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]

The IPCC synthesis report is out. See this article on a summary. The story has links to the full report and the summary for policymakers. The following are the 10 bullet point highlights. See the article for more detail. And you can bet your bottom dollar the regressives in control of Congress will not believe any of these obvious facts, let alone take any action on them.

1. We humans really, truly are responsible for climate change.
2. Climate change is already happening.
3. … and it is going to get far worse.
4. Much of recent warming has been in the ocean.
5. The ocean is also becoming more acidic.
6. Climate change will hit developing nations particularly hard, but we are all vulnerable.
7. Plants and animals are even more vulnerable than we are.
8. We must switch mostly to renewables by 2050, and phase out fossil fuels by 2100.
9. We already have the answers we need to tackle climate change.
10. This dire report is decidedly conservative.    

[DavidM58]

21 key conclusions from the new IPCC report here:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-11-03/severe-widespread-and-...

[Edward theurj Berge]

And this is exactly what the majority voted for in the recent election. We regress further. Depressing. And apparently fatal. I must watch the world die. No hyperbole. And aided by those 'integralists' who divorce their spirituality from their politics.

[Balder]

Not sure if this has been shared here yet:  New Rifkin Interview

[Ambo Suno]

I'm so glad you posted this, Bruce (and t and others for emphasizing this) - I have been putting off following this and this video has helped greatly in sensitizing and educating me.

[Edward theurj Berge]

In the book Rifkin talks about how the monopolistic manipulators have appropriated the sharing economy, Facebook being a prime example. Just so we consciously acknowledge it, by us participating in Facebook we are complicit in willingly feeding this monopoly, likely in contradiction to our deeper values because it's 'convenient.'

This is from an article on the netarchical strategy confirming Rifkin's observations in the book:

"Facebook is the textbook example. Although it was never distinguished by smart design or ease of use, Facebook moved aggressively to capture a monopolistic share of the social media market. Then came the ads, the interference, the invasions of privacy, manipulation of users’ news feeds for the corporation’s own purposes – not to mention invasions of privacy and the sale of personal data to third parties.

"Facebook builds nothing, manufactures nothing, creates nothing. Instead it encourages its users to do the creating, then “charges” them in invisible ways – by redirecting their time and attention to produce profits for itself. YouTube, like Facebook, never generated its own content. It built its monopoly position by offering free access to the creative work of others. Once firmly established on its monopolistic throne, it began forcing viewers to watch advertisements before viewing videos.

"That’s the model: First lure them in and establish your monopoly, then monetize. YouTube is now owned by Google, which also commands a monopoly share of its market. Unlike some of its less-gifted peers, Google is a genuinely inventive and talented company. But, like its peers, it has relied heavily on government-funded technology (the Internet, computers, smartphones) and government-funded research to capture its monopoly share. It has used its monopoly to redirect users’ attention, and to exert frightening levels of control over users’ experience of the world."

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

Yes, For every foot of Keystone pipeline that is now likely to be made, we could have had 50 square feet of solar cells (just made up the number). Problem is that we are still at the mercy of the market and have no (rather, insufficient) "we body" (Government, pooled money from the collective) with which to divert the resources towards the renewables, the TIR. And the votes weakened the "we body" even more. It is a cancer.

The only comfort is Rifkin's notion that the market too has a cancer, a fatal flaw that will do itself in. It will, through competition and supply side economics, drive down the profit margins until it is practically "out of business." At that point the "commons" can outcompete the market. Or the market morphs into a commons (a resource sharing system replacing the current market). I propose Integral Resourceism as a better way of conceptualizing a resource sharing system, as compared to Rifkin's "collaborative commons." Not that there is anything wrong with his term, it's just that it doesn't seem to identify the actual replacement economic system. The commons are a "thing" or means or vehicle more than it is an actual resource allocation system. The collaborative commons would serve the new economic system, but cannot be said to BE the "system." Not abstract enough to organize the new way. May do fine in the meantime, but something like "Integral Resourceism" is a better candidate for the name and accurate conceptualization of the new system that will replace the old resource allocation system (or "ecomomic" system). I especially like the idea of elevating UL "human resources" as important "things" to be developed and distributed. This becomes the new "gold standard" behind all economic activity. Who needs economic expansion if it does not lead to "wellbeing" or "meaningfulness," etc.?

The Integral inclusion of UL and LL (Rifkin's "social capital") "resources" into the mix of stuff that needs to be tagged/identified and developed and distributed is an invaluable contribution of Wilber's line of thought. Individual and Collective forms of consciousness and experience were bullied into the background by action-oriented types who focussed primarily on manipulating external things. The do-ers have dominated, in large part because we denied the reality of inner realities such as "meaninfulness" or "goodwill" or "morale" or "realistic hope," or "creativity," etc. The Dreamers for the most part have had to live in shantees on the margins of society. Or else suppress/deny/ignore their gifts altogether in order to play the only (materialistic) game in town. The dreamers allowed themselves to be bullied by the pathological or myopic doers.

The de-materialization trend which most futurists, including Rifkin, see will however eventually change the game in favor of Thinking/Intuiting types. Intuitively instructed reasoning will become more and more a valuable resource if we can continue to survive and evolve economically (resource-system-wise) and otherwise. A leap would occur once resource sharing frees up minds to contemplate and "discover themselves" instead of being constantly distracted to making a buck in order to survive. Some of the future tha Keynes envisioned, in which we can be free to pursue higher callings, can then come to pass. Wealth/resource equitable distribution would facilitate an UL leap in humanity. Resource sharing, what I mean by "Resourceism" (implying a doing away with individual owning of resources -- capital), will likely become a launching pad for UL and LL resource development. 

And if Rifkin is right, there is a natural Trojan Horse within capitalism itself that will help achieve these desired ends/goals. Talk about "saving grace!" 

darrell

theurj said:

And this is exactly what the majority voted for in the recent election. We regress further. Depressing. And apparently fatal. I must watch the world die. No hyperbole. And aided by those 'integralists' who divorce their spirituality from their politics.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Speaking of the Keystone Pipeline, see this post where Senator Sanders sets the bullshit straight.

[DavidM58]

Excellent article! I use Amazon (while also supporting my local independent bookstore), YouTube, and Google, but have so far resisted joining Facebook, mostly for the reasons outlined in the article. I feel like the last remaining person who doesn't use Facebook, and it's become harder to stay in communication with people. I wonder if there are Facebookians Anonymous support groups out there?

On a somewhat related note, Time magazine has an interesting article about the new Apple Watch, Never Offline.

...the Apple Watch represents a redrawing of the map that locates technology in one place and our bodies in another. The line between the two will never be as easy to find again. Once you're O.K. with wearing technology, the only way forward is inward: the next product launch  after the Apple Watch would logically be the iMplant. If Apple succeeds in legitimizing wearables as a category, it will have established the founding node in a network that could spread throughout our bodies, with Apple setting the standards. Then we'll really have to decide how much control we want - and what we're prepared to give up for it.

Personally, my sense is that we'll experience a system crash before we reach either the Singularity or a Minority Report kind of dystopia.

theurj said:

In the book Rifkin talks about how the monopolistic manipulators have appropriated the sharing economy, Facebook being a prime example. Just so we consciously acknowledge it, by us participating in Facebook we are complicit in willingly feeding this monopoly, likely in contradiction to our deeper values because it's 'convenient.'

This is from an article on the netarchical strategy confirming Rifkin's observations in the book:

"Facebook is the textbook example... 

[Darrell R. Moneyhon]

Yes, not all "job creation" is equal. The TIR jobs are also much more than the jobs to maintain our gas-guzzling economy. And the TIR could save our collective necks as well. Not a bad fringe benefit! 

darrell

theurj said:

Speaking of the Keystone Pipeline, see this post where Senator Sanders sets the bullshit straight.

[Edward theurj Berge]

Giant 3-D printer builds 10 houses per day. Each house costs around 4800 Dollars.

[Ambo Suno]

Interesting. Hope those trusses are strong :)

theurj said:

Giant 3-D printer builds 10 houses per day. Each house costs around 4800 Dollars.