There is something there but I’m wary of directly deriving political and spiritual from economic and material.
Like I said I think the former has an independent foundation and process character that must be modeled separately and then coupled in.
Conversation
"must be modeled separately and then coupled in" - but that's exactly what futarchy does.
1
1
Sounds like it suggests a coupling *mechanism* (betting on beliefs) but does not model or design for belief processes per se. This is what I think models like those of Fukuyama achieve that those of economists generally do not, or do so in a caricatured way.
1
Yes, what we need are good mechanisms, not models.
1
I disagree. We need both and and at all 3 loci: economics, politics, and the coupling between them. Otherwise you just create runaway choice pressure and mechanisms that collapse under the weight of choice complexity.
1
I read your words, but just don't understand what you mean.
2
3
I’m fine being misunderstood/not understood/dismissed as incoherent or nonsensical for long periods by most people. I’m like Amazon that way.
Perhaps we’ll discover common ground some day in the future to discuss this more 🙂
1
3
I'm open to a direct voice or video conversation. Text is much worse medium for getting past lack of understanding.
1
5
Thanks for the offer, perhaps I’ll take you up on it if this line of thought develops much more seriously for me. For the moment I need to continue in a lightweight conversational mode with those who intuitively get what I’m driving at here.
4
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Replying to
That’s ok. My own rate never tops 10%. I usually understand what I’m saying only 5 years later.

