Impact

The mental model for this approach starts with zooming out – like, all the way out – and thinking how we got to where we are from the very humble beginnings of, let’s say the Stone Age. We have all this information today at our fingertips, all the incredible technology and modern amenities, but it’s not like we have any more resources today than people had during the Stone Age. The resources on our planet remained the same, but our reality is totally different.

Now think what life in the year 2024 would have looked like if people from the Stone Age forward adopted different approaches to distributing resources. If technological progress had been just 10% quicker from the time of the Stone Age, the world in 2024 would have looked more like 2524.

And that may be the best intuition to how money – and therefore access to resources – should be distributed in the economy… (Part III)

It has to be based on what leads to the greatest progress in scarce resource use; the better you are at driving this progress the greater your monetary reward should be. Why? Because you’re lifting everyone up in the process; you’re aligning people’s economic self-interest with the public interest.

Not incentivizing such progress, or having alternative incentives, basically means you’re slowing down this progress and reducing everyone’s wellbeing.

Another way to think about it is that the people living in the bottom 10% in 2524 would still have vastly better lives than the wealthiest people in 2024. So the quicker we are at getting to that standard of living the better the outcome for everyone. (Part IV)

Full article 👇

Working on /impact ||


Abundance Economy book: book.abundance.id

It has to be based on what leads to the greatest progress in scarce resource use; the better you are at driving this progress the greater your monetary reward should be. Why? Because you’re lifting everyone up in the process; you’re aligning people’s economic self-interest with the public interest.

Not incentivizing such progress, or having alternative incentives, basically means you’re slowing down this progress and reducing everyone’s wellbeing.

Another way to think about it is that the people living in the bottom 10% in 2524 would still have vastly better lives than the wealthiest people in 2024. So the quicker we are at getting to that standard of living the better the outcome for everyone. (Part IV)

Full article 👇 
https://paragraph.xyz/@abundance/king-for-a-day
