Breakout economics

 

 Ok, so this is some thoughts. not entirely hanging together, but I find this idea of interest.

 

Breakout is a game I am playing on my phone at the moment. I am not claiming that I am especially good at it, but I play it a lot, because I find it helps me. You probably know some versions of it - where there are bricks and you have to shoot balls to bounce around and knock them all out. My version is basically similar, but maybe more interesting or complex than the original versions.

 This got me thinking about how this can apply this to economic idea - especially relating to the always discredited idea of "Trickle Down Economics". It is not by any means a fully coherent theory or principle, just some ways that it makes me think.

I sort of make the balls represent money injected by the government. And the values on the bricks sort of represent the actual needs of individual people (or households, or whatever), what they need out of the world, like housing and food. Some people need more, some need less, and this is just about needs ,not wants. Feel free to let it include whatever you want.

So when you put money into the system, you have to decide where to focus it, where you should hit first. Those at the top - who are pretty OK at the moment - or those at the bottom who are in danger of falling off the base of the game. When the blocks reach the bottom, that is when people start to die of hunger, or exposure, that is when the economy has broken. Irrespective of how those blocks above are coping.

The best times of playing are when the balls bounce all over the place. The more places that they hit - and so cover some of the costs that person needs - the better. The bouncing is all about the money providing for their needs, and that provision then giving someone else money - that is all the sign of a healthy economy. balls should get used time and time again. In fact just recently, my game is telling me how many hits I am getting - at least 3 per ball, and when it is working well, the 70 balls I start with can turn into thousands of hits (that is thousands of needs met).

So strategies. I am not especially good, I should point out. But most of the time, the only way to succeed is to target the lowest blocks, those closest to falling off the bottom. Some of this will often then bounce its way up, but mostly, it just covers the needs of those in the bottom layers. As an economic model - covering the needs of those close to dropping off the bottom, those people who do not have al ot of external resource, that is the right way of doing it.

On occasions, I do shoot right up to the top, and let it tumble down. Not often, but if there are good and clear paths, it can sometimes work. There are also boosts available - where the provision can be spread horizontally or vertically (or both), which are always worth aiming for. This is where covering one set of needs actually also covers other peoples needs - maybe, as an example, feeding someone means that someone else doesn't have to feed them. This benefit can spread either direction, of course.

There are also boosts where balls are fired all sorts of directions, or are tripled. These are useful, helping to provide better scattering. I suppose these are like places that direct money to different places, or who take money and use it as seed money to provide more than the original. All good things.

As I said, it is not perfect, but the principle of spreading the money around is important - of making sure it goes where it needs to. That the first place to direct it must be those at the bottom end of the scale.

 

But it also made me think - if there were those at the top - well protected from falling off the bottom - were to have unlimited needs, that would be impossible. You cannot win if the blocks don't reduce their needs when the balls hit. If they were also to stick themselves to the top of the playing field, then the only way of winning would be to avoid directing any of the balls at these. This represents the very wealthy, who are never satisfied, and who are never at risk of falling down.

This is why trickle down does not work. If you fire all the money to the top, to those who are never satisfied and never at risk, it doesn't provide for those lower down. It just vanishes. Money should actually be directed at those near the bottom. This can make a difference, this can actually deal with all of the other blocks.

The economy works when we provide for those who are at the lowest end of the social scale, those who are in danger of falling off the bottom. The economy works when the money injected is used repeatedly, where one persons use also helps another person, who helps another person... If the money disappears to the very wealthy, it vanishes, rather then bouncing.