You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Centralized Tree: This Is What We Are Up Against
What you are talking about is that life is competition. Wealth distribution has never been more fair than in 2018. Wealth spread is happening at a faster rate all the time. It's just the relative wealth that is exploding also in value. But that doesn't matter when everyone is constantly getting richer.
It would be nice if the rising tide of corporate profits was raising all boats, but the data, at least in the US, doesn't support this. Wages are largely flat recently and have lagged behind inflation--more so depending on how far back you go in years. In most states the minimum wage is far below the living wage (see the MIT living wage calculator) and the minimum living wage is barely squeaking by and assumes full time employment with healthcare--something many Americans don't have. The middle class is hollowing out here with most of the wealth being sucked to the top 1%. I could include links to any number of articles and reports on this, but credible reports and analyses are so easy to find that there is little point. So, no, everyone is not getting richer--a very small number are getting richer at the expense of most others. The reason for this has a lot to do with legislative capture, rent seeking, monopsony power, weakening of labor laws (more legislative capture), and shared business practices that further harm labor and consumers (such as arbitration and do-not-compete contracts). The market is skewed against most of us. Unless we change the rules, income and, subsequently, wealth distribution will just get worse, especially as more and more automation replaces jobs. At least until the masses revolt. The start of that revolution is already happening with Trump being elected and Brexit being approved. The masses just haven't yet figured out what the real cause of their troubles are.
Proud member of #steemitbloggers @steemitbloggers
BTW, you downvoting my post exactly supports my claim that there IS a hierarchy of power here; however, unlike, say facebook, where censorship is discussed openly at times and can be a big deal, on Steem, anyone with enough power can arbitrarily hurt others for whatever reason they like. This is one of the reasons why I think we need one account = one human and no bots. The reason for tying power to vests on Steem has some to do with economic stake, but is also designed to prevent someone from creating a bunch of small accounts to gain a lot of votes. Since one human can have multiple accounts, equally powered votes could be gamed. The big question is whether Steem can be designed to balance this all out in a way that actually improves quality. It is not working that way in its present state.
I am just a stakeholder that doesn't think what you say is aligned with reality. World of abundance is coming. I think you spread fear and uncertainty and the world doesn't need any more of that to be honest. People should be focused on thriving instead.
I agree that people should be focused on thriving, since that is what we can best control (ourselves, that is); however, we live in a society of laws and regulations, or, in the case of Steem, on a blockchain of rules. The problems come when those rules make it difficult to thrive unless you are already thriving. Or when they largely ensure that those with the most continue to win no matter what. At that point, we need to push for change. Yes, a world of abundance is coming, especially with automation increasing, but unless things change dramatically that abundance will go to a few and leave more and more people behind. And yes, we should be afraid of this. WRT Steem, I'd like to see it succeed, but unless the rules become more fair and it becomes easier for new users to see benefit, I doubt that will happen. I even bought steem with fiat so I could reward posts that I like with something more than dust. So yes, unreasonable fear and uncertainty is a bad thing and there is too much of it today. But reasonable fear and uncertainty is healthy, since it spurs action. The economic data on inequality is very clear, at least here in the US. The recent corporate tax cuts are projected to make this even worse. I'd love to see crypto-type decentralized approaches overturn this (which is why I'm on Steem), but there are clearly problems that are preventing steem from meeting its originally stated goals. SMTs may help if we can experiment with a number of SMT-based communities with different rule sets. But right now, to think that decentralized approaches get rid of a hierarchy, at least on Steem, is simply not true. The important question is whether it is possible to remove the hierarchy on Steem without adverse side-effects. Recently lukestokes posted that rulers are bad, but (good) rules are good. Someone has to make those rules and I just don't know if its possible to do it without some kind of rulers, thus my mention of Herb Simon's work on hierarchical organization. In any case, we need to be having more of these discussions, including in-depth analysis of steem rules and rule changes.