51–60 of 203 posts
No idea what the deal is with this site, it seemed intriguing but found this on their articles index. Probably should read it before making any judgments but... its mothers day, who has the time? > The Taliban Were Afghanistan’s Real Modernizers > Only a powerful modernizing force could overcome the tribal loyalties that divided Afghanistan’s fragile state. That force was the Taliban.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All that can be true while palladium can also be one of the only publications that grapples with big theories and forecasts of geo politics and social shifts. Are there many others? FP seems more focused on essays targeted at an audience of one written for ver specific inside baseball reasons. HBR and the likes have become laughable top 10 lists and passing superficial junk.
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All that can be true while palladium can also be one of the only publications that grapples with big theories and forecasts of geo politics and social shifts. Are there many others? FP seems more focused on essays targeted at an audience of one written for ver specific inside baseball reasons. HBR and the likes have become laughable top 10 lists and passing superficial junk.
Quoted post unavailable.
It’s a solid concept imo. But also nothing about their podcasts seem so bad as to wash them away with one flippant comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to remember the basic idea behind a lot of these word salads is that "We need to return to kings and aristocracy" and that "Of course I am a high iq intellectual who will be the nobility and not a feudal worker, why is there any doubt?". Everything starts making sense then.
The idea of those who favor "kings and aristocracy" is more that we'll always have people around with more power than others (elites), and that formal transparency about who these people are ultimately improves accountability. Would you work for a faux "anarcho-tyrannyist" firm where you have no idea who the CEO is and who the managers are that can fire you or cut your salary?
Palladium magazine was founded by Wolf Tivy and Jonah Bennett. It is funded by Peter Thiel. Jonah Bennett previously worked at The Daily Caller and he resigned from Palladium when it was discovered he had authored some racist messages and was friends with various white nationalists. Samo Burja, the author, is undoubtedly a more serious and educated person. However, he promotes a “Great Founder Theory” which is not so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to remember the basic idea behind a lot of these word salads is that "We need to return to kings and aristocracy" and that "Of course I am a high iq intellectual who will be the nobility and not a feudal worker, why is there any doubt?". Everything starts making sense then.
The idea of those who favor "kings and aristocracy" is more that we'll always have people around with more power than others (elites), and that formal transparency about who these people are ultimately improves accountability. Would you work for a faux "anarcho-tyrannyist" firm where you have no idea who the CEO is and who the managers are that can fire you or cut your salary?
Hum, grumble mumble... We surely are at the end of a cycle in human development terms, witch means the actual society going to change in something new, BUT "Industrial Society" is not actually a society in humans terms. We have had countless "industrial society" in various different societies, from Japanese steel, China ceramic and shipping (far in the past), metallurgic industry from Celts, Roman industry, cord and…
So far yours is the only substantive response to the post (edit: although a few others popped up after I wrote this). I agree with most of the broad ideas you bring up which are insightful. However, the tone of your comment does not seem to be quite acknowledging that we are in reality now in a somewhat dire situation. Anyway I have a few questions. I too see many issues with "managerial/profit driven development" an…
Not remove, layer it. In the past we have had public universities and big "free" "innovation labs" from private those NOT managerial driven but just "we have big money, we fund some very skilled technicians who innovate on their own and see the outcome, something very nice for our business will appear". Such model have produced the most quick and revolutionary innovation we have seen in last century et least.
My view is: States funds public universities whose target is pure research, innovation for humankind. They do not produce goods, just ideas and initial implementations. Companies for their profits, States for Citizens needs pick those ideas choosing what to implement, sell etc. Private research can't really compete so there will be a bit but not too much to steer society in dangerous evolution, States having the biggest concentration of talents and research can surveil and make Citizens informed enough to decide if something is good or not.
> My take is that involving profits is a way to introduce rules and score keeping to the game.
Although in practice we have seen the contrary: some innovate better than other conquering certain positions, than they start killing potential competitors thanks to money they have amassed... IMVHO innovation can only be stimulate by intellectual means, push needs and rewards means pushing dangerous innovations,, something good can arrive, but also much bad things.
> right now, for example, we have a crisis in food production
And it's cause is only partially the climate change, much is due by for-profit market moves, where it's more profitable having big food players instead of countless small ones. That's why IMVHO profit must be contained, it's not self-contained because the ideal free market can exists, only if kept free by force, by nature it derive quickly toward hierarchy against humans needs... The main point here is that States as Democracies represent the sole real free market: the people, all together unable to really form a monopoly or oligopoly.
> It just feels like people who want to completely drop money or profit from this usually don't have a great plan.
IMVHO money is a very misunderstood topic: so far money are a kind of substrate of anything lent to states in the form of public debt; that's not "money" that's a very old scam, dating back from the '300 or even certain Greeks polis. Money must be a unit of measure of a substrate, determined, not owned, by the public, no private parties involved. A symbol we use to weight nearly anything.
If we made money like that, than profit change aspect: we do not have financialization much more than a thin layer because having no value as a substrate have no value, so no option for profit, at all. In that case a company can have benefits from good ads, but can't live only on ads, it need something valuable underneath etc.
That's the real key all actual élites do not want because actual money is the best way to keep people in line with soft tie almost no one really see and revolt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The entire article hinges on the principle that everything collapses because there is "on-paper upward mobility of functional industrial workers to dysfunctional knowledge economy workers." Translation: the knowledge economy isn't as robust as the industrial economy because, reasons. He never gets into those reasons because he doesn't seem to understand industrial production, and many get it wrong. The industrial wor…
> Translation: the knowledge economy isn't as robust as the industrial economy because, reasons. While I didn't agree with everything in the article myself, I would say the translation is actually more along the lines of: "As a civilization becomes more efficient, fewer of the members of the population need to know how to actually do anything. The civilization becomes less robust in the face of new pressures because…
You have to be able to show how this "knowledge gap" causes a collapse because the "new engineers" fail to understand the building blocks and the systems will erode over time. As long as the standards exist someone can "follow the recipe."
I can totally concede that over long epochs of time of stability there would be a wax and wane of technological prowess and that at some point interest, or active knowledge, would be lost. But as long as the knowledge is still there then it would not take much for this future society to repair and regain its knowledge.
I see absolutely no justification for a collapse scenario. Your CoD LARPers will have to unclog their toilet eventually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Sometimes men (and women, for that matter) happen to be exactly at the right place and at the right time to tilt the balance of long-range historical outcomes. What's wrong with acknowledging those folks as "Great", if only as to their influence?