🐈

From a global perspective there is also probably a minor effect on slowing down market growth since market machinery has been turned into useless cash. e.g. the mechanism that makes (life saving?) goods cheaper across the world slows down a bit.https://twitter.com/a_yawning_cat/status/1341269410686726144 …

again, probably a very small effect since even billionaires are small relative to the size of the entire system. all this implies that the super rich can't really solve said problems even if they have benefitted from the setup.

One can WIN at monopoly but be helpless to change the rules since everyone insists on playing it. Why? Because people care about WINNING and monopoly allows for easy constant winning once you have enough capital.

The board game is also entirely luck based so it's "fair" for all. High IQ can only get you so far! Many of the most successful wealth managers of the world are not quantum physicists. From a human perspective, this stability of "making it" is VERY tempting.

So aside from the problem of incentivizing risk exploration and innovation in the future there is still a *present* problem of how to fix the problem of people stuck in dead economic constant survival loops w/ no future.https://twitter.com/SylvanaquaFarms/status/1339876785962569728?s=20 …

This is *especially* true for the "complacent" people in rich societies. The cost of living is high and in a globally connected society where more and more work is information work, they have NO competitive edge.

They're effectively handicapped relative to the competitiveness of the global workforce. Maintaining their lifestyle requires literal hand-outs unless they fix the problem of being non competitive or the problem of cost of living.

Digital nomadism and trading on Robinhood are not as escapist or dumb as you might think at first glance. They are very intuitive reactions against how the system is currently setup. If you *know* monopoly is a boring game, your house rules will change to make the game interestin