6 ms·

Sure it's fake. Our economic models are so out of touch with reality, it's a wonder the system works at all. We treat digital goods the same as physical goods,

Sure it's fake. Our economic models are so out of touch with reality, it's a wonder the system works at all. We treat digital goods the same as physical goods, we spend tons of money to prop up giant failing structures instead of letting them fall apart, we let those that make the most walk away without paying their fair share, we subsidize stuff that nobody wants and is harmful to us, and aren't even close to making anyone pay for externalities accurately. I feel like we're headed into a really deep economic downturn, but hey, at least we have plenty of golden parachutes for the rich!

nkozyra 9y ago
> We treat digital goods the same as physical goods I'm struggling to see the impact this has on economic reality. Could you expound?
- keenmaster 9y ago
  I took that as a reference to the decline of manufacturing in the United States.
  - nkozyra 9y ago
    Even so ... if we've supplanted manufacturing with non-tangible good production, what impact does that have on economic reality?
    - keenmaster 9y ago
      I agree. On the whole, with a service economy and comparative advantage, we should be better off as a result. Automation, however, is redistributing a greater share of wealth to those with capital. The adverse side effects of that phenomenon, which is unstoppable, are being conflated with outsourcing, which can be disincentivized. People know as a fact that things used to be better when there were more manufacturing jobs around. They are simply acting on what they know instead of confronting a novel problem with a novel solution. Rethinking education and the cost thereof would be a good place to start.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  sorry if this is a bit ranty: We should be able to freely sharing digital media as virtual-goods are immediate to duplicate. Instead we've created artificial barriers (drm, paywalls, streaming services, etc). The only reason these barriers are allowed, is a dying industry is trying to stay relevant. The economic impact of the media industry loss would be great, and the media industry does still have a place in our system, but they need to let go of distribution. It no longer makes sense to have laws protecting the sharing of media, but we are propping up a false representation of our economic system by trying to do so.
  - Godel_unicode 9y ago
    The value in the music industry has never been in the duplication (or do you really think CDs cost $20 to make while AOL was simultaneously giving them away??). The value is, and always has been, in the talent of the people making the music. DRM is that industry trying to ensure that people who create amazing content are still interested in doing so. You are essentially arguing that we should let everyone steal since stealing is easy.
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      Not at all. I'm arguing that paying artist per album is a stupid model that doesn't reflect reality. The only reason we pay per album is that it made sense when distribution was hard. Now that distribution is a solved problem, we need to adjust our economic model to match.
  - brokencode 9y ago
    How do you envision media companies making money if people don't have to pay for their product once it's produced? It's not like most people are going to pay Disney ahead of time for the next Pirates of the Caribbean movie, even though a lot of people will (inexplicably) pay to see it in theaters.
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      I'm not sure how, but I'm very sure that our current model makes no sense. The cost of producing media is all up-front now. It used to be that it cost a lot up front, and a lot to distribute. We would charge people on the distribution side, because that was easier. Now that there is no need for a distribution system, we need to find better funding systems for those companies, rather than relying on the physical media mindset. People are still paying a lot of money right now to fund media even though they can get it for free. It's not that people won't or don't want to pay, it's that we're paying on the wrong side of an outdated economic model.

nkozyra 9y ago

> We treat digital goods the same as physical goods I'm struggling to see the impact this has on economic reality. Could you expound?

keenmaster 9y ago
I took that as a reference to the decline of manufacturing in the United States.
- nkozyra 9y ago
  Even so ... if we've supplanted manufacturing with non-tangible good production, what impact does that have on economic reality?
  - keenmaster 9y ago
    I agree. On the whole, with a service economy and comparative advantage, we should be better off as a result. Automation, however, is redistributing a greater share of wealth to those with capital. The adverse side effects of that phenomenon, which is unstoppable, are being conflated with outsourcing, which can be disincentivized. People know as a fact that things used to be better when there were more manufacturing jobs around. They are simply acting on what they know instead of confronting a novel problem with a novel solution. Rethinking education and the cost thereof would be a good place to start.
CaptSpify 9y ago
sorry if this is a bit ranty: We should be able to freely sharing digital media as virtual-goods are immediate to duplicate. Instead we've created artificial barriers (drm, paywalls, streaming services, etc). The only reason these barriers are allowed, is a dying industry is trying to stay relevant. The economic impact of the media industry loss would be great, and the media industry does still have a place in our system, but they need to let go of distribution. It no longer makes sense to have laws protecting the sharing of media, but we are propping up a false representation of our economic system by trying to do so.
- Godel_unicode 9y ago
  The value in the music industry has never been in the duplication (or do you really think CDs cost $20 to make while AOL was simultaneously giving them away??). The value is, and always has been, in the talent of the people making the music. DRM is that industry trying to ensure that people who create amazing content are still interested in doing so. You are essentially arguing that we should let everyone steal since stealing is easy.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    Not at all. I'm arguing that paying artist per album is a stupid model that doesn't reflect reality. The only reason we pay per album is that it made sense when distribution was hard. Now that distribution is a solved problem, we need to adjust our economic model to match.
- brokencode 9y ago
  How do you envision media companies making money if people don't have to pay for their product once it's produced? It's not like most people are going to pay Disney ahead of time for the next Pirates of the Caribbean movie, even though a lot of people will (inexplicably) pay to see it in theaters.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    I'm not sure how, but I'm very sure that our current model makes no sense. The cost of producing media is all up-front now. It used to be that it cost a lot up front, and a lot to distribute. We would charge people on the distribution side, because that was easier. Now that there is no need for a distribution system, we need to find better funding systems for those companies, rather than relying on the physical media mindset. People are still paying a lot of money right now to fund media even though they can get it for free. It's not that people won't or don't want to pay, it's that we're paying on the wrong side of an outdated economic model.