Author of this content has low reputation.
RE: RE: The New Economy: Investing In People
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: The New Economy: Investing In People

Words
582
Reading
3 min
5y

"One problem I see emerging in society is that opportunity comes to those with money, what ever happened to free health care and free education."

Well most of western civilization drank the koolaid of living in a false capitalist system. They believe it's better to society if you're bogged down with ridiculous healthcare and educational debt. To them that makes sense. If they truly wanted to invest in citizens and get a return they'd want them to be healthy and smarter. It would see that's not what they want in their einsteinian like evaluations.

The author of this post makes some interesting comparisons he speaks about athletes and why some make ridiculous money based on their abilities and some engineers start at high earning levels in this effort to wildcat which of which is worth the money to find some breakthrough. So it can result in a large amount of waste and then the efficiency of the system can be compromised.

So i just find it interesting that some so called star athletes are greenlighted each game to take as many shots as they see fit. They may take 150 shots and hit 20. The next player may get 5 shots and hit 3 or 4. In some cases the lesser player even ends up becoming a better player than the star athlete because although the abilities were in him they were suppressed. So that discovery gets made in atheletics quite a bit, lol.

I've spoken on this before and this is somewhat relational to your statement. In this idea of the people replacing these Venture Capital models. A few things would have to also change. For one they couldn't accept or bring many of these inefficient ideas into the model otherwise the model will work the same way vc's work in the standard economy. As to say they'd just be a new reiteration of the same vc's and may be as worse.

We kinda got to see this with the Hive Dao. It never functioned at an optimal level i believe because some of the structure of it was flawed. So the entire idea of crypto is that we can print this money to fund different areas and this money needs to be free and it needs to be valued by the participants. The value of this money can't be condensed back into fiat currency control and that's what's going to be a repetitive pattern.

Thats why i designed a meritocracy coin. This coin you can't control this network just because you have money. Miners can't control it just because they have a minoritized monopoly. This is a model that puts everyone in the same position of value. So after careful consideration i'd think that's the only way to get this paradigmn shift. I can see no other way you have to take fiat currency out of this completely. Which means you'd need people coming in with a total change in how value and the economy works and yes blockchain tech is the start of that. We got a long way to go. I don't think its going to go the way many of us believe. I do think ideas like this will happen though.

As you said people are fearful their positions won't be controlled. This is true in crypto as well. Which is why it's having bumps in the road. So yes in order for this to work we can't have that type of structure or process.

@mykos: "One problem | Ecency