Fair enough, and to the extent that the zeitgeist is sort of retroactively determined by whatever technological and political things are going on at the time, I wonder what new beliefs people will have about the state of the world in 50 or 100 years as the result of DLT.
On the surface the ability of banks to steal from folks seems like largely a different type of power than what the economist is talking about, which is the ability of metrics (and the people who define them) to shape human behavior. But maybe it just looks that way because it's difficult or impossible to really perceive the full extent of how living in a non-DLT world is affecting our behavior.
> But maybe it just looks that way because it's difficult or impossible to really perceive the full extent of how living in a non-DLT world is affecting our behavior.
We don't live in a 'non-DLT world though, DLT exists in this world right?
Sorry I agreed with your previous comment and then the mention of DLT lost me so I'm trying to understand the context I'm missing.
It exists as an idea, but we're still in the irruption phase and are decades from maturity. So it hasn't yet had much of a transformative effect on existing institutions, behaviors, relationships, etc.
On the surface the ability of banks to steal from folks seems like largely a different type of power than what the economist is talking about, which is the ability of metrics (and the people who define them) to shape human behavior. But maybe it just looks that way because it's difficult or impossible to really perceive the full extent of how living in a non-DLT world is affecting our behavior.