As It Turns Out, We Don't "all"

If You Want To Minimize The Possibility Of Unexpected Breakthroughs, Tell People They Will Receive No Resources At All Unless They Spend The Bulk Of Their Time Competing Against Each Other To Convince You They Know In Advance What They Are Going To Discover.

Now, We're Used To Thinking Of Communism As Being Once-upon-a-time-all-things-were-owned-in-common, Maybe-someday-this-will-come-again. And People Agree That There Is A Sort Of Epic Narrative Going On Here. I Think We Should Just Throw This Narrative Out, It's Irrelevant Anyway, And Who Cares Who Owns Things? I Don't. You Know, We All Own The White House. So What? I Still Can't Go In, Right?

You Can't Have Cutthroat Competition When There's No One Stopping You From Actually Cutting Each Other's Throats. In Order To Build Up Trust We Also Have To Think About Each Other's Needs And It Creates An Entirely Different Dynamic.

There Seems A General Rule That, The More Obviously One’s Work Benefits Other People, The Less One Is Likely To Be Paid For It.

What About Precarious Labor? It's Actually Not The Most Efficient Form Of Labor At All. They Were Much More Efficient When They Had Loyalty To Their Workers And People Were Allowed To Be Creative And Contribute - You Know That What Precarious Labor Does Is That It's The Best Weapon Ever Made To Depoliticize Labor. They're Always Putting The Political In Front Of The Economic.