Really enjoyed this. As a marketing practitioner/university educator I recently walked away from teaching a marketing module where the PD wanted an AI focus, building on a base of predictive analytics. There was absolutely no consideration of the art of the metier. I am now considering a commercial offering called the Art of Marketing. This narrow, left hemispheric focus creates terrific opportunities for entrepreneurs who understand the serendipitous and creative aspects of brand creation. However, since they will operate in an increasingly rigid cognitive societal/government data-driven framework, it could be hard for these to thrive. Strange times.
"Choice of experts and not one model with every other theory demonised." That reasonable argument got me a bit to listen more carefully to the discussion.
Hayek's control is competition , not equality. People are not equal, concentration in itself is not bad, power earned by non market conditions (basically competition avoidance) is the only problematic one. Even there it is the place to defend some form of very weak and limited State, as competition to keep other states and private to become a powerful state.
China has created the most competitive economy in the world and all with a socialist government. Hayek was wrong and the line of economic thought he spread has ruined the West.
18 днів тому+2
Javier Milei's Lex Fridman Podcast #453 19 Nov 2024 (voice over in English) covered many of the practicalities of implementing the ideas discussed here.
Where this thesis is absolutely correct is business cycle theory and the actions of monetary policy which seems to be a complete waste of time. The difference between rich and poor countries is not due to better and worse monetary policy settings
Planned economy had it's bad points, but Hayek conceded in Road to Serfdom that some welfare measures were necessary. His political antipathy to planned socialism should not be confused with the need for some government provision to make the populace one that contributes to the economy. He respected Keynes too. Hayek was not an American style libertarian.
Konkurrenten sind keine Feinde, sondern Freunde. Freiwillige Deals sind Interaktionen zu beidseitigem Vorteil. Nur Individuun sind mögliche Träger der Zukunft. Ein Minimalstaat muss schwerwiegende gesellschaftliche Ungleichgewichte ausbalancieren.
Too much critique of science here. At times the presenters seem to equate all science with scientism; to imply there's a kind a logic above and better than science. Science itself is the investigation of the real world to discover how it works. But much of the criticism of economics, planning and authoritarianism in this debate is actually a critique of scientism, pseudo-science and social engineering. Just because the social engineers use facts, that doesn't make "science" guilty of social engineering. This is the second IEA discussion where climate change rears its ugly head. Scientists have shut down debate in science over climate change because they began with a set of policies (sustainability, renewables, growth contraints, ...). They rail-roaded The Science to support those initial policies; and those policies were already social engineering. In short: the politicos and their science allies created the climate agenda to bully us into accepting their socially engineered agenda. Why is the IEA avoiding a discussion on climate change as social engineering?
Odd that you can recognize the critique of scientism yet are somehow still convinced of global warming. Which is also based on a series of models modeling each other with little if any correlation to the physical universe.
@@listener523 thanks. I’ll look into it. I don’t believe it at first glance. But it is worth investigating. It’s my current opinion that environmental destruction is real, we are living outside of the planetary boundaries, but the climate agenda is being led by demagogues.
Wrong, you want people to be individualist, parts of Africa type, poor, USA type, it made many rich, instead the traditional communitarian type of life in some cultures (European North) with good individual behaviour. Socialism have man faces, capitalism as well, what people need is simple, progress with respect, accepting some exception for disruptive techs as much as disruptive art behaviours... but people, bad people(?), NO!
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Really enjoyed this. As a marketing practitioner/university educator I recently walked away from teaching a marketing module where the PD wanted an AI focus, building on a base of predictive analytics. There was absolutely no consideration of the art of the metier. I am now considering a commercial offering called the Art of Marketing. This narrow, left hemispheric focus creates terrific opportunities for entrepreneurs who understand the serendipitous and creative aspects of brand creation. However, since they will operate in an increasingly rigid cognitive societal/government data-driven framework, it could be hard for these to thrive. Strange times.
"Choice of experts and not one model with every other theory demonised."
That reasonable argument got me a bit to listen more carefully to the discussion.
Hayek's control is competition , not equality. People are not equal, concentration in itself is not bad, power earned by non market conditions (basically competition avoidance) is the only problematic one. Even there it is the place to defend some form of very weak and limited State, as competition to keep other states and private to become a powerful state.
China has created the most competitive economy in the world and all with a socialist government. Hayek was wrong and the line of economic thought he spread has ruined the West.
Javier Milei's Lex Fridman Podcast #453 19 Nov 2024 (voice over in English) covered many of the practicalities of implementing the ideas discussed here.
Where this thesis is absolutely correct is business cycle theory and the actions of monetary policy which seems to be a complete waste of time. The difference between rich and poor countries is not due to better and worse monetary policy settings
They are the major cause of the business cycle.
Planned economy had it's bad points, but Hayek conceded in Road to Serfdom that some welfare measures were necessary. His political antipathy to planned socialism should not be confused with the need for some government provision to make the populace one that contributes to the economy. He respected Keynes too. Hayek was not an American style libertarian.
Currently living in a country where .gov makes up 46% of the economy.
Konkurrenten sind keine Feinde, sondern Freunde.
Freiwillige Deals sind Interaktionen zu beidseitigem Vorteil.
Nur Individuun sind mögliche Träger der Zukunft.
Ein Minimalstaat muss schwerwiegende gesellschaftliche Ungleichgewichte ausbalancieren.
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the ‘social sciences’ is: some do, some don’t.”
- Ernest Rutherford
An expert thinker tells us that we should beware of expert thinkers.
Anyone else a problem that statement? Ayn Rand certainly did.
These experts are telling us that we should ignore them
Or maybe they are telling us they are idiots so we should listen to them....
Funny, but at least be logically consistent and don't outsource your thinking to 'experts' who confirm your biases.
@@overman2306this! Produce your own knowledge!
I suggest watching this again, especially the last 10 minutes, when they address this misinterpretation of expertise.
They're telling us to ignore authoritarian, wannabe social engineer 'experts'.
Too much critique of science here. At times the presenters seem to equate all science with scientism; to imply there's a kind a logic above and better than science. Science itself is the investigation of the real world to discover how it works. But much of the criticism of economics, planning and authoritarianism in this debate is actually a critique of scientism, pseudo-science and social engineering. Just because the social engineers use facts, that doesn't make "science" guilty of social engineering.
This is the second IEA discussion where climate change rears its ugly head. Scientists have shut down debate in science over climate change because they began with a set of policies (sustainability, renewables, growth contraints, ...). They rail-roaded The Science to support those initial policies; and those policies were already social engineering. In short: the politicos and their science allies created the climate agenda to bully us into accepting their socially engineered agenda.
Why is the IEA avoiding a discussion on climate change as social engineering?
Funny i say the same 4 years ago ..how the Rona lies go?
Odd that you can recognize the critique of scientism yet are somehow still convinced of global warming. Which is also based on a series of models modeling each other with little if any correlation to the physical universe.
How did you come up with your second statement?
@The_Real_Casey_Timmins
Simple observation going back to the CRU leaks.
@@listener523 thanks. I’ll look into it.
I don’t believe it at first glance. But it is worth investigating.
It’s my current opinion that environmental destruction is real, we are living outside of the planetary boundaries, but the climate agenda is being led by demagogues.
Video too long; did not watch! Please summarize to under 15 minutes!
That is too short.
Wrong, you want people to be individualist, parts of Africa type, poor, USA type, it made many rich, instead the traditional communitarian type of life in some cultures (European North) with good individual behaviour. Socialism have man faces, capitalism as well, what people need is simple, progress with respect, accepting some exception for disruptive techs as much as disruptive art behaviours... but people, bad people(?), NO!
The people you want to be communitarian with don't want to be communitarian with you.
This is where culture matters. That style only functions amongst people with similar cultural values.