Conversation

The current economy is optimized for extracting all surpluses and storing it in a particular concentrated form: high liquidity financial instruments that allow fat surpluses to migrate rapidly and frictionlessly to the current fastest growth vector.
1
11
The fact that the concentration coincides with a small population of private wealth holders is almost irrelevant. Any such high mobility concentration would hace the same effect: everything else has to be super lean and tightly synchronized. Great for growth but not resilience.
2
10
While wealth inequality may be a moral problem under some views, that’s not the main reason extreme wealth concentration is a practical problem. It’s a problem because it causes fragility. Thinking in terms of fat distribution rather than wealth helps.
2
8
To make it clear, such a distribution would be a problem even in a society that explicitly designed for eugenics and associated authoritarian values. Bad fat distribution is a problem for any system of values. Kinda like a potbelly is a marker of risk for anyone.
1
2
“Good” fat distribution would store fat in a much broader variety of instruments and engineer friction and illiquidity so it cannot gravitate to fastest growth locus too easily. You’re not trading off growth for security: you’re securing the growth itself.
1
6
There now seems to be a consensus among economists that dichotomy between opening up the economy sooner and mitigating for longer is a false one. You mitigate longer to actually rescue the economy rather than just put it through a false dawn. This argument works long term too.
1
7
A better fat distribution is the longer term macroeconomic analog to social distancing. It prevents economic contagion from spreading as fast, thereby preserving growth potential.
2
6
Replying to
Are you preserving growth potential? The highest growth potential should be in the fastest growth vector, and roughly the same potentials are there and everywhere else during/after a crash. Or are you thinking of that vector as a plurality that can ruin the majority/everyone?
1
Replying to
'Flattening the Curve' should work both ways, less to lose because of lower total potential. I can see a case for trauma of crashes/outbreaks making entire generations reject growth for security with an overcompensated loss of potential there, but that's hard to quantify/graph.