4 ms·

This is the result of blue ocean strategy in play (whether consciously applied or by accident). When it's easier for me to create a new market and reap huge pro

This is the result of blue ocean strategy in play (whether consciously applied or by accident). When it's easier for me to create a new market and reap huge profits, than to struggle into fighting with Big Co for a share of their huge profits... guess which way I'd rather go. At the end, both I and Big Co win. We are already living in a new time period - a new age in world history, fundamentally different from all other ages experienced by humans so far. We have entered the age of ubiquitous abundance. All economic, political, moral and philosophical frameworks revolving around the concept of scarcity are fast becoming obsolete.

craigyk 11y ago
I don't see it. Unless you mean debt subsidized growth involving inserting "internet" or "mobile" into existing things and calling them "blue oceans". I think what Goldman Sachs is trying to say is that capitalism ( in any flavor: laissez faire or mixed economy ) might favor evolution to a small number of large entrenched winners rather than eternal competition and churn.
- jdimov10 11y ago
  Neither the GS analysis, nor cursory observation of daily reality can possibly lead to any such conclusion. Wealth is increasing, globally, at an accelerating pace. The number of players creating and sharing such wealth is also increasing at an accelerating pace. These trends are not showing any signs of slowing down, much less of reversing (and might in fact be non-reversible). As a consequence, global well-being (by any reasonable measure) is also increasing at an accelerating pace. Note that this DOES NOT contradict the fact that various "inequality gaps" are also increasing at an accelerating pace. This is natural.
  - dota_fanatic 11y ago
    > As a consequence, global well-being (by any reasonable measure) is also increasing at an accelerating pace. Meanwhile, in reality: - corruption / inability to problem-solve in most governments in any reasonable amount of time is more and more evident as transparency / software insecurity increases, and there's no obvious way to fix this - business advantages through technology, information asymmetry, lack of competition, and very cheap labor accelerates, businesses which have a singular goal in mind with little care for negative externalities - species diversity plummets - climate change remains negatively positive (zika incoming everyone, I'm sure we'll figure it out in time, just don't have any babies in the meantime) - wage slavery becomes more and more real for more and more people, in the US particularly through people taking on debt for what used to be a non-risky endeavor (higher education) but which actually turned out to be foolish once they were ready to work Remember, the only thing that matters is that you get yours; that's the name of the game and it's only so long until the consequences of this utterly delusional approach of infinite growth in a closed system will find its way to the homes of the rich and powerful, too. Who in their right mind, excluding miraculously well-executed altruistic AI proliferation appearing, is looking to the future and saying, "we're doing it everyone! things are getting better and better!". Do you have any idea what 3 billion+ people living in poverty looks like? Because that is now, and it's fucking shameful how little we care about our communities, our planet, in this race to greater and greater "wealth".
    - soared 11y ago
      You're defining global well-being from a very American viewpoint. Poverty, war, actual slavery, child labor, hunger, disease, etc are dying out on a global scale.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Scarcity is not a property of physical abundance, but of use. To say that scarcity is over would effectively mean all wants have been satisfied and the economy has reached its final state of rest, and this is ludicrous. You can have a bundle of inert goods, but as soon as they are employed to fulfill plans, they become different goods where spatial, territorial and property constraints enter into motion. Also people have been saying this for a long time and it has yet to bear out. Galbraith was railing on about the affluent society, how corporations are somehow artificially inventing wants through advertising and the necessity of an activist state. Developed countries have had their states get larger and more activist to no avail.
jjaredsimpson 11y ago
Certain physical goods will always be scarce and there is a limit to energy utilization. I agree that subsistence work for survival is on the way out but I'm unconvinced humans will stop competing for status and resources because of abundance.
- jdimov10 11y ago
  If advances in technology teach us anything at all, it is that there can be no scarcity of physical goods. There is nothing that can not be made in abundance, at marginal cost. The scarcity of energy is even more difficult to defend. There can not possibly be any such thing, it is a truly ridiculous perception. The ONLY remaining value, then, is in individualism. In bringing forth a unique perspective. Competing for status is indeed a natural human tendency, that isn't going anywhere any time soon.. But it can no longer equate to competing for resources.
  - Silfen 11y ago
    I'm not sure how to unpack this. If there isn't energy scarcity, why does petroleum cost money? Scarcity isn't just a question of production, but also one of consumption. With some goods (e.g. food), we could reach a point where the entire population of the world cannot consume more. With others (energy is a salient example), there seems to be no upper limit on consumption. There will always be a finite amount, and people want to use it differently. This is exactly the problem markets are purported to solve.
  - jjaredsimpson 11y ago
    Land is a scarce resource. Downtown properties in urban cities, beachfront properties, lake front properties. Access to a hot new chef's 5 star restaurant on a Friday night. Energy consumption can not increase without bound. Every human on the planet can not have a 10GW datacenter to simulate their own perfect Matrix where they are King of all creation. The thermodynamics of waste heat certainly puts limits on potential energy utilization for 15 billion humans. Your inability to conceive of limitations that are certainly present, is not an indication that those limitations do not exist.

craigyk 11y ago

I don't see it. Unless you mean debt subsidized growth involving inserting "internet" or "mobile" into existing things and calling them "blue oceans". I think what Goldman Sachs is trying to say is that capitalism ( in any flavor: laissez faire or mixed economy ) might favor evolution to a small number of large entrenched winners rather than eternal competition and churn.

jdimov10 11y ago
Neither the GS analysis, nor cursory observation of daily reality can possibly lead to any such conclusion. Wealth is increasing, globally, at an accelerating pace. The number of players creating and sharing such wealth is also increasing at an accelerating pace. These trends are not showing any signs of slowing down, much less of reversing (and might in fact be non-reversible). As a consequence, global well-being (by any reasonable measure) is also increasing at an accelerating pace. Note that this DOES NOT contradict the fact that various "inequality gaps" are also increasing at an accelerating pace. This is natural.
- dota_fanatic 11y ago
  > As a consequence, global well-being (by any reasonable measure) is also increasing at an accelerating pace. Meanwhile, in reality: - corruption / inability to problem-solve in most governments in any reasonable amount of time is more and more evident as transparency / software insecurity increases, and there's no obvious way to fix this - business advantages through technology, information asymmetry, lack of competition, and very cheap labor accelerates, businesses which have a singular goal in mind with little care for negative externalities - species diversity plummets - climate change remains negatively positive (zika incoming everyone, I'm sure we'll figure it out in time, just don't have any babies in the meantime) - wage slavery becomes more and more real for more and more people, in the US particularly through people taking on debt for what used to be a non-risky endeavor (higher education) but which actually turned out to be foolish once they were ready to work Remember, the only thing that matters is that you get yours; that's the name of the game and it's only so long until the consequences of this utterly delusional approach of infinite growth in a closed system will find its way to the homes of the rich and powerful, too. Who in their right mind, excluding miraculously well-executed altruistic AI proliferation appearing, is looking to the future and saying, "we're doing it everyone! things are getting better and better!". Do you have any idea what 3 billion+ people living in poverty looks like? Because that is now, and it's fucking shameful how little we care about our communities, our planet, in this race to greater and greater "wealth".
  - soared 11y ago
    You're defining global well-being from a very American viewpoint. Poverty, war, actual slavery, child labor, hunger, disease, etc are dying out on a global scale.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

Scarcity is not a property of physical abundance, but of use. To say that scarcity is over would effectively mean all wants have been satisfied and the economy has reached its final state of rest, and this is ludicrous. You can have a bundle of inert goods, but as soon as they are employed to fulfill plans, they become different goods where spatial, territorial and property constraints enter into motion. Also people have been saying this for a long time and it has yet to bear out. Galbraith was railing on about the affluent society, how corporations are somehow artificially inventing wants through advertising and the necessity of an activist state. Developed countries have had their states get larger and more activist to no avail.

jjaredsimpson 11y ago

Certain physical goods will always be scarce and there is a limit to energy utilization. I agree that subsistence work for survival is on the way out but I'm unconvinced humans will stop competing for status and resources because of abundance.

jdimov10 11y ago
If advances in technology teach us anything at all, it is that there can be no scarcity of physical goods. There is nothing that can not be made in abundance, at marginal cost. The scarcity of energy is even more difficult to defend. There can not possibly be any such thing, it is a truly ridiculous perception. The ONLY remaining value, then, is in individualism. In bringing forth a unique perspective. Competing for status is indeed a natural human tendency, that isn't going anywhere any time soon.. But it can no longer equate to competing for resources.
- Silfen 11y ago
  I'm not sure how to unpack this. If there isn't energy scarcity, why does petroleum cost money? Scarcity isn't just a question of production, but also one of consumption. With some goods (e.g. food), we could reach a point where the entire population of the world cannot consume more. With others (energy is a salient example), there seems to be no upper limit on consumption. There will always be a finite amount, and people want to use it differently. This is exactly the problem markets are purported to solve.
- jjaredsimpson 11y ago
  Land is a scarce resource. Downtown properties in urban cities, beachfront properties, lake front properties. Access to a hot new chef's 5 star restaurant on a Friday night. Energy consumption can not increase without bound. Every human on the planet can not have a 10GW datacenter to simulate their own perfect Matrix where they are King of all creation. The thermodynamics of waste heat certainly puts limits on potential energy utilization for 15 billion humans. Your inability to conceive of limitations that are certainly present, is not an indication that those limitations do not exist.