Mastodon discussion

Fragment of a discussion from Talk:Main Page
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Question I've got, and no, I don't really have an answer to it: where else might the value lie?

Why can't we solve the problem of "provide general information-system access to the masses" without turning into assholes, creeps, thugs, and/or spies? Or insulting the customers?

Are we holding it wrong?

Dr. Edward Morbius (part 9/9)
Woozle (talk)00:39, 5 June 2017

The answer is to put it down and get a different model. which I mean, of course, a different business model: one oriented towards the public good rather than towards shareholder profits. (Stop me if this is sounding familiar.)

(originally posted here)

Woozle (talk)00:41, 5 June 2017

Models built around shareholder profits seem to dominate though. Why is that?

Dr. Edward Morbius (part 1/2 of toot)
Woozle (talk)00:42, 5 June 2017

The answer seems like a no-brainer to me, but I'm having trouble wordifying it...

Okay, short version: because for-profit investors are the entities with the lion's share of resources in our society, as it now stands.

(originally posted here)

Woozle (talk)00:45, 5 June 2017

"Shareholders have resources" punts on the question why do shareholders have value?

I've been digging into dynamics of joint-stock ownership, limited liability, various mint and money acts, financial conferences, etc., over the past couple of years, with a few interesting hits in the past few days. I apply the principle of William R. Cattton, Jr.: focusing on the /personalities/ involved -- or even some given identifiable social group, strikes me as grossly miscast.

The problem transcends this. It's based on some set of dynamics.

What is it about the overall structure, the feedbacks, the dynamics? How can this possibly be addressed?

For example: what are the types of goods, services, or other phenomena which are priced within an economic system, and what is the behaviour of those prices?

Crack open Smith and you'll find commodities, labour, skilled labour, rent, stock, capital, and money discussed. It's a good start.

And in the case of rents, the salient behaviour is that a rentier is one who is able to extract the surplus value out of a system.

I've been flipping this around for a while, and trying to sort out why, and what it is that rent-producing entities are. What I'm leaning toward is that they are network control nodes. That is, if you own a rent-producing entity, you control a gateway through a network.

Woozle (talk)00:47, 5 June 2017

(new response, not from Mastodon threads)

Well, I did say it was the short version ;-)

Yes, it's a dynamic, and there's a dynamic behind the dynamic:

  • Our laws are designed to encourage concentrations of power.
  • Why? Partly because the early framers didn't trust regular folks to make decisions, but also partly because somewhere along the line the concentrations got large enough to overpower the governmental mechanisms designed to keep them in check.
  • How did this happen?
  • I don't know for sure, but I feel very inclined to point a finger at technology.
    • Tech creates power. If you don't regulate it somehow, you get a power vacuum that is filled by selfish interests. We didn't regulate fast enough, and selfish interests are now overwhelming and destroying our regulatory ability.
      • This is probably a tale as old as civilization, but at least now we have the tools to study it in real-time and perhaps work out some countermeasures.
Woozle (talk)01:04, 5 June 2017

And if the orientation itself is a problem, how do you change things such that that orientation is less successful.

How do you steal the river?

Dr. Edward Morbius (part 2/2 of toot)
Woozle (talk)00:44, 5 June 2017

Co-ops seem to generally be a good model, though I'd like to improve on it with machine-net-facilitated interaction (hence InstaGov).

Capitalism depends on convincing us that most people are selfish, but this is a reality-inversion.

(originally posted here)

Woozle (talk)00:45, 5 June 2017