pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @21millioins 6 Mar \ parent \ on: The non-democratic roots of mass education: evidence from 200 years charts_and_numbers
where can I look for more info? the prussian model in particular
I'm sure that if you look into the austrian school of economic at the very least you will get a truly different perspective on the matter.
Is fair what you point, maybe it is an abuse of language on my side
What I support is not "the absence of rules" in the sense of "everybody will do what they want forever"
What I support is who provides the rules, I think the rules should be provided by the market. in other words, the only good rules are those who provide so much value to everybody involved that people adopt them voluntarily (whether they are aware of this or not).
I think that the market process is just a superior tool to discover what structures, rules and practices actually improves people life in the long run. Is hard to notice because good design is invisible, we tend to notice more the thing that doesn't work that those that does.
Design is always sub optimal since we cannot take everything into account, and end up with a design that "sort of works" but sweeps under the rug the consequences.
feel free to agree or disagree, you don't need a credential, different opinions are valuable too on its own but I think you are leaning into a wrong diagnostic of the problem.
For me the money printing is one leg of the table, but also the ideas that goes in the line of "we need to make a little regulation here and there and call it a day". I think that there is a very good reason for nature to not design but yo be "humble enough to admit the limit of her knowledge and let things evolve" so to speak.
I fear unforeseen consequences, and those are the norm dealing with complex systems where all the variables are heavily coupled. That is why I think that the real problems of 100% free market are way better than the alternatives.
Top down rules are 1 size fits all, if we are lucky we all win, but if we are not, we all fail. Since is extremely unlikely than a modification in a complex system improve it (more ways to disorder it rather than to order it, like entropy) top down rules are almost a guarantee to failure IMO. Fail globally (most probable) or win globally
On the other side, on the free market with at least one who makes an improvement, everybody can copy it (I.E. a private regulation, practice, knowhow, that improves both parties) but if anyone fails, the failure is not socialized. Fail locally or win globally
the "is regulations or the law of the jungle" is a naïve way to think about systems.
Having no state mandates is NOT living without rules:
- rules emerge from the people trying different rules over time and keeping what works
- rules are often implicit, not written down on a paper, those also can evolve from the free market
- even standars used in the industry emerged on the free market like ASME standars, and without compelling anyone to buy it, so the incentives were right into providing value to society
- even in literally the jungle of nature a sort of moral emerge to solve conflicts with minimal force as Jordan Peterson illustrate with his example of the lobsters fighting. Why are you so sure that humans don't develop simmilar mechanisms?
- having "state mandates" also can be weponized, but you don't seem worried about that? who watches the watchers?
- if you know where to see you will find a ton of examples of checks and balances being evolved in free market over time, even in the most ruthless environments like the dark web (or I should say specially there, that you have 100% freedom of association) where a sort of "know how" developed over the years about what to do and what not to do to stay safe, and is naturally enforced
Austians got it right IMO, the less you mess with the market, the better it help us to serve one another. There is no magical solutions, is not easy nor free of charge to deal with the problems properly and anyone who say the opposite is probably selling you something
PD even under monarchy people payed less taxes than today, so why should I feel less of a slave now?
I think there are a lot of concepts that you got wrong.
The austrians got it right, the problem is lack of capitalism + fiat. that generates weird economic effects and perverse incentives.
Wealth """concentration""" isn't a thing to be concerned only for those who are envious. Under hard money and Free Market 100% lassie faire the economy thrives, don't have such a cyclical bubles from the business cycle and capital goes with people who take better care of it. And yes, some people work harder, are more productive and thus accumulate more capital than others and it is fine.
Don't take me wrong, I'm not trying to be based or something but I honestly thing there is a lot of your point of view that is based in a lack of understanding of what capitalism is. Though I also think there is a bit of true in going against "this" system, since a lot of fortunes were created not on the basis of providing value to society but in being close to a politician or the money printer.
The natural biological difference in personality traits like agreeableness (more common in women statistically) and also a predictor of liberal tendencies AFAIK but this can't be the whole answer on its own.
Eco chambers, algorithms and the relentless push of progressive propaganda from """think tanks""" (A.K.A neo-malthusian eugenics who wants to depopulate Earh maybe)
The problem is that you are trying to use tools evolved for 12000 years ago1 for problems of the XXI century. Spoiler, it won't work.
I think that back in the day a balanced empathy will make us be helpful with those acquaintances and friends when they are in temporary need. But since we sort of knew everybody1 you know who is in real need because shit happens and who is a careless irresponsible dumbass who got what he/she deserved.
That model doesn't scale, no matter how much of your resources you pour on helping those in needs there will always be more, so at some point is not about "can I help them?" is "do I want to help them?" and that is not a nice place to find ourselves in :( . How we deal with this? I really don't know but I believe that we may evolve a solution, we always did.
Online I think that time and exposure to problems will do it's magic and help us develop new social norms, practices, a sort of "antibody" that will give us the practical wisdom to deal with that too. Is hard to predict since is complex and that is why the solutions need to evolve on its own, but when I see other cases I see people developing practices that counter this behaviors2.
Footnotes
-
If you see places with particular and persistent problems like being too cold for example, people develop common wisdom over time + trial and error. Or if you go to the most savage free market environment like dark markets, people also develop unspoken rules that help them avoid common threats like phishing sites, identity theft, etc... If you know that you are looking for you will find a lot more of this examples but as the author of "The design of everyday things" say "Good design is actually a lot harder to notice... because it fit our need so well that the design is invisible" that is why we tend to be oblivious to this social responses to problems. ↩
I don't know the answer you are looking for, maybe those who didn't where darwined out? also there is no limit to the use of the why question
For me, the seeking truth is meaningful in out of itself. Why not? got anything better to do? lol
maybe a more pragmatic approach is to assume that being closer to the truth is better than the alternative
maybe the idea of pursuing happiness is a bit off. I think the core of the issue always was the pursuit of meaning. There can be a lot of unhappiness too in that path, but we travel it because it is worth the effort
The market and money in particular are complex systems, and as a general rule I would never try to mess, tweak such systems because there are way more changes that brake them than beneficial changes. So I can understand a general feeling against any weird ideas of messing with money or money supply and apply that to the general society. (John Gal make an excellent case for this line of thought in Systemantics)
As I understand it so far, money works both as an abstraction of the goods and services in the economy (decentralized mechanism to distribute right to consumtion of the stock of goods and services) and a communication layer for decentralized knowledge. Messing with it will mess both of that functions but the most stable "fideling" will be the one that hide better under the rug the casual relationship between cause and bad effects.
Is interesting the example of gift cards, is something you can "print" out of thin air but I believe it works as fractional reserve, the moment you have a sort of bunk run it will be obvious that you gave more gift cards than what you actually have available in goods and services. Isn't exactly that what the FED does with its balance sheet? and even worst, they fiddle with the interest rate which is the same as fixing a price and will cause underproduction or overproduction of the good, in this case society real savings
I think both social and technical skills.
In the social side, I aimed to be more social. Being able to go to a new group, make some friends there but still being myself. Being able to chat with some random girl at the train was unthinkable for me years ago for example. It is a fun adventure to try to improve in that regards, idk I take it as a little personal challenge.
I'm trying to be more disciplined, sticking to a routine, doing new sports, put some effort into those and see the progres, etc...
On the technical side, I knew I wanted to get into 3D printing since a long time ago and finally got into that, learning about it, improving. New objectives regarding work for the mid/long term.
I still feel like there is something more meaningful that I can do but it takes time for me to articulate what it is, all of the above helped me to understand a bit more what that meaningful can be.
I'm far of having all my problems solved, but I did find a lot of relief in improving myself as much as I can in every domain.
Starting hobbies that I like (after accepting that sometimes you can like things that are a bit dumb or werid) also helped both in giving me something interesting and hard to do and making me meet as much people as I could, regardless of our wavelength.
I assume that people always have something to teach me and when that feeling of "hmm, were too different" kicks in, that keeps me interested into developing that friendship relationship. Also that snowballed into knowing a lot more people in general, that keeps me entertained I think
The podcast Saifedean-Jordan Peterson, there is a short moment when you can see Peterson being blown away by how minning helps the grid an move energy.
(original video https://youtu.be/FXvQcuIb5rU)
whether inflation can be caused by liquidity injection, is entirely dependent on whether banks do more lending and burrowing.
I understand this is caused because banks are allowed to do fractional reserve, as Jesus Huerta de Soto explains and many other austrians ec.
But my point is if money is not entering the economy then it is like it doesn't exist. If banks has it but don't lend it, it does not count as "printing money"
If I got you right, is like if under gold standard I find a way to turn dirt into gold and do a x2 in the monetary base but just hodl it in my vault and never spend it, it is there but is like it isn't from the POV of the economy
Man, what a crappy world we live in where academia and "common sense" call deflation as something adverse. We're so brainwashed by state education that is hard to believe.