The discussion around dynamic mergers and market optimization always comes down to the same core tension: how do we maintain a highly competitive, innovative corporate sector without creating a system that results in massive structural divergence for the average citizen?
From a pure price theory perspective, trying to fix this via aggressive, arbitrary regulatory blockages or top-down anti-trust intervention often distorts the natural efficiency of competitive markets.
If we want a truly scalable solution, the fix needs to be architectural rather than regulatory. Instead of trying to aggressively limit corporate growth and capital consolidation, we should introduce a native equity layer into the macroeconomic plumbing. By executing a baseline shift to an asset-backed model—anchored by a Sovereign Investment Fund and an optimized Universal Revenue Tax—the public balance sheet automatically captures a piece of aggregate market productivity.
This preserves the raw incentives for competitive market expansion while structurally ensuring that nationwide growth yields compound returns for every citizen. Version 1.9 of the National Growth Compact builds out the exact mathematical framework for this baseline modernization. It's live and open-source for an objective economic audit.
I find the EMH to be useful in a similar way when analyzing financial markets. There needs to be a presumption that there are no obvious trades that will make you rich overnight that don’t also have to potential to bust you. From that starting point one can figure out how to best invest given their risk tolerance and future funding needs.
You may find this relevant: Gul, F., & Pesendorfer, W. (2007). Welfare without happiness. American Economic Review, 97(2), 471-476.
Someone else suggested that piece today. I'm embarrassed I didn't know if it.
You cannot read everything. Or else you would never write anything. :)
The discussion around dynamic mergers and market optimization always comes down to the same core tension: how do we maintain a highly competitive, innovative corporate sector without creating a system that results in massive structural divergence for the average citizen?
From a pure price theory perspective, trying to fix this via aggressive, arbitrary regulatory blockages or top-down anti-trust intervention often distorts the natural efficiency of competitive markets.
If we want a truly scalable solution, the fix needs to be architectural rather than regulatory. Instead of trying to aggressively limit corporate growth and capital consolidation, we should introduce a native equity layer into the macroeconomic plumbing. By executing a baseline shift to an asset-backed model—anchored by a Sovereign Investment Fund and an optimized Universal Revenue Tax—the public balance sheet automatically captures a piece of aggregate market productivity.
This preserves the raw incentives for competitive market expansion while structurally ensuring that nationwide growth yields compound returns for every citizen. Version 1.9 of the National Growth Compact builds out the exact mathematical framework for this baseline modernization. It's live and open-source for an objective economic audit.
I find the EMH to be useful in a similar way when analyzing financial markets. There needs to be a presumption that there are no obvious trades that will make you rich overnight that don’t also have to potential to bust you. From that starting point one can figure out how to best invest given their risk tolerance and future funding needs.