New Economic Paradigm, Collaborative Commons

[tipon]

I think theres a conflict between centralization and descentralization.
I think descentralization is against capitalism.
Capitalism tend to concentrate power and generate centralized structures of control and command with a top down approach.
We have now the technology for descentralize , miniaturize and integrate to human scale all the components of society but this go against the interests of big capital .

I dont think we are gonna shift from centralized to descentralized in a peaceful way.
Big capital is trying to centralize everything.  For example the internet , they are trying to finish with the "neutrality of internet". They want to recentralize all the architecture of internet.

Descentralization is dangerous for  capitalism.

Compulsive neccesity of growth ( result from competition)  tends to centralization of power and control , gigantism and ecological unsustainability  .

Now humans have the possibility (as result of technological developments)  of generating a post capitalist system based on collaboration and descentralization of power and control, that works at small scale and in a sustainable way .
...

Technological developments can lower barriers to entry and non-scaling overhead costs, which can make decentralized or small scale approaches more competitive, but I don't see what that has to do with a "post capitalist" system.  People already collaborate when they think doing so is beneficial, and I expect that will continue.

See Fred Wilson's megatrends here: http://www.datafox.co/blog/fred-wilsons-talk-at-leweb-the-3-big-megatrends/

[jae208]

The ability to filter information to find IMPORTANT information or ACCURATE information is also scarce.

That is probably because people aren't as rational as we'discussed like to believe. For instance we have the conformation bias where people believe something just because you have others believing in it like religion.

[luckybit]

The ability to filter information to find IMPORTANT information or ACCURATE information is also scarce.

Isn't that what prediction markets help to solve?

[Troglodactyl]

Compulsive neccesity of growth ( result from competition)  tends to centralization of power and control , gigantism and ecological unsustainability  .

Now humans have the possibility (as result of technological developments)  of generating a post capitalist system based on collaboration and descentralization of power and control, that works at small scale and in a sustainable way .
...

Technological developments can lower barriers to entry and non-scaling overhead costs, which can make decentralized or small scale approaches more competitive, but I don't see what that has to do with a "post capitalist" system.  People already collaborate when they think doing so is beneficial, and I expect that will continue.

See Fred Wilson's megatrends here: http://www.datafox.co/blog/fred-wilsons-talk-at-leweb-the-3-big-megatrends/

[bytemaster]

The ability to filter information to find IMPORTANT information or ACCURATE information is also scarce.

[biophil]

is it not possible for capitalism to evolve into socialism? if the greatest means of production were information and all information were made free and public, is this a socialist or capitalist society? the reason for property rights stems from the tragedy of the commons. but with information, a non-scarce resource, you have what is known as a comedy of the commons where by information becomes more valuable as more ppl use it.

Information and knowledge will always be costly to acquire. Also the affirmation that an information is more valuable when more people know it is highly counterintuitive and debatable.

Blockchain technologies allow a decentralize control of ownership, they are the empowerment of the individual ownership. I don't see how we can interpret that as the premise of socialism.
Capitalism will end the day where human nature will change, a transhuman shift can end capitalism, nothing less. But even when transhuman technologies will be avalaible I don't think people will choose to abandon the primacy of their individuality.

I don't see how information and knowledge is costly to acquire since there are tons of free resources online that allow you to acquire new information/knowledge. Coursera, Udacity, various forums, youtube etc.

I think a deeper issue is that information and knowledge are costly to produce. Sure, once they're out there, modern technology allows them to be distributed with almost no cost, but distribution is not the same as production. Today's abundance of information is pretty cool, but it's at least a little illusory: is something abundant because there are a million identical copies of it? Or is it scarce because it takes training, education, resources to create the very first copy of it?

[tipon]

Compulsive neccesity of growth ( result from competition)  tends to centralization of power and control , gigantism and ecological unsustainability  .

Now humans have the possibility (as result of technological developments)  of generating a post capitalist system based on collaboration and descentralization of power and control, that works at small scale and in a sustainable way .




 

Capitalism is not only the private ownership of wealth.  Capitalism is basically the compulsive necessity of growth that emerge as result of competition.
Capitalism is based on competition.
New postcapitalist economy should be based on collaboration.

I think to say that capitalism exist since the 19th is completely clueless. The term capitalist was coined by Marx in the 19th and the idea of a transition from feudalism to capitalism with the Industrial Revolution is also a Marx one. Repeating Marx's storytelling and categories is a serious handicap to say something intelligent about economic reality.

What people call capitalism since Marx is actually the private ownership of wealth (included the means of production), that reality exist since the dawn of Humanity and is not about to change.


Edit: After having watch the video, I read the article now. I found it very bad.
Pervasive marxism :
- "the failling rate of profit"
- "value creators are spoil of their value with capitalism, that can't last!"

And poor understanding of existing economics concepts:
"no more division of labor but distribution of tasks", oh yeah completely different!
" bla bla mutual coordination...  bla bla social collaboration", too bad the author don't hear about free market!

Always funny to see how people make appear revolutionnary and progressive the same old song.

What is collaboration but voluntary trade and elimination of initiation of force or fraud.  The society that emerges from that reality will be what is right and is free from all labels you may wish to put on it. 

"distribution of tasks"  by whom... this is called CENTRAL planning.

If you are going to debate over the definition of terms that is one thing... but realize that is all you are doing. 

I think that capitalism is based upon competition to collaborate the most effectively.    The division of labor is the result of collaboration.   Explain collaboration without central authority?

[bytemaster]

is it not possible for capitalism to evolve into socialism? if the greatest means of production were information and all information were made free and public, is this a socialist or capitalist society? the reason for property rights stems from the tragedy of the commons. but with information, a non-scarce resource, you have what is known as a comedy of the commons where by information becomes more valuable as more ppl use it.

Information and knowledge will always be costly to acquire. Also the affirmation that an information is more valuable when more people know it is highly counterintuitive and debatable.

Blockchain technologies allow a decentralize control of ownership, they are the empowerment of the individual ownership. I don't see how we can interpret that as the premise of socialism.
Capitalism will end the day where human nature will change, a transhuman shift can end capitalism, nothing less. But even when transhuman technologies will be avalaible I don't think people will choose to abandon the primacy of their individuality.

I don't see how information and knowledge is costly to acquire since there are tons of free resources online that allow you to acquire new information/knowledge. Coursera, Udacity, various forums, youtube etc.

Getting the value of Bitcoin is costly to acquire without a centralized exchange or BTS X.... somethings are not reference facts, but instead the result of continuous integration of random bits of information throughout the market.   IE: getting price information is not easy today.

[jae208]

is it not possible for capitalism to evolve into socialism? if the greatest means of production were information and all information were made free and public, is this a socialist or capitalist society? the reason for property rights stems from the tragedy of the commons. but with information, a non-scarce resource, you have what is known as a comedy of the commons where by information becomes more valuable as more ppl use it.

Information and knowledge will always be costly to acquire. Also the affirmation that an information is more valuable when more people know it is highly counterintuitive and debatable.

Blockchain technologies allow a decentralize control of ownership, they are the empowerment of the individual ownership. I don't see how we can interpret that as the premise of socialism.
Capitalism will end the day where human nature will change, a transhuman shift can end capitalism, nothing less. But even when transhuman technologies will be avalaible I don't think people will choose to abandon the primacy of their individuality.

I don't see how information and knowledge is costly to acquire since there are tons of free resources online that allow you to acquire new information/knowledge. Coursera, Udacity, various forums, youtube etc.

[jae208]

I think to say that capitalism exist since the 19th is completely clueless. The term capitalist was coined by Marx in the 19th and the idea of a transition from feudalism to capitalism with the Industrial Revolution is also a Marx one. Repeating Marx's storytelling and categories is a serious handicap to say something intelligent about economic reality.

What people call capitalism since Marx is actually the private ownership of wealth (included the means of production), that reality exist since the dawn of Humanity and is not about to change.


Edit: After having watch the video, I read the article now. I found it very bad.
Pervasive marxism :
- "the failling rate of profit"
- "value creators are spoil of their value with capitalism, that can't last!"

And poor understanding of existing economics concepts:
"no more division of labor but distribution of tasks", oh yeah completely different!
" bla bla mutual coordination...  bla bla social collaboration", too bad the author don't hear about free market!

Always funny to see how people make appear revolutionnary and progressive the same old song.

He is saying that because of the recent technological revolution we are in, producing an additional unit of a good or service costs almost nothing. As a result, goods and services are nearly priceless, free, and abundant.(physical goods will become more abundant with the advancement of 3D printers)

What does this mean in terms of the free market when goods and services are abundant and cheap? What happens when everything around you is no more than an information file you upload to a website like thingiverse.com and then print at home with your 3D printer?

If for the first time in human history technology makes everything abundant will the same market forces that applied in the old paradigm still apply to the new? Now, human demand may be insatiable but will the same economic forces that apply in today's resource scarce world apply in a world with virtually unlimited resources?

You say that the private ownership of wealth existed since the dawn of humanity and I find that a little hard to believe since if you were unfortunate enough to be a slave at any point in history the only concept of private ownership you would know of was about you belonging to your owner.

[clout]

the cost of acquiring information can be paid for with a derivative asset that is correlated to its utility in society. in this way we no longer need patents. innovators do not have to pay the fees associated with patents and the economy does not need to suffer an artificial monopoly, all while still providing incentive to research and innovate.
...

how is information not more valuable as more people use it? that seems to go against the entire premise of the open source movement. 

I do not get the first part at all.  How would a derivative asset correlate to the utility of society ?  How would it be determined ?



Information has many different categories.  The 4 off hand that have may different answers to your questions.

1) General advances.  Medical, engineering etc.

More valuable to society when more use it, but not necesarily more value to those acquiring it.  Their skills are diluted, more competition etc.

2) Entertainment.  You'd need to define value to the consumer or value to the producer in a way similar to the above.

3) Exploitive knowledge that is not widely know.  The value plummets as more use it.  Similar to category 1.

4) Open source ?  I may derive value in using it, but that doesn't mean that I receive more value as more people use it.

Really this is a semantic issue and you need to be more precise in defining value and to whom.

look to this thread to understand the first part: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=1053.15

and im talking about value added to society on a whole.  less information asymmetry leads to more efficient exchange in the free markets. more information leads to more solutions to solving scarcity, thus greater economic development. some information is certainly more valuable than others, and some information might lead to adverse outcomes, but its very hard to keep of information secret in the information age.

[bytemaster]

Capitalism is not only the private ownership of wealth.  Capitalism is basically the compulsive necessity of growth that emerge as result of competition.
Capitalism is based on competition.
New postcapitalist economy should be based on collaboration.

I think to say that capitalism exist since the 19th is completely clueless. The term capitalist was coined by Marx in the 19th and the idea of a transition from feudalism to capitalism with the Industrial Revolution is also a Marx one. Repeating Marx's storytelling and categories is a serious handicap to say something intelligent about economic reality.

What people call capitalism since Marx is actually the private ownership of wealth (included the means of production), that reality exist since the dawn of Humanity and is not about to change.


Edit: After having watch the video, I read the article now. I found it very bad.
Pervasive marxism :
- "the failling rate of profit"
- "value creators are spoil of their value with capitalism, that can't last!"

And poor understanding of existing economics concepts:
"no more division of labor but distribution of tasks", oh yeah completely different!
" bla bla mutual coordination...  bla bla social collaboration", too bad the author don't hear about free market!

Always funny to see how people make appear revolutionnary and progressive the same old song.

What is collaboration but voluntary trade and elimination of initiation of force or fraud.  The society that emerges from that reality will be what is right and is free from all labels you may wish to put on it. 

"distribution of tasks"  by whom... this is called CENTRAL planning.

If you are going to debate over the definition of terms that is one thing... but realize that is all you are doing. 

I think that capitalism is based upon competition to collaborate the most effectively.    The division of labor is the result of collaboration.   Explain collaboration without central authority?   
 

[tipon]

Capitalism is not only the private ownership of wealth.  Capitalism is basically the compulsive necessity of growth that emerge as result of competition.
Capitalism is based on competition.
New postcapitalist economy should be based on collaboration.

I think to say that capitalism exist since the 19th is completely clueless. The term capitalist was coined by Marx in the 19th and the idea of a transition from feudalism to capitalism with the Industrial Revolution is also a Marx one. Repeating Marx's storytelling and categories is a serious handicap to say something intelligent about economic reality.

What people call capitalism since Marx is actually the private ownership of wealth (included the means of production), that reality exist since the dawn of Humanity and is not about to change.


Edit: After having watch the video, I read the article now. I found it very bad.
Pervasive marxism :
- "the failling rate of profit"
- "value creators are spoil of their value with capitalism, that can't last!"

And poor understanding of existing economics concepts:
"no more division of labor but distribution of tasks", oh yeah completely different!
" bla bla mutual coordination...  bla bla social collaboration", too bad the author don't hear about free market!

Always funny to see how people make appear revolutionnary and progressive the same old song.

[gamey]

the cost of acquiring information can be paid for with a derivative asset that is correlated to its utility in society. in this way we no longer need patents. innovators do not have to pay the fees associated with patents and the economy does not need to suffer an artificial monopoly, all while still providing incentive to research and innovate.
...

how is information not more valuable as more people use it? that seems to go against the entire premise of the open source movement. 

I do not get the first part at all.  How would a derivative asset correlate to the utility of society ?  How would it be determined ?



Information has many different categories.  The 4 off hand that have may different answers to your questions.

1) General advances.  Medical, engineering etc.

More valuable to society when more use it, but not necesarily more value to those acquiring it.  Their skills are diluted, more competition etc.

2) Entertainment.  You'd need to define value to the consumer or value to the producer in a way similar to the above.

3) Exploitive knowledge that is not widely know.  The value plummets as more use it.  Similar to category 1.

4) Open source ?  I may derive value in using it, but that doesn't mean that I receive more value as more people use it.

Really this is a semantic issue and you need to be more precise in defining value and to whom.

[bytemaster]

what is the marginal cost of spreading information? what is the marginal benefit?

the cost of acquiring information can be paid for with a derivative asset that is correlated to its utility in society. in this way we no longer need patents. innovators do not have to pay the fees associated with patents and the economy does not need to suffer an artificial monopoly, all while still providing incentive to research and innovate.

how is information not more valuable as more people use it? that seems to go against the entire premise of the open source movement. 

im not saying capitalism will end, what i am saying is that when the main mode of production is information based and information is free, does that make us a socialist society as well?

Socialist / Capitalist is all missing the point... all that matters is the use of force.  Eliminate that and the voluntary transactions of individuals is all that matters.