The Zero Marginal Cost Society by Jeremy Rifkin

[Edward theurj Berge]

After reading the Intro and first chapter a few comments. On p. 6 he discusses how monopolies intentionally thwart competition and innovation so as to maintain their stranglehold. But he claims entrepreneurs find a way around it and end up forcing competition with their better tech and price reductions. Yet he discusses on pp. 7-9 Larry Summers 2001 paper, wherein Summers acknowledges the emerging information economy was indeed moving to near marginal cost. Summers though didn't propose something like Rifkin but instead recommended "short-term natural monopolies" (8).

Recall Summers was Obama's pick for Director of the National Economic Council. His policy suggestions were well in line with the earlier promotion of "natural monopolies," and his resume attests. And we're seeing exactly this economic philosophy at play with the FCC Chairman Wheeler's proposed pay-to-play rules, where the ISP monopolies will destroy internet neutrality. Recall that Wheeler was another Obama pick, and was a former, and will return to being, a cable and wireless lobbyist. While Obama claims to back income equality and net neutrality he appoints the likes of Summers and Wheeler who make no bones about their support of monopolies. And without net neutrality good bye to Rifkin's entire plan, which requires it to succeed.

If you haven't yet, please take action to preserve it. Here's one place and you can find several others if you but look.

[Edward theurj Berge]

So it seems that the political and social revolution arises from the external socio-economic system, the mode of production. This agrees with at least that part of the Lingam that spoke to this as the predominant way most people move into a new level overall. Where it differs with kennilingus is that the latter thinks it's more developed individuals that create the new systems from the inside out. It seems it's more individuals being affected by the emerging tech and modes of production that then instills the value logic.

It's similar to the point I made here about successful trans-partisanship being accomplished not by having a 'higher' model to which one must conform, but by the actual practice of operating within the socio-cultural practice of democracy. This is what transforms individual operators to have a value logic supporting the notion of the public good in distinction from the dysfunctional notion of individuality espoused tireless by the regressive capitalists that prefer oligarchy. Again, it's the social practice that inculcates a working trans-partisanship for democracy against oligarchy, where the kennilingus inside-out model has yet to have even a miniscule effect on this stated goal.

I know, the kennilinguist might argue it's not one creating the other, it's all of them tetra-arising at the same time. But as another example, Habermas using Mead determined that it was the cultural system that creates and inculcates the individual ego in the first place. Without it, despite the hardware, one remains an egoless wolf boy. Vygotsky's work supports this notion as well. They directly contradict the Piagetian notion of inherent inner structures that shape external stimuli to fit that structure. It's a very metaphysical system that I examined in depth in the real/false reason thread.

And again, it's not that the inner/outer, individual/social all tetra-arise simultaneously. That certainly provides for a nice apparent 'balance,' but again it's an imposed systemic assumption that presupposes such a balance that does not match the empirical facts on the ground, but instead tries to match the facts to the created metaphysical system. It is a hallmark of the capitalist system to do exactly that as elucidated in many places, this being but one example.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Which also reminds me of this post, based on an IPS FB thread on Zizek started by Cameron (6/11/14). I quoted Zizek as it relates to Morton's ideas.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Here's a recent video interview of Rifkin on the book. Rifkin as usual goes off on his long monologues but the interviewer starts to interrupt and ask focused questions. When Rifkin goes off he interrupts again to try to bring focus back. It's long, 1:36:44. I've listened to about half so far.

[Edward theurj Berge]

See this story. The fastest internet is through EPB, a municipally owned electric provider in Chattanooga TN which delivers speeds up to one gigabit, 50 times faster than commercial providers like Comcast. And it's more reliable with far better service. It's financially feasible, more than paying for itself by selling the service at or below the price of the likes of Comcast. It's created a tech boon in the city. So what's wrong with this picture?

Comcast doesn't like the competition and has done everything in its power to thwart this project. They and their greedy ilk have lobbied and succeeded in getting twenty states to limit or prohibit other such municipalities from creating their own high speed broadband networks. They think its the 'free market' way to deliver slower and shittier service for more money just because they are a private company devoted to making a huge profit. Why a publicly-owned business just can't do this on principle. Wrong, wrong and more wrong. EPB is competing in the free marketplace and winning. And they just can't stand that it interferes with their oligopoly. TFB Comcast, get used to it.

[Edward theurj Berge]

The renewable energy revolution is here. See this NY Times article. It's already happening, though you wouldn't know it through most media outlets. And you know it's working when the big energy companies are lobbying to thwart the RE industry, and they are BIG time. E.g.: "They have started attacking rules that encourage solar panels." Germany is out course leading the way, with their agenda drawing Chinese manufacturers into the market. Which in turn is driving down costs much faster than anticipated. E.g., solar: "The prices of the panels have plunged 70 percent in the past five years." See the story for many more details. The following chart is from the International Energy Agency, showing by country the % of power generated by fossil fuels and RE.

[Edward theurj Berge]

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, based on National Renewable Energy Laboratory analyses, by 2017 more than half of US States "could have rooftop solar that's as cheap as local electricity prices." Grid parity has already been reached in 11 States. Great news for us and the environment, bad for the power companies unless they get with the program. See the article for more details.

[Edward theurj Berge]

From this article, "Who will pay for the zero marginal cost society?":

"The first concern that arose in my mind as I began reading the book was simple and likely one that most people will raise: What about the fixed costs? Who is going to supply the infrastructures necessary for the various near zero marginal cost systems to function? [...] Who will bear the fixed costs and supply these infrastructures? If the supplier is a private company that owns the infrastructure, how will the supplier manage it? (To lay bare my concerns: Rent extraction and control by private, for-profit infrastructure owners may very well undermine most of Rifkin's dreams.) If the government supplies the infrastructure, how will it raise the funds and how will it decide which infrastructures to build and when to build them? [...] To be fair, Rifkin does address some supply side issues."

"He seems to believe that infrastructure financing will come from 'hundreds of millions of consumers and taxpayers.' But his arguments don't fully explain how this will happen. He discusses the Internet and emphasizes that is 'owned by everyone and no one' because the Internet 'is a system organized by an agreed-upon set of protocols that allows computer networks to communicate with each other.' While this is true, the physical infrastructure networks are indeed owned by companies. He suggests that these 'companies are merely providers and facilitators.' But how can that possibly be correct? Ask Netflix whether Comcast is a mere provider or facilitator. The network neutrality debate highlights the fact that physical network owners are anything but passive providers. To the contrary, in their relentless pursuit of profits for their shareholders (a perfectly reasonable objective for for-profit companies, mind you), private companies that own physical infrastructure networks have and will continue to extract rents and exercise control over user activities (by which I mean all higher layer activities by private companies like Google and Netflix and users like you and me) when it is feasible to do so."

[Edward theurj Berge]

HSBC is one of the largest investment banks in the world and this article highlights what they say about solar energy. Fossil fuel profitability is done and solar is in. Affordable battery storage is already here and will increase distributed energy generation while reducing demand from the grid. Solar energy generation with battery storage will achieve grid parity in Germany by 2015 allowing independence from the grid. The tech is here and the price is almost right. And when HSBC signs on you can bet your bottom dollar it is a good investment, not only in energy independence but environmental sustainability.

[DavidM58]

theurj,

Encouraging news. Do you have solar panels yet? My suggestion is that most would benefit more with a lower cost, more bang for your buck, lower tech, solar hot water system.  Not that I follow my own advice - I have 10 solar panels that are grid tied for electricity, and no solar hot water yet - because this is the house we purchased 4 years ago that already had the solar panels.

Regarding battery storage, "they" have been promising a revolution is just around the corner for many years now, so I'll believe it when it hits the market.  I know improvements are being made...

And it's always good to keep in mind the caveats about solar power.

[Edward theurj Berge]

I do not own a home so no, no panels. I rent in group home situations so do my part in that way to cut energy use. Given my work situations in metro areas, and wanting to cut commute time and energy use, I try to live near work and have yet to find a group home in those vicinities with solar panels. Often I must make do with the best situation available. But many of those living situations are energy, labor and environmentally conscious.

As for battery storage capacity, just wait until Tesla gets in the solar storage business.

[DavidM58]

Very good. I think finding ways to curtail our use of energy is more important than switching technologies. Best if we can do both - for example, I have two light bulbs in my bathroom. One of them I unscrewed, and the other I replaced with an LED.  And then I try to be conscious of when I turn it on and when I turn it off. Do I really need to even turn it on, or can I get by with the light coming in through the window. I've also replaced my showerhead with a low flow model, AND I've changed from showering every day to showering about once per week.

[Edward theurj Berge]

3D printing beats mass production in energy efficiency. A study from Michigan Technology University shows 3D printed products require 41% to 74% less energy than large-scale manufactured goods.