ultrasociality

I believe Nassim Taleb has a strong argument for why things "that don't break"- or in other words, things that maintain consistency throughout human history (e.g. Relgion, the chair, writing tablets) are likely to be around in the future. http://www.economist.com/node/17509373

All economies are planned in some way. That's just human history. Once you get to a certain level of large scale organization it's impossible to avoid some level of centralization.

Sounds about right. There's a strong argument that the bigger the size of the financial industry the less innovative and the more extractive an economy becomes.

Because it's a job most people don't want to do and that has little reward?