These past years we have heard alot the word "decentralization", most of it (sadly) comes from crypto speculators. In truth very few care about it (if you disagree compare videos articles posts about decentralization to those about the price).
Decentralization has always been a big important subject, even if 99% are totally oblivious to it. A new word has appeared in our lives recently, it is the word "Libertarian".
Here is how the cato institute (whoever they are) says the US electorate is divided:
Roughly speeking the majority is either "Liberal" = the left or "Conservative" = the right.
From wikipedia (a part centralized part decentralized encyclopedia):
The word "centralization" came into use in France in 1794 as the post-French Revolution French Directory leadership created a new government structure. The word "decentralization" came into usage in the 1820s. "Centralization" entered written English in the first third of the 1800s; mentions of decentralization also first appear during those years. In the mid-1800s Tocqueville would write that the French Revolution began with "a push towards decentralization... in the end, an extension of centralization."
I would say that during the absolute monarchy in europe it was very centralized, and was not very fair, during obviously every socialist regime the country gets full centralized and the population ends up starving, when rome was conquering europe if I remember correctly, in "france" anyone could get their own land and go start their farm so I would say this was a libertarian & decentralized era, the opposite of communism/communitarian if you think communism is a bad word. Trying to show in a few words (don't want this idea too long) that in history there has been all sorts of systems.
Right now China is a totalitarian state but their government is decentralized. Just to show there can be a centralized system but "locally" inside of this there is a centralized thing, doesn't mean the whole place is decentralized.
Going to look at business, currencies, markets, governments, and science, which would cover almost everything in society. Especially at business. There will be exceptions like even if you would find that science is better decentralized, it remains more efficient to build a spaceship to have it centralized.
1- Wageslaves
People but in particular communists complain that "man exploits man" and all of this. But wageslaves are slaves because they decide to be, they want to be. They are not capable of taking care of themselves and need someone to give them work. Just look at the reactions when a business wants to replace its low skill workers by machines...
Not something we hear often, not a very popular thing to say. Just shows they are even too weak cowardly and delusional to admit it. It's always someone else fault...
And with their votes they bring governements that puts obstacles in the way of doing business.
If the 3 billion wagecucks on the planet really hate bosses, rich people, there is little stopping them. Their own abilities I guess.
A fully centralized system has never worked. Even the unfair dark middle ages were not fully centralized, peasants had their land, artisans were running their own businesses etc...
The pathetic wellfare states designed for handicapped people and punishing non handicapped people HAVE NEVER WORKED. EVER. The only system that is shown to work is scandinavia.
Ah the mighty successful sweden norway denmark that Bernie Sanders loves to quote. Well I have news, they are not socialist. Scandinavian countries had a socialist experiment in the 70s, it quickly failed, and they switched back to full capitalist free market.
A completely decentralized system would be one where there are no companies just small 1 person or 1 family businesses? That places some serious limitations.
Without listing them there are pros and cons to both centralization and decentralization.
Some companies have successfully merged both:
McDonald's is a central company that runs a "franchise" system. They provide a brand, logistic help, a formation, and individuals own and run restaurants.
This company has done so well. They have spread to the entire world, and even infiltrated countries with strong resistance like Russia or France. I know france was hard I am not sure russia was.
Youtube is a (little too centralized and totalitarian) company that lets individuals run their own channels, they have their own show manage their own following choose their own upload times etc. Youtubers ARE entrepreneurs running a business.
The internet could be seen as a somewhat central platform (functionnally it is central) with individuals plugging their content.
This is progress. These hybrid companies do great, they are a big leap forward. The full decentralized zero control blockchain social networks are maybe a little too much, and I don't see them doing very well.
I think the future is companies that are hybrid. People run their own lives. It is literally social justice. It makes every one lives better. It promotes progress.
Mixing the best of both worlds. The advantage of having something in the center but while still having decentralization. It is literally the answer to everything.
And I will gladly invest in companies that understand this is the way to go and do it right. Uber is a good idea but it is TOO decentralized, at least for now. Maybe they are too early. I don't think they are too early I think the business model is bad.
We could see it much more: A group of entrepreneur builds a fully automated factory that makes candy bars. They need to check the quality so they contact a couple of quality freelancers, and they have programmers that work for themselves but via a centralized platform, that code and monitor the machines, they have a security company they hire, etc.
There probably is going to always have to be some people that work for others, not every one CAN take care of themselves, and also, it makes it easier for 15 years old to get started. They might want to be wage workers for a decade at least before starting their business.
There is so much potential for new semi decentralized companies and this just has so much potential... The future can really be bright.
Centralization bad. Decentralization bad. Invest in HYBRID! It is amazing how great it can be.
2- Currencies
Only purpose of a currency is to be a convenient way of exchanging.
I touched on this subject here:
Once again, fully centralized stinks, fully decentralized stinks. Bitcoin regardless of the failing tech is garbage because no one has control on it, it cannot expand or contract as the economy need so it just CANNOT be a currency. It is necessary to have an inflation (and deflation) that follows gdp...
It could expand and contract if a central authority held million of BTC and released or stored them as needed but this is risky it won't end well...
Fiat currencies (once again cryptocurrencies are fiat currencies their "investors" say otherwise but they are incredibly stupid) are good actually, we DO NOT CARE if a currency is made out of thin air, its sole purpose is to serve as a convenient way to exchange. It's literally just a number used to value various goods services debt...
We could ditch a currency and invent a new one, would not matter. Really simple... still too abstract apparently for the majority.
3- Markets
They have been running pretty well and have enabled huge growth for humanity. For the past 12000 years (commodity futures) but even more in the past few hundred years with stock markets.
And surprise surprise, there has always been a centralized entity (a temple where exchanges are done, the CME, regulators), and decentralized traders. Basically the same system for 12000 years at least.
And they have worked great, very clearly. Let's not change that.
Another great example of a hybrid system.
4- Governments
Did you know that in 1921, after socialism caused famine and riots, Lenin realized how idiotic his ideas were and introduced the "New Economic Policy" (he did not bring back the "bloodsuckers" he murdered thought), what he called an economic system that would include "a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control".
In the years leading to 1924 Lenin died a slow painful and humiliating death (karma?) and Stalin took his place (he also suffered a slow humiliating painful death but he lived till 74). The USSR went full central government with socialist wellfare and all. This did not end well as every one knows now.
There has been many experiments (including John Stossel trying to tell people what to do in an ice skating ring lol) on the subject (including Sweden and Denmark trying socialism in the 70s) and EVERY SINGLE ONE HAS BEEN AN ABSOLUTE FAILURE.
Ever heard of Africa? They aren't exactly rich right? Guess what? Government are even more centralized and less friendly than THE SOVIET UNION AT ITS WORSE.
I am not making this up. Africa is WORSE than the USSR and this is why they are so poor, starving, plagued by so many diseases, and see millions of (mostly) young men try to escape by boat, very very often end up dead at the bottom of the sea. If african laws & governments change and allow their people to run business, you better believe me than their economy will grow exponentially.
It simply does not work. This is not my opinion. Simple verifiable facts.
And so once again...
Centralization bad. Decentralization bad. Invest in HYBRID! It is amazing how great it can be.
5- Science
Even science has this...
"Modern science" started with Descartes (correct me if I am wrong) he basically told scientists "Ok listen up now stop it with the stupid dogmas and stick to facts. Be rigorous.".
Apart from mathematics and astrophysics which are near perfect, and have the smartest people (go figure), most science since Descartes has still had dogmas.
You can look it up, plenty of scientific discoveries went against dogmas and the ones that made those discoveries were ridiculed by "the community" of sheep scientists.
Even today, there are plenty of dogmas, and a huge amount of science is just sheep literally repeating something. Things get repeated until the sheep community decides something untrue has been repeated enough times for it to magically become true. It's beyond idiotic. They're supposed to have 130 IQ but as a herd they are absolute cretins.
There are even some dogmas that are ILLEGAL to question. If a scientist says he has facts that disprove certain global warming dogmas, his university is going to FIRE HIM.
At the moment the scientific community I heard is going through what they call the "replication" issue. Theories get repeated until accepted. Scientists are not even adding any value. They just repeat something and get paid for it, get grants, get promoted to a higher rank etc.
This is clearly not conductive to progress.
A full decentralized system is not that great either because if they can refrain from being sheeps, having other scientists review their findings (NOT "reviewing" 500 papers on climate change in 1 year and quoting them to end up in google top results - reviewing 500 papers in 1 year is the equivalent of running 500 marathons in 1 year) adds tremendous value. Also having a place to do their research helps. I think great discoveries are made in isolation, from others, Tesla said this, helps the mind be more creative and helps ignore "dogmas" but you need to share those at some point, and you need or might need to base your research on what others have done before, you could also use the support of a university such as equipment... Opinions (non dogma), others expertise on a subject can help even if you go full solo work on a specific subject for 10 years.
==> Same, a hybrid system has been proven to work best.
So final word.
Fully centralized or fully decentralized systems generally are not great to really very bad.
It's shocking how obvious it is what the solution to almost everything is but the majority is too blind to see it.
Any country or company that goes the Hybrid route is almost instantly an investment for me.
Decentralization has always been a big important subject, even if 99% are totally oblivious to it. A new word has appeared in our lives recently, it is the word "Libertarian".
Here is how the cato institute (whoever they are) says the US electorate is divided:
Roughly speeking the majority is either "Liberal" = the left or "Conservative" = the right.
From wikipedia (a part centralized part decentralized encyclopedia):
The word "centralization" came into use in France in 1794 as the post-French Revolution French Directory leadership created a new government structure. The word "decentralization" came into usage in the 1820s. "Centralization" entered written English in the first third of the 1800s; mentions of decentralization also first appear during those years. In the mid-1800s Tocqueville would write that the French Revolution began with "a push towards decentralization... in the end, an extension of centralization."
I would say that during the absolute monarchy in europe it was very centralized, and was not very fair, during obviously every socialist regime the country gets full centralized and the population ends up starving, when rome was conquering europe if I remember correctly, in "france" anyone could get their own land and go start their farm so I would say this was a libertarian & decentralized era, the opposite of communism/communitarian if you think communism is a bad word. Trying to show in a few words (don't want this idea too long) that in history there has been all sorts of systems.
Right now China is a totalitarian state but their government is decentralized. Just to show there can be a centralized system but "locally" inside of this there is a centralized thing, doesn't mean the whole place is decentralized.
Going to look at business, currencies, markets, governments, and science, which would cover almost everything in society. Especially at business. There will be exceptions like even if you would find that science is better decentralized, it remains more efficient to build a spaceship to have it centralized.
1- Wageslaves
People but in particular communists complain that "man exploits man" and all of this. But wageslaves are slaves because they decide to be, they want to be. They are not capable of taking care of themselves and need someone to give them work. Just look at the reactions when a business wants to replace its low skill workers by machines...
Not something we hear often, not a very popular thing to say. Just shows they are even too weak cowardly and delusional to admit it. It's always someone else fault...
And with their votes they bring governements that puts obstacles in the way of doing business.
If the 3 billion wagecucks on the planet really hate bosses, rich people, there is little stopping them. Their own abilities I guess.
A fully centralized system has never worked. Even the unfair dark middle ages were not fully centralized, peasants had their land, artisans were running their own businesses etc...
The pathetic wellfare states designed for handicapped people and punishing non handicapped people HAVE NEVER WORKED. EVER. The only system that is shown to work is scandinavia.
Ah the mighty successful sweden norway denmark that Bernie Sanders loves to quote. Well I have news, they are not socialist. Scandinavian countries had a socialist experiment in the 70s, it quickly failed, and they switched back to full capitalist free market.
A completely decentralized system would be one where there are no companies just small 1 person or 1 family businesses? That places some serious limitations.
Without listing them there are pros and cons to both centralization and decentralization.
Some companies have successfully merged both:
McDonald's is a central company that runs a "franchise" system. They provide a brand, logistic help, a formation, and individuals own and run restaurants.
This company has done so well. They have spread to the entire world, and even infiltrated countries with strong resistance like Russia or France. I know france was hard I am not sure russia was.
Youtube is a (little too centralized and totalitarian) company that lets individuals run their own channels, they have their own show manage their own following choose their own upload times etc. Youtubers ARE entrepreneurs running a business.
The internet could be seen as a somewhat central platform (functionnally it is central) with individuals plugging their content.
This is progress. These hybrid companies do great, they are a big leap forward. The full decentralized zero control blockchain social networks are maybe a little too much, and I don't see them doing very well.
I think the future is companies that are hybrid. People run their own lives. It is literally social justice. It makes every one lives better. It promotes progress.
Mixing the best of both worlds. The advantage of having something in the center but while still having decentralization. It is literally the answer to everything.
And I will gladly invest in companies that understand this is the way to go and do it right. Uber is a good idea but it is TOO decentralized, at least for now. Maybe they are too early. I don't think they are too early I think the business model is bad.
We could see it much more: A group of entrepreneur builds a fully automated factory that makes candy bars. They need to check the quality so they contact a couple of quality freelancers, and they have programmers that work for themselves but via a centralized platform, that code and monitor the machines, they have a security company they hire, etc.
There probably is going to always have to be some people that work for others, not every one CAN take care of themselves, and also, it makes it easier for 15 years old to get started. They might want to be wage workers for a decade at least before starting their business.
There is so much potential for new semi decentralized companies and this just has so much potential... The future can really be bright.
Centralization bad. Decentralization bad. Invest in HYBRID! It is amazing how great it can be.
2- Currencies
Only purpose of a currency is to be a convenient way of exchanging.
I touched on this subject here:
Once again, fully centralized stinks, fully decentralized stinks. Bitcoin regardless of the failing tech is garbage because no one has control on it, it cannot expand or contract as the economy need so it just CANNOT be a currency. It is necessary to have an inflation (and deflation) that follows gdp...
It could expand and contract if a central authority held million of BTC and released or stored them as needed but this is risky it won't end well...
Fiat currencies (once again cryptocurrencies are fiat currencies their "investors" say otherwise but they are incredibly stupid) are good actually, we DO NOT CARE if a currency is made out of thin air, its sole purpose is to serve as a convenient way to exchange. It's literally just a number used to value various goods services debt...
We could ditch a currency and invent a new one, would not matter. Really simple... still too abstract apparently for the majority.
3- Markets
They have been running pretty well and have enabled huge growth for humanity. For the past 12000 years (commodity futures) but even more in the past few hundred years with stock markets.
And surprise surprise, there has always been a centralized entity (a temple where exchanges are done, the CME, regulators), and decentralized traders. Basically the same system for 12000 years at least.
And they have worked great, very clearly. Let's not change that.
Another great example of a hybrid system.
4- Governments
Did you know that in 1921, after socialism caused famine and riots, Lenin realized how idiotic his ideas were and introduced the "New Economic Policy" (he did not bring back the "bloodsuckers" he murdered thought), what he called an economic system that would include "a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control".
In the years leading to 1924 Lenin died a slow painful and humiliating death (karma?) and Stalin took his place (he also suffered a slow humiliating painful death but he lived till 74). The USSR went full central government with socialist wellfare and all. This did not end well as every one knows now.
There has been many experiments (including John Stossel trying to tell people what to do in an ice skating ring lol) on the subject (including Sweden and Denmark trying socialism in the 70s) and EVERY SINGLE ONE HAS BEEN AN ABSOLUTE FAILURE.
Ever heard of Africa? They aren't exactly rich right? Guess what? Government are even more centralized and less friendly than THE SOVIET UNION AT ITS WORSE.
I am not making this up. Africa is WORSE than the USSR and this is why they are so poor, starving, plagued by so many diseases, and see millions of (mostly) young men try to escape by boat, very very often end up dead at the bottom of the sea. If african laws & governments change and allow their people to run business, you better believe me than their economy will grow exponentially.
It simply does not work. This is not my opinion. Simple verifiable facts.
And so once again...
Centralization bad. Decentralization bad. Invest in HYBRID! It is amazing how great it can be.
5- Science
Even science has this...
"Modern science" started with Descartes (correct me if I am wrong) he basically told scientists "Ok listen up now stop it with the stupid dogmas and stick to facts. Be rigorous.".
Apart from mathematics and astrophysics which are near perfect, and have the smartest people (go figure), most science since Descartes has still had dogmas.
You can look it up, plenty of scientific discoveries went against dogmas and the ones that made those discoveries were ridiculed by "the community" of sheep scientists.
Even today, there are plenty of dogmas, and a huge amount of science is just sheep literally repeating something. Things get repeated until the sheep community decides something untrue has been repeated enough times for it to magically become true. It's beyond idiotic. They're supposed to have 130 IQ but as a herd they are absolute cretins.
There are even some dogmas that are ILLEGAL to question. If a scientist says he has facts that disprove certain global warming dogmas, his university is going to FIRE HIM.
At the moment the scientific community I heard is going through what they call the "replication" issue. Theories get repeated until accepted. Scientists are not even adding any value. They just repeat something and get paid for it, get grants, get promoted to a higher rank etc.
This is clearly not conductive to progress.
A full decentralized system is not that great either because if they can refrain from being sheeps, having other scientists review their findings (NOT "reviewing" 500 papers on climate change in 1 year and quoting them to end up in google top results - reviewing 500 papers in 1 year is the equivalent of running 500 marathons in 1 year) adds tremendous value. Also having a place to do their research helps. I think great discoveries are made in isolation, from others, Tesla said this, helps the mind be more creative and helps ignore "dogmas" but you need to share those at some point, and you need or might need to base your research on what others have done before, you could also use the support of a university such as equipment... Opinions (non dogma), others expertise on a subject can help even if you go full solo work on a specific subject for 10 years.
==> Same, a hybrid system has been proven to work best.
So final word.
Fully centralized or fully decentralized systems generally are not great to really very bad.
It's shocking how obvious it is what the solution to almost everything is but the majority is too blind to see it.
Any country or company that goes the Hybrid route is almost instantly an investment for me.
But Bitcoin investors should be very interested... Weird...
It's as if they only cared about the price. And will never ever succeed in any way.
It just tells...
Lmao plebs.