Some criticisms: 1. The government-business relationship to some extent is doing what it can, meaning that opportunities grow from human relationships. 2. The bottlenecking of 'private rewards' is partly (ironically) a response to the need to circumvent corruption which emerges from spreading wealth to a large number of parties. There may be a need in the current system for 'incentive economics' where goods and services are exchanged to the highest bidder, but money is saved by not giving money to everyone. Some of these factors emerge because of economic efficiency, not because of a solvable problem.



However, I do think the creative state is a good idea. There is a lot of opportunity to grow efficiency between the citizen and corporation-government roles. Particularly, crowd-sourcing big ideas using the internet to compound piecemeal or free contributions by thoughtful people including students has potential to spur vast differences in perceptible functionality, such as the way we use information. I'm speaking not only about my own work on categorical philosophy, but also the numerous young programmers who have produced apps and games which can be parsed for intellectual content.



There is potential to develop the symbolic layer between citizen and corporate-government by cheaply entertaining citizens in exchange for free ideas. The resulting firestorm of ideas can be used to create a more creative, more enjoyable society. It is not just about investing, but also about the module available to the least common denominator, and what that means for innovation potential.