the thesis presented by me stands in a free market only. free markets do not tolerate monopoly (through competition). when you have govt interventionism through market regulation, monopoly is allowed to emerge through lobbying (fatter cats get fatter, new business is incapacitated). neither monopoly or monopsony (one buyer) serve the buyer but are only allowed to exist with govt help (handouts/regulation).
...makers are sometimes unable to charge enough to cover the cost of producing titles.
well thats an economically ingorant statement. prices are set by through supply and demand and are driven by the consumer. the quoted sentence is analogous to saying "company X is not able to charge enough to cover the cost of producing space shuttles (for wide consumer use)" which of course is ridiculous. space shuttles are too expensive to produce to be purchased widely on the market.
frankly, i do not quite comprehend the whole "open anything" idea, but i am very intrigued by it.
i am more familiar with the centralized approach (which i resent as bankrupt) and the free market approach which is consumer driven.
as far as the entrepeneur is concerned, remember he is always striving to satisfy the consumer and he knows how well he does that by inspecting his balance sheet. he knows best how to run the business because every mistake costs him dearly as he experiences losses or complete bankruptcy. according to the same logic, employees will never be able to discern the right business decisions.
as far as i understand from the OP, the "open company" would allow employees to be part of the company for as long as they wish, doing whatever they wish. this means employees would not be employed based on their productivity. also, the company would diverge from trying to satisfy the consumer (by having the employee "do" whatever the entrepeneur believes is neccesarry to satisfy the consumer) towards rather trying to satisfy the employee. this of course would render the company bankrupt (profit-less) fairly quickly and if widely adopeted could distort an entire economy.
profits are the only way for an entrepeneur to measure his efficiency in satisfying consumer demand (wants). if he doesnt know how to make money off of it he doesnt see that consumers would be satisfied by linux on desktops. as an entrepeneur, he wants to satisfy consumers (aka make profits). the more handsome his profits are, the more satisfied the consumers are (because they chose his products over the competition's).
ok, lets say most of the people now care about advertising, as you suggested. within the next 15 years, the number of people looking for jobs in advertising will have increased tremendously. the supply for advertising jobs will have increased dramatically, while the demand for advertising jobs will have dropped tremendously, since very few are learning science, so productivity in the economy has decreased. since manufacturing decreased, the level of living drops and those in advertising (a majority) have less and less to advertise about. their productivity falls as well. pretty soon there is a bust in the advertising market. here comes a long an educational facility which recongizes this problem (maybe ahead of time), and they cater to those students interested in sciences. when the "advertising recession" comes, these schools will "steal" market share from the other "advertising" school and reap handsome profits from their teachings of science, etc. this is just a scenario, but given a large enough population, this sort of imbalance will never happen. there will always be enough people recognizing the problem with an "all marketing curriculum" and try to find niche markets for their training and trades.
the profits an entrepeneur is making are in direct relation to how well that entrepeneur satisfies the consumer. consumers are free to chose any other entrepeneur in the same market. if they chose entrepeneur A as opposed to B, than A has products the consumer prefers over B, hence A is better satisfying the consumer. An analyst or future entrepenur can analyze this situation based on the profits/losses made by A and B. the analyst will recognize losses for B and will know NOT to repeat a similar business plan as B undertook. the analyst see profits for A and will learn/emulate from that particular business model. this is how business practice which satisfy the consumers are being propagated and measured by profits and losses. any system which hampers the profit/loss meter hampers with the satisfaction of the consumer.
ok, lets say most of the people now care about advertising, as you suggested. within the next 15 years, the number of people looking for jobs in advertising will have increased tremendously. the supply for advertising jobs will have increased dramatically, while the demand for advertising jobs will have dropped tremendously, since very few are learning science, so productivity in the economy has decreased. since manufacturing decreased, the level of living drops and those in advertising (a majority) have less and less to advertise about. their productivity falls as well. pretty soon there is a bust in the advertising market.
here comes a long an educational facility which recongizes this problem (maybe ahead of time), and they cater to those students interested in sciences. when the "advertising recession" comes, these schools will "steal" market share from the other "advertising" school and reap handsome profits from their teachings of science, etc. this is just a scenario, but given a large enough population, this sort of imbalance will never happen. there will always be enough people recognizing the problem with an "all marketing curriculum" and try to find niche markets for their training and trades.
in a free market education should be consumer driven (like anything else). schools providing better students will reap the benefits of higher royalties, will be able to charge more for their services, etc. the curricula of these schools will be thus chosen to reflect higher profits, thus better results in training theitr students.
if science curricula which follow peer reviewed publications (aka "good" science) prove to be the bettwe way to train students in science, then those are the curricula which will be followed. every time govts intervene to dictate what and how to teach "our children" we get these sort of ridiculous situations like mention in the OP. schools with these govt run curricula will thus reflect the preference of burecreauts rather than the consumer, which in this case is the public at large. if the burecreuts are ignorant (when are they NOT?!) then the curricula will be ignorant as well.
in a consumer driven market, the entrepeneur uses market prices to make economic calculations and tries to make profits by satisfying consumer demand. the more profitable entrepeneur satisfies the consumer the most. the extent to which the consumer is satisfied is measured by the entrepeneur's profits/losses.
the entrepeneur hires employees based on their marginal productivity. they would be paid just abit more than the price they save the entrepeneur through their productivity. the more productive the employee, the higher the wage. wages come about through the laws of supply and demand, just like any other market price.
the lack of any pricing system (wages included) would render any type of economic calculation impossible. it would also make profits/losses extinct, thus making it impossible to measure the extent to which consumers are satisfied.
complete economic/social/technological breakdwon would follow.
this by the way is the school of thought of austrian, free market economics. ludwig von mises predicted the failure of socialist/communist regime (related to the "open company" ONLY through the lack of pricing prinicple in my analogy) based on this basic theory at the turn of the last century way before it all happened.
the real culprit here is invasion of privacy. the state/city/fed govt whoever has access to those cameras has way too much knowledge about people's daily whereabouts and such. its too big brother-ish for me and im glad it got struck down.
Slashdot Mirror
preach on brother. more govt, more problems, less freedom.
its MORGAN FREEMAN
the thesis presented by me stands in a free market only. free markets do not tolerate monopoly (through competition). when you have govt interventionism through market regulation, monopoly is allowed to emerge through lobbying (fatter cats get fatter, new business is incapacitated). neither monopoly or monopsony (one buyer) serve the buyer but are only allowed to exist with govt help (handouts/regulation).
i actually like judge napolitano's internet show, hosted by fox.
...makers are sometimes unable to charge enough to cover the cost of producing titles.
well thats an economically ingorant statement. prices are set by through supply and demand and are driven by the consumer. the quoted sentence is analogous to saying "company X is not able to charge enough to cover the cost of producing space shuttles (for wide consumer use)" which of course is ridiculous. space shuttles are too expensive to produce to be purchased widely on the market.
frankly, i do not quite comprehend the whole "open anything" idea, but i am very intrigued by it. i am more familiar with the centralized approach (which i resent as bankrupt) and the free market approach which is consumer driven. as far as the entrepeneur is concerned, remember he is always striving to satisfy the consumer and he knows how well he does that by inspecting his balance sheet. he knows best how to run the business because every mistake costs him dearly as he experiences losses or complete bankruptcy. according to the same logic, employees will never be able to discern the right business decisions.
as far as i understand from the OP, the "open company" would allow employees to be part of the company for as long as they wish, doing whatever they wish. this means employees would not be employed based on their productivity. also, the company would diverge from trying to satisfy the consumer (by having the employee "do" whatever the entrepeneur believes is neccesarry to satisfy the consumer) towards rather trying to satisfy the employee. this of course would render the company bankrupt (profit-less) fairly quickly and if widely adopeted could distort an entire economy.
profits are the only way for an entrepeneur to measure his efficiency in satisfying consumer demand (wants). if he doesnt know how to make money off of it he doesnt see that consumers would be satisfied by linux on desktops. as an entrepeneur, he wants to satisfy consumers (aka make profits). the more handsome his profits are, the more satisfied the consumers are (because they chose his products over the competition's).
recording video cameras at street corners is NOT a methdod to wipe out deficits, but to raise future spending and invade the privacy of individuals.
ok, lets say most of the people now care about advertising, as you suggested. within the next 15 years, the number of people looking for jobs in advertising will have increased tremendously. the supply for advertising jobs will have increased dramatically, while the demand for advertising jobs will have dropped tremendously, since very few are learning science, so productivity in the economy has decreased. since manufacturing decreased, the level of living drops and those in advertising (a majority) have less and less to advertise about. their productivity falls as well. pretty soon there is a bust in the advertising market. here comes a long an educational facility which recongizes this problem (maybe ahead of time), and they cater to those students interested in sciences. when the "advertising recession" comes, these schools will "steal" market share from the other "advertising" school and reap handsome profits from their teachings of science, etc. this is just a scenario, but given a large enough population, this sort of imbalance will never happen. there will always be enough people recognizing the problem with an "all marketing curriculum" and try to find niche markets for their training and trades.
the profits an entrepeneur is making are in direct relation to how well that entrepeneur satisfies the consumer. consumers are free to chose any other entrepeneur in the same market. if they chose entrepeneur A as opposed to B, than A has products the consumer prefers over B, hence A is better satisfying the consumer. An analyst or future entrepenur can analyze this situation based on the profits/losses made by A and B. the analyst will recognize losses for B and will know NOT to repeat a similar business plan as B undertook. the analyst see profits for A and will learn/emulate from that particular business model. this is how business practice which satisfy the consumers are being propagated and measured by profits and losses. any system which hampers the profit/loss meter hampers with the satisfaction of the consumer.
ok, lets say most of the people now care about advertising, as you suggested. within the next 15 years, the number of people looking for jobs in advertising will have increased tremendously. the supply for advertising jobs will have increased dramatically, while the demand for advertising jobs will have dropped tremendously, since very few are learning science, so productivity in the economy has decreased. since manufacturing decreased, the level of living drops and those in advertising (a majority) have less and less to advertise about. their productivity falls as well. pretty soon there is a bust in the advertising market. here comes a long an educational facility which recongizes this problem (maybe ahead of time), and they cater to those students interested in sciences. when the "advertising recession" comes, these schools will "steal" market share from the other "advertising" school and reap handsome profits from their teachings of science, etc. this is just a scenario, but given a large enough population, this sort of imbalance will never happen. there will always be enough people recognizing the problem with an "all marketing curriculum" and try to find niche markets for their training and trades.
in a free market education should be consumer driven (like anything else). schools providing better students will reap the benefits of higher royalties, will be able to charge more for their services, etc. the curricula of these schools will be thus chosen to reflect higher profits, thus better results in training theitr students. if science curricula which follow peer reviewed publications (aka "good" science) prove to be the bettwe way to train students in science, then those are the curricula which will be followed. every time govts intervene to dictate what and how to teach "our children" we get these sort of ridiculous situations like mention in the OP. schools with these govt run curricula will thus reflect the preference of burecreauts rather than the consumer, which in this case is the public at large. if the burecreuts are ignorant (when are they NOT?!) then the curricula will be ignorant as well.
in a consumer driven market, the entrepeneur uses market prices to make economic calculations and tries to make profits by satisfying consumer demand. the more profitable entrepeneur satisfies the consumer the most. the extent to which the consumer is satisfied is measured by the entrepeneur's profits/losses. the entrepeneur hires employees based on their marginal productivity. they would be paid just abit more than the price they save the entrepeneur through their productivity. the more productive the employee, the higher the wage. wages come about through the laws of supply and demand, just like any other market price. the lack of any pricing system (wages included) would render any type of economic calculation impossible. it would also make profits/losses extinct, thus making it impossible to measure the extent to which consumers are satisfied. complete economic/social/technological breakdwon would follow. this by the way is the school of thought of austrian, free market economics. ludwig von mises predicted the failure of socialist/communist regime (related to the "open company" ONLY through the lack of pricing prinicple in my analogy) based on this basic theory at the turn of the last century way before it all happened.
the real culprit here is invasion of privacy. the state/city/fed govt whoever has access to those cameras has way too much knowledge about people's daily whereabouts and such. its too big brother-ish for me and im glad it got struck down.