I don't think bitcoin has the potential to unseat oligopoly. I believe that people are scared to be themselves, i.e. unique individuals who don't give a shit about what others think about them. It's not about NFT's. It's about bringing soul into everyday life. The soul of the world, anima mundi, is not doing so well. It all begins with individuals who are not afraid to be weird. Like my next door neighbor who worships his front lawn and has a 1968 Mustang in his garage that he never drives.
Some of the things you are mentioning are simply effect of power laws. Which is how certain things work, because of the “meritocracy” principle that the winner takes all. Of course this principle can have terrible effects if it is left acting alone without any regulation. Mainly because it creates efficiency (think about Google in a world of 10+ search engines) but also barriers (again, Google, but now). But if you call it “oligopoly” you seem suggesting there is an agreement between few players to dominate a market/scenario. Which is not the case. The solution is regulation (and some degree of faith in the technological disruption that make hard also for Facebook to remain a leader in its own market)
I’m not quite sure yet where this line of thinking will take us Adam, but I continue to think it’s worth pursuing. Is it enough to get a little weird? How many of us will have to do so to bring an appreciable level of change?
Good article. What about certain fields that have seen de-oligopolization? Say, going from ABC/CBS/NBC to all the stuff we have today, or music, or books? Not at all saying this as a counterargument, just that it seems like some fields seem to be more prone to it - probably those with reinforcing network effects for consumers - it is highly beneficial for me to cluster on political party - we win elections! - but not so much on music, where just listening to two songs or artists would get boring.
This is called the Pareto Principle / Distributions... Over time, those that win tend to win more and more, and a logical end point, given enough time, is one group with everything and the majority with nothing. It's an interesting problem for very libertarian-minded people to deal with.
I am dismayed there was no discussion of the Pareto distribution. It governs the height of trees and sizes of planets. (Cf Jupiter). Income inequality dates back to near prehistoric times. Algorithms and capitalism can't answer for that nor a Molotov cocktail change the size of planets. Jordan Peterson has discussed this at length.
No, you put it quite well. I think that you are right about more rules being broken in the past. The military-industrial complex is very concerned about rule breakers. They present a threat to the power structure. The elite control this country and won't let go. The super rich are in love with the divide in this country because it diverts people's attention to bullshit. There are also unconscious forces at work here too. The Feminine wants to be recognized for what She is. You could say that this upheaval started many centuries ago. What we are painfully witnessing is the emergence of a wider consciousness. The environment of our Mother Earth, women's reproductive rights, salary equality for women and all sorts of other issues like gender norms. Men are hurting invisibly. The Grail legend emphasizes a deep wound in our feeling side. This is an epidemic that has gone unnoticed. Men are usually on the trigger end of an AR-15. Someone once said that in the 18th century, Nietzsche went through alone what we are all experiencing now.
I don't think bitcoin has the potential to unseat oligopoly. I believe that people are scared to be themselves, i.e. unique individuals who don't give a shit about what others think about them. It's not about NFT's. It's about bringing soul into everyday life. The soul of the world, anima mundi, is not doing so well. It all begins with individuals who are not afraid to be weird. Like my next door neighbor who worships his front lawn and has a 1968 Mustang in his garage that he never drives.
Some of the things you are mentioning are simply effect of power laws. Which is how certain things work, because of the “meritocracy” principle that the winner takes all. Of course this principle can have terrible effects if it is left acting alone without any regulation. Mainly because it creates efficiency (think about Google in a world of 10+ search engines) but also barriers (again, Google, but now). But if you call it “oligopoly” you seem suggesting there is an agreement between few players to dominate a market/scenario. Which is not the case. The solution is regulation (and some degree of faith in the technological disruption that make hard also for Facebook to remain a leader in its own market)
I’m not quite sure yet where this line of thinking will take us Adam, but I continue to think it’s worth pursuing. Is it enough to get a little weird? How many of us will have to do so to bring an appreciable level of change?
Good article. What about certain fields that have seen de-oligopolization? Say, going from ABC/CBS/NBC to all the stuff we have today, or music, or books? Not at all saying this as a counterargument, just that it seems like some fields seem to be more prone to it - probably those with reinforcing network effects for consumers - it is highly beneficial for me to cluster on political party - we win elections! - but not so much on music, where just listening to two songs or artists would get boring.
I'm inventing a new science that explains this. It's the result of human genetic inequality and how power works.
https://josephbronski.substack.com/p/exousiology-manuscript-beta-10-is
This is called the Pareto Principle / Distributions... Over time, those that win tend to win more and more, and a logical end point, given enough time, is one group with everything and the majority with nothing. It's an interesting problem for very libertarian-minded people to deal with.
I talk about the concept here:
https://newsletter.butwhatfor.com/p/takeaway-tuesday-stand-up-straight
I am dismayed there was no discussion of the Pareto distribution. It governs the height of trees and sizes of planets. (Cf Jupiter). Income inequality dates back to near prehistoric times. Algorithms and capitalism can't answer for that nor a Molotov cocktail change the size of planets. Jordan Peterson has discussed this at length.
No, you put it quite well. I think that you are right about more rules being broken in the past. The military-industrial complex is very concerned about rule breakers. They present a threat to the power structure. The elite control this country and won't let go. The super rich are in love with the divide in this country because it diverts people's attention to bullshit. There are also unconscious forces at work here too. The Feminine wants to be recognized for what She is. You could say that this upheaval started many centuries ago. What we are painfully witnessing is the emergence of a wider consciousness. The environment of our Mother Earth, women's reproductive rights, salary equality for women and all sorts of other issues like gender norms. Men are hurting invisibly. The Grail legend emphasizes a deep wound in our feeling side. This is an epidemic that has gone unnoticed. Men are usually on the trigger end of an AR-15. Someone once said that in the 18th century, Nietzsche went through alone what we are all experiencing now.
Perhaps this is just my inner weirdo coming out but: I believe bitcoin fixes this.