For people interested in new paradigms of economics

[Cadsuane]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g

Synopsis of the videos:

1.) limitations of profit (monetary) motivation; works for menial labour, but cognitive tasks are better incentivized with a dose of existentialism (autonomy, mastery, purpose)

2.) Foundational flaws of capitalism, nature of the business cycle, from a marxist perspective

3.) Empathic nature of man (and some other mammals), blood ties > tribes > religions (moral structures) > nation states > ???

Tomorrow I'm sitting down to watch everything in this channel and reading and watching everything it cites. What do you guys think? I must confess the whole idea of a new economic and social ideology is terribly exciting, like a new enlightenment.

Speaking of which, if you're an intellectual, hasn't the past half century seemed very grim, pessimistic, bereft of great philosophical innovation? Does stuff like this give you hope for some sort of renaissance?

[Penthesilea]

Thank you for posting these. I watched the three you posted as well as the one on time.

I plan on watching a few more when I get the chance.

[*Shinzon*]

That's actually pretty cool.

[Kuya]

Speaking of which, if you're an intellectual, hasn't the past half century seemed very grim, pessimistic, bereft of great philosophical innovation?

Oh god yes. There's a bankruptcy of ideas. Some say there's also a lack of real intellectuals, but i'm not so sure about that.

[Meat]

before i load these up, anything i couldn't get from reading adam smith here?

[Kuya]

Although, i could question the use of new economic thinking when world leaders find it so hard to follow current economic thinking. What with the current obsession over inflation fairies, and us needing to please them by starving the economy.

[pogejr]

Only watched the first video right now, but after that I plan on definitely seeing the rest. Can I just ask what are the ranges on the topics; are they only focused on economics or all aspects of study?

[Ferion]

I found the first video to be really interesting, especially since most of the research I've read last year and some of my own dealt with market discipline and incentives managers face. I think an issue that capitalism faces with incentives working by existentialism is the alignment of interests problem some one like Steve Jobs has to work around (just using him as an example because he was mentioned in the video). He may be coming up with great ideas that "put a ding in the universe," but he is using investors' money to do so.

So while he comes up with ideas that make a difference, if it doesn't meet the stock holders' required rate of return he may be out of a job. This unfortunately creates a distortion in the video's incentive theory, while money may be taken at of the picture, the threat of losing his job certainly isn't (speaking very generally). There may have been numerous projects Jobs wanted to take on that Apple could excel with, but may not have produced a positive net present value soon enough to appease the investors. I could be entirely wrong in my logic right now cause it's late and I'm exhausted, but it's just a thought I had while watching the video.

peaking of which, if you're an intellectual, hasn't the past half century seemed very grim, pessimistic, bereft of great philosophical innovation? Does stuff like this give you hope for some sort of renaissance?

I think it will be a very interesting next couple of years. Learning economics while watching numerous theories unravel in the recession that started a couple years ago was fascinating, just wish I could motivate myself to have more of an interest in macro-econ.

[vagus]

Amazing videos. Some of it, was new to me but very interesting never the less.

[Correction]

Speaking of which, if you're an intellectual, hasn't the past half century seemed very grim, pessimistic, bereft of great philosophical innovation?

I can't speak to the entirety of the last half century since I haven't been alive that long, but I disagree in general here. The real problem is that most of the Americans I know have only ever grown up in an age where most of the obvious problems of mankind (starvation, disease, war) were largely solved for them. In a privileged life you tend to place less value on how ideas alone can change the world for the better, because what you have is plenty good so really, unless it makes you even more comfortable than you are right now, you're not that interested in it. Radical changes in thought often provoke the opposite of comfortable thoughts, so while there probably is a wealth of awesome ideas out there, they aren't being listened to. "Here's American Gladiators, watch this, shut up!" and so on...

[Maguspk]

I've seen the first video before, Dan Pink did a TED talk awhile back.

Will watch the other two also.

[Not not Mattaru]

Watched all of them. The first one was perhaps the most interesting to me, mainly because the other two are things I'm familiar with/believe for the most part.

As far as intellectuals...real innovations intellectually are not realized decades after they happen, the lag from academic to mainstream also tends to be around 20 years. You don't see it unless you are looking for it, but yes times like these can become proving grounds for said theories etc.

[isladar]

Speaking of which, if you're an intellectual, hasn't the past half century seemed very grim, pessimistic, bereft of great philosophical innovation? Does stuff like this give you hope for some sort of renaissance?

Hopefully the next 10 years will involve academia finally shitting the rest of relativism out of itself, and a new glorious age will be born.

[eunhye]

Seems like technology has already made the future looked grim. People(myself foremost) do not seem to have a care in the world for an answer to any question that google can't answer. The example with Haiti was perfect: Twitter -> youtube -> people becoming empathic to that region. It only lasts for a short duration of time. You can't extend empathy because the human mind chooses to not hold itself accountable for an event that can happen again and again.

[Cadsuane]

Glad you guys enjoyed the videos.

@Correction: To me what can be called a lack of philosophical innovation and a popular sense of apathy and cynicism are corrolaries such that we're talking about the same thing. Whatever the case, I think the world "has grown old" and our culture and institutions reflect this general sense of despair. Stirs of a great cultural movement like the renaissance or the enlightenment are unthinkable in a decade like the 90's. I mean, seriously, what in the blue fuck happened then? Was anything even possible in that atmosphere?

I'm 22 and and I don't think I've felt like I was young yet in my life. In fact most of my generation seems to be an overmedicated mess of people desperately growing old before their time with nothing to look forward to. Either suspicious and aggressive, or apathetic and sleepy, always cynical, and both archetypes are represented pretty heavily here. Maybe I'm speaking too soon, and waxing existentialist besides, but we're listless without a purpose even though we continue to exist one way or another, but we stand a good chance of recovering that during this century.

[Gwynplaine]

The first video was decent and semi-interesting. It's not surprising to me at all but I suppose this is a small step above the types of economists who think that they can plop human choices into a string of equations and predict economics like a machine.

What this first video focuses on is that human beings care about both spiritual and material values. Which should not be surprising to any honest person with eyes.

Most anyone can do rudimentary things like pulling a lever or stacking some crates. But as things get increasingly complex and abstract it doesn't matter how much money you stick in front of someone. I would never be able to claim the X-Prize that was awarded a few years ago for companies to create a spacecraft. Not for the obvious reasons like lack of funding, but because I don't care about engineering. A million dollars won't magically instill a passion for their work in someone. People do a better job when their personal spiritual values are in line with their work and vice-versa.

At the same time that doesn't denigrate material profiting. Although money is not everything, that doesn't imply it means nothing. I would argue that a company that fosters and appreciates passionate employees, will ultimately make more profits. Just look at Google and companies like it that are practically new idea machines while making gobs of money in the process. Comcast and ATT didn't pioneer VOIP, Skype did (I think, or Vonage, or whoever). And now the less innovative companies follow and emulate what Skype accomplished.

Also notice that all of the examples he points to for companies that encourage a passion for new ideas are all tech companies. And the tech industry is one of the most free industries there are. While areas like infrastructure and power are ensconced in age old establishments with no room to move.

The thing to take away here is there's no split between material and spiritual values.

I haven't watched any other vids yet but I'm wearing my skeptical face.

Stirs of a great cultural movement like the renaissance or the enlightenment are unthinkable in a decade like the 90's. I mean, seriously, what in the blue fuck happened then? Was anything even possible in that atmosphere?

I'm very happy to have grown up in the 80's and 90's versus the 70's or any decade prior.

[guartz]

Speaking of which, if you're an intellectual, hasn't the past half century seemed very grim, pessimistic, bereft of great philosophical innovation? Does stuff like this give you hope for some sort of renaissance?

Think of it this way, when turning 2 years old, you actually aged 100% from your last celebration. Turning 100 years old, you only aged 1%. The same goes to with the sum of human knowledge. So it's really just a matter of perspective.

Other then that, the videos are fun but, eh nothing new. At least to me... sounds kinda stuckup, dont it?

[Kuya]

At least to me... sounds kinda stuckup, dont it?

You're an anarchist. It kind of comes with the territory.

[guartz]

You're an anarchist. It kind of comes with the territory.

Socialists should only speak when spoken too.

[Kuya]

I don't see Beckwin here.