With all due respect, fuck that. We do disruptive stuff with unintended consequences for millions of people as a matter of policy all the time, and the idea that it'll disrupt some finance goons' ponzi scheme does not bother me

This is the problem with a ton of policy thinking. The idea that we can solve a problem of this magnitude with disruption, and somehow prevent market forces from reacting, is incredibly short sighted.

It's incredibly expensive to run a university, and many people feel entitled to attend any university they can get into (not a bad thing, btw), but you can't suddenly erase the bill without drastically cutting costs, changing supply/demand, or otherwise altering the economics first.

The college level education system in the US employs almost 3.8 million people. Decisions here absolutely affect their employment, tax rates, employment rates, bank loans, financial industry solvency, etc.

This problem is incredibly far away from the space of YOLO tactics.

> We do disruptive stuff with unintended consequences for millions of people as a matter of policy all the time

And many, many of the outcomes of that are bad

> some finance goons' ponzi scheme

If you mean banks, there’s the problem that “let it die” often translates to “shift the obligation”, which typically gets shifted to the tax payers, either in plain sight after a bailout, or under the table by devaluing the currency (basically taxation without having to say it).

China does this, for better or for worse.

They are not a supportive example, their one child policy doomed their demographics and future economic growth.

They stopped the one child policy nine years ago; they had it in the first place because demographic projections had them severely overpopulated if they didn't.

During the period in which it was active, their GDP increased by a factor of about 62. Not percentage, multiple.

They reversed the policy too late. Their rapid growth was them seizing the low hanging fruit upgrading from a country of almost entirely peasants to slightly fewer peasants, all funded by Western greed. Those gains will never happen again.

Not really.

Entrenched and connected types tend to exit industries before the gavel hits, and enforcement from the CCDI isn't impartial, with plenty of bribery to remain off their radar.

Truly Schumpterian creative destruction is good in a vacuum, but reality isn't a vacuum.