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

What he means

[Sonny Yatsen]

Maybe what he means by "open source" economic model is that he wants state workers to work for free.

Re:What he means

[dch24]

From the article:

Snyder mentioned a concept called "open-source economic development." 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.

Applying best practices around the state is not about getting credit but rather uplifting the state for all, Snyder said.

Re:What he means

[kellyb9]

Maybe what he means by "open source" economic model is that he wants state workers to work for free.

Time for them for fork and start their own state.

Re:What he means

[pavon]

Or give the cars away for free but charge for service :)

Re:What he means

[Ynot_82]

I've mentioned this before
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1377061&cid=29499823

But I've seen the phrase "open source" used all over the place by non-tech people
Particularly when they want to express the idea of a transparent process, one that's open (to debate and democratic reform)

Re:What he means

[Crudely_Indecent]

I don't think the "open source development model" is the correct association to make with his statement "open source economic development".

The way I read it is more like recipe sharing. Whoever makes the best apple pie gets their recipe distributed throughout the state. I didn't read anything about mandates in the article, so it sounds like the local governments can take recipes and do with them as they see fit.

One would hope that efficiency would prevail, but I'm sure that some local governments will stubbornly stick with what they already have.

Re:What he means

[iluvcapra]

Well that's not fair, Socialism and Communism both entrain government authority and require the state to create and protect certain kinds of economic rights while denying others, just as Capitalism does. Their have been communes and colonies and other voluntary communist and socialist communities throughout modern history, but they generally always required the participants to grant the community's government plenary authority over their ability to form capital, ability to contract, and ability to resolve disputes over property.

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"

[Attila Dimedici]

At this point it would be impossible to tell if the term "open source" is being abused here, there just isn't enough information in this article to know what he means by it (or if it is just a phrase calculated to push the right buttons with people). However, by using it in this context, Governor Snyder increases the public perception of "open source" as a good thing.

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.

Re:The Real Title: Kalamazoo

[bluefoxlucid]

"Open source" is a buzzword that has nothing to do with allowing anyone to contribute; you can vehemently protect your code base, and someone else can copy it and take it somewhere else and do their own thing while not fucking with you. "Open source" also applies to programs with source code, or perhaps architecture and engineering and CGI (source blueprints, source CAD, source animation files, etc); this is just an "open system with transparency."

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.

Re:Here's my model

[couchslug]

5. If the choice is between services not essential to physical survival of the public, and raising taxes, shitcan the services.

Re:Here's my model

[GodfatherofSoul]

Real simple, right? Except, you get voted out of office for cutting services *or* raising taxes, or running on a platform of doing either. That's the rub. People want services, but have a naive disassociation with their tax revenue and funding their government.

Plenty of politicians love to talk in vagaries about how they'll do one or the other, but no one has the courage to campaign that way.

Re:Here's my model

[frank_adrian314159]

The idea that government spending creates "growth" is, at best, arguable... Notable exceptions would be in infrastructure and other items that the people can't themselves provide...

Then the proposition is not "at best arguable", you actually state that it's true. The only thing you're quibbling over is the price tag. Say what you mean, dude...

Re:Here's my model

[roman_mir]

Oh, yeah, all that government spending. The bailouts, the 1% during Greenspan and then 0% during Bernanke interest rates, the stimulus packages, the buying out of various private businesses, buying out bad mortgage loans, insuring mortgage loans with no collateral, with no downpayment, giving out all sorts of free money, sure sure, that'll generate economic activity.

If by activity you mean: people will buy more stuff they didn't produce with the given/borrowed money - you are right.

If by activity you mean: people will SAVE that money to invest into businesses and will organize capital and labor to start some sort of production facility, to create goods, etc. Well, you are going against the modern economic ideas pushed by the gov't, that savings is counterproductive and that all that economy needs to grow and to get better is spending to buy all those cheap Chinese goods.

Sure sure.

Re:Here's my model

[HeckRuler]

I'd like to tweak that a little.
When the government spends on infrastructure, education, and science, it doesn't actually generate growth. Not real growth. I mean, sure, you can pay someone to dig ditches, and that's cash-in-hand and GDP and whatnot. These things do that, for sure. They put much needed cash where it's needed. But what they do is ALLOW for growth. No one is going to drive on a bridge to nowhere, and you can't teach calculus to a gorilla. IF, and only if, you have people that CAN learn a thing or two, or if people WOULD drive out to that island, presumably for some economic activity, then you get real growth. The nation and society expand it's power. And there are diminishing returns for that sort of growth.

When does government spend on religion?

Government spending on the environment, like paying to dredge the river or replacing tainted soil isn't for growth. It's a cost saving measure. Not poisoning people to half-death is amazingly good for society, economy-wise.
But most the government's role in the environment is mostly regulations that stop pollution. Which isn't government spending, but rather private sector spending to adhere to regulations.

Re:Here's my model

[Hatta]

When does government spend on religion?

Churches are tax free. That's essentially a subsidy.

Re:Here's my model

[Pharmboy]

When does government spend on religion?

As someone pointed, out, Churches are non-profit and exempt from most taxes, including local and state taxes in some places, property taxes, sales taxes (again, those depend on the state) and Bush managed to include religious organizations into federal funding as non-profits. Also, when you give money to a church, it is tax deductible, making it a subsidy as well.

Honestly, many churches do great work, and use the money better than any government agency would. Most are legitimate and do at least some good work in the community. Others are a sham. Jim and Tammy Bakker are just the most obvious examples, but it happens much more often on a smaller scale.

RMS Is in Control Now

[eldavojohn]

The venerable Richard Stallman was given complete control of the Kalamazoo government today at which point he announced that -- in order to battle pollution -- the oak leaf will replace the dollar bill inside city limits and the city council's podium will now have timeslices of 15 ms handed out to members (or 'threads' as the new law worded it) that will be violently and forcefully switched out by very strong bailiffs (or 'schedulers'). All city buildings are to be rebuilt in glass to improve the ability to see what goes on inside and very expensive, cancer causing X-ray devices will be issued to citizens so that at any point in time they can check any government official to verify first hand that the official in question is not a member of the lizard people elite that rule the United Kingdom.

After cracking a very strange grin, RMS promised the people they would experience open source in new and profound ways starting today.

Not Open Source, but Constitutional Model

[iinventstuff]

Open source has a lot of excellent qualities, but applying it to finance may not be good. What is needed is a "Constitutional" model whereby all the rules are known in advance, solidified, and very difficult to change. This will keep opportunists from changing the rules to help them gain, financially. Even if all the rules are not perfect, being able to plan on them creates an environment of stability. The US financial model is not as stable as it was, because those unwilling to make difficult calls have chosen to simply print more money as a way of masking the problem and hoping it will go away. Now, business is trying to keep up with these non-sensical debt fetishes by the Fed decision makers. When we can get our leaders to calm down, survey the situation, and make slow and calculated changes according to established norms, then things will get better. If the Michigan Gov wants to make things better, then it is best to *not* try an use all the power that the office allows; rather restraint is more prudent.

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

[khallow]

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

The problem with a market is that if you aren't willing to meet a counterparty at an agreed on price, then no transaction occurs. In the case of Michigan, they simply priced themselves out of the labor and industry markets by imposing too many conditions on businesses.

Re:Already has 300+ years of development

[EverlastingPhelps]

Yeah, but state interference is like alcoholism. They have to hit rock bottom before they admit they have a problem. Michigan might finally be there, but the rest of us have a ways to fall.

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.

Re:Already has 300+ years of development

[khallow]

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.

That's ok, it doesn't need to be voluntary. Many people in the US are getting that drop in quality of life, whether they chose to accept it or not.

Re:Already has 300+ years of development

[bjk002]

Utterly and completely B.S.!! I am so sick of you race to the bottom folks...

You need to hold China and other such nations accountable for their records on human rights, SoL, etc... not pander to them. Sad that so many are so willing to return to serfdom on some supposed principled decision to follow the "free market".

Re:Already has 300+ years of development

[crhylove]

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.

I don't think you've been watching the same country I have. Since I was little, I've watched a corporate chain systematically replace nearly every independent business, to the detriment of the local environment, to the standard of living of the local populace, and even to the continued success, education, and care of children.

We now live on Planet Starbucks, just as Thomas Jefferson predicted. It's the inevitable course when our economy is based on the Federal Reserve and debt slavery. You know Andrew Jackson took TWO bullets to the gut successfully stopping an earlier version of the FED? When asked on his death bed what his greatest achievement was, his dying words were, "I killed the bank!"

Corporate abuse is the fundamental nature of global living now. And it's horrifying to watch it slowly pervade every aspect of our lives, even to the point of destroying our collective knowledge.

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).

Re:Real open source

[Attila Dimedici]

Real open source would be making it a right to work state and getting rid of union control. Real open source would be to get rid of the government control and let people figure things out. What he seems to be proposing is nothing more than leveraging best practices.

There is not enough information in the article to know what all he means by the phrase. However, do not be so sure that he will not attempt to make Michigan a right to work state.

Surprised

[cdp0]

I am utterly surprised nobody screamed "commie!" yet, considering this is mostly an American forum. I mean "sharing resources" and "planning the economy", even if on a small scale ? I honestly hope he'll have enough support to do it, but I have my doubts, considering all the fears surrounding anything remotely related to socialism in your country. IMO it is a good idea and people might actually benefit from it.

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.

What if what if what if

[MikeRT]

What if the government actually didn't take on debt? What if the government actually had a policy of saving 25% of any budget surplus and returning the rest as a tax refund? What if the government actually had its own private cash reserves with which to do non-deficit spending and lower the need to have discretionary funds in the budget in any given year? What if those cash reserves were stored in local banks that gave out loans in good times? What if the government tried to actually cut out unnecessary spending?

If a private household did the equivalents of those things, it'd be quite well off within several years. After 30-40 years, the parents would have their home firmly paid off and would be able to fold their mortgage payment into their savings and retirement funds.

I'm only 27, but my grandmother remembers when the federal government actually used to be the one doing for the world what China does for us. How the mighty have fallen.