Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But maybe the "crowd" was right
Might use this in a class I run at Uni on Information Technology Ethics and the Law. Seems like a good and apt case study.
Yes, that's why I have made comments here. I think developing a sharable economy is a great thing, but I also believe there are hurdles to overcome. There are reasons Utopian experiments tend not to last.
Actually, I found that his card did have "rules." He asked that people not use the card for more than $3 purchases. I don't know if he changed that, but when he first started the experiment, that's what he put online. I posted the link in a new thread.
We've been debating something that is actually incorrect. Stark did ask people not to abuse the card.
Broadcasting Mobile Currency : Jonathan Stark: "I only put $30 on the card, so it’s first come, first served. I’m also pretty sure that this card image will only work in the U.S., but feel free to try it elsewhere. My only requests are:
* Please limit your purchase to around $3.00 so more people can try it.
* Ping on Twitter to let me know how it went."
The community didn't own or even control the card (or garden from your original hypotheses), and for the community to suggest that they did is extremely unethical in itself.
So you feel everything must be codified? If an open garden doesn't say you can't take everything, then you presume you can take everything? That's probably why we end up with so many laws and restrictions. People want to clearly spell everything out to make sure there are no misunderstandings.
However, that is going to hamper some shareable experiments. If it means every time you want to share something with someone you have to hand out a massive list of what people can and can't do, then it becomes cumbersome. On the other hand, you have just pointed on reason there are so many lawyers.
Read Starks' response again, he didn't "forfit" control, he gave control willingly to the crowd.
But, as I understand it, Stark didn't initially say he was giving control to anyone. It wasn't defined. But the "crowd" did assume ownership of it, so I'd say that what they did was consistent with the whole concept. Therefore, by the time Odio got involved, the "ownership" of the card was no longer up for grabs. Collectively the "crowd" assumed ownership and Odio wasn't supposed to do what he did. The "crowd" was responding in an expected manner as property holders.
So, from a property rights perspective, Odio tried to take control of something that wasn't his.
Since the experiment didn't specify how the card was to be used, this also means that the "crowd" could determine how it was going to be used. And while there was no meeting to establish rules, it appears that collectively the users did establish a set of unspoken rules. The card would be used for people to give and share in a manner that allowed for fairly broad group participation. For one person to come along to use the card as he wished may have been okay with Stark, but the experiment had progressed to the point that the card was no longer his to control. Now it was the group's card. They took control and it's theirs now.
A similar situation could be a community garden. Let's say that a landowner donated the land, said it was for a community garden, but made no specifications. Then a group of people put in time and energy to develop it. The garden wasn't fenced, so at harvest time anyone could come and take food from it, but it was with the unstated understanding that one person wouldn't come and take all the food, for whatever purpose (even if it was to feed a charity group).
Using both of the above examples, the result is that the group now "owns" the garden or the card, and it is no longer an open experiment.
Stark essentially forfeited control of the entire experiment when he put the card into public hands. And the group decided they with unhappy with Odio's attempt to take control of "their" card.
Sharing and other communal activities are going through a resurgence these days (it was popular in the 1960s and 1970s, and at other points in history). A variety of reasons:
1. Online networking gives us new models.
2. The economy is tough for a lot of people, so anything that reduces costs has appeal.
3. Sharing can reduce consumption, which is good for the planet.
But some missteps with Airbnb demonstrates that not everyone behaves in a trustworthy manner. Unfortunately, we can't always leave our doors unlocked and assume no one will take things. And even in one-on-one situations, we don't always agree about who will do the chores, how much money each of us will contribute, etc. Establishing trust and making sure no one feels exploited can take a long time. Entire cultures are built upon these concepts. Some are more trusting and trustworthy than others.
Shareable.net recently asked how sharing services can earn people's trust, and this was my answer.
Shareable: What do sharing services need to do to earn your trust? Responses from the Shareable Community: "We all know of situations where people take advantage of each other. They don't do an equal amount of work or they don't contribute an equal amount or they intentionally abuse the system. So a sharing service either needs to take personal responsibility for that (e.g., some stores will take returns even when it is obvious the person making the return used the product and now just wants a refund) or it needs to create a screening system so that the abusers can't participate.
Those are tough challenges, but otherwise people will run into problems when they use the services. Maybe most won't run into problems, but the ones who do will complain and make others wary."
This explains why Mike and I differ on some ideas. I think he hopes to combine a post-IP age with a capitalist view of scarcity.
I think the concept of scarcity is not going to serve us well in the future. Sure, there are going to continue to be scarce resources, but I think we won't have a scarcity of labor or consumable items, so the value of those will go down and we'll need a different system to provide a basic standard of living to the average person.
I don't bother to talk about IP issues because I think the system will take care of itself in time. I'm more interested in the bigger picture of how one might restructure government/politics in this country so we can better respond to the economic changes happening around us. You're not likely to eliminate or modify IP laws if the politicians only feel accountable to companies and wealthy individuals who want to protect their turf and grab even more for themselves. IP laws are just a small part of that picture.
Re: Re: Growth fueled jobs, but the frontier is now overseas
If you look at where the VCs are putting their money, it's more into social networks right now than cleantech.
If IP laws are the problem, then it doesn't really make sense for investors to expect much from Pandora, and yet that company's IPO did okay.
I think US investors want quick returns and see more opportunities in Internet companies than cleantech companies. China sees an opportunity to become the dominant country in cleantech and is moving aggressively in that direction.
I think the US as a whole is driven by short-term results. We want it now, even if we're going to be at a disadvantage 10 years from now.
I have no problem at all if you want to get rid of IP laws in this country, but until you change the way laws are made in the US, it is not likely to happen. Saying that IP laws hamper growth in the US means nothing to politicians who are funded by companies with a vested interest in preventing competition.
We already know that many politicians have absolutely no interest in creating jobs. They just want to get reelected. They will happily support the laws their financial donors give them. I think it is reasonable to assume that in fact if it serves their purposes, they will act in ways that intentionally harm the economic future of the country.
Our schools are getting worse while they're getting more expensive. I'd like to save the money that currently goes towards our failing public schools and instead put it to work in a school that competes for my dollar through actual results. Why is that a bad thing, exactly? Why raise utter failure up as the standard for what we should strive for?
You know, that is a reasonable request. But that was the goal of "No Child Left Behind," and what we got were schools educating for tests and in some cases cheating to pass those tests. We haven't created the perfect system yet that links financial rewards to results because we're not always sure what the results should be and when we try to define them, we end up with people trying to game the system.
What I would probably do is to continue to have a number of public owned and run projects, but I would change how we elect people. Change how elections are funded, for example. There are many possible government systems that don't have to operate as ours does. The idea of a commons, where the population as a whole owns and runs the property, can be the best system for certain things. I'm not sure, for example, we should be able to sell off the Grand Canyon.
Wait what? You can't separate government from politicians. Politicians are government.
You know those polls ask people who they trust and the military comes out on top and the politicians come out on the bottom, that's how I see it too. What politicians have to do to get elected is vastly different than what a career military person or a career foreign service person or a national parks ranger does.
I'm not sure that is true. But also, you have to factor in the reality that private schools don't have to take problem kids (there are some that do, and they charge a ton of money to do so). Public schools have to provide for kids with learning disabilities, kids who require assistants, kids who many not be able to speak English, etc.
Government's role is supposed to be society's monopoly on force and to enforce personal and property rights - that's it.
Not everyone would agree with that, including me. Having come from a military family, and seeing some of the abuses I see done by private companies, I fundamentally trust government (but not politicians, who I think work for corporate interests these days) more than for-profit companies.
Growth fueled jobs, but the frontier is now overseas
It's probably hard to separate innovation creating jobs and growth creating jobs. As long as we had cheap energy, a growing population buying homes, etc., we had an expanding need for more people working.
Now, many of those job-creating opportunities are overseas. Just as jobs shifted from the rust belt cities to elsewhere in the US, now they are shifting from the US to other countries.
I envisioned cleantech infrastructure as creating jobs in the US. If you need to rewire buildings, lay more transmission lines, install wind turbines, you are creating jobs. But the companies that have a vested interested in the old systems have no strong interest in funding the new ones. And the government doesn't have the money. And the investors would rather fund the next social media network than large solar projects.
So yes, technology can create jobs, but not necessarily in this country.
I problem as I see it is that financial rewards are not being handed out based on what jobs we actually need.
While machines have taken over many jobs, we still need people to take care of children, the elderly, and the disabled. But we don't want to pay very much to the people who do those jobs. On the other hand, people who shuffle money around, but don't actually create much value in terms of quality of life, are hugely rewarded. In fact, some people have pointed out our best mathematicians are now being hired by financial firms rather than going to work in universities and other research centers. Money is redirecting talent, but not necessarily in directions that enhance civilization.
Now we can argue that as more effort and funding are going into speculative endeavors rather than quality-of-life improvements, the entire system will collapse, and then when things get bad enough, we may take some action. Personally I think the world is headed that direction. The financial markets are making a mess of the world economy right now.
Turnpikes, toll bridges, private fire departments, etc.
Perhaps government will hand everything over to private companies, but it will take some adjustments. If private companies own all the roads, bridges, etc., then people will have to get used to paying every time they use them, or paying for usage cards.
Haliburton certainly ripped off the US government over in Iraq, so the for-profit system doesn't necessarily reduce costs.
Personally I think we'll start selling lots of public assets and the Chinese will buy them. And I'd rather have Chinese-funded cleantech infrastructure than none at all.
On the post: 'Jonathan's Card' Raises Interesting Ethical Debate: Who Decides Which Uses Of A Shared Resource Are 'Right'?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But maybe the "crowd" was right
Yes, that's why I have made comments here. I think developing a sharable economy is a great thing, but I also believe there are hurdles to overcome. There are reasons Utopian experiments tend not to last.
On the post: 'Jonathan's Card' Raises Interesting Ethical Debate: Who Decides Which Uses Of A Shared Resource Are 'Right'?
Re: Re: Re: Re: But maybe the "crowd" was right
On the post: 'Jonathan's Card' Raises Interesting Ethical Debate: Who Decides Which Uses Of A Shared Resource Are 'Right'?
Stark did put restrictions on the use of the card
Broadcasting Mobile Currency : Jonathan Stark: "I only put $30 on the card, so it’s first come, first served. I’m also pretty sure that this card image will only work in the U.S., but feel free to try it elsewhere. My only requests are:
* Please limit your purchase to around $3.00 so more people can try it.
* Ping on Twitter to let me know how it went."
On the post: 'Jonathan's Card' Raises Interesting Ethical Debate: Who Decides Which Uses Of A Shared Resource Are 'Right'?
Re: Re: But maybe the "crowd" was right
So you feel everything must be codified? If an open garden doesn't say you can't take everything, then you presume you can take everything? That's probably why we end up with so many laws and restrictions. People want to clearly spell everything out to make sure there are no misunderstandings.
However, that is going to hamper some shareable experiments. If it means every time you want to share something with someone you have to hand out a massive list of what people can and can't do, then it becomes cumbersome. On the other hand, you have just pointed on reason there are so many lawyers.
On the post: 'Jonathan's Card' Raises Interesting Ethical Debate: Who Decides Which Uses Of A Shared Resource Are 'Right'?
Re: Re: But maybe the "crowd" was right
But, as I understand it, Stark didn't initially say he was giving control to anyone. It wasn't defined. But the "crowd" did assume ownership of it, so I'd say that what they did was consistent with the whole concept. Therefore, by the time Odio got involved, the "ownership" of the card was no longer up for grabs. Collectively the "crowd" assumed ownership and Odio wasn't supposed to do what he did. The "crowd" was responding in an expected manner as property holders.
So, from a property rights perspective, Odio tried to take control of something that wasn't his.
On the post: 'Jonathan's Card' Raises Interesting Ethical Debate: Who Decides Which Uses Of A Shared Resource Are 'Right'?
But maybe the "crowd" was right
A similar situation could be a community garden. Let's say that a landowner donated the land, said it was for a community garden, but made no specifications. Then a group of people put in time and energy to develop it. The garden wasn't fenced, so at harvest time anyone could come and take food from it, but it was with the unstated understanding that one person wouldn't come and take all the food, for whatever purpose (even if it was to feed a charity group).
Using both of the above examples, the result is that the group now "owns" the garden or the card, and it is no longer an open experiment.
Stark essentially forfeited control of the entire experiment when he put the card into public hands. And the group decided they with unhappy with Odio's attempt to take control of "their" card.
On the post: 'Jonathan's Card' Raises Interesting Ethical Debate: Who Decides Which Uses Of A Shared Resource Are 'Right'?
Sharing culture
1. Online networking gives us new models.
2. The economy is tough for a lot of people, so anything that reduces costs has appeal.
3. Sharing can reduce consumption, which is good for the planet.
But some missteps with Airbnb demonstrates that not everyone behaves in a trustworthy manner. Unfortunately, we can't always leave our doors unlocked and assume no one will take things. And even in one-on-one situations, we don't always agree about who will do the chores, how much money each of us will contribute, etc. Establishing trust and making sure no one feels exploited can take a long time. Entire cultures are built upon these concepts. Some are more trusting and trustworthy than others.
Shareable.net recently asked how sharing services can earn people's trust, and this was my answer.
Shareable: What do sharing services need to do to earn your trust? Responses from the Shareable Community: "We all know of situations where people take advantage of each other. They don't do an equal amount of work or they don't contribute an equal amount or they intentionally abuse the system. So a sharing service either needs to take personal responsibility for that (e.g., some stores will take returns even when it is obvious the person making the return used the product and now just wants a refund) or it needs to create a screening system so that the abusers can't participate.
Those are tough challenges, but otherwise people will run into problems when they use the services. Maybe most won't run into problems, but the ones who do will complain and make others wary."
On the post: Politicians, Innovation & The Paradox Of Job Creation
Cool presentation on the history of ecoomics and the future
This explains why Mike and I differ on some ideas. I think he hopes to combine a post-IP age with a capitalist view of scarcity.
I think the concept of scarcity is not going to serve us well in the future. Sure, there are going to continue to be scarce resources, but I think we won't have a scarcity of labor or consumable items, so the value of those will go down and we'll need a different system to provide a basic standard of living to the average person.
I don't bother to talk about IP issues because I think the system will take care of itself in time. I'm more interested in the bigger picture of how one might restructure government/politics in this country so we can better respond to the economic changes happening around us. You're not likely to eliminate or modify IP laws if the politicians only feel accountable to companies and wealthy individuals who want to protect their turf and grab even more for themselves. IP laws are just a small part of that picture.
On the post: Politicians, Innovation & The Paradox Of Job Creation
Mark Cuban's suggestion
On the post: Politicians, Innovation & The Paradox Of Job Creation
Re: Re: Re: Growth fueled jobs, but the frontier is now overseas
Has cleantech investing lost its glamour?
I can also provide links to articles about China's dominance in cleantech if anyone wants to see them.
On the post: Politicians, Innovation & The Paradox Of Job Creation
Re: Re: Growth fueled jobs, but the frontier is now overseas
If IP laws are the problem, then it doesn't really make sense for investors to expect much from Pandora, and yet that company's IPO did okay.
I think US investors want quick returns and see more opportunities in Internet companies than cleantech companies. China sees an opportunity to become the dominant country in cleantech and is moving aggressively in that direction.
I think the US as a whole is driven by short-term results. We want it now, even if we're going to be at a disadvantage 10 years from now.
I have no problem at all if you want to get rid of IP laws in this country, but until you change the way laws are made in the US, it is not likely to happen. Saying that IP laws hamper growth in the US means nothing to politicians who are funded by companies with a vested interest in preventing competition.
We already know that many politicians have absolutely no interest in creating jobs. They just want to get reelected. They will happily support the laws their financial donors give them. I think it is reasonable to assume that in fact if it serves their purposes, they will act in ways that intentionally harm the economic future of the country.
On the post: Politicians, Innovation & The Paradox Of Job Creation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Infrastructure spending
You know, that is a reasonable request. But that was the goal of "No Child Left Behind," and what we got were schools educating for tests and in some cases cheating to pass those tests. We haven't created the perfect system yet that links financial rewards to results because we're not always sure what the results should be and when we try to define them, we end up with people trying to game the system.
On the post: Politicians, Innovation & The Paradox Of Job Creation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Infrastructure spending
On the post: Politicians, Innovation & The Paradox Of Job Creation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Infrastructure spending
You know those polls ask people who they trust and the military comes out on top and the politicians come out on the bottom, that's how I see it too. What politicians have to do to get elected is vastly different than what a career military person or a career foreign service person or a national parks ranger does.
On the post: Politicians, Innovation & The Paradox Of Job Creation
Re: Schools (Re: Infrastructure spending)
I'm not sure that is true. But also, you have to factor in the reality that private schools don't have to take problem kids (there are some that do, and they charge a ton of money to do so). Public schools have to provide for kids with learning disabilities, kids who require assistants, kids who many not be able to speak English, etc.
On the post: Politicians, Innovation & The Paradox Of Job Creation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Infrastructure spending
Not everyone would agree with that, including me. Having come from a military family, and seeing some of the abuses I see done by private companies, I fundamentally trust government (but not politicians, who I think work for corporate interests these days) more than for-profit companies.
On the post: Politicians, Innovation & The Paradox Of Job Creation
Growth fueled jobs, but the frontier is now overseas
Now, many of those job-creating opportunities are overseas. Just as jobs shifted from the rust belt cities to elsewhere in the US, now they are shifting from the US to other countries.
I envisioned cleantech infrastructure as creating jobs in the US. If you need to rewire buildings, lay more transmission lines, install wind turbines, you are creating jobs. But the companies that have a vested interested in the old systems have no strong interest in funding the new ones. And the government doesn't have the money. And the investors would rather fund the next social media network than large solar projects.
So yes, technology can create jobs, but not necessarily in this country.
On the post: Politicians, Innovation & The Paradox Of Job Creation
Necessary jobs not being rewarded
While machines have taken over many jobs, we still need people to take care of children, the elderly, and the disabled. But we don't want to pay very much to the people who do those jobs. On the other hand, people who shuffle money around, but don't actually create much value in terms of quality of life, are hugely rewarded. In fact, some people have pointed out our best mathematicians are now being hired by financial firms rather than going to work in universities and other research centers. Money is redirecting talent, but not necessarily in directions that enhance civilization.
Now we can argue that as more effort and funding are going into speculative endeavors rather than quality-of-life improvements, the entire system will collapse, and then when things get bad enough, we may take some action. Personally I think the world is headed that direction. The financial markets are making a mess of the world economy right now.
On the post: Politicians, Innovation & The Paradox Of Job Creation
The best suggestions I have seen
charles hugh smith-You Want to Create Jobs? Here's How
On the post: Politicians, Innovation & The Paradox Of Job Creation
Turnpikes, toll bridges, private fire departments, etc.
Haliburton certainly ripped off the US government over in Iraq, so the for-profit system doesn't necessarily reduce costs.
Personally I think we'll start selling lots of public assets and the Chinese will buy them. And I'd rather have Chinese-funded cleantech infrastructure than none at all.
Here's how it's done in India. In Gurgaon, India, Dynamism Meets Dysfunction
Next >>