Fortunately, the reality - now that the lights are on for many more, people woke by Trump, by China with Hong Kong - isn't insurmountably ugly.

There is abundance. There is plenty of capital, plenty of passionate, hardworking, healthy-educated people or those who we can quickly lead to being healthy and have higher productivity, who will find their passion if they haven't yet.

The issue and why the ugliness has formed at all, why the lights have dimmed some, is because capital has increasingly been generated by fewer players - due to increasing efficiency of automation, consolidation of markets, and money pooled into the financial industrial complex - and simply billionaires, large companies holding onto cash reserves, while doing their best to not pay taxes.

Badly run government due to regulatory capture, two-party system, and bad policy that doesn't provide people with the basic necessities of life - causing multi-generational dis-ease progression is another artifact of this suffocation of society; capitalism isn't the cause, it is the bad actors maximizing their profits through any means - and society not understanding this: Andrew Yang is the only 2020 POTUS candidate that is shining light on these foundational mechanisms, and has policies aligned to correct them - including his flagship policy - the Freedom Dividend, a Universal Basic Income of $1,000 / month to every adult American.

UBI is a simple mechanism that will "take the boot off the neck of people" and add fluidity to an otherwise stagnating, decaying and dis-eased system - creating a trickle up economy. Elon Musk recently publicly endorsed Yang via a Tweet saying "I endorse Yang," not surprising as he also beforehand relatively recently mentioned that he believes UBI is inevitable; business economics wise it also is smart to support as empowering every adult American with $1,000 / month can pay for many rides in his upcoming Tesla Network as a competitor to Uber/Lyft, or afford people to lease a Tesla or any of their other offerings.

It would play very well for Jeff Bezos of Amazon to step into the arena in support of Yang at the right moment - regardless of the profit hit he takes - as to whether he is for the people or for himself. All things created equal: the future economy, who people buy from - who they vote for with their money - will be based on who that person is, how they lead, their vision, plan, how they are helping humanity - how they are helping educate people, helping heal people, improving their lives on an ongoing basis; governance with a foundation of building trust, relationship, community.

Ecosystems will form as different systems of automation and the best leaders align, converging different markets and technologies to compete with the remaining status quo. Once the Freedom Dividend is implemented there will be a massive new market of people who only have at minimum $1,000 / month to spend, and that will drive an immense amount of competition to capture as much of this market as possible - all of which will be related to providing the best, highest, quality of life - for the lowest cost; all survivability related innovation, in reality leading to a foundation that will allow people to thrive.

All of what Scott is highlighting here is a distraction, designed chaos, funded, perpetuated by the financial industrial complex - and at a basis by ego-driven greed. VCs primarily funding entrepreneurs with ideas instead of leaders with a vision and who have proven themselves enough to deserve capital to allow them to further implement their vision, accelerating the leader's own opportunities for personal development - along with their plan. Leaders who are ready for being allocated an increasing amount of resources to manage, distribute, perhaps seemingly at their whim with a simple command of language, meanwhile hopefully carefully pointing the direction of their drawn sword for direction - have to first prove that they as an individual deserve this power, instead of - seemingly for the vast majority of cases - having an idea, being good enough to execute - or just a single member or luck being why you executed well - toward shallow metrics that are moving upward at a pace that's exciting only because it means they can lure in the next funding round they mostly plan to depend on for survival.

Why has the financial industrial complex evolved to where it has? In part it's the speed at which capitalism has been successful with innovation, with allowing funds to be pooled. Another part is systems of indoctrination working more and more efficiently, along with the general population not knowing who they should invest part of their income into - so they buy into whatever shallow hype their advisor(s) present, no matter how seemingly intellectually or cleverly supported these systems have evolved to look to us.

Those who understand these systems best of course can make the most profits, make the best bets, alas the system is currently structured to be ripe for corruption, for bad actors to influence and unreasonably gain wealth through bad behaviour - behaviour that is against the outcome of humanity.

I'd argue the biggest problem however is that historically we've had relatively weak leaders to choose from - to invest in, vote for. Politically and technologically hope is in the air with leaders like Elon and Yang: Elon at lead of shifting away from the "dumbest experiment in history" re: burning fossil fuels, and Yang clearly the yin to Trump - yin being slowness, friction, stagnancy, destruction-failure, toward death - and Yang being rapid flow, fluidity, movement, creation-innovation, life.

Another point I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere, a pattern I realized recently, is that the Software-as-a-Service business model is rent-seeking behaviour. It's the mechanism of the Landlord-Rental complex - as I call it - and will be another industrial complex to have a large disruption within the next decade, as global economic pressure is being felt - along with platforms like Airbnb being an additional negative pressure. Local governments, and higher, are doing a terrible job at adjusting, compensating and managing for these various pressures.

Scott's also completely wrong on Tesla: he should study it, the synergy of what Elon is designing for, to realize he's going to force competitors not only to attempt to create comparable EVs - but also to change their business model; one competitive lever he has in hand: at an instant Tesla could offer free charging for life at their growing network of Supercharger stations - but he doesn't have to. He's got this. Yang too.