(highlight:: The Non-Rival and Social Nature of Data
Summary:
Data is non-rival, inherently relational, and social.
The public-private divide heavily influences the consideration of data. It's not just about more data is better; the type of data and the way we conceive and regulate it are crucial.
Enormous market forces pose a challenge in reconfiguring the use of data.
Transcript:
Speaker 2
We think of data as property, and yet data is non rival. It's inherently relational. It's social. I'm thinking about lowis hyde's history of the commons, eir his book where he talks about the enclosures of first the forest in which everyone hunts, and then the intellectual commons. And then there's he speculative third sure of the commons. And clearly, the public private divide is something that bears heavily in these considerations. So clearly, it's not just more data is better, it's what kind of data, and then how are we conceiving of it, how are we thinking about it? What metaphors are more appropriate to use? And then how can we go about actually regulating this? Because the fact is that we have enormous market forces that are on a runaway tear. And it's not clear to me that it's an easy thing to re configure the way that we imagine the use of these metrics.)
- Time 0:14:37
- data, information, snipddont-post,

(highlight:: Value is Determined Not Just By Price, But Also Its Power and Problem Solving Potential
Summary:
Software differs from the physical world in its ability to rapidly organize and meet needs.
Brian Arthur highlighted the recombinant nature of value creation in technology, where experimentation and organizational changes occur at a fast pace. This contrasts with the slower processes in the physical or social world.
Software evolution generates value at a faster rate and with negligible replication costs, leading to new concentrations of power.
This evolution is not accurately reflected by market prices alone, and it's essential to consider its impact on power dynamics and society's problem-solving capabilities.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
And the thing about softwher that's different than much of the physical world is that organizing of things to meet your needs can happen at a much, much faster pace. And rate mac brian arthur of sanapa institute wrote some very profound things about this in his nature of technology, that all value creation processes are thes kind of recombinent, Evolutionary processes of experimentation, trying different forms of organization and mortar. And in the physical or social worldthos processes happen relatively slowly. But in the world of soft work, they can happen incredibly quickly. And the process of replication is essentially zero, zero cost. And one way to interpret what's going on in tech is that it's evolving value in a different and faster way than we've seen in the more physically based economy that we've had previously. And that looking at market prices alone is not a necessarily good indication of what's going on there. And this evolution is creating new concentrations of power, just as dian was saying, and that looking at it through the lens of power is just as important as looking at it the lens of a Price. And also looking at it through the lens of, know, what kinds of problems is it solving for society, versus what kinds of problems is it creating?)
- Time 0:19:17
- economics, power, price, problem_solving, value, snipddont-post,

(highlight:: High Network Complexity and Interdependence Can Contrbute to Low System Resilience
Summary:
As networks grow in scale and complexity, interdependencies can lead to complexity catastrophes, gridlock, maladaptation, cascades, and fragilities.
These effects can cause non-linear impacts, unravel the network, and hinder the system's ability to move, change, or adapt. The economy has evolved through human cooperation, leading to the development of interconnected networks such as businesses, cities, societies, supply chains, and knowledge communities over time.
The increase in the scale of cooperation has been driven by economies of scale and economies of knowledge, as complex knowledge requires diversity and scale.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
But the complex system's perspective gives us another view on this that, at least to me, looks more consistent with the real world, that as networks grow, both in scale and complexity, These interdependencies, just as dian was describing in supply chains, but they also exist in other networks, in physical inerconstructue networks, social networks, financial Networks and so on. You know, you get these effects whereas it s f iand sometimes are called complexity catastrophes, where no ander dependencies get so interdependent that you get a kind of grid lock, Where the system just can't move or change or adapt, and then it becomes mal adapted to its environment. Or you get the situations where you have these cascades and fragilities in the network, where, just as diana was describing in supply chains, you know, a small change or vulnerability Can ever in a non lineer effects, causing the network to unravel in some way. And if we sume back one way to think about the economy as it's been a many thousands of years kind of interplay between forces of human co operation, which have built up these networks Of businesses and cities and societies and supply chains and knowledge communities and so on over time. And driving force of that increase of our scale of cooperation has been notjious economies of scale, which are but also really economies of knowledge. That creating complex knowledge requires lots of diversity and lots of scale. Think of the knowledge that goes into making modern jet aircraft or the space station, or an iphon or something.)
- Time 0:24:56
- snipddont-post, network_resilience, network_catastrophes, network_failures, network_complexity, network_interdependence, network_adaptability, large-scale_cooperation,

(highlight:: The driving force of cooperation and the challenge of exploitative strategies
Summary:
The increase in scale of cooperation is driven by economies of scale and knowledge, as complex knowledge requires diversity and scale.
However, this growth in cooperation is challenged by competition, issues of free riding, and exploitative strategies. While the macro trend shows increasing cooperation over time, there are also periods of collapse and retrenchment.
The current period may be seen as one of those phases, resembling the unravelling of globalized production as discussed in Joseph Tainter's book on the collapse of complex societies.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
And driving force of that increase of our scale of cooperation has been notjious economies of scale, which are but also really economies of knowledge. That creating complex knowledge requires lots of diversity and lots of scale. Think of the knowledge that goes into making modern jet aircraft or the space station, or an iphon or something. And the competition between that growth in scale and that works in co operation, but also versus competition within that and also issues of pree riding and bad s and so on. Whole game theory in literature about how co operation can be undermined by certain exploittive strategies. And so even though the macro trend has been increasing scale of cooperation over very long periods of time, that we do have these periods of collapse and retrenchment and unravelling As well. Y one could look at the current airor and think that were unfortunately in one of those phases at the moment. Just the other day, about that wonderful joseph tainter book about the collapse of complex societies, which came to mind just thinking about the unravelling of the globalized production World that wesaw grow from the 19 eighties on wars, it feels very quiet.)
- Time 0:26:07
-

(highlight:: The Complexity of Trust in Global Transactions
Summary:
Trust in global transactions has been sustained despite the complex system of relationships involved.
Decentralization alone may not solve the trust problem as authentication and trust are still needed. Trust has both a software and hardware component, with interpersonal relationships forming the software, and the ability to transact with strangers forming a key step in human development.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
I don't have an easy answer to that, but i would observe that actually, we know that we've had a very high level of trust because we've had these global transactions going on, where as An individual by something on line that's going to be delivered from somebody you don't know in vienam, and we have managed to sustain that very complex system of relationships of trust That made that possible. So i think part of the question is, what you think the problem is, the problem that's breaking down, and we want to re create it in some way? It's not obvious to me that decentralization per se solves the problem, because you've still got to have trust at the end going in. There's still some authentication tats needed at some point in that chain. So i don't have an easy answer, because i think we need to specify much more carefully what we think the trust problem is. And there are men, alina, many, many examples of high trust activities going on, but that small scale. But all so globee, can i was a way of not answering the question. Eri, hahah, well, you know, one can think of trust as having kind of both a softwar and a hardware component to it. And the soft ware starts with our intuitive behaviors and norms. And those evolved over a very long period of time. Is a human sir a social species. And so, you know, our titus circles of trust tend to be with our friends and family and people that we know personally. And that kind of softwar of interpersonal relationships can work. But, you know, a keystep in human development is what the economist paul sebright likes to call being in the company of strangers that we can transact and trust. You know, is ian said, to know somebody on the other side of the world we've never met before.)
- Time 0:28:21
-

(highlight:: The "Software" and "Hardware" of Trust
Transcript:
Speaker 1
One can think of trust as having kind of both a softwar and a hardware component to it. And the soft ware starts with our intuitive behaviors and norms. And those evolved over a very long period of time. Is a human sir a social species. And so, you know, our titus circles of trust tend to be with our friends and family and people that we know personally. And that kind of softwar of interpersonal relationships can work. But, you know, a keystep in human development is what the economist paul sebright likes to call being in the company of strangers that we can transact and trust. You know, is ian said, to know somebody on the other side of the world we've never met before. And it was a set of social technologies creating the hardware side of whether that's laws, institutions, practices, money banking, or the more modern form it, coin, for example. And there's been a long history of innovation of those mechanisms that have expanded those networks of trust. But they all have an inherent fragility to them in that theyr emergent phenomena, they kind of require every one to believe in them. Now, if everyone believes in the law, believes in money, it works. But if enough people stop believing in that, then it all kinds of collapsesan.)
- Time 0:29:18
- trust_economics, social_constructs, imagined_orders, trust_networks, trust,
- [note::Reminds me of the concept of "imagined orders" in Sapiens]

(highlight:: The Ontological Stack That Underlies Our Current Economic System
Summary:
Our current economic system is based on an ontological stack, which is a layered set of interconnected philosophical concepts.
At the foundation is the principle of maximizing individual human happiness, leading to the belief that human actions are driven by the pursuit of pleasure. This forms the basis for economic models, which in turn shape our understanding of how markets work and how to maximize societal welfare.
This leads to the development of policies and measurement metrics like GDP.
At the top of the stack are narratives or memes that influence societal beliefs, like the famous 'greed is good' line from the 1987 movie 'Wall Street'.
The coherence of this ontological stack contributes to the difficulty of shifting to a new economic paradigm, requiring the construction of an equally coherent and practical alternative.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
Well, this idea of an ontological stack sounds likeafery, sort of obscure philosophical concept. It's actually pretty straightforward. So, you know, our ontology, or set of concepts and language and ideas that help us kind of define and understand our world and what's in that ontology plays a big part as to how we see the World and how we act and behave in it. And in our economic ontology. Over the past couple of centuries, we've built up, when i call this kind of stack, or like a layer cake of ideas. They all sort of connect into each other. And so starting at the very bottom, are a set of philosophical concepts rooted in utilitarian ethics, in philosophy about human tgo in essence, is to maximize individual human happiness. And the goal of society is to maximize the happiness or utility for the most people. This was o bentham, jeremy bentham's big principle and philosophy, this is called a hidonic view, because it's focused on this idea of happiness or utility. And then economists, cind of got in the picture and created a set of ideas in models, building off of that, where they viewed humans as driven, are motivated by this idea of maximizing Individual pleasure orr happiness, and that is the key to understanding human action. And then we step up another level in the stack, to the level of a system. You put a bunch of happiness, pleasure maximizing humans together in something like a market, and you get, you know, a set of results about how markets work, and how markets, you maximize The welfare of society. And then you keep going up the stack to a set of normative mensive know, what does that mean we should do in terms of policies that maximize that? Well, parpos society. And then you go up to the top. Well, how should we measure, is society getting better or worse? And that brings us to concepts like tt p. And then finally, at the very very top of this act, you get a set of narratives or means about how society works, or should work. My favorite example of that is from the the 19 eighties movie wall street. The protag says, greed is good. Nd, so that's an exampleof a mem one could interpret out of this system. And what i argue is that one of the reasons why we haven't had as much success yet as we like in shifting to a new way of thinking, a new paradimes, we haven't kind of built as coherent a stack. But the existing system, thought, for all its flaws and critiques we've thrown ot, it, has this wonderful coherence to it, that all the pieces kind of do fit together. And to in the constructing of a new paradime. And sam and wendy have written about this as well. We need to start figuring out how to put the pieces together into something that's equally coherent and also can be used in a practical sense in the real world, just as the models and concepts And data and metrics like g d p and so on had a big impact in our world.)
- Time 0:36:22
- hedonism, utilitarianism, ontological_stacks, intellectual_ontologies, capitalism, economic_systems, systemic_change, intellectual_progress, societal_progress,

Shaping Free Markets By Introducing Publicly Funded Organizations (Like The BBC
Summary:
The BBC's distinctive publicly funded model with an independent governance structure has led to its high trust and quality standards.
Unlike commercial broadcasters, the BBC prioritizes quality and impartiality over advertising revenue or viewership numbers. Introducing a similar model in other markets, like social media, could shift the dynamics by prioritizing truth and democratic accountability over click maximization for advertising revenue.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
So i like markets. I ikno'm a very conventionally trained economist. D, i think markets can do some good things, but they need to be shaped. And the idea here is to think about how the b b c has shaped the markets in which it operates. It's the most trusted institution in the country. It's perhaps the most trusted in the world, highly trusted, particularly for its news. It has a very distinctive model in the british taxpayers fundit, and there is a governond structure that keeps it independent from government. So it's not a state broadcaster, but it's publicly funded and in some sense, publicly owned broadcaster. And that different business model means that it's not in the business of trying to maximize advertising revenue or maximizing number roviewers per programme, because that what makes The money for many commercial broadcasters. Soits a different kind of beast. And introducing a different kind of beast into a commercial market which is thriving, has meant that competition occurs in different ways than it would if you only had the one business Model. And it's about quality. It's about standards of impartiality and truth and news, as well as making things that are really popular, so lots people want to watch them. And so the analogy with social media is that actually part of the reason they're so toxic is that they've all got the same model, and they're competing against each other to maximize A number of cliques, cause that gets inthe advertising dollars. What would happen if we introduced a different kind of body with a completely different business model and set of principles, which was about maximizing truth or maximizing democratic Accountability? And what would the institution of framework arand that look like? As certain as i can be that if we had that kind of thing, it would change the dynamics of some of the online markets,)
- Time 0:40:27
-

Markets = Ecologies: You Need A Good Balance of Plants (Public Orgs) and Animals (Private Orgs
Summary:
The traditional economic framing of markets and states as competing institutions is misconceived.
An alternative view sees them as mutually interdependent and interacting institutions that should collectively serve the public good and human well-being. The focus should be on how they interact to create a healthy ecology, akin to needing both plants and animals in a healthy ecology.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
I think dian's proposal that we need a structure that flips this model around so it's actually serving people and society is absoluty right. The b b c is one great model, but there are in a variety of models for dealing with economic institutions that have negative characteristics. I just left o the free market, and where we need them to serve a social purpose. And it doesn't, if stience ay, it doesn't automatically mean it's understate control or anything like that. There are ways that these things can be structured. If we sume out just a bit wider, we can also say that the traditional economic framing of markets in states is being these kind of competing institutions, is also just very misconceived. You know, the sort of standard view is that we've got this big trade off between markets, which are ent and so on, in states, which are interfering and inefficient. And state action is only justified for very narrow cases of market failure, ord creating public goods and so on. An alternative view, af bet more of an s f i view, is this is an eqology of institutions that are mutually interdependent and interacting, but collectively should be no serving the public Good in human well being. And asking, do you prefer o states marketsor which is better or worse? Ono vigaacologyits asking, should we have plants or animals? Well, no, you need bolk in a healthy acology. But the question is, how they're interacting to create a healthy acology.)
- Time 0:43:00
-

(highlight:: Human Flourishing & Welfare: The Individual View and the Complexity/Systems View
Summary:
The classical liberal tradition emphasized the idea of moral equality, stating that every human life is of equal value.
However, extreme libertarians overlook the fact that society is not just a linear sum of individual happiness and rights. The complexity/systems view suggests that society also has emergent properties, leading to the creation of healthy or unhealthy societies, which significantly impact individual lives and opportunities.
Therefore, society welfare and individual welfare are interconnected in a dynamic, emergent system, shaping arrangements that enable human flourishing.
Transcript:
Speaker 1
Well, it may be just to kick things off on this, again, i think the debate between kind ofa libertarian, individualistic view and more silent view is another one of these no false dicodomies Or false debates what i would think of as the classical liberal tradition o individual rights. And essentially, the great break through of the classical liberals was this idea of moral inow, that we all have an equal right to a good light, and that every human life is of equal value, Which was a pretty radical statement at the time. And that is foundational belief in value of western society. But where the kind of extreme libertarians get a wrong is that society is not just a kind of linear adding up of everybody's iindividual happiness of rights. And this is where the s f i perspective comes in. There is also his emergent property, when we're all interacting and doing our thing in a society, that you can have good and bad societies, or healthy or unhealthy societies. And what's happening at that emergent level of society then feeds back and very dramatically affects the course of individual lives and happiness and opportunities to fulfil one's Potential. So again, it isn't a question of society welfare or individual welfare in its understanding. These things fit together in a dynamic, emergeant system and create a set of arrangements that enable human flourishing is what's called the udemonic respectiv.)
- Time 0:45:28
-