For people interested in new paradigms of economics

[Cantih]

I only saw the second one when it was posted to boingboing, but they do seem to be really great videos.

[guartz]

I don't see Beckwin here.

ah thats right, sorry

[Max™]

Very interesting stuff, was funny, girlfriend came by while I was watching, she was like "oh that's cute, what is it"... 'economics' "bleh".

[guartz]

Very interesting stuff, was funny, girlfriend came by while I was watching, she was like "oh that's cute, what is it"... 'economics' "bleh".

what the,


we better not be dating the same woman.

[Zoolander]

Awesome videos.

The first provided some backing for stuff I kind of always though was there, as well as compounded on those "hunches" I had. Makes a lot of sense when you think about it, especially when you looked at companies, as others have said, like Google that promotes independent work and new ideas.

The second one was interesting, although since I studied Marx fairly indepth it wasn't anything THAT new. However when it comes to Marx there is no shortage of interpretations and areas of life to apply Marxist ideology to, so its always nice to hear another (refreshing) perspective on that ideology. This is especially true as our world continues to change.

Third one isn't really anything new to me, since the notion of supranationalism is something I've studied in depth as an international political scientist. He just took a more philosophical approach, basically the same thing though. It is nonetheless an interesting topic to think about, especially when you start to look at the implications of globalization, the internet, instant communication, and the continued spread of knowledge and open source information. Nationalism will have to eventually take a back seat to a regional and, eventually, a global identity.

Awesome topic, glad you shared. I'll be showing these to several friends, especially some of the more idiotic free market buffoons who think they know what the hell they are talking about just because they "know human nature."

Oh, and I just read this last night and it is somewhat tied into this, especially the latter two videos. Its a great and entertaining read: http://www.thrivenotes.com/lets-help...ate-this-seed/

[Zoolander]

Also, I cannot disagree enough on your thoughts about a lack of philosophical innovation during the late 20th and 21st centuries. Some of the counterpoints have already been covered so I wont be too redundant, but just look at what we are doing at this very moment. I mean look at what I just posted, you think 50 years ago I could have openly admitted I am "Godless?" The atheistic movement is a perfect example of this. Im not trying to bash on religion or anything, and we still have a long way to go, but our society is becoming more and more open to new ideas and ways of thinking.

If anything, I think the "problem" is that there are so many god damn "thinkers" and "philosophers" and ideas out there that we can be exposed to that it becomes increasingly difficult to pick out the individuals and celebrate them. The ideas themselves tend to make it through the orgy of information though, and that is really all that matters.

We can and should be impatient and push for more and never settle for anything, but do realize these changes take time, especially since the world is still in large part being run by older, less open minded people of previous generations. But the instances where openness and innovation are being embraced are yielding fantastic results and are clearly signs of hope.

Imo, the key to it all is education. It all starts with that.

[Not not Mattaru]

Third one isn't really anything new to me, since the notion of supranationalism is something I've studied in depth as an international political scientist. He just took a more philosophical approach, basically the same thing though. It is nonetheless an interesting topic to think about, especially when you start to look at the implications of globalization, the internet, instant communication, and the continued spread of knowledge and open source information. Nationalism will have to eventually take a back seat to a regional and, eventually, a global identity.

I don't disagree, but I did have some issues with some of the points in the video. Near the end he seems to recognize that people's identity, while over time tends to shift in focus, it is a very nested thing and it changes based on reference to another person. I think how it is all rectified is via socialization.

But the main thing I wanted to bring up is generally what is called compacting of time and space by technological revolution. I suppose it is possible, some day, some technology will come along and account for my point, but the technological revolution has its limits as it stands today. To know a place, have a representative discussion about another place and culture is not a given. It really takes a conscious effort to reach the place he is describing, technology is a tool, but it has a limit and must be used correctly. At the end of the day what is required is a recognition of limits that exist currently and if anything turn that into a point of unity (i.e. even though I can not say with full authority I understand another culture/person etc. it is possible and reasonable for me to be empathetic).

Also, the animal bit. If he wants to talk about animal rights and animal lib. that is fine, but the way he just squeezes it in like: if you accept my premise this will be a natural result, comes across as a bit reaching...

[Purrrfect]

Watching now, the first one is great. I find myself agreeing with a lot of the points, almost instinctively. FUCK YES AUTONOMY IS GOOD THING AT TIMES.

[Ferion]

Awesome topic, glad you shared. I'll be showing these to several friends, especially some of the more idiotic free market buffoons who think they know what the hell they are talking about just because they "know human nature."

Send them this. http://www.investorsiraq.com/showthr...wise&p=1010510 It's kind of exaggerated in the fact that it makes it sound like unless you have a Phd in economics you know absolutely nothing. But to a certain extent it is kind of valid, I wanted to get some other people's opinion about the article it. Most bloggers are going crazy about how terrible the paper was, while most economists I've seen comment about it tend to agree with it.

[guartz]

Hey Kuya, I figured out how to get Beckwin in here.

Slavoj Zizek discussing an idea to intergrate Marx's notion of 'rent' into capitalism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvakA-DF6Hc

[Cantih]

On seeing the second and third video, my thoughts came back to an old set of topics I mulled over in the past that I'd stepped away from a few years ago. Rather than re-invent the wheel if I can avoid it, because usually someone has already, I figure I'd ask the people here who love this stuff.

Do you guys know of anybody that is working on these concepts (see below), especially when combined together?

This is the pure brain-vomit form that I use for my own note file. So if anyone doesn't get what I'm trying to put forth, I can try and put it more coherently, but that'll likely end up in a tl;dr mini essay.

On protectionism & xenophobia

The role of efficiency accumulation in reducing labor requirements.
Maslow labor
ramifications of these effects in effort/reward societies

and

Scarcity of work (& tendency for capital to seek the cheapest labor market)
the effect this has on wages, especially in regards to cost of living discrepancies

[ringthree]

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.

I don't agree. There has been a virtual flood of real intellectuals, the problem is that post-modernism is so esoteric and so abstracted it has been taken to the point of absurdity. Zizak, Baudrillard, etc. while claiming to represent the common man, are nothing but hyper-intellectuals with no connection to anything beyond academia.

The other problem is that they only focus on the problem and never suggest solutions, or even discussion. It's all regressive analysis of the cause of our problems, but at no point is ever a platform created for moving forward because solutions always require assumptions or at least generalizations, and those always have problems.

There are ideas, there are intellectuals, but all the while these teachers are teaching and no one is listening, because they are speaking in the modern equivalent of tongues.

[ringthree]

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.

I don't see that coming. I wish it was, but the academy is moving more toward cloture than trying to engage society as a whole.

The problem isn't with relativism and the questioning of our fundamental assumptions, it is when do you stop questioning and start moving forward. Relativism isn't inherently bad, it is the nature of people to not be able to still act while examination is still occurring.

[Not not Mattaru]

I agree with Ringthree to an extent. Academia and tongues have a legitimate role to play, when you are talking with other people who speak the same language, but most people do not, nor should they unless spending years and years in a field and in academia.

Also, yes the problem is when all this regressive analysis becomes an end unto itself and chills any prescription. The legacy of critique they leave behind is important, and can be used to come about better decisions if it is not taken ad absurdum and without relevance/removed to/from real world situations.

@Cantih

I think there is a lot of further reading on the things you are talking about.

On protectionism and xenophobia...to give some suggestions I would need you to be more specific. I can not speak a lot to a US perspective because I have only studied stuff like that in regards to countries like Japan. Nationalism plays a big role, let me know if you are leaning that way.

I can't speak much to the second paragraph. Are you meaning Maslow's hierarchy also?

The last bit is most relevant today in developing economies, although I'm sure there are economic histories that should help elucidate what you want.

[Cantih]

Blargh, ok, more in depth then. Protectionism & Xenophobia isn't a separate topic, it's actually the overall header, or rather something to be kept in mind with regards to the other topics. The board software eats leading spaces, probably should have used [code], but eh. A number of those lines cascade from each other.

You're right, I am talking about Maslow's hierarchy, mainly the bottom section, but in regards to humanity as a whole, instead of the individual. By Maslow labor, I'm talking specifically about labor that is priority one for the continuation of the human race.
Food production, fresh water collection/distribution, sanitation, housing/protection from elements.

You may be familiar with the theory that agriculture is responsible for civilization. The efficiency freed up manpower that allowed us to make progress in other areas. Even a few centuries ago, it still took a not insignificant percentage of the population to grow enough food. But today, with mechanization aids and other advances, you can produce an amazing amount of food for relatively small amounts of labor.

And it's not just food, but in ANY industry. Capitalism is a big driver of this, by increasing efficiency, you do more with less, and get a better return on investment.
My concern though, especially in regards to recent unemployment AND the fact that many the systems are still working regardless, is what happens/how do we handle when we have more population than we NEED in order to fill priority and non-priority labor requirements.

If I want food, a roof over my head, and a shower, I need to be able to pay for it. To pay for it, I need to work. (An effort/reward society). But what if there is no work?
An aside:

Spoiler: show

This even continues in non-priority labor, like entertainment. There are only so many hours in a day, a person can only consume so much entertainment. By exploiting niches/long tail you can increase the number of labor spots to fill, but eventually you'll reach saturation

And all I've written above ties in to the second part after my solitary 'and'.

As you say "The last bit is most relevant today in developing economies", but due to outsourcing, it's also very relevant in the established economies/first world countries. See the outsourcing of manufacturing and many non-direct service industries, and incoming worker flow such as farm worker s in the US, and I believe the EU has it's own thing in this area at the moment.

Is there anyone looking into all I just wrote. Specifically the first bit in relation to the second.

Spoiler: show

As a read in of my biases, I'm a humanist, and pro-globalization, and NOT a utilitarian. I am in favor of increasing the quality of life for every person on the planet, and don't believe it has to come at the cost of a reduction in quality for everyone. It's not a zero-sum game, but the problem is it's currently being played as one. i.e. Malthus was an asshole