Can Crypto redefine current economic models?

[babarian]

of course, crypto currencies are now widespread and have become part of the economy in several countries.
Crypto currency has become a currency that is recognized in several countries around the world, and has become a model of future currency exchange.

[1713935279]

1713935279

[1713935279]

1713935279

[1713935279]

1713935279

[1713935279]

1713935279

[1713935279]

1713935279

[St4yInTh3D4rk]

This year, many changes have already begun to enter our lives. Our world is slowly forming. You see how there have been developments in the field of artificial intelligence.  Of course Blockchainde very new and exciting technology. I think Blockchain will definitely be the new economy model.

We are at the very beginning of this year and didn't made any significant changes in the economic model whereas the crypto is looking good at the recovery since the beginning of this year but it didn't have any growth yet which can change the current economic model.

[Lucusfoundation]

This year, many changes have already begun to enter our lives. Our world is slowly forming. You see how there have been developments in the field of artificial intelligence.  Of course Blockchainde very new and exciting technology. I think Blockchain will definitely be the new economy model.

Why can Blockchain and Cryptocurrencies be the new economic model?
Will the future be a group of centralized digital economies (Same as today but digital and transparent) or will decentralized economies (btc) rule the world? Yes, no, why?

[breathlessz]

This year, many changes have already begun to enter our lives. Our world is slowly forming. You see how there have been developments in the field of artificial intelligence.  Of course Blockchainde very new and exciting technology. I think Blockchain will definitely be the new economy model.

We are at the very beginning of this year and didn't made any significant changes in the economic model whereas the crypto is looking good at the recovery since the beginning of this year but it didn't have any growth yet which can change the current economic model.

starting at the beginning of the year crypto is starting to improve and we can see it today. of course investor confidence begins to recover. with growing trust, it will certainly be able to change the framework of the economic model later

[yvesp110]

of course, crypto currencies are now widespread and have become part of the economy in several countries.
Crypto currency has become a currency that is recognized in several countries around the world, and has become a model of future currency exchange.

Yes after crypto arrival in my country poverty has become overcome and people are getting more sources to make money I am very happy that I am skilled with crypto as trader and as an investors so I am not worry about bad days of life or for retirement as I have crypto for helping and providing me money to live better life even with empty handed.

[solarion]

Blockchain technology and bitcoin would change a ton of existing procedures, however would not absolutely rethink the current financial model. Without a doubt there will be forms that will change, however will make new employments for the labor.

In this way, the financial model by one way or another will in any case be the equivalent. Minor changes for a few.

[Bobby park]

My answer is no! Economic models cannot be seen only at upgrading technology like using blockchain tech and cryptocurrencies as a new means of payment. It never affects the whole economy because of some of the people may not use cryptocurrencies and it never change the fiat system. Economic models such as communism and capitalism define our economy right now. And it can be applied though cryptocurrency exists already.

[setialovers]

My answer is no! Economic models cannot be seen only at upgrading technology like using blockchain tech and cryptocurrencies as a new means of payment. It never affects the whole economy because of some of the people may not use cryptocurrencies and it never change the fiat system. Economic models such as communism and capitalism define our economy right now. And it can be applied though cryptocurrency exists already.

Blockchain or cryptocurrency can change how people make transaction. Current economic system using third party which is banks, but with cryptocurrency, people make transaction peer to peer and I am believe technology can redesign our economy behaviour

[judyrob]

The arrival of Crypto makes changes in life that are able to manage it, many changes are good if crypto can be utilized and bad changes if the manager is unable to get or lose. With crypto, we are free to continue to be able to manage without the interference of other parties who take advantage of us.

[mersal]

 there is nothing needed to change the current economic situation we need only the guidance and support from something so I think depth of field will definitely be a good tool for the economic development and I also trusted it for the future development.

[ulhaq]

Everyday, with the advancements in AI, Robotics, Blockchain, etc. an automated future is being created.
If we think about it, and as an example, doctors (machines) will be able to process all of the medical cases in the world and diagnose based on that; being much better than a Human doctor whose experience is limited.
With this happening across every industry, it's not that some jobs will be lost, all of the jobs will be lost.

This takes us to a new paradigm:
If only tech companies make money (They have the technology), and they have no/very few employees, capital concentration would be massive.

Do you think it would be possible, that with Blockchain and Crypto, we could solve that problem by redirecting part of the profits of private entities/companies to the people, NGOs, Social and Impact Entreprises, rather than these companies paying tax to the government and then the government redistributing?

Do you think that a company, capable of earning US$ Millions with few or almost no employees, should/could give back part of what they earn to create social good and social help?

In the past and present, some governments took/take this money from the companies/people to redistribute it and gain political strength, known as socialism.

But if actually, companies in the future did it by themselves, becoming Social Benefit Companies, with them deciding who or what they want to help with (Or even giving the power of choice to their clients), where using their products would also mean helping other people, would that actually create a whole different mindset and ethic code from a corporate point of view?

What would happen if every automated business across the world donated/redirected part of their profits to help the rest of the population and to help create positive change in societies and the environment?

What would you say?

There are all kinds of faulty assumptions here. Some good points by hatshepsut93, stompix.

1. When AI causes many jobs to be lost, it does not mean that there are going to be no jobs for the vast majority of the people. Look at history and you will see that the jobs that people do change as well as the amount that they are willing to pay for them. So eg, wages may go up dramatically for something it requires a human to do (and there will always be plenty of such jobs, even if only because there is so much wealth that ppl are willing to pay a lot for service jobs), even if there is no other reason for the wages to go up. Eg, look at the US and the cost of labor, even for menial jobs.
2. Automation results in a lower cost of goods and services. So the amount of money that people need to earn to make a living becomes dramatically less.

3.@Lucusfoundation, every post you have made seems to totally contradict itself. You keep talking about freedom, and then in the next sentence you say that companies should give 1/3 of profits to xyz cause. If companies are compelled, it is not freedom! And if the company has free choice, then you trying to control their decision is not freedom. What gives you the right to make decisions on the redistribution of wealth? As others have mentioned it has only led to mass catastrophe, death, and destruction. How are you going to determine what is a "good cause"? There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism which leads to your beliefs. If a company gives x % of profits to cause y (let's call the amount of money "z"), that money is deprived from going to another purpose. Eg, the company could invest z by reinvesting into the company instead, in order to create a cheaper product that allows millions of persons to escape poverty. Just look at history, there has been a dramatic reduction in poverty over the past 100 years and it was created by improved and cheaper products, which were all created by private companies! It was not caused by any government redistribution or forced redistribution. But if z was instead given to your "positive cause", the money is depleted in a one-time transaction and after that day or month there is nothing to show for it, it is all consumed. So by depleting companies' of their profits so that it can go to the, people, NGOs, Social and Impact Entreprises, or in government taxes, all of them are creating a poorer world.

You bring up the environment, let's take your example that there are 2 companies with the same product and a pollutes more than b. The customers should in that case purchase more from company b, but only if the customer cares about pollution, and in general many people do not care about it. The reason is undereducation. So the solution is more and better education. It has nothing to do with blockchain. Also many people do not have the time to care about it because they are struggling to get by and make a living, because of all of the redistribution of wealth that has gone to worthless causes.

[Lucusfoundation]

There are all kinds of faulty assumptions here. Some good points by hatshepsut93, stompix.

1. When AI causes many jobs to be lost, it does not mean that there are going to be no jobs for the vast majority of the people. Look at history and you will see that the jobs that people do change as well as the amount that they are willing to pay for them. So eg, wages may go up dramatically for something it requires a human to do (and there will always be plenty of such jobs, even if only because there is so much wealth that ppl are willing to pay a lot for service jobs), even if there is no other reason for the wages to go up. Eg, look at the US and the cost of labor, even for menial jobs.
2. Automation results in a lower cost of goods and services. So the amount of money that people need to earn to make a living becomes dramatically less.

3.@Lucusfoundation, every post you have made seems to totally contradict itself. You keep talking about freedom, and then in the next sentence you say that companies should give 1/3 of profits to xyz cause. If companies are compelled, it is not freedom! And if the company has free choice, then you trying to control their decision is not freedom. What gives you the right to make decisions on the redistribution of wealth? As others have mentioned it has only led to mass catastrophe, death, and destruction. How are you going to determine what is a "good cause"? There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism which leads to your beliefs. If a company gives x % of profits to cause y (let's call the amount of money "z"), that money is deprived from going to another purpose. Eg, the company could invest z by reinvesting into the company instead, in order to create a cheaper product that allows millions of persons to escape poverty. Just look at history, there has been a dramatic reduction in poverty over the past 100 years and it was created by improved and cheaper products, which were all created by private companies! It was not caused by any government redistribution or forced redistribution. But if z was instead given to your "positive cause", the money is depleted in a one-time transaction and after that day or month there is nothing to show for it, it is all consumed. So by depleting companies' of their profits so that it can go to the, people, NGOs, Social and Impact Entreprises, or in government taxes, all of them are creating a poorer world.

You bring up the environment, let's take your example that there are 2 companies with the same product and a pollutes more than b. The customers should in that case purchase more from company b, but only if the customer cares about pollution, and in general many people do not care about it. The reason is undereducation. So the solution is more and better education. It has nothing to do with blockchain. Also many people do not have the time to care about it because they are struggling to get by and make a living, because of all of the redistribution of wealth that has gone to worthless causes.

Thanks @Ulhaq for the answer!

1) It's hard to see how human needed jobs will increase their payouts/salaries as there will be more people (Supply) for these jobs (Demand). Basically, there will be lots of workers available for the tasks (As almost every manual job is replaced, only "Soft skilled" jobs may be available) and, following economic theories/basics, salaries should go down...
2) Automation does not necessarily mean lower costs. We all live in a world of inflation, can't see how people will need to earn less to make more.
3) The statements are clear... Should/Could companies redirect profits? We're leaving the questions for the discussions. As stated in other posts above. We believe in a free world were no obligations should be set. Everyone can do what they want, free markets shall decide. We have already seen what can happen with examples like Venezuela, URRS, Mao's China, etc.
We're not talking about depleting company's profits, we're talking about a more inclusive economy.
What's the point of having US$ 150B on Jeff Bezos' Bank Account? Bill and Melinda gates prove what we're talking about by spending billions of dollars in social/environmental change without killing Microsoft's profits.

If humans choose pollution because they're undereducated. Why not reinvesting part of the profits in education? When helping societies and the environment, we're helping ourselves and our future generations...

[tonyja2017]

The fact that there are few employees in a technology enterprise is no stranger, but the salary funds are still high because the nature of the job requires a lot of gray matter and businesses need to pay a lot of salary to some of the developers. soft.
I understand that technology is growing strongly, but in a world there are many different areas.
The technology sector caters to a part of the world, other areas will serve the rest. so there will never be a lot of people being unemployed.

[South Park]

I think this has already happened. Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies have already changed traditional economy models, not in large extent and not officialy but there is certainly some influence. Positive regulation would intiate further changes but it's hard to expect that on a global scale.
To my opinion economy based on.a blockchain technology is future but changes are happening very slowly and businesses are still reluctant to implement it.

So, let's say that businesses and private entities start to compete on intrinsic value propositions and not superficial/material value.

Let's say that there is an crypto exchange (Complies with the characteristics of a company that can earn millions of dollars with very few employees), with the same engine and quality than the rest of the available ones, that donates 20% (For the example) of profits where the same clients choose where these funds should be redirected to (They choose the donation destiny). Would you, as a user, prefer to use that platform where it provides a purpose/ethical based value proposition towards the future?

snip

But that is the problem, the exchange that donates 20% of their profits will be at a disadvantage compared to the rest of their competitors and eventually the service they offer will not be as good and once that happens clients will begin to move to other platforms and the revenue of that charitable exchange will go down making their service even worse, you bring an interesting discussion about the future of the world and how machines are replacing us but I do not see this solution you are proposing gaining any strength.

[jrrsparkles]

My answer is no! Economic models cannot be seen only at upgrading technology like using blockchain tech and cryptocurrencies as a new means of payment. It never affects the whole economy because of some of the people may not use cryptocurrencies and it never change the fiat system. Economic models such as communism and capitalism define our economy right now. And it can be applied though cryptocurrency exists already.

It will change hw the money were working so it actually can relate to the changes in economy because most of the economy in this world are filled with fiat based calclation and it was created from nothing so if cryptos adopted by everyone it may replace the part of fiat economy and gradulally it will takes place completely.

[slocker]

This can both good and bad. Good is that blockchain as technology is to good to not use it or at least consider creating something similar for economy usage in everyday life. Bad is that this will not happen any time soon and even is so this wont effect so much current economy as we know.

[ulhaq]

There are all kinds of faulty assumptions here. Some good points by hatshepsut93, stompix.

1. When AI causes many jobs to be lost, it does not mean that there are going to be no jobs for the vast majority of the people. Look at history and you will see that the jobs that people do change as well as the amount that they are willing to pay for them. So eg, wages may go up dramatically for something it requires a human to do (and there will always be plenty of such jobs, even if only because there is so much wealth that ppl are willing to pay a lot for service jobs), even if there is no other reason for the wages to go up. Eg, look at the US and the cost of labor, even for menial jobs.
2. Automation results in a lower cost of goods and services. So the amount of money that people need to earn to make a living becomes dramatically less.

3.@Lucusfoundation, every post you have made seems to totally contradict itself. You keep talking about freedom, and then in the next sentence you say that companies should give 1/3 of profits to xyz cause. If companies are compelled, it is not freedom! And if the company has free choice, then you trying to control their decision is not freedom. What gives you the right to make decisions on the redistribution of wealth? As others have mentioned it has only led to mass catastrophe, death, and destruction. How are you going to determine what is a "good cause"? There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism which leads to your beliefs. If a company gives x % of profits to cause y (let's call the amount of money "z"), that money is deprived from going to another purpose. Eg, the company could invest z by reinvesting into the company instead, in order to create a cheaper product that allows millions of persons to escape poverty. Just look at history, there has been a dramatic reduction in poverty over the past 100 years and it was created by improved and cheaper products, which were all created by private companies! It was not caused by any government redistribution or forced redistribution. But if z was instead given to your "positive cause", the money is depleted in a one-time transaction and after that day or month there is nothing to show for it, it is all consumed. So by depleting companies' of their profits so that it can go to the, people, NGOs, Social and Impact Entreprises, or in government taxes, all of them are creating a poorer world.

You bring up the environment, let's take your example that there are 2 companies with the same product and a pollutes more than b. The customers should in that case purchase more from company b, but only if the customer cares about pollution, and in general many people do not care about it. The reason is undereducation. So the solution is more and better education. It has nothing to do with blockchain. Also many people do not have the time to care about it because they are struggling to get by and make a living, because of all of the redistribution of wealth that has gone to worthless causes.

Thanks @Ulhaq for the answer!

1) It's hard to see how human needed jobs will increase their payouts/salaries as there will be more people (Supply) for these jobs (Demand). Basically, there will be lots of workers available for the tasks (As almost every manual job is replaced, only "Soft skilled" jobs may be available) and, following economic theories/basics, salaries should go down...
2) Automation does not necessarily mean lower costs. We all live in a world of inflation, can't see how people will need to earn less to make more.
3) The statements are clear... Should/Could companies redirect profits? We're leaving the questions for the discussions. As stated in other posts above. We believe in a free world were no obligations should be set. Everyone can do what they want, free markets shall decide. We have already seen what can happen with examples like Venezuela, URRS, Mao's China, etc.
We're not talking about depleting company's profits, we're talking about a more inclusive economy.
What's the point of having US$ 150B on Jeff Bezos' Bank Account? Bill and Melinda gates prove what we're talking about by spending billions of dollars in social/environmental change without killing Microsoft's profits.

If humans choose pollution because they're undereducated. Why not reinvesting part of the profits in education? When helping societies and the environment, we're helping ourselves and our future generations...

You continue to make many assumptions.
1) You are assuming discrete jobs, so of course if there more supply for a SPECIFIC JOB, wages will go down. But there is an infinite number of jobs that can be done. If there is a lot more wealth in the world (which happens with automation), then people have to spend it on something. And the job distribution will not only look completely different to how it looks now, it will not even be conceivable to you what it will look like, just as a huge number of jobs today were completely inconceivable to people 100 years ago.
2) Automation DOES mean lower cost. There is no reason to automate unless it is saving money, or made at higher efficiency (which also saves money), all of which means that the product can be sold at a lower cost. If the company does not charge a lower cost, then the competitor will, so the cost goes down regardless. If the cost to produce the product is more than the purchase price, then the company will go out of business. Look at any product and you will see that the cost has gone down over time, while the quality has gone up, or some combination of these 2.
Inflation has nothing to do with anything. That is dependent on the currency that one uses. Eg, you should know that bitcoin is deflationary.
3) Jeff Bezos does not have $150B in his bank account. His wealth is OWNERSHIP of amazon. So to use that $150B, he has to SELL amazon. Meaning that someone else now becomes owner or part-owner of amazon and starts to be able to run the company. How successful do you think that other person, or persons are going to be at running amazon? Amazon will be run into the ground. Amazon now no longer can provide cheap, quality products to the world, and that makes the world, and the population of the world, poorer. By the way, Amazon became successful BECAUSE Bezos was able to provide cheaper or better quality products to people, faster. People VOLUNTARILY gave their money to him because it made them better off. If those people wanted to give the money to environmental causes instead, they were free to do so. And again you talk about freedom, but say "What's the point of having US$ 150B on Jeff Bezos' Bank Account?". You are obviously not for freedom, because you keep suggesting what people should do with their money.
Regarding Bill and Melinda gates, they only started their charitable work AFTER leaving microsoft, because before that he was running the company. Also how do you know that the money spent on those causes is the best use of the money? Don't you think that the trillions spent on wars, and all the death and destruction, is a bigger problem than what the gates foundation is working on?

I suggest studying economics, it will answer all of these questions that you have.

[akram143]

Everyday, with the advancements in AI, Robotics, Blockchain, etc. an automated future is being created.
If we think about it, and as an example, doctors (machines) will be able to process all of the medical cases in the world and diagnose based on that; being much better than a Human doctor whose experience is limited.
With this happening across every industry, it's not that some jobs will be lost, all of the jobs will be lost.

This takes us to a new paradigm:
If only tech companies make money (They have the technology), and they have no/very few employees, capital concentration would be massive.

Do you think it would be possible, that with Blockchain and Crypto, we could solve that problem by redirecting part of the profits of private entities/companies to the people, NGOs, Social and Impact Entreprises, rather than these companies paying tax to the government and then the government redistributing?

Do you think that a company, capable of earning US$ Millions with few or almost no employees, should/could give back part of what they earn to create social good and social help?

In the past and present, some governments took/take this money from the companies/people to redistribute it and gain political strength, known as socialism.

But if actually, companies in the future did it by themselves, becoming Social Benefit Companies, with them deciding who or what they want to help with (Or even giving the power of choice to their clients), where using their products would also mean helping other people, would that actually create a whole different mindset and ethic code from a corporate point of view?

What would happen if every automated business across the world donated/redirected part of their profits to help the rest of the population and to help create positive change in societies and the environment?

What would you say?

To change our economic to will not only be the equipment to redefine our society because it will not enough to maintain our economic problems so the people also need to change something better for our self will definitely helpful for the Crypto to improve much more for economic changing in the future.

[solarion]

Bitcoin and the other cryptocurrencies have effectively changed their consumer and business models in it, not in vast degree and not officially but rather there is unquestionably some impact. Positive control would intiate further changes however it's difficult to anticipate that on a worldwide scale.

To my sentiment economy based on.a blockchain innovation is future yet changes are going on very gradually and organizations are as yet hesitant to execute it.

[Lucusfoundation]

I think this has already happened. Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies have already changed traditional economy models, not in large extent and not officialy but there is certainly some influence. Positive regulation would intiate further changes but it's hard to expect that on a global scale.
To my opinion economy based on.a blockchain technology is future but changes are happening very slowly and businesses are still reluctant to implement it.

So, let's say that businesses and private entities start to compete on intrinsic value propositions and not superficial/material value.

Let's say that there is an crypto exchange (Complies with the characteristics of a company that can earn millions of dollars with very few employees), with the same engine and quality than the rest of the available ones, that donates 20% (For the example) of profits where the same clients choose where these funds should be redirected to (They choose the donation destiny). Would you, as a user, prefer to use that platform where it provides a purpose/ethical based value proposition towards the future?

snip

But that is the problem, the exchange that donates 20% of their profits will be at a disadvantage compared to the rest of their competitors and eventually the service they offer will not be as good and once that happens clients will begin to move to other platforms and the revenue of that charitable exchange will go down making their service even worse, you bring an interesting discussion about the future of the world and how machines are replacing us but I do not see this solution you are proposing gaining any strength.

It's not necessarily disadvantage against competitors...
Profits are also given out in dividends and companies not always reinvest the money in their products. Many times they use the money to buy other companies, etc. which makes their group bigger and valuation higher, but does not make them more competitive.
On the other hand, it can give them a great brand awareness and attract new clients.

You continue to make many assumptions.
1) You are assuming discrete jobs, so of course if there more supply for a SPECIFIC JOB, wages will go down. But there is an infinite number of jobs that can be done. If there is a lot more wealth in the world (which happens with automation), then people have to spend it on something. And the job distribution will not only look completely different to how it looks now, it will not even be conceivable to you what it will look like, just as a huge number of jobs today were completely inconceivable to people 100 years ago.
2) Automation DOES mean lower cost. There is no reason to automate unless it is saving money, or made at higher efficiency (which also saves money), all of which means that the product can be sold at a lower cost. If the company does not charge a lower cost, then the competitor will, so the cost goes down regardless. If the cost to produce the product is more than the purchase price, then the company will go out of business. Look at any product and you will see that the cost has gone down over time, while the quality has gone up, or some combination of these 2.
Inflation has nothing to do with anything. That is dependent on the currency that one uses. Eg, you should know that bitcoin is deflationary.
3) Jeff Bezos does not have $150B in his bank account. His wealth is OWNERSHIP of amazon. So to use that $150B, he has to SELL amazon. Meaning that someone else now becomes owner or part-owner of amazon and starts to be able to run the company. How successful do you think that other person, or persons are going to be at running amazon? Amazon will be run into the ground. Amazon now no longer can provide cheap, quality products to the world, and that makes the world, and the population of the world, poorer. By the way, Amazon became successful BECAUSE Bezos was able to provide cheaper or better quality products to people, faster. People VOLUNTARILY gave their money to him because it made them better off. If those people wanted to give the money to environmental causes instead, they were free to do so. And again you talk about freedom, but say "What's the point of having US$ 150B on Jeff Bezos' Bank Account?". You are obviously not for freedom, because you keep suggesting what people should do with their money.
Regarding Bill and Melinda gates, they only started their charitable work AFTER leaving microsoft, because before that he was running the company. Also how do you know that the money spent on those causes is the best use of the money? Don't you think that the trillions spent on wars, and all the death and destruction, is a bigger problem than what the gates foundation is working on?

I suggest studying economics, it will answer all of these questions that you have.

Thanks Ulhaq for the new answer.

1) Not really... You need to study on the future of work to make that assumption, and you'd find out that technology is killing many more jobs than it's creating.
There's a big difference with the old industrial revolutions.
We're building intelligence, and that intelligence can replace our work/tasks on many fields.
200 years ago, in the industrial revolution, we needed people to repair the machines that were automating certain tasks. But nowadays, we're building intelligence that can learn, even create new languages and process more information than any human could ever process in a matter of seconds. We're creating the intelligence that will fix these machines.
Future of work is a beatiful topic, get on it!

2) Not necessarily. It actually depends on economics and finance. Automation may mean lower costs for a huge company that can see the long term impact and ROI of automating something (Considering its an expensive investment) while other producers/industry players may not do that investment as they'll go off before they can see that ROI. It's the same as mining, for large scale people it's profitable, for small people it probably isn't. It's not something lineal, and there's many things/variables to take into account.
That's the whole point! In most of cases, yes, it makes this "product" cheaper, but how do you balance things? It may be cheaper for the company producing it, but it creates a new big cost within the community that just got a new unemployed person.
Moreover, the jobs you're thinking about are all qualified jobs. That thinking takes into consideration a little part of the population in our societies.
How can we expect for certain people to go for qualified tasks/skills when they are still not receiving any education at all?

3) We're just posting questions for people to answer and debate... Of course it's understood that Bezos does not have 150B into his account, but as you say, if he sells amazon, he'll have them. Which is not bad at all, don't get it wrong. He deserves them, he built a great company. And if he sells it, don't worry, theres hundred of super capable CEOs that can take charge.
The real question is, can we sustain a future where economies are going more transparent (Fiat: Shady, Blockchain: Transparent) where certain individuals huge portions of capital? Emission is something that shall be regulated...

And yes, we totally agree. We need to solve the problem of all the funds being used for war. And thats the whole point... Can you imagine a Weapon Factory actually fulfilling purpose based initiatives? Of course not, they create guns. The future we need is a purpose based one, not a profit only world. Profit only takes to enterprises, like guns and war, indeed.

And please, don't get it the wrong way. Freedom, always freedom. What we ask is to debate, not what shall be done...
Again, we've already seen what happens when things are imposed.