Thanks for this, I am now also having some thoughts.
A few thoughts to add:
1. Should individuals inherit edge weight from their employers/governments? What should this inheritance be like? If I have no debt but have very little in savings, and if my company has debt to some other company which they have to default on, leading to my getting laid off, I can still be affected by debt.
2. I do not think it is accurate to think if "the people running the graph". I think it's more accurate to state local laws such as: any node which has more outgoing weight than incoming weight (i.e. net lenders) wants to prevent edges from decaying as much as possible while simultaneously making their borrowers more financially stable.
3. Would it be possible to quantify each vertex's credit-worthiness from just the labels you mentioned on edges? Would we need to add any other weights to the edges? e.g. the lender's estimate of the borrower's credit-worthiness?
Also, I think it's reasonable for individuals to inherit edge weights from their governments, as a way to model taxes, national debt, etc.
Now “They want to (add, prevent from decay) as many edges as possible” becomes “They want to encourage different parties to lend each other things they want”.
In a sense Alice also buys physical capital to use them, but she's not using physical capital because of its specific qualities but instead because of the money the products it produces will fetch when sold on the market. Alice wants a vacation because she wants to go to Paris or New Zealand or whatever. Alice wants a machine part because she wants the money it will make her. Two very different categories of thing!
I bring this up not exactly as a critique of your analysis, but instead because none of the discussion in this thread is particularly tethered to the process of production, and it's specifically the disruption to production that makes the SVB collapse troubling.
The problem with formulating it like this is it makes readers think that the set of people is a small-ish set of globalists or capitalists (or insert conspiratorial "others" as appropriate). But the set is far from small: basically anyone who ever wants to acquire debt for any reason (most common reasons include "attend college", "buy a car", or "buy a house"), or anyone who wants to profit from lending money to people, which is a fancy way of saying anyone who wants to invest money (such as buying stocks or bonds).
Or in a larger macro sense, positive central bank interest rates create a requirement for everyone to acquire some debt in order to counterbalance the drag.
It is troubling that the debt industry will attempt to increase the total debt in the world however it can. This is like a doctor attempting to increase the total sickness in the world - which is evil (not a word I use lightly, btw). But to say that either debt or medical industries should 'die' because perverse incentives exist seems wrong to me.
If I'm not mistaken, Debt: the First 5000 Years and the Dawn of Everything books examined this.
Your graph is a formalization of such relationship, no?
The basic nature of finance is that some people have money they don't immediately need and others have needs they can afford over time but not upfront.
It's basically a layer on top of money in general, which is a way of decentralizing value production. Instead of pairwise trades, money serves as credit for value creation, recognized by 3rd parties.
The people running the graph are everyone with excess money or the ability to acquire it. Basically, everyone but the poor.
It produces a grand, generational historical narrative, but it's also a form of pyramid scheme and guaranteed to run out of runway at some point when the graph, rather than expanding, finds ways to get by with different trade flows that ignore the center - and each time that happens, you get a massive economic crisis, elites vying for power and drumming up scapegoats to avoid heat, but also waves of material change(different lifestyles and work arrangements).
So there is downside to debt in that it can reinforce hierarchies, but also upsides in that the network itself is acting to transfer useful information about material needs. All things that, having becoming so much more digitally connected in the last 30 years, we can probably revise again to become more abstracted.
2. There is noone running the graph
3. This is true of all econonomic activity in a free market economic model. The assumption underlying market capitalism is that on net rational actors will only perform transactions which add value to them. Therefore the profit of the system is proportional to transactions over time which is proportional to the edges of the "financial transaction" graph. Debt is not required for this observation to be true - it's intrinsic to the model or the transactions won't occur.
4. There is no "they" other than "all the participants in the financial system". On net everyone participating in the financial system is doing so for their own benefit and therefore are invested in keeping the system running.
Let debt be a graph where the nodes are people (with ledgers) and the edges are all of the form "alice rents $x from bob for y% APR". Actions that resolve/relax graph are payments of the form "alice pays bob $z", that lead to all balances being 0. Let the edges decay to null when balance is 0, such that a 'resolved graph' is simply a list of nodes with no edges, meaning 'no one is in debt to anyone'.
From this we can infer:
I somehow feel like I've caught my first, hazy glimpse of something important.