That is the disadvantage when you cannot sustain yourself and fight to survive. This life is like a game, and money is how we score. That analogy might be right, because in order for us to sustain ourselves and survive, we have to earn money and buy the things we needed. That is not what a certain government can give or change easily.
Actually, it shouldn't be. The added value should be "how we score", and money should be only the compensation given for that in order to replace the need for the direct trade (barter). That is why both creation and distribution of money must be changed. Only then when the money will become what it is - a piece of a paper or a digit (zeroes and ones) that only serves as a check (brought back to its initial purpose - to ease the trade, not complicate it), and not the actual thing of value, will the society make a progress towards the society of justice and equality.
The problem of a poor interventionism made by poor governments can be solved by a kind of AI or in-built interventionism in which a cryptocurrency with a system of smart contracts could be "just what the good doctor prescribed".
I agree with the most part of your post. In fact I had expressed very similar views in my earlier post in this thread, in short, that the problem is not in the lack of wealth but in the unequal distribution of it. I even feel that you are trying to say something interesting and valuable in your last sentence, but I just can't get it. Can you please elaborate it little more?
Yes, Betwrong (does this mean you are betting wrong all too much?
), thank you for the observation. So, my opinion is that (I am an economist so I apologize for bringing actual names and theories into it
) Milton Friedman's free market and John Maynard Keynes' interventionism theory should co-exist and that Satoshi's redesign of the money creation and distribution process + Vitaly Buterik's smart contract system can help in making it possible.
There was another constructive topic on this site (
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2863445.msg29392144#msg29392144) where we came to a kind of conclusion that a free market and capitalism are the best way to make industrial and economic progress while interventionism and socialistic way of thinking (I won't say "socialism" because to the most of the people it brings back bad memories... however socialism was a good idea of a very poor practical application) are the best way to diminish the segregation process that is the unfortunate by-product of capitalism and free market.
However, interventionism has to be done by governments, and that means by people who by nature are flawed and greedy. We all know that politicians, in most of the cases, even when making decisions beneficial for the society, are actually just doing moves designed by political trading in order to earn some political points (support of the society or/and support of other politicians).
Hence, this interventionism has to be supported by something more objective. If we are talking about the distribution of the money, you can, for example, make a technical committee which decides on the proper distribution and the distribution can be done through Blockchain and secured through smart contracts. Smart contracts would ensure that the money arrives where it was supposed to arrive as they have a self-correcting factor. This means basically this - if I was to buy a property from you, we would make a smart contract and it would make sure that I don't own the property until I pay and that after this contract has been concluded you don't have any means to cheat me (hold the key or something like that)..., or vice-versa. No need for lawyers, no room for cheaters to take money for themselves etc.
Of course, we are far from that, both Blockchain and smart contract system are still flawed, but they already showed us they can be very powerful tools.