Your proposal(s) is (are) too densely formed. Replacing the social status
hypothesis with a discontinuous ("fractured") collection of different economies
rings true to me. But hybrid (cyber-physical) systems are common, I think.
(Common in the Ulam sense of non-elephant animals.) If "economy" already
naturally includes mechanisms for the integration of discontinuous
sub-economies, then can it explain this political polarization? Maybe it's
necessary but insufficient?
On 12/9/20 8:54 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> It could be that the social status hypothesis is just wrong. To me it is a
> different kind of hypothesis.
> The play by the rules, do your job, be white and Christian, was enough to get
> respect. Clearly there are reasonable bounds on income to achieve this, but
> if everyone is sort of from the same mold then that's an sustainable economy.
> And the growth after WWII was kind of artificial anyway. Why shouldn't
> adjusted income be flat? The factor of 5 or more in the cost of similar
> properties depending on location in the country says to me the U.S. has
> fractured into different economies. I don't see any sign of inequality
> slowing down.
--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
