Feeling Loopy

One "klahnection" I see between different things is the size of their cause-effect loop. It seems like, in all cases, it makes sense to shorten the loop, if you can. Here are three examples of long loops. 1) Energizing your life. For a while now we've been utilizing this: Sun energy is captured by ancient (mostly plant) life. Those life forms decay, etc., Some of those cook, and chemically transform into fossil fuel, over millions of years. --oil, coal, etc. We process and refine these into energy sources for cars and home electricity. 2) We want to watch a video. We watch the ad associated with that video. We (enough of us) buy some of the items advertised, at a cost above that which is required for manufacturing, delivering, and profit. The producer of those items (in addition to paying the production and administration costs of the ad) pays for the production of the program. We watch the program. 3) We want a government service. We pay taxes. We elect representatives we hope will steer our money into the service we want in the first place. Maybe we get what we want, at a reasonable cost, in a reasonable time. Here are the corresponding short loop versions: 1) We install solar panels and instantly capture sun energy we can store in batteries, which can be used to power cars, homes, etc. 2) We want to watch a video. We pay a few cents for the video, and watch it. 3) We want the government to do something for us. We pay a certain amount to the government, and say "I want this money to specifically be used for ______."
Why are shorter loops better? For one, the added length is usually intrinsically associated with added cost. Taking more time and "distance" (steps) to do the same thing is usually the definition of inefficiency. For another thing, the added loop length provides more opportunity --more places-- for third-party agents to manipulate things, and leach resource out, in ways you cannot easily watch/control.