Re: Re: Re: Re: Here/s an interesting piece on value
Bigness, by itself, is not inherently beneficial or harmful.
Perhaps not. I have to say I am more comfortable with big government than big business. My father was career Navy and our lives were government owned. It was a good life, so I don't inherently distrust government.
But I will continue to bring up the bigness issue because I see a lot of business news driven by it. As I have mentioned before, decentralization of power generation would be a very good thing. Of course we could have decentralization of delivery and still centralization of ownership, but if companies tend to act in their own best interests rather than the interests of society, then perhaps having an industry controlled by a limited number of players won't necessarily produce the best outcome for society.
We could also go with a massive collective, where all the members are owners. It's big, but ownership is widely spread. I'm not sure if that would be better than a local collective, but might work where you want to spread out the risks, like for health care. Of course, REI is a big collective, but I haven't studied it to know how it is run. I am a member, though, and really like it.
I don't see how Silicon Valley is any different than Hollywood in this regard.
The article is about bubbles and Silicon Valley valuations. Are you talking about that? I don't think Hollywood factors in.
As for Hollywood, I think it is already a declining issue, so I don't get into the copyright arguments. Fighting them is yesterday's war, in my mind. I'm more interested in the future. I do think, however, Silicon Valley is shaping up to be the equivalent of Big Oil, Big Media, Big Auto, etc. Based on the articles/comments I have been reading in some of the tech blogs, I can already see people moving into the same kinds of "we're important" thinking/justifications that every previous major industry has fallen into.
I'm more intrigued by the idea of using the Internet and networked culture/economics in preventing the growth of any major companies down the road. If society has really changed, why do we need big corporations? What do they bring to the table?
This pointing to a bubble mentality in Silicon Valley again. I lived through and wrote about the first dotcom bubble and crash so I have been skeptical about this round of hype as well.
Disruptions: Start-Ups Keep Revenue at Zero to Cash In on Acquisition - NYTimes.com: "When small start-ups I’ve spoken with do make money, they often find it difficult to recruit additional investment because most venture capitalists — and often the entrepreneurs they finance — are not interested in building viable long-term businesses. Rather, they’re interested in pumping up enough hype and valuation to find a quick exit through an acquisition at an eye-popping premium."
Inequality IS the downsizing of consumption. Group A gets to consume more than group B, but overall consumption drops because less people are holding little pieces of paper with president's heads on them that gives them permission to consume.
I agree with you on this, too. That's the upside of recession, consumption goes down because the masses have less money to spend. And as wealth aggregates into the hands of a smaller group, they can only drive so many cars, only take so many plane trips, etc. Everything else goes into stocks, art, homes, etc.
As for energy issues, that's a major focus for me. I'm far more interested in limiting the damage of the fossil fuel lobby than I am concerned about Internet-related issues, but I figure if we can get corporate money out of politics for whatever reason, it will be beneficial to the causes I do care about. I live in Colorado and companies want to frack in residential areas now. Most homeowners do not own the mineral rights, so they have little or no control over whether there is drilling on or next to their property. The goal is, essentially, to turn big chunks of Colorado into a pin cushion, drilling everywhere because the wells decline quickly and more of them constantly need to be drilled. At what point do you get to say, "Enough"?
Here's a piece along those lines. I'm happy that Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Google are battling amongst each other because hopefully that will keep them in check. Investors and company owners want their companies to wipe out the competition, but I'd rather see a world culture where there is no reason for us to have any company as big/powerful as Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook. In my mind, the ultimate networked environment doesn't even allow these mega companies to form because there is no point to them. We would change the nature of economics so that as we develop more efficient, localized goods/services, we eliminate the economies of scale. Now that would be a revolution.
Krugman just posted a chart showing how labor is not sharing the gains of productivity. That's one reason I think the shareable movement will have to catch on -- out of necessity. People have had less money to spend, and what they have financed has been debt financed. But if they adjust spending to income, they will spend less.
What's going to be interesting from a networked perspective is that the companies depending on advertising to sustain themselves (e.g., Google, Facebook, Twitter) will likely be affected if there is a massive downsizing of consumption. I use Google all the time, but totally ignore whatever ads it serves me. I wonder what will happen if Google's current business model isn't sustainable. How much will Google continue to provide to me for free if fewer advertisers are footing the bill?
Where The Productivity Went - NYTimes.com: "Larry Mishel has a systematic breakdown of the reasons for worker income stagnation since 1973. He starts with the familiar divergence: productivity up 80 percent, the compensation (including benefits) of the median worker up only 11 percent."
As much as I appreciate Apple products, I see it as a very traditional company. Make expensive products manufactured by cheap labor, encourage people to upgrade all the time, and charge them a premium when they do. And obviously it is working well for them right now. But I don't really want to see more companies doing that.
If you don't plan for your resources to stretch into the foreseeable future, it's not sustainable. If two or more different groups plan to use the same resource without massive collaboration (ie oil), it won't last as long as any group plans.
Very true. That's why a sustainable model needs to factor in/encourage less consumption. I like the Shareable movement because it raises the question is to whether we actually need to make and buy as much as we do.
"A new way to produce is emerging. By this I mean: a new way to produce anything and everything, whether it is software, food, or cities. What once required rigid organisations and a society defined by the mentality of hierarchies, we are discovering now (and in many cases re-discovering) how to do through free association of peers."
What I like about Michel Bauwens is that he argues for a much bigger picture change, but he also points out that it requires a transition and whenever he anticipates problems, he acknowledges them.
Look at Microsoft, Apple, Google and Facebook. All of them created a massive amount of value -- and all have become phenomenally successful companies -- but all of them did so by also letting others monetize large portions of the value they created.
I don't want to use them as a model now because each is or has used their size to extend control into every larger areas. I see them as the next power block that will have to be upended for a new wave of freedom to exist.
To me bigness and growth may not be desirable from a world economic sustainability perspective.
That's been something I have been following more closely in the last few years. It does appear that no matter how well intentioned you were when you started, once you reach a certain size and/or level of success, you begin acting like those who came before you and whom you worked to overthrow/surpass.
I suppose we are at least at the step where we are recognizing the process, even if we don't necessarily have the solution yet. And the anti-trust laws were probably a result of similar trends over a hundred years ago. When companies reach a certain size and become dominant, we can hope market forces knock them off, but if their power/size reinforces their continuing power/size, we start mulling it all over again.
I'm not sure what to do about corporations being able to buy Washington, because we've put into Washington those who have thrived under the current system. We have more sources of information now than ever before, and yet we have a more polarized, less efficient elected government than anyone can remember.
In some cases people have suggested we just wait until voters who support the status quo die off and a younger group comes in with different values/priorities. I think that will work for many areas, though the climate change folks don't think we have time to wait out a generation in terms of radically decreasing fossil fuel consumption.
I also wonder if technology can also reduce the economies of scale so that there is less of an advantage to being a huge corporation.
I'd like to think the future of energy will be localization as much as possible, eventually with everyone generating much of the power that they use on-site. That will take awhile, but if we focus on the future, there may be much less need for massive electric transmission lines to take power from one location to another.
I also don't relish the idea of a company like Apple or Facebook controlling so much. Or Monsanto. So whatever trends there are to break everything down into community-sized pieces is something I am interested in.
Seems like the stock market forces companies into focusing on the short-term, so perhaps we need to discourage companies from being publicly traded.
And if we do that, it changes the nature of initial funding, too. If we eliminate IPOs and the like, VCs need to find other ways to claim a return on investment.
And I will toss in that media coverage of which companies are the biggest, growing the fastest, and making their founders the richest also needs to be modified so we seek out a different sort of entrepreneur to be a role model.
I like the discussions coming out of the sustainability and shareable movements because they are questioning many of the basics of growth and consumption.
I'll toss this out. The author includes lawyers and patent trolls as people he can do without, but he gives other reasons why Big Tech isn't working together.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I want them to. As they battle, perhaps they can keep each other in check so that they don't get even stronger.
"Silicon Valley’s war for the mobile web | VentureBeat: "In my fantasy world, Google and Facebook and Mozilla and Yahoo and all the brilliant men and women who make those companies up would be able to sit down at the ultimate round table and hash out a mobile web that was good for everyone — great for developers, great for users, great for manufacturers. Everyone would win.
"But in my fantasy world, there are no lawyers, no patent trolls, no limited streams of income, and definitely no online advertising. In the imperfect world, where lawyers and advertising rule the day, the round table is broken, and the deafening din of talk about the mobile web remains fraught with discord."
Maybe someone already touched up this in these comments (sometimes I don't take the time to read the comments here, so I may be guilty of restating what someone else has already said).
At any rate, I was waiting for one of these articles debunking the connection between violent games and violence to refer back to this. Seems like it is using the same logic in both cases. If you are going to finger point in one, you should be prepared for finger pointing in the other.
Right now IP laws seem to be working well for Apple, so that company runs counter to the idea that IP laws are a plague. Not only is the company making tons of money, consumers seem very happy to support it.
I'm just pointing this out because sometimes I think the examples against IP laws don't make the argument very well. So Apple is a hugely successful company using IP laws to its advantage. Just a good example of big companies being big companies.
But the bigger issue to me is actually the chilling effects that this situation has had. After sharing all of these details with me, I asked if he would be okay with me publishing the story with the full details. And he refused. [...] And that's the classic tale of a chilling effect of copyright law. Scaring people into not speaking up or not presenting their story.
I thought Mike was saying that his friend wouldn't let him discuss how everything evolved in detail. But if his friend didn't use the image, what is there to be afraid of? Why not say what company vetoed the image if the image wasn't used? That's why I am confused. If there was no copyright breach, then give us more background.
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here/s an interesting piece on value
Perhaps not. I have to say I am more comfortable with big government than big business. My father was career Navy and our lives were government owned. It was a good life, so I don't inherently distrust government.
But I will continue to bring up the bigness issue because I see a lot of business news driven by it. As I have mentioned before, decentralization of power generation would be a very good thing. Of course we could have decentralization of delivery and still centralization of ownership, but if companies tend to act in their own best interests rather than the interests of society, then perhaps having an industry controlled by a limited number of players won't necessarily produce the best outcome for society.
We could also go with a massive collective, where all the members are owners. It's big, but ownership is widely spread. I'm not sure if that would be better than a local collective, but might work where you want to spread out the risks, like for health care. Of course, REI is a big collective, but I haven't studied it to know how it is run. I am a member, though, and really like it.
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
Re: Re: Here/s an interesting piece on value
The article is about bubbles and Silicon Valley valuations. Are you talking about that? I don't think Hollywood factors in.
As for Hollywood, I think it is already a declining issue, so I don't get into the copyright arguments. Fighting them is yesterday's war, in my mind. I'm more interested in the future. I do think, however, Silicon Valley is shaping up to be the equivalent of Big Oil, Big Media, Big Auto, etc. Based on the articles/comments I have been reading in some of the tech blogs, I can already see people moving into the same kinds of "we're important" thinking/justifications that every previous major industry has fallen into.
I'm more intrigued by the idea of using the Internet and networked culture/economics in preventing the growth of any major companies down the road. If society has really changed, why do we need big corporations? What do they bring to the table?
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
Here/s an interesting piece on value
Disruptions: Start-Ups Keep Revenue at Zero to Cash In on Acquisition - NYTimes.com: "When small start-ups I’ve spoken with do make money, they often find it difficult to recruit additional investment because most venture capitalists — and often the entrepreneurs they finance — are not interested in building viable long-term businesses. Rather, they’re interested in pumping up enough hype and valuation to find a quick exit through an acquisition at an eye-popping premium."
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
Re: Re: The new economic reality
I agree with you on this, too. That's the upside of recession, consumption goes down because the masses have less money to spend. And as wealth aggregates into the hands of a smaller group, they can only drive so many cars, only take so many plane trips, etc. Everything else goes into stocks, art, homes, etc.
As for energy issues, that's a major focus for me. I'm far more interested in limiting the damage of the fossil fuel lobby than I am concerned about Internet-related issues, but I figure if we can get corporate money out of politics for whatever reason, it will be beneficial to the causes I do care about. I live in Colorado and companies want to frack in residential areas now. Most homeowners do not own the mineral rights, so they have little or no control over whether there is drilling on or next to their property. The goal is, essentially, to turn big chunks of Colorado into a pin cushion, drilling everywhere because the wells decline quickly and more of them constantly need to be drilled. At what point do you get to say, "Enough"?
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
Re: But now I worry about them
Google is powerful now, but Amazon, Facebook, and Apple are taking over | Business | TIME.com
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
The new economic reality
What's going to be interesting from a networked perspective is that the companies depending on advertising to sustain themselves (e.g., Google, Facebook, Twitter) will likely be affected if there is a massive downsizing of consumption. I use Google all the time, but totally ignore whatever ads it serves me. I wonder what will happen if Google's current business model isn't sustainable. How much will Google continue to provide to me for free if fewer advertisers are footing the bill?
Where The Productivity Went - NYTimes.com: "Larry Mishel has a systematic breakdown of the reasons for worker income stagnation since 1973. He starts with the familiar divergence: productivity up 80 percent, the compensation (including benefits) of the median worker up only 11 percent."
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
Re: Re: Re: Here's an alternative model
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
Re: Re: Re: Here's an alternative model
Very true. That's why a sustainable model needs to factor in/encourage less consumption. I like the Shareable movement because it raises the question is to whether we actually need to make and buy as much as we do.
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
Re: Here's an alternative model
"A new way to produce is emerging. By this I mean: a new way to produce anything and everything, whether it is software, food, or cities. What once required rigid organisations and a society defined by the mentality of hierarchies, we are discovering now (and in many cases re-discovering) how to do through free association of peers."
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
Here's an alternative model
What I like about Michel Bauwens is that he argues for a much bigger picture change, but he also points out that it requires a transition and whenever he anticipates problems, he acknowledges them.
On the post: When You Create Value It Doesn't Mean You Have To Capture Every Bit Of That Value
But now I worry about them
I don't want to use them as a model now because each is or has used their size to extend control into every larger areas. I see them as the next power block that will have to be upended for a new wave of freedom to exist.
To me bigness and growth may not be desirable from a world economic sustainability perspective.
On the post: Hacking Society: It's Time To Measure The Unmeasurable
Re: Re: Where does it start/end?
I suppose we are at least at the step where we are recognizing the process, even if we don't necessarily have the solution yet. And the anti-trust laws were probably a result of similar trends over a hundred years ago. When companies reach a certain size and become dominant, we can hope market forces knock them off, but if their power/size reinforces their continuing power/size, we start mulling it all over again.
I'm not sure what to do about corporations being able to buy Washington, because we've put into Washington those who have thrived under the current system. We have more sources of information now than ever before, and yet we have a more polarized, less efficient elected government than anyone can remember.
In some cases people have suggested we just wait until voters who support the status quo die off and a younger group comes in with different values/priorities. I think that will work for many areas, though the climate change folks don't think we have time to wait out a generation in terms of radically decreasing fossil fuel consumption.
On the post: Hacking Society: It's Time To Measure The Unmeasurable
Re: Not going public?
I'd like to think the future of energy will be localization as much as possible, eventually with everyone generating much of the power that they use on-site. That will take awhile, but if we focus on the future, there may be much less need for massive electric transmission lines to take power from one location to another.
I also don't relish the idea of a company like Apple or Facebook controlling so much. Or Monsanto. So whatever trends there are to break everything down into community-sized pieces is something I am interested in.
On the post: Hacking Society: It's Time To Measure The Unmeasurable
Not going public?
And if we do that, it changes the nature of initial funding, too. If we eliminate IPOs and the like, VCs need to find other ways to claim a return on investment.
And I will toss in that media coverage of which companies are the biggest, growing the fastest, and making their founders the richest also needs to be modified so we seek out a different sort of entrepreneur to be a role model.
I like the discussions coming out of the sustainability and shareable movements because they are questioning many of the basics of growth and consumption.
On the post: How Rumblefish Ended Up Claiming Copyright On A Song Uploaded By The Band Who Actually Held The Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Rumblefish Ended Up Claiming Copyright On A Song Uploaded By The Band Who Actually Held The Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the other hand, I'm not sure I want them to. As they battle, perhaps they can keep each other in check so that they don't get even stronger.
"Silicon Valley’s war for the mobile web | VentureBeat: "In my fantasy world, Google and Facebook and Mozilla and Yahoo and all the brilliant men and women who make those companies up would be able to sit down at the ultimate round table and hash out a mobile web that was good for everyone — great for developers, great for users, great for manufacturers. Everyone would win.
"But in my fantasy world, there are no lawyers, no patent trolls, no limited streams of income, and definitely no online advertising. In the imperfect world, where lawyers and advertising rule the day, the round table is broken, and the deafening din of talk about the mobile web remains fraught with discord."
On the post: Breivik, The Press And The Ongoing Myth Of The 'Violent Gamer'
Remember this?
At any rate, I was waiting for one of these articles debunking the connection between violent games and violence to refer back to this. Seems like it is using the same logic in both cases. If you are going to finger point in one, you should be prepared for finger pointing in the other.
Men At Work Musician Found Dead; Ridiculous Copyright Ruling Against Band Blamed | Techdirt
On the post: How Rumblefish Ended Up Claiming Copyright On A Song Uploaded By The Band Who Actually Held The Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right now IP laws seem to be working well for Apple, so that company runs counter to the idea that IP laws are a plague. Not only is the company making tons of money, consumers seem very happy to support it.
I'm just pointing this out because sometimes I think the examples against IP laws don't make the argument very well. So Apple is a hugely successful company using IP laws to its advantage. Just a good example of big companies being big companies.
On the post: The Chilling Effects Of Copyfraud: Blocking A Researcher From Fair Use... And Scaring Him Into Staying Quiet About It
Re: Re: I'm confused
I thought Mike was saying that his friend wouldn't let him discuss how everything evolved in detail. But if his friend didn't use the image, what is there to be afraid of? Why not say what company vetoed the image if the image wasn't used? That's why I am confused. If there was no copyright breach, then give us more background.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Data Caps: No One Knows What A Megabyte Is
Go with Sprint
Next >>