I really hope you charge money for it and make it awesome, it's about time Adobe gets disrupted and this is a wonderful idea!
It will take significant resources, cash and teams to make this into a serious contender, and folks that have problems to solve will always be happy to pay decent dollars for great software.
You're missing the point completely, it's not about depriving citizens of fundamental services.
- How do you know care home providers don't bribe their way through contracts?
- How do you know they are not an oligopoly that sets the price under the table, and the government pays 1.5 - 2x contributions for someone to be in a care facility versus what you would pay yourself for an elderly relative going to the exact same facility?
Specific counter examples are not fruitful, people who don't have the means don't understand the economics and don't understand money, that's why they are complaining about the inequality, and they can downvote me here all they want, I truly hope it relieves their frustration even slightly.
If you've ever worked with government directly, you're expected to understand it's one of the most rigged and corrupt institutions by very far. Yes, it exists to perform universally beneficial functions, does it really do that? Hello no, in most cases it spends 2 - 3x the money it really needs to for the same service. I'm not suggesting it should cut off the elderly, just cut the waste in providing those services.
Yeah you really got the point here, it was the technology to use, not the transparency and traceability.. you're completely right, it's worth 0% of my time arguing over the internet. Thank you ever so kindly for reminding me of that.
Unlike any other organisation of its size, government is never held liable for efficiency, nobody ever questions government for "return on investment", even though it's the largest one all of us make.
What this article is suggesting is largely suicidal, taking cash from a far more efficient business community government by "laws" of competition, evolution of markets etc, the impact here would be catastrophic at best, I really don't think you can debate this in the space of one article.
My number one would be move all government money on blockchain, and make that public, then see if it's really so smart to "give them more", through any means.
Inequality has always been a constant throughout human history, and it's far better now than in the middle ages, where we are all entitled to education, healthcare, and have extremely fast access to information.
I'm not suggesting there isn't a problem, but you haven't found a solution. "Tax the rich" is something everyone can scream off the top of their lungs, until it comes to bite them hard the next day when their pay must be cut to keep the company they work for profitable.
Step 1 would be removing the biggest inefficiency of capital allocation in most of these "high growth" western economies, measure and publicise return on investment of public funds, and proceed to realise raising tax "just like that" is a very very bad idea.
Considering the average level of engineering in the Western world, if you are as good as you're implying you'll have no trouble securing a remote job with a million companies in the Valley. If this feels like a fairly trivial/standard problem: http://www.geeksforgeeks.org/remove-nodes-root-leaf-paths-le..., you'd be well above a lot of engineers.
It will take significant resources, cash and teams to make this into a serious contender, and folks that have problems to solve will always be happy to pay decent dollars for great software.