The purpose of my articles

It is customary that all political, philosophical and economic literature is aimed at explaining something to someone, so that they already make a decision and do it right. She calls, but also shifts the responsibility, urging him to do all the work. But I wonder who will do it and why would he do it. 

Why, for example, would a monarch resign his powers in favor of democracy when he is already quite satisfied with his position? Most libertarian councils are directed against the state, its laws and unspoken traditions, while the statesmen themselves are only able to use them for their own good. It turns out that by adopting certain liberal principles, they will go against themselves. So I get the impression that any such literature is completely useless. At least now, when most people don’t care much about anyone or anything.

The same applies to history or fiction, which seems to be aimed at fostering noble and virtuous behavior in us. Which, in turn, is in no way in demand in real life in the same way and even, perhaps, prevents you from living, that is, making more profitable decisions for yourself. 

In connection with all of the above, I have a question: “Who? Who will read all these books on economics and why? Just for intellectual entertainment, in order to show your versatility?” In fact, it is difficult to imagine that we will all start reading a lot of books on economics, argue moderately and come to the best solution based on beautiful and attractive theories. This is utopia. But the personal experience of an entrepreneur is not a utopia, a person who earns by his work, doing something useful to many, such a person is not a utopia and he knows exactly what hinders him, but on the contrary contributes to the cause. So let’s not lose hope and rush to extremes, and hope that not necessarily everyone, but at least some will agree on some positive positions, and this will be able to change something. 

Accordingly, the purpose of my reflections is not only to convey to you a certain vision of your own, but also to encourage you to take certain joint actions. In this sense, you can use succinct and concise formulations, such as “Land for peasants, factories for workers,” but obviously this does not work now, and it does not lead to anything good.

And then I write various articles, refer to some literature in order to create a three-dimensional vision of the problem and the way to solve it, which is not as complicated as it seems, and if you look closely, it is completely simple.  

In particular, it boils down to our interaction based on blockchain technologies. 

Regarding my system, we can say that it will take care of the environment, create a more efficient and prosperous economy for everyone and, probably, a happier life, or at least help to avoid the troubles that the new time promises us. 

Many articles in one way or another converge to this. Nevertheless, as with peasants’ land and factories for workers, the important thing lies in the details and the implementation process itself.  So, the implementation process, namely, who will do it and how, is no less important to me, since blockchain and even environmental goals can only be goals that will be used in such a way that the methods of achieving them discredit themselves.

A business

The case has a different course of action – positive (when everything goes right)  and negative, when achieving a goal does not lead to the desired result. This is typical of everyone, no matter what they propose to implement, including even my ideas. Now let’s look at two main reasons, in my opinion, why a particular case may entail a negative course of action.

When the idea itself is weak and useless. That is, a case that was completed properly, or too much effort was invested, turned out to be unnecessary in the end. As an example, the case of building communism. No matter how his failure was justified by the so-called excesses on the ground, his organizers had to take them into account.

When the realization itself suffers, when in the course of actions we run into the inability to achieve the result we need. There is no way to check this without starting. Nevertheless, as in the case of communism, it would be desirable to model the behavior of people in advance, not only ordinary people, but also the leadership of the case.

But in order for at least the goal to be set correctly, it must be explained in advance as thoroughly as possible, from the point of view of usefulness. For example, there is a proposal to “build a road”, it would be reasonable to clarify where and where, what size of width the road is, what type of transport should be used to move along it, etc., up to a certain payback. I see the same thing with any political proposals, they must be explained, in the sense that the result from them should pay off the efforts invested. And we are talking about a predictable, objectively better future, and probably about the survival of mankind in principle.

The technical aspects at this stage are not so important, also, for example, as when planning the construction of a road, the brand of concrete or the type of asphalt pavement is not immediately discussed, since first it should be discussed what will drive on this road, what will be the load. And before that, we should decide whether we need to go in that direction at all. However, it is also important to know about the existence of concrete and asphalt as materials suitable for construction. And it is equally important to use them correctly. Here we are talking, respectively, about blockchain and other information technologies.

But it is worth noting another mistake in implementation, which even the same communists made, dividing into those who took the path of short slogans and those who drowned in the wilds of endless dialectical disputes about economics and politics.  There should be a certain golden mean between brevity, sufficient for the case, and reasonableness, so that this case was necessary and its results were clear in advance.

The purpose of the articles

The purpose of my articles is for you to get acquainted in detail with my ideas and their prerequisites, and considering them reasonable, we began to act together. However, it may seem to many that this sounds like a call for unreasonable risk, even with their own time. In such matters, for the sake of persuasiveness, I will again resort to the words of Marcus Aurelius: “The problem is that without taking risks, we risk a hundred times more.”