Message 03877 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] | |
---|---|---|---|
Thread: oxenT03736 Message: 24/31 L13 | [In index] | ||
[First in Thread] | [Last in Thread] | [Date Next] | [Date Prev] |
[Next in Thread] | [Prev in Thread] | [Next Thread] | [Prev Thread] |
Hi Zbigniew, reed and metcalfe are only mathematical laws pointing to the maximal potential value that can be created, so I understand your point, but that is not related to my point nl, that - a lot more social value is created (documents and videos being valuable 'ethically' for many different groups) - and that only a very small part of it is monetized This remains through even if the full mathematical potential of these laws is not fullfilled to its maximum. By the way, I found an interesting quote that contradicts an earlier remark about markets .. (I agree that they are not our end horizon) however, in david laibman's deep history (which I strongly recommend I read), after his overview of anthropological literature: "markets have been known throughout all recorded history, there are no known cultures without any markets" The point is of course double: 1) markets are not synonymous with capitalism; 2) even if they continue to exist, they do not preclude other forms Michel --- Zbigniew Lukasiak <zzbbyy gmail.com> wrote:
I was reading that long email, and I have to say I agree with most of you say there, utill this point: On 9/4/07, Michael Bauwens <michelsub2003 yahoo.com> wrote:a recent thoughtpiece: But I would like the readers to entertain the following proposition, nl. That: 1) The creation of non-monetary value isexponential2) The monetization of such value is linear In other words, we have a growing discrepancybetweenthe direct creation of use value through social relationships and collective intelligence (open platforms create near infinite value through the operations of the laws of Metcalfe and Reed), butonlya fraction of that value can actually be capturedbybusiness and money. Innovation is becoming socialand It is so fashionable to quote Metcalfe or Reeds laws - but frankly it is also so shallow. Metcalfe law assumes that I see any value in belonging to all of the 2^n possible groups of n people - I don't. There might be some value in the possibility of a new group creation - but the more groups there are the value is smaller - because the groups overlap each other. There is another analysis: http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/metcalfe.pdf that tries more honestly analyse what is the value of a communication network of size n and comes to the number around n log n. Cheers, Zbyszek http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/ _________________________________ Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/ Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/ Contact: projekt oekonux.de
The P2P Foundation researches, documents and promotes peer to peer alternatives. Wiki and Encyclopedia, at http://p2pfoundation.net; Blog, at http://blog.p2pfoundation.net; Newsletter, at http://integralvisioning.org/index.php?topic=p2p Basic essay at http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=499; interview at http://poynder.blogspot.com/2006/09/p2p-very-core-of-world-to-come.html; video interview, at http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2006/09/29/network_collaboration_peer_to_peer.htm ____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz _________________________________ Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/ Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/ Contact: projekt oekonux.de
Thread: oxenT03736 Message: 24/31 L13 | [In index] | ||
---|---|---|---|
Message 03877 | [Homepage] | [Navigation] |