That article is a little vague, here's a more detailed version of the story
While I considerably appreciate the specifics you have provided I still preferably favor the direct approach in the original article because it achieves Equilibrium.
Equilibrium between what?
I don't know, Never really thought much detail into it....
If you haven't established what factors are balanced against each other, how can you get an accurate sense of whether the article has achieved a state of equilibrium or not?
The big picture does not exist independently of the details, it is an amalgam of the details. If all the details don't line up, you don't have an accurate picture, you have an illusion. Illusions can exist forever on paper, but they will never exist in reality, because they're impossible.
This is true for all ideas. Take socialism for example, the purported outcome is equality and universal wellbeing. But, when you drill down into the details, they don't line up. People don't work hard or come up with better ways of doing things when there's nothing to be gained by doing so, they tend to do the minimum required, or find ways to get around the limits imposed on them, so you get inefficiency, stagnation, crime and corruption, which leads to shortages, misery, even mass starvation. The government feels threatened when the people aren't happy, so they lie about everything to make the situation and themselves look better, and they employ surveillance and force to keep the public in line. Dissent is silenced, criticism is treated as a threat, leading to a pervasive sense of hopelessness and oppression. So on paper it's a pretty picture, but it's not an accurate picture, it's an illusion, as witnessed by what actually happens whenever people attempt to put it into practice.