Leading the Revival of Individualism & Self Reliance

Why Market “Failure” Should Be Welcomed and Celebrated

/in /by

Failure is never pleasant. But it is a natural and essential part of life. As flawed human beings, each embarking on our own unique journey, we are bound to make mistakes. But these mishaps should not be viewed negatively. In fact, it is through our shortcomings that we grow and become stronger, better individuals.

Each time we fail to meet the challenge of a given task, we must make an important decision. We can either give up and abandon our quest because it becomes too difficult or, we can have an honest conversation with ourselves and address the issues that caused our shortcoming so that we can avoid making similar mistakes in the future.

The same is true of the market process. Each time a product fails, the creator has a chance to either give up on the project or learn from his mistakes and try again. You may not know it when you check your iPhone or drink your Coca-Cola Classic, for example, but you are reaping the benefits of someone’s failure.

Failure Leads to Discovery

Sweden recently opened a museum dedicated entirely to market failure. But the rejected objects on display at the Museum of Failure are not there to poke fun at the inventors or even the ideas themselves. Instead, it exists to celebrate all the wonderful lessons and successful innovations that came into existence as a direct result of market failure.

The museum’s curator, Samuel West, commented on this unique facility, saying:

“We know that 80-90 percent of all innovation projects, they fail. And you never read about them, you never see them, people don’t talk about them. If there is anything you can do from these failures, it’s learn from them. But you can’t learn about them if you can’t talk about them or see them.”

West and the others involved in the unconventional museum hope that by showcasing these products they can tell inspiring stories. They are also hoping to encourage future innovators and to teach an important lesson about the role failure plays in both personal and market development.

Visitors touring the museum will get to see infamous market rejects such as Crystal Pepsi, Google Glass, and the Microsoft Zune. But what is just as important as highlighting why these products failed is recognizing what this failure led to.  

Before smartphones and tablets were owned by nearly everyone, Apple invented the Newton MessagePad in 1993. Today, the Newton can be found within the walls of the Museum of Failure.

The Apple Newton MessagePad

Marketed as a portable, electronic device that could store contact information, take notes, and manage your calendar, the bulky Newton was the world’s first “personal digital assistant” (PDA). However, the Newton itself was a product ahead of its time and the technology needed to sustain it just wasn’t ready. But that doesn’t mean it didn’t still create immense value.

Lamenting the death of this early handheld device, Wired wrote:

“The Newton wasn’t just killed, it was violently murdered, dragged into a closet by its hair and kicked to death in its youth by one of technology’s great men. And yet it was a remarkable device, one whose influence is still with us today.”

While not a conventional success, the Newton MessagePad did, in many ways, change the world. For starters, it marked the beginning of Apple’s mission to create portable computers that were so small, they could easily fit in your pocket, a dream that would someday manifest itself in the modern world. But in the early 90s, this sounded like an idea better suited for a science fiction movie than reality.

As Wired says, “with Newton, Apple didn’t just set out to create a new device. It wanted to invent an entirely new class of computing.”

The device was great in theory, but each sold for $800 and the technology was spotty, to say the least. One of the minds behind the device, Steve Capps, commented, “We were just way ahead of the technology.”

One of the device’s most cutting-edge feature was its ability to translate the user’s handwriting into type. Unfortunately, the idea was better than the resources available at the time and the handwriting recognition feature was never able to perform as it should.

As the geniuses at Apple worked to find a solution to fix the Newton’s handwriting recognition, they accidentally stumbled upon a new technology that would largely impact our modern day.

Thanks to the Newton MessagePad, the “ARM processor” was invented. The ARM processor works by “stripping out unneeded instructions and optimizing pathways, RISC processors provide outstanding performance at a fraction of the power demand.” But the real appeal in using this new processing technology for the Newton MessagePad was that it was smaller making it ideal for handheld devices. Originally designed to help prolong the battery life of the Newton, today the ARM processor is used in smartphones, tablets, and wearable devices like the Apple Watch. 

Before his death, Steve Jobs commented on the Newton situation saying:

“If Apple had been in a less precarious situation, I would have drilled down myself to figure out how to make it work. I didn’t trust the people running it…By shutting it down, I freed up some good engineers who could work on new mobile devices. And eventually we got it right when we moved on to iPhones and the iPad.”

No one is born an instant success. Market victories are born of perseverance and a willingness to learn from your mistakes and create better, more efficient products.

Sure, the developers at Apple may have been discouraged by the flop of the Newton. But their work paved the way for the future of mobile devices. Without the discovery of the ARM processor, we may not have the same caliber of mobile devices we have grown accustomed to today.

With each failure, we are given a chance to grow, both as individuals and as innovators. Market failure should never be viewed as a sign to give up and throw in the towel. Instead, it should be welcomed and celebrated as part of the market process.

Collectivism Will Always Be a Threat to the Individual

/in /by

Collectivism is a poison. I have been appalled to see so many of my friends, both on the left and the right, indulging in it.

Over the last several months, I have seen acquaintances and even friends defend tiki torch yielding and self-proclaimed white nationalists. On the other extreme, I have seen friends advocate violence against those who do not agree with them. “We should be punching Nazis,” social media posts have read, without a hint of irony. But the problem with both of these lines of thinking is the dangerous hint of tribalism underlying both.

The second chapter of Hayek’s Road to Serfdom is painfully relevant to our modern day.

But whether you advocate some form of socialism or express nationalist sympathies, both are contrary to the spirit of individualism. Both claim to advance freedom but inevitably lead down the road to serfdom.

The Great Utopia

The second chapter of Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom is painfully relevant to our modern day. While reading, I couldn’t help but wonder what Hayek would have thought about the Charlottesville debacle and all that has unfolded since. This issue of Civil War monuments is almost completely irrelevant here, as I believe the unabashed display of unbridled collectivism would shock Hayek most of all.

“The Great Utopia,” as the chapter is called, refers to the belief that true happiness and equality can only be obtained in a society that sacrifices individual will in favor of “protecting” the collective. For socialists, equality means no one should need to worry about providing life’s necessities. The state provides for all equally and everyone lives happily ever after.

For nationalists or fascists, the same line of thinking occurs, but it is justified by this allegiance and connections to one’s homeland or class or race of people. In order to “secure” the future of your homeland or whatever group you are in support of, you must give your power over to an authority who will ensure lasting security.

And while in 2017 we are still arguing over which flavor of collectivism is better suited for the country, Hayek had in 1944 already laid out the information needed to conclude that neither is compatible with individual liberty.

Collectivism in any form can never represent the interest of the individual.  

The Meaning of Freedom

No political or philosophical camp claims to be against freedom. It would be a poor marketing campaign to do so. Instead, each has its own definition of freedom and tailors its context towards that end. But neither represents the interest of the individual.

At the time of writing this book, the threat of nationalism, especially in the form of Nazism, was still very fresh in the minds of the people. Hitler and Mussolini were the perfect caricatures of what “bad guys” were supposed to be. It was for this reason, I believe, that Hayek chose to focus his arguments against collectivism primarily on the socialist agenda.

Everyone at that time recognized that fascism was terrifying; they had been fighting a world war against it. But many found comfort in the false promise of collectivism.

What is so epic, both in Hayek’s day and now, is his ability to call out both groups for being birds of a feather. Since the people already knew what Nazism could reap, it was vital to take this dangerous ideology and compare it with socialism, which was not viewed in quite as negatively a light as nationalism.

“It is rarely remembered now that socialism in its beginnings was frankly authoritarianism,” Hayek points out to a populace that had come to view incremental socialism as a precautionary measure against the authoritarianism of fascism.

Two Roads; One Destination

The historical context in chapter two and its application to today’s political climate seemed to scream and jump out from the page’s of Hayek’s work. How, after all these years, are we still fighting the same fight and participating in the same arguments? Why are we arguing over which brand of collectivism we should choose when the answer seems so apparent?

As Hayek brilliantly sums up in regards to both the socialist and the fascist distortions of the definition of freedom, “Freedom in this sense is, of course, merely another name for power…” So long as either exists, the individual is at risk.

Even those who, at the time, believed socialism could be the answer to fascism were eventually convinced otherwise.

British writer, F.A. Voigt spent years in Europe as a foreign correspondent. After his years of observation, he was forced to conclude that:

Marxism has led to fascism and National Socialism, because, in all essentials, it is Fascism and National Socialism.”

Making a similar point, German writer Peter Drucker wrote:

The complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian, purely negative, non-economic society unfreedom and inequality which Germany has been following. Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Stalinist Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany.

I wish so deeply that my own generation would realize the similarities between the two instead of choosing to unite with one side or the other. History repeats itself. This we know. One of the most beautiful and applicable statues in Washington DC sits outside of the National Archives and reads: “What is past is prologue.” We should understand that this will almost always be the case.

Whether you support one form of tribalism or the next, both undoubtedly end in the same result: a loss of power for the individual.

Institutions Decay, Technology Advances

/in /by

Trust is low today in government, banks, the financial sector in general, education, and many other established institutions.

Institutional decay

Institutions are organizations, customs and norms of behavior that mediate between individuals and society. They are mechanisms of social order, asserting rules that are designed to govern how we act. Who designs them? Other humans, who have a vested interest in being the ones who govern. Institutions exist to limit what sociologists call “agency” – the principle that autonomous beings (that would be us) are capable of acting and making decisions by themselves.

Once established, institutions tend to become frozen and locked, because their designers prefer to maintain the status quo of governing others, rather than keep up with the innovation and change that goes on beyond their boundaries.

Education Is An Example Of Institutional Decay

Education provides us with one example of institutional decay. University education in the US is centuries old, and compulsory state education is over 100 years old. Generations have grown up with the experience of the K-12 government propaganda mill, and, for those who attended college or university, with the idea that cramming for 4 years of exam passing would provide a lifetime revenue stream from preferred employment.

The current generation is finding that these institutional arrangements are no longer adequate. Compulsory state K-12 education is gradually giving way to private options, because the established institution lets down its customers by delivering a poor service that doesn’t fit the modern world. University education is being eroded by both online learning and by alternative educational suppliers. Customers are using market data in re-thinking the economic benefits that a 4-year degree is supposed to confer.

The institutional structure is eroding at an even more fundamental level. Customers are questioning how education is supposed to work. Lifelong learning is assessed as a better strategy for accumulating knowledge and skills in a rapidly and constantly changing economic environment. Knowledge-on-demand is a solution that technology is now making available: if you don’t know, and you need the knowledge immediately, find it on Google or YouTube. These new behaviors undermine the institutional status quo.

Educational Technology Creates A New Institution

Technology is fundamental to these new learning strategies. Technology makes them possible, and customer preference makes them grow and advance. In a sense, technology is the new institution. Remote digital learning platforms, interactive educational software, and on-demand content are the delivery vehicles, and the umbrella educational technology platform is the institution. As the old institution decays, technology advances, responding to the changing needs and preferences of education consumers.

New Norms Of Behavior

The norm of behavior that directed us to “get a high school diploma and a college degree to advance in the workforce” gave rise to our current educational institutions and an institutionalized pathway for most of us. “A career is upward progress on the rungs of the corporate / professional hierarchical ladder” is a norm giving rise to institutionalized jobs, training and assessment. The new norm may be something like “make yourself as uniquely useful as you can as a collaborator with other knowledgeable actors” and may result in institutionalized education, institutionalized professions, and institutionalized jobs withering away to be replaced with totally new forms.

Traditional Retailing As A Decaying Institution

As a parallel, we can think of traditional retailing as an institution. Retailing certainly qualifies in terms of being a bundle of organizations, customs, norms and beliefs. The behavioral norm required that consumers leave their locations to travel to the retail store or mall, where they followed prescribed pathways to shop the inventory and offerings, with a checkout line as the final punctuation. Considerable time and effort was required to participate.

Again, consumers are re-thinking how retail works for them. Technology has provided an alternative that works better for many of them in many circumstances. Online shopping at home or in the office, at any time of the day, with a broader selection, direct delivery, easy returns and sharp prices combine to provide a set of norms of behavior that represent a new and preferred institution.

Institutional Entrepreneurship

When institutions begin to fail their constituents, that’s when decay sets in. When incumbents within the institutions resist change, they stimulate those constituents to search for alternatives. With today’s new technologies, it is easier for constituents to pursue alternatives and easier and quicker for new institutions to emerge. We can call it institutional entrepreneurship: the imagining and emergence of alternatives to status quo institutions and their rapid accumulation of a critical mass of users and supporters. With more and more use case experiments by more and more individuals, the faster the new institutions emerge and solidify.

An Institutional Revolution

We’ll quickly see accelerated institutional entrepreneurship in banking, in healthcare, in politics – with alternatives to democracy – and in government, with distributed options to the current smothering centralization. Technological advances will be the fuel for an institutional revolution.

Hayek’s Road to Serfdom Is More Applicable Now Than Ever

/in /by

I have never actually completed F.A. Hayek’s, The Road to Serfdom. I am completely comfortable admitting that. Still, like many who are intrigued with Hayek’s ideas but lack the willpower to read the entire book, I alway list The Road to Serfdom as one of my most influential readings.

To be sure, I had read the few chapters that were assigned to me by my school’s token libertarian political science professor. I assumed I had accurately interpreted its message. The three chapters I read were full of highlights and great quotes about the importance of the individual. But with all the other books out there in the world, why was finishing this one book so important?

It was not until my current mentor called me out on my inability to follow through on one of the most economically relevant books of all time, that I realized that I had robbed myself of an education by not finishing Hayek’s important work.

As a matter of millennial pride and also wanting to reclaim the knowledge I foolishly pushed aside as an undergrad student, I decided to dedicate the next sixteen days to both reading and liveblogging The Road to Serfdom.

The Individual Built the Modern World

Proponents of laissez faire capitalism and libertarian thinkers alike constantly throw around the phrase,” the road to serfdom.” And while most understand its general negativity towards socialism, the phrase is so ingrained in liberty speak that few often take the time to really explore what Hayek was trying to tell us.

In the book’s opening chapter, “The Abandoned Road,” Hayek makes it clear that this path refers to society’s “progressive” rejection of individualism. More importantly, he goes on to describe how this rejection of the sanctity of the individual has, and will continue to have, negative impacts on the society.

For a period of time, the western world had flourished under the 19th-century ideals of free market capitalism. For the first time in history, an individual was allowed to follow his own desired path without the status of his birth holding him back. All he needed was an idea and the ambition needed to make that idea a reality.

As a result, we saw a revolution in thought and an industrial revolution incomparable to anything the world had ever experienced. In fact, even with the advent of the internet, the world has still never progressed quite as dramatically as it did during this laissez faire revolution.

And while this period brought the world the wisdom of Adam Smith and the rebellion of the American Revolution, it did not maintain its momentum of popularity as the 20th century approached.

As Hayek points out:

“We still believe that until quite recently we were governed by what are vaguely called nineteenth-century ideas or the principle of laissez faire…But although until 1931 England and America had followed only slowly on the path which others had led, even by then they had moved so far that only those whose memory goes back to the years before the last war know what a liberal world has been like.”

If in 1944, Hayek thought the world had already forsaken and forgotten true liberalism, I can scarcely imagine what he might say today. And it’s true that he was writing about a period of wartime economic planning both in the US and the UK. Prices and wages were controlled. Censorship was in place. Rationing and quotas governed the production and distribution of all essential goods and services. But even given all this, government consumed a far smaller degree of overall national production than today.

So far removed are we in 2017, that the individual is not even a consideration when contemplating economic policy. In fact, the “greedy” “selfish” individual is often the villain in modern economics, as he seems to always operate contrary to the whims of the collective. Now, terms like “individual mandates” are used to convey each person’s “social responsibility” to care for the collective.

As common as this anti-individualist sentiment has become, it wasn’t always this way. As Hayek reminds us in this opening chapter, the most tremendous strides towards human and economic progress were taken during a time when the individual was allowed to innovate and create without worrying about interference from the state on the grounds of protecting the greater good. But even though the positive implications of a pro-individualist society were proven by the innovations created during that time, society had still been steadily moving away from it.

“We are rapidly abandoning not the views merely of Cobden and Bright, of Adam Smith and Hume, or even of Locke and Milton, but one of the salient characteristics of Western civilizations…Not merely the nineteenth- and eighteenth- century liberalism, but the basic individualism inherited by us from Erasmus and Montaigne, from Cicero and Tacitus, Pericles and Thucydides, is progressively relinquished.”

Again, I have to wonder what Hayek might say if he were alive today and around to see how groupthink and collectivism have shaped our modern policies.

This chapter, then, sets the stage. He names liberalism as the system that gave birth to the greatest of human achievements ever seen in history. It was individualism that caused the most spectacular effect. If you understand that–and vast numbers today do not understand this–you are prepared to see how the abandonment of this system and idea leads to not only the unraveling of liberty but even what we call civilization.

So, yes, this book is a warning, not just against one party but all ideological positions that reject individualism for one or another version of the planning state.

Now onward to chapter two!

Thank Millennials for Creative Destruction in the Marketplace

/in /by

Millennials are shaking up traditional industries and refusing to conduct business as usual. As a result, our economy is becoming more specialized and better able to cater to the unique interests of the individual. But with each new millennial innovation comes a displaced industry that can’t keep up with new competition.

And as outdated industries are being replaced by the new, the world now has access to ever-improving commodities. This should be cause for celebration. But instead of praise, millennials are being chastised for murdering the industries their innovative ideas are replacing.

Market Preference

Each day, an article is released accusing millennials of “ruining” previously well-established market commodities. Oddly enough, the rest of the country seems to view this in a negative light rather than seeing the value millennial consumers and entrepreneurs bring to the market.

Over the last several years, young people have been blamed for ruining grocery shopping, napkins, chain restaurants, and diamonds,  But this is only a small percentage of the comprehensive list of sectors millennials are “responsible” for destroying.

Young people born between the years of 1980-2000 now make up the majority of the American consumer base. This means the millennial generation is largely responsible for fueling market demand. The way we spend our dollars is impacting which businesses survive, and which do not.  

And, as demonstrated by our market preference, we have very different wants and desires than the generations that preceded us. But our willingness to spend $20 on avocado toast rather than purchasing a home does not make millennials the enemy of the minority of consumers. On the contrary, millennials are arguably making life more convenient by means of creative destruction.

Creative Destruction

To blame millennials for ruining entire industries would be somewhat understandable if we weren’t also replacing those industries with options that are far better, more efficient, or more practical to our budgets.

When millennials were denounced for the plummeting sales of napkins, for example, it was simply because millennials preferred to use paper towels instead. Previously, households had purchased both paper towels and paper napkins. Millennials saw this as a costly redundancy and corrected the problem.

Likewise, when articles lambast millennials for ruining the supermarket industry, primary attention is given only to the supposed destruction of that industry. If critics would instead focus on the innovative improvements that have sprung up in the wake of these dying industries, they may not be so quick to judge.

Sure, young people may not be grocery shopping as much as older generations did, but we still have to consume food. And that food has to be purchased from somewhere.

Millennials have hectic schedules and many hold multiple jobs in order to pay off student loan debt while still earning a living. The lack of precious time has led millennials towards quicker and more convenient alternatives that do not involve having to both grocery shop for items and then having to prepare a meal.

As a result, the popularity of meal delivery services in on the rise, providing a viable alternative for young professionals.

Companies like Blue Apron and HelloFresh have been extremely popular with younger consumers because they eliminate the hassle of grocery shopping. Instead, millennials select from a menu and have the ingredients sent to them in pre-measured containers. All the consumer need do is open the box delivered to their front door and follow the instructions.

This replacement of one commodity for another is what economist Joseph Schumpeter called “creative destruction.” Schumpeter even describes free market capitalism as the “the perennial gale of creative destruction.” In order for economies to evolve and grow with the wants of consumers, outdated products and services must be destroyed in order to make room for the new.

This is exactly what millennials are demonstrating today. While critics may focus only on the loss coming from this destruction, what we should be focusing on is the gains. New jobs are created and new commodities contribute to the foundation of what will someday be the next round of this destructive creativity. It is all part of the market process.

Consumption Pioneers

Older generations may be hesitant toward change, but luckily, millennials are making the adoption of new products and services that much easier through feedback.

Young people have an opinion on everything and we want to share it with everyone. As a result, we have become consumption pioneers, willing to boldly try new products and then share our experiences with other consumers.

Whether feedback is posted online or through word of mouth, it has been helpful in easing the fear that comes with the adoption of new products. Individuals are far more likely to try a new service if they know someone who has tried it first and can attest to its quality.

When the ridesharing industry came into fruition, millennials were among the first to try its services. As a DC resident unwilling to pay for a cab, I used Uber frequently in its earlier days. My parents may not have understood why I felt so comfortable jumping into an “unregulated” cab, but the service spoke for itself. For me, it was a safer and less expensive option than hailing a cab on a dark lit DC street.

After a year or two of being a loyal Uber patron, my parents called me one evening to talk them through their first Uber ride. A few months later, they were already using Airbnb instead of traditional hotels. Once they spoke to me and got a firsthand encounter of what they could expect from ridesharing, their opposition to it disappeared.

Over the last several years, as millennials were coming of age and becoming major market participants, chain restaurants began seeing a major decrease in sales. This was recently met with negativity from media outlets who were blaming millennials for their favorite restaurants shutting down. But just like Uber depends on consumers willing to trade money for a ride, restaurants exist to cater to the demand of the consumer, and not the other way around. If there are not enough consumers buying your product, you have no reason to keep your doors open.  

But when it comes to the millennial market destruction, what is most interesting is what happened after millennials stopped patronizing grocery stores: their parents followed.

Using census data, economist Mark Perry found that for the first time on record, consumers were moving away from using grocery stores and instead using their food budgets eating out or using meal delivery services. So even though there was initial hesitation, just like my parents with Uber, older generations have eventually gotten onboard with younger market trends.

Sure, millennials may be exhibiting different market preferences than our parents. But that doesn’t make our ideas dangerous or inferior to those that came before us. By catering the market to our specific modern needs, we have made the world a better, more convenient place to live.

So instead of getting worked up next time another chain restaurant bites the dust, thank a millennial for providing you with market options that won’t make your stomach hurt afterward.

Jay-Z: The Great American Entrepreneur

/in /by

Jay-Z may have a reputation for his unapologetic support of the Democratic Party and his family’s cozy relationship with the former First Family. But what is particularly fascinating about Shawn “Jay-Z” Carter is that his success was built on the precepts of free market capitalism, without which he would have never risen above the circumstances he was born into.

Raised in government housing in the 1980s and surrounded by drugs during his most formative years, Shawn Carter might have seemed doomed to follow in the footsteps of so many before him. In his newest album, 4:44, the track “Marcy Me” depicts just how dire his situation really was when it describes his neighborhood as “Marcy houses, where the boys die by the thousands.”

From a young age, Carter had a flair for music, often annoying his siblings by banging on makeshift drums at the kitchen table in the middle of the night. His single mother did what she could to nurture this knack, buying the young Carter his first boombox and encouraging him to hone his talent. He quickly realized that he could create value by turning his hobby into a career and started freestyling, writing lyrics, and performing around his neighborhood, whose residents affectionately called him “Jazzy.”

But “Jazzy” couldn’t help his mother put food on the table with his music, or at least not yet. So he did the only thing he knew how to do: he dealt crack cocaine. And while I am not going to speak to the virtue or vice of selling crack cocaine, it was a systemic tragedy all too common in neighborhoods like Carter’s.

Government policies had trapped black communities in the “projects” and then looked the other way as these neighborhoods were destroyed by the crack cocaine epidemic. And then came the War on Drugs, in which these neighborhoods were further destroyed as the government went from willful ignorance to brutal enforcement, creating hundreds of single-family households as fathers were locked away for nonviolent drug crimes.

But even though Carter was taking a less reputable path towards earning a living, he certainly wasn’t frittering away the money he made. He used it to produce his own album, which he then sold out of his car. Eventually, he joined with other Brooklyn rappers in 1995 to form the independent label Roc-A-Fella Records.

Even as Carter began growing his reputation and his career, he was never financially reckless. On the contrary, he invested in other independent record labels, sports teams, and numerous business ventures. But of all his investments, there was one missed opportunity that bothered him, and which also inspired a few lines in 4:44.

“Financial Freedom, My Only Hope”

Jay-Z recently spoke to iHeart Radio about the track “The Story of OJ” on his new album, saying:

“We all make money, and then we all lose money, as artists especially. But how, when you have some type of success, to transform that into something bigger.”

The song is a biting critique of OJ Simpson’s lifestyle, squandering money in an effort to distance himself from his roots. But his flashy lifestyle didn’t matter –without sound investments, Simpson not only lost all his money but eventually went to prison after trying to commit fraud over his own memorabilia.

Carter drops profound wisdom on his listeners, telling them that this song, and the album itself, is his attempt “to give you a million dollars-worth of game for $9.99.”

Condemning his other colleagues who spent their newfound fortunes without investing, he says,  “You want to know what’s more important than throwing away money at a strip club? Credit.” And while he also tells of the value he has earned by investing in art and commenting on how proud he is to be able to leave that to his children, he brings up another essential element of free market capitalism: failure.

Before gentrification of historically “rough areas” became a trend in the last several years, Carter saw no reason to invest in his own neighborhood, a choice he laments now that it has become one of the most sought-after areas of Brooklyn. “I could have bought a place in Dumbo before it was Dumbo for like $2 million. That same building today is worth $25 million. And guess how I’m feelin’? Dumbo.”

And even though he is condemning his own lack of foresight, he brings the point home poignantly when he advises his listeners:

“Please don’t die over the neighborhood that your mama rentin.’ Take your drug money and buy the neighborhood. That’s how you rinse it.”

Not only is his advice economically helpful, it brings up another valid point: capitalism used for social change is more effective than government intervention. The government’s “war on poverty” has proved itself to be nothing more than a war on the poor, despite the good intentions of politicians. But creating value, making money, and then making the decision to pour that money back into the community is an investment that can have lasting impacts on the well-being of its residents, and who better to invest in the community than those who know it best?  

Jay-Z has been an open critic about the government’s interference in black communities and the harm it has done and continues to do. But the point he wants to get across in “The Story of OJ” is that “financial freedom” is the only way to escape the tyrannical system that has oppressed neighborhoods, like the one where Carter was raised, for far too long. But to really break the chains the state has shackled to our being, economic mobility is essential, a truth Carter is now living firsthand.

“We Know Who We Are but We Know Not Who We May Be”

The circumstances we are born into do not define who we will become and what we will contribute to the world, and Carter is a perfect personification of this point.  

When Broadway prodigy Lin-Manuel Miranda was asked why he chose to utilize hip-hop in his groundbreaking musical Hamilton, he spoke of the parallels between Alexander Hamilton’s life and his ability to “write himself out” of his circumstances and that of rappers like Jay-Z and others who did the same thing:

“The second he writes a poem to get himself off the island, I was like, ‘Well, that’s very hip-hop. To literally write verse that gets you out of your circumstances that’s about how terrible your circumstances are, I mean, that’s everyone from Jay Z and Marcy to Lil Wayne… As I was reading the book, all these hip-hop analogies couldn’t help but pop up.”

Like Hamilton, Carter was born into a situation that had him pegged as a statistic from his first breath. But he used it to his advantage. He couldn’t change the past or alter his roots, so he decided to embrace it all. He would not hide his indiscretions; he would turn his experiences into money instead.

Carter has never shied away from speaking of his upbringing and his time as a drug dealer. In fact, his life has served as the subject for his lyrics, even admitting on an older album to shooting his own brother at just 12 years old for stealing from him.

Carter was able to take his bleak situation and turn it to his advantage, again creating value but also proving that capitalism is the great equalizer. It doesn’t matter who you are or what neighborhood you came from; if you can create something that provides value for others, you can literally become anyone you want to be.

However, like Alexander Hamilton, whose personal life was the subject for what has been dubbed as the first American sex scandal, Carter’s own family problems threatened to destroy everything he had built. But Carter and his powerhouse of a wife, Beyoncé, found a way to make even their most humiliating personal problems pay off.

Lemonade out of Lemons

Even those without any affection for Beyoncé found themselves bowing down to “Queen Bey” after the release of her 2016 visual album Lemonade. In 2014, the entire world watched Beyoncé’s sister beating Carter in an elevator at the Met Gala. Rumors surged that Carter had done something to scorn the queen herself, resulting in her sister Solange Knowles’s outburst that was quickly leaked to the press.

Almost two years later, Beyoncé gave the whole world what they had been waiting for: the entire story of what Carter had done to deserve the Knowles family’s ire.

In what was either one of the greatest publicity stunts in history, or the greatest display of raw, uncensored emotion after being publicly betrayed by your spouse, Lemonade used Carter’s infidelity as its premise and ultimately became the highest-selling album globally in 2016.

We may never know how Beyoncé felt about the viral footage of her sister beating her husband, but it no longer matters because Knowles and Carter worked together to take back the narrative in a way that left consumers wanting more. They took all that pain and embarrassment – a cocktail of emotions we have all felt from time to time – and tapped into the hearts of music consumers everywhere. Together, the dynamic Carter-Knowles duo took their marital problems straight to the bank and even drew out Lemonade’s popularity by incorporating Carter’s side of the story into his album 4:44, that was just released last week.

Both albums dropped exclusively with Carter’s own music streaming site, Tidal. If devoted fans or curious Hollywood gossip consumers wanted to hear the album before the general populace, they would have to sign up for a free trial of Tidal in order to do so. The real genius of this release is that many, myself included, would forget to cancel their membership to Tidal after the free trial period ended, bringing in further revenue for the couple. Additionally, for those who already used their free trial to listen to Lemonade, they would not be able to get another free trial to hear Carter’s 4:44. Even if the consumer had no interest in rap, the prospect of hearing Jay-Z’s side of the Lemonade drama made the Tidal subscription worth it for many.

Since the modern world has made music more accessible and downplayed the excitement of new album releases, the creativity of Carter and Knowles has been admirable and further proven how important consumer demand is. After Lemonade was released, an in-depth look at the money being made from the album was published, literally putting a price tag on value created by this marital drama… and this does not include the money that will be made from Carter’s new 4:44 album.

Write Your Way Out

The United States was intended to be the “land of opportunity” where the location and status of your birth were not meant to be indicators of what your future would hold. By allowing the market to operate with greater freedom than in the rest of the world, any individual was afforded the opportunity to take their own grit and talent to create value so as to ensure their own survival – both physically and economically.

The beauty of this system, or really the lack thereof, has been exquisitely displayed in the world of rap and hip-hop. This is specifically because these genres originated within the most vulnerable neighborhoods where government intervention has accomplished the antithesis of its original intent. Instead of liberating those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, these individuals have been kept trapped in their circumstances by government bureaucrats who want to prove that the state is the only means of redemption.

However, as Shawn “Jay-Z” Carter has shown, no one needs to wait on the state to save them from their circumstances. Create value, make money, and invest wisely, and success becomes unavoidable – at least until the government intervenes to demand a cut of your wealth. 

Why Millennials Prefer Capitalism to Socialism, Even If They Don’t Know It

/in /by

In a recent Reason-Rupe Survey, fifty-eight percent of Americans ages 18-24 said they viewed Socialism favorably. However, when asked if they favored a free market economy or a government-managed economy, sixty-four percent of Millennials said they favored the free market. How is it possible for Millennials to favor both a socialist government and a capitalist economy? The answer is simple: Millennials simply do not understand what either of these words really mean, especially capitalism.

Denying the Appeal Of “Capitalism”

The word capitalism is generally unpopular on college campuses around the country. In pop culture, it is rare, though not impossible, to find a story where the capitalist ends up being the hero.  All day long we are bombarded with anti-free market propaganda.

Oddly enough, most of this anti-capitalist rhetoric is available to us through mediums that exist only because of the free market. For example, every time a young, enthusiastic socialist tweets about the injustices of capitalism from his or her iPhone, they are living proof that Millennials love the free market.

If there is one thing the Millennial generation struggles with, it’s patience. We have grown up in a world where everything has been available to us with the click of a button. We have never had to use encyclopedias or spend hours doing research in a library. Instead, we Googled whatever it is that we were looking for and in a matter of seconds, we had a plethora of sources.

Socialism is not generally associated with quick results. Instead, extreme bureaucracy usually tends to make things take even longer than they otherwise would, much like a government breadline.

Likewise, a government-run healthcare system usually results in longer waiting periods even for simple office visits.

Millennials hate waiting. I am willing to bet that if these self-proclaimed socialists were to spend some time in a socialist country, they would not last very long.

Millennials love quality, one of a kind products. Platforms like Etsy have served the Millennial generation as a sort of online farmers’ market where strangers from around the world buy and sell handmade goods from each other.

Whether you’re looking for a beard warmer or craft BBQ sauce, Etsy has it. Likewise, we live in a world fueled by Amazon Prime. Not only do we have access to almost anything we could possibly need or want, we are also having these items shipped to our door in two days.

Both Etsy and Amazon are wonders brought to us by the free market. So, as Millennials log in to Amazon to purchase a copy of The Communist Manifesto, they might want to consider the fact that the book is delivered to them in 48 hours all thanks to capitalism.

Free-Market Ambitions

Millennials are entrepreneurs. We are using technology to our advantage and making the world run quickly and efficiently. Though some might speak loudly in favor of unions and collective bargaining, on a late night when no cabs can be found, a Millennial knows that a safe ride will be available to us in minutes by opening our Uber App.

Apps like Square, Venmo, and PayPal have allowed us to start small businesses and collect payment with ease. Sites like YouTube allow us the opportunity to gain exposure and promote whatever it is we are working on or selling without ever leaving our homes. We have the potential to be the most entrepreneurial generation our country has ever seen.

Millennials love to actively participate in the market process. Active participation is one of the fundamental principles of the free market. If we are not willing to give feedback and review our purchased consumer goods, we will not get the most innovative processes or the best quality products available.

Millennials have grown up in a world where every thought and opinion is shared on social media. Platforms like Yelp have become important tools in the hands of young consumers who are either pleased or completely outraged about the goods or services they received.

As a result, Millennials, more than any other generation, are reading online reviews of a company or product before making the decision to buy. According to Forbes, 33 percent of Millennials said that they read reviews of a product before deciding to buy.

Intellectual Innovation

Millennials love to learn and have more access to the market of ideas than any other generation that preceded us. Khan Academy, YouTube, and Wikipedia offer us a chance to become experts in almost any field we desire. Millennials are using these free market mediums to educate themselves in a way that has never been seen before in our world.

We are not relying solely on the opinion of college professors or our parents. We are doing the research and finding new ways to learn. Along those same lines, we also have a natural distrust for authority. We have seen the economy crumble as a result of the poor decisions made by the baby boomer generation. We do not trust others to make our decisions for us. We are coming up with entrepreneurial solutions to government-created problems and we are doing this through online learning.

Yet, in spite of all of these aspects of the Millennial mindset, Millennials still claim to identify with socialism. Growing up in a post-Iron Curtain era has jaded our perception of what a pure welfare state really looks like. We have not grown up hearing first-hand accounts of the woes of socialism in the Iron Curtain era.

We are living in a technological world brought to us because of the free market’s perpetual triumph over socialism. However, we don’t understand history well enough to realize how fortunate we are to live in a society that where the free market is allowed to flourish. Millennials see large unemployment statistics, a struggling economy, and high costs of living and attribute it to the very system that gave us our iPhones, Amazon, Spotify, and Netflix.

The problem at hand is not that too many Millennials are socialists; the problem is that too many Millennials don’t understand that in almost every aspect of their lives, they are capitalists. If Millennials truly want to dedicate themselves to the ideals of socialism, they will have to surrender their iPhones, their Amazon accounts, their Uber accounts, their craft beer, the hipster beard accessories, and pretty much every other aspect of their daily lives.

Governments Are Trapping Underbanked Populations in Perpetual Poverty

/in /by

Those of us living in economically advanced countries can take for granted how easy and inexpensive it is to transfer money between individuals. With payment platforms like Venmo and Paypal readily available, sending and receiving payments is as simple as tapping your smartphone screen a few times.

But for those from poor countries who have left their families and communities behind in search of a more opportunity-rich life in America, sending large sums of money back home comes with a hefty price tag. In fact, by the time the money actually crosses borders and reaches its recipients, between eight and ten percent of the funds have been lost to service fees.  

On its face this may seem like a relatively small percentage, but these fees add up quickly, a point Bill Gates recently emphasized when he said, “If the transaction costs on remittances worldwide were cut from where they are today at around 10% to an average of 5%, it would unlock $15 billion a year in poor countries.” It goes without saying that $15 billion can go a long way, especially in underdeveloped countries.

Unfortunately, the regulatory burdens placed on the money transfer industry, known in the finance world as Money Services Business (MSB), have made service fees unavoidable. Since Money Transfer Operators (MTO) must pay extravagant costs before they are allowed to legally conduct any monetary transfers, the sector has seen an increase in the fees pushed to the consumer since these institutions are left to bear the ever-increasing burden of government regulation.  

While governments often claim they are committed to helping the less fortunate, it is precisely because of state regulations that those living in underdeveloped regions have had to pay large service fees that make access to capital more difficult, resulting in a large portion of the underbanked population being completely cut off from participating in the global marketplace.

Fortunately, the popularity of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology are revolutionizing the MSB sector and giving the underbanked populations the opportunity to get ahead economically.

A Labyrinth of Red Tape

The government has made it incredibly difficult for anyone to get involved in the MSB industry or become an MTO. Federal regulations set up to combat money laundering have made this particular industry a huge financial risk for the small businesses that wish to conduct cross-border money transfers and for the banks that store the money these institutions receive.  

Before an MSB can conduct any transfers, it must battle its way through a maze of costly red tape on both the federal and state levels. As paymentsviews.com notes:

“Registration with FINCEN and development of an AML Program should cost in the lower 5 figures upfront, with ongoing administration and reporting costs being variable depending on your business. It is compliance with the state requirements that can add up.”

While not all states have occupational licensing requirements for these institutions, many do and the fees are not necessarily a fixed price one can plan for ahead of time. In many instances, a portion of the mandated fees are dependent on the amount of time a government entity spends conducting the background check phase of the process. For those states with fixed permit fees, the costs can range from $250 (Alabama) to $3,000 (New York). But the bad news is, this is not a one-time payment. Most licenses need to be renewed annually, making the regulatory process a constant burden for MSBs and MTOs.

New York’s laws are particularly rigid and collectivist in nature. The annual licensing fees for these businesses are based on their share of the total transaction volume among all license holders in the state. But even in the relatively “business-friendly” state like Texas, the annual fees are anywhere from $1,950 to $15,000 per license.

And on top of all the annual licensing fees, there are other regulations that require fees based on the net worth of the company and these fees by themselves range from $25,000 to $500,000. Additionally:

“You will be required to keep in place a surety bond, or deposit of qualifying securities in lieu of bond in all jurisdictions, dedicated to activities in the jurisdiction. This size of this bond ranges from a base of $10,000 in some small states to $500,000 in New York, with a typical bond requirement being $50,000-$100,000, with the option for the regulators in the jurisdiction to require higher amounts at their discretion. The cost of a bond can be 1-3% of the face amount, and can be higher for higher-risk entities”

Adding insult to injury, the government also requires that you pay for the application and investigatory process, in which your participation is mandatory. Likewise, after you’ve paid all the fees you must also make sure you are complying with all the paperwork requirements, like submitting annual reports and other financial statements to regulators.

Yet, even after you have complied with all the costly regulations, there is no guarantee that your business will be able to secure an account with a bank, something essential to a primarily cash-based business.  

Not Worth the Risk

Since many of these businesses operate mainly in cash transactions, as many of the “senders” themselves are part of America’s “underbanked” population, the owners of such establishments are having to routinely deposit large amounts of cash into their bank accounts. While there is absolutely nothing sinister about this, the post 9/11 world has led to increased regulations, especially when it comes to dealing with cash deposits being sent outside the United States. Since banks are monitored heavily by federal regulations, doing business with companies dealing mainly, if not solely, in cash puts targets on the backs of these banks and opens them up to federal investigation.  

Fernando Lopez has been the owner of Interamericana Express, an MSB storefront in Atlantic City, for years. Dealing primarily with monetary transfers to Mexico, Lopez and his patrons have contributed to the average of around $24.3 billion that is remitted from the United States to Mexico each year. But even though Lopez has obtained all necessary permits and complied with every law and regulation on the books, Interamericana Express has routinely found that its bank accounts have been frozen or shut down altogether.

Since cash deposits are so heavily regulated, it is not in the bank’s interest to conduct such business. In fact, even large banks like Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase have abandoned their own money transfer programs since the risk is not worth the benefits received. Additionally, Citigroup recently experienced firsthand the harsh realities of the overly-regulated MSB sector when it was forced to pay $140 million for a “failure to safeguard” against money laundering.

Since banks cannot confirm the identity or origin of the cash deposited by these MSB institutions, it is a huge liability, which is why many banks just stopped participating in this market altogether. But for those who are still willing to work with these MSBs, they are able to raise the price since it is both a high-risk transaction on the part of the bank and, to put it frankly, the MSBs no longer have a lot of options when it comes to finding a financial institution willing to work with them.  

Luckily, blockchain technology is offering a modern solution to this outdated problem that is not only making cross-border money transfers more affordable but also giving the underbanked populations of the world a chance to become major participants in the global economy.

Enter The Blockchain

While governments love to claim they are committed to helping the less fortunate, it precisely because of state regulations that these underdeveloped regions of the world have had to wait so long to become participants in the global marketplace.

But unfortunately, under the current system, the obstacles to cross-border money transfers don’t end with service fees. For those on the receiving end of cross-border monetary transfers, finding the means to actually “cash out” and physically receive the funds presents a whole separate set of issues. When living in isolated or otherwise remote regions sometimes thousands of miles away from the nearest bank, accessing these funds becomes a feat all of its own.

Without access to traditional financial institutions, the money is often useless unless one has the means to travel to a location that can help facilitate the final phase of the transfer. But a new tech startup is addressing both the high costs and bank accessibility problems associated with cross-border transfers.  

Boston-based startup accelerator “MassChallenge” recently announced its 2017 finalists who will be on the receiving end of funding to be used towards their respective endeavors. Among the finalists selected this year was the company “Token Labs,” a startup which utilizes blockchain technology to make cross-border peer-to-peer payment transfers both affordable and more accessible to the underbanked populations.

CEO and co-founder Dave Aiello describes his startup’s mission as:

“Enabling people to easily send bitcoin peer-to-peer around the world. We also connect them with local Bitcoin exchanges in their country so they can receive their local currency for Bitcoin wherever they may be.”

Not only is the Token platform aiming to reduce service fees from ten percent down to one percent, they are also solving the problem of underbanking in impoverished or otherwise underdeveloped regions of the world. Instead of having to worry about finding a bank in order to cash in on the sent funds, cryptocurrencies, like Bitcoin, are allowing those in unbanked and underbanked areas to access the money almost instantaneously.

The blockchain has allowed for such a hassle-free transfer of money largely because smartphones are so prevalent even among the underbanked. While this may sound like a shocking assertion, a study released by the FDIC found that “more than two-thirds of unbanked households (68 percent) and more than 90 percent of underbanked households own a mobile phone. While smartphone ownership lags somewhat among the unbanked (33.1 percent), underbanked households (64.5 percent) are more likely to have a smartphone than the fully banked (59 percent).”

Since cryptocurrency can now be purchased, managed, and transferred via smartphone apps like Token, the need for a traditional banking institution has become almost obsolete. In fact, in many regards, those in underbanked and even unbanked regions are surpassing America and other first world nations when it comes to innovating the entire banking industry. While this may sound like a stretch, the reason for this advancement is a direct result of smartphone technology.

While those in these regions have been largely left out of participating in the global economy, the invention of smartphones has made blockchain technology and thus, cryptocurrency a major game changer. Essentially, those living in these undeveloped regions have completely skipped past the era of centrally controlled banks, and have instead sprung forward and embraced the world of decentralized cryptocurrencies made possible because of the blockchain.

While blockchain enthusiasts like Aiello bring a great deal of hope to those wishing to liberate the world from the strain of regulation and centralization, the government still poses the same threat it always has, even if, for the time being, the blockchain remains almost impenetrable by the state.

The Hashtag and Hayek’s Use of Knowledge in Society

/in /by

Last month the world celebrated the birthday of the hashtag. As a writer, I am always looking for interesting and current topics to tackle. But this particular topic seemed completely insignificant to me. The symbol itself has existed for years. Why should I care about the anniversary of its repurposed use?

But upon further investigation, it became apparent to me that the advent of the hashtag should not simply be brushed off and dismissed as a silly pop culture trend. In fact, it actually answered many questions posed in F.A. Hayek’s essay The Use of Knowledge in Society.

The Hashtag is Born

Social media’s presence in our daily lives has reshaped the way our society exchanges information. But the fact that social media posts themselves are now able to be organized by a single “#” is quite remarkable. Now, all this decentralized knowledge is searchable on almost any social media platform.

Ten years ago, entrepreneur Chris Messina tweeted “#barcamp” from the then-obscure South by Southwest conference. By the end of 2007, it had been used on Twitter over 9,000 times. Today, over 125 million hashtags are used every day just on Twitter. With other social media platforms now utilizing this symbol, the total numbers are even grander.

But at its very core, the hashtag provides the means of connecting humanity with essential knowledge for better managing our lives – no matter where it comes from or where it ends up. The hashtag serves as a symbolic reminder of the remarkable information utopia that is emerging via technology in our time, and its existence portends vast increases in human well-being the future.

The Hayekian Roots of the Hashtag

In Hayek’s day, before the Internet, practical knowledge was less accessible than it is now. That knowledge, absent a means of accessing it, lives under conditions of radical dispersion and poses a potentially huge problem: How can society cumulate knowledge in a way that will protect it from centralization by one single entity?

FA Hayek explains this in “The Use of Knowledge in Society” by saying:

“The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess.”

The knowledge necessary for the emergence and sustenance of social order cannot be concentrated by a state or authority figure. The attempt has already proven itself to be detrimental to societies throughout history.

Under feudalism, when travel was impossible, you only knew what you could extract from the small world around you, and this inhibited economic growth. As the move to the city advanced, so too did the knowledge base of humanity because we could have more contact with each other.

In the ages, before literacy was commonplace, theocracies capitalized on this lack of knowledge to keep their people subservient to their whims. If the people feared God’s judgment, but could not actually read what God had commanded of them, the government could use the text to its own advantage, interpreting it however it sees fit.

This problem is not unique to tyrannical theocracies but to all authoritarian regimes. Once information is concentrated to a select few, the whole of humanity misses out.

In the history of human progress, other technologies helped too. The printing press incentivized reading. This new skill shifted the culture and boosted humanity’s prospects. We could share more, learn more, upgrade what we know, and act on that knowledge to each other’s mutual benefit.

Thanks to the use of the hashtag on social media, posts are now categorized in a way that makes knowledge more easily accessible to individuals living all over the globe while still maintaining decentralization. The government isn’t controlling who tweets and who does not. That is left to the social media platforms themselves.

Ideas are not intellectual property, and as such belong to no one person in particular. That is the beauty of the hashtag. Once it is used on a particular post, that information is now easily searchable to all interested parties. Hayek may not have envisioned the hashtag, but he did understand the importance of the idea of congregating information in a central place, without having this information controlled by a state.

Hayek says:

“It is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality…It is a dispute as to whether planning is to be done centrally, by one authority for the whole economic system, or is to be divided among many individuals.”

Iran’s Twitter Revolution

With the hashtag, individuals from all over the globe are organically sending knowledge and information out into the world by merely typing a symbol already in existence. But by doing so, all relevant posts have now been segregated by topic and are thus easily digestible to virtually everyone on the globe. In many ways, it is spontaneous order at its finest.

This knowledge as it exists on Twitter and other social media outlets today not only spreads intellectual information about a given topic. It goes further and spreads the human experience of a specific time or place associated with a hashtag. While Hayek probably never fathomed the hashtag, he did seem to grasp the importance of knowledge deriving from personal experience and eyewitness accounts.  

“But a little reflection will show that there is beyond question a body of very important but unorganized knowledge which cannot possibly be called scientific in the sense of knowledge of general rules: the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place.”

Unless you were on the ground in Tehran during its 2009 elections, you would have had no idea what was going on during the country’s media blackout. However, thanks to Twitter and the use of hashtags, the oppressed citizenry was able to tell their stories, unique to a specific time and place, as Hayek says.

But because each Twitter user possessed their own unique knowledge of the situation relative to their experience, a wider range of information was able to be spread. Another phenomenon Hayek postulated without ever speculating the hashtag’s role in society:

“If it is fashionable today to minimize the importance of the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place, this is closely connected with the smaller importance which is now attached to change as such.”

Those tweeting from ground zero in Tehran may not have possessed skills that would usually warrant a demand for knowledge. They may not have been doctors or legal scholars. But they had their own experiences and by sharing their experiences, they brought about a change.

The government did not get away with blocking out all media. Videos of the atrocity were still shared. Students and other activists were still able to rally together because a simple hashtag helped them track down posts with location information. These Twitter users may not have known they were altering the course of history, but they undoubtedly were.

Spontaneous Order

Hashtags are the decentralized cooperation of many individuals. Each wanting to share their own opinions and knowledge with the world, they individually make the decision to actively participate in this sharing of ideas. This is another point made by Hayek in his essay:

“It is with respect to this that practically every individual has some advantage over all others because he possesses unique information of which beneficial use might be made, but of which use can be made only if the decisions depending on it are left to him or are made with his active coöperation.”

Social media sounds silly and almost dismissive when it comes to the exchange of information. With so much “fake” news out there it seems that a conglomerate of individuals would be the least likely place to seek knowledge.

But thanks to the hashtag, we now have a way to search specific topics and get a wide variety of viewpoints on one single matter. While it still may be up to the individual to discern what is true and what is simply sensationalism, the hashtag has given humankind the ability to organize information in what is arguably the most decentralized, spontaneous, and constantly evolving manner that has ever existed.

Write for CFI