Right, the fact that the market is chasing such high risk investments when there's lots of obvious low-risk work that needs to be done means that the low-risk work has gotten "frozen out" of the economy. Poor people problems aren't problems, as far as the economy is concerned.
Still, WeWork and Theranos are only examples of the "bubble" side of the effect, not so much the "freezing out" side, and they don't really illustrate the contrast between unworthy, overfunded endeavors and worthy, underfunded endeavors. I originally had a more visceral, abstract example that did a much better job, but it was attracting so many drive-by downvotes that I decided to retire it while I searched for better wording/examples. Here is the original:
Economists invite you to ignore this effect by conflating "value" (the economic notion, which is weighted by wealth) with value (the philosophical notion, which isn't, at least not to the same degree). For example, consider the prospect of feeding starving African children. This action has 0 "value" -- the market will not pay you to do this because the kids have no money with which to pay you -- even though the prospect has loads of value in the philosophical sense. Now consider the prospect of merging up the banks so that they can charge higher fees and offload risk to the federal government. This action has loads of "value" -- it gives investors a return, at scale, and investors have lots of money, so their opinion counts heavily -- even though this prospect has zero or negative value in the philosophical sense. Because it is weighted according to wealth, the economic notion of value diverges from the philosophical notion of value in proportion to inequality, and with exploding inequality, that's a big problem.
Still, WeWork and Theranos are only examples of the "bubble" side of the effect, not so much the "freezing out" side, and they don't really illustrate the contrast between unworthy, overfunded endeavors and worthy, underfunded endeavors. I originally had a more visceral, abstract example that did a much better job, but it was attracting so many drive-by downvotes that I decided to retire it while I searched for better wording/examples. Here is the original:
Economists invite you to ignore this effect by conflating "value" (the economic notion, which is weighted by wealth) with value (the philosophical notion, which isn't, at least not to the same degree). For example, consider the prospect of feeding starving African children. This action has 0 "value" -- the market will not pay you to do this because the kids have no money with which to pay you -- even though the prospect has loads of value in the philosophical sense. Now consider the prospect of merging up the banks so that they can charge higher fees and offload risk to the federal government. This action has loads of "value" -- it gives investors a return, at scale, and investors have lots of money, so their opinion counts heavily -- even though this prospect has zero or negative value in the philosophical sense. Because it is weighted according to wealth, the economic notion of value diverges from the philosophical notion of value in proportion to inequality, and with exploding inequality, that's a big problem.