Who controls the world? - James B. Glattfelder

James Glattfelder studies complexity: how an interconnected system -- say, a swarm of birds -- is more than the sum of its parts. And complexity theory, it turns out, can reveal a lot about how the economy works. Glattfelder shares a groundbreaking study of how control flows through the global economy, and how concentration of power in the hands of a shockingly small number leaves us all vulnerable. (Filmed at TEDxZurich.)
Talk by James B. Glattfelder.

[@stylis666]

'Reality is so complex, we need to move away form dogma.' Now there's an idea worth sharing.

[@priscillaallen5276]

Thank you for this talk. It explains so much about how our corporate/political world operates. Knowing the system is essential to bringing it under control. Shedding light and transparency on a naturally bewildering phenomena, can bring about a more just system in which we are more than confused pawns in a larger game.

[@ardiloplayda6784]

Big words Priscilla

[@bandhavdesai1708]

wow, complex systems...the application of physics into global economics and explaining it in a way that can be understood by laymen is definitely commendable. A brilliant first attempt at finding a correlation between the two... Physics and Economics. Fucking awesome.

[@Deevil992]

Complex system is a new perspective of understanding how our world operates from a system point of view. Different components in a system interact with each other and different systems do the same thing. It is kind of like mechanics. Fascinating!

[@fruitarianlove]

Magic.....if anyone couldn't keep up.....magic.

[@jaientenduunevoix726]

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams

[@dorothyaldridge4214]

in some very special circumstances like if their is alot of expensives wrapped around the steel...lol.

[@rickgillis1613]

Of course it can, you need to flow it under pressure through a nozzle, aka burner tip. You need to have a pressurized source of oxygen so the fuel has enough oxygen to burn hotter. (Think about a simple blacksmith forge using wood or coal, it will burn just using tinder to get it to light, but attach a bellows and as the air flow increases the fire gets hotenough to melt iron) So jet fuel can melt steel under controlled conditions. Spewing it all through a building & igniting it ....not possible, but with enough fuel burning like that it can eventually weaken the beams so they lose structural integrity, but they won't melt in a fire like that.

[@snarkobloviate3344]

8 families rule, make no mistake

[@bixlerd]

I agree with you so much on the idea of dogmatic minds keeping a gridlock of ideas. I think this video could be a good source for people behind the "99%" movement. Awesome video!

[@i.c.y.]

this is not very interesting that a mathematical model can dissolve and identify a mathematical real world interaction. but it is extremely interesting and fun to see that it can be done now, with all this ease of a software with the data available publicly. the Internet is an amazing thing, and it is extremely, extremely dangerous to a very small number of extremely powerful players.

[@KennTaylor]

wwpp=worldwidepizzaparty IP=intellectual property IT=information technology

[@JungleJargon]

It is not about complexity, it is about significant sequencing of directed working mechanisms that are not able to significantly sequence the directives that make them proving our Maker is not made of matter because matter is not able to make us without being directed to or without knowing how.

[@allpropertyvideosdotcomwit3524]

“Accumulating at the nodes.” Ideally, in a capitalist system, wealth creation equals power (wealth creators obtain power). Who else should it be?

[@nicksundby]

So rich powerful people have more control over corporations? wow I never knew

[@prolarka]

I hardly believe its the first time someone created such a graph.

[@parviznawab8542]

I thought the idea was too simplistic. The dynamics behind the synergy of forces are undecipherable because those unseen energies are unquantifiable. Yet the energy has an immense systematical intelligence driving its elements to next dimension.

[@robertgraeme9661]

American corporate greed - that's the reality!

[@swordarmstudios6052]

+Robert Graeme If think about what greed is, it's actually a useless superlative. It's like calling people socialists. It really has no intrinsic meaning. IE Corporations and people are all equally greedy in all industries, yet only some industries show these patholigically dangerous tendencies. Call it simple greed, and we will apply the incorrect solution to the problem. Plenty of industries with equally greedy people function just fine and to the benifit of mankind. Greed doesn't cause anything by itself. It's like blaming humans or blaming money. Technically true, but not even remotely useful.

[@66gtb]

Oleg Kozlovskii Well, we can not eliminate greed in people. As you say, it’s instinctual. So now what do we do?

[@zeez9053]

@@66gtb it’s Not instictive in all people.Some need encouragement from schools etc

[@hamzakhurram8912]

Insane video

[@AllAboutJack]

you're right about that.

[@ROMEROSPORTCULTURE]

It's not first analysis my friend, in Russia we had this kind of research long time back, the problem is you are not able to read russian

[@KR-wf5km]

Complexity in physics is similar to big data in statistics

[@robertdoell4321]

Jet Fuel doesn't have to melt steel. All it must do is heat the steel to the point the strength is lost!

[@politicalideals2554]

Mathematical Algorithms is not the observed phenomena it is merely an attempt to describe whereby understand what is observed and enhance predictability e.g. a map is not the actual observed geography. I am not trying to denigrate scientists attempts to analyze, understand thru modeling nor statements of predictability. I am saying physical relationships are as simple as observed phenomena descriptors. Regardless of mathematical constructs a flock of birds swarming in various patterns is simply one bird avoiding the birds around it in flight - if you follow a single bird you will see the simplicity of swarming. Are the mathematical algorithms useful and transferable..., absolutely. "Big Red Flag" when scientists proclaim their expertise without putting into perspective for the uninitiated..., looks more like an attempt to confuse rather than educate and I wonder about the political motivations.

[@hermes9592]

I was thinking the exact same thing.

[@Deevil992]

i am curious that what are the pre-requisites to study complex systems?

[@hpygolkyone]

Who controls the world? Google does! I love TED.

[@CobCast2130]

WHO RUUNS THE WORLD?!!!!

[@Schaph]

What does water piping has to do with any of these?

[@TheOneRealKing]

I somewhat disagree with the notion that this global network in the hands of just a few top dogs isn't somehow possibly a global. An organic pyramid can potentially emerge via a growing trans generational network of agents higher archly rooted in a long existing social order given time

[@SkullTrapmusic]

What happened to this research now? Is It still going on?

[@iali00]

The Situation

[@slawdify]

don't forget to consider the us federal reserve

[@bewareofthedeceiver]

I can't find this guy's obituary

[@timco3779]

Finance mind explaining the capitalistic society. nice video but he should put names on these nodes!

[@hopo2hopo]

horse cannot be friends with grass.

[@JohnForbes]

@7:12 what about redundancy, systems with more internal connections than needed may be more reliable.

[@server1ok]

+John Forbes There is no redundancy in complex systems, because you can not ( before hand ) know, which of the smaller parts will be crucial in creating the existing "emergent property". You have to let the system ( as a whole ) build up, on it's own. This also means, that you can not simplify it with standard mathematics, or compress the information content, to anything smaller than the system itself. You can study it, empirically, and gain understanding, but that will require, either an exact copy of the system ( not a model ) or, at the very least, vasts amounts of information gathering. There are no short cuts. There are no simple equations for describing the macro state. If there is an equation, that is shorter than the "macro State" that also describes every interaction in detail ? the system is not complex, and probably deterministic.

[@JohnForbes]

+3waybar Just because you do not know in advance does not mean that redundancy cannot emerge naturally within a complex system. For example, lets consider crumbs falling on an area of ground. There are a number of ant colonies nearby and other insects that can access the area. As a system all these entities behave collectively to remove the crumbs from the area. Now lets say that one of the ant colonies is removed. The other colonies and insects in the system may very likely continue to remove the crumbs and continue to exhibit the emergent behaviour. No one designed it; but the emergent property of removing crumbs from an area continues despite the failure of one component. This is what I meant by redundancy; and why many internal connections does not necessarily imply the system will destabilise if a single or collection of components fail.

[@server1ok]

+John Forbes Well. You may get a similar "emergent property" if you remove one of the ant colonies. However. You can never know the exact "emergent property" of 3 vs 2 "ant colonies", if you insert "yourself" ( or any outside agent ) as a controlling factor. When you remove a colony, "you" become a part of the emergent property, and that interference can never be subtracted by ordinary mathematics. Rather, you will be forced to run ( at least ) 2 sets of the experiment. First, with the undisturbed colonies, and then ( all over again ) with 1 colony subtracted. After this, you will have to repeat the process numerous times, to increase the reliability and hopefully reach some kind of average outcome, where you can partially subtract your actions, from the end result, but you will never reach a 100% certainty by first becoming an agent in the complex system, and then trying to subtract this "agent". When you remove the third "ant colony", you automatically become "the third ant colony" even if the colony is not there. There is no redundancy in a complex system, no matter what you do, unless you destroy the entire experiment, but that is another subject. ( related to singularities ) Anything can happen. At the extreme end, all of the nearby ant colonies can cease to function, simply by removing a third of the variation, because you will be removing genetic variations, without being rooted in properties that are important for "ant survivor" but rather by the "roll of a dice", and not every biological system can withstand this kind of outside happenstance forever. ( likewise, feeding wild animals can be hurtful in the longer term, if you are not a trained professional and even then, there is no certainty ) Probably in 99.99999 % of all the removals, the neighboring colonies will be fine, and even benefit from the removal of a potential rival, but you can never prove, that the entire system will not collapse by this outside interference. For example. My Country has a total wolf population of zero, because the population was hunted to the point of where ( now ) new wolfs have to be continuously introduced ( from Zoos and other regions ) just to keep the population from falling to zero again. When an entire Country has a wolf population of 150, the genetic variation, and the resulting "emerging property" has often been permanently destroyed. This is an extreme example, but these kinds of "rare events" are what dictate the history of "complex systems". This is crucial, to understanding financial markets, and why authorities, and even central banks are needed. There is no smaller workable model, than the system itself. ( if it's complex ? ) There can not be any "redundancy". Even in a nickel, lying on the pavement. Even if you set fire to a dollar bill, the dollar bill will still affect the "entire network" by not being present. And. The smallest agent can sometimes devastate the entire system, and without controls ( and safety rules ) the destruction can be permanent. Most emerging properties ( at least the ones that are visible ) are normally resilient, and able to repeat, and withstand outside shocks, but there is no equation ( or any model smaller than the system itself ) of predicting this, or the survival of any particular "emergence". There is no "God" reviewing economical complexity, and that is precisely why we a forced to create an economical "God", in the Federal Reserve, and, in a World where everyone is increasingly saving, the FED is the only uniform "flat tax", for taxing this behavior. Even people without bank accounts ( or underground economies ) are affected by the FED. It's the only hand, that reaches everywhere. If there was a simple rule ? or a workable equation for complex systems ? the FED would not need to employ hundreds of researchers, lawyers, data centers, and various staff. If anyone could ( mathematically ) prove any kind of lasting redundancy in the World economy ( as a complex system ) they would already have been contacted by the FED, probably at a top position. But there is no shortcut, and, mistakes are more guaranteed to be made, than avoided, even with the most brilliant theories, and researchers. No one and nothing can be larger, than the complex system itself. Even the FED ( the most powerful authority in the World ) can only guess, and hope to keep it healthy. There is no "general relativity" in economy, or in life. I know, that it's hard to accept.

[@number1gabry]

all is fractal

[@suecunningham3131]

We do the public the people of the world we are the solution we need to get our vibration matching and it will solve the issue with the vibration that is being chaotic and confusing at the moment and controlling you need to raise your emotions away from trying to fight the issue we have surrounding us all at the moment,,,We can use that power to fight these people we need to stop saying who is controlling the world and say we are all of us all over the world not just one or 234 or more all every living soul is

[@vaibhavgupta20]

all the big 5 financial institutes

[@otorishingen8600]

the wizard of oz put in diagrams

[@DanMickie]

LOL this has got to be a new world record. How does it take this guy 14 minutes to say "Jews"?

[@Languages2GO]

keep up with descriptions- he forgot sentences need to use concrete nouns-snooze button~~~

[@andrewgilmore4040]

you said peace and reality in the same sentence.... please.

[@BJARNE-SOLBERG]

Read and thimkRead and thimkRead and think about what is going on

[@mulus2008]

so who is it?

[@DeathsOnTheYAxis]

Such an advanced study coming only to the conclusion that one popular political opinion is correct. I guess I would have to say I agree with that political argument, but this study, while cool from a technical standpoint, is really not interesting in its conclusions.

[@xDemonTech]

+Jack C What why not? A 130-140-ish people have control over 40% of multinationals collective assets. That's interesting if you ask me

[@DeathsOnTheYAxis]

Being an academic with a purely political agenda must be the most depressing thing ever. You're trying to win debates, not find the truth. How can a person feel good about that?

[@tylernorby4939]

+Karl Héðinn 130-140 people or companies. The nodes were not just representing people.

[@xDemonTech]

Tyler Norby Ah I see :) Thanks for clarifying!

[@xDemonTech]

Jack C The truth is what matters in the end. Some things work, others do not. We need to find what works the best, for the most people. Only in that way can we reach our ultimate potential I think Not by the way of a smaler elite

[@brickpig]

Exactly he told us nothing.

[@Matlockization]

The only people who'd agree with the speaker would be the stupid, socialists and the North Korea government. The global economic crisis was caused by successive democratic governments loosening the financial regulations in the U.S (in order to help the poor and homeless) which were in place since the great depression and for Republicans for turning a blind eye due to populism. Fanny May and Freddy Mack lent money to the poor, who after a short time could no longer service the loan, then these loans were passed on to sub-prime lenders then on to financial banks who on-sold these debts to unknowing investors world wide. In other words you can't help the poor if they can't live within their means. This sounds similar to the current Greek tragedy. Capitalism, when properly regulated and nurtured can benefit all, just ask the Chinese, whereas socialism more often than not leads to problems down the track. The speakers mumbo jumbo had me wondering if there was a punch line or not, until I realised what side of politics he was coming from, only then did he start to make sense or lack of it.

[@tannerpittman]

It is hard to see how the "complexity perspective" the speaker advocates gets us any closer to moving away from "dogma." At bottom, I will never be happy with a wealthy world and uneven income levels if i'm a socialist. Likewise, liberals won't accept rules that break apart control networks if those rules restrict personal liberty. The speaker assumes that his topic itself is somehow value-neutral. It is not, even if empirical data is.

[@OrbTheCritic]

its a spiritual issue as well. The few who control the situation probably don't have a relationship with the Creator of all things seen and unseen. Likely they imagine themselves in such a role...

[@HenryLebensbaumLaw]

Contradictory and confusing whose net result is a confusing morass

[@kristoferbrethower1656]

Girls.

[@RaviKhatri]

I just wanted to say 'nothing'

[@QuarterlineMedia]

No, It's a Conspiracy, Always.

[@benbmusic88]

The patriots. Duh.

[@masomemaleki389]

Who are patriots?

[@benbmusic88]

@@masomemaleki389 MGS

[@procatist8624]

Juice

[@mirandusings]

The Jews.

[@clarissepiel3740]

He said nothing...

[@nerdvision3587]

No, you just fell asleep.

[@zeez9053]

That’s why I didn’t watch video

[@procatist8624]

Small hat people

[@dr.jefoch9408]

y

[@Abel_Makkonen_Tesfaye-0]

the goverments and god

[@eoley]

quite... the tone is just too laid back and unenthusiastic

[@juricavusic7926]

if he puts names he is dead :D !!!

[@mirandusings]

Explain to me how my comment was anti-semitic.

[@rolandoperez5667]

Does not say a anything actually

[@ednorton47]

Der Juden.

[@pimac3977]

Donald Trump

[@Alfoqm]

Boring

[@SpaceCattttt]

God, how boring!

[@alexthomsen3874]

gay

[@nicksundby]

So rich powerful people have more control over corporations? wow I never knew

[@JuanMartinez-vr7bg]

For a reason money controls the world and makes it work.