Neither forced equality nor inequality are a good thing.
What I mean is sustainable equality. Such equality is positive and can only be acquired through application of scientific method for social and environmental concern (example Natural Law/Resource-Based Economy)
Completely agree with you on the 'sustainable equality'... though since it's an equilibrium position that has to be maintained, the scientific method you advocate for is the only way to keep the position maintained.
What that translates for me is that time will 'solve' the problem, if there is even anything that truly needs to be solved based on quantitative and qualitative analysis over time.
Please, also you are welcome to explain what you mean by "forced" equality as it sounds illogical and paradoxical. If something is forced, it cannot be equal as it requires some position of power to enforce it. That means that someone has more power than others hence it is unequal itself.
Well... thats more of a snarky term for 'redistribution of wealth'. A progressive income tax is an attempt at forced equality, but as you point out it is impossible to accomplish for anyone who is looking objectively.
I think you just defined the problems of socialist policies in a simple paragraph :)
He is talking about the idiocy of Leninist/Stalinist Marxism.
But let's all remember that Marx was an anarchist, and that his goal was to fight the state. I consider myself a Marxist, in that I buy into, deeply, the vision for the future Marx espoused. That does not mean that I support all of Marx's ideas, because life has changed a great deal since then.
Most likely scenario with no third world war: tech makes living well so cheap that all of us become rich.
I am not that sure that inequality is a good thing. Because the whales are paying out in a way that doesn't make sense. I will make an article tomorrow why this inequality isn't good. I am not advocating the whales to change this. They do what they want. I just try to make them aware of things. What they do with my view is up to them.
I understand they invested more so they need to get extra advantages. I can understand why they get more free Steem Power every day than the rest of us. I can understand that they get more money when they get upvoted than we do. But the fact that they have so much power when they upvote, is not good. It is completely against the free market. And the free market will decide whether Steemit is a worthy product or not. If the free market decides the content that is valued here, is not what they want, then the market will dump Steemit and the whales will be left with a crashed project.
What does "completely against the free market" mean? In the real world, if we have a free market, having more money gives you power over other people. I don't think I understand why you'd use the free market to argue this point.
Maybe I didn't chose my wording correctly. What I wanted to say is that the whales are only a very small group here. Their preference of topics is not going to determine the success of Steemit. It's the preference of the subscribers that is of importance. If 20 whales would only like to see introduction posts and therefore only introduction posts are rewarded, but 2 million of people would like to see other topics, than whales will kill this project. Because the project will only become a success if Steemit provides topics that satisfy the desire of the 2 million subscribers.
I gave an extreme example here, but just to illustrate why I think whales upvoting power is way too big compared to the rest. The rest has hardly any influence on the topics that are rewarded. You could compare this with a company forcing 2 million people to buy their product without caring whether these 2 million people like the product or not.
Ok, I understand we are still in an initial phase and they want to attract people. But I think at this point attracting people shouldn't be the number 1 focus. What is more important now is to make sure that the value is here to attract people automatically. I am working on a post about this topic that I will publish here tomorrow to make my point clear.
Thanks for the link. I will read it. I am curious about your game theoretic explanation.
Neither forced equality nor inequality are a good thing.
What I mean is sustainable equality. Such equality is positive and can only be acquired through application of scientific method for social and environmental concern (example Natural Law/Resource-Based Economy)
Completely agree with you on the 'sustainable equality'... though since it's an equilibrium position that has to be maintained, the scientific method you advocate for is the only way to keep the position maintained.
What that translates for me is that time will 'solve' the problem, if there is even anything that truly needs to be solved based on quantitative and qualitative analysis over time.
Good discussion :)
Thanks for interesting debate too. Such conversations are very stimulating.
Please, also you are welcome to explain what you mean by "forced" equality as it sounds illogical and paradoxical. If something is forced, it cannot be equal as it requires some position of power to enforce it. That means that someone has more power than others hence it is unequal itself.
Well... thats more of a snarky term for 'redistribution of wealth'. A progressive income tax is an attempt at forced equality, but as you point out it is impossible to accomplish for anyone who is looking objectively.
I think you just defined the problems of socialist policies in a simple paragraph :)
He is talking about the idiocy of Leninist/Stalinist Marxism.
But let's all remember that Marx was an anarchist, and that his goal was to fight the state. I consider myself a Marxist, in that I buy into, deeply, the vision for the future Marx espoused. That does not mean that I support all of Marx's ideas, because life has changed a great deal since then.
Most likely scenario with no third world war: tech makes living well so cheap that all of us become rich.
@blakemiles84, I agree with you on this one obviously. Definitely appreciate hearing an opposite viewpoint though! @logic
I am not that sure that inequality is a good thing. Because the whales are paying out in a way that doesn't make sense. I will make an article tomorrow why this inequality isn't good. I am not advocating the whales to change this. They do what they want. I just try to make them aware of things. What they do with my view is up to them.
I understand they invested more so they need to get extra advantages. I can understand why they get more free Steem Power every day than the rest of us. I can understand that they get more money when they get upvoted than we do. But the fact that they have so much power when they upvote, is not good. It is completely against the free market. And the free market will decide whether Steemit is a worthy product or not. If the free market decides the content that is valued here, is not what they want, then the market will dump Steemit and the whales will be left with a crashed project.
What does "completely against the free market" mean? In the real world, if we have a free market, having more money gives you power over other people. I don't think I understand why you'd use the free market to argue this point.
=======
If you like my writing and ideas, check out my series on the game theory of steem!
Maybe I didn't chose my wording correctly. What I wanted to say is that the whales are only a very small group here. Their preference of topics is not going to determine the success of Steemit. It's the preference of the subscribers that is of importance. If 20 whales would only like to see introduction posts and therefore only introduction posts are rewarded, but 2 million of people would like to see other topics, than whales will kill this project. Because the project will only become a success if Steemit provides topics that satisfy the desire of the 2 million subscribers.
I gave an extreme example here, but just to illustrate why I think whales upvoting power is way too big compared to the rest. The rest has hardly any influence on the topics that are rewarded. You could compare this with a company forcing 2 million people to buy their product without caring whether these 2 million people like the product or not.
Ok, I understand we are still in an initial phase and they want to attract people. But I think at this point attracting people shouldn't be the number 1 focus. What is more important now is to make sure that the value is here to attract people automatically. I am working on a post about this topic that I will publish here tomorrow to make my point clear.
Thanks for the link. I will read it. I am curious about your game theoretic explanation.
Really liked your writeup... and its driving a good debate. Thank you!
@blakemiles84 Indeed, it was not fair, but we have to appreciate that and must remain seportif with his works .. with enjoy a cup of coffee
You deserve a pat on the back. Very rare to see someone value or at least admitting to appreciating a different viewpoint. Be proud!