3 ms·

As a huge Stephenson fan (specifically Snowcrash here) I often tell people how unlike his world our world turned out to be. In Snowcrash, the rapid pace of tec

As a huge Stephenson fan (specifically Snowcrash here) I often tell people how unlike his world our world turned out to be. In Snowcrash, the rapid pace of technological change has basically splintered the world and caused the empowerment of men and small organizations and the collapse of central governments. In the real world, governments learned how to effectively use mass media to get their message across. From going to war in Iraq, to going after wikileaks to building Great Walls, governments are doing great, with a great future ahead of them.

jacoblyles 16y ago
Nassim Taleb isn't a perfect prognosticator, but he is an interesting one. In his latest interview with The Economist he predicts the downfall of the nation state and the rise of the city state in the next 25 years. He is making an argument from instability - nation states are large, inefficient enterprises that have a habit of taking on unprofitable projects like wars. Also, he sees national currencies like the Euro and the Dollar as too unstable to survive. I apologize for the long link: http://downloads.economist.feedroom.com/podcast/t_assets/20101201/20101201_wi_taleb_v2_4R4R.mp3?_kip_ipx=1899310534-1292270256&site=economist&cid=8a2059e9ac993b05e749291542c9e65bda3af5bf&sid=aa1673b717ddf9ab1224978f57f5481f9389add3&pid=b259c6502b63364ec8e8ea81816d7d0ab9139b7c http://downloads.economist.feedroom.com/podcast/t_assets/201...
- peterwwillis 16y ago
  I'm pretty young and uneducated (which means don't listen to anything I say), but it seems to me that wars are profitable. Arms and heavy vehicle manufacturers create jobs which stimulate our economy, and the foreign nations and international banks that control our debt get to dig a little deeper in our pockets. It sort of helps everyone but the enemy. After the war we get more money by "winning" contracts to rebuild what we've blown up - but slower and more inefficiently than is necessary, with lots of extra cash mysteriously disappearing once it reaches foreign soil (the equivalent of a CEO bonus, but instead for CIA and whoever else need a payday for ensuring the war goes off without a hitch). But I could be wrong. (Also, what's the alternative to the Dollar and Euro? Micro-economies? Maybe an economy built out of dealing with a massive number of differing currencies and economies?)
  - jacoblyles 16y ago
    You're committing one of the oldest and most common Economic fallacies, the "Broken Window Fallacy". Bastiat's "That which is seen and that which is not seen"[1] or Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" would help clear up your confusion, or just a good treatment of the Broken Window Fallacy[2]. [1]http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html [2]http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fal...

jacoblyles 16y ago

Nassim Taleb isn't a perfect prognosticator, but he is an interesting one. In his latest interview with The Economist he predicts the downfall of the nation state and the rise of the city state in the next 25 years. He is making an argument from instability - nation states are large, inefficient enterprises that have a habit of taking on unprofitable projects like wars. Also, he sees national currencies like the Euro and the Dollar as too unstable to survive. I apologize for the long link: http://downloads.economist.feedroom.com/podcast/t_assets/20101201/20101201_wi_taleb_v2_4R4R.mp3?_kip_ipx=1899310534-1292270256&site=economist&cid=8a2059e9ac993b05e749291542c9e65bda3af5bf&sid=aa1673b717ddf9ab1224978f57f5481f9389add3&pid=b259c6502b63364ec8e8ea81816d7d0ab9139b7c http://downloads.economist.feedroom.com/podcast/t_assets/201...

peterwwillis 16y ago
I'm pretty young and uneducated (which means don't listen to anything I say), but it seems to me that wars are profitable. Arms and heavy vehicle manufacturers create jobs which stimulate our economy, and the foreign nations and international banks that control our debt get to dig a little deeper in our pockets. It sort of helps everyone but the enemy. After the war we get more money by "winning" contracts to rebuild what we've blown up - but slower and more inefficiently than is necessary, with lots of extra cash mysteriously disappearing once it reaches foreign soil (the equivalent of a CEO bonus, but instead for CIA and whoever else need a payday for ensuring the war goes off without a hitch). But I could be wrong. (Also, what's the alternative to the Dollar and Euro? Micro-economies? Maybe an economy built out of dealing with a massive number of differing currencies and economies?)
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  You're committing one of the oldest and most common Economic fallacies, the "Broken Window Fallacy". Bastiat's "That which is seen and that which is not seen"[1] or Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" would help clear up your confusion, or just a good treatment of the Broken Window Fallacy[2]. [1]http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html [2]http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fal...