10 Comments
User's avatar
Rainbow Roxy's avatar

Excellent observation about the third zero. It makes you think how often small rule changes go unoticed, fundamentally shifting the probabilities?

Geoff Wolinetz's avatar

Thank you! Yeah, I don’t love to get too cynical, but that’s the entire game - how much can corporations or profit making entities get? How can politicians shift the Overton Window? Etc etc etc

Eric Hirsh's avatar

The notion of shrinkflation comes to mind...products (especially packaged food) get smaller over time but the price stays the same. It's a constant game of how much less can they give you without you noticing or caring. There's even a subreddit dedicated to exposing this: r/shrinkflation

Also, this is a great corollary to your rent seeking article.

Geoff Wolinetz's avatar

Great thoughts, Eric! And yeah, totally locked into shrinkflation also. It's a consistent downward trend in experience, because corporations believe the American consumer will just take it - and experience (and convenience) prove them right almost every time. It depends to some extent on how inelastic the demand curve of the item is (it's much easier to stop buying bad potato chips if the price gets too high than it is to stop buying gasoline or cigarettes or drugs, for instance), but you're spot on.

JW's avatar

Thank you for writing this. There is no accountability of businesses to the externalities they create or to the collective balance. So the result is naturally the collective absorbing that shock and responding in some way.

Yes, agency is the response, with corresponding choices that shift towards balance. Whats true, however, is that we see people exerting agency, at all levels. But what is their agency yielding? People who have no money have few choices and need things cheap, people who have some money may be too stressed and have no capacity to move away from the convenience of Amazon, and people who have a lot of money have a system that works for them (until people start robbing their neighborhoods.). The middle wealthy don’t understand the deep need to change behavior.

It’s not so much agency as it is building awareness around where this is going for the middle wealthy folks. There is no doubt that there are two strongest forces: the billionaires and the proletariat (can we start using that word in this country?) IMO the only chance we have is the few at the middle top taking back the mic. But they/we will do nothing to move the needle. They/we will stay mostly apolitical and off social reform topics because it’s too much and we/they like the convenience.

Geoff Wolinetz's avatar

Spot on in many ways. I know it can be demoralizing for those who have lesser means and feel powerless, but in aggregate (as we've seen in Minneapolis) when people of small means come together, you wind up with larger impact. That's how the proletariat rises up, if we're following that historical thread. There's power in numbers always

Pooja's avatar

Always enjoy your musings and this is my favorite one yet.

Geoff Wolinetz's avatar

Thanks, Pooja! It’s a really treat to write them and have a platform. Stay warm!

Rick Mandler's avatar

Preach Geoff! Great piece. I would add a few things…. 1. The tax treatment of private equity that incentivizes massive capital in flows that then chase industries to roll up in search of return. 2. The failure of antitrust law, allowing growing concentration, leaving consumers with less ability to do business with companies not gauging them with monopoly rents. (Enshittification is a form of monopoly rent.). 3. Online media chasing engagement undermining the natural self correcting democratic process.

Geoff Wolinetz's avatar

Thanks, Rick! You’re so right - this could have been 2500-3000 words. If the natural order of the universe is chaos, the natural order of business is enshittification. And we’ve been through this before, so without intervention, it’ll just keep spiraling down