It gets even better at the end. Wonderful explanation of the market that even a lot of people that "Just know" its better then central planning don't actually know about.
No thing our kind has ever created is truly original. Every thing is derived from some other thing. We ought to seriously consider the ethics behind intellectual property rights.
That is so true. In biology the claim is made that from chaos and without any intelligence at all come a complex living organism. That is completely different from how the market is able to create complex and helpful organizations. The market shows how order at the micro level can design order at the macro level while biologists try to claim that order can come from chaos.
I'm not going to argue that claim here; I'm just saying that evolution works due to random forces and natural selection, and as such is not comparable to the praxeological activities of rational actors that make the market work.
You're right. The two are similar in some ways (there is no centralized intelligent designers) and different in other ways (evolutionary biology works on random mutations and natural selection, and a lot of it is zero-sum vs the economy that works on distributed designers and a lot of it is positive-sum/win-win.)
Menger's theory of the origins of money is wrong and has been accepted as wrong by anthropologists and archaeologists for a while. For the best stating of it, see David Graeber's Debt: The First 5,000 years. Where Menger fundamentally went wrong was his assumption of barter as the default form of economic interaction when in reality it was very rare. In fact the only economies ever discovered based on barter are in societies where money has already been invented.
You'll have to demonstrate your claim re: menger. Direct trade of goods is the default - in fact, it is the only why two different markets can trade since "what is money" is different in each. Only after the broad finding of a universal trading good - such as precious metal - was this not the case.
No, evolution theory of species is not "order coming from chaos". - "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators." ~ Richard Dawkins
Hah your corollary there by Richard Dawkins is the exact same thing as your claimed non premise; it just has a flipped statement order. It makes the same inferential claim. Assuming time, there is a "non-random survival" (order) that stems from "randomly varying replicators" (chaos)
Emergent order not by design in markets. We know that this can occur because of the theory of species evolution...unless you're a "conservative" that is. LOL. That's one of the hypocrisies of the conservative right. They subscribe to emergent non-directed order in free markets but deny it in biology. Other examples include calling for smaller government & more personal & economic freedom, whilst also working towards larger government & gov paternalism in areas like "regulating" marriage.
![[TH] JFT vs RLF - VCT Ascension Pacific - Day 2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PuIH7w_jO6c/mqdefault.jpg)
It gets even better at the end. Wonderful explanation of the market that even a lot of people that "Just know" its better then central planning don't actually know about.
The difference between the market and biology is that the market is driven by millions of intelligent designers.
No thing our kind has ever created is truly original. Every thing is derived from some other thing. We ought to seriously consider the ethics behind intellectual property rights.
That is so true. In biology the claim is made that from chaos and without any intelligence at all come a complex living organism. That is completely different from how the market is able to create complex and helpful organizations. The market shows how order at the micro level can design order at the macro level while biologists try to claim that order can come from chaos.
I'm not going to argue that claim here; I'm just saying that evolution works due to random forces and natural selection, and as such is not comparable to the praxeological activities of rational actors that make the market work.
You're right. The two are similar in some ways (there is no centralized intelligent designers) and different in other ways (evolutionary biology works on random mutations and natural selection, and a lot of it is zero-sum vs the economy that works on distributed designers and a lot of it is positive-sum/win-win.)
"What if they unintentionally do something bad? there's a legal word....."
"Manslaughter"
Lmao
Menger's theory of the origins of money is wrong and has been accepted as wrong by anthropologists and archaeologists for a while. For the best stating of it, see David Graeber's Debt: The First 5,000 years.
Where Menger fundamentally went wrong was his assumption of barter as the default form of economic interaction when in reality it was very rare. In fact the only economies ever discovered based on barter are in societies where money has already been invented.
The smacking of the lips (really really loud) made it hard to get through at times. However it was a good speech.
You'll have to demonstrate your claim re: menger.
Direct trade of goods is the default - in fact, it is the only why two different markets can trade since "what is money" is different in each.
Only after the broad finding of a universal trading good - such as precious metal - was this not the case.
No, evolution theory of species is not "order coming from chaos".
-
"Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators." ~ Richard Dawkins
Hah your corollary there by Richard Dawkins is the exact same thing as your claimed non premise; it just has a flipped statement order. It makes the same inferential claim.
Assuming time, there is a "non-random survival" (order) that stems from "randomly varying replicators" (chaos)
I know exactly what you meant by your comment.
Nevermind, the lip smacking was a little aggressive lol.
Bossa Nova
Great video except the parts where he gulps disgustingly for water lol
where as biology is driven by one intelligent designer?
Emergent order not by design in markets. We know that this can occur because of the theory of species evolution...unless you're a "conservative" that is. LOL. That's one of the hypocrisies of the conservative right. They subscribe to emergent non-directed order in free markets but deny it in biology. Other examples include calling for smaller government & more personal & economic freedom, whilst also working towards larger government & gov paternalism in areas like "regulating" marriage.