I don't find this compelling at all. It could have been written 600 years ago describing how people who handwrite copies of books will be put out of business. Or a few hundred years ago describing how people who pick cotton would be put out of business. Or 100 years ago describing how people who sell horse carriages will be put out of business.
The world will constantly change. And outside of government intervention, that change is for the better of all people collectively, on a whole, net basis. While some people are put out of work, a significantly larger number of people benefit from cheaper and better products.
With government intervention we have shenanigans like taxi driver medallions costing $500k each which is terrific for the handful of people with medallions and terrible for everyone who is a consumer of taxi rides.
Government ensures a few benefit at the expense of the many. The free market ensures the many benefit at the expense of the few. (That was a pretty cool line. I wonder if anyone else has said this before in a better way?)
Who Owns the Future?
Moderator: Global Moderator
Re: Who Owns the Future?
I haven't read the book but:
1. As to the first paragraph, that is a one sided picture of things. Google Janis Ian. She is a singer/songwriter type who had a number of hits in the 1970s and perhaps 1980s. Because of the internet and the ability to sell stuff directly to fans, she still makes a living. Probably true for lots of people. I doubt this is true under the old system. Isn't it good that probably more people with artistic talent can make a living from their talents? Look at what youtube has done for people with talent.
2. What he is really saying is he doesn't like future (which neither he nor I can change). I don't like the future that the progressive transformation will mostly likely bring to the US. Too bad for me. Either I get out (of the US) of make plans to survive.
1. As to the first paragraph, that is a one sided picture of things. Google Janis Ian. She is a singer/songwriter type who had a number of hits in the 1970s and perhaps 1980s. Because of the internet and the ability to sell stuff directly to fans, she still makes a living. Probably true for lots of people. I doubt this is true under the old system. Isn't it good that probably more people with artistic talent can make a living from their talents? Look at what youtube has done for people with talent.
2. What he is really saying is he doesn't like future (which neither he nor I can change). I don't like the future that the progressive transformation will mostly likely bring to the US. Too bad for me. Either I get out (of the US) of make plans to survive.
It was good being the party of Robin Hood. Until they morphed into the Sheriff of Nottingham
Re: Who Owns the Future?
I'll probably read the book since it sounds really interesting, but my impression thus far is that the Internet has been helping rather than hurting people in creative and performance professions. For example, most of the young up-and-coming comedians I've seen or heard lately seem to have their own podcast or YouTube channel or both. It seems like a big part of how they're getting discovered and gradually building up a fan base.
Re: Who Owns the Future?
You haven't read the book but you're commenting on it?
Re: Who Owns the Future?
I was commenting on the topic of the book, not the book itself.
You can be a real charmer sometimes, Reub. Have a nice day.
You can be a real charmer sometimes, Reub. Have a nice day.
Re: Who Owns the Future?
I'm sorry tortoise if you thought that my question was directed at you. Have a nice day too.