Well. I've lately been reading a book by Jeff Jarvis, entitled What Would Google Do. The great title sucked me in, and the excellent read kept me there.
Well. Most books can keep me there, as it were. (Where is there, anyway? One of these days I'll cover that in a freewrite. anyways.) But this book was truly quite superb, a word which I overuse but in this case seems rather fitting.
And the concepts discussed were amazing. In late 2008, at the same time that Satoshi introduced the need for a decentralized economy through economic history and events, Jarvis suggests a decentralized business focus - to put the power in the hands of the people, and let them bring you the profit.
And his ideas seem to work. His proofs to this and his examples - Google, Amazon, Facebook - remain just as true to this day. These internet giants grew with the help of the people, by giving us the power, and they've kept it.
I might even consider the possibility of his being Satoshi. I don't know, none of us really do. I haven't really looked into Mr. Jarvis, other than what I've read of his book, so for all I know it's absolutely impossible, but from what I've seen he seems as likely a candidate as any.
And yet... Jarvis doesn't quite have the same focus as Satoshi. Satoshi's focus - and all crypto-developers' focuses nowadays - was that of a network, available to the public and controlled by the public. Those who saw a place for advantage could take it - and many did - but the true purpose was to create a decentralized control of power/economy. Jarvis, on the other hand, focuses on the growth of the individual through the power of the masses. Google provided services for the masses, in return it received immense dividends and profits, as well as a power base which seems almost untopplable. (That should really be a word.) Jarvis suggests the same for every man, woman, or business (sorry, children) which wants to get ahead.
It is possible that this goes hand in hand with Satoshi's dream of the future powered by cryptos. Possible, but not necessarily true.
Nonetheless, the comparison - and the contrast - seem interesting, and are quite useful for any aspiring seeker of knowledge. How, I'm not entirely certain. I never truly am. But they seem useful in their own ways.
And when we consider the concept of the people's power, we should consider how necessary it truly is to remember that, to retain it. The people control the power in this world, the people control the economy.
As 
Allow me to explain. People only check their balances on a near-constant basis when either a) the economy is at a high, and they anticipate a crash, or b) the economy is at a low, and they fear it dropping lower. And guess what? When the masses speculate a bad economy, the economy worsens. The power is truly in the hands of the people, in that our economy is only valued by the value we assign it.
And so you might say "What can I do? I'm just one person, and the masses are against me." This was the thought process of millions in every country where voting is not mandatory, when they chose not to vote - for what does one vote even affect? And guess what - you're right, they're right. You are just an individual. But what you seem to forget is that so are the masses. Every mass, every community, is only made of a group of individuals.
The difference between you and them? They took what little power they had, and used it. They combined it. And when it combined, it became a force no individual could have created and no individual could stop.
So why not try it? Hope, spread your hope. Dream for the future, use what little power you have. There's no telling what it will add up to.
