🧵 9/
So next time someone says “competition drives progress,” ask:
Does rivalry really innovate or does cooperation create the conditions where progress can flourish?

🧵 8/
Competition sharpens edges.
Cooperation builds foundations.
If we want sustainable innovation, we need less rivalry and more solidarity.

🧵 7/
Efficiency isn’t about outcompeting rivals.
It’s about optimizing systems together:
- Shared infrastructure reduces costs
- Collective bargaining ensures fairness
- Trust lowers transaction costs

🧵 6/
Even in business, cooperation sparks innovation:
- EV charging networks built by carmakers together
- Renewable energy cooperatives in Europe
- Berlin’s housing cooperatives offering stability beyond market rivalry

🧵 5/
Elinor Ostrom’s Nobel winning work showed communities can manage shared resources sustainably, through cooperation, not competitive markets or top‑down control.

🧵 4/
Science thrives on cooperation.
From CERN to vaccine research, global collaboration unlocked discoveries no single lab could achieve alone.

🧵 3/
Open‑source software proves it.
Linux, Python, Git: built by communities, not rivals.
Shared knowledge created systems more robust than many proprietary competitors.

🧵 2/
Competition duplicates effort.
Multiple firms racing to solve the same problem = wasted resources + secrecy.
Cooperation channels energy into complementary work, accelerating breakthroughs.

🧵 1/
Neoclassical economists often say competition is the key to growth, efficiency and innovation.
But what if the real driver of progress is actually cooperation? Let’s unpack this 👇

Social resources are scarce within the neoclassical framework based on marginal productivity. Investing, making goods and providing services happen only if marginal productivity can be achieved. Indeed we have an housing crisis, working poors and the lowest fertility rate ever.

🧵2/2
these sectors (healthcare, education, housing construction) and in general in the third sector.
It's evident after 40 years of outsourcing and privatisation that the quality of services declined or has prices out too many citizens.

#econsky
🧵1/2
The main issue with the neoclassical theory of distribution where the demand for each factor of production depends on the marginal productivity of that factor is that it doesn't work very well with inelastic demand and inelastic buyers.
And, nowadays, many workers are employed in >

9/n
People often do not react to economic incentives the way economists expect. They are not simply profit maximisers seeking to maximise returns. Human behaviour is shaped by complex social, psychological, and cultural factors that do not always align with economic rationality.

8/n
Recognising this gap invites us to rethink economics beyond market logic. It highlights the importance of protecting and valuing spaces and systems where social validation can occur without economic exchange, because those are essential for human wellbeing.

7/n
This exposes a fundamental contradiction: economic models assume that people want to turn social life into market transactions. People are pushed towards this because they lack other options, and economic validation becomes the only form of social recognition available.

6/n
People spend more money on leisure activities. But this is not always driven by desire, often it is a necessity. Paying for leisure through consumption or market participation has become the method of social validation, driven by the loss of freely accessible social spaces.

5/n
Over the past 40 years, we have seen the economisation of leisure and social life, not because people preferred paying for social activities, but because alternatives have diminished.
Public spaces are shrinking, housing is becoming smaller, and gathering is very difficult.

4/n
Economists, particularly in the neoclassical tradition, seek to reduce everything to economic validation because their models depend on measurable transactions and markets. Social activities without monetary exchange pose a challenge to this framework.

3/n
Veblen focused on conspicuous consumption as a means to gain social standing, linking social validation to economic signals. Yet, social validation also occurs through shared experiences, community, and social bonds: none of which require exchange or market mechanisms.

2/n
Even Veblen understood the role of economic displays but did not explicitly state that social validation can happen independently of economics.

1/🧵
Social validation is what truly matters for people.
For many it happens alongside economic validation, showing wealth or status.
But importantly, social validation can occur without economic validation. #econsky

Twitter down

9/n
TLDR: Don’t be fooled by the chart. The middle class is shrinking, but not because people are getting rich. The basics cost more, social connection costs more, and true security is harder to reach.

8/n
Policymaking should shift focus. We need more public goods: affordable housing, parks, libraries, and social spaces. Income data alone is misleading if it ignores quality of life and community.

7/n
Yes, the share of families earning $150k+ rose, but top incomes skew averages, not medians. Real middle-class life? It’s more precarious than ever. Dual earners, more hours, less time, higher costs, weaker support.

6/n
The chart ignores declining communal infrastructure: churches, unions, and local clubs have gone. They weren’t just support networks—they provided free, meaningful activities. Marketization replaced solidarity.

5/n
It gets worse. Leisure used to be free—public parks, church picnics, casual at-home dinners. Now, ‘leisure’ means opening your wallet every time. Even a simple get-together feels like a luxury in cramped apartments.

4/n
Housing
Most families in the “middle” spend 1/3+ of income on housing. Home sizes shrank; it’s hard to host friends, let alone family gatherings. 50 years ago, community meant church halls and neighbors. Now, it means paid activities and restaurants. Social capital costs 💲.

3/n
The so-called “middle class” is defined here as families earning $50k–$150k (2024 dollars). But in big cities, $100k barely buys security—think rent, childcare, education, health, insurance. Are we really middle-class if most of our income is eaten up by basics?

🧵2/n
This chart claims the ‘middle and lower classes’ have shrunk because families are getting richer. But it’s cherry-picking data—family income, not individual income. 🧐 Family structures changed: fewer kids, more dual earners. Per PERSON gains are much more modest.