The helicopter money and trillion dollar injections can only last if the banks are solvent - they cant be peddling' garbage debt,,,they never stopped and some market will bubble again and wash out the meek..
This constant balancing act that we play with the US economy and global markets incites fear and greed.
Back before US notes and banks, we had the goldsmith. Goldsmith takes custody of gold, and issues dollars/bonds/notch for amounts on transactions... as it is much easier to hand someone a slip of paper than moving gold around constantly. OK cool except, wait - nothing is stopping goldsmith from making multiple slips for the same stack of gold. Uh oh - The classic double spend!
Now, 2021, We have solutions to this now in the form of blockchain/crypto. It is the most easily accessible sound form of money...just not quite easy enough yet.
(If so, can I ask if you think you personally have an evil side?)
Silicon Valley collectively has not been able to penetrate the exchange and liquidity infrastructure that the cadre of banks of clearing firms have. This is built on relationships and an abundance of capital, the latter comes from relationships. The finance sector has a network of prestigious schools (or the finance departments in those schools), the retirement plan of heading the government agencies, and control of the money supply. This is not currently solved with technology as humans that want to recognize other humans are involved.
There have been several west coast trading venues and exchanges, nobody wants to list there.
Other Silicon Valley companies just want access and respect and integration with the current financial system players.
The only difference is that part of the marketing of a SV company inevitably includes the claim to "make the world a better place" and to "be different" in some way. Beyond this marketing claim, there is very little difference.
I also don't think that the cabal of financial services in NYC are the real constraint.
Instead, SV firms have found that users != customers is a good business model. It works, as long as the users can be convinced they are customers to some degree.
This business model is not ethically clean, yet very profitable. And here is the example: Robinhood markets itself precisely as I have said above. Heck, even the name!
In reality, its customer is Citadel, and its product is early data on user trades. One could say: It does the exact opposite of what its marketing would suggest - Taking profits from small investors and giving them a large hedge fund.
So really, SV is just as "bad".
> The only difference is that part of the marketing of a SV company inevitably includes the claim to "make the world a better place" and to "be different" in some way. Beyond this marketing claim, there is very little difference.
This. The reason why the "good" side isn't outsmarting everyone else is because most entities that claim to be disrupting "bad guys" either aim to sell to the "bad guys" they're "disrupting" or mimic their practices with a thin veneer of difference or do worse stuff of their own. Same goes for other less organised recent events. What got sold as "getting revenge on Wall St" is a bunch of novice traders convincing each other it's really worth it even if they lose money as Citadel racks up enormous profits on market making and the 470 institutional funds invested in GME see a bump to their portfolio.
With retrospect we can pinpoint the exact moment the good side died: when Google uttered the words “don’t be evil”.
There are some ways this can yield "good" result:
- "Good" investor provide money for "good" cause. This sometimes are charity, but "good" cause and raising capital isn't mutually exclusive. This relies on the investor's goodwill.
- "Good" executor trades "goods" with investor's money. Executor can use the resource available to do the "good" deed while keeping investor "happy". This is of course harder as the executor has to either constantly persuade executor or be rare, as in, nobody else can replace the executor in getting what the investor wants.
- Raise money without investor, sacrifice income. The one the parent comment mentioned.
Keep talking about it. Do not "accept" it. Be glad you are thousands of miles away.
What can you do? Build a company in your own country and fund an independent ecosystem that doesn’t rely on Big Tech’s money or ex-employees.
The whole US financial system is primed for overdue reset.
So before you can "outsmart evil" you really need to define "what evil is". You may look at Wall Street and decide they are "evil" (because they make money?) - whereas someone else might look at it and see a working mechanism that allows "companies of people" to raise funds, and ultimately share their capitalistic profits. It provides a mechanism for pensions to be invested, and generate returns, so that, um, pensions can exist.
And if there are ten people in the room you may get ten different opinions on what exactly is wrong - some of them wildly contradictory.
There is no "good" side, or "evil" side to Silicon Valley. There are lots of companies which are striving to achieve their goals - and for some of them (not necessarily all) those goals are to maximize profit. Whether that is evil, or good, or the reverse is evil or good, depends on your particular perspective.
So it may be better for you to reframe your question with a specific goal of yours in mind. Which action do you find "evil"? And perhaps more to the point, why are you trying to set the goals for such a nebulous entity as "Silicon Valley" (or "Wall Street")? Surely they are free to set their own goals?
If you agree with the goals of a specific company you can support them, if you disagree with those goals you are free to take your support elsewhere.
In thinking about it, I thought to myself, well that question is somewhat like "Why can't Silicon Valley fix the problems with Washington D.C.?" Or, "Why can't Washington D.C. fix the problems with Wall Street?"
Let's think of three cities -- "A Tale Of Three Cities" -- Silicon Valley, Washington D.C., and New York (AKA, "Wall Street").
Silicon Valley -- is the home of Tech.
Washington D.C. -- is the home of Government.
New York -- is the home of Finance (the financial markets, the main stock exchanges).
Each one of these places, each one of these cities -- was built on a different paradigm.
These paradigms (Tech, Government, Finance) in the way that they interact with each other, is sort of like a giant game of "Rock, Scissors, Paper"...
That is, each has different moves that it can use either for or against the others (in this game constructive as well as non-constructive actions are permitted).
But no single paradigm -- can completely dominate and control the other paradigms...
So the paradigms interact from time to time, in various different ways, sometimes constructive, sometimes destructive, sometimes neither -- to one another.
If the idea that Silicon Valley can somehow "outsmart evil s. and Wall Street", remember that to a large degree, while Silicon Valley controls tech, Wall Street controls Silicon Valley's finance...
In short, it ain't going to happen.
All of the "problems" that the world could or ever would face, are created by paradigms that in turn create systems (a City is only the outwards manifestation of this), systems that produce effects for those that control them that the people who control them want to be produced, but sometimes those effects may be to the detriment of other people and groups...
To understand this paradigm mass effect more, you might want to read about "Tragedy Of The Commons"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
But, any city that was created by a paradigm at its root -- is pretty much going to play "Rock, Scissors, Paper" with other cities that were created by different paradigms...
If someone wanted to unify and create non-destructive actions by these different groups, by these different paradigms, by these different cities -- then that person would have to know the WHY, completely and totally, of not just one -- but of all of the paradigms that they would attempt to unite...
That's no small task -- even for the greatest of Ivy-League Professors!
But, on a simpler note, I have to like this "Rock, Scissors, Paper" paradigm analogy! (I'm going to have to write a future philosophical essay on this!)
