Wallerstein's idea of how capitalism hates competition and seeks rent explains a lot, and by looking at the past, we can imagine how, with new technology, it will repeat itself. He is right, provided the social system does not evolve as described by Mark Pagel in Wired for Culture. When you look at evolution and complex adaptive systems, change does not happen from the top down but from small changes in how agents interact.
All the profit in today's capitalism goes to the owner of Capital, which is negative reciprocity. We know the system must become unstable, as economic exchanges that give one side an advantage will lead to a Zipf distribution in wealth and an inefficient financial system.
A social evolution that replaces negative reciprocity with balanced reciprocity is for producers to share future profits with the customers who supply the money to make the profit. Contact me if you would like a ready-made research proposal where the funds will come from a group of financial institutions suffering at the hands of predatory capitalism headed by our Reserve Bank.
Wallerstein acknowledges the issue of the wealth gap that exists both within and between nations. However, it is incorrect to assume that there is only a 50-50 chance of a transformative change.
The solution lies with businesses and governments that generate profits sharing those profits with their customers. This approach would not only preserve profits and the "magic" of capital, but it would spread the increase in wealth more equitably throughout society.
Competition and markets would still be preserved, and wealth would compound, not just money. Currently, our system primarily increases the amount of money, rather than investing in productive assets that bring about more efficient use of resources. Tomorrow, by sharing profits with customers, we can achieve a normal distribution of wealth, instead of a Poisson distribution, which will enhance productivity.
The book oversimplifies and Cherry Picks limited survivorship evidence from ancient sources.
The result of this is a mythology of history, not a useful lens or model for looking at historic events (other "big history" books of this genre are useful because they might be "the history of oil", or "the history of the shipping container", which provide perspectives and framing).
Sapiens does none of this. It is an unfalsifiable revision of ancient history that serves as a narrative to affirm existing biases of those who praise it (loudly). A full Straussian reading would likely uncover implicit messages.
I am able to provide examples for each of these points.
Okay. That’s a very high level. Anything more specific? I of course have some specific issues with every book, but it doesn’t mean that each book can still be worth reading for it many useful insights.
Wallerstein's idea of how capitalism hates competition and seeks rent explains a lot, and by looking at the past, we can imagine how, with new technology, it will repeat itself. He is right, provided the social system does not evolve as described by Mark Pagel in Wired for Culture. When you look at evolution and complex adaptive systems, change does not happen from the top down but from small changes in how agents interact.
All the profit in today's capitalism goes to the owner of Capital, which is negative reciprocity. We know the system must become unstable, as economic exchanges that give one side an advantage will lead to a Zipf distribution in wealth and an inefficient financial system.
A social evolution that replaces negative reciprocity with balanced reciprocity is for producers to share future profits with the customers who supply the money to make the profit. Contact me if you would like a ready-made research proposal where the funds will come from a group of financial institutions suffering at the hands of predatory capitalism headed by our Reserve Bank.
In terms of my own economic enlightenment post university study
I recommend Debt: The First 5000 Years by David Graeber
He was an anthropologist too although less rigid than Wallerstein appears to be
Wallerstein acknowledges the issue of the wealth gap that exists both within and between nations. However, it is incorrect to assume that there is only a 50-50 chance of a transformative change.
Some of the super-rich understand the issue and what needs to be done, but they lack the knowledge, and desire to do it. It is up to customers to force the change. https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_the_dirty_secret_of_capitalism_and_a_new_way_forward?utm_campaign=tedspread&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare
The solution lies with businesses and governments that generate profits sharing those profits with their customers. This approach would not only preserve profits and the "magic" of capital, but it would spread the increase in wealth more equitably throughout society.
Competition and markets would still be preserved, and wealth would compound, not just money. Currently, our system primarily increases the amount of money, rather than investing in productive assets that bring about more efficient use of resources. Tomorrow, by sharing profits with customers, we can achieve a normal distribution of wealth, instead of a Poisson distribution, which will enhance productivity.
Lost credibility at the non-ironic endorsement of Sapiens. Are you kidding me?
What's wrong with that book?
The book oversimplifies and Cherry Picks limited survivorship evidence from ancient sources.
The result of this is a mythology of history, not a useful lens or model for looking at historic events (other "big history" books of this genre are useful because they might be "the history of oil", or "the history of the shipping container", which provide perspectives and framing).
Sapiens does none of this. It is an unfalsifiable revision of ancient history that serves as a narrative to affirm existing biases of those who praise it (loudly). A full Straussian reading would likely uncover implicit messages.
I am able to provide examples for each of these points.
Okay. That’s a very high level. Anything more specific? I of course have some specific issues with every book, but it doesn’t mean that each book can still be worth reading for it many useful insights.
Can I see an abstract?