Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
posted by LaminatorX on Sunday March 23 2014, @11:32PM   Printer-friendly
from the Where's-my-20-hour-work-week? dept.

Papas Fritas writes:

"Jeremy Rifkin writes in the NYT that the inherent dynamism of competitive markets is bringing down costs so far that many goods and services are becoming nearly free, abundant, and no longer subject to market forces and while economists have always welcomed a reduction in marginal cost, they never anticipated the possibility of a technological revolution that might bring those costs to near zero. The first inkling of this paradox at the heart of capitalism came in 1999 when Napster enabled millions of people to share music without paying the producers and artists, wreaking havoc on the music industry. Similar phenomena went on to severely disrupt the newspaper and book publishing industries. The huge reduction in marginal cost is now beginning to reshape energy, manufacturing and education. "Although the fixed costs of solar and wind technology are somewhat pricey, the cost of capturing each unit of [renewable] energy beyond that is low (PDF)," says Rifkin. As for manufacturing "thousands of hobbyists are already making their own products using 3-D printers, open-source software and recycled plastic as feedstock, at near zero marginal cost" and more than six million students are enrolled in "free massive open online courses, the content of which is distributed at near zero marginal cost."

But nowhere is the zero marginal cost phenomenon having more impact than the labor market, where workerless factories and offices, virtual retailing and automated logistics and transport networks are becoming more prevalent. What this means according to Rifkin is that new employment opportunities will lie in the collaborative commons in fields that tend to be nonprofit and strengthen social infrastructure like health care, aiding the poor, environmental restoration, child care, care for the elderly, and the promotion of the arts and recreation. "As for the capitalist system, it is likely to remain with us far into the future, albeit in a more streamlined role, primarily as an aggregator of network services and solutions, allowing it to thrive as a powerful niche player in the coming era. We are, however, entering a world partly beyond markets, where we are learning how to live together in an increasingly interdependent, collaborative, global commons.""

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by The Archon V2.0 on Monday March 24 2014, @06:17AM

    by The Archon V2.0 (3887) on Monday March 24 2014, @06:17AM (#20107)
    Oh, no, Napster is definitely to the American producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone. Oh, and anything in the public domain becomes soiled and haggard, barren of its previous virtues, so copyright needs to be even longer. Yeah.
  • (Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Monday March 24 2014, @12:12PM

    by bucc5062 (699) on Monday March 24 2014, @12:12PM (#20168)

    Most of that did not make sense.

    I can perhaps understand that music producers (not creators) did not like Napster. It was a system of distribution that scared the hell out of them for their inability to control it. As to the public, it was at best a boon, for the most part a new thing to check out. Even before itunes came sites like allmp3s and others that allowed someone to buy music at a price that was in line with its value. Yeah, it sucked that the artist did not get the loin's share of those pennies, but that was not the fault of early sellers, it was the bullshit contracts and law that gave power to producers and record owners.

    Napster opened pandora's Box and the *IAA have not ever been able to close that lid since.

    The more things change, the more they look the same