avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • Sunday August 14, 2022, 12:40 am
  • Proudly celebrating 15+ years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Author Topic: Chaos as a key to Getting Organized  (Read 2911 times)

Paul Keith

  • Member
  • Joined in 2008
  • **
  • Posts: 1,989
    • View Profile
    • Donate to Member
Chaos as a key to Getting Organized
« on: February 23, 2011, 11:52 AM »
Basic capitalism stuff but I realize I haven't made a thread that links the keys of capitalism to the keys of making a system that will get you organized.

Obviously for many this may seem obvious while others may simply view chaos as proof of a "lack of a system" rather than the existence of one but I'll leave it up to you guys on how you want to agree/disagree in the replies:


Do you truly believe the market as it exists in reality (not in a textbook) is genuinely objective?

In terms of single transactions, no. In the aggregate, yes. It is not optimized for any particular result, and is only as good as its participants' collective ability to think ahead. For years I thought that planned economies were almost bound to be superior to such a chaotic approach, and yet industrial planning has a terribly poor record.

Don't get the idea that I'm opposed to regulation, though, or think that only private capital's preferences matter. I'm basically a Keynesian and think government has a variety of important roles to play, and probably does a better job by rationing healthcare and so on than the market can, because there are limits on the market's ability to price things accurately. What I'm objecting to is the idea that capitalism can't do anything right, when it's abundantly clear that it does a lot of things better than central planning does. So when I see the CEO of McKinsey saying that business needs to take a more holistic approach to capital investment and so on I'm pleased, because it suggests more resources will be devoted to looking at the business value of sustainability, specifically finding better ways to measure it.

Note that I disagree with Keynesian economics so I'm not in favor of his brand of capitalism but it's still an underrated discussion still. When GTD was released we went from the so-called theory to practicality but shortly after that we went into making excuses for why our systems doesn't work.

Not that it means most of the excuses are bs but capitalism in my opinion is one good example where many of the modified concepts like Keynesian economics are just wrong but most everyone is looking at a fictional bs of a system that is non-bs vs. that is bs. For capitalism, it's mostly the debate outside of capitalism's own -ism into a sort of vs. socialism/vs. communism/vs. corporatism/vs. hard fascism illusion overriding the more subtle Hayek vs. Keynes debate and other fundamental principles like capitalism that's greed in the Miltonian sense vs. greed in the Steve Jobs sense.

For productivity systems, it's the illusion that a productivity system's inability to solve your problems being equivalent to productivity systems being dependent upon each other and thus all productivity systems either all work or all don't work - as long as nobody has to admit that one system is wrong over the other. Sort of the opposite of how programming languages are adopted into software development.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 11:53 AM by Paul Keith »