==============================================================================
PROCYCLICAL DIVIDEND -- magnitude on US history 1960-2025
==============================================================================
 year     g%  K2 div $B  K1 endow $B  div+K1 $B     note
 1974  -0.5%       0.0        0.36       0.4 CONTRACT
 1975  -0.2%       0.0        0.41       0.4 CONTRACT
 1980  -0.3%       0.0        0.66       0.7 CONTRACT
 1982  -1.8%       0.0        0.79       0.8 CONTRACT
 1991  -0.1%       0.0        2.01       2.0 CONTRACT
 2009  -2.6%       0.0        3.19       3.2 CONTRACT
 2020  -2.2%       0.0        5.32       5.3 CONTRACT
 2025   2.2%     469.1        3.83     472.9         
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contraction years: 7 of 65
  In every one, the growth-matched dividend (K2) falls to: $much-reduced
  Mean K2 in contractions: $0.0B  vs  expansions: $169.6B
  -> dividend drop in contraction: 100%
  Mean K1 endowment STILL PAID in contractions: $1.82B
  K1 as share of lost expansion dividend: 1%
  HONEST READING: K1 is NOT a meaningful cyclical cushion -- it endows only
  new citizens (~3M births/yr) at 2.5% of GDP/capita, so it is structurally
  tiny vs the ~$170B dividend. The paper's 'partially offsets' overstates it.
  In a contraction the dividend simply goes to ZERO; K1 keeps paying newborns
  but does not stabilise the dividend. The real protection is the STOCK below.

FLOOR STOCK survival: peak-to-trough max drawdown of accumulated floor = 40%
  final floor stock 2025: $69091B accumulated
  -> the STOCK persists through every downturn; only the FLOW (new accumulation) pauses.
