My assumption is that stakeholders wouldn't incorporate the new opportunities that the credit brings, let's say a new chemical invention that made certain products cheaper, the indirect effects of the phenomenon is cancelled out if the people answered by more credit on their ends. Such would only amplify what's immidiate or comprehensible, however if the community's willing to wait for the new equilibrium then the mutual sustainable inventions and relationships would optimize the economy holistically.
There's the problem as well, because of the onslaught of fresh funds that's not targeted based on deep network positioning, rather, the chasing of sensational returns... it's reasonable to suspect that the economy is confused and never actually reached a healthy equilibrium which is entirely possible to obtain.
One of the benefit of reaching the state of new equilibriums is the ability to specialize without experiencing considerable penalties. The sensibility to halt such specialization and to diversify to another thing that's also could be scaled up with minimal costs, the sensibility and the synergy would be utilized. Currently it's relatively unutilized given if the hypothesis is correct.
Another would be to made available chances of fresh innovation to be nurtured (with lucrative returns), to be relevant, and gained mass, before the next big projects were introduced. Such innovations would be more compatible with other segments of the economy because of the synergy between people that are more concentrated and not distracted
I realize that this whole thing maybe insignificant, given the case where it's proven to be significant I should point out that we shouldn't interfere with the natural market mechanism of profitability and meritocracy. The way to go about this is to head towards the direction of "doing it proper".
