitions to maximize their forecasts) are shown to make better
predictions which resemble reality.
Keywords Parasitism, Pareto equilibrium, Ponzi pyramid, Prisoners’ dilemma
game.

1 Introduction

For living systems to survive that is first ‘to eat and not to be eaten’ [1]. In a
predator-prey relationship to survive the predator must eat preys but not too
much. The predator’s survival is limited by its prey’s limitations of survival [2].
Soon or late the preys are to be eaten. But sometimes preys can win and even
eat predators. That is the case of bacterial preys which eat predator amoebas,
mycobacteria or cancer cells which destroy their predator immune cells. What-
ever its level of organization, to live on, any living system has ‘to be lucky’ so



Advances in Systems Science and Application (2015) Vol.15 No.2 149

as ‘to be at the right place at the right time’ [3]. Whatever is its spatial and
temporal level of organization, to survive and live on it owns 7 invariant qualita-
tive characteristics [1]: figure 1. To survive every living system is a particular
place for mobilization of matter and energy. Entering flows (INPUTS) are used
to make products and wastes which are then used, stored (THROUGHPUTS)
or excreted (OUTPUTS). If the OUTPUTS/INPUTS balance allows an internal
accumulation of matter and energy, the system may grow in mass. Growth (quan-
titative increase) is not a goal in itself but it is always a prerequisite phase for
development (acquisition of new qualitative capabilities) and reproduction (figure
1). Formed by embedments and juxtapositions of pre-existing systems in a new
Whole (endophysiotope), a living system is always part of a food chain; it eats
and is eaten, within an ecoexotope of survival it shares with other living systems
(Fig.1). ‘Soon or late it is impossible not to be eaten.’ Man is not an exception
[2, 4-5]. Man species is a champion for enhancing growth of domestic plants

Fig. 1 Living systems structuring and functioning: interaction is construction
[1, 6, 10]

and animals but for its own growth [4-6]! Man species is ensuring its survival
through the increase of the hosting capacity of its ecoexotope of survival (figure
1). The same goes for Man societies which are often guided by quantitative e-
conomic considerations such as “saving more and more money” [7-8] rather than



150 Pierre Bricage: Living and Banking Systems Comparison. Prisoners Dilemma “Win-Win” Is ...

by qualitative ethic considerations: “enough food for everyone everywhere”.
Living systems are food producing systems. We do know how they work [5, 9].

The modularity of living systems allows both a partial location and a global re-
cycling of matter and energy [1]. The pleiotropy of the structures and functions,
allowing ‘to kill two birds with one stone’, is a mechanism of exaptation. Within
any ecoexotope, the agoantagonistic relations balance soon or late ends in
the disappearance of predators and a reduction of biodiversity [6]. Only the merg-
ing into Associations for the Reciprocal and Mutual Sharing of Advantages and
DisAdvantages (ARMSADA) allows the emergence of a new biodiversity [6,10].
Banking systems are money producing systems. We do know how they work [11].
Can their comparison with living systems permit to understand the origin of the
current economic and living crises? And thus suggest adequate solutions [4, 12]?

2 Money flows modelling

Workers exchange their labour against money [7]. This money INPUT allows a
person to buy food (to survive that is first to eat) and goods (in order not to
be eaten by infectious diseases or to enhance her/his capacity of reproduction):
figure 2.The two goals for our society to make money are health and beauty! If
money inputs are exceeding their needs working consumers (or consuming work-
ers) may put their money into a bank (or not). Money flows can be analysed
in terms of interactions, but biologically sounding! In food chains, into an e-
cosystem, in a commensalism situation only one partner receives benefits. The
same goes in a parasitic situation but here the other partner is harmed! Only a
mutualistic situation allows both partners to have some benefits: table 1. If the
bank takes your money and if you can get it back as you want, when you want
and freely (without charge), it is a commensalism situation. You and the bank
are “eating” the same money at the same table [7]. But, without your money,
the bank has no money and cannot make money with your money. What does
that mean in terms of advantages and disadvantages? If the bank has enough
money -because a lot of people are storing their money in it- the bank can lend
you some money. It is an advantage for you. You can buy something you could
not otherwise. But there are never advantages without disadvantages. You must
pay off your loan with interests. It is a disadvantage for you but an advantage
for the bank. All that is an advantage for you is a disadvantage for the bank and
reciprocally. How is that situation balanced? If enough deposits the bank has
enough money to make loans, to give consumers credits that allow the bank to
make money with your money:Fig.3.

It is a STORE-TAKE-MAKE situation (Fig.2 & 3) [5-7].
To increase cash-flow [13], to have more money to loan, a bank can give you

interests for the money you will put in its stock for a while. Obviously, the in-



Advances in Systems Science and Application (2015) Vol.15 No.2 151

terest you will earn will be less than the money the bank will store with its loans
interests. It is a mutualistic situation. You are at the same table, in the same
food chain (the same money chain). You are nourishing the bank and the bank
is nourishing you. Of course the bank is eating more than you are. Of course you
can earn money only if other people in the same bank (the same food chain) have
not enough money and if you have too much (figure 2). With increasing money
stocks, the bank can keep on making more money and is growing. Depending on
the situation you are, either your money is growing too (if you are loaning money
to the bank) or your debt is if you are a borrowing money from the bank. Only
those associated with the bank growth see their money increase too [13].

Whatever its spatial and temporal level of organisation, to live on, any liv-
ing system,owns 7 invariant qualitative Capabilities (top left scheme): C1 mo-
bilisation of matter and energy flows ,C2 growth (=accumulation), C3 reaction
to stimulations, C4 organisation into space and through time, C5 integration
(from integer: “to make one”) into an ecoexotope (exo: external, tope: space-
time, eco: of inhabitation) of survival, shared with other forms of life, C6 re-
production of its self, and C7 movement. These 7 capacities allow its endo-
physiotope (endo: internal, tope: space-time, physio: of functioning) to be
hosted by an ecoexotope which furnishes the endophysiotope a hosting capac-
ity, but only if the endophysiotope owns an adapted capacity to be hosted in
it (integration). A system is always made of 3 kinds of entities: actors, in-
teractions and the whole (top right model). It is always more and less than
the sum of its parts. But whatever the system, actors are interacting and
each action is a cause of an effect which may also be a cause (feedback) [14]:
interaction is construction and construction is interaction (systemic constructal
law). A living system is always a system of systems (down left scheme) made
by embedments and juxtapositions of previous systems. An endophysiotope at
a i level is an ecoexotope of survival for a i-1 level endophysiotope. It is an
iteration process (a “Matryoshka race”). Formed by embedments and juxtaposi-
tions of pre-existing systems in a new Whole (endophysiotope), a living system
is always a part of a food chain -it eats and is eaten, within an ecoexotope of
survival shared with other living systems-. Growth (quantitative mass increase)
is not a goal in itself but it is always a prerequisite phase (larval stage) before
the endophysiotope development (acquisition of new qualitative capacities) and
its reproduction (number growth). During the mass growth eco-phase, a mass
threshold must be passed to reach the minimum volume so as to acquire the adult
stage.“The capacity of reproduction has a cost paid by growth.” But a minimum
duration (generation time) is required in order to gain it. To survive every living
system is a particular place for mobilisation of matter and energy (down right
scheme). Entering flows (INPUTS) are used to make products and wastes which



152 Pierre Bricage: Living and Banking Systems Comparison. Prisoners Dilemma “Win-Win” Is ...

are then used, stored (THROUGHPUTS) or excreted (OUTPUTS). If the OUT-
PUTS/INPUTS balance allows an internal accumulation of matter and energy,
the system’s mass may grow [1,9].

There are different kinds of description of interactions between living systems.

Fig. 2 Banking structuring and functioning: from synergism to commensalism
and mutualism.

Wether a species/a partner (species A or species B) receives (or not) benefits from
another one, we usually distinguish 3 patterns of interactions: commensalism
(e.g. “to eat at the same table”, but unequally!), mutualism (e.g. “to share bene-
fits”, though maybe unequally in quality or quantity), parasitism (e.g. “to eat an-
other system” which is harmed). Depending on the kinds of interactions (+ bene-
fit, - no benefit but harmed effects, 0 no positive or negative effect) we can add up
neutralism, competition or injury situations. Some people even add up the notion-
s of amensalism or proto-cooperation [15]. These interactions build up a network
(which can be graphed) between the different actors of a system of system-
s (figure 1). Yet whatever the interaction (for example here: mutualism or
competition, each actor’s action among every couple of actors is both a cause
and an effect: systemic constructal law. Usually, and particularly in econom-



Advances in Systems Science and Application (2015) Vol.15 No.2 153

Table 1. Ago-antagonistic Interactions between 2 locally isolated Species.

ic models, only a simplified point of view is taken into account with 2 actors
(Prisoners’ dilemma “game”), which results in 3 situations: “win-win” (The 2
actors cooperate.), “lose-lose” (The 2 actors defect.), “lose-win” or “win-lose”
(One cooperates and loses, the other one defects and wins) [8]. Of course, due to
feed-backs [11, 14], reality is far more complex [16]!

3 The current crisis situation

Today in France, after the 2009 economic crisis (due to a lack of growth from
States and banks), by the law, you must put your money in banks. You can use
cash only for small payments. You cannot be paid with cash. Your salary must
be deposited into a bank. You must use credit cards, checks or money orders.
You must pay for all of that! When you trust banks with your money you pay
a bank service management to be able to use your money or to give your money
back. You will never get back all the money you shall deposit! And when you
get your money back you have to pay again some money to the bank. The bank
is always making money with every money deposit. You get no advantage in
putting your money into the bank. The bank always has advantages when you
put your money into the bank. The bank takes a part of your money for you to
use your money. And the bank freely uses your money to make loans and money.

Services banks were freely giving to you a century ago in exchange for them to



154 Pierre Bricage: Living and Banking Systems Comparison. Prisoners Dilemma “Win-Win” Is ...

Fig. 3 Banking systems structuring and functioning as parasites[6-7].

use your money, you must now pay for! It is a parasitic situation. The bank is
eating your money! In less than a century, we ran from a synergetic situation
to a parasitic one (table I). Every day you are gaining and using money, the
bank grows and you have less money. The body (money mass) of the bank grows
allowing the bank to have more and more money and to create new shelters—
in order to store more money—just like parasitic living systems are laying more
and more eggs! More money entering the bank, more growth for the bank (figure
2) and increased lifetime for the bank [7].

That is exactly what we see in a Ponzi scheme (figure 3), and that is exactly
how modern States are growing and extending their area of growth and lifetime.
Looking back to 2007, the 2009 and 2012 crises were crises for consumers not
for banks. For banks, it was an extraordinary growth increase [13]. Their cash-
flow is now bigger than ever— with a 3 fold increase in 5 years. “You cannot
eat the pie and have the pie” but banks can! Not only banks but also States
are growing, adding more and more “layers” to a Ponzi pyramid [7-8]. But,
soon or late, and faster and faster, a limit comes up! And the limitation for
restoring growth is harder and harder to break. Crises were exploding when the
U.S.A. local growth stopped and the U.S.A. government had to extend its market
outside, and worldwide, to a more and more global world market. China did the
same but better. The European Union did the same but with less efficiency [13].

In a Ponzi pyramid the higher you are the more money you get. And the lower



Advances in Systems Science and Application (2015) Vol.15 No.2 155

you are the less you get. It is a Pareto situation: 20% people get 80% of money
or goods (and power), the remaining 80% get only 20%. You take money from
the poorest to make money for the richest. It is typically a prisoners’ dilemma
game situation [7-8, 17].

4 Is crisis a problem or a solution?

Ecosystems are often graphed as a pyramid. And just like in a Ponzi pyramid
the survival of the highest level depends on the survival of the largest down one
[5, 10]. But in a food chain, the living pyramid is built from the bottom up.
The Ponzi one is built from top to bottom. Indeed, food chains are not pyra-
mids but mixed networks: “all eggs are not in the same basket”, “diversity is the
rule”, “reciprocal exchanges are the law”. Only reciprocal rewards can stabilize
cooperation [18-19] and, soon or late, allow the merging of all the actors into an
ARMSADA [5-6,9]. That situation of reciprocal and mutual sharing of advan-
tages and disadvantages can be modeled: figure 5.

Economic systems are neither machineries nor mechanistic linear systems but
complex non-linear dynamic systems of systems as are ecosystems. Thus, quality
(rather than quantity), development (rather than) growth, creation and variety
(rather than accumulation) are the keys. Sharing limited resources could be e-
qually done but parts amounts are decreasing with number in an hyperbolic way
(figure 4) and “you cannot eat the pie and have the pie” [4,8]. The 2009 crisis
is the cause (or the effect?) of a double increase of households debts [13]. In
the loads of interests, commissions, financial services and administrative costs
are voluntarily and artificially excluded, resulting in a false double reduction of
these interests. Through debt negotiation loans durations could be twice as long
resulting in at least a double increase of loans costs, and interests are paid first!
More debts are more money [7-8]!

Recession periods intervals (figure 3) are shorter and shorter: 1993-2002 (9
years), 2003-2009 (6 years), 2009-2012 (3 years), and each year now? That is the
same sign of extension as for a pandemic infectious disease like flu! Flu intervals
were shorter and shorter: 1918-1957 (39 years), 1957-1968 (11 years), 1968-1977
(9 years), before -as in a Ponzi pyramid- a new host was invaded (as a new food
chain basis for the pyramid) [7]! And, as in a Ponzi pyramid, regrowth result-
ed in a calm of 20 years (1977-1997). But then, flu crisis intervals bursted again
shorter and shorter: 1997-2003 (6 years), 2003- 2005 (2 years); in 2014, 4 different
influenza viruses simultaneously were at the origin of epidemics in the Popular
Republic of China.
(-from top left to down right-) Works people do allow them to gain money they
use to buy foods and goods (economic EXCHANGE). If some money is not
spent it can be stored (accumulation) through bank deposit (or not!). Storing



156 Pierre Bricage: Living and Banking Systems Comparison. Prisoners Dilemma “Win-Win” Is ...

more money allows banks to have enough money flow control (TAKE) and
thus to loan money to people who need it to buy foods or goods. But the bank
takes “guarantees” to ensure that the money returns and with interests. Money
flow is always balanced in favour of the bank (money creation), but without
any cost for other people (local commensalism). To have a credit is an ADVAN-
TAGE for people if they can pay the interests and give the money back. Money
is neither their property nor that of the bank but the deposits/property of other
people (global synergism). To have more money deposits, bigger amounts and
for longer durations, banks can give (or not...) money interests paid by the bank
to “money-sharers” (“I can put your money to work for you. Don’t ask me how.
Just let me show you”). But the interests paid by banks are always smaller that
the interests the banks earn through money loans. There are never advantages
without DISADVANTAGES. For consumers, disadvantages are greater than ad-
vantages. But for banks, advantages are greater than disadvantages. Of course
banks have taxes and salaries to pay, but they do so with money they make from
debts and with money they get from people who do not have debts but “stored”
money (Pareto situation [16]: figure 4). Nowadays money is virtual. Only banks
know how much money there is!

The first upturn was an advantage for Asia and Latin America, but there was
no second upturn. After each break, when the upturns came, only countries from
the O.P.E.C. (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) still had the same
growth they had before. In Europa, from the first to the second relative upturn,
in 6 years unemployment doubled and no job was created. Using a Ponzi pyramid
process at the world scale, only the U.S.A. stabilized their re-growth, but that
was an advantage only for U.S.A. and a disadvantage for all the other countries.
Only Japan enters into a no-inflation new developmental stage [7, 13].

INPUTS (money deposits) are always greater than OUTPUTS (TAKE: figure
2) because the interests paid by banks are always smaller that the interests the
banks earn through money loans (accumulation flow). But if you must always
pay a fee to put your money into a bank and pay again to get your money back
from the bank, you will never have the “availability” of your money— the bank
is eating your money! It is a parasitic situation! And when States say “you
must put all your money into a bank”, banks can easily make money with your
money and take the percentage they want from your money, when they want! It
is a TAKE-MAKE situation (figure 1) in favour of banks. For each money flow
a part is “rapt” by the bank, banks are growing but not your money! If we model
this situation, with t time, with A money amount of a bank, or debt of a
consumer (debt makes money), we typically have a Ponzi pyramid graph. Crisis
situations, r (shaded areas), are promoting the slope increase of money accumu-
lation and crises are nearer and nearer [13]. This graph is exactly that of the



Advances in Systems Science and Application (2015) Vol.15 No.2 157

evolution of the US federal debt (as published by the US Department of Treasury
Financial Management Service, from 1965 to 2013, with debt increasing from a
factor 1 to 20, in 50 years -from research.stlouisfed.org-). More debts make more
money only for banks: “Banks can eat the pie and have the pie.”

Hyperbolic causes and consequences correlations are common laws in living
systems (figure 4), as it is for example with the metabolic rate of the Nitro-
gen/Phosphorus ratio (N/P). For living systems, development x growth = con-
stant, quality x quantity = constant. What about economic systems? -figure
4- Just like in economic supply/demand models, hyperbolic graphs can be lin-
earized, by changing the variables or the representation used (logarithmic scale),
but the dilemma remains the same... growth or development? Quantity or qual-
ity? An hyperbolic graph typically is the mark of a Pareto phenomenon (20% of
actors having 80% of rewards, the remaining 80% getting only 20%), but is this
an optimum or an equilibrium [20-22]? In a Pareto optimum [16], in the case
of the prisoners’ dilemma game [21], gamers/prisoners may cooperate and have
equal rewards. In this case any other outcome gives a worse outcome for at least
one player. One is rewarded: the bank, the other is threatened: the consumer.
And the reward is the biggest banking systems can have. In a Nash equilibrium,
each player’s strategy is the best response to all other players’ strategies. But
it has a cost: rewards or outcomes are lesser and equally shared! That is never
the case... except in the benevolent voluntary and united sector of Social and
Solidarity Economy [8]!

ARMSADAs are emerging from such processes [4-5]: the maximum value of
the whole is superior to the sum of the maximum and minimum values for an
individual actor [21]. -left- The winners-losers prisoners’ dilemma game (table 1)

Fig.4Banking/Living systems structuring and functioning: limits and limitation-
s. [6,9]



158 Pierre Bricage: Living and Banking Systems Comparison. Prisoners Dilemma “Win-Win” Is ...

as a Pareto equilibrium
example [16]: simplified example of the Greek bailout.
-right- Example of biological hyperbolic laws XY=K of growth for 2 different
Legumes species, with Y=N/P (where N is a limiting factor for both protein and
nucleic acid syntheses, with protein synthesis limiting both mass and number
growths, and P a limiting factor for both nucleic acid synthesis and energy stor-
age, with energy storage limiting both growth and development) and X=relative
growth rate. For living systems, development x growth = constant, quality x
quantity = constant [4-7,9]. The higher the growth X, the smaller the devel-
opmental step [4].
-middle- The Systemic Constructal Law: “interaction is construction,
construction is interaction”. Actors from adjacent levels of organization are
interacting, causes getting effects and effects being new causes getting other ef-
fects and so on. Growth is a prerequisite for development [9].

But just like in a predator-prey relationship, banks or States tell us only what
they want us to hear! It is a sort of take-make-waste phenomenon like there is in
dying living systems1. The hosting capacity, of any market or ecoexotope, is lim-
ited because of a supply and production interaction between the hosting capacity
(of an ecoexotope) and the capacity to be hosted (of an endophysiotope). For
living systems, growth is durable only if it is sustainable and sustained by each
partner, for a benefit for their whole, as is it for an ARMSADA. For a partner to
survive all the partners must survive first (and their whole too). That is not the
case in hidden banking networks2.The loss of resources among a trophic chain
causes big and small animals to be less common and less productive higher up in
the food chain. But medium ones are preserved with an increase in biodiversity.
In Ponzi pyramids the opposite happens. Biggest ones will be bigger, poorest
ones poorer and medium ones will disappear... the Pareto 20%-80% situation!

Only reciprocal rewards may stabilise a system of systems, particularly in
ecoexotopes of hard survival. Capitalism must be redefined in terms of an e-

1If a living system does not stop its functioning because the concentration threshold of a toxic
waste is under that of substrates for minimal activity, its growth shall stop quickly. The low
hosting capacity of its ecoexotope lowers its endophysiotope growth. But if its endophysiotope
has a high capacity to be hosted because of a low threshold of demand, its growth can be
durable, even in presence of toxic wastes (figure 5).

2In the U.S.A., in 1950, a unit of tax paid for 1 social security recipient was supported by 16.5
workers but only by 3.0 in 2009, e.g. a load increase of 5.5 fold in 60 years, a duration which
equals the time before retirement, and with an increase of payment durations of 10 years (from
the age of 68 to 78!). This is a hidden Ponzi pyramid sponsored by banks, insurances and
States (Source:Social Security Administration, The 2010 Annual Report of The Board
of Trustees, CDC, US Life Tables. If you are 55 today, current law will pay you 75 cents
on the dollar: you paid 100 at 45 and will get 75 at 65 (Source:The US Social Security Trust
Fund, May 2011 Report to the Congress. Payable benefits as percent of scheduled
benefits). Where are the missing 25?



Advances in Systems Science and Application (2015) Vol.15 No.2 159

cosystem. Growth (quantitative increase) is only a prerequisite and a tool for
development (qualitative acquisition). Development is quality creation, step by
step, using growth [1,5-6]. “Quantity or growth is the problem” and “Quality
or development is the solution” [4]. Modelling with biological concepts [9,15-16]
supports input-output-recycling processes [4, 6,21-23].
-top, from left to right- Hyperbolic law qQ=K [4]: the higher the number of
parts q, the smaller the equal amount of each Q (not a Pareto situation here),
just like in an economic situation (with the demand and production relationship);
in an ecological situation the bigger the amount of food consumed, the bigger the
wastes. But food is limited, under a minimal food threshold or above a maximal
supported wastes threshold growth stops.
-down, from left to right- Ecoexotope Hosting Capacity Limitation and Endoph-
ysiotope Capacity to be Hosted [6]. If a living system does not stop its function-
ing due to a concentration threshold of toxic waste (q toxicity) being lower than
the concentration threshold of substrates for its minimal activity (q activity),
its growth will stop very rapidly and eventually it shall die (down left). The
low hosting capacity of its ecoexotope lowers the duration of its endophysiotope
growth (figure 1). But if its endophysiotope has a high capacity to be hosted,
“thanks for” a low threshold of demand (q activity is low) the system growth can
last, even in presence of toxic wastes (q toxicity above q activity) [4]. ARMSA-
DA emergence, as a whole, results (down right) from complementing effects of
the different local capacities to be hosted of the various partners (K and k).
Globally they share the same ecoexotope of survival but using different local parts
of its global hosting capacity [6,9]. Depending on the local mutual changes of
the hosting capacity all that is an advantage for a partner is a disadvantage for
another one and reciprocally [5].

5 Discussion-Conclusion

For banking systems to grow and survive that is ’to eat money and have their
money not to be eaten’ just like for living systems it is to eat food and not to be
eaten [1]. But with living systems we know that in a predator-prey relationship
to survive the predator must eat the matter of preys but not too much [2, 4]. The
survival of the predator is limited by the limitations of survival of its preys! Isn’t
the same ecologic law valuable for economic systems [7]? In a century, banking
systems have gone from a mutualistic functioning to a parasitic one [7].

INPUTS are used only for banks profits, to make products that earn money
for people having money. Waste products, that is to say all that has a cost for
banks, are paid by consumers (figure 3). Services are servitudes now! The OUT-
PUTS/INPUTS balance allows an internal accumulation of money but only for
bank shareholders. Banking systems are growing and reproducing! And growth



160 Pierre Bricage: Living and Banking Systems Comparison. Prisoners Dilemma “Win-Win” Is ...

Fig. 5 Living systems structuring and functioning: limitations and limits [1,4,6-
7]

(quantitative increase) is their goal! Is this functioning a cooperative one [15,
22-23] or an extortive one [8]? With living systems we know that growth is only,
and always, a prerequisite phase for acquisition of new qualitative capabilities
(development) [1, 9]. We also know that growth, development and survival are
durable only if they are sustainable for and sustained by all the partners [1, 14].
Banking system has to learn that to survive all the consumers must survive first!
That is not the case nowadays—If banking systems evolution obeys the same law
living systems evolution does, only systems with a high capacity to be hosted
-because of a low threshold of demand (no cost of services, no extra fees)- will
last, particularly in crisis and even in presence of toxic products such as toxic
sub-primes. If win-win situations may exist locally (Chinese growth was 8.1% in
2011 but 7.5% in 2012 and is decreasing, Taiwan growth was only 3.6% in 2013,
2.4% is expected for Great-Britain in 2014, but UK is playing his local game not
the european global one!), with globalization no win-win situation can persist at
a world scale. You can never always be a winner, soon or late you will be a loser.
Only ARMSADAs are lasting! Like ecology, economy obeys a cyclic organiza-
tion of life [16], with growth and differentiation phases, with entrepreneurial and
managerial behavior phases that are replacing one another all the time. Each
phase change is an emergency situation, as is metamorphosis for living system-
s [9]. Macroeconomic disasters fit a power-law model [24] as fit living systems
evolutionary changes due to ecological disasters [4,7,10]. You can never have too
much money! It is only by coupling insights from ecology and economy [22] that
we can begin to model and understand the complex dynamics which underlie the



Advances in Systems Science and Application (2015) Vol.15 No.2 161

generation of poverty [12] and bank profits [8, 13], through growth but not for
development [4]!

References

[1] P.Bricage. (2000), “Survival of Living Systems” ,AFSCET systémiqu & bi-
ologie, Fac. Médecine St Pères, Paris, France, pp.33.

[2] P.Bricage. (2008), “Cancer is a breaking of the cells ARMSADA through
an aggression that results in a lack of non-autonomy”, UES-EUS Congress,
Res. Systemica, Lisboa, Portugal, No.7, pp.8, see http://www.afscet.asso.fr/
resSystemica/Lisboa08/bricage1.pdf.

[3] P.Bricage. (2013), “Time management by living systems: Time modularity,
rhythms and conics running calendars. methodology”, Theory and Applica-
tions. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, No.30, pp.677-692.

[4] P.Bricage. (2011), “The Social and environmental responsibility of
mankind. 1. About man interventions in the living networks”,UES-EUS
Congress, IASCYS Workshop, Bruxelles, Belgique, pp.25 see http://
www.armsada.eu/files/pbManSERqash.pdf.

[5] P.Bricage. (2014), “Survival management by living systems. A general
system theory of the space-time modularity and evolution of living sys-
tems: ARMSADA”, World Conference on Complex Systems, pp.16, see
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01065974.

[6] P.Bricage. (2011), “Thinking and teaching systemics: Bio-Systemics in-
higher education”, IASCYS G.A., Chengdu, P.R.China, pp.1-14, see
http://tinyurl.com/biosystemics.

[7] P.Bricage. (2014), “Alive and banking systems comparison: prisoners dilem-
ma”, In Globalization and Crisis. Systems Complexity and governance,
Methodologies and Tools for Governance of World System, No.7, pp.301-
303.

[8] J.-P.Delahaye. (2014), “Prisoners’ dilemma game and the illusion of extor-
tion.” (The original is in French:“Le dilemme du prisonnier et l’illusion de
l’extorsion”), Pour La Science, No.435, pp.78-83.

[9] P.Bricage. (2005), “Metamorphoses of living sstems: Associations for the
reciprocal and mutual sharing of sdvantages and disadvantages”, UES-
EUS Congress, Res. Systemica, Paris,France, No.5, pp.12, see http://
www.afscet.asso.fr/resSystemica/Paris05/bricage.pdf .



162 Pierre Bricage: Living and Banking Systems Comparison. Prisoners Dilemma “Win-Win” Is ...

[10] P.Bricage. (2010), “Cyber-systemics of living systems evolution” ,Teil-
hard Aujourdhui, No.33, pp.31-39, see http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ doc-
s/00/42/37/30/PDF/phylotagmotaphologie.pdf.

[11] M. Mulej,M. Rebernik and S. Kajzer. (1996), “ Systems thinking, en-
trepreneurship and management”, IFSR Newsletter, Vol.15(1), pp.2-3.

[12] C.N. Ngonghala et al. (2014), “Poverty, disease, and the ecology of complex
systems”, PloS Biol, Vol.12(4), pp.e1001827.

[13] M.Draghi(dir.). (2014), EuroSystem. 2013 Annual Report of the European
Central Bank , C.E.E., Bruxelles, Belgique, pp.289.

[14] Y.Lin. (1994), “Feedback transformation and its applications”. Journal of
Systems Engineering, Vol.21(3), pp.32-18.

[15] R.Axelrod. (2006), The Evolution of Cooperation(Revised Edition), Perseus
Books Group, New York, USA, pp.241.

[16] M.E.J. Newman. (2006), “Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s
law”,ArXiv: cond-mat/0412004v3, No.2066, pp.28.

[17] J. Maynard Smith. (1976), “Evolution and the theory of games”,American
Scientist, No.61, pp.41-45.

[18] S.S. Izquierdo. L.R. Izquierdo and N.M. Gotts (2008), “ Reinforcement learn-
ing dynamics in social dilemmas”, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social
Simulation, Vol.11(2), pp.1, see http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/ 11/2/1.html.

[19] E.T. Kiers et al. (2011),“Reciprocal rewards stabilize cooperation in the
mycorrhizal symbiosis”,Science Vol.333(6044), pp.880-882.

[20] R.L. Trivers. (1971), “The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism”, Quarterly
Review of Biology, No.46, pp.35-57.

[21] William Poundstone. (1993), Prisoner’s Dilemma, Anchor, see http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner’s dilemma.

[22] Z. Wang, A. Szolnoki and M. Perc. (2013), “Optimal interdependence be-
tween networks for the evolution of cooperation”, Scientific Reports, No.3,
pp.2470.

[23] Z. Wang,A. Szolnoki and M. Perc. (2012), “If players are sparse social dilem-
mas are too: Importance of percolation for evolution of cooperation”, Sci-
entific Reports, No.2, pp.369.



Advances in Systems Science and Application (2015) Vol.15 No.2 163

[24] R.J.Barro and T. Jin. (2011), “On the size distribution of macroeconomic
disasters”, Econometrica, Vol.79(3), pp.434-455.

Corresponding author
Pierre Bricage can be contacted at: pierre.bricage@univ-pau.fr