The first thing to look at is the feverent belief that the rich will invest. Trickle-down economics has been an unmitigated disaster, the rich sponge off of society far more than the poor - the last two recessions were caused by the wealthy gambling with hundreds of times the entire economic value of the planet because changes in the law let them. It wasn't invested, it was squandered.

The problem with economics is that it must be that way. Although economics is the correct way to describe the world, it is also intensely toxic and a powerful drug. It's the single-most deadly legal high. It is also subject to a form of Information Uncertainty Principle. You can either forecast or you can utilize, but you can't do both. Attempting will produce violent instability. It's a chaotic system. There is no disruption so small that it cannot have a profound, unpredictable consequence. That's as true for an investment account as for trading in stocks, quantitative easing or a trillion dollar unpaid tax bill. The number is almost an illusion. The relationship between cause and effect is deterministic but unknowable.

The second thing to look at is experiences. Experiences change us. Not figuratively, literally. Memories alter the structure of your brain. You are a product of your brain. Alter the brain and the old you has no existence, only the new you does. But not all experiences are equal. Some, even if theoretically beneficial, are harmful and vice versa. Others have no significant impact, yet others have an impact beyond reckoning. How do you choose?

I have no good answer to that, the best I have ever come up with is that if the brain is as flexible as possible, more experiences should have outsized impacts and more negative impacts should be reducible. With a broad and deep understanding of the world, the probability of a good chiice should rise - and may further broaden and deepen understanding of some element of that world. Othertimes, it will simply broaden and deepen the person as a person. Both are good, but you ideally want both. The ideal ratio, however, is something only the individual is capable of knowing. It's personal and there is no universal right answer.

The best solution I can find is to abandon speculation, switch to the Scandanavian model of high-quality public services, abandon the pretense that anyone other than a Survivalist hermit on Mars could ever be 100% independent (everyone depends on everyone, even if it's not visible, it's time to grow up) and learn how to learn. It won't kill, but I can guarantee that pride and ignorance will.