Most of his assertions about 'trends' are just wrong. 100 years ago: - They would sometimes shoot strikers - Strikers and owners faced off in literal violent

Most of his assertions about 'trends' are just wrong. 100 years ago: - They would sometimes shoot strikers - Strikers and owners faced off in literal violent battle - There was no socialized healthcare, fire or emergency services - College was for the ultra elite, even by 1960 only 7% were going to Uni. - A lot of workers just died. Colorado River was dammed at the cost of dozens of lives to 'Keep It On Schedule' - Blacks used the back entrance, and their grandparents were literally slaves - 'Art' was something people did in their spare time, and there were very, very few opportunities for true artists. - People didn't travel for vacations etc. that was for the rich only. - The legal system was much more classed than even it is today. - 'The Rich' 100% controlled the news. It's why they owned papers. The material standard of living for regular people has increased immensely for everyone, to the point that people now live in general relative abundance and safety which would have only been the privy of the 0.1% before. I also don't buy at all the notion that 'decentralization' is in any way some kind of magical advantage for the commons. We have Health Officers and International Orgs like the WHO and academic institutions in order to do things, like coordinate and understand the impact of things like COVID. Note that in most of those systems, there is some degree of 'Centralization' but also 'Decentralization' -> Universities may have some authority, but there are many of them. For information for example, 'full decentralization' means the absolute most ridiculous concepts becoming the most popular (i.e. QAnon) and semi-fabricated ideas about all sorts of things. Especially those that target 'out groups'. There is no substitute for thoughtful, conscientious and legitimate leadership across all elements of society. Although there's probably some room for decentralization in some areas, maybe currency, as long as currency is managed within some reasonable range by the Central Banks, and you don't hold a lot of cash (cash was not meant to be a store of value), then even then, the Central Bank is not that-that bad.