Which should not be legal in the first place.
You seem to be stuck on this idea that my criticism of your misleading complaints—framing this completely unremarkable phenomenon of brand-new college graduates seeking jobs without clearly understanding real-world job-market conditions as somehow “wanting socialism”—is dependent in any way on how I personally define what socialism is. That’s still not true.
Socialism is a very complicated concept with lots of possible interpretations for its social and economic implications. But there’s no sensible interpretation of “socialism” that means simply “people wanting to enter into contractual arrangements with an employer where they get paid for doing work”. Not even if the people seeking such arrangements happen to be very young and naive about the nature of real-world job markets.
Which is why your description of that phenomenon as college students “wanting socialism” was silly. And now I think that dead horse has been thoroughly flogged, so I’ll leave it alone henceforth, and high time too.
Because what you have failed to convince me of is that by burning enough energy to power Poland, we can create a magic box that increases the size of our account balance without creating any new product or service. Your explanation why:
to my mind sounds like the instructions given to the audience at a production of “Peter Pan” to bring Tinker Bell back to life.
A society made up of nothing but crypto speculators and social media influencers will collapse under its inability to actually make anything.
I don’t know that I completely blame the kids. I think a couple of things have happened.
One is that I think the boring cubicle Office Space job I graduated into after college has changed dramatically and not for the better.
Two is kids have been sold on the idea that if you aren’t making a couple hundred a year on social media or working at a FAANG tech company or now AI, there’s something wrong with you.
Not just for young people. I’m actively looking for a job and talking to companies it’s just insane the level of BS. It’s like they all live in some fantasy world that’s disconnected from any sort of grounded business. But this is a trend that I think has been happening since the dot-com era in the 90s. These waves of highly speculative “get rich quick” businesses glomming onto the latest fad.
But the Gershwins said I could get it if I tried!
I don’t disagree w your underlying thesis. The get rich quick disease, the business promotion as little more than scam disease, and the general financialization of everything has grossly distorted the shape of the economy in favor of BS, not metal-bashing actual useful widgets.
Back around 2000 & the dotcom boom I remember reading of some now dead start up (pet food distribution, groceries to the home delivery? I forget) who had yet to ship a product and had a market cap north of Boeing’s. At a time when Boeing was a watchword for quality airliners delivered on time, good rockets & satellites, plus a side order of very profitably scamming the DoD now and again.
That startup is gone, Boeing is still here, and gosh knows what happened to the capital actually invested, versus the much larger money that just changed hands as folks bought and sold each other the ever more inflated shares. Until suddenly they didn’t.
Financialization is to business what cocaine is to rockstars. Makes 'em burn real bright. For awhile.
It’s easy to look at all the buzz about entertainment and think that we’re a nation world that no longer makes anything. That’s wrong. A lot of stuff is made, but our soufflé has a very big very new top on top. That’s not proof the overtopping top must end in disaster. End in some losses for some foks? Sure. That’s called the business cycle and it’s been with us since Og sold Grog the first hunted squirrel for 3 pretty rocks.
My biggest fear is that a crisis akin to 2008 occurs before we get the MAGA incompetents out of power. With them at the White House, Treasury, FDIC, Federal Reserve, etc., it’ll make a 3 Stooges movie look like a well-trained ballet.
Returning to your discussion of young people, they’re surveying the same terrain I just described. As are you in your job search. And can hardly be faulted for being revolted by much of what they see. And yet they have an imperative to jump in someplace and do something.
For once I am quite glad to be my age where I’m a financial spectator / speculator with little skin in the real economy.
It is pretty cool, despite the implications possibly mimicking the inevitable “tulip collapse” in 1673, or as in the “South Sea Bubble” of 1720.
I’m a software engineer, so have been well invested (intellectually!) in seeing how this turns out. My feeling is that it will crash as a pseudo currency but the underlying technology- which is very, very clever - will live on.
As for Ms. Rand’s philosophy, I think she went a smidgen hard right. I read her boring book, I would not recommend it. 1/10.
A society made up only of poets would also collapse. So would one made up only of accountants. Same for one where the only work anyone did was child rearing. And yet, all of those are important jobs that add real value in a complete society.
Your benchmark is meaningless.
Also, i don’t see you looking for a job growing vegetables, either.
Which job is more important?
- The Grower who grows all the food?
- The Nanny who watches the Grower’s Child while they are farming vegetables?
- The Poet who brings joy to everyone’s lives?
- The Accountant who lets everyone know they are only growing enough vegetables to feed one Child and three out of four of the adults?
Which one do we let starve?
The blockchain technology itself certainly has some interesting applications.
I also had an opportunity earlier this year to work on a project helping a big bank implement crypto trading for their brokerage customers. Which is not to say that the bank necessarily believes BTC is inherently valuable. But they see the value in people buying and selling it and if they can make money off of those commissions, why not.
I even own some BTC myself. Because why not? I had a couple thousand extra dollars I was looking to invest. And BTC seemed like it might be one of those “if you had put $1000 in this 20 years ago…” sort of things. And if not, so I don’t buy a new HDTV for a bit longer.
And who knows? Maybe it turns out to be a good hedge against inflation as a store of wealth. Like virtual gold or silver. It’s certainly not a great form of currency. You wouldn’t want to buy a pizza with something increasing in value orders of magnitude faster than the GDP or the USD.
In a happier world than yours, the accountant convinces the poet and the childcare worker that all three of the non-farmers should do some work for the farmer during the harvest (with the baby strapped onto the childcare worker’s back) so that no one starves. And next year, they still have poetry, a child, and an idea of how much grain they need to harvest.
And now i will return to the job that i am paid well for, checking to see if an insurance company has enough reserves to pay the claims they have promised to pay, or if they need to make some adjustments to their course.
And for what it’s worth, as a young adult, i had no idea this job existed.
Clearly the Accountant. Always shoot the messenger. That’ll encourage the others at no loss of agricultural production. 
Better than shooting the farmer. I still think my solution is better.
I was being cynical in the Randian style. You’re being sensible. Different goals → different solutions.
I think it depends on how good the Poet’s poetry is.
I think puzzlegal’s solution is actually closer to the Randian solution. Incentivize the others to prioritize the work that most needs doing so more food is produced.
As a practical matter for the real world, I’m not sure how to reposition thousands or millions of people who have spent years of time and potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in education costs to find roles in corporate America that may not exist. My theory is that by continuing to invent “accountant/poet/childcare” jobs without increasing “grower” jobs, we will encounter limits of useful jobs to invent while driving up the costs of the “vegetables” (metaphorically speaking).
For sure it’s a problem when economies and technologies and business fashions change faster than human generations. Lots of stranded economic costs in now obsolete training and experience doing [whatever] that no longer is done that way. And lots of emotional and social costs too. And because those costs are visited individually onto individuals, they only really have their individual resources to absorb and overcome those blows.
There might be answers out there, and a roadmap for this terrain would sure be handy. But Rand’s “thinking” isn’t either one of those things.
My inner pissant wants to mention that tulipomania crashed in February 1637.
1637? Wow, my buying in 1673 really missed the top. 
Buying in 1673 would have been a breeze. Selling… not so much