Impact

Markets are inherently adversarial – there is not a single thing you can do that won't end up disadvantaging someone.

Even if you invent a cure that saves the lives of 10 million people, there would be people who were previously treating the disease who would end up unemployed, investors who lose money, etc 

So if this is true for something with such a massive positive impact, how much more or for other things.

The problem with adversarial systems is that they are inherently nihilistic; you can't come to consensus on what is beneficial or in the common interest. You can't even come to consensus on basic facts because there is always an economic incentive to hold the contrarian view.

If we want agreement on the facts and on the common good, and if we want to create things where everyone benefits we need to use consensus-based systems. There is simply no other alternative.

What if the govt replaced dollars with CBDCs, but for some reason (perhaps ineptitude of govt devs) you could only use CBDCs to buy and sell things that begin with the letters A, B or C.

Want to buy an apple or a car? No problem. Want to buy a house? Sorry. Houses start with H, and money doesn't work for that anymore. Best we can do is an apartment. But even then the apartment wouldn’t have windows, because you can’t make money producing windows (or glass).. Read more 👇

Working on /impact ||


Abundance Economy book: book.abundance.id

What if the govt replaced dollars with CBDCs, but for some reason (perhaps ineptitude of govt devs) you could only use CBDCs to buy and sell things that begin with the letters A, B or C.

Want to buy an apple or a car? No problem. Want to buy a house? Sorry. Houses start with H, and money doesn't work for that anymore. Best we can do is an apartment. But even then the apartment wouldn’t have windows, because you can’t make money producing windows (or glass).. Read more 👇

https://paragraph.xyz/@abundance/an-absurd-economy
