Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
In reply to the discussion: STOCK MARKET WATCH -- Monday, 31 December 2012 (and Tuesday, 1 January 2013) [View all]Demeter
(85,373 posts)66. The rise of the attention economy
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/201212271132754429.html
People in the attention economy spend their personal time attracting others' attention...For much of human history, there was no economy based on trade and fungible goods. People operated in small groups and fended for themselves. Scarcity was self-limiting: If you could not grow or catch your own food, you died (or moved). Specialisation, trade and pricing - not to mention religions and (economically) unproductive religious institutions, mass production, mass media and big government - are all recent developments...Our current world is a mix of people still subsisting with almost no external income, people generating (and consuming) surpluses and other people consuming surpluses generated by others. Commodity prices spread worldwide, though influenced by local conditions and constraints (including tariffs and other protectionist measures in China, Russia, America and elsewhere). Many activities that were previously performed "for free" (often within a household), such as sex, home maintenance and care for the sick and elderly, are now frequently outsourced and counted as economic output. In general, it is fair to say that these activities are performed more efficiently as a result: People whose skills are worth, say, $50 per hour spend more of their time earning $50, rather than performing chores "worth" $10 or $20 per hour.
AND WHAT SETS THAT WORTH? TALK ABOUT A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT, AKA TAUTOLOGY.....
But the internet is changing that as well, in a way that may befuddle the many companies who view it primarily as an economic platform, where they can market or sell things, or even charge for content. Those companies go online to earn money. Google is perhaps the purest example of a company that transforms purchase intentions into income; most other "internet" companies offer something of independent value on the other side of those searches. But many individuals, most of the time, go online without any interest in buying something. They are there to find out about the world, catch up with friends, play games, listen to music, chat, or just hang out - and, increasingly, to get the attention of other people. Thanks to highly productive surplus economies, they can spend a lot more time being economically inactive. INACTIVE, BY WHOSE DEFINITION?
This is not the familiar question of whether our machines will put us all out of work. In fact, the question is whether we will start doing more and more intellectual work for free or for barter, becoming more like our ancestors. Instead of producing food or housing for ourselves or for barter, we will be producing content and amusement for one another, without engaging in explicit (taxable) financial exchange. Yes, there is a so-called gift economy, but there is also an attention market that may not be fungible or priced - a distributed, many-to-many economy that harks back to the old days. The economic and psychological implications of this are profound. It seems pretty clear that most people gain self-esteem and mental health from doing something useful, whether raising children or earning a salary. I am not predicting a utopian world in which everyone is equally valued. But it may be a world in which people use their Klout Score (a measure of ones online influence), their Twitter following, or a similar measure to justify their existence, assign value to their activities and measure their self-worth.
The trouble (for economists and traditional businesses, at least) is that this future disturbs traditional notions of economic growth. Companies that provide content will increasingly find themselves competing with individuals who offer entertainment for free. This phenomenon is not visible yet, because analysts focus on popular bloggers and online media sites competing with traditional media...
MORE THOUGHT-PROVOKING AT LINK AND ENOUGH FALSE ASSUMPTIONS TO PULL DOWN AN ENTIRE ECONOMIC MODEL...
People in the attention economy spend their personal time attracting others' attention...For much of human history, there was no economy based on trade and fungible goods. People operated in small groups and fended for themselves. Scarcity was self-limiting: If you could not grow or catch your own food, you died (or moved). Specialisation, trade and pricing - not to mention religions and (economically) unproductive religious institutions, mass production, mass media and big government - are all recent developments...Our current world is a mix of people still subsisting with almost no external income, people generating (and consuming) surpluses and other people consuming surpluses generated by others. Commodity prices spread worldwide, though influenced by local conditions and constraints (including tariffs and other protectionist measures in China, Russia, America and elsewhere). Many activities that were previously performed "for free" (often within a household), such as sex, home maintenance and care for the sick and elderly, are now frequently outsourced and counted as economic output. In general, it is fair to say that these activities are performed more efficiently as a result: People whose skills are worth, say, $50 per hour spend more of their time earning $50, rather than performing chores "worth" $10 or $20 per hour.
AND WHAT SETS THAT WORTH? TALK ABOUT A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT, AKA TAUTOLOGY.....
But the internet is changing that as well, in a way that may befuddle the many companies who view it primarily as an economic platform, where they can market or sell things, or even charge for content. Those companies go online to earn money. Google is perhaps the purest example of a company that transforms purchase intentions into income; most other "internet" companies offer something of independent value on the other side of those searches. But many individuals, most of the time, go online without any interest in buying something. They are there to find out about the world, catch up with friends, play games, listen to music, chat, or just hang out - and, increasingly, to get the attention of other people. Thanks to highly productive surplus economies, they can spend a lot more time being economically inactive. INACTIVE, BY WHOSE DEFINITION?
This is not the familiar question of whether our machines will put us all out of work. In fact, the question is whether we will start doing more and more intellectual work for free or for barter, becoming more like our ancestors. Instead of producing food or housing for ourselves or for barter, we will be producing content and amusement for one another, without engaging in explicit (taxable) financial exchange. Yes, there is a so-called gift economy, but there is also an attention market that may not be fungible or priced - a distributed, many-to-many economy that harks back to the old days. The economic and psychological implications of this are profound. It seems pretty clear that most people gain self-esteem and mental health from doing something useful, whether raising children or earning a salary. I am not predicting a utopian world in which everyone is equally valued. But it may be a world in which people use their Klout Score (a measure of ones online influence), their Twitter following, or a similar measure to justify their existence, assign value to their activities and measure their self-worth.
The trouble (for economists and traditional businesses, at least) is that this future disturbs traditional notions of economic growth. Companies that provide content will increasingly find themselves competing with individuals who offer entertainment for free. This phenomenon is not visible yet, because analysts focus on popular bloggers and online media sites competing with traditional media...
MORE THOUGHT-PROVOKING AT LINK AND ENOUGH FALSE ASSUMPTIONS TO PULL DOWN AN ENTIRE ECONOMIC MODEL...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
84 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
STOCK MARKET WATCH -- Monday, 31 December 2012 (and Tuesday, 1 January 2013) [View all]
Tansy_Gold
Dec 2012
OP
What I'm not clear on is the degree to which B.O. understands what he's doing . . .
snot
Dec 2012
#28
We have already been sold down the river. Just waiting for the signature on the paperwork. n/t
Hotler
Dec 2012
#31
Chris Hedges Explains How Entire Regions Within the US Are Treated Like Exploited Colonies
Demeter
Dec 2012
#34
Banks Deeply Involved in FBI-Coordinated Suppression of “Terrorist” Occupy Wall Street
Demeter
Dec 2012
#38
Budget Shortfalls in Maine Public Health Care Program Point to Single-Payer Solution
Demeter
Jan 2013
#49
BOMBSHELL! Florida Judge Finds US Bank in Contempt of Court! (US Bank v. Jansen)
Demeter
Jan 2013
#65
Is our republic coming to an unceremonious end? History may not be on America's side By Steven Stra
Demeter
Jan 2013
#52
A Wee Comparison of Civil Liberties in the United States of America By Kevin Drum
Demeter
Jan 2013
#53
If You Work In California Or Illinois, Your Boss Can't Ask You For Your Facebook Password Anymore
xchrom
Jan 2013
#59
But my sister born in the 50s on the 31st gave my parents another deduction that year.
kickysnana
Jan 2013
#83