Posted on 03/22/2014 2:46:32 PM PDT by dennisw
WE are beginning to witness a paradox at the heart of capitalism, one that has propelled it to greatness but is now threatening its future: The inherent dynamism of competitive markets is bringing costs so far down that many goods and services are becoming nearly free, abundant, and no longer subject to market forces. While economists have always welcomed a reduction in marginal cost, they never anticipated the possibility of a technological revolution that might bring those costs to near zero.
The first inkling of the paradox came in 1999 when Napster, the music service, developed a network enabling millions of people to share music without paying the producers and artists, wreaking havoc on the music industry. Similar phenomena went on to severely disrupt the newspaper and book publishing industries. Consumers began sharing their own information and entertainment, via videos, audio and text, nearly free, bypassing the traditional markets altogether.
The huge reduction in marginal cost shook those industries and is now beginning to reshape energy, manufacturing and education. Although the fixed costs of solar and wind technology are somewhat pricey, the cost of capturing each unit of energy beyond that is low. This phenomenon has even penetrated the manufacturing sector. More than six million students are enrolled in free massive open online courses, the content of which is distributed at near zero marginal cost.
Industry watchers acknowledge the creeping reality of a zero-marginal-cost economy, but argue that free products and services will entice a sufficient number of consumers to purchase higher-end goods and specialized services, ensuring large enough profit margins to allow the capitalist market to continue to grow. But the number of people willing to pay for additional premium goods and services is limited.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The lessons economics were thrown out the window long ago. The rules are the same, as we will find to our dismay.
There will always be decent pay for a decent day's labor with decent skills and productivity. That includes most of the service industry. In my rural area the tradesmen make some of the best money.
In the digital world that this article is mostly talking about there is an increasing tendency to be rewarded for innovation and productivity. There is a false dichotomy by some of the posters above between "open source software" and making billions of dollars. It is true that proprietary software still gets the biggest investments, but open source software is often at the heart of the very highest capitalizations. People can easily become practitioners in one or more of them and with some extra effort can contribute to one and be in demand.
The difficulty now is that the whole world is competing. The quintessential example is digital services paid by digital currency like bitcoin. The buyer puts up an offer and gets a component quickly and cheaply. But the people who build up skills to work efficiently will be amply rewarded.
With Open Source Software, the software is the razor, Support are the “blades”.
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :
technocracy \tech*noc"ra*cy\, n.
government by technical specialists.
[PJC]
From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) :
technocracy
n 1: a form of government in which scientists and technical
experts are in control; "technocracy was described as that
society in which those who govern justify themselves by
appeal to technical experts who justify themselves by
appeal to scientific forms of knowledge"
>>There is no such thing as “Technological Socialism”.
I didn’t say that there IS. I said that there COULD BE. 20 years ago, we didn’t have e-commerce. Times are a’changin. The brick-and-mortar world is crumbling. Items “owned” in an online game are as valuable to a Millenial as your garage full of stuff.
To the extent that Napster charges its customers to access other people's work, yes. But as a musician, myself, I think the development of digital music has invalidated the whole model of charging money for a recording, at least in its bare, digital form. An MP3 song is best seen as a free commercial for a band's live performance, or for a more elaborately packaged CD version of the recorded work that includes additional products and benefits for the customer. Customers who don't want the extras, or who don't like the band enough to pay to see them live, can just listen to the song...and maybe they will like it enough to virally market it to a friend who will pay for the content. Either way, considering the casual listener a thief is unnecessary - they aren't stealing anything significant from the artist.
Of course, the music industry - which relies heavily on artificial acts with little talent who can't deliver quality live performances without expensive lighting, lip syncing, and a hundred backup dancers - realizes the game is up, and are collectively lashing out at reality in a blind panic. :)
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
On a song and its worth, see “minstrel.”
I see that Rifkin has crawled out from under his red rock again. He’s like a marxist vampire. No matter how many stakes we drive thru his dead heart, he keeps coming back like Mayor for Life Marion Barry of DC.
Several of us exposed Rifkind’s fraudulent “Peoples Bicentennial Commission” of 1976, Frank Watkins in his masterful testimony/expose’ before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and my study for the American Conservative Union’s Education and Research Institute, among others.
Then Rifkin changed its name to the “Peoples Business Commission” and tried to con businesses into contributing to his anti-free enterprise marxist group, with some success.
Later he founded the “Foundation for Economic Trends”, another marxist-oriented BS organization which got a lot of legitimacy in the dumbassed and duped mainstream press, such as the New York Times (aka the Red and Gray Duped Lady”).
Now he’s a big leftist environmentalist fraud, a sort of Al Gore before there was an environmental wacko named Al Gore.
I know why this BS was published in the New York Times. It is so full of leftist psychobabble BS that in order to read it, one has to go over to the UN and get a gaggle of translators to work on making any sense of it.
Oh, and what about that pro-Hanoi “National Committee for A Citizens’ Commission of Inquiry on US War Crimes in Vietnam”? One of the best microcisms of the “Hanoi Lobby” re who was involved, that you cold find in 1970/71 (including Hanoi Jane, Noam Chomsky, psychopath Ralph Schoenman, the wife beater, communist operative Dave Dellinger, and many from the future Peoples Bicentennial Commission. USSF, and Citizen Soldier, among others.
Rifkin is like an partially treated jock rash. He just keeps coming back in a new form and is a real pain in the ass.
And the mainstream media treat him like he’s Viagra, not a red rash.
The author hasn’t been watching the full cycle of all the “free” stuff. With the internet, many start providing beta versions of apps/etc. for free and collect data to enhance the product. Once they are comfortable that they have a truly marketable product, the freebees stop. Others (Malwarebytes, etc) offer toned-down versions for free, but the real hope is that the free version will want folks to take the next step. “Free” is mostly transitory.
Here is almost free that kills normal phone companies and what VOIP comcast offers>>>>>>>
obie100 ($37)
and
2 years vestalink VOIP for $60
*******I have an obie100 and am about to get 2 year VestaLink (formerly ObieTalk)
For the record, what is the internet of things?
The internet is connectivity to information. Although all to not provide information,they can.
All cannot contribute things. All things are not connected.
Of course, the music industry - which relies heavily on artificial acts with little talent who can't deliver quality live performances without expensive lighting, lip syncing, and a hundred backup dancers - realizes the game is up, and are collectively lashing out at reality in a blind panic. :)
Bingo! We have a winner.
What is happening is music is going back closer to its roots, where the true musicianship is in the writing, and then the performing. In the old days the money was made off of the rights to the song and sheet music. Anyone could perform your music, but you got paid for it. Second, if you were a good performer, people would pay to come and see music you performed. Very few did both the writing and performing. That all changed big time by the 1960s with mass media. But things eventually became corrupt, and corporations found they could make millions with "manufactured" artists.
Flash forward to today, and we are closer to the old model than the newer one. Many artist/bands do pretty darn well touring/selling T shirts, etc. but they know that their digitally recorded music is really not much more than an advertisement to get you interested in them, and hopefully you will come and see a show. That is also what the radio is for, as well as music videos. Music video's are just fancy commercials also, that is why artists will spend a fair amount of money to make one, with no intention of "selling" it to make a huge profit. It is just a effective way to get their music more widely heard, and for the public to be able to see the faces behind the music, and hopefully again, spend money to come and see them.
They still will sell you a CD if you want, but if they tried to make it just on that, they would be back to painting houses full time......
Google it.
Done.... thanks
The inherent dynamism of competitive markets is bringing costs so far down that many goods and services are becoming nearly free, abundant, and no longer subject to market forces. While economists have always welcomed a reduction in marginal cost, they never anticipated the possibility of a technological revolution that might bring those costs to near zero.In a previous thread, Sherman Logan pointed this out. I didn't respond when he asked me, because I wanted to think about it. He's got a point; what happens when you eliminate scarcity? Technology has already made music go post-scarcity. Modern economics of any flavor haven't dealt with post-scarcity yet.
Older people work hard for big houses, big cars, jet skis, etc. The younger generations are happy with a small apartment, a smartphone, gaming console, and laptop. That’s why the free market message not only doesn’t appeal to them; it actually turns them off.My parents have this huge house. 30 rooms. 2 acres, 1 in front and 1 in back. It costs them tons on upkeep. They have to hire people left and right to take care of it; none of us children can help them because we don't have the time.
>>He’s got a point; what happens when you eliminate scarcity? Technology has already made music go post-scarcity. Modern economics of any flavor haven’t dealt with post-scarcity yet.
>> I have a living room, a kitchen/dining area, a bathroom, a bedroom, and no yard. I find it really hard to justify more. A library might be nice, but not necessary with ebooks. I drive a Hyundai; I have no need for a truck or a luxury car. My wife feels the same.
>> A lot of people my age and younger are the same. It gives the Boomer economic viewpoint problems.
You aren’t alone. This is becoming the typical lifestyle for most young adults, and quite a few middle age people are realizing the beauty of life of minimal “stuff”.
The Boomer economic view will die with the Boomers. They will never understand a life free of a giant house full of consumer goods any more than they accept the Sunday sermon being delivered by a guy (or woman) in jeans and untucked t-shirt.
The author is an ignoramus. Nearly 200 years ago Commodore Vanderbilt would let you take his ferry for free. He made his money on the gambling and liquor.
Here’s a tiny bit of background:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Vanderbilt#Steamboat_entrepreneur
Sadly, this bit of American history from Wikipedia doesn’t include “free” passage. Free markets drive costs down. It’s natural.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.