Steve

The result,in sample space, is an asymmetrical, two sided sampler, customers and clerks in WalMart. The astute manager slight undersamples with clerks and over samples with customers, gets them congestion to match orderbook uncertainty.

The person you want is the WalMart floor manager. He can live in the congested chaos of inventory in and out while working stable queues of 1 or 2 people per line at check out or 0 to 1 clerks at the register.

This person minimizes matching error. In the job, the person allows just enough chaos to define the limit, or boundary of very symmetric distributions. So finance has a real good idea on price an and out bounds that keeps the store stable.

On the first one, there is a huge amount more that could be written.

Our ability to give ourselves what we want has far outstripped our ability to sense what we really need.

This is the true problem of civilization, but also Libertarianism. And why J. Peterson is so successful right now, millions of mostly men know he’s offering what they really need.

The free market is great when rational agents want what is good for themselves, but not always so great when what they want is bad.

To the great difference between mostly static complicated (often zero-sum) and complex, needing responses because of changes, the macro folk are wrongly trying to solve for a complicated equilibrium (or other model solution). The micro folk are usually doing this, too, but better. In any given micro regime, the expert who knows more of the complications is more likely to give a better result.

We need much better game theory than 2 person zero-sum stuff; there’s a big hole in economics about this.