The Morality of Asset Relevance v.05

The Printing of Money in the economy should go hand in hand with the presence of (the circuit of..) assets in the economy. If there were more assets that means more organs therefore need more blood. 

Really by asset I mean the relevance of assets not merely the existence of assets. 

However I would point that nobody should maintain the relevance of the asset. Everyone who has control over the presence of money should just pay attention to the reality of the economy and adjust accordingly, people should keep their hands off of micro managing the circuits themselves. 

I'm talking about innovation and the second law of thermodynamics, don't go against it. Things always change, we could steer the path towards more justice instead of more chaos but we couldn't make it so that it wouldn't change, and so we shouldn't act as if we could (no matter how powerful the impacts of our PR campaigns).

In fact, to me it smells like those who were under appreciated for their PR prowess started this whole gatekeeping, karen culture, to make a statement. Uuu Reality sucsk, we worth so much more... UUU. 

Okhay, so... I do anticipate in the future that the central banks are going to share their authorities in one way or the other. One manifestation of this is a mechanism where people could prevent some new assets from distruptively entered the market before everyone else were prepared enough. Remember that it's bad to force upon the relevance of an asset, if some configurations have been improved by reality, we, and our policy makers should react accordingly. 

------------------------------------

Notes:

I don't believe that the 2nd law says that everything is moving towards net chaos, instead I believe that everything keeps on changing. 

The meaning of relevance of an asset is its ability to improve Justice sustainably. If one disruptive assets were deemed to be unjust then preventing it must have been based on Truthful evidence that it is unjust (for example poisonous toys that are gaining popularity). With the same spirit a good innovation if implemented wrongly, in a manner that would hurt the whole economy, it would ruin the good purpose and the potentials of it. So that mechanism to gradually introduce the technology is good which also telling the conditions:

1. We must introduce it and ultimately expire the existing irrelevance, no getting around it. 

2. Its presence must be exposed in public so that everyone could expect the standard and the Truth of it.

For me in the future in case you read this and think this is Bullshid:

The "asset" relevance manipulation is not changing the asset from v.01 to v.02, rather kept on the v.01 but lying and commit crimes and tricks so that it's still be the go to solution while it doesn't check all the boxes anymore (because the checklists have changed and the new better ways have already been revealed).  

So the direction to go in the future is probably going to be; instead of setting up new entrepreneurships and let them die out of raw market mechanisms, the new market is going to come together and decide which solutions they were going to incorporate next and commit to (at least) its break even before moving on to the next. So it is like a more democratized central bank role where "banks" would also mean a venue where financials decisions were made collectively rather than just by an individual for an  individual, or by an individual with the bank only. 

It doesn't mean that such "banks" should have the power to decide the outcome of new entrepreneurships, its just that for those who were participating they would commit to a measure of return for an agreed upon venture before moving on to the next (or to compensate if drastic changes were desired). We shouldn't increase the barriers of entries for entrepreneurships (legal entrepreneurships)

-----------------------------------------

There's a less micro managy way of doing this, which is to make the share market accessible to all not only for big businesses but also for small businesses. However the problem is with the honesty of the management and it's hard to assure. Also people should be let to own shares with very little money, likely the shares of their own environments.