Boomer need give us a number

In our MMT moment, there is no clause that says,'Boomers get their usual guarantees'.  There is a clause that says,'Boomers gave us this number as a starting point for right to coin over 15 years'.  It is Simon Wren's favorite number, the generational overlap efficiency, and boomers make him proud by giving us their number. We need it in the meeting, else boomer insurance gets folded into other accounts.

It is a triple entry accounting problem, the more we default, the higher the monetary release, the more difficult to maintain senior budgets. But boomers have to bring their number to the meeting, as the meeting will happen.  Investors should short the process, force it to be 15 year smooth.  AOC crowd can get their number, start posting same.  It is time to get a sample that meets spectral constraints, start hedging that number, and force the MMT meeting into contract.

The problem is that the outcome is Pareto efficient, aggregate numbers look better after the deal than before due to predicted efficiency gains, finance goes long and no longer pays attention. This is like herding a generation of cattle through a constrained cattle chute.

Simon was right, of course, Nyquist was doing the same overlapping generations model. But if things aggregate, then in reverse, we must, of necessity, engage in Simon-Wren overlapping, else we have no aggregation tendencies.

If we fail to prepare, we overlap with a wide band, overnight ker-thunk, and we will be a cyclo stationary impulse response, as we do not have the capacity to overlap at the higher rates.  The  cost of excess capacity is the cost of delay caused by internal commutative exercises. The wide band impulse response, we are delayed in executing the commutative property needed to maintain distribution algebra, the container size algebra. We literally run around with nearly empty loads on deliveries, trying to keep up with order volatility. The exchange basket sizes incoherent with the exchange quantities, velocity equations failing because inventory amount cycle, a requant happens.

In other words, Simon-Wren, we are quasi stable, it actually takes a bit of energy wealth to maintain agreement about basket sizes everywhere.  Knocking the currency baker around is a bad idea in a quasi stable process, there is no natural path to the next equilibrium until it is suddenly is needed, white noise, a fixed energy barrier, a quantization cost and we tunnel through it with a slight inventory slop needing precision.