With capitalism being the doctrine of progress obsessed with optimizing everything, is there a case to choose to be sub-optimal? I think so. 

I imagine the default is to think sub-optimally because one simply does not know. But as one learns and gathers data, one starts to build systems to optimize. This proceeds until the point that everything needs to go perfectly until the point of extreme over-optimization is reached. 

An image equivalent to a tower singularly stacked with teacups comes to mind. Each teacup is perfectly stacked on top of the other. I was thinking house of cards but that at least has a foundation. This image I have is like one giant skyscraper of teacups. It looks mighty fragile. A tower where one gust of wind or some bird landing on one side will topple it all down. At which point, everything comes crashing down and nothing can be salvaged from the shattered remains. 

This might sound like an extreme example but such seems to be the fate of every system that fails to get off of the train of over-optimization. My theory is that one fails to get off the train if one takes a very short-term view. Over-optimization works beautifully when everything is flowing like a well-oiled machine. This hides any instability until things get too late. It also gets harder to hide the larger the organization in question. Luckily for me, my obsessive systems blew up too many times in my face for me to learn such a micro-scheduled version of my life would not be sustainable. 

Such a view may not be so obvious for most organizations. It’s clear from how some companies are “levered up to their gills” with perfect debt schedules to fund the business. Such use of debt and funding the business with other people’s money because “cash is trash” is a common strategy of optimizing. This is all to state the obvious point that leverage can lead to fragility in the system and an optically optimized system might indeed be fragile. 

It’s like the friend who decides to buy her house outright with cash. The optimal method might to be to get a mortgage. But with it comes various headaches and obligations that expose one to various external factors outside of one’s control. Such is the case that what appears to be financially sub-optimal could arguably be optimal for the long-term if it creates a greater locus of control and options for the individual. 

The same view could be applied to a business that is flushed with cash on its balance sheet. It may appear sub-optimal but it might allow it to survive moments of crisis. It may not need to fire anyone (i.e. losing hard-developed talent). It may even be able to go on the offensive when everyone else is struggling. Such is the thought that being sub-optimal (optically by the definition of modern capitalism) might be optimal for the long term.