This reads as though written by someone who has never experienced being on the losing side (the long tail) of all the systems they're advocating for. It utterly fails to answer why anyone not at the top of the power curve would want society to be structured this way - most of the described "Social Contract" seems to imply precarity, replacability, and living at the edge of financial disaster for most. Meanwhile, there's little mention that those who hold real power in this kind of system are not part of the curve at all but are those choosing the algorithms and AI systems that rank everyone else.
Then there's this:
> Trickle down doesn’t work because it existed in a hierarchical structure based on the scale production technologies of the times before 2000. There was much more friction in that old system. But in a network economy, the means of production have shifted. It’s 10X more fluid, can create wealth at a much higher rate, decrease costs at a much higher rate, and the network can raise all boats.
To me this reads as "Trickle down didn't work last time, but this time it's different and it'll definitely work". How it will work this time is left as an exercise to the reader.
Then there's this:
> Trickle down doesn’t work because it existed in a hierarchical structure based on the scale production technologies of the times before 2000. There was much more friction in that old system. But in a network economy, the means of production have shifted. It’s 10X more fluid, can create wealth at a much higher rate, decrease costs at a much higher rate, and the network can raise all boats.
To me this reads as "Trickle down didn't work last time, but this time it's different and it'll definitely work". How it will work this time is left as an exercise to the reader.