The Nuance of America’s Largest Problems

How We All Contribute To Moving The Goal Post For Success

An economy grows in three primary ways: first, by increasing the number of people who work, for example through population growth, immigration, or policies that raise labor-force participation; second, by innovating how work is done through better processes and technology, for example building trading systems and marketplaces that match buyers and sellers more efficiently, improving logistics and management methods, and using software to automate routine tasks; third, by inventing new products and services, for example the smartphone, new medicines, or new materials that open entirely new markets.

There are many ways to grow wealth. One common path is leverage: organizing other people’s work to build a valuable product, whether through direct business ownership or by owning shares in a company. This can be positive when a firm creates real value that society finds useful. It becomes incidious when returns come mainly from squeezing costs and raising prices without adding value. Examples include:

• Outsourcing to low-standard jurisdictions.  Moving production to places with cheaper labor and weaker environmental safeguards to cut costs while shifting social and ecological risks onto others. The result is layoffs and reduced wages so companies can compete with one another on their pricing.
• Shrinkflation. Just when you discovered you were going to make less(or get laid off), you find out that you're money is also buying less.
• Data-driven price discrimination and Predatory pricing. On the surface it seems kinda nice that poor people pay less for their goods and services. However, this aids in selling below cost to push rivals out, followed by price hikes once competition weakens.
• Worker misclassification.  You get hurt on the job, but guess what, you work as a contractor and you get no benefit payout. No workmans comp. No healthcare.
• Consolidation to blunt competition. Asset managers or large firms buying competitors or controlling distribution to limit lower-price options.  How asset management companies manufacture monopoly

We all play a role in these outcomes. Every purchase and investment is a signal. When we support companies that rely on extractive tactics, we reinforce those tactics. When we favor firms that compete on quality, fair treatment, and transparency, we help shift incentives toward healthier forms of wealth creation. Accountability starts with our own choices.

Unfortunately the advocacy to just invest and buy fairly and equitably is not new. Since the rise of Walmart, many of us have prioritized the lowest price over fair wages. Low pay increases pressure for cheaper goods, and the pursuit of cheaper goods then reinforces the very practices that keep wages low. Furthermore, our push to enrich ourselves through the stock market can compound the cycle, as we reward firms for higher margins achieved by offshoring production or holding down pay at home. In many ways the stock market has robbed the working man his wages; and as more people invest into this system the further the goal post for success moves for those that exist outside of the trading system.

Another path to wealth is asset ownership. At its best, ownership creates value when owners add supply, improve quality, and maintain what they hold. It turns harmful when returns depend on engineered scarcity, regulatory choke points, or control of essentials. Just when you thought it can't get any worse for a young worker Consider:

•   Acquiring land and waiting for permits or upzoning that funds future development, yet lobbying for restrictive rules that block new entrants can inflate values without adding homes.
•  Buying large numbers of homes to convert to rentals or hold off-market can stabilize income for the owner, yet it can also reduce local supply and push up prices and rents.
• Natural resources and water rights. Investment can boost productivity and conservation. Hoarding or over-extraction can raise costs for communities and degrade ecosystems.

Advocates have discussed these issues for years to deaf ears and bought politicians. These patterns move the goal post for success farther away. When ownership strategies restrict supply and cut labor costs, basic security requires more income, and the gains flow to a narrow few. The gap between honest effort and attainable outcomes widens, so people conclude that the game is rigged. The anger is understandable when no change has happened with advocacy to form governance for these issues. It’s no wonder that so many cheer when a billionaire is killed.

Political Rhetoric, Shadow Government, and Social Media

For the last ten years the political rhetoric has been immigration, LGBTQ rights, and abortion. The same three topics are fought over year after year while ignoring all of these other issues. I’m not saying these issues are meaningless, but rather these arguments are used as a distraction. Bipartisan issues such as:

• Banning lawmakers from trading individual stocks.
• Prohibiting excessive price increases during emergencies.
• Requiring financial literacy education in public high schools.
• Restricting corporate spending in elections

Common-sense, bipartisan steps should be easy wins, yet they rarely advance because political self-interest combined with distraction which swamps the conversation; furthermore, social media amplifies polarizing rhetoric that steers our attention. History shows how public discourse can be shaped by powerful institutions: the FBI’s COINTELPRO program, active from 1956 to 1971, surveilled, infiltrated, discredited, and disrupted groups across the political spectrum, including civil-rights leaders, using tactics like smear campaigns, forged documents, and illegal surveillance. While that program ended, its legacy makes it plausible that today’s debates can be engineered indirectly by platform algorithms and by actors who benefit from outrage over solutions. The result is a public square that keeps skipping past practical reforms.

I have fallen victim to this polarization and have been caught in the rhetorical loop. I fall for my own social media algorithm and I believe that my anti-ICE feed has tainted my view of the right. Many people on the right simply believe that immigration is a problem that de-values their work. There really isn't anything wrong with this view point. I started realizing this when I found out that under Obama’s administration he had deported more immigrants in a year then what ICE is projected to do in 2025. But I don't agree with how we are executing the solution to this issue. That is where a direct democracy can help us find more agreeable solutions.

Voxcorda: Direct, Delegable Democracy

The deeper problem is trust. Many of us believe that rules are written by donors, that lawmakers trade on information the public does not have, and that lobbyists shape what gets a hearing. Add the well-documented history of domestic surveillance by federal agencies, and a daily diet of algorithmic feeds that reward outrage over solutions, and it is no surprise that faith in institutions is thin. People feel like their voice is not heard and nobody really knows if this is actually what we the people voted for.

Voxcorda’s direct liquid democracy is built to repair that trust. It gives each person a direct vote on issues and a separate vote on solutions, with the option to delegate by topic to someone they choose. Delegations are public, revocable at any time, and scoped to a domain, so expertise can travel without surrendering control. Ballots include short evidence packs for and against, timelines, budgets, and success metrics, so the conversation shifts from identity to tradeoffs. Counting is transparent, results are auditable, and every decision leaves a public record of who argued what, who voted how, and what happened afterward.

Applying this system to the example I provided on immigration we the people get to decide if immigration is an issue that needs to be addressed. And we the people are given the opportunity for all of our voices to be heard to ascertain what the best solution is to immigration.

Voxcorda's goal is not to punish success. It is to move the goal post back within reach by replacing distraction with decisions and replacing opaque power with accountable mandates. When communities, residents, workers, and customers can vote or delegate by topic, businesses become more democratic, policies match real needs, and extractive shortcuts lose their appeal. Voxcorda is a practical way to convert frustration into outcomes: decide together, publish the results, and deliver on what people actually chose.