TED Conversations

Mitch SMith

TEDCRED 50+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Should we trust the invisible hand?

James B Glattfelder outlines an emergent entity in his study of transnational company data.

Is this entity trustworthy?

Please state your reasons for trust or otherwise on the assumption that this emergent entity exists.

I'd also be interested in your opinion of whether the entity outlined in the math is essentially separate from the people who created it?

Related Talks:
0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Casey Christofaris 10+

    • 0
    Feb 27 2013: If it ever existed it no longer does since, we now live in socialist/capitalism society. Where business get more hand out then the people. I think this has to do with how lincoln freed property
    • thumb

      Mitch SMith 50+

      • 0
      Feb 28 2013: Hmm .. how does that work?
      • thumb

        Casey Christofaris 10+

        • 0
        Feb 28 2013: The 13th amendment freed property not people. The year it was drafted like 5 black Americans applied for their freedom, were as 104 companies filed for there's, its why business can own property.
      • thumb

        Casey Christofaris 10+

        • 0
        Feb 28 2013: Sorry my mind went invisible hand of the market...i must of read it wrong
        • thumb

          Mitch SMith 50+

          • 0
          Feb 28 2013: No - it's all good.

          I'll check the 13th amendment. Modern economy works exclusively on property - one cannot trade what one has not "got".

          "Having" something infers the means to keep it.
        • thumb

          Mitch SMith 50+

          • 0
          Feb 28 2013: "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

          I'm not a constitutional lawyer - it would be a clever trick to apply this outside of Black's definitions of natural persons - to be applied to legal-persons.
          As i understand it, it is only very recently that the status of legal-persons became equal to natural persons.
          The legal person is contracted into existence and ruled by the contract between the natural persons signed to the contract - surely this is voluntary servitude on the part of the legal person?

          There must be some other definition there which equates persons with inanimate things .. perhaps the original definition of "incorporation" - but one would have to prove the incorporation of objects (including land)?

          I still can't see the trick.

          What i CAN see is the loophole imbedded in the reservation for state violence.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.