disequilibrium

That doesn't mean that the disequilibrium is always comfortable while it's happening.

Instead the risk is some kind of disequilibrium, a snap away to a self-reinforcing runaway feedback loop that totally destroys the economy.

When a shortage exists, the market is in disequilibrium.

The ability to conceptualize the _consequences_ of a temporarily destabilizing disequilibrium is what makes man master of the world.

The necessity for disequilibrium, the emphasis on life as the movement of energy across a barrier, etc.

Also, a surface under significant chemical disequilibrium (oxygen and reduced carbon (plant matter) in close proximity).

If you accept that the economy can be in disequilibrium, then it is very easy to see how this happens.

The idea here being that price signals can lead to second order effects and market disequilibrium.

Being able to model whether a system tends towards equilibrium or disequilibrium is enormously valuable.

Crud is never going to go away but the disequilibrium will, and many use cases will get reduced to libraries or packages.

All willful locomotion -- whether bipedal or otherwise -- depends on initiating a controlled disequilibrium which ultimately results in a prefered new equlibrium.

Keynesian economics only deals with the short run, and only in the short run can the economy be trapped in a temporary disequilibrium.

Then you need to prove that the lactate gene is in linkage disequilibrium with that gene (thus capable of being "coming along for the ride".

It also has to deal with the dynamic disequilibrium that is caused by entrepreneurship and innovation, which "creatively destroys" previous markets in favor of new ones.

The problem is that if there is a labor market disequilibrium, there will always be unemployed people and even if you think the productivity ranking is a good thing, it just means that if one of the "lazy" people suddenly becomes "hard working", they will just take the place of someone else and nothing has changed other than that the standard for laziness has risen.

I'm in the middle of reading Peter Brannen's The Story of CO2 Is the Story of Everything —it's excellent and goes deep into the (bio)geochemistry of Earth—and he presents a good case for a metabolism-first development of life, taking advantage of "a disequilibrium that needed to be relieved at the vents, an unending stream d free energy to dissipate," rather than the RNA information-first theories.