7 ms·

> As the Passion Economy grows, more people are monetizing what they love. As a sentence this just fills me with dread. And it's hard to say why because I know

> As the Passion Economy grows, more people are monetizing what they love. As a sentence this just fills me with dread. And it's hard to say why because I know, for example, that a writer making a living from selling their books could be said to be "monetizing what they love" OR engaging in the "Passion Economy". But if I was to try and get to the heart of it it's simply that I don't want to monetize what I love. I want it to be the one part of my existence not dominated by money. And I don't want an actual passion (awful word really) to form part of an economy.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
An economy is just a group of people all making resource allocation decisions. I have no idea why you’d want to exclude passion from the decision making process of the worlds billions of economic actors.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  Isn't an economy specifically about optimising resource allocation. The more general term being a financial system. I assume you're being purposefully terse, but just in case ... can you see how one might want to do an activity without considering 'could I charge people [more] to enjoy this with me, could I end this activity with less opportunity cost lost' and instead just be generous with something one loves and free with ones use of time when having fun?
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    An economy is any system that involves the production, consumption and trade of goods. It’s simply a way of describing and analysing natural human behaviour. An economy doesn’t have to aspire towards any form of efficiency, it doesn’t have to involve money, or any form of payment. It doesn’t need to be governed, or subject to any form of authority. It is simply what happens when you have people consuming or utilizing anything that was produced by another person. The only way you could exercise a passion without any economic interactions is if you did so entirely by yourself, without the use of any goods or services produced by another person, and without sharing any of the value you may potentially be creating with any other person.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  That is the definition of an economy in abstract - it is ignorant of the historical factors which have created this particular global economy, and it is ignorant of the large and small scale social dynamics influencing the economy and influenced by it. It is ignorant of the necessary rights, as they are formed today, to sustain the economy. It is ignorant of commodity fetishism and alienation, and the fact that an economy must reproduce itself daily, hourly. There are many criticisms of this economy that we currently have, and the creeping monetization of the last vestige of private life in which we don't need to currently sell, those hours after work and before sleep. "Why exclude this?", as you ask, simply shows you think that there is no space to resist the totality (I would sometimes go as far as to say tolatitarianism) of "the economy". No space is free, because we have given up resisting it.
  - jonkho 7y ago
    Then don’t monetize. No one is coercing anyone to do anything they themselves don’t wish to. Those creators that don’t want to monetize their own labor...can still choose to not monetize. There is no coercion here.
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      You're correct, but that's not a reason against trying to change the system. There were many economic phenomena through history people have consented to, and not all of them good for society as a whole - sometimes with disastrous consequences.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    All economies are made exclusively of economic actors (which include every single living person) making resource allocation decisions. This is the basis of every conceivable economic system, including no system at all (which would just be the ultimate free market), and socialism (which is just a system where resource allocation decision making is taken away from individuals, and placed in the hands of a central authority). These resource allocation decisions include decisions that have no relation to money, and decision to allocate a finite resource is an economic decision, including decisions to devote time, effort or attention to something. Wanting topic of passion to be excluded from this system defies the laws of nature itself. However, I’ll assume that you’re taking the (ironically ignorant) position that economics is only about money. Even then the idea that “I wouldn’t want to derive value from things that I’m passionate about” or that “I wouldn’t want to provide value to those who produce things I’m passionate about” just completely defies any sense of reason.
mikorym 7y ago
I share your sentiment. In some way I think eventually you make some compromise between income and passions. If the thing you truly love can make a lot of money then I would say one should do that but reflect on how not to start hating it. Even hobbies require discipline, but you don't see them as forced on you. Career choices to me are more a process of elimination than choosing, especially if you have many things that you are interested in.
- gligorot 7y ago
  >Career choices to me are more a process of elimination than choosing, especially if you have many things that you are interested in. I didn't see it this way until now, but when I rewind this is exactly how I came to study CS. Thanks for the insight.
arexxbifs 7y ago
I agree, and I also think that the sentiment that turning a passion into a job is somehow beneficial because "you will never work a day in your life" is untrue. As soon as your livelihood depends on something, you will at some point either have to make sacrifices and trade-offs, or you will starve. Creative passion can only blossom when you can do everything exactly the way you want without compromise, which is unlikely to happen as soon as someone else's expectations come into the mix. You can have a better, more rewarding and fulfilling career, sure. But never expect it not to feel like a chore a lot of the time.
- OmarShehata 7y ago
  I used to agree this, but this leads to what I think is a pernicious belief stated differently: that you can only make "true art" if you're giving it away for free. This comes up a lot when making indie games. That your work is somehow less pure or you had to compromise on your creative vision because you had to monetize it. As a creator you have to make a ton of tradeoffs all the time anyway, since you have a finite amount of time and resources. What if monetizing it actually allows you to achieve the vision you had in mind? Or it helped you understand what your audience cares about and make something more relatable or moving (or go the other direction, disturbing or meant to role them up etc) Why isn't monetizing just another trade-off? What's so special about it? The answer to me: culturally monetizing/greed in art has been seen as making art impure and it's a stigma we need to get over.
  - arexxbifs 7y ago
    I think the discussion about what constitutes "true art" is separate from this. I'm saying that in the long run, it is unlikely that you can keep passionate about something you depend on for food and shelter. I, too, can think of examples where either monetizing up front or simply happening to create something that made you rich has been combined with true passion. But, if you're going to spend the rest of your life creating something and expect to keep earning money from it, there will be less passion and more tedium. > Or it helped you understand what your audience cares about and make something more relatable or moving I'd say that's not about your passion or vision, then, but rather about creating something others will feel passionate about. It's a big difference.

AmericanChopper 7y ago

An economy is just a group of people all making resource allocation decisions. I have no idea why you’d want to exclude passion from the decision making process of the worlds billions of economic actors.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Isn't an economy specifically about optimising resource allocation. The more general term being a financial system. I assume you're being purposefully terse, but just in case ... can you see how one might want to do an activity without considering 'could I charge people [more] to enjoy this with me, could I end this activity with less opportunity cost lost' and instead just be generous with something one loves and free with ones use of time when having fun?
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  An economy is any system that involves the production, consumption and trade of goods. It’s simply a way of describing and analysing natural human behaviour. An economy doesn’t have to aspire towards any form of efficiency, it doesn’t have to involve money, or any form of payment. It doesn’t need to be governed, or subject to any form of authority. It is simply what happens when you have people consuming or utilizing anything that was produced by another person. The only way you could exercise a passion without any economic interactions is if you did so entirely by yourself, without the use of any goods or services produced by another person, and without sharing any of the value you may potentially be creating with any other person.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
claudiawerner 7y ago
That is the definition of an economy in abstract - it is ignorant of the historical factors which have created this particular global economy, and it is ignorant of the large and small scale social dynamics influencing the economy and influenced by it. It is ignorant of the necessary rights, as they are formed today, to sustain the economy. It is ignorant of commodity fetishism and alienation, and the fact that an economy must reproduce itself daily, hourly. There are many criticisms of this economy that we currently have, and the creeping monetization of the last vestige of private life in which we don't need to currently sell, those hours after work and before sleep. "Why exclude this?", as you ask, simply shows you think that there is no space to resist the totality (I would sometimes go as far as to say tolatitarianism) of "the economy". No space is free, because we have given up resisting it.
- jonkho 7y ago
  Then don’t monetize. No one is coercing anyone to do anything they themselves don’t wish to. Those creators that don’t want to monetize their own labor...can still choose to not monetize. There is no coercion here.
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    You're correct, but that's not a reason against trying to change the system. There were many economic phenomena through history people have consented to, and not all of them good for society as a whole - sometimes with disastrous consequences.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  All economies are made exclusively of economic actors (which include every single living person) making resource allocation decisions. This is the basis of every conceivable economic system, including no system at all (which would just be the ultimate free market), and socialism (which is just a system where resource allocation decision making is taken away from individuals, and placed in the hands of a central authority). These resource allocation decisions include decisions that have no relation to money, and decision to allocate a finite resource is an economic decision, including decisions to devote time, effort or attention to something. Wanting topic of passion to be excluded from this system defies the laws of nature itself. However, I’ll assume that you’re taking the (ironically ignorant) position that economics is only about money. Even then the idea that “I wouldn’t want to derive value from things that I’m passionate about” or that “I wouldn’t want to provide value to those who produce things I’m passionate about” just completely defies any sense of reason.

mikorym 7y ago

I share your sentiment. In some way I think eventually you make some compromise between income and passions. If the thing you truly love can make a lot of money then I would say one should do that but reflect on how not to start hating it. Even hobbies require discipline, but you don't see them as forced on you. Career choices to me are more a process of elimination than choosing, especially if you have many things that you are interested in.

gligorot 7y ago
>Career choices to me are more a process of elimination than choosing, especially if you have many things that you are interested in. I didn't see it this way until now, but when I rewind this is exactly how I came to study CS. Thanks for the insight.

arexxbifs 7y ago

I agree, and I also think that the sentiment that turning a passion into a job is somehow beneficial because "you will never work a day in your life" is untrue. As soon as your livelihood depends on something, you will at some point either have to make sacrifices and trade-offs, or you will starve. Creative passion can only blossom when you can do everything exactly the way you want without compromise, which is unlikely to happen as soon as someone else's expectations come into the mix. You can have a better, more rewarding and fulfilling career, sure. But never expect it not to feel like a chore a lot of the time.

OmarShehata 7y ago
I used to agree this, but this leads to what I think is a pernicious belief stated differently: that you can only make "true art" if you're giving it away for free. This comes up a lot when making indie games. That your work is somehow less pure or you had to compromise on your creative vision because you had to monetize it. As a creator you have to make a ton of tradeoffs all the time anyway, since you have a finite amount of time and resources. What if monetizing it actually allows you to achieve the vision you had in mind? Or it helped you understand what your audience cares about and make something more relatable or moving (or go the other direction, disturbing or meant to role them up etc) Why isn't monetizing just another trade-off? What's so special about it? The answer to me: culturally monetizing/greed in art has been seen as making art impure and it's a stigma we need to get over.
- arexxbifs 7y ago
  I think the discussion about what constitutes "true art" is separate from this. I'm saying that in the long run, it is unlikely that you can keep passionate about something you depend on for food and shelter. I, too, can think of examples where either monetizing up front or simply happening to create something that made you rich has been combined with true passion. But, if you're going to spend the rest of your life creating something and expect to keep earning money from it, there will be less passion and more tedium. > Or it helped you understand what your audience cares about and make something more relatable or moving I'd say that's not about your passion or vision, then, but rather about creating something others will feel passionate about. It's a big difference.