I am a new old member, here in this forum. I am interested in the questions that members would ask Satoshi Nakamoto if the person Satoshi Nakamoto were to answer them. I realise that it is a hypothetical challenge. There will probably never be an answer. For a long time now, I have taken a closer look at the paper that was written between 2006 and 2008. And I found the following essay in German:
seen here: BA-PP Bonn, Bonner Perspektiven, Ausgabe 2019 "Zukunft", The cooperation advantage, Marc Elsberg, Page 5
Quote
THE HAPPINESS OF OTHERS
Now, one could say: for married couples this is a possibility, but otherwise, for example for business people, or even whole societies, not. Sharing with others is nice, solidary, altruistic, charitable - we have different words for it. But we have learned: in order to give something to someone, you have to take it away from someone else. Generally, we then talk about "redistribution".
Life - a zero-sum game.
Economists speak of equilibrium, balance. So why should one do this? Out of pure "humanity"? Or, even more irritating: Why do people do it again and again, although it brings nothing (except perhaps a good conscience)? Why do people act so "irrationally" (at least if one takes the neoclassical economic models as a basis)?
Out of mysterious principles, as already one of the fathers of economics, Adam Smith, stated?
"However selfish man may be, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the happiness of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it."
Adam Smith, Theory of Ethical Sentiments (1759)
Perhaps people intuitively know something that economics has just not been able (or willing) to cast into a mathematical model or formula and therefore repeatedly arrives at seriously wrong interpretations and assessments of reality. Perhaps "the happiness of others" is necessary for people for a reason other than "ethical feelings"? Because they get more out of it than just "the pleasure of seeing it"?
Now, one could say: for married couples this is a possibility, but otherwise, for example for business people, or even whole societies, not. Sharing with others is nice, solidary, altruistic, charitable - we have different words for it. But we have learned: in order to give something to someone, you have to take it away from someone else. Generally, we then talk about "redistribution".
Life - a zero-sum game.
Economists speak of equilibrium, balance. So why should one do this? Out of pure "humanity"? Or, even more irritating: Why do people do it again and again, although it brings nothing (except perhaps a good conscience)? Why do people act so "irrationally" (at least if one takes the neoclassical economic models as a basis)?
Out of mysterious principles, as already one of the fathers of economics, Adam Smith, stated?
"However selfish man may be, there are evidently some principles in his nature which interest him in the happiness of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it."
Adam Smith, Theory of Ethical Sentiments (1759)
Perhaps people intuitively know something that economics has just not been able (or willing) to cast into a mathematical model or formula and therefore repeatedly arrives at seriously wrong interpretations and assessments of reality. Perhaps "the happiness of others" is necessary for people for a reason other than "ethical feelings"? Because they get more out of it than just "the pleasure of seeing it"?
I am sure that Satoshi Nakamoto would have had something to say about these ideas.
The start of my thread for the answers can be found here:
Questions for Satoshi Nakamoto
its not new tech and was already exist and its team not one person ,
