> This is under-utilization and under-utilization is not optimal from an economics perspective.
The problem is that this sneaks in a postulate by negating "optimal", which is that underutilization is the opposite of that which is desirable, that it is implicitly undesirable. If we don't take that premise, say that it's value neutral and neither desirable nor undesirable by itself, then the argument doesn't really stand. This neutral valuation is far more reasonable to me. Anybody who works in logistics intuitively already understands this. We don't have cargo ships bow to stern across every single shipping lane, yet this is "underutilization" of those shipping lanes. Sure they're bottlenecked at the ports, but the ports can always be bigger, more numerous and possibly even work faster. The slop turns out doesn't matter. Actually it's beneficial for a few reasons, but my point here is sufficient I think.
You're right this is ultimately a power struggle at the core of it, what I think you could stand to acknowledge is that's all it is. It's just dressed up as economic rhetoric.
The problem is that this sneaks in a postulate by negating "optimal", which is that underutilization is the opposite of that which is desirable, that it is implicitly undesirable. If we don't take that premise, say that it's value neutral and neither desirable nor undesirable by itself, then the argument doesn't really stand. This neutral valuation is far more reasonable to me. Anybody who works in logistics intuitively already understands this. We don't have cargo ships bow to stern across every single shipping lane, yet this is "underutilization" of those shipping lanes. Sure they're bottlenecked at the ports, but the ports can always be bigger, more numerous and possibly even work faster. The slop turns out doesn't matter. Actually it's beneficial for a few reasons, but my point here is sufficient I think.
You're right this is ultimately a power struggle at the core of it, what I think you could stand to acknowledge is that's all it is. It's just dressed up as economic rhetoric.