Some folk are arriving here and commenting on the amount of ideological/philosophical posts on the forum.
How about a ‘Philosophy’ category to clearly separate personal viewpoints from all things SAFE?
I’d also be for splitting out Economics, Politics and Media from the Strategy Category
i.e rename ‘Strategy’ to ‘Community Strategy’ and create a new Category for ‘Economics and Politics’
If any of this is appropriate a recategorizing of existing posts?
So in summary:
1/ Remove Economics, Politics and Media from ‘Strategy’
2/ Rename ‘Strategy’ to ‘Community Strategy’
3/ Create ‘Philosophy’ or ‘Personal Philosophy’
4/ Create ‘Economics and Politics’
** Edit: I can see however that ‘Community Strategy’ might look a little long compared to the other Tags. Maybe just splitting out the other topics would be enough.
Economics really needs to stand alone for the dog it is i.e The owners decide something, the government pretends to debate it and then unleashes it on the people as Economics.
Moral Philosophy ->Political Economy ->Economics->New Economics → False Science ?
Political economy was the original term used for studying production and trade, and their relations with law, custom, and government, as well as with the distribution of national income and wealth. Political economy originated in moral philosophy. It was developed in the 18th century as the study of the economies of states, or polities, hence the term political economy.
In the late 19th century, the term economics came to replace political economy, coinciding with the publication of an influential textbook by Alfred Marshall in 1890. Earlier, William Stanley Jevons, a proponent of mathematical methods applied to the subject, advocated economics for brevity and with the hope of the term becoming “the recognised name of a science.”
Today, political economy, where it is not used as a synonym for economics, may refer to very different things, including Marxian analysis, applied public-choice approaches emanating from the Chicago school and the Virginia school, or simply the advice given by economists to the government or public on general economic policy or on specific proposals.
A rapidly growing mainstream literature from the 1970s has expanded beyond the model of economic policy in which planners maximize utility of a representative individual toward examining how political forces affect the choice of economic policies, especially as to distributional conflicts and political institutions. It is available as an area of study in certain colleges and universities. Where they don’t teach the truth behind our ‘Debt/Credit based Economy’
I’m not sure Philosophy has the right ring for most people. Technically it might be correct, but it conjures up images of academia, ancient Greece (nice place by the way), or advice on how to live etc. My concern is people not feeling “worthy” or that their topic or contributions “appropriate” to such an auspicious category. Not me though Realise I should post suggestions, but I’m not sure what for now…
You missed a great opportunity to talk about their economic issues and how a safecoin economy could have helped… Heeh! See, that’s economics, politics and philosophy but I do get your point.
Nader put out a recent book “Unstoppable” talking about how to get people with different philosophies to come together and get things done. Sometimes they have shared goals but want to go about them in very different ways. Since means tend to be ends in themselves this can be problematic. Sometimes they find they have the same values but think different approaches will bring about the very problem they are trying to solve.
I felt the ‘free’ market was the problem and its been too unfettered. Some have pointed out that it’s not been free enough and we don’t even know what that would look like. But I think History invalidates this as I think we had almost perfectly free markets at the start of Capitalism with Mercantilism and it was about the worst period in human history. And I think even tended markets fall apart, impose huge externality and lead to oligopoly, or monopoly. I also don’t care about what elites want as a group, to me their skin in the game means they get what everyone else gets- no subsidizing special. But maybe I’ve got it all wrong, I can’t claim any first hand recollection or special insight.
Meta already has an accepted context. It’s meant to discuss the thing of which we’re in (this community/forum). We’re in the Meta category right now! Might cause confusion to reinvent the vernacular.
I think Philosophy is the most accurate. Or just keep that stuff buried in Off-Topic. Seems fine in there.
Philosophy is mostly not pragmatic text; in terms of not pragmatic - it is not immediately actionable insights. Yet philosophy does shape world view, and inspires utilitarian maneuvers.
Regarding economy; I’ve published privately and to university white papers regarding accurate next week currency fluctuations based on near occurring geopolitical events, down to assessing the viability of russian oligarchs’ organized businesses. I have utilitarian knowledge in economics, not the personal philosophical type. And economics has a special place because 98% of economic interactions are quantifiable. There truly is no reason to waste energy in speculative economics. Play with real money, it teaches real economics.
Currently, the forum is mostly philosophy and the reason is due to lack of empirical network interactions. This will all end during the TestNet 2, TestNet 3; when each of us can easily run an implementation of MaidSafe and interact as a Network through self expression beyond text.
When the next TestNets roll out, there might be a good use to separate the actual outcomes and discussions and the philosophical theories to be tested in the next future.
Realise I should post suggestions, but I’m not sure what for now…