Being a steemian I believe in decentralization and that drives me to join decentralized platforms and I found Steem blockchain to express my decentralized thought which is free from censorship. This is just a very simple example but what if our leaders and politicians start thinking seriously about the spirit of decentralization. Can they switch from institutional or centralized control to a human-centric decentralization? We have already witnessed a very good "morning" in the form of blockchain technology and decentralization, but "noon" can happen if the influential people, the politicians who become the lawmakers after being elected also start thinking in the same line.
I can say I have seen one great person Andrew Yang, who is also a US presidential candidate for 2020, who also thinks in the same line of decentralization who advocates for Universal Basic Income (UBI), Human-centered capitalism, Medicare for all, etc—the underlying principle of which is based on the decentralization. So both Steem and Yang are fundamentally the same in principles.
We are in the era of capitalism, capitalism as such is not bad, but the kind of capitalism we have is dictating humanity. Over and across the world including developed countries like US, Aus, Canada, etc the institutional capitalism is very prevalent.
The grassroot origin of capitalism is from the market feudalism of the middle ages which evolved into mercantilism by Europeans and then later evolved into industrial capitalism of the 20th century. The industrial capitalism also varies and differs slightly from one country to other and they add social security and medicare as safety nets. But the current form of capitalism in almost all developed countries including US is institutional capitalism which is otherwise known as corporatism.
Yang advocates for human-centered capitalism against institutional capitalism.
In simplest term, Yang is advocating decentralized economy in place of centralized economy.
The underlying principle of Steem blockchain is also decentralization.
The business principle says “what gets measured get managed for”. Taking this principle into account the institutional capitalism has flourished & generated immense wealth, but has gone so far so much that it has managed and measured Dollar in all possible ways to the extent it started trading Dollar at the cost of humanity.
For example—there is a poor man. He needs a lifesaving prescribed drugs urgently. He has limited monetary resources.
Under institutional capitalism, the seller of the lifesaving drug will still see a business opportunity(because the sellers sees an opportunity because the poor man desperately needs that) and he will try to sell the lifesaving drug with the highest possible margin of profit as he can. He does not care about the life and limitation of that poor man who desperately needs that medicine.
Under human-centric capitalism, the seller of the lifesaving drug will sell it with the least margin of profit and he will also try to make sure that the poor man gets the lifesaving drug with the limited resources he has.
Simply put, human-centric capitalism measure & manage Humanity whereas the institutional capitalism measure and manage Dollar.
GDP and capitalism are also not perfectly coupled together. The reason being there are many things that the GDP equation does not consider. So Yang says GDP assessment is also neither holistic nor accurate. Apart from that GDP does not consider the digitized economy. As the digitized economy has emerged and has been growing at a faster rate lately, the GDP must be reassessed in a different way considering both digitized economy as well as other key and important social parameters like median income, standard of living, engagement of workforce, marriage rates, death, despair, abuse, national optimism, cultural vibrancy, social & economic equity, etc.
One similarity between Yang and Stem blockchain I can observe is that both of them advocate for engagement & decentralization to serve a wide & common goal & values.
The market has de-coupled from the social aspects of life. The technological evolution is good but it should not be de-coupled from human values. The market must support & consider the least minimum human and social values.
For example- There is a smartphone or an electronic gadget. Every six months or so you can find a new version of it with some added and advanced technology in that and for that, the infrastructure is also available, demand is also there. Simply put, there is always a market reward for the upgradation of technology.
On the other hand, social and human values are also upgrading at some rate & in a continuous process (if not every six months). There is an increased level of engagement in the society, the education system is improving, the unprivileged section are being addressed by society to fulfill their basic needs, democracy is improving. But the market has no reward for such an evolution in social and human sphere.
So there is need to re-couple the technology with human & social evolution so that the market can consider both the aspects and must be steered accordingly to support these values, otherwise the market will not be able to serve the major goal.
The next part of the article is Universal Basic Income of 1000 USD for every American which Yang advocates for.
Universal Basic Income(UBI) is always unconditional and is given as a minimum dividend which Yang calls “freedom dividend” and the citizens are entitled to the UBI regardless of their gender, family structure, employment status, etc.
Why there is a debate on it and why do we need it and why Yang is advocating for it?
The technological advancement, automation, AI, etc are becoming more common in our day to day life. But it has a negative impact on the backend as the workers who were working previously in different sectors are either losing their job or getting degraded to unskilled labor(who were once labeled as skilled labor) due to technological advancement, automation, etc.
There is a very peculiar term associated with machines and equipment- “obsolescence”. When equipment or machine becomes unusable as a result of technological advancement, then it is known obsolescence.
The point to note here is that it is equipment, it may have an economic value but it is not a living being. So obsolescence can be justified.
But can you justify obsolescence of human resource also?
Can you justify the mass unemployment of unskilled labours just because of automation, AI, technological advancement?
Can the market and the society and the world sustain such a pattern that has been developing from the last 4/5 years?
The answer is a big NO. Otherwise, it could lead to disparity & discord in society and we could witness violent protests which we may not be able to control by force(neither we should deal by force nor we can let such a pattern unaddressed). Because when the common mass feels a sense of insecurity and when they become unable to fulfill the basic needs then it could turn into violence. The prolonged pain of hunger due to unemployment(or inability to fulfill the basic needs) is the worst ever experience for a living being.
Therefore the answer is Universal Basic Income. If the technology is creating the technological unemployment then the policy must be made to ensure a Universal Basic Income. This is not just true for US but for all countries across the world.
Some people say that this freedom dividend in the form of UBI may spend on alcohol or drug by some people. But that is not true. If someone is hungry, desperately need food, then he will certainly take food(when being resourceful) not drugs. Apart from that, the studies and analyses on the "impact of direct benefit transfer" does not find any such pattern using the freedom dividend in alcohol & drugs.
The better side of UBI has long lists of benefits:-
- The beneficiary of UBI will have a sense of security.
- The productivity of the beneficiary of UBI will rise(study says)
- The beneficiary of UBI will become more social.
- The beneficiary can spend more quality time with the family; he/she can take care of the nearest and dearest ones in a much better way.
- Even though the automation and AI will be there, the beneficiary of UBI will find and/or create other opportunities to become self-dependent.
- It will make the market & society both sustainable and will also result in increase in economic growth.
- The people can associate themselves with positive social activities.
- The poverty and hunger can be addressed humanely.
- There will be appetite for the consumer economy.
Once again the common between what Yang advocates and the principle of Steem blockchain is the UBI. Steem blockchain does not charge money from people, rather it gives an opportunity(with a wide variety of sub-streams of social blogging which suits almost all types of bloggers) for people to generate income from their content creation and engagement in this community. It has so far generated income for common people to the tune of $100,000,000.
Yang would perfectly fit to become a steemian as both in principles have a common objective as well as common ways(spirit of decentralization) to achieve that objective.
Conclusion
We all are common people who are the proponent of decentralized expression. In order to further our voice and to make sure that our voice is heard we need to extend support to those leaders and politicians (who will become lawmakers if elected) who believe in the principles of decentralization. I can see a strong level of energy in Andrew Yang an yes I stand firmly with him and I wish he wins the 2020 presidential election and become the president of America and then the decentralized thoughts, expression will become stronger at the policy level, the democracy will become stronger where it will work for the common goals of the people and where the unit of measurement will be humanity.
Thank you so much.
and for the details of the contest, please go through this link: https://steemit.com/yanggang/@theycallmedan/yanggang-steem-and-twitter-contest