Michigan Governor Wants 'Open Source' Economic Model

An anonymous reader writes "Incoming Michigan governor Rick Synder spoke in Kalamazoo, MI today and says he wants to use an 'open-source economic development model' to help repair the battered down state. Perhaps during his time as president of Gateway he saw a benefit to the open source model, but can it really be successfully applied as an economic model?"

Comments

It's already "open source"

[erroneus]

The problem is the open source license being used. Lots of government bodies use a license similar to the BSD license where "taking without giving back" is perfectly acceptable which is what big business does most of the time.

Define "Open Source"

[timeOday]

Here's the pertinent part of the article:

He said the state is going to look at every region and see which area is the best at a certain practice and ask if the community is willing to share it with the rest of the state... He said he's going to give Michiganders a sense of how the state's doing on myriad metrics annually. He also said wants to give residents a road map of where the state is going, by planning a two-year budget and creating an online "dashboard" that tracks the government's progress on different issues.

Now, we can have a lot of pointless dickering about whether the term "Open Source" is being abused. But more importantly, those ideas in themselves sound fine to me. I doubt they'll be enough to solve Michigan's huge problems, but that's another matter.

Re:Define "Open Source"

[men0s]

When I step back at what he says in the article, it just sounds like there's a bunch of "silos" (communities) that don't share information and he wants to try and connect those silos or bridge those gaps or whatever euphemism suits use these days. I imagine that if he put it as simply as that most people would go "duh" and forget about it. Stating it this way might get some people to look at it a second time and in a different way.

What strikes me as odd is that he wants to ask if the community is willing to share it with the rest of the state. Why would you ask? It's a process that is being used at a different level of the same governing body. Just take their ideas and improve on them. That might be the way to "open source" processes.

My first suggestion would be to borrow something from the Commonwealths of Virginia: use a county-based library system rather than having a tiny library for each suburb or city.

Re:The Real Title: Kalamazoo

[spun]

They plan to look at the way each region of the state does things, and implement the best plans. Kalamazoo happens to be one place that the governor feels is doing things right, and should serve as a template for other areas. But you are correct in that this is not really about "open source" government at all, which would allow anyone to contribute. This is about taking the best policies and procedures already out there, and using them in places that are not yet doing so.

Here's my model

[camperdave]

Here's my model:

1. Spend less than you take in.
2. When cutting spending, try cutting big ticket items first.
3. Pay down more than the minimum payment on debts.
4. Round expenses up and round revenue down.

Re:Here's my model

[Kenja]

Because its open source, I'm going to make the following changes to your model and submit it.

1. Spend what ever you feel like, income is a different department anyhow so its their problem.
2. When cutting spending, cut which ever program will cause the most news (good or bad).
3. Borrow more from another source and use it to pay as much as you are required to on existing debts. Excess borrowed funds can be used for what ever (see point 1).
4. Dont round any figure, just add or remove zeros. After all, zeros are nothing!

Re:Here's my model

[drsquare]

But what if borrowing leads to more growth that pays off the debt? What if cutting spending in a depression lowers economic activity and therefore tax revenues? What if interest rates are low enough to make it non-sensical to pay more than the bare minimum?

Your model may work for a household, but not a government.

Re:Here's my model

[Pharmboy]

The idea that government spending creates "growth" is, at best, arguable. It can be used to maybe prevent a further slide (ie: temporarily paying unemployment when there are mass layoff, so those people have money to eat on, so rent is paid, food is bought, etc.) Government spending is a patch, it isn't an investment plan. Notable exceptions would be in infrastructure and other items that the people can't themselves provide, but even then, too much is too much and the payback time for infrastructure is typically measured in years if not decades.

Already has 300+ years of development

[EverlastingPhelps]

There's already an open source economic model. It's worked great the few places that have implemented it.

It's called the "free market." Michigan should try it.

Re:Already has 300+ years of development

[drsquare]

I think they did, and the market sent all their jobs to the third world.

Re:Already has 300+ years of development

[Microlith]

I know, like labor and environmental protections. The problem isn't that Michigan priced themselves out of business, it's that places like China treat people like shit and crack down on people who oppose such abuses. Logically, the only way to compete with China would be to reduce costs down to being just under China costs + shipping.

Of course, I doubt many people in the US would be willing to accept such a drop in quality of life, or accept such corporate abuse.

Eh.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

His use of "Open source" seems so loose as to be nearly pointless to try to comment on in the context of the software concept of the same name. If nothing else(and there are a variety of somethings else), his proposal involves diffirent areas looking at one another's activities and initiating what works. That may well be a good idea; but calling it "open source" seems to imply that those activities would otherwise be proprietary. Unless he is about to inagurate the 'Pan-Michigan mutual abolition of all forms of intellectual property', which I very strongly doubt, the stuff he is talking about is just broad-brush development ideas that have never been proprietary, and for which there is no current or expected near-future support in law for making proprietary. It's basically just a platitude. You might as well describe somebody recommending that you use a mutually-understood natural language to communicate with others as "advocating an open-source phoneme model"...

That said, the basically irrelevant Michigan thing aside, we actually know reasonably well where OSS works and where it doesn't. We can even get a pretty decent idea of which flavors of "open source" will crop up in which areas.

First, of course, the unit cost of reproduction has to be negligible. Second, and related to the first, free riders must not be a serious issue(this doesn't mean that they have to not exist, and they generally do; but it means that they have to cost little or nothing, and something must motivate some percentage of users not to free-ride). If the first doesn't hold, the second generally has a hard time holding. If the first does hold, the second can still fail to hold; but in successful OSS scenarios it does hold.

You have the GPL, and its close associates: tends to apply to software, occasionally to texts, schematics, etc., things where #1 definitely holds. #2's applicability is provided by a mixture of ideological altruists and the fact that 'share-alike' is legally prescribed. While it was designed with ideological purposes in mind, this gives it unexpected utility for the production of what are, essentially, informal development consortia.

LGPL, and similar, fall between GPL and BSD. Typically applied to the same class as GPL and BSD; but derives its resistance to free riders more from economics than from ideologues of either camp.

BSD and similar tend to apply to the same class of things as GPL, for reasons of #1; but obtain contributions from potential free-riders much more heavily from (a sometimes vehemently different set of) ideological actors.

CC:Noncommercial, and similar, tend to apply to non-capital-intensive cultural objects. People are typically willing to share these with other people(and, pragmatically, recognize that other people are unlikely to pay enough to be worth collecting for them); but are suspicious of, and unwilling to allow, their appropriation by commercial interests(who both rub people the wrong way emotionally, and are recognized as having a much higher willingness to pay).

ha.

[unity100]

and did that 'constitutional' model help ANY of the bullshit we have experienced in the last decade ? ranging from soldiers shooting at students to monsanto killing entire agriculture ? AND on top of it, these being called freedom and economic prosperity ?

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

despite the distribution of income has become worse than the disparage in between medieval serf, and baron in middle ages. (33% serf, 33% church, 33% lord).

excuse me, but you seem to come off sounding like a right wing nutjob. using the word 'constitution' to excuse all kinds of bullshit.

they actually did.

[unity100]

scroll the thread and see the 'free' market zealots still trying to assert that there has never been a 'free' market on the face of the world up till now. in the brief episode in late 1800s where there was such a condition, almost all of the american asses nearly ended up being owned by 10 individuals (not even corporations). they got their assess off vanderbilt et al, thanks to theodore roosevelt. but, they hate him, because, well, they dont know shit actually.

40% or so of them are hopeless. so brainwashed in their belief in the 'invisible hand' of the market (which is something not only nonexistent, but also never worked), no less than a radical zealot in middle east is brainwashed in his/her holy crusade. two sides of a spectrum, no different than the other.

proposing anything otherwise, makes them berserk.