The Federal Reserve's First Rate Hike Since 2023: A Systems Thinking Analysis of Monetary Policy Under Supply-Side Pressure
Wednesday 16 September 2026 at 21:56
Visible to anyone in the world
Edited by Russell Larke, Wednesday 16 September 2026 at 22:03
Introduction
On 16 September 2026, the United States Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest rate for the first time in three years, lifting the target range for the federal funds rate from 3.5–3.75 per cent to 3.75–4 per cent. The decision, taken under Fed Chair Kevin Warsh, reversed the policy direction of the previous period and was justified by the central bank on the grounds that inflation had remained persistently above the Federal Reserve's 2 per cent target. Warsh stated plainly that "the plain fact is inflation is too high, and has been for too long".
This article examines the rate decision through a systems thinking lens. It argues that the Federal Reserve's action represents an attempt to manipulate a low-leverage parameter within a complex system whose behaviour is being driven by structural forces that lie beyond the direct reach of monetary policy. The analysis draws on the leverage point framework articulated by Meadows, the complexity economics tradition associated with Arthur and Haldane, and the financial instability hypothesis developed by Minsky. It also examines the political economy of the decision, which cannot be separated from its monetary logic: the inflation the Fed is responding to is substantially the product of executive branch policy, and the electoral consequences of the response fall on the same administration that generated the impulse.
The Decision and Its Immediate Context
The Federal Reserve's decision was shaped by three principal factors. The first was evidence of a resilient domestic economy, with Warsh noting that productivity growth was strong and capital investment robust. The second was the trajectory of inflation, which remained elevated relative to the central bank's objectives. The third was geopolitical uncertainty, particularly the conflict with Iran, which had disrupted global oil flows and pushed crude prices above $100 per barrel, driving US diesel costs above $6 per gallon.
The geopolitical dimension is significant. The inflation currently being experienced in the United States economy is not primarily demand-driven. It is supply-driven, originating from geopolitical disruption to energy markets and the associated pass-through effects on transport, agriculture, and production costs. The Federal Reserve acknowledged this dynamic in its communications, though the language in its statement shifted from the July meeting, which had explicitly referenced "supply shocks that have driven price increases in certain sectors, including energy", to a more generic reference to "geopolitical developments".
The rate hike was not an isolated national event. The European Central Bank had raised its main interest rate to 2.5 per cent the week before, and the Bank of England was due to decide the following day. The oil price shock was being felt across the global economy, and central banks worldwide were grappling with similar inflationary pressures.
Interest Rates as a Low-Leverage Parameter
From a systems thinking perspective, the federal funds rate constitutes what Meadows identified as a low-leverage parameter within the economic system. In Meadows' hierarchy of leverage points, parameters such as interest rates represent the shallowest point of intervention, capable only of altering the rate of flow within an existing structure rather than transforming the structure itself. The manipulation of such parameters may produce visible short-term effects, but it does not address the deeper feedback structures that generate the system's behaviour over time.
This framework helps to explain why the Federal Reserve's rate hike, while symbolically significant as the first tightening in three years, is unlikely to produce a proportional reduction in inflation. Raising interest rates can reduce aggregate demand, but it cannot increase the supply of oil, nor can it resolve the geopolitical conditions that have constrained that supply. The White House itself acknowledged this limitation, with Senior Deputy Press Secretary Kush Desai stating that higher rates would "stymie the economic progress" while "none of that gets the core of the issue here, which are energy prices".
The limitations of monetary policy in the face of supply-side inflation are well documented in the systems and complexity literature. Arthur's work on complexity economics demonstrates that the economy is not necessarily in equilibrium, and that economic agents operate under conditions of contingency and indeterminacy rather than deterministic optimisation. When a system is driven by external shocks and delays, interventions at the parameter level may produce unintended consequences elsewhere in the system. In the present case, higher interest rates risk suppressing investment and employment without materially affecting the energy prices that constitute the proximate cause of the inflationary impulse.
Feedback Loops and Inflation Expectations
The system dynamics perspective directs attention to the feedback loops that govern inflationary dynamics. One of the most important is the loop connecting inflation expectations to price-setting behaviour. When individuals and businesses expect prices to continue rising, they adjust their behaviour accordingly, creating a self-fulfilling dynamic. This is the phenomenon that Soros described as reflexivity: the observer is part of the system being observed, and beliefs feed back into the conditions they purport to describe.
This insight is central to understanding the Federal Reserve's rationale for the rate hike. By acting decisively on inflation, the central bank seeks to anchor expectations and prevent the expectation-driven feedback loop from becoming entrenched. The logic is not that higher rates will immediately reduce the price of oil, but that they will signal the central bank's commitment to price stability, thereby moderating the behavioural responses that might otherwise amplify the inflationary impulse.
However, this strategy carries its own risks. The signalling function of monetary policy operates through complex channels of communication and interpretation, and its effectiveness depends on the credibility of the central bank and the coherence of its framework. The current environment is complicated by political pressure from the White House, which publicly criticised the rate hike as "unfortunate" and "not backed by a compelling economic case". This political dimension introduces an additional layer of complexity into the system, potentially undermining the clarity of the signal that the Federal Reserve intends to send.
The Political Economy of Monetary Policy
The rate decision occurred against a backdrop of significant political tension. President Trump had repeatedly called for interest rates to be cut rather than raised, creating a public dispute with the Federal Reserve's leadership. The White House's criticism of the rate hike reflects a broader tension between the objectives of monetary policy and the political priorities of the administration, particularly in the context of upcoming midterm elections less than fifty days away.
The proximate causes of the inflation the Fed is responding to are the administration's own policies. ABC News reported that prices surged "in the wake of Mr Trump's war on Iran, his signature tariff policies and the ongoing AI boom". Research from the Tax Foundation indicates that Trump-backed tariffs increased costs by approximately $1,000 per US household in 2025 and $840 per household so far in 2026. The Iran conflict, meanwhile, pushed Brent crude to near $109 per barrel and diesel to $6.31 per gallon, roughly double the level of a year earlier. These are supply-side pressures originating from executive branch decisions. The Fed is now responding to their inflationary consequences with the only instrument at its disposal.
Trump's own response to the hike has been hostile. He called the move "unfortunate" and argued it was "not backed by a compelling economic case." He has publicly demanded that the United States should have "the lowest interest rate in the world" and threatened to halt trade with deficit countries if the Fed did not cut rates. Prediction markets now reflect a 44 per cent probability that Trump will publicly insult Warsh before the end of the year, more than double the level of a month earlier.
This dynamic illustrates a key insight from systems thinking: the boundaries of a system are not given but are chosen by the analyst. If the system is defined narrowly as the monetary policy apparatus, then the rate decision appears as a straightforward technical response to inflation data. If the system is defined more broadly to include the political, geopolitical, and energy subsystems, the decision appears as one element within a complex configuration of forces, many of which are beyond the Fed's control.
The Federal Reserve's insistence on its independence, articulated by Warsh as the principle that "independence is a two-way street", represents an attempt to maintain the boundary between monetary policy and political influence. But in practice, the boundary is permeable. The political response to the rate hike, the electoral implications of economic conditions, and the administration's energy policy all feed back into the economic system, influencing the very variables that the Federal Reserve is attempting to manage.
The appointment of Warsh himself is part of this feedback structure. He was nominated by Trump in January 2026 and confirmed in May after a contentious Senate process in which Democratic lawmakers accused him of being a "sock puppet" for the president. The expectation was that he would deliver the rate cuts Trump had demanded. Instead, in his first major decision as chair, he raised rates and signalled further increases to come. Warsh's Fed has demonstrated that institutional mandate, once internalised, can override the expectations of the appointing authority. That is a structural feature of central banking that the administration appears not to have anticipated.
The midterm implications are direct. Republicans risk losing control of Congress on 3 November. Voter dissatisfaction over the cost of living is among the top concerns. A rate hike raises borrowing costs for mortgages, credit cards, and business loans, imposing further financial pressure on households. The White House had wanted cuts, even if they would take months to filter through, as "cover to signal economic relief was on the way" and to shift blame away from the administration. The hike does the opposite: it makes the Fed the visible cause of additional financial pain, even though the underlying inflation originates elsewhere in the system.
Global Spillovers and the Interconnected System
The systems thinking perspective also highlights the global interconnectedness of monetary policy. The Federal Reserve is not acting in isolation. Chair Warsh acknowledged this interconnectedness, noting that "when foreign central banks make decisions... they are helping to squash inflation in their countries and there is spill over and spill backs in both directions". This recognition of mutual causation is consistent with a systems thinking approach, which emphasises that in complex systems, cause and effect are not linear but circular, and interventions in one part of the system produce effects elsewhere that then feed back into the original node.
The rate hike's immediate effect on currency markets illustrates this dynamic. Following the announcement, the US dollar strengthened against major currencies, with the pound falling 0.67 per cent and the euro weakening 0.61 per cent, while the dollar index rose 0.66 per cent to its highest level since the beginning of August. This currency movement has implications for global trade, capital flows, and the relative competitiveness of different economies, creating further feedback effects that will shape the conditions for future policy decisions.
Structure, Behaviour, and the Limits of Parameter Adjustment
The central insight that systems thinking brings to this analysis is that structure determines behaviour. The Federal Reserve's rate hike is an intervention at the level of a parameter, and as Meadows' framework suggests, parameter adjustments are the least transformative form of intervention. They may produce changes in the rate of flow, but they do not alter the underlying structure that generates the system's behaviour.
The deeper structural factors driving inflation in the current environment include the geopolitical configuration that has disrupted energy supplies, the structure of global supply chains that transmit price shocks across borders, the feedback loops connecting expectations to behaviour, and the political economy of monetary policy itself. None of these factors can be addressed through interest rate adjustments alone.
King, writing from the perspective of a former central bank governor, has argued that central banks have become the "only game in town" precisely because the structural reforms needed to address the deeper fragilities of the financial system have not been undertaken. The reliance on monetary policy as the primary instrument of economic management reflects a structural condition in which other policy levers have been neglected or constrained. Minsky's financial instability hypothesis adds a further dimension: the pursuit of inflation-targeting interest rate policies may itself contribute to the financial fragility of leveraged firms, creating instability in the very system the central bank is attempting to stabilise.
Haldane's work on complexity in financial regulation is also instructive. His argument that "you do not fight complexity with complexity" applies equally to monetary policy. Adding further layers of parameter adjustment to a complex system does not necessarily improve outcomes; it may simply introduce additional channels through which unintended consequences can propagate.
Conclusion
The Federal Reserve's first rate hike since 2023 represents a significant moment in the conduct of monetary policy, marking a shift from the accommodation of the previous period to a renewed emphasis on price stability. Through a systems thinking lens, the decision can be understood as an attempt to manipulate a low-leverage parameter within a complex system whose behaviour is being driven by deeper structural forces. The rate hike may help to anchor inflation expectations and signal the central bank's commitment to its mandate. But the geopolitical and supply-side sources of the current inflationary impulse lie beyond the reach of monetary policy.
The political dimension reinforces this conclusion. The inflation being addressed originates substantially from the administration's own tariff and foreign policy decisions. The instrument being used to address it will impose additional costs on voters six weeks before a midterm election. The chair appointed to deliver rate cuts has instead delivered the first hike in three years, unanimously, and signalled more to come. Each of these elements is a structural feature of a system in which monetary policy, fiscal policy, geopolitics, and electoral politics are tightly coupled, and in which interventions in one domain produce consequences in others that no single actor can control.
The analysis suggests that effective management of the economic system will require attention not only to the parameters that central banks control, but to the structures that generate the behaviour they seek to influence. As Warsh himself acknowledged when asked about the labour market implications of the decision, "I don't believe we need to do harm to the labour market to achieve our objectives". The challenge is whether the available instruments can achieve those objectives without producing the harm that the system's structure makes possible. That is not a question that parameter adjustment alone can answer.
References
Arthur, W.B. (2013) Complexity Economics: A Different Framework for Economic Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haldane, A.G. (2012) The Dog and the Frisbee. Speech delivered at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City's 366th economic policy symposium, Jackson Hole, 31 August.
King, M. (2016) The End of Alchemy: Money, Banking, and the Future of the Global Economy. London: Little, Brown.
Meadows, D.H. (2008) Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Minsky, H.P. (1982) Can "It" Happen Again? Essays on Instability and Finance. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Minsky, H.P. (1986) Stabilizing an Unstable Economy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Soros, G. (1987) The Alchemy of Finance. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Regards,
Russell Larke
BA (Hons) Business Management | MSc Candidate (Systems Thinking)
The Federal Reserve's First Rate Hike Since 2023: A Systems Thinking Analysis of Monetary Policy Under Supply-Side Pressure
Introduction
On 16 September 2026, the United States Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest rate for the first time in three years, lifting the target range for the federal funds rate from 3.5–3.75 per cent to 3.75–4 per cent. The decision, taken under Fed Chair Kevin Warsh, reversed the policy direction of the previous period and was justified by the central bank on the grounds that inflation had remained persistently above the Federal Reserve's 2 per cent target. Warsh stated plainly that "the plain fact is inflation is too high, and has been for too long".
This article examines the rate decision through a systems thinking lens. It argues that the Federal Reserve's action represents an attempt to manipulate a low-leverage parameter within a complex system whose behaviour is being driven by structural forces that lie beyond the direct reach of monetary policy. The analysis draws on the leverage point framework articulated by Meadows, the complexity economics tradition associated with Arthur and Haldane, and the financial instability hypothesis developed by Minsky. It also examines the political economy of the decision, which cannot be separated from its monetary logic: the inflation the Fed is responding to is substantially the product of executive branch policy, and the electoral consequences of the response fall on the same administration that generated the impulse.
The Decision and Its Immediate Context
The Federal Reserve's decision was shaped by three principal factors. The first was evidence of a resilient domestic economy, with Warsh noting that productivity growth was strong and capital investment robust. The second was the trajectory of inflation, which remained elevated relative to the central bank's objectives. The third was geopolitical uncertainty, particularly the conflict with Iran, which had disrupted global oil flows and pushed crude prices above $100 per barrel, driving US diesel costs above $6 per gallon.
The geopolitical dimension is significant. The inflation currently being experienced in the United States economy is not primarily demand-driven. It is supply-driven, originating from geopolitical disruption to energy markets and the associated pass-through effects on transport, agriculture, and production costs. The Federal Reserve acknowledged this dynamic in its communications, though the language in its statement shifted from the July meeting, which had explicitly referenced "supply shocks that have driven price increases in certain sectors, including energy", to a more generic reference to "geopolitical developments".
The rate hike was not an isolated national event. The European Central Bank had raised its main interest rate to 2.5 per cent the week before, and the Bank of England was due to decide the following day. The oil price shock was being felt across the global economy, and central banks worldwide were grappling with similar inflationary pressures.
Interest Rates as a Low-Leverage Parameter
From a systems thinking perspective, the federal funds rate constitutes what Meadows identified as a low-leverage parameter within the economic system. In Meadows' hierarchy of leverage points, parameters such as interest rates represent the shallowest point of intervention, capable only of altering the rate of flow within an existing structure rather than transforming the structure itself. The manipulation of such parameters may produce visible short-term effects, but it does not address the deeper feedback structures that generate the system's behaviour over time.
This framework helps to explain why the Federal Reserve's rate hike, while symbolically significant as the first tightening in three years, is unlikely to produce a proportional reduction in inflation. Raising interest rates can reduce aggregate demand, but it cannot increase the supply of oil, nor can it resolve the geopolitical conditions that have constrained that supply. The White House itself acknowledged this limitation, with Senior Deputy Press Secretary Kush Desai stating that higher rates would "stymie the economic progress" while "none of that gets the core of the issue here, which are energy prices".
The limitations of monetary policy in the face of supply-side inflation are well documented in the systems and complexity literature. Arthur's work on complexity economics demonstrates that the economy is not necessarily in equilibrium, and that economic agents operate under conditions of contingency and indeterminacy rather than deterministic optimisation. When a system is driven by external shocks and delays, interventions at the parameter level may produce unintended consequences elsewhere in the system. In the present case, higher interest rates risk suppressing investment and employment without materially affecting the energy prices that constitute the proximate cause of the inflationary impulse.
Feedback Loops and Inflation Expectations
The system dynamics perspective directs attention to the feedback loops that govern inflationary dynamics. One of the most important is the loop connecting inflation expectations to price-setting behaviour. When individuals and businesses expect prices to continue rising, they adjust their behaviour accordingly, creating a self-fulfilling dynamic. This is the phenomenon that Soros described as reflexivity: the observer is part of the system being observed, and beliefs feed back into the conditions they purport to describe.
This insight is central to understanding the Federal Reserve's rationale for the rate hike. By acting decisively on inflation, the central bank seeks to anchor expectations and prevent the expectation-driven feedback loop from becoming entrenched. The logic is not that higher rates will immediately reduce the price of oil, but that they will signal the central bank's commitment to price stability, thereby moderating the behavioural responses that might otherwise amplify the inflationary impulse.
However, this strategy carries its own risks. The signalling function of monetary policy operates through complex channels of communication and interpretation, and its effectiveness depends on the credibility of the central bank and the coherence of its framework. The current environment is complicated by political pressure from the White House, which publicly criticised the rate hike as "unfortunate" and "not backed by a compelling economic case". This political dimension introduces an additional layer of complexity into the system, potentially undermining the clarity of the signal that the Federal Reserve intends to send.
The Political Economy of Monetary Policy
The rate decision occurred against a backdrop of significant political tension. President Trump had repeatedly called for interest rates to be cut rather than raised, creating a public dispute with the Federal Reserve's leadership. The White House's criticism of the rate hike reflects a broader tension between the objectives of monetary policy and the political priorities of the administration, particularly in the context of upcoming midterm elections less than fifty days away.
The proximate causes of the inflation the Fed is responding to are the administration's own policies. ABC News reported that prices surged "in the wake of Mr Trump's war on Iran, his signature tariff policies and the ongoing AI boom". Research from the Tax Foundation indicates that Trump-backed tariffs increased costs by approximately $1,000 per US household in 2025 and $840 per household so far in 2026. The Iran conflict, meanwhile, pushed Brent crude to near $109 per barrel and diesel to $6.31 per gallon, roughly double the level of a year earlier. These are supply-side pressures originating from executive branch decisions. The Fed is now responding to their inflationary consequences with the only instrument at its disposal.
Trump's own response to the hike has been hostile. He called the move "unfortunate" and argued it was "not backed by a compelling economic case." He has publicly demanded that the United States should have "the lowest interest rate in the world" and threatened to halt trade with deficit countries if the Fed did not cut rates. Prediction markets now reflect a 44 per cent probability that Trump will publicly insult Warsh before the end of the year, more than double the level of a month earlier.
This dynamic illustrates a key insight from systems thinking: the boundaries of a system are not given but are chosen by the analyst. If the system is defined narrowly as the monetary policy apparatus, then the rate decision appears as a straightforward technical response to inflation data. If the system is defined more broadly to include the political, geopolitical, and energy subsystems, the decision appears as one element within a complex configuration of forces, many of which are beyond the Fed's control.
The Federal Reserve's insistence on its independence, articulated by Warsh as the principle that "independence is a two-way street", represents an attempt to maintain the boundary between monetary policy and political influence. But in practice, the boundary is permeable. The political response to the rate hike, the electoral implications of economic conditions, and the administration's energy policy all feed back into the economic system, influencing the very variables that the Federal Reserve is attempting to manage.
The appointment of Warsh himself is part of this feedback structure. He was nominated by Trump in January 2026 and confirmed in May after a contentious Senate process in which Democratic lawmakers accused him of being a "sock puppet" for the president. The expectation was that he would deliver the rate cuts Trump had demanded. Instead, in his first major decision as chair, he raised rates and signalled further increases to come. Warsh's Fed has demonstrated that institutional mandate, once internalised, can override the expectations of the appointing authority. That is a structural feature of central banking that the administration appears not to have anticipated.
The midterm implications are direct. Republicans risk losing control of Congress on 3 November. Voter dissatisfaction over the cost of living is among the top concerns. A rate hike raises borrowing costs for mortgages, credit cards, and business loans, imposing further financial pressure on households. The White House had wanted cuts, even if they would take months to filter through, as "cover to signal economic relief was on the way" and to shift blame away from the administration. The hike does the opposite: it makes the Fed the visible cause of additional financial pain, even though the underlying inflation originates elsewhere in the system.
Global Spillovers and the Interconnected System
The systems thinking perspective also highlights the global interconnectedness of monetary policy. The Federal Reserve is not acting in isolation. Chair Warsh acknowledged this interconnectedness, noting that "when foreign central banks make decisions... they are helping to squash inflation in their countries and there is spill over and spill backs in both directions". This recognition of mutual causation is consistent with a systems thinking approach, which emphasises that in complex systems, cause and effect are not linear but circular, and interventions in one part of the system produce effects elsewhere that then feed back into the original node.
The rate hike's immediate effect on currency markets illustrates this dynamic. Following the announcement, the US dollar strengthened against major currencies, with the pound falling 0.67 per cent and the euro weakening 0.61 per cent, while the dollar index rose 0.66 per cent to its highest level since the beginning of August. This currency movement has implications for global trade, capital flows, and the relative competitiveness of different economies, creating further feedback effects that will shape the conditions for future policy decisions.
Structure, Behaviour, and the Limits of Parameter Adjustment
The central insight that systems thinking brings to this analysis is that structure determines behaviour. The Federal Reserve's rate hike is an intervention at the level of a parameter, and as Meadows' framework suggests, parameter adjustments are the least transformative form of intervention. They may produce changes in the rate of flow, but they do not alter the underlying structure that generates the system's behaviour.
The deeper structural factors driving inflation in the current environment include the geopolitical configuration that has disrupted energy supplies, the structure of global supply chains that transmit price shocks across borders, the feedback loops connecting expectations to behaviour, and the political economy of monetary policy itself. None of these factors can be addressed through interest rate adjustments alone.
King, writing from the perspective of a former central bank governor, has argued that central banks have become the "only game in town" precisely because the structural reforms needed to address the deeper fragilities of the financial system have not been undertaken. The reliance on monetary policy as the primary instrument of economic management reflects a structural condition in which other policy levers have been neglected or constrained. Minsky's financial instability hypothesis adds a further dimension: the pursuit of inflation-targeting interest rate policies may itself contribute to the financial fragility of leveraged firms, creating instability in the very system the central bank is attempting to stabilise.
Haldane's work on complexity in financial regulation is also instructive. His argument that "you do not fight complexity with complexity" applies equally to monetary policy. Adding further layers of parameter adjustment to a complex system does not necessarily improve outcomes; it may simply introduce additional channels through which unintended consequences can propagate.
Conclusion
The Federal Reserve's first rate hike since 2023 represents a significant moment in the conduct of monetary policy, marking a shift from the accommodation of the previous period to a renewed emphasis on price stability. Through a systems thinking lens, the decision can be understood as an attempt to manipulate a low-leverage parameter within a complex system whose behaviour is being driven by deeper structural forces. The rate hike may help to anchor inflation expectations and signal the central bank's commitment to its mandate. But the geopolitical and supply-side sources of the current inflationary impulse lie beyond the reach of monetary policy.
The political dimension reinforces this conclusion. The inflation being addressed originates substantially from the administration's own tariff and foreign policy decisions. The instrument being used to address it will impose additional costs on voters six weeks before a midterm election. The chair appointed to deliver rate cuts has instead delivered the first hike in three years, unanimously, and signalled more to come. Each of these elements is a structural feature of a system in which monetary policy, fiscal policy, geopolitics, and electoral politics are tightly coupled, and in which interventions in one domain produce consequences in others that no single actor can control.
The analysis suggests that effective management of the economic system will require attention not only to the parameters that central banks control, but to the structures that generate the behaviour they seek to influence. As Warsh himself acknowledged when asked about the labour market implications of the decision, "I don't believe we need to do harm to the labour market to achieve our objectives". The challenge is whether the available instruments can achieve those objectives without producing the harm that the system's structure makes possible. That is not a question that parameter adjustment alone can answer.
References
Arthur, W.B. (2013) Complexity Economics: A Different Framework for Economic Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haldane, A.G. (2012) The Dog and the Frisbee. Speech delivered at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City's 366th economic policy symposium, Jackson Hole, 31 August.
King, M. (2016) The End of Alchemy: Money, Banking, and the Future of the Global Economy. London: Little, Brown.
Meadows, D.H. (2008) Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Minsky, H.P. (1982) Can "It" Happen Again? Essays on Instability and Finance. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Minsky, H.P. (1986) Stabilizing an Unstable Economy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Soros, G. (1987) The Alchemy of Finance. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Regards,
Russell Larke
BA (Hons) Business Management | MSc Candidate (Systems Thinking)
Trading Beyond Charts