Wikipedia donation page .. lolz
- Thread starter Marketcake
- Start date
Gave 25$ to post this,
Wikipedia actually came to mind on that "what couldn't you live without" thread. Unbelievably useful.
Wikipedia actually came to mind on that "what couldn't you live without" thread. Unbelievably useful.
There was a comment about this on the Mises blog this weekend.
Wikipedia is great for non-controversial information.
Anything controversial (religion, politics, politicized science) is susceptible to bureaucracy, censorship and extreme bias.
It is overall more good than bad, but in some cases (like the climate nut who made thousands of edits to articles to make them pro-AGW) can be abused.
The founder, Jimmy Wales, was influenced by Hayek and his ideas about the decentralization of knowledge, which is necessary to have markets and capitalism. Local individual knowledge, acting together through spontaneous order creates complex structures that cannot be duplicated by council or decree. In other words, it is not possible to plan a Wikipedia. The only way to create a knowledge base that big and dynamic is to utilize thousands/millions of anonymous, independent editors.
Because that is what a society is. The collection of all of the individual knowledge and experiences, shaping and directing the flow of activity. Bottom up.
Zimok, you might find Hayek an interesting read.
The Use of Knowledge in Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia is great for non-controversial information.
Anything controversial (religion, politics, politicized science) is susceptible to bureaucracy, censorship and extreme bias.
It is overall more good than bad, but in some cases (like the climate nut who made thousands of edits to articles to make them pro-AGW) can be abused.
The founder, Jimmy Wales, was influenced by Hayek and his ideas about the decentralization of knowledge, which is necessary to have markets and capitalism. Local individual knowledge, acting together through spontaneous order creates complex structures that cannot be duplicated by council or decree. In other words, it is not possible to plan a Wikipedia. The only way to create a knowledge base that big and dynamic is to utilize thousands/millions of anonymous, independent editors.
Because that is what a society is. The collection of all of the individual knowledge and experiences, shaping and directing the flow of activity. Bottom up.
Zimok, you might find Hayek an interesting read.
The Use of Knowledge in Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since I should be asleep and I am not, and I don't have a personal blog to ramble on, I'll finish this thought.
I sometimes wonder if I look for socialism and capitalism, or collectivism and individualism in everything, and impose them on situations and activities because I am biased to do so.
But I think I am right that Hayek's argument was essentially against the planned economy, the central planners, bureaucrats and apparatchiks (Rand's second hand dealers).
Hayek and Mises (his mentor) knew that socialism could not work, and from the 30s through the 70s, while the academics and state intellectuals insisted that communism and socialism were the grandest of systems, and would conquer the world economically, these two giants of philosophy and economics were marginalized and ignored by the Paul Krugmans of their time.
And then one day, the systems collapsed. And when the walls fell, we had a look into those countries that had centralization of knowledge (Warsaw Pact, USSR). They did not have markets, they did not leverage the individual knowledge of each citizen, and so these supposedly powerful economies (based on the Ivy League and Berkley lies) were really 2 or 3 decades behind the west, where free people were allowed to build the homes they want, listen to the music they want, and to keep the fruits of their labor.
So it is a magical thing, Wikipedia. They still haven't solved the bureaucratic issues completely, but such an institution is based on the very thing that makes peaceful interaction and ever increasing prosperity possible.
Freedom.
I sometimes wonder if I look for socialism and capitalism, or collectivism and individualism in everything, and impose them on situations and activities because I am biased to do so.
But I think I am right that Hayek's argument was essentially against the planned economy, the central planners, bureaucrats and apparatchiks (Rand's second hand dealers).
Hayek and Mises (his mentor) knew that socialism could not work, and from the 30s through the 70s, while the academics and state intellectuals insisted that communism and socialism were the grandest of systems, and would conquer the world economically, these two giants of philosophy and economics were marginalized and ignored by the Paul Krugmans of their time.
And then one day, the systems collapsed. And when the walls fell, we had a look into those countries that had centralization of knowledge (Warsaw Pact, USSR). They did not have markets, they did not leverage the individual knowledge of each citizen, and so these supposedly powerful economies (based on the Ivy League and Berkley lies) were really 2 or 3 decades behind the west, where free people were allowed to build the homes they want, listen to the music they want, and to keep the fruits of their labor.
So it is a magical thing, Wikipedia. They still haven't solved the bureaucratic issues completely, but such an institution is based on the very thing that makes peaceful interaction and ever increasing prosperity possible.
Freedom.
YES BUT...[1]
Hayek’s contribution to the socialist calculation debate is best seen as an enrichment of ideas that were implicit in Von Mises famous assertion that is was impossible for a socialist economy to match the productive performance of the market owing to its inability to calculate (Mises, 1920). The Misesian argument was that in the wake of the abolition of private property exchange, government planners would be unable to make calculations of economic value owing to the absence of relative resource prices. Seen in this light, the economic problem is not merely a ‘technical’ issue of discovering which goods can be produced under existing technology. Rather, the problem is primarily one of deciding which goods should be produced and how in light of conflicting individual preferences and multitude alternatives for the use of the same production inputs. Without access to market prices for competing inputs and outputs decision-makers lack the capacity to determine which of all the possible combinations of resource uses should be adopted. According to Von Mises, such information could only be generated through the exchange of private property rights in the means of production and since market exchange relationships and hence relative prices would be abolished under the classical socialist model, rational calculation of economic value would thus become impossible.
FURTHERMORE...[2]
Hayek considered Von Mises argument to constitute a decisive objection against socialist theory since it made no assumptions about the motivations of decision-makers. It did not, for example, assume that individuals were insufficiently altruistic and lacking the necessary incentives under socialism but maintained that in the absence of market prices even the most public spirited of planners would lack the information to allocate resources in the appropriate way. Nonetheless, Hayek sought to clarify and extend what has become known as the ‘Austrian’ critique of planning, owing to erroneous implications drawn from the socialist side of the argument.
IN CLOSING:[3]
Initial commentaries on the socialist calculation debate suggested that the proponents of ‘market socialism’ had refuted Von Mises position. Oscar Lange in particular, conceded Mises point about the necessity for economic calculation in any social system, but maintained that if the conditions underlying the orthodox neo-classical model pertained, then planners would be able to allocate resources by arriving at an appropriate set of ‘accounting prices’ (Lange 1936 a and b). Under conditions of perfect information/perfect competition, where knowledge of production possibilities, consumer preferences and hence relative resource scarcities is objectively given, the same information used by market participants would also be available to government planners. Planners therefore, could perform the function of the ‘Walrasian auctioneer’ adjusting prices up or down until equilibrium was achieved. In this manner a socially optimal allocation of resources could be realised by instructing plant managers what to produce and by setting prices so that marginal revenues equalled marginal costs. Indeed, for Lange such procedures would be more efficient than a system based on private property, because ‘real world’ markets do not meet the criterion of perfect competition and require the complex paraphernalia of contract which would not be necessary under a government administered system.
...
[1][2][3]"YES, BUT", "FURTHERMORE", and "IN CLOSING" (c) 2009 Roundabout. No part of this text may be used without permission or consent of author.
Of course, imposing such ideas due to personal bias does not mean doing so is out of place. I do the same with emotionalism and logic. Every argument, whether it is focused on ethics, religion, relationships, or commerce, is filtered through that lens - and judged accordingly.
It's funny how some ideas which where thought about way before, for something completely unrelated, exposes the core truth of new systems.
The great minds always transcend the fiction imposed authority, their minds eye wandering where others are see only darkness. Discovering all encompassing ideas that empower other humans not influenced by dogma.
We might of had another Wikipedia if it wasn't for Jimmy Wales, but he was the visionary who implemented the light which he had seen in Hayek's mind.
Thanks for sharing!
I lol'd. Good research though. Mises Socialist Calculation argument enabled him to make predictions that are still coming true, when most of his contemporaries have been thoroughly refuted. If one stops to understand the argument (it is pretty simple), the ramifications on social organization are big.
You're right. Maybe it's just me, but I constantly marvel at what the internet has brought us and may bring us in the future.
Blessed are the creative and inspired.
You're welcome. I could have PM'd you, but there are a few people around here who are aware of Mises/Hayek and their ideas, whom I thought might get something out of it as well.
I donated 5 bucks but didn't realize I could make a comment about dryhumping databases or suicide :'(
