These high quality videos are what you should focus on posting more than the hour long webinars that delude the attention these dense informational videos can attract.
hello internet traveller. if you're interested in spontaneous order, you might also be interested in the book "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution" by Peter Kropotkin. happy reading!
Nice stash but how do you make it through a whole thing on spontaneous order without mentioning evolution? Or without even using the word Evolution to describe Market processes?
Straight up propaganda. The market doesn't feed everyone in Paris, and it doesn't feed them what they want or what is best for them. It feeds them the intersection between what they can purchase and what is produced. And the people that charities and the government feed aren't the cause of the market. Systems which produce emergent properties CAN be predicted to an extent, but to claim that the market, as an emergent system, comes up with the best possible solution to any problem and that a better solution couldn't have any element of planning involved in it is just amazingly short sighted. And then to say there should be city planners doing things differently lmao. The gall. Go read about how Amazon distributes their packages - economic planning has been solved with supercomputers. The world economy could easily be planned for the benefit of all.
Let's face it: every single individual somehow spreads "propaganda" in their own way, much of the time not even realizing it. Are you aware that you are spreading someone else's message? Probably not, but there are organizations that are in agreement with your stances. I'm certainly aware, even though I have not been hired or paid to do so. The whole point of your message that you are missing, though, is that you are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good...and putting words in people's mouths. The video never claimed that spontaneous order feeds EVERYONE in Paris, and certainly not in a perfect manner (which is where your description of the available food is mostly accurate). It is more utilitarian in principle. But you also neglect to see that charities (and even the government) are part of the overall market in their own ways. They provide services to meet people's wants and needs...even if those individuals don't have much or any money themselves. On a related note, where was the notion of city planning mentioned in the video again? I just can't seem to find it, so why did you mention it? Also...what did you think about the Reddit experiment? Planning in itself is not completely excluded from market forces, but the overall point of this video is to say that it should be decentralized in nature (where every economic sector and individual company should plan for their own selves and activities) instead of letting governments be in charge of it. Free markets are not perfect, but they are certainly a better solution than corrupt, slow, bureaucratic policies of government agencies that are subject to regulatory capture due to their already existing complexity and liable to fail despite people's good intentions. Besides, we practically vote with our money every day, so markets are generaly more responsive to their customers compared to governments due to that voting frequency. Your Amazon reference fits in well with what I have already said about individual companies doing their own planning within a limited scope, but don't kid yourself. Amazon is granted corporate subsidies, contracts, and overall favoritism from national governments (especially in the U.S.). The related issue with supercomputers managing the globalized economy does sound good, but, really, who is to say that it won't lead to a dystopic, cyberpunk nightmare of a world? Who would be in charge of these supercomputers? Who would own them? You? Me? Governments through our tax dollars? This all goes back to the issues involved with centralized vs. decentralized planning, among other things. "A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."--Milton Friedman
Could we though? If so, why haven’t we? Perhaps it’s because there is no need for it and spontaneous order has already created the most efficient languages on ease to learn to expressiveness ratio.
@@calastyphon2510 We haven't created a better language because people already know what they know, and don't want to change. Not to mention, governments would have to change, and that's not easy.
@@calastyphon2510 like development, adoption also requires change. How do you suppose people will adopt this universal language when according to you, "people don't want to change"?
This video is amazing! Spontaneous order is beautiful.
These videos are exceptionally high-quality
Awesome video!
These high quality videos are what you should focus on posting more than the hour long webinars that delude the attention these dense informational videos can attract.
Thanks for the feedback! We'd love to make more mini-docs in this style, and we hope to do more in the future.
Spontaneous Order is beautiful
Love this video! I hope a million trillion people see it!
Free free market of sounds
Can't watch this video, because the piano music is too intrusive and distracts from what is being said.
I really love this. Thank you!
Some spontaneous orders can be truly horrifying results that no one wants.
Correct. But studying history shows us that the worst and most widespread horrifying events are the result of central planning.
hello internet traveller.
if you're interested in spontaneous order, you might also be interested in the book "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution" by Peter Kropotkin.
happy reading!
Love the Lowkey Bastiat Reference 😉
Nice stash but how do you make it through a whole thing on spontaneous order without mentioning evolution? Or without even using the word Evolution to describe Market processes?
Straight up propaganda. The market doesn't feed everyone in Paris, and it doesn't feed them what they want or what is best for them. It feeds them the intersection between what they can purchase and what is produced. And the people that charities and the government feed aren't the cause of the market. Systems which produce emergent properties CAN be predicted to an extent, but to claim that the market, as an emergent system, comes up with the best possible solution to any problem and that a better solution couldn't have any element of planning involved in it is just amazingly short sighted.
And then to say there should be city planners doing things differently lmao. The gall.
Go read about how Amazon distributes their packages - economic planning has been solved with supercomputers. The world economy could easily be planned for the benefit of all.
Let's face it: every single individual somehow spreads "propaganda" in their own way, much of the time not even realizing it. Are you aware that you are spreading someone else's message? Probably not, but there are organizations that are in agreement with your stances. I'm certainly aware, even though I have not been hired or paid to do so.
The whole point of your message that you are missing, though, is that you are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good...and putting words in people's mouths. The video never claimed that spontaneous order feeds EVERYONE in Paris, and certainly not in a perfect manner (which is where your description of the available food is mostly accurate). It is more utilitarian in principle. But you also neglect to see that charities (and even the government) are part of the overall market in their own ways. They provide services to meet people's wants and needs...even if those individuals don't have much or any money themselves. On a related note, where was the notion of city planning mentioned in the video again? I just can't seem to find it, so why did you mention it?
Also...what did you think about the Reddit experiment?
Planning in itself is not completely excluded from market forces, but the overall point of this video is to say that it should be decentralized in nature (where every economic sector and individual company should plan for their own selves and activities) instead of letting governments be in charge of it. Free markets are not perfect, but they are certainly a better solution than corrupt, slow, bureaucratic policies of government agencies that are subject to regulatory capture due to their already existing complexity and liable to fail despite people's good intentions. Besides, we practically vote with our money every day, so markets are generaly more responsive to their customers compared to governments due to that voting frequency.
Your Amazon reference fits in well with what I have already said about individual companies doing their own planning within a limited scope, but don't kid yourself. Amazon is granted corporate subsidies, contracts, and overall favoritism from national governments (especially in the U.S.). The related issue with supercomputers managing the globalized economy does sound good, but, really, who is to say that it won't lead to a dystopic, cyberpunk nightmare of a world? Who would be in charge of these supercomputers? Who would own them? You? Me? Governments through our tax dollars? This all goes back to the issues involved with centralized vs. decentralized planning, among other things. "A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."--Milton Friedman
based
Ehhhm... no, Amazon is still economic planning. There is a mayor difference between that and a planned economy.
computers do not solve the ecp, try again
Comparing language to market economics is invalid.
We could develop a universal language that would be simpler and more expressive.
Could we though? If so, why haven’t we? Perhaps it’s because there is no need for it and spontaneous order has already created the most efficient languages on ease to learn to expressiveness ratio.
@@calastyphon2510 We haven't created a better language because people already know what they know, and don't want to change. Not to mention, governments would have to change, and that's not easy.
@@deezynar if "people don't want to change" how would we develop a universal language? 🤔
@@AgoristsRising Developing, and adopting, are two different things.
@@calastyphon2510 like development, adoption also requires change. How do you suppose people will adopt this universal language when according to you, "people don't want to change"?
i wonder if a programming language could be constructed this way
neoliberal propaganda
refute the ecp