Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[a500lbgorilla]

Markets are like evolution.

No.

There is a distinct difference between systems with rules that change over time.



Rules-bound behavioral systems that change over time, like the meta game of poker for instance.

And actual natural evolution.

Science is the same way. We don't judge a field based on some experiments that didn't go our way.

Because they're a science, practicing the scientific method. Every experiment moves a scientific field forward. Economics is not a science, though.

[wufwugy]

No.

There is a distinct difference between systems with rules that change over time.



Rules-bound behavioral systems that change over time, like the meta game of poker for instance.

And actual natural evolution.



Because they're a science, practicing the scientific method. Every experiment moves a scientific field forward. Economics is not a science, though.

Markets are like this.

I think perhaps you're not understanding why I compare markets to evolution. Evolution is a process of variants within populations being selected for over time. The market is a process of variants within populations being selected for over time.

I'm confused on why you seem to disagree with this, so I don't have much more I can say.

[a500lbgorilla]

Markets are like this.

I think perhaps you're not understanding why I compare markets to evolution. Evolution is a process of variants within populations being selected for over time. The market is a process of variants within populations being selected for over time.

I'm confused on why you seem to disagree with this, so I don't have much more I can say.

Evolution is. Our explanation and understanding of Evolution is very strong. You can look into the furthest reaches of the biological world and find that we're close on the money. And our understanding of how it works in an incredible testament to what happens when brilliant minds with a lot of information apply the scientific method.

When you talk about markets, you aren't talking on the same level. I've made this point a dozen times in a dozen different ways. What you're talking about is some imagined system that has rules for how every step will unfold. Rules like, people will allocate their money based on their preferences and so each person will allocate his surplus of work to another whose work they need and will keep it from another whose work they don't need. And so the system will grow those works that are needed and shrink those works that are not.

What that is is playing imagination games with rules, it is not anywhere close to the same plane as what happens when people discuss the mechanism of evolution.

The first link I shared shows how you can craft rules to make systems 'evolve', the second was an example of how people playing under the constraints of rules can evolve (which is where markets fit in), and both of them are a far cry from natural evolution and our understanding of it.

Basically, the thing you're missing is how hard it is to be right. How hard it is to guess the future.

[wufwugy]

Evolution is. Our explanation and understanding of Evolution is very strong. You can look into the furthest reaches of the biological world and find that we're close on the money. And our understanding of how it works in an incredible testament to what happens when brilliant minds with a lot of information apply the scientific method.

When you talk about markets, you aren't talking on the same level. I've made this point a dozen times in a dozen different ways. What you're talking about is some imagined system that has rules for how every step will unfold. Rules like, people will allocate their money based on their preferences and so each person will allocate his surplus of work to another whose work they need and will keep it from another whose work they don't need. And so the system will grow those works that are needed and shrink those works that are not.

What that is is playing imagination games with rules, it is not anywhere close to the same plane as what happens when people discuss the mechanism of evolution.

The first link I shared shows how you can craft rules to make systems 'evolve', the second was an example of how people playing under the constraints of rules can evolve (which is where markets fit in), and both of them are a far cry from natural evolution and our understanding of it.

Basically, the thing you're missing is how hard it is to be right. How hard it is to guess the future.

People don't want evolutionary biology to be predictive, but they do want economics to be predictive. None of the "guessing of the future" matters with my analogy to evolution. If it did, I wouldn't make the comparison in the first place. The comparison I'm making is when you step back and look at how the entire system functions on a philosophic level. They both are about competition of variants that are selected for by their environments.

[a500lbgorilla]

People don't want evolutionary biology to be predictive, but they do want economics to be predictive. None of the "guessing of the future" matters with my analogy to evolution. If it did, I wouldn't make the comparison in the first place. The comparison I'm making is when you step back and look at how the entire system functions on a philosophic level. They both are about competition of variants that are selected for by their environments.

Yes, on a philosophical level, what you're doing is playing imagination games with rules. These rules-based systems change over time. You don't gotta bring evolution into this.

[wufwugy]

Yes, on a philosophical level, what you're doing is playing imagination games with rules. These rules-based systems change over time. You don't gotta bring evolution into this.

But I do because it suggests that markets are the same type of thing as something else that is widely accepted. That doesn't give markets veracity, but it does provide perspective about them.

I remember thinking "the way people are saying markets organize looks to me to be the same way species organize, so since the way it is said that species organize is true, maybe I should rethink my discarding of markets".

[a500lbgorilla]

But I do because it suggests that markets are the same type of thing as something else that is widely accepted. That doesn't give markets veracity, but it does provide perspective about them.

I remember thinking "the way people are saying markets organize looks to me to be the same way species organize, so since the way it is said that species organize is true, maybe I should rethink my discarding of markets".

Yes, my point exactly. And when you look at the reasons to accept evolution versus the reason to accept markets, one is left desperately wanting.

And I contend that in a rhetorical sense, it does try to give them unearned veracity.