I have long been interested in pendulum arguments. These are the sort of arguments where the position swings drastically from one position to another. For example, capitalism versus of socialism, centralised versus decentralised, or technology-driven change versus business-driven change.

I think these pendulum arguments ultimately turn out to be false dichotomies or otherwise the result of incomplete models. Like real pendulums, they can be stopped by adding a “third thing”. Imagine the image of a pencil being stabbed into the middle of the pendulum which dramatically stops it swinging.

This “third thing” is usually something that is not typically considered part of the domain of the argument. It changes the model.

I’m finding this talk interesting, with the key slides reproduced below:

The idea of “financial capitalism” versus “production capitalism” is a likely controversial tweak to our idea of capitalism.  The model appears to fit:


I have a bit of an ideological issue with the other that the switch to the “deployment” / “production capitalism” phase “doesn’t happen automatically – i.e. that it requires governance help.  I suspect that this is a causation versus correlation debate.  Possibly Carlota is playing to her audience.