我不知道在中西部怎么收听你们的广播。希望我所做的。但你提到“……日益严重的不平等、民粹主义和本土主义的兴起，以及民主制度的衰落……”这似乎与我一直听到的部落主义的兴起是并行的——在我看来，部落主义是由社交媒体和随之而来的社交技能丧失而产生的一种现象。现在，你似乎把这与市场和经济元数据联系起来了——如果我理解正确的话。但是，我要谦虚地指出，原因比市场过度扩张更为复杂。换一种说法(如果不准确的话):如今有很多人不自量力。我很期待这部剧的结局，也很期待对Weyl和公司的设定有更好的理解。
Question: Are the words nativism and tribalism at all interchangeable? Thank you!

After listening to this show, I am left wondering if I missed the definition of what a market is? I'm also wondering if plutocracy and oligarchy are compatible with markets?

Another question I have, is when people independently exchange/barter goods and services outside of the dominant currency system, is this practice considered part of the market discussed in the show? Do economists consider complex monetary communities (communities in which multiple exchange systems are at play--i.e., various forms of cash, barter, gift, credit, from diverse sources of power--are encouraged and actively flourishing) when attempting to assess economic health?

Thanks for your wonderful show!
Mira

自2018年以来，我没有看到任何评论，鉴于我们已经超越了最近的一个时代(我希望)，我必须问:我们真的、真的还处于镀金时代吗?在我看来有很多腐蚀，这是铜的特点。或黄铜。哦，当然，我懂比喻。我们为它而活，为它而活，为它而活，为它而活。然而，隐喻比现实更抽象。尽管你可能已经厌倦了，我还是要重复一遍我的咒语。我不想引用我自己的话:所有的情况可能会决定一件事情是在冷静、阴暗、抽象的阴影中看更好，还是在温暖、明亮的现实之光中看更好。抽象对于“如果”来说是好的。理论物理学喜欢它，因为根据海森堡的理论，存在不确定性。 Reality is better, in it's own rite ( right?) It grasps at ' what really is'. Philosophy struggles with that, because it cannot rely upon mathematics to prove anything it holds dear. Philosophers of math have tried and have proven, more or less ''what really is', mathematically. I am not sure what Godel proved because I cannot grasp the mathematics.
Yes. I know I have rumbled ( grammatical indignance, notwithstanding). Just making some points.
I think, within my own limitations. Not a bad idea...
There have been numerous attempts to find a 'unified theory of everything'. Those, less than the likes of Hawking, tried. I find the task incomprehensible, possibly the sole paradox of the Enlightenment age. However, if something is beyond resolution, it is also beyond paradox...regardless of how enlightened we may become. Hmmmm.

Strange. I don't recall writing the above comments, dated March of this year. Oh well.. This post and
the upcoming show sound more like economics, but if the book mentioned is a representation of a
经济学哲学，我想我明白了。嗯，在一个资本主义社会，(他们说)基于民主治理，我不认为我们会“猛踩刹车”。我们周围都有人要求放松管制。资本主义是一只饥饿的野兽。它长得越大，就越饿。
So, I don't see it. All the controversy over socialism;all the railing against it, further states the problem.
(All of that over a system that would not work here anyway: misdirection and misconstruction...)
Maybe someone will figure it out. Don't count on that...

Market design is a sweet spot for Modern Philosophy. Given Vickrey’s fundamental impact on Google, Facebook, and digital media, this is arguably the philosophical issue of our time.

There’s so much here. Some additional content, a summary or blog, would help. As it is, the show shuffled through many of the ideas in Weyl’s book, and it’s hard to react to everything there without losing the detail. There is devilry with each implementation of Glen’s radical market ideas to make decisions, assign value and rebuild institutions (some assumed or not openly expressed or even understood.) I’m not opposed to change. I see a need for it. I also see Animal Farm all over again with some of these suggested projects.

Liza fleshes out the bottom line premise in the roving reporter piece from Elizabeth Anderson. Free markets have their root in liberal ideology and the rise of the middle class. Glen Weyl is taking that thought and putting this to use to reshape real estate, politics, immigration, anti-trust and personal data. Overall I’m not convinced in every application. Some make me cringe others inspire. Each one is instructive and, in some cases, informative of markets that I don’t think enough about every day.

Philosophy Talk is short-form philosophy. As short as this show is, blog posts are shorter. Radical markets are vital to making good public decisions. Even more fundamental is radical education and parenting. There is a reason Glen finds inspiration in young minds – these are the radical mindsets that can envision the problems and the correct angle of repose from which to build a stair or blast a tunnel.

问题公众、专业知识和创意市场正是本次展览的不足之处。

路易丝的问题暗示的是真的——这本书和概念是集中的，而不是自下而上的思考。然而，它是以个人为中心的，而不是政府、私人利益或学术机构。肯和黛布拉不愿围绕公众问题让决策市场变得激进。两位主持人都把贪婪、不道德和不道德的利益相抗衡的力量描述为能够颠覆格伦和埃里克在这里提出的激进市场。更令人不安的是，两位主持人的热情似乎都与未受过教育的观点一致。情感是智慧的标志，而不是缺乏智慧。在民主软弱无力、受到攻击的当下，这种误解是危险的非民主精神。格伦在这里和他的书中有几个问题陈述。没有什么比打破集权更重要的了，只要权威能找到避风港，而权威总是围绕利润和不平等进行庇护和僵化。

最后，我认为在展览中没有人提到这个问题，Weyl或波斯纳在他们的书中也没有提到，这不仅关系到我们如何提问或制定拍卖规则，而且关系到问题的最初内容。我们在拍卖人吗?房屋吗?机会?如果没有可行的解决方案可供选择，二次投票也不会有任何帮助。问题公众有一个恼人的特点，就是总是指出这一点。Arrow’s impossibility theorem is rooted here along with the changing tide of any market or election in time.

I’m all for radicalizing markets. I see the need for change and the storm on the capital. Let’s shelter the storm with some radical umbrellas, listen to the unknowns, and pay attention to our times and thought.

有一个保险公司的广告。或者是。汽车司机正在唱歌。引擎盖的装饰看起来很眼熟。但是，我不知道它代表什么。别克?林肯吗?德索托吗?在线站点无法提供帮助。没关系,真的。 Hood onaments don't sing, do they? Only in radical markets...

谢谢,蒂姆。我想我没说清楚。或者不怎么好。我读了很多书。我是否挑战别人的思考?当然。我觉得没问题。关注这个博客的人各不相同。他们可能比我有更多(或更少)的时间。很难满足别人的期望。特别是当人们不关心这些是什么时。 We are supposed to entertain many views.
那是一种期望，而不是一种信念;欲望;观点:观点或任何其他的命题态度即使这些观点是错误的，但正如我们所知，它们只是哲学的一个方面。如果我们知道的话……大局，跳出框框，跳出体制。是的。谢谢你,再一次。

Trying to think about this. Whether limiting markets through regulation, or, just letting them do as they have been doing. I don't know if either course is better or best. Nor can I intuit this a in any coherent way. Having asserted that capitalism is hungry and getting hungrier all the time, it appears at least possible that it might reach some economic equivalent of entrophy.---whichever way things go.. Chaotic circumstances are, I think, unpredictable at best. Past volatility in the system, even when forecast by the experts, has sometimes surmounted their hopes and/or fears. I'm not savvy enough to suss this out. And, neither do I know if there IS a solution. My most frequent MO is pragmatism, with a modicum of skepticism thrown in.

Your other post, addressing the question of whether everything should be for sale raised another flag regarding this one, seems to me. Perhaps radical markets could be persuaded to be less radical if people examined their priorities and were more judicious when it comes to buying anything. Supply and demand are interdependent, and, supplies soon dry up when there is no demand for them. One insurance seller nails it by declaring: 'you only pay for whar you need'. So, having thought and said that much, I'll take the next logical leap. We, the consumers, are part of the problem AND at least part of the solution (if it is one).: we gleefully permit ourselves to be swayed by the creation and marketing of the 'next big thing' no matter what that is ;regardless of whether it has any true utility

我们对别人所谓的进步很着迷，却不问“这对我来说是进步吗?”我们在那个角落，把自己放在那里，油漆永远不会干。下次你考虑买一辆新车的时候，想想这个问题，当你把它从停车场开出来的时候，你就会发现它的价值损失了几千美元。价值只是一个空洞的词。不稳定是更好的选择。在我看来，这也适用于激进市场。
.

Could have found a better place to place this remark. I guess. But here it is anyway. Never trust anyone you don't know. And only ten percent of those you do. Why? Well, if we can believe ninety percent of everything is bullshit, then it follows there is only ten percent left. If that. I have found, recently, that trust is in short supply. Harry Frankfurt figured that out. Years ago.

我们正处于镀金时代的说法(或断言)让我有点恼火。我知道，我知道:科学、医学、技术以及现代生活的许多其他方面都远远超出了笛卡尔和牛顿等人出现之前的水平。但我们在河畔城还有很多麻烦。这个博客每天、每月、每年都在继续。我们对自己的进步和成就如此自豪，以至于我们几乎无法忍受自己。我们可能正接近瘟疫的爆发点，它威胁着我们的生命。非常好。成功会教给我们新的东西吗?还是只会巩固我们与生俱来的傲慢?我不知道。