Provocation # 60 equilibrium.
Here is a possibly naive question.
The equilibrium we have in our economy now is produced by a number if factors, forces, arrangements, that determine where the equilibrium is going. A moving point.
If we take simply the understanding that every cycle in markets moves wealth upward.. The rich have better information and can buy early at a lower price and with cheaper interest, and sell earlier at a higher price as the market starts downward. Each cycle shifts the difference upward, making the rich richer.
Hence capitalism self-destructs. The hope is that regulation can keep the equilibrium point lower, but the pressure from within capitalism is always toward increasing profit, and narrowing the scope of the enterprise to what can be controlled or externalized. Things like the good of others is pushed aside. Climate is ignored by most business because it can only interfere with sales. The exception is business aimed at climate, but then the game is to use that business to make s profit by ignoring things like inequality and jobless automation.
So the question is, does not equilibrium dynamics lead to inequality? The equilibrium point of the dynamic is monopoly ownership?
The problem is, how else can we incentivize? The great agricultural empires did it with authoritarian control and hereditary class positions – roles. What is the future for new economic/political arrangements that are holistic and can cope with systemic problems?