You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Age Of Abundance: The Basic Are Going To Be Very Inexpensive

in #future7 years ago

Education, housing and medical costs have skyrocketed in recent years. The inflation they measure on the CPI is not comprehensive, and that is by design. The most expensive life costs a person faces has gone up as a result of the combination of low rates and money printing.

I agree that the cost of goods and services should go down, in some areas we are seeing this, for example the uberization of taxis or removing the premium that booking agencies added to buying airline tickets via direct sales on websites, but they come at the cost of displacing workers who were pulling decent wages.

Just because the cost to make something becomes lower doesn't mean that the consumer will see that price reflected on their end. Corporations can continue to increase their margins with automation and are not held to a higher standard of participating in a two-way transaction with society.

Automation and technology is allowing for more centralization by these business behemoths and left unchecked the inefficiencies of smaller systems will no longer be there to support the people. Without a concerted effort by the people to demand a livable income by default and a share of the productive bounty the wealth gap will only widen. UBI is not the final answer to these problems, and neither is exponential growth of economic systems.

It's nice to have more of everything, but all of that consumption comes at a cost which we are failing to calculate correctly. I do hope that future technologies can help us in our fight for survival when our own wrongs against nature come back to haunt us, but I do not see those who own the technology willingly handing over the power they've accumulated.

And cryptocurrencies themselves contribute to the problem of those who have access to technology and power sources today getting a head start, and money flowing back into the hands of those who already have enough when other wealthy investors decide to play the game.

Sort:  

Thank you for your comment. I can only suggest you research some more.

And cryptocurrencies themselves contribute to the problem of those who have access to technology and power sources today getting a head start, and money flowing back into the hands of those who already have enough when other wealthy investors decide to play the game.

Perhaps you can start by going to the Indoneia or Nigeria part of this site and chat with some of those people over there. Many of them are making a months wage in just a few days on here with their posts.

Believe it or not, in spite of your pessimistic view, things are getting better in the world. The blockchain you are on is proof that the centralization you are referring to is not going to increase, but decrease.

Upbit paying premiums for steem and sbd are not what I was addressing. I was alluding to the concentration of mining groups and how most, if not all coins have terrible wealth distributions concerning the share of total coins to the % of wallets who hold them.

The blockchain I am on mirrors this issue, where the 1% and 2% of users hold the vast majority of the power. It is anything but democratic or egalitarian.

Yes and the blockchain you are on also has a built in system where 75% of the reward pool goes to authors meaning that the holding as a percentage of the total is going to decrease over time. Last year the top 10% of holding went from 88% to 81% with the minnow seeing the biggest increase from 1% to 5%.

Not sure about that, https://steemwhales.com/ shows the ~5% you talk about to be dolphins, and it says minnows have 0.73%. Every post on the front page at any given time is an auto-voted post.

You are right...my bad ...I was going from memory...it was the bottom percentile that went up 5% last year.

You have 3 SP....times that by 12 and you that is 36...now multiply that over 500K people over the next year and you see that much of the newer STEEM is going in the hands of newer people. Since 75% of the reward pool goes to authors, the top 200 accounts simply cannot write enough articles to keep pace.

I will agree with you that there is at least movement in the direction you implied, and that steemit isn't as bad as other coins where there is nothing but more concentration of wealth. I think that much of the botting and delegation here does allow for passive income to be made, increasing investor appeal but decreasing average user appeal.

I will disagree with you on that.

In my 5 months on here, I have seen people go from zero to dolphin. My own account has increased significantly.

This is a place where people can come on and make some money...so the average user has a chance to build his or her account which also should see an increase over time in terms of dollars.