I'll add that I think it would be very interesting to extent Palmer's model to every form of economic transaction. Give away all of your labor/production away for free, then ask your fans/customers to pay you in return, but be okay if they don't. It would certainly transform world economics if everyone was friends with everyone else and an informal economic system developed around friendship and relationships, the way older forms of exchange systems used to work.
When I did a series of articles on the arts and gift economies, I came to the conclusion that it is fine for artists to give away their creativity as long as in return they get stuff (e.g., housing, food, health care) for free or low cost, too. That means looking at how the entire global economy works, which has led me to follow what is being written about commons, sharing economies, and P2P economies.
While a few people in the world have become increasingly wealthy, lots of other people are barely getting by and they are asking if maybe it's time to find alternatives. Here are two very recent articles.
For 20-Somethings, Ambition at a Cost - NYTimes.com: "Ms. McIntyre is just one 20-something — a population historically exploitable as cheap labor — learning that long hours and low pay go hand in hand in the creative class. The recession has been no friend to entry-level positions, where hundreds of applicants vie for unpaid internships at which they are expected to be on call with iPhone in hand, tweeting for and representing their company at all hours."
Nations Must Prepare For Robots Destroying The Low-Skill Job Market - Business Insider: "... modern economies continue to use wages as the primary means by which purchasing power is distributed. Really fast productivity growth might lead to tumbling costs for many different kinds of consumer goods, information, and possibly even health care. But people will still need incomes. Households will still need food and a roof over their heads, and society might even decide that they deserve more than that: that relative penury for huge segments of the population is bad for social stability, or even unjust."
Also, it seems that if you have a system that truly facilitates efficiency and sharing, there would be relatively little opportunity/reason for wealth accumulation and inequality. Competitive advantages would disappear as much as possible in the ideal system. Whatever develops in one place immediately becomes available in another. You would remove risk and misappropriation of everything if the system is fine-tuned enough.
You wouldn't necessarily have to force people to share. You'd just create a system where sharing was immediately facilitated. Nothing left to arbitrage.
I like to speculate about a business environment where new technologies and new forms of manufacture and distribution come out so rapidly and are copied so quickly that the whole idea of putting together huge companies goes out the window. And if there is no opportunity to make a killing with an IPO, that changes the dynamics of the entire VC and financial industries.
I'd like to see small projects and small organizational groups become the norm, where as much as possible every consumer is his own source for his needs. And when he can't do it in his own house, what he needs can be acquired locally or online without any middlemen taking a cut. I'd like to see property/business ownership flattened as much as possible. While some people may possess more expertise, training, and/or talent than others, if all of that is collectively shared, then whatever one person can do well benefits everyone and nearly instantaneously.
The Internet is allowing us the opportunity to replace some of the organizational benefits that once were held in-house in large organizations. But you still have companies such Facebook, Google, Amazon, and the like who want to amass that big data in-house rather than simply putting out in the public domain. Of course, as that data is accumulated, and if it is available for everyone to see, we have privacy and security issues which are being bigger problems by the day.
Another reason why we haven't been able to get cheaper health care
American doctors are overpaid: Medicare is cheaper than private insurance because it pays doctors less and that’s great. - Slate Magazine: "... America has the highest-paid general practitioners in the world. And our specialists make more than specialists in every other country except the Netherlands. What’s even more striking, as the Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff observed last week, these highly paid doctors don’t buy us more doctors’ visits. Canada has about 25 percent more doctors’ consultations per capita than we do, and the average rich country has 50 percent more. This doctor compensation gap is hardly the only issue in overpriced American health care—overpriced medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, prescription drugs, and administrative overhead are all problems—but it’s a huge deal."
But this review says pretty much what Broder's review said. And this came out weeks before the NY Times piece, so Tesla should have had some reason to expect that range would continue to be an issue and might come up in any review.
Tesla #ModelStranded: the full story - Autoweek: "Range estimations are fluid, meaning that a 200-odd-mile range can be reduced greatly while sitting in traffic. Though impressive, its range is limited, and for many that will keep it from being a legitimate alternative to other cars in its class. Even with Tesla's amazing and much-touted 'Supercharger,' adding 150 miles to the car's range takes half an hour. There are currently six active Supercharger stations in North America, with that number set to expand to 100 by 2015.
"Until recharging can be accomplished more quickly, the very best electric car ever created is still best as a second car. Which, like seemingly all green things, creates an ugly paradox; two cars where only one was needed before. That said, for those whose daily mileage rarely approaches the 200 mile mark, the Model S might provide all the mobility you need."
Here's just one example. If you have created a disruptive product that has a market, would you really need to complain about what one media outlet said about you? And are your potential customers so easily influenced that they won't buy from you after one bad review? And isn't it good to at least have your numbers right?
"Musk quickly clarified to say that it was 'probably a few hundred,' not a thousand. That's still bad! He says the $100 million estimate is more around total value and brand damage."
If you want to see why capitalism changed from the moral system proposed by Smith to the ugly, cruel monster we see today that remains capitalism in name only, where narcissism is the highest virtue and the system rewards and encourages people to act like sociopaths, you need look no further than Ayn Rand's influence.
One thing that is especially good about the Kickstarter way to fund a project is that in most cases it is project-based, not company-based. You are asked to support a particular project rather than an on-going company.
If you like the team that created the first project, you might be inclined to support whatever else they come up with in the future, but for each Kickstarter project, the concept is defined and may or may not continue after the project has been completed. Everything can be disbanded after the offers are delivered, and the creators can go on to other things if they want. It also goes along with our increasingly freelance-based work force.
Also, if you think about political revolutions throughout history, most of them overthrow the powers-that-be and then become powers-that-be themselves.
I think it's in the nature of human beings to hang on to what they have when they get it, so I'd like to see more focus on how to avoid concentration of power/control/ownership. It's a much bigger issue than upstart tech companies unsettling more established industries. When the tech companies get big enough they begin to resemble the companies/industries they displaced.
I'll go even further and would like to hear more people talk about how innovation will eliminate their own business models and how when that happens it will be time to disband their organizations and form new ones based on the new wave of innovation and disruption.
I do anticipate that will happen with Facebook. Google is getting into so many different businesses that maybe it will ride out the coming changes, though I am not sure why Google needs to remain Google. And Amazon seems also to be diversifying enough to survive the near future at least.
But we've seen Microsoft and Dell get left behind and Apple now appears to be at least a little vulnerable. I think all of that is good. Not because I had anything against any of them but it's a good sign of evolution. It used to be admirable for companies to be "built to last" but now perhaps we can ask "why?" Is the corporate model the best one moving forward or can we look at organizations, ownership, and branding differently now?
What concerns me is when the disruptors/innovators then become the power block and fight to hold on to their positions.
Steve Jobs is a good example of a disruptor who didn't want to be disrupted himself and was able to amass a legion of fanboys champion to his products based on an image.
I think when the little guys become powerful themselves, they then game the system to work in their favor. I would prefer to have a world of little guys rather than have an company/industry becoming too big, but the way we finance companies tends to reward companies that grow bigger and bigger and that absorb competitors and that stifle anything that might upset their control/ownership.
Re: Re: Re: Re: why are the prices absolutely insane.
*grabs Calculator* Divide that $18,000 by about 370,000,000 then divide the result by 30% (0.00004865 divided by .30)and multiply that number (0.00016216) by 370.000,000 *puts calculator*
Most people won't have enough taxable income to see that kind of tax increase so it won't impact everyone the same way. That's an important point.
The health care system was taking an increasing part of our economy pre-Obama care, so doing nothing probably wasn't an option either. He basically took a Republican idea and got it passed.
Medical riders on car insurance are dirt cheap and allow you to have full control of your treatment. Insurance agents don't like to talk about them because they aren't a money maker. However, they are very effective.
I was thinking about a pedestrian. Now I suppose that person could sue the driver, but perhaps the driver is driving without insurance, too. It's been known to happen. Some people drive with suspended licenses, so they probably aren't bothering have mandated car insurance.
THAT is the problem with offering something for free. The American consumer just can't handle it. They will abuse it. They will game the rules for no clear personal advantage. Then genuine thieves will start.
I fully support putting limits on how much is covered by health care. When people have unlimited coverage and no deductibles or co-pays they might get more health care coverage than they actually need, simply because it is free to them. "Massages are covered? Sure, I'll have one every week."
I support breast feeding, but I agree that there's no reason insurance should cover expensive models. In fact, I'd order a bulk of the basic model and tell mothers they can have that for free (with a deposit that can be refunded when they return the pump) or they can pay the extra themselves for something more expensive.
Two discussion-worthy reactions to Brill's article
Steven Brill’s 26,000-word health-care story, in one sentence: "What sets our really expensive health-care system apart from most others isn’t necessarily the fact it’s not single-payer or universal. It’s that the federal government does not regulate the prices that health-care providers can charge."
Brill on health care: Steven Brill's opus on hospital prices.: "I can see two reasonable policy conclusions to draw from this, neither of which Brill embraces. One is that Medicare should cover everyone, just as Canadian Medicare does. Taxes would be higher, but overall health care spending would be much lower since universal Medicare could push the unit cost of services way down. The other would be to adopt all-payer rate setting rules—aka price controls—keeping the insurance market largely private, but simply pushing the prices down. Most European countries aren't single-payer, but do use price controls. Even Singapore, which is often touted by U.S. conservatives as a market-oriented forced-savings alternative to a universal health insurance system, relies heavily on price controls to keep costs down."
On the post: Amanda Palmer On The True Nature Of Connecting With Fans: It's About Trust
Re: Working for free
On the post: Amanda Palmer On The True Nature Of Connecting With Fans: It's About Trust
Working for free
While a few people in the world have become increasingly wealthy, lots of other people are barely getting by and they are asking if maybe it's time to find alternatives. Here are two very recent articles.
For 20-Somethings, Ambition at a Cost - NYTimes.com: "Ms. McIntyre is just one 20-something — a population historically exploitable as cheap labor — learning that long hours and low pay go hand in hand in the creative class. The recession has been no friend to entry-level positions, where hundreds of applicants vie for unpaid internships at which they are expected to be on call with iPhone in hand, tweeting for and representing their company at all hours."
Nations Must Prepare For Robots Destroying The Low-Skill Job Market - Business Insider: "... modern economies continue to use wages as the primary means by which purchasing power is distributed. Really fast productivity growth might lead to tumbling costs for many different kinds of consumer goods, information, and possibly even health care. But people will still need incomes. Households will still need food and a roof over their heads, and society might even decide that they deserve more than that: that relative penury for huge segments of the population is bad for social stability, or even unjust."
On the post: Uber's CEO: Innovators Shouldn't Have To Ask For Permission Or Forgiveness
Re: Re: The future of disruptive technology
On the post: Uber's CEO: Innovators Shouldn't Have To Ask For Permission Or Forgiveness
Re: The future of disruptive technology
You wouldn't necessarily have to force people to share. You'd just create a system where sharing was immediately facilitated. Nothing left to arbitrage.
On the post: Uber's CEO: Innovators Shouldn't Have To Ask For Permission Or Forgiveness
The future of disruptive technology
I'd like to see small projects and small organizational groups become the norm, where as much as possible every consumer is his own source for his needs. And when he can't do it in his own house, what he needs can be acquired locally or online without any middlemen taking a cut. I'd like to see property/business ownership flattened as much as possible. While some people may possess more expertise, training, and/or talent than others, if all of that is collectively shared, then whatever one person can do well benefits everyone and nearly instantaneously.
The Internet is allowing us the opportunity to replace some of the organizational benefits that once were held in-house in large organizations. But you still have companies such Facebook, Google, Amazon, and the like who want to amass that big data in-house rather than simply putting out in the public domain. Of course, as that data is accumulated, and if it is available for everyone to see, we have privacy and security issues which are being bigger problems by the day.
On the post: Healthcare Isn't A Free Market, It's A Giant Economic Scam
Another reason why we haven't been able to get cheaper health care
On the post: What The Tesla / NY Times Fight Teaches Us About The Media
Re: Re: Other problematic reviews
Tesla #ModelStranded: the full story - Autoweek: "Range estimations are fluid, meaning that a 200-odd-mile range can be reduced greatly while sitting in traffic. Though impressive, its range is limited, and for many that will keep it from being a legitimate alternative to other cars in its class. Even with Tesla's amazing and much-touted 'Supercharger,' adding 150 miles to the car's range takes half an hour. There are currently six active Supercharger stations in North America, with that number set to expand to 100 by 2015.
"Until recharging can be accomplished more quickly, the very best electric car ever created is still best as a second car. Which, like seemingly all green things, creates an ugly paradox; two cars where only one was needed before. That said, for those whose daily mileage rarely approaches the 200 mile mark, the Model S might provide all the mobility you need."
On the post: What The Tesla / NY Times Fight Teaches Us About The Media
Other problematic reviews
Edmunds Tesla Model S Test Drive Is Going Poorly - Business Insider
And another article out today pointed to this review from December.
Tesla #ModelStranded: the full story - Autoweek
On the post: Uber's CEO: Innovators Shouldn't Have To Ask For Permission Or Forgiveness
Re: Until ego gets in the way
Ego can color decisions.
Elon Musk: The NYT Review Of The Model S Cost Tesla $100 Million - Business Insider: "In an interview with Bloomberg's Betty Liu, he said the damage from the review could cost Tesla a hundred million dollars. Liu did some quick math and realized that would mean 1,000 cancelled orders for the Model S.
"Musk quickly clarified to say that it was 'probably a few hundred,' not a thousand. That's still bad! He says the $100 million estimate is more around total value and brand damage."
On the post: Uber's CEO: Innovators Shouldn't Have To Ask For Permission Or Forgiveness
Re: Re: Re: Re: Established power, or?
P2P Foundation's blog: "The Commons as a New Paradigm for Governance, Economics and Policy": "Here in Europe, there is a burgeoning interest in the commons as a vision and framework for remaking political culture and everyday life."
On the post: Uber's CEO: Innovators Shouldn't Have To Ask For Permission Or Forgiveness
Re: Re: Re: Re: Established power, or?
I've never been a fan.
On the post: Uber's CEO: Innovators Shouldn't Have To Ask For Permission Or Forgiveness
Re: Re: Until ego gets in the way
If you like the team that created the first project, you might be inclined to support whatever else they come up with in the future, but for each Kickstarter project, the concept is defined and may or may not continue after the project has been completed. Everything can be disbanded after the offers are delivered, and the creators can go on to other things if they want. It also goes along with our increasingly freelance-based work force.
On the post: Uber's CEO: Innovators Shouldn't Have To Ask For Permission Or Forgiveness
Re: Re: Until ego gets in the way
I think it's in the nature of human beings to hang on to what they have when they get it, so I'd like to see more focus on how to avoid concentration of power/control/ownership. It's a much bigger issue than upstart tech companies unsettling more established industries. When the tech companies get big enough they begin to resemble the companies/industries they displaced.
On the post: Uber's CEO: Innovators Shouldn't Have To Ask For Permission Or Forgiveness
Re: Until ego gets in the way
I do anticipate that will happen with Facebook. Google is getting into so many different businesses that maybe it will ride out the coming changes, though I am not sure why Google needs to remain Google. And Amazon seems also to be diversifying enough to survive the near future at least.
But we've seen Microsoft and Dell get left behind and Apple now appears to be at least a little vulnerable. I think all of that is good. Not because I had anything against any of them but it's a good sign of evolution. It used to be admirable for companies to be "built to last" but now perhaps we can ask "why?" Is the corporate model the best one moving forward or can we look at organizations, ownership, and branding differently now?
On the post: Uber's CEO: Innovators Shouldn't Have To Ask For Permission Or Forgiveness
Until ego gets in the way
Steve Jobs is a good example of a disruptor who didn't want to be disrupted himself and was able to amass a legion of fanboys champion to his products based on an image.
I think when the little guys become powerful themselves, they then game the system to work in their favor. I would prefer to have a world of little guys rather than have an company/industry becoming too big, but the way we finance companies tends to reward companies that grow bigger and bigger and that absorb competitors and that stifle anything that might upset their control/ownership.
On the post: Healthcare Isn't A Free Market, It's A Giant Economic Scam
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why are the prices absolutely insane.
Health insurance BEFORE Obamacare wasn't working either. People were dropping out because they couldn't afford the insurance.
My preference would be what other countries are doing that works for them.
On the post: Healthcare Isn't A Free Market, It's A Giant Economic Scam
Re: Re: Re: Re: why are the prices absolutely insane.
Most people won't have enough taxable income to see that kind of tax increase so it won't impact everyone the same way. That's an important point.
The health care system was taking an increasing part of our economy pre-Obama care, so doing nothing probably wasn't an option either. He basically took a Republican idea and got it passed.
On the post: Healthcare Isn't A Free Market, It's A Giant Economic Scam
Re: Re: Another scenario
Medical riders on car insurance are dirt cheap and allow you to have full control of your treatment. Insurance agents don't like to talk about them because they aren't a money maker. However, they are very effective.
I was thinking about a pedestrian. Now I suppose that person could sue the driver, but perhaps the driver is driving without insurance, too. It's been known to happen. Some people drive with suspended licenses, so they probably aren't bothering have mandated car insurance.
On the post: Healthcare Isn't A Free Market, It's A Giant Economic Scam
Re: Re: ObamaCare
I fully support putting limits on how much is covered by health care. When people have unlimited coverage and no deductibles or co-pays they might get more health care coverage than they actually need, simply because it is free to them. "Massages are covered? Sure, I'll have one every week."
I support breast feeding, but I agree that there's no reason insurance should cover expensive models. In fact, I'd order a bulk of the basic model and tell mothers they can have that for free (with a deposit that can be refunded when they return the pump) or they can pay the extra themselves for something more expensive.
Free Breast Pumps And The Cost Of Health Care : Planet Money : NPR: "Insurers are still trying to figure out whether to pay for extra-fancy breast pumps, or just basic models."
On the post: Healthcare Isn't A Free Market, It's A Giant Economic Scam
Two discussion-worthy reactions to Brill's article
Brill on health care: Steven Brill's opus on hospital prices.: "I can see two reasonable policy conclusions to draw from this, neither of which Brill embraces. One is that Medicare should cover everyone, just as Canadian Medicare does. Taxes would be higher, but overall health care spending would be much lower since universal Medicare could push the unit cost of services way down. The other would be to adopt all-payer rate setting rules—aka price controls—keeping the insurance market largely private, but simply pushing the prices down. Most European countries aren't single-payer, but do use price controls. Even Singapore, which is often touted by U.S. conservatives as a market-oriented forced-savings alternative to a universal health insurance system, relies heavily on price controls to keep costs down."
Next >>