Warren Mosler indirectly raises a widely ignored topic, in his query:
"Who would have thought that with purchase apps down 10% year over year [... that] sales would fall?
So, it seems [as though] borrowers aren't stepping up to [keep leveraging] the higher mortgage rates demanded by lenders [who are] fearful of future fed rate hiking?
That means the economy stalls and the fed doesn't hike?"
Hmmm. Changing aggregate data and unchanging institutional responses. Warren's query actually brings up a VERY OLD QUESTION. How do we make sure our institutional methods change soon enough to matter? How do we change ourselves from what is, to what can be?****
Why did the distributed Luddites ever START beating their heads against the wall?*
Answer: They never really STARTED, they just finally realized that they WERE!
(A view of what the liberal "fools" were saying was on the other side of their Luddite paradigm block?)**
** That, in turn, actually brings up another, very old question in organizational or systems science.
"How ARE newly emerging organizational demands first vaguely 'sensed,' then slowly discriminated and eventually formally and productively represented by a growing aggregate - as re-invented institutional methods?"
As we'll see, the answer boils down to hierarchically tuning our array of emerging, aggregate inter-dependencies to each, transient context we encounter.
How difficult is group foresight? What's the payoff for organizing exploration of group options sooner? And what is the penalty for neglecting to explore group options? Oh, survival vs death of cultures? These are very old questions.
Yet we also know that variation at every step can occur, even in that "first" step, with the result being the occurrence of twins, triplets or even quintuplets.
Even further, we know that a prior step involves "activation" of the egg cell - usually via molecular docking of a sperm cell, although indirect methods can also work, and produce clones.
There's a long history of where the sperm comes from, of course, and how the chosen one arrives, and what closes off the window of opportunity to others. All this points out that what is and isn't the FIRST step in organizational re-development ... is always in the eye of the investigator seeking some adaptive insight. For now, let's not go further back, into the organizational assembly of all the molecules that go into re-creating every egg cell and every sperm cell. For now, that's going back further than we can benefit from reviewing.
Instead, skip up to human cultures. What, for our purposes, is the FIRST step in re-organizing a human culture - or market - on a larger scale? During the lifetime of you, your kids and your grandchildren the USA is going to go through expansion steps quite analogous to the early divisions of an activated human egg cell. How will our current, FIRST steps in renewing vs aborting our national development be viewed, by posterity?
How far back do we look, in order to gain the most benefit for the least amount of painstaking, recursive re-examination ... of our own, cultural re-development cycle?
Let's state it this way. Aggregate re-organization tasks emerge - and become a significant, detectable aggregate "potential" - long before organized paths for draining that building "potential" formally coalesce. For example, the early steps of cell division in an egg cell are profoundly affected by both the NET presence AND distribution of either toxins or nutrients, and all subsequent development is skewed by both factors. How early in our cultural development process we recognize & mount responses to emerging cultural toxins & nutrients, AND THEIR DISTRIBUTIONS, is determining - as we speak - whether our nation's culture evolves and thrives, or is harmed and stunted.
Network response features are themselves always network size dependent (unique for each aggregate size),*** so it is not at all clear how to orient THIS electorate to the benefit of FINDING paths to tap emerging returns on still-emerging aggregate coordination - other than through group practice! We always need entirely new methods for distributing cultural "benefits," in order to quickly and continuously make it self-evident to all people - how & why to align increasingly distributed local actions to aggregate benefit. Molecular gradients guide embryological development of humans. Social gradients presumably guide the continuous embryological development of human cultures.
All this drives home a simple realization. As an aggregate, we're simply out of practice at organizing on a larger scale, and haven't been training our NET selves to even orient to that task.
How WOULD we train ourselves to aggregate task? Trial & error, of course. Let's start by at least posing the question, and then fumble through finding out - while avoiding crudities like triggering more wars. Right now, through politics, we're only discussing inanities masquerading as national policy. As a result, we're clearly going backwards, purely for want of trying enough other directions.
*** Every time an aggregate adds new members, it's population "N" grows by some rate, but the interdependencies which the aggregate has to re-organize grows by N-factorial? Worse, the characteristics of the newly emerging interdependencies are based only partly upon prior component characteristics, and partly upon entirely novel characteristics of the new aggregate size itself.
~5 hours of work?