There is no such thing as a perfect economy, unless you look at nature as the model of perfection - but if that is "perfect" it doesn't mean there aren't winners and losers. And, since we are nowhere near as skilled at harmony or accepting of failure as nature, any economic system we create is going to be inherently flawed, if only for the simple reason that it is us as humans who created and operate it.
So, it doesn't matter if you have a preference for socialism or capitalism, democracy or totalitarianism - all are broken by design, because there is no such thing as perfect. Well again, unless we count nature as the perfect system and that means that because we are within the confines of nature, our flawed attempts to create order are perfect of the kind, that they are going to fail and be consumed by the larger natural system.
All things are within the confines of nature, whether we want to act like it or not. For example, take "free speech" which some people think needs to be fought for, but it actually doesn't. We can always speak freely by the laws of nature and via the same laws, we will get a reaction of some kind, which could very well be us put to death by other people using their natural rights who don't like what we say.
However, from the concept of human-made structure and order, we don't like to see that we are all operating in a free-market system at all times, where we can all act as we choose within the confines of universal laws, even if other people don't agree with us. For example, nothing is stopping murder, regardless of its human-created illegality, which even then has blurred lines as to what constitutes murder depending on country and circumstance. However, even without laws, most people realize that it isn't actually in their best interest to murder others, because if they do, they would be seen as untrustworthy or dangerous and therefore, be murdered themselves.
See how it works?
The economy is no different, where regardless of laws created, there are still plenty of people who are willing to break those laws in the hope to improve their economic position. For example, drug dealers, weapons smugglers or politicians taking bribes to affect legal change. There are a myriad ways that laws get circumnavigated and due to the laws of game theory, each can be justified, especially by the person committing the crime and, by the laws of game theory, there are also going to be responses to the crime being committed.
While I can go on rambling about this for ages, what I want to highlight is that since there is no perfect economic system, the goal is to create the best one possible. As we can see from the current economic near dictatorship we currently have, massive wealth in the hands of the few while the poor get poorer, doesn't work. It also doesn't work to centralize resources in the hands of the few in the hope that they will benevolently distribute adequately across the entire population.
Under both circumstances, when the centralization of wealth happens, it becomes toxic in the sense that it will continue to maximize the central power and eventually, it will be attacked by the larger population in a redistribution process - a revolution of some kind. This can come through various types of wars or even through the abandonment of the broken economy to start afresh - but, they all fail. And when they fail, they fail very big and painfully for everyone involved.
But, it is natural that no matter the economy, there are going to be those who outperform others, no matter what kinds of points are used for scoring. For example, LeBron James playing basketball outscores the vast majority of NBA players, who are all professionals, and as a result, also scores the lion-sized contracts and sponsor attention. Should he bench himself? But, because of this, the competition increases their intensity also, which is why Jordan changed the game, as he set a new standard.
So, the "perfect" economy is one where the "best" are able to generate more, but the redistribution happens far earlier than it does. This is why some of us put so much belief in the betterment of society through decentralization of ownership. Decentralization doesn't magically redistribute all of value evenly or adequately, what it does is give the ability for active participants to own based on their performance. But, because of the decentralized nature of the wealth spread across a far wider section of society, if any single entity becomes too powerful, the rest are able to recalibrate the system to balance it, before the recalibration becomes cataclysmic, like nuclear war between states.
As an example of this, look at Splinterlands, where there is a centralized owner of the game and a lot of decentralizes owners of the assets of the game. However, unlike shares, these assets are actually owned which means that they can be utilized outside of the game. For example, if the owners of Splinterlands get too greedy and choose to make "too much" wealth for themselves at the detriment of the asset owners, the asset owners can rebel. However, they don't only have the option of dumping their assets, they also have the option to build a rival interface and carry on as they were before, with a different economic model in play.
Hive did this when it forked from Steem, and while there was an initial drop in token value at the creation of HIVE, nearly the entire community shifted onto a brand new blockchain, with All of their history intact. I have something like 4000 posts on the Steem chain that are identical to those before the split on Hive, but, there are almost 2000 more added to Hive that only exist here, meaning that there is additional value (at least more words) on Hive from my account.
These two examples are illustrations of a healthier economic system that can recalibrate and redistribute wealth, without there being the need for cataclysmic and violent events like the dropping of nukes. Essentially, the value of a decentralized economy like this is the ability to walk away from the economy, whilst not leaving empty-handed.
The mobility of wealth is vital for a healthy economy, but due to the centralization of fiat currency and the incentives for those who control that currency, there can be no true money mobility and those in control will act in ways that will maximize themselves, because after all, they are human. But, because we choose to be bound to the currencies that provide us no mobility and have been stacked against us to maximize the wealth for the few, we are subject to the laws of the economy, not the laws of economics. The laws of economics and the laws applied by the centralized authority that dictates economic behavior, are two very different things.
For example, LeBron James could effectively get more points per game if he chose not to bounce the ball, didn't worry about travels and charged through the defenders - but, he wouldn't be playing basketball. To play basketball, he has to adhere to certain rules and, those rules change over time, affecting the way the game is played and can be played. The current economy is the same - it is not the natural laws of economics that dictate it, it is the laws of humans, and they are going to change the laws if they can to advantage themselves over others - expecting different from humans is naïve.
The rich aren't rich because they cheated the laws of nature, because those laws can't be cheated, but they can be utilized. Human nature is predictable where for example we can quite accurately posit that people will work in what they think is their best interest, even if it ends up not being that way. For instance, people choose convenience and comfort, even though down the track, it is going to leave them poor and uncomfortable. Because of this, billionaires aren't self-made, they are community made. There can be no billionaire unless the majority agree to it one way or another and, the only reason being a billionaire is valuable, is because those "billions of tokens" are accepted as having value by the majority of people. We are willing to sell our time, energy, ideas and businesses to others for some of those tokens.
We don't have to.
Now, after all of this, most people will argue that all of this is moot, because we can't change the system, this is what we have to work with and change is impossible. And, that is predictable human behavior, because the majority of people will act out of convenience and comfort, and change is hard, especially when the changes required will not see benefits within our own lifetimes.
Which is why we are where we are economically, even though eventually, nature will destroy us without malice, using its perfect form of decentralized economics, where for every action, there is a reaction and energy cannot be created or destroyed, just redistributed. For nature, the cost of redistribution is a zero-sum game, because it is singular, there is no competition with itself. For us, it can cost everything we are as a species.
Nature has no use for our concept of wealth and doesn't care if we kill ourselves because of it. Observing nature does hint at a better way though.
There is no such thing as perfection, which is why nature keeps evolving itself based on the conditions and resources available - this is how it survives eternally. An economy should mimic this as best it can, by never allowing any one point of failure become so large, it risks utter species destruction. It isn't that hard to do, but it is hard to get support to get it done - because humans are, naturally lazy.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]