It seems that humans might have become dissatisfied with and abandoned God's economic design only to have their own ideas lead them right back to the very design they abandoned. Leaders seem to suggest that the labor-based economic strategy is being voided by the technological labor force strategy and may require replacement by a less humanly administrated economic strategy, which seems closer to God's apparent design of economics administrated by God at the level of the individual.
My interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 and other information that I've encountered seems reasonably interpreted as suggesting that (a) God's economic system design for the human experience seems to be individual, discretionary access to resources, and that (b) economic systems other than that are human innovation intended to replace rejected guidance from God with regard to real-time, individual decision-making.
Apparently, similarly to humanly-developed systems in general, humanly-developed economic systems seem subject to dysfunction due to the apparent impact of human fallibility upon system design and operation. The above article seems to acknowledge the extent to which technological advancement seems to reveal the limitations of marketplace economics as an approach to resource distribution. The emergent conclusion seems to suggest returning some portion of resource allocation to comparative general access. That suggested return, however, seems to seek continued administrated rather than individual allocation as a behavior-shaping tool. My thought seems to be the extent to which human behavior-shaping attempt seems most logically inferior to God-administrated behavior-shaping due to the non-omniscience and omniscience of the administrators, respectively. For example, the video speaker seems to suggest behavior-shaping by allocating resources based upon education-completion choices.
Prima facie, this might seem a positive behavior-shaping strategy, but it seems to overlook the extent to which valued societal contributions seem reported to have been made by following a path forward other than traditional education. Limited human perception seems most logically suggested to be incapable of distinguishing that path from the perhaps stereo-typically depicted ne'er-do-well, perhaps especially in light of the apparently reported perceived ne'er-do-well that subsequently made a valued contribution... the "late-bloomer".
I respect the apparently-God given choice to hang one's hat on human rather than God's administration, but mentioning the perceived and apparently unsurmountable flaws of that life-approach seems appropriate.
