Tuesday, February 03, 2026

Owning Your Work in a World That Rents Your Life

This is the quiet truth of institutional work: improvement doesn't buy freedom. It buys responsibility without ownership.

This guest essay by longtime correspondent 0bserver describes the core dynamics of work in America and the global economy: if we don't own our work, we only "rent" our income and the life it funds. I discuss the process of owning your work in my book Get A Job, Build a Real Career and Defy a Bewildering Economy. The system doesn't make it easy to own your work, and this isn't accidental.

Modern work promises freedom but delivers dependence. The language is flattering--flexibility, opportunity, growth--but the structure is rigid. You don't own the work. You rent access to it. Your time, attention, and energy are leased month to month, contingent on priorities you do not control.

In theory, performance compounds.

In practice, it resets.

Every quarter resets the scoreboard.

Every month resets the scoreboard.

Often, every week.

I learned this twice, in the same industry, in two very different environments.

The first time, I stood in the open.

The second time, I sat in a chair.


The Kiosk

The kiosk sat in the middle of the mall. No walls. No back room. Shirt and tie. Ironed. Serious enough to signal legitimacy, close enough to retail to remain disposable.

Friday morning sales meetings were held off the floor in a business office. Everyone was half-awake, suits pressed, coffee, doing little. The whiteboard showed the same columns it always did: new contracts, renewals, data attachment, accessories.

At one of those meetings, a manager told us--earnestly--that it was harder to get hired there than to get into Harvard.

He offered it as an explanation. Why the pressure was justified. Why the metrics mattered. Why we should feel fortunate.

New and Renew were what paid you. Contracts and commitments. Real money.

The rest--data attachment and accessories--were something else entirely. Loyalty tests. Metrics that paid the company, not the worker.

We were asked to brainstorm ways to raise them anyway.

Someone suggested bundling more accessories.

Someone else suggested reframing the pitch.

No one suggested aligning compensation with the ask.

That was the first time I noticed that performance wasn't cumulative. Competence didn't reduce pressure; it increased expectations. Solving last month's problem simply earned you a harder one next month, at the same pay and with less tolerance.

The scoreboard didn't measure value created.

It measured compliance with whatever mattered now.

You could be excellent and still be wrong.

Strong production but weak accessory numbers? Coaching.

Solid revenue but low data attachment? Attitude problem.

The rules shifted constantly. Quotas changed. Staffing changes altered the math overnight. Decisions made far upstream--pricing, promotions, online upgrades--were absorbed downstream by people standing on the floor.

After work, we joked about it at the bar. About executives not sitting in rooms trying to figure out how to pay us more, but how to make sure they didn't have to.

The kiosk exhausted the body.

But it was honest about the transaction.


The Cubicle

The cubicle presented itself differently. Quieter. Legitimate.

Inbound sales. New customers only.

Hourly base plus commission, paid on completed installs. Long-term contracts paid best. Internet was the product. Phone lines were inexpensive add-ons. Television rarely sold and mostly complicated the transaction.

There were no scripts, but there were constraints.

You couldn't change pricing.

You couldn't change contract terms.

You couldn't change installation rules or service windows.

Your role was to move orders through the system, absorb frustration created elsewhere, and keep the machine operating smoothly enough that customers didn't notice its edges.

If you understood the system, you could do well. Same-day closes. Next-day installs. Competitive pricing used deliberately to avoid marginal accounts that churned and consumed time.

The work rewarded efficiency, not judgment.

Once an install was scheduled, your involvement ended. If it failed, the anger returned to you. If it succeeded, it disappeared. Nothing accumulated. Nothing followed you forward.

On paper, it was a good job.

The promise was stability.

Not fulfillment. Not advancement. Stability.

But the structure was already thinning. Strategic uncertainty. Leadership turnover. Hiring followed by 'realignment.' Compensation plans adjusted downward. Training sessions explaining why this was reasonable.

People began paying attention to different variables. Mortgage payments. Closing dates. Whether a spouse's income could carry the household if this stopped.

The job wasn't asking for loyalty.

It was asking for patience.

I took the position hoping for runway--time to fund entrepreneurial efforts, time to build something that could exist independently before the structure inevitably changed.

The cubicle didn't exhaust the body.

It exhausted something quieter.


The Reset Made Visible

The layoff arrived without drama.

A visiting executive tried to soften it with a metaphor.

"We bought a nice house," he said, "but it's already filled with people."

There was no malice in it. Just accuracy.

That was the moment the language finally aligned with the structure. We weren't being removed for failure. We were excess capacity. The house no longer required us.

Nothing I had done there could belong to me.

And nothing I could have done would have altered the outcome.


Orientation Toward Ownership

This is the quiet truth of institutional work: improvement doesn't buy freedom. It buys responsibility without ownership.

The better you perform, the more efficiently your output is absorbed--and the easier you are to remove when conditions shift.

Ownership reverses that relationship.

You become smaller, but sturdier.

You trade the illusion of scale for the reality of control.

When you own the work, effort compounds. Skills persist across transitions. Mistakes cost you--but they teach you. Success stays with you. The feedback loop tightens.

Ownership doesn't mean safety.

It means alignment.

Large systems promise stability and deliver fragility.

Small ownership looks fragile and delivers durability.

In a world that rents your time, ownership isn't rebellion or ideology.

It's orientation.

Work that leads somewhere.

Skills that survive disruption.

A life that doesn't reset every quarter.

That's not a philosophy.

It's the difference between running in place and moving forward.

This is a guest essay by longtime correspondent 0bserver.



My new book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Check out my updated Books and Films.

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com

Subscribe to my Substack for free





NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, David D. ($70), for your massively generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

 

Thank you, Gabe ($7/month), for your magnificently generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.


Thank you, Michael ($70) for your superbly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

 

Thank you, Dave D. ($7/month) for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Monday, February 02, 2026

Power and Impunity

Those acting with impunity are confident that their powers or god-like because they appear so in the human realm. But there are limits to everything in the human realm.

One of the first things we learned about the Internet is that anything sent via email could readily become public and anything created on a computer might be stolen/hacked and distributed.

Recent events suggest that many high-profile players had few concerns about the security of their private communications. Thirty years into the Internet, ignorance can be dismissed as a factor, and so that leaves impunity: there would be no consequences even if their private correspondence became public.

There is power, and then there is impunity. Power has limits; those acting with impunity are confident that their power has elevated them beyond the reach of any authority or adverse consequence, and so they're free to act with complete impunity.

Which brings us to Smith's Neofeudalism Principle #1: If the citizenry cannot replace a kleptocratic authoritarian government and/or limit the power of the financial Aristocracy at the ballot box, the nation is a democracy in name only.

A kleptocracy doesn't just take money; it takes whatever it wants, and with that impunity, it dismantles the foundations of its own power: the legitimacy of the state and the pretense that anything resembling justice is possible is a kleptocracy. With democracy and justice neutered, the hollowness of the entire status quo is revealed.

The impunity of the present era exceeds that of absolute monarchs, who despite their claim to unfettered power still faced the limiting counterweights of a powerful nobility, a merchant class that paid the taxes, a clerisy with both spiritual and material influence and the potential for a revolt of the peasantry that with elite support could transmogrify into a full-blown civil war.

Those acting with impunity now have far more tools of control than the absolute monarchs of old ever had. They can obfuscate their above the law impunity with legal maneuvers, false claims the evidence is fabricated, twisting the narrative in their favor, and by letting those in their grip know that the cost of attempting to limit their lawlessness will be so costly that complicity in the destruction of democracy and justice is the only route available.

The irony here is that their impunity to consequence has its own consequence: the dismantling of the system that protects and empowers them. A state and status quo that has squandered their legitimacy to protect the powerful from consequence loses The Mandate of Heaven: the citizenry, Heaven and Earth all turn against this corrupt regime.

Revelations of impunity are not yet consequential because all the technocratic elite desires is their seat in the casino is left undisturbed so they can continue amassing wealth to their own accounts. Nothing else matters.

Unbeknownst to the speculators, their position atop the wealth-power pyramid is also at risk, for the kleptocracy's destruction of democracy and justice is also dismantling the foundations of the casino they depend on to increase their wealth.

Those acting with impunity are confident that their powers or god-like because they appear so in the human realm. But there are limits to everything in the human realm. Since the way of the Tao is reversal, extremes of impunity--the ultimate manifestation of fate-tempting hubris--will reverse to extremes of consequence.

Jackson Brown's 1974 song The Road and the Sky come to mind:

Can you see those dark clouds gathering up ahead?
They're gonna wash this planet clean like the Bible said
Now you can hold on steady, try to be ready
But everybody's gonna get wet
Don't think it won't happen just because it hasn't happened yet.







My new book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Check out my updated Books and Films.

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com

Subscribe to my Substack for free





NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Duane S. ($35), for your massively generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

 

Thank you, James C. ($7/month), for your magnificently generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.


Thank you, Hand on the Tiller ($7/month) for your superbly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

 

Thank you, Mark B. ($7/month) for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Thursday, January 29, 2026

The US Economy in a Nutshell: A Few Winners, Everyone Else Loses Ground

Maybe this arrangement isn't as stable and sustainable as the winners imagine.

Here's the US economy in a nutshell: corporate/state concentrations of financial, market and political power are the winners, and everyone outside these fortresses is losing ground. The Wall Street Journal is generally viewed as pro-business, and so it's particularly striking when the WSJ published this:

The Economic Divide Between Big and Small Companies Is Growing: Economic fortunes of low- and high-income Americans are diverging--same pattern happening with companies. (WSJ.com)

--The growing divide between the fortunes of small and large businesses mirrors the divide that has emerged over the past year between low-income Americans and their high-income counterparts.

--Large, publicly traded companies in the S&P 500 saw net income increase by 12.9% in the third quarter, contrasting with faltering small-business profits.

--Small businesses are facing economic headwinds, including high inflation and cautious consumers, leading to job cuts; 120,000 jobs were shed in November.


In other words, the small circle of winners and the larger circle of those losing ground describes both households and enterprises: small businesses--lacking the concentrated financial / political power to exercise monopoly-cartel control of their market and protect their fiefdom by buying political influence--are in steep decline--and this is in "good times," i.e. the economy is expanding, not contracting in a recession.

As in the household sector, the winners are doing splendidly while everyone else loses ground. The media--controlled by the winners, of course--tout the winners as if they're the norm rather than the outliers in a winner take most economy.

The quasi-monopolies and cartels of Corporate America reign supreme: trillion-dollar valuations, soaring profits, unmatched political and market control. Small business, whose interests are diffuse and widely distributed, are reduced to tax donkeys struggling to pay soaring rent, wages, utilities and overhead costs without the market muscle of monopolies / cartels to force consumers to pay higher prices for degraded goods and services.

The top 10% of households are also doing extremely well, accounting for fully half of all consumer spending as their earnings, passive investment income and assets all bubble higher.

A few of these top earning households are blue-collar households with workers earning top pay due to scarcity of their skillsets, but most are working in the state / corporate sectors with the power to pay high wages and benefits regardless of what's happening to the bottom 90%.



While large corporations are adding employees, small businesses are shedding employees to survive.



Wage growth mirrors this asymmetric distribution: the post-pandemic stimulus trillions that boosted the mid and lower income workforce has reversed while wages for the top tier are rising.



The point here is that entities with financial, market and political power don't need a thriving bottom 90% to increase their dominance. They have no real need to care what's happening to the bottom 90%, as they can extract higher taxes, rents, subscriptions and prices while degrading the goods and services they provide because an economy dominated by monopolies and cartels is a TINA Economy: there is no alternative, as the world outside the monopolies and cartels is a barren landscape stripped of the functionality required to participate in the economy.



We're constantly assured an economy where the gains follow an extraordinarily asymmetric power-law distribution is a wondrous engine of sustainable growth that benefits everyone, but the facts don't support this fairy-tale PR promoted by the winners to placate those losing ground.

Maybe this arrangement isn't as stable and sustainable as the winners imagine.


My new book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Check out my updated Books and Films.

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com

Subscribe to my Substack for free





NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, David K. ($300), for your beyond outrageously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

 

Thank you, Jamshyd H. ($50), for your magnificently generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.


Thank you, John D. ($200) for your beyond outrageously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

 

Thank you, Colin G. ($70) for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Tuesday, January 27, 2026

Why the Next Recession Will Be the Catalyst for Depression

This is why a recession will catalyze a collapse of the credit-asset bubble-dependent economy down to its foundations.

Narrative control works by having a pat answer for every skepticism and every doubt. Boiled down, the dominant narrative holds that the Federal Reserve (central banking) and the central government have the tools to quickly reverse any dip in GDP, a.k.a. recession, and return the economy to expansion.

The unstated foundation of this narrative is that recessions are bad, as only permanent expansion is good. That this isn't "free market capitalism" doesn't bother anyone, because the whole point of central banking and government is to eliminate the rough edges of "free market capitalism" with the sandpaper of "state capitalism," which creates or borrows as much money as needed to smooth over any spots of bother, a.k.a. recessions.

That recessions are essential market dynamics is not part of the narrative, which is conveniently binary: recessions bad, expansion good. Markets reflect human emotions, famously fear and greed, which manifest as debt and speculation, a.k.a. animal spirits: when we're confident and feeding off an expansion that appears to have no limit, then we borrow more money (debt expands) and "allocate the capital" (i.e. place it at risk to reap a future gain) to increasingly risky speculative investments.

This allocation of borrowed money into speculative assets pushes the price of those assets higher, increasing the collateral to support further borrowing to fund more speculation. In this manner, debt, asset valuations, collateral and speculation all fuel one another in a seemingly endless expansion that makes every participant richer.

This pyramiding of debt and "wealth" generates two self-liquidating dynamics: interest and risk. All debt comes with interest, the compensation due those who put their money at risk by lending it to the borrower. This debt service rises as debt expands, and also as risk increases: the riskier the speculation and the borrower, the higher the interest rate paid by the borrower.

Central banks can play games to reduce interest rates even as risk and interest payment rise, but since central banks own only a fraction of the total outstanding debt, their ability to "corner the market" is nil.

Their gaming the system to enable further expansion of debt and speculation functions not by actually buying up the majority of the new debt, it functions as a signal: the Federal Reserve has our back, they will bail out / recapitalize any lender losses while suppressing interest rates below what the unfettered market would demand, and so the pyramiding of debt, speculation and "wealth" can continue, apparently indefinitely.

But signaling has intrinsic limits, for it doesn't increase the income needed to service additional debt or guarantee speculations will pay off. These are the Achilles Heels of the central banking perpetual motion machine: for the vast majority of borrowers, both private and public, income doesn't automatically increase as debt increases. Income is influenced by market factors (supply and demand), technologies, state interventions (subsidies, stimulus spending, etc.) and the expansion or contraction of debt, interest rates and speculative investments.

In the total-economy context, what matters are total factor productivity gains and the distribution of those gains to wage earners, enterprises, owners of assets and the state, which collects taxes from all three of the private-sector classes. This distribution changes with social, political and financial tides.



The past 50 years have seen productivity gains flow to capital (corporations and owners of assets) at the expense of wage-earners. This means households and small businesses must service debt from a shrinking share of the economy. As a result, borrowing more becomes increasingly risky for both borrower and lender.



As more of the output goes to corporations and owners of assets, their collateral, income and creditworthiness rise, meaning they can borrow more at lower rates of interest than wage earners and small enterprises. The more they can borrow, the more they can own and the more they can earn.

These are the core engines of extreme wealth and income inequality. The rich get richer because they have the means to borrow more income-generating assets at lower rates than wage earners. And unlike wages, this asset-generated income rises as assets increasing in value support additional borrowing as they serve as collateral.

On the most fundamental level, if economic expansion no longer increases the income of household borrowers enough to service more debt, the entire structure of expanding debt, collateral and speculation is destabilized. Ultimately, assets generate income from either 1) issuing more debt, 2) investing more in risk assets or 3) consumer spending. All three are interconnected, i.e. tightly bound, as any decline in the expansion of debt, investing or spending eventually bleeds through to reduced ability to service more debt and the end of the expansion of debt.

Since debt is inherently risky--borrowers can default, i.e. stop paying interest and principal on the debt--then depending on expanding debt for economic expansion is also increasing risk, especially if household earnings are stagnating while debt and interest payments are increasing.

Since the percentage of output flowing to wages has been declining for 50 years, households have funded spending by borrowing more money. Prior to the 2000s, college students borrowed very little to fund their education. Now student loan debt is measured in the trillion-dollar range. Auto loans and credit card debt has also soared, along with shadow-banking debt that isn't even tracked: pay-in-installments, etc.



Speculative investments are also inherently risky: the investment can fail to pay off. If the speculation was funded by debt, then both the borrower and the lender go broke when the speculation fails.

Stagnating earnings, increasing debt to fund spending and increasingly risky debt-funded speculation generate a credit-asset bubble-dependent economy: economic expansion is now dependent on debt expanding to fund spending and the speculation that pushes asset valuations higher, increasing the collateral for even more borrowing.



Once income is no longer rising fast enough to service higher debt loads, defaults cascade throughout the system, triggering avalanches of declining income for both assets and wage earners as households default on rent, auto loans, student loans, credit cards and mortgages, collapsing consumer spending and laying waste to lenders and employers, who respond by reducing borrowing and laying off employees.

Speculations that looked sound in expansion go broke as lenders pull risky loans, household spending dries up and collateral collapses as risk assets are sold off to reduce risk by raising cash and paying down debt.

Credit-asset bubble-dependent economies are tightly bound systems: any drop in income and valuations, any tightening of credit, any rise in interest rates and any decline in collateral (i.e. the valuations of risk assets) feeds back into every other part of the system, creating a self-reinforcing feedback loop of defaults, layoffs and sagging asset valuations.

In an economy saturated with debt, stimulus doesn't generate expansion, it generates inflation which limits central bank stimulus. Without that signal that "the Fed has our back," speculation and the borrowing that funded it both dry up. Once the inflow of new credit-funded investment falters, asset valuations enter a self-reinforcing free-fall.

In a credit-asset bubble-dependent economy, this inevitable unwinding is viewed as an unexpected catastrophe:



In an economy that allowed recessions to clear bad debt and excessive speculation, credit-asset bubbles popping is viewed as inevitable and normal.



What few seem to understand is 1) the last "real recession" that cleared excesses of debt, leverage and speculation was 1980-82, 45 years ago and 2) the buffers that enabled the eventual recovery back then are gone. Where total debt was low in 1980--about 50% more than GDP--now it's triple GDP. That means "borrowing our way to expansion" isn't possible: borrowers are already unable to service existing debt, never mind more debt.

As for the Fed rescuing the debt bubble by dropping interest rates to zero: recall that the Fed isn't buying more than a sliver of the $106 trillion debt; it's only generating a false signal that risk is low. In the real world, risk is rising inexorably due to excessive debt, interest payments, leverage and speculation.

As for bailing the system out as in 2008, that is no longer possible, either. The system was "saved" by recapitalizing the financial sector--the source of new debt and speculation. But this time around, the economy is saturated with debt, income has stagnated and cannot support more borrowing, and the credit-asset bubbles in housing and financial assets has reached unprecedented heights of risk, i.e. fragility.

This is why a recession that clears the system of excessive debt, leverage and speculation leaves a devastated economy incapable of expansion: the system is now totally dependent on excesses of debt, leverage and speculation for its survival, never mind expansion, and once that collapses (as all bubbles do), the signaling, confidence and wealth that enabled the bubble will no longer exist.

As for saving the system by converting fiat money to precious metals or cryptocurrencies: the debt--and the income needed to service the debt--will also be converted, and that doesn't change the inevitable collapse of credit-asset bubbles and all the economic activity that depended on the permanent expansion of that credit-asset bubble.

This is why a recession will catalyze a collapse of the credit-asset bubble-dependent economy down to its foundations. A re-inflation of a new credit-asset bubble will be viewed as the "solution," but that unstable system will no longer be viable. The real solution will be re-arranging the economy to thrive not on credit-asset bubbles but on productivity gains that are widely distributed to all the productive elements, not just the wealthiest asset owners.

This process will be time-consuming and difficult, as all the "winners" in the current bubble economy will expect both a return to outsized gains and a continuation of their outsized share of the gains. Neither will be possible, as the changes will demand time, sacrifice and massive long-term investment in productive assets.

The systemic risks inherent to a credit-asset bubble-dependent economy cannot be extinguished, they can only be cloaked or transferred to others. These artifices enable the expansion of the bubble at a cost paid by everyone when the system's self-liquidating dynamics pop the bubble.


My new book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Check out my updated Books and Films.

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com

Subscribe to my Substack for free





NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, David K. ($300), for your beyond outrageously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

 

Thank you, Jamshyd H. ($50), for your magnificently generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.


Thank you, John D. ($200) for your beyond outrageously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

 

Thank you, Colin G. ($70) for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Sunday, January 25, 2026

The Fatal Limits of the Technocrat Class

Goliath dies not because collapse occurs, but because scale mistakes itself for life. What survives was never his.

This guest essay by longtime correspondent 0bserver speaks to a dynamic woven into all of my work: the intrinsic impossibility of fixing what technocratic management broke with more technocratic management. Attempts to do so result in doing more of what's failed, with fatal consequences for the systems being "fixed," as the technocratic elite holds the power to impose policies but is immune to the consequences of the failure of those policies. Those fall on the system, which then veers into incoherence and Model Collapse.

I've been reading Luke Kemp's Goliath's Curse: The History and Future of Societal Collapse with care, because the book is serious, well-researched, and written from within institutions that spend their days thinking about systemic fragility. Kemp is not unserious, nor is he shallow. His diagnosis of elite failure, complexity, inequality, and institutional overreach aligns with much of what many of us have been warning about for years.

Where I think the book ultimately fails, however, is not in what it sees--but in what it cannot see from the altitude at which it operates.

Kemp's collapse framework is managerial. Collapse is treated as a system-level pathology to be prevented through coordination, governance, and institutional reform. This makes sense given his professional formation and affiliations, but it creates a blind spot that becomes more consequential the longer one reads: continuity is assumed, not explained.

The book speaks fluently about sustainability, inequality, elite capture, and long-term risk. Yet it does not seriously engage with inheritance--not inheritance as wealth alone, but inheritance as transmission: skills, trades, family structure, norms, fertility, competence, and responsibility carried forward across generations. Sustainability is framed as system stability rather than generational renewal.

This omission matters, because collapse is not the absence of order. It is the failure of particular scales of organization. When large institutions fail, life does not disappear--it reorganizes. The question is not whether systems can be stabilized indefinitely, but whether anything capable of inheritance remains when stabilization fails.

Luke Kemp is excellent at identifying fragility in centralized systems. He is far less interested in, or perhaps less equipped to examine, the base-rate reality that most societies muddle through breakdowns via informal order, households, and local competence. This is where pessimism overweights evidence. Failure is dramatic and legible; endurance is quiet and distributed.

Where this becomes decisive is in Kemp's proposed solutions.

When collapse looms, the remedies offered are more coordination, better governance, stronger institutions, improved global frameworks, and smarter management of risk. Complexity is to be handled by expertise; inequality by policy; instability by coordination. The scale that failed is asked to save itself.

This is the core problem.

The solutions operate at the same level as the failure.

Centralization is offered as the cure for overextension.

Governance is offered as the cure for institutional fragility.

Coordination is offered as the cure for complexity.

The very mechanisms meant to prevent collapse amplify its consequences when they fail.

Recent history supplies proof--not theory.

The financial collapse of 2008 rescued banks while households absorbed the loss. Large institutions were recapitalized immediately; families lost homes, savings, and years of accumulated effort. Recovery was declared long before household continuity returned.

The pandemic reinforced the same pattern. Large corporations were deemed essential, while small and local businesses were declared nonessential and shuttered. Compliance favored scale; capital consolidated upward; independent capacity quietly disappeared.

A third proof is now unfolding without crisis declarations. Large banks continue to grow while private equity consolidates trades and local services--plumbing, HVAC, electrical, veterinary clinics, small manufacturing. Businesses are bought, debt-loaded, stripped, and optimized for extraction. Ownership disappears, stewardship evaporates, and nothing is left to inherit when failure arrives.

These outcomes are not policy accidents.

They are the predictable result of scale-first solutions.

Systems are stabilized.

Households are tested.

Continuity bears the cost.

What troubles me most is that Goliath's Curse critiques elites and inequality while failing to recognize how insulated analysis itself has become. Collapse expertise that cannot be lived becomes abstract. Risk is modeled without skin in the game. Moral urgency is asserted without moral grounding. The book makes moral claims--about obligation, responsibility, and injustice--without ever naming the source of those obligations.

This creates a quiet contradiction. Moral language is necessary to motivate coordination, but moral foundations are left ambiguous to preserve managerial flexibility. In the absence of grounding, obligation eventually collapses into power.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb has a name for one failure mode here: the intellectual yet idiot--not stupid, not malicious, but insulated from consequence. I don't think Luke Kemp himself is the target. The framework is. Collapse theory that remains legible only to institutions will always propose institutional solutions, even when the problem has already migrated below that level.

The real threat is not collapse per se. Systems rise and fall. The real threat is the dissolution of the family and the erosion of inheritance.

Institutions can be recapitalized. Markets can reprice. States can fragment and re-form. Families cannot be substituted.

When families fail to reproduce competence, culture, and responsibility across generations, nothing downstream inherits. What follows is not collapse but vacancy.

Goliath dies not because collapse occurs, but because scale mistakes itself for life. What survives was never his.

That is the argument I think Goliath's Curse gestures toward but cannot complete from where it stands. The book diagnoses fragility well. It does not yet explain endurance.

And in the end, endurance--not prevention--is what decides the future.


This is a guest essay by longtime correspondent 0bserver.


CHS here: note that the global technocrat elite follows a power law distribution in where they attended university:



...and the power they wield in markets and institutions:




My new book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)


Check out my updated Books and Films.

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com

Subscribe to my Substack for free





NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Robert M. ($7/month), for your outrageously generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

 

Thank you, Green Dragon Gal ($7/month), for your magnificently generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.


Thank you, ChiSox ($7/month) for your superbly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

 

Thank you, Claire ($7/month) for your splendidly generous subscription to this site -- I am greatly honored by your support and readership.

Read more...

Terms of Service

All content on this blog is provided by Trewe LLC for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. These terms and conditions of use are subject to change at anytime and without notice.


Our Privacy Policy:


Correspondents' email is strictly confidential. This site does not collect digital data from visitors or distribute cookies. Advertisements served by a third-party advertising network (Investing Channel) may use cookies or collect information from visitors for the purpose of Interest-Based Advertising; if you wish to opt out of Interest-Based Advertising, please go to Opt out of interest-based advertising (The Network Advertising Initiative). If you have other privacy concerns relating to advertisements, please contact advertisers directly. Websites and blog links on the site's blog roll are posted at my discretion.


PRIVACY NOTICE FOR EEA INDIVIDUALS


This section covers disclosures on the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) for users residing within EEA only. GDPR replaces the existing Directive 95/46/ec, and aims at harmonizing data protection laws in the EU that are fit for purpose in the digital age. The primary objective of the GDPR is to give citizens back control of their personal data. Please follow the link below to access InvestingChannel’s General Data Protection Notice. https://stg.media.investingchannel.com/gdpr-notice/


Notice of Compliance with The California Consumer Protection Act
This site does not collect digital data from visitors or distribute cookies. Advertisements served by a third-party advertising network (Investing Channel) may use cookies or collect information from visitors for the purpose of Interest-Based Advertising. If you do not want any personal information that may be collected by third-party advertising to be sold, please follow the instructions on this page: Limit the Use of My Sensitive Personal Information.


Regarding Cookies:


This site does not collect digital data from visitors or distribute cookies. Advertisements served by third-party advertising networks such as Investing Channel may use cookies or collect information from visitors for the purpose of Interest-Based Advertising; if you wish to opt out of Interest-Based Advertising, please go to Opt out of interest-based advertising (The Network Advertising Initiative) If you have other privacy concerns relating to advertisements, please contact advertisers directly.


Our Commission Policy:

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. I also earn a commission on purchases of precious metals via BullionVault. I receive no fees or compensation for any other non-advertising links or content posted on my site.

  © Blogger templates Newspaper III by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP