Thread by @artsyhonker, A thing about economics that is currently biting us in the arse [...]

A thing about economics that is currently biting us in the arse pretty hard is that resilience at extremes requires decisions that seem inefficient in normal circumstances.

Examples: staffing levels, warehouse space, social benefits.

1/?

If you have enough people to run your hospital well when, say, 2% of staff are off sick, or only a low proportion of patients are in ICU, you're going to struggle in a pandemic. But having the "extra" staff in normal times looks wasteful. We push for higher efficiency.

2/?

And we've done that so much that even in "normal" times, hospitals and other medical services -- and the people who work in them -- are under incredible pressure. The NHS is struggling because it was already underfunded and overworked. This is an ideological choice.

3/?

Same holds true for warehouse space. In the unfree, rent-seeking markets we have, it's quite difficult for individual shops to have decent local storage of various staple provisions. The space is just too expensive to use for anything that won't sell quickly.

4/?

That's why a major shift in people's consumption habits -- not panic-buying, but just enough people eating and using the loo exclusively at home and not elsewhere -- leads to local shortages of things like pasta and loo roll.

5/?

That same dynamic (space is expensive!) means a lot of people live in situations where they *can't* store more than a bag or two of pasta and a few tins. High rent forces some people into the brittle strategy of only keeping in stock as much as they can eat in half a week.

6/?

Welfare payments: if they're at a level where people can only just get by, and you set up ever more complex and inscrutable barriers to applying, then there are going to be many people who don't claim benefits they are eligible for. This looks like a great cost cutter!

7/?

But it leads to (at least) two problems: one, people who are only just getting by are going to spend as little as possible, so there's a point at which keeping benefit recipients poor actually damages the economy, quite badly. I'm not going to re-explain Keynes here.

8/?

The second problem with "efficient" underpayment of benefits and labyrinthine barriers to access them is that in situations of widespread economic turmoil, a lot of people are likely to be suddenly homeless, or unable to feed their kids. And that gets expensive, fast.

9/?

They haven't been able to put a bit of money by for emergencies, just like they haven't been able to build up enough kitchen staples to get through two weeks at home -- because poor people having access to any spare money at all is seen as "inefficient".

10/?

There are countless other examples of this dynamic in complex systems. Ask, say, a computer sysadmin. (Do sysadmins even exist any more?)

Anyway: I'm a slightly anxious person and I have lost count of the number of times my "just in case" redundancy turned out well.

11/?

This is why I try to keep more than one bicycle in working order. It's why I keep tools that have multiple uses. It's why I strongly prefer kitchens with a gas hob and electric oven -- if one is out I can still cook or heat my living space with the other.

12/?

I'm not perfect at it, of course; and much of it is only available to me because of considerable privilege. "Every individual should prepare as well as I have" is a hideous take and not the point I am making at all.

13/?

My point is more... we've had several decades of relative stability in the West, due partly to kicking the can down the road and a) using fossil fuels to smooth the way and b) selling off public infrastructure to whoever will bid.

That stability is probably over.

14/?

The focus on efficiency at all costs is both a symptom and a cause of the capture of things which should be run for the benefit of all, being run on some kind of profit basis. If that seems like a bold claim, I encourage you to follow the money.

15/?

I don't have any off-the-shelf solutions. But I would encourage you to question efficiency whenever it is used as a justification for cutting costs; who profits from these decisions, and who is exposed to risk? Is that really fair?

16/?

I would encourage you to question whether redundancy and duplication (of effort, of tools, of supplies) are truly wasteful, or actually good failsafes to have in the event of massive disruption to complex systems.

17/?

I would encourage you to bring these questions to your political life, your community involvement, your home life.

And I would encourage you to remember and listen to marginalised people when you ask these questions. That is a matter not only of prudence, but justice.

18/18.

Latest Threads Unrolled: