Before you can master others, as a cohort or larger groups, you must first learn to master yourself, and do so from a place of rational methodical reasoning with a relatively reasonable amount of risk management built-in to the things you cannot control (diversification).

Most people want to solve big problems to make their mark, but those same people are at a fundamental disadvantage because they were taught in ways that coddle their thinking, that prevent them from seeing or getting an objective view of the problem, and thus their perceptual biases mislead them to solutions which only contribute to the problem.

They look at a narrow time-horizon and don't realize outside that time horizon their solution is no solution at all. Most within our lifetime has been a nice summer day as it goes towards fall, but winter is coming.

Some problems are so incredibly difficult that there is no good solution (i.e. an impossible problem), the general economic calculation problem in socialism is one of a few, previous solutions didn't work out because the flaws were not paid attention to.

Societal problems as a general rule fall into these groups of problems, because if they were simple someone would have solved them about 100 years ago, and they would be non-issues today (which they aren't).

Also, with regards to making a business of it, most of society is going in the wrong direction today, the incentives (subsidies) dictate that, and so you'll be fighting an uphill battle where all your competitors may have free money and opportunities that you don't have.

They in the end will make more money (normalized in purchasing power), crowd you out, and buy you up in bankruptcy from free debt they are given from their good banking friends (and the market will shrink/sieve/concentrate). Parasites infest the money system, and are killing the host.

That unfortunately is the nature of inflationary economies, we are well past the peak and so you will also be fighting losses from the underlying economy as well, and a strong understanding of economics that properly models these environments is a mandatory necessity.

Mises wrote a series of papers back in the 1930s that rationally lays out the structural issues with central hierarchies (i.e. the structures we have adopted).

He did so more generically (economics/socialism), but everyone important ignored what he had to say (not refuting it).

Keynes (TGT) is still taught, but has been somewhat refuted now (Rallo), which also explains why it doesn't model outlier events (and we are in outlier territory).

It certainly looks like inflationary economics with respect to the currency pool is a limited n-body problem (naturally and progressively more chaotic until exit or boundary conditions are hit).

For business to work, you need to have a stable store of value that is a medium of exchange (liquid). No such thing exists now. You either have illiquid exchange for stable store, or liquid cash without stable store, and manipulation has been ongoing for years in many markets through the use of double legged options contracts at the primary dealer level (COMEX).

The best thing you can do is study history, and economics and identify where things went wrong, and why they went wrong. Until you know that you won't be able to propose any solution to the societal cascade that's going to hit us in the next generation. Malthus law is pretty clear what we can look forward to during reversion to the mean (back to agrarian).

The study is not straight forward because irrational thought, deceit, and lies plays a large part in that why, there are groups that speak falsehood more than they do truth and they are, through their actions directly supporting the destruction that is inevitable without a course correction.

This path, you'll at the very least develop a very discerning eye which will only benefit you long term.

History and Economics, and don't speed-read the communist/pro-socialist history unless you want to find yourself adopting destructive habits, and false justification. Keep an objective view, and identify whether the writer is rationally credible.