Plays for Humanity

 1. The division between labour and capital is too skewed (and wrong). Excessive flaunting of capital does not do any good to society. The way to breach this is for labour's worth to increase. 

2. The current monetary system has been destroyed by Central Banks' quantitative easing. The "need" to keep printing money and to accelerate the supply of it has totally changed the worth of the fiat currency. The exchange rate should change to reflect this or that other countries should step in to veto this process. The monetary system and exchange rate does not react as fast, which is true of a lot of systems in nature and aptly so with the "frog in water and boil it" example). We can exploit this easily. If I printed so much money that I buy over all the assets in a country without the exchange rate having sufficient time to react, I would have swallowed all its capital and labour. With regards to inflation, whether or not the velocity actually increased, is besides the point.

The reason why gold is valuable is because it has a fixed amount and if it can be as easily transacted as fiat currency it would probably still be used as a medium of choice. (think plasticine gold by weight)

This gave rise to cryptos. Cryptos have no tangible value in society. If humans can trade something that is of value and (backed by the faith of the Government) is easy to transact (although it has its flaws but let's not go there because it has its benefits too) there is no need for cryptos. Every transaction costs energy, no matter how minute. Even then, kudos to the crypto evangelists who rode through its winter and capitalised on the fear and greed of humans. Those who profited from the wild wild west, you beat the system and hats off to you. Crypto has zero place in society. All the time, money and effort by very smart people should have been directed at other causes. The two biggest reasons are money laundering and environmental cost, period. 

I support neither the relentless printing of money nor crypto as a medium of exchange. Homo sapiens collectively should be smarter in advancing his/her causes. Medical, Space, Environment among other causes. Accumulating $1 billion and directing it towards one cause will yield a much lower output than if we are educated/ has laws in place to make sure that collectively we are advancing that cause. I am not suggesting socialism where the government solely controls everything (means of production, distribution and exchange). I am suggesting keeping a close look on certain activities that will poison our minds BEFORE the entire control is lost. Imagine not being able to regulate drugs before half the population consumes it. By that time you will not be able to control it. Think about sexual-orientation, and imagine it is contagious (i.e. there will be more and more gays and lesbians and the rate is exponential). For whatever reason, once "venom" has entered the bloodstream, the host will not revert. This is something extremely detrimental to society on a large scale but invariably tolerable if the proportion is kept small. With the advent of data, we can monitor and keep track a lot of changes before they completely disrupt our lives and cause the extinction of the human population.  

Social media 

As with everything, too much of it has absolutely zero incremental benefit and in fact very detrimental to a system. Imbalances must be fixed. In our current society where we value freedom- there must be sufficient law and order to prevent chaos. There is a possibility, albeit extremely small, that the future generations only want to be content creators. We set laws to prevent the use/abuse of drugs because it is at the extreme end of the spectrum where it must be regulated. However, there comes a time when regulation will have to be in place for social media (usage, content created, etc). If a certain % of people are publishing content that has absolutely no educational purpose/ false or misleading to a certain extent but extremely catchy/trendy, it is within acceptable limits. But if 80% of content on instagram is non-educational, not infotainment, future generations will be caught in this very addictive ecosystem entirely useless for the advancement of human causes. In an ideal world the proportion of everything should fluctuate within a band, dictated somewhat by market forces of demand/supply but also with the greater good in mind. Alluding to my example of content creators, if they aren't successful, are they equipped with the necessary skillset to perform other functions in society that add value?