As hopefully established previously -> One of the big things about clump theory is a snowball effect. The more popular something starts to become, the more it snowballs and continues to accumulate power/wealth/fame.
Ostensibly the solution is already present and meritocratic -- but clearly this is not the case at all!
In order for the very wealthy to maintain their status, it is more efficient / "easier" to abuse their status (immoral for society's benefit) and trying to impede or stop this is like an annoying game of whack-a-mole. This is very obvious in regards to tax codes in ALL countries, and how they are more complicated, specifically to benefit those who can take
While Marixst (tm) communism often suggests the only way to resolve these issues is to tear down the whole system, in practice, the replacement systems then revert to trying fuedal caste and/or authoritarian systems to deal with the other problems humanity fielded capitalism for. -- I'm still hesitant to mention this because I don't want to deal with the
Operating within the pre-existing capitalist structures;
The "bottom up" approach is NOT meritocratic or egalitarian, but it can be -> How to make it so in a way that does NOT hinge on people with power being forced by literal war or tearing down institutions and "stealing" power from them.
1) Understanding that hoarding of resources is detrimental to value. To work around that requires wider societal approach and can be thwarted by incentivizing small growth. Such as when a tree individually prevents more new trees from growing; to an extent that the new ones would produce more wood by being more numerous, but the old one has every
individual reason to hoard its resources -- in lumberjacking, killing the one tree allows for more to grow -> BUT this must be done selectively; clear-cutting completely damages the trees and lumber production in the long term by not allowing other trees to provide enough shelter from elements and water absorption to even help the new groth.
Incentives already include tax benefits (see that plurk) but all the currency should be retooled to work this mechanic in mind. Because it CAN, and is of benefit to both society AND individuals - but only when the benefit is seen as life quality rather than resource hoarding
2) the Risks to this are currently NUMEROUS. Time, investment, trying new things is and can very much be a TOLL. In the health community, that's a bit more qualified/quantified as "spoons," but it obviously applies to all, not simply those with less resources they can afford to expend.
To reduce risks does mean reduction of potential rewards, but simply by
spreading out both, one can at least create another avenue for this to be done; WITHOUT forcing anyone who benefits from status quo to "suffer" and therefore create as much opposition Furthermore, by helping them too benefit, it creates incentives for even them to help in this direction.
First they must be identified and include more than simply the current "financial" because economics means including all expenditures; even of health and energy.
Meeting basic needs is a must, because this creates a toll that inhibits full potential - but the motivation of ambition and thirst for competition shouldn't be dismissed either!
Finally; it involves a process of trial and error and SLOWER buildup than simply "One person saw [x] and now they both made it big!"
An example is Minecraft & Undertale. With one main producer, programmer, artist, they built it slowly on their time, and each player further helped the game become so popular through word of mouth and more importantly:
streaming (FNAF too ofc) - Then bigger companies like Microsoft were able to buy the indie game that got so popular by literally not taking any risk (except if they fuck it up ofc) simply by buying (IP hoarding) what already was made.
This helps big companies too (MS derp) because without wider public SLOWER growth and simply relying on traditional top-down advertising, the risks for something like big flops are much greater; and the market audience barely has time to identify whether they truly would enjoy the product such that it's worth their time/risks AND the games are forced to
- and without the wider public SLOW buildup, but aiming for immediate results; servers get overwhelmed and this can be disastrous -> see TruthSocial Trump's would-be social network and not!Twitter.
Majority of people are less likely to take risks on their time without proper incentives - the exception being psychopaths who can't assess/factor (fear) risks into their thinking; thus disincentivizing the current system with many obstacles, some innate, some artificial. Simply removing the obstacles is not enough and inefffective. Rather, rewards must be
created to offset this; AND to encourage a wider population than just the arbitrary -- WHO also are not going to be useful role models/"influencers" because no one is going to see someone who arbitarily likes things that are widely hated and still find themselves not hating it. Going back to accumulation and the school of fish analogy
To some small degrees this is already done with product testing, influencers, etc. but it can be done to a vastly wider scale simply by assessing the demand and even without tearing things down. It hasn't been done, not because the risk/reward isn't there, but because we haven't ever had the capacity via such a large population and interconnectivity.
There is either very little or NO places where this infrastructure build up can't work well!
The easiest to see example is youtube/twitch/tiktok because these are marketplaces with such vast numbers already, but imagine instead, if we flipped the equation. Where instead of Youtube (or other small streaming sites) expecting people to pay them; they paid
people to help watch and promote channels. - The key note to this is that it must allow for dislikes and truth. Simply shilling for shilling's sake can never catch onto wider appeal and is a vast detrimental cost to an influencer's peddling. Furthermore, without a capacity to dislike something, there is no meaning to liking it, and it is impossible
This likewise requires a "never good enough" system that doesn't cap out potential! (see HRC's presidential bid.) For me individually, it would never be good enough to have all the money of the world, I have to enable all of humanity's future trajectory to be better. In regards to the system, it should never be good enough to be the top earner on youtube,
Top down shouldn't be allowed, much less enabled to impede competition and diversity of the bottom-up, but it isn't enough to just ban or even enforce breakups of monopolies;
incentives TO distribute their own finances rather than hoard (reverse MLM) AND enabling incentives FOR dispersement throughout the middle/bottom must take place.
I play TapChamps and various other phone game programs that pay you (albeit PENNIES) to try out new games. This does help as an incentive, (though the "I don't like this game here's why" is just in, not playing it and/or telling others via reviews) but the compensation isn't (even close) enough to compete with even just traditional advertising and mass clump
However, this does a decent job of explaining how something can reach a more meritocratic potential, at least by slightly negating some of the risks involved in trying a new game -> or at least producing enough incentive to try a new one, and advertising to users games who need/want more players.
Again, this can be done in all facets. Food is the biggest. I am very loathe to try new foods often; because the risks are so much greater with my allergies than for any normal person. Even simply negating that risk (someone with no allergies) has little reason to try something new/unknown that they might heavily dislike.
Guarantees are one way of fielding this risk; but this relies on an immediate determination. How food helps/harms your body later can take a very long time or not see a noticeable effect; especially because the effects might be miniscule individually, but largely accumulative overall!
While people are certainly more willing to try something they see someone else enjoys greatly; we can further build an infrastructure that tailors food benefits/detriments NOT to the "average" person (pass/fail limtations) but to people of a specific type, encouraging people to discover/learn what type they even are.
Enjoyment of food/taste/immediate experience shouldn't be dismissed or banned (THANKS BLOOMBERG), especially when accounting for the variety of individualism with health variations/taste. Rather it should be accounted for as a cost, so that the long term benefits can be factored into cost and vice versa. RIGHT NOW: the way food costs are mostly done is
based on the ability to store, where freshness and quality cost much higher, and famous chefs/wide advertising are seen as inherently more demand with low supply. While prestige shouldn't be ignored either; there is very very little to no incentive for people to try completely new/unknown restaurants except for the "I was first" and reviewer effect and this
can be fixed; and benefits all, simply by making broader infrastructure that helps assess needs/demands, helps recalculate them, and provides for a wider base at the getgo with a proportionate incentivized greater population.
It doesn't matter. Secure copy any ideas you have. Save them as insurance, you never know what could happen. Memory is simply smoke held in a fragile bone container
Ostensibly the solution is already present and meritocratic -- but clearly this is not the case at all!
The "bottom up" approach is NOT meritocratic or egalitarian, but it can be -> How to make it so in a way that does NOT hinge on people with power being forced by literal war or tearing down institutions and "stealing" power from them.
To reduce risks does mean reduction of potential rewards, but simply by
Meeting basic needs is a must, because this creates a toll that inhibits full potential - but the motivation of ambition and thirst for competition shouldn't be dismissed either!
An example is Minecraft & Undertale. With one main producer, programmer, artist, they built it slowly on their time, and each player further helped the game become so popular through word of mouth and more importantly:
The easiest to see example is youtube/twitch/tiktok because these are marketplaces with such vast numbers already, but imagine instead, if we flipped the equation. Where instead of Youtube (or other small streaming sites) expecting people to pay them; they paid
2) I can't not-remember because it's under daily constant revision and re-checking