The issue was ergodic

 In the last post.

The economy is not ergodic in the following sense:

In mathematics, ergodicity expresses the idea that a point of a moving system, either a dynamical system or a stochastic process, will eventually visit all parts of the space that the system moves in, in a uniform and random sense.

A lot of paths are merged early, the paths retained are explorable, but it is a compact set meaning the minimal paths needed to mostly cover the sale route. This is economies of scale effect, accepting less granularity in return for larger scales. It is a subtle difference until we cannot assume constant returns to scale, there is always structural change.  We need the geodesic version of economics which accounting for stock and flow.  Behind the scenes are twitter arguments about economics assumptions.

The general idea is that some M independent sectors want to look like binomials, to be maximally independent. A kind of tautology.  M generally is three, but certainly can go higher when market size is well managed. Each of the M colors is structured queue, but they adapt in quanta, leave fair dents in the trade sequence. They are adaptive coded, only recent information is kept. More important, node jumping occurs, like a holiday economy is a different energy level. The recession cycle is typical.  One market  size is unsupportable and it adapts to another, the ergodicity assumption gone.

The Fed entering permanent tax mode is a good example.