next »

[Paul Jeffries]

I would be more than happy to use another term, even a made up one, it's just that rent-seeking is the closest I've come across. Perhaps we can try reversing roles here: can you explain to me the wealth or value that publishers provide?

Well, that rather depends on what you mean by 'wealth or value'.  I would argue that even if publishers and other investors don't actually 'create' wealth themselves, their investment still enables wealth to be created that otherwise would not be, and I would say that has value.  But I don't really think that objective definitions of 'wealth' or 'value' are possible - certainly everybody's system for judging value is going to be wildly different.  So I would actually say that it's not so important whether you or I consider what they do to be valuable so much as it's important that somebody considers what they do valuable.

Let me put that into the context of what I consider the problem with actual rent-seeking.  Broadly speaking, you can get somebody to give you money (or whatever other form of wealth you're interested in) in only two ways.  Firstly: of their own free will, by exchanging it for something that they consider valuable.  That might be a product or service of yours or it might be something more ephemeral like your happiness at having been given a gift.  Whatever the transaction, it requires the consent of both parties and both sides must thus consider it to add value to their lives in some way or another.

Secondly: by the use of force, either directly or by proxy (usually, the government) to appropriate a particular form of wealth.  You might just take their personal wealth directly (theft, taxation, slavery etc.) or you may instead prevent them from doing something that they could otherwise do freely unless they agree to pay you (land rent, taxi medallions, kidnapping etc.)  Since I consider the initiation of force an objective wrong, these are the kinds of activities I oppose (or more specifically: believe the use of force in resisting them to be justifiable).  These are also the kinds of activities where it is possible to obtain money from other people without providing any kind of wealth or value in return.

This is why I don't consider games publishers, at least in their typical operation, to fall under the purview of rent-seeking.  Whatever dubious business practices they may employ they don't have the ability to use force - they still have to operate by consent and thus what they do must have at least the appearance of value to somebody.  You or I may disagree with their assessment of value but I don't think that's something we could ever hope to prove any more than we could prove that somebody's favourite colour or ice-cream flavour is wrong.

For starters I think we should all focus on technologies that lead to post-scarcity and life-longevity. I believe that scarcity and death are fears that make people do the dirtiest things.

I'm not sure I concur with your analysis - in fact experience and history would suggest to me the complete opposite: that co-operation is highest among people when scarcity is greatest.  I think that when available resources are low that increases the necessity for people to work together, and the cost of selfishness becomes much greater - when you have a banquet in front of you you're less likely to worry about taking a greater share than the guy next to you, but when all you have are a few measly scraps that decision may end up killing him.  Anyway, that's all rather besides the point - I would still agree with you that it's desirable to work towards abundance - I don't regard co-operation as a virtue in and of itself, it depends what you're co-operating towards.

Other than that, your ideas for how to proceed all seem entirely laudable and I wish you the best of luck with implementing them!

Okay I just glanced at Georgism. I don't know what it is, but this jumped out at me: "but that things found in nature, most importantly land, belong equally to all." I think that human nature and communication are "found in nature", and a lot of the monopolistic or oligopolistic behavior seems to be in areas of communication (phones, internet, TV, radio, marketing). What do you think about this?

I think you're probably taking a somewhat broader interpretation of 'things found in nature' than George intended!  Technically, everything is found in nature, but what is meant by that is more specifically things which arise from nature independant of human action - whereas I think human nature and communication are rather definitely human products!

The basic principle of Georgist theory is that poverty arises because of the monopolisation of limited natural resources (typically referred to as 'land' although not meaning just that).  For instance: as more and more land is claimed for the use of private individuals the remainder of the population is forced either to move out to land of lower quality or seek employment on land already claimed.  Wages are thus linked to the quality of the remaining land - the returns offered by employment only need to match those available from working the highest quality of unclaimed land.  As the amount and quality of available land decreases so do wages while the value of high quality land increases - often to the extent that it is no longer necessary for the owner to do anything at all to the land itself in order to increase his wealth.

There is of course slightly more to it than that - if you're interested I highly recommend reading Progress and Poverty - for a book that's over a century old it's aged remarkably well and is still just as relevant as it ever was.  It's ironic you should mention Monopoly as well - the original version of that (The Landlord's Game) was created as a tool for explaining Georgist principles in game form.  The behaviour you raised - where the winning player is more likely to go on winning - is intentionally designed in to the game in order to show the consequences of private land ownership.  Kind of ironic that it ended up becoming so popular, really...

[eiyukabe]

 The behaviour you raised - where the winning player is more likely to go on winning - is intentionally designed in to the game in order to show the consequences of private land ownership.  Kind of ironic that it ended up becoming so popular, really...

Yes, that's kind of what I see with publishers and platform holders. They provide a service, but because that service is finite in practicality (even though you could create another facebook the difficulty in converting people comes from the head start that facebook has and the difficulty in getting people to leave a place their friends are at for a new social network, not the difficulty in emulating or even improving on its technology and quality). So when people come along later trying to start their careers in a field dominated by people who already own all the attention channels (which I consider analogous to land; if that is not Georgian then call it eiyukabian  ) they have to negotiate in a situation of power imbalance. This would not inherently be evil if the powers that be recognized this power imbalance and did not try to milk the newcomers for all they are worth, but it has been my experience that this side of human nature comes out, as if our society is focused only on playing the game of capitalism and not on integrity and ethics. Look at Apple colluding with book publishers, or Zynga copying games with their left hand and suing others that copy their games with their right hand. Plus with our legal system and fiduciary responsibilities, it seems easy for a publisher to sleep at night negotiating a developer down to the bare minimum because they can simply say they are doing it for the shareholders and so they won't get sued. And the monopolistic/oligopolistic nature of such situations means the small guys have far less choices, and if things are played like a game to be won for self-interest alone, the publishers are going to be like winners in Monopoly. We are already in the end game, just circling around the board and landing on their property until our wealth is depleted with no real hope.

It's hard to formalize and I want to keep trying to find a way to express my frustrations, so let me try a different approach. I feel like some kind of force is there, so it still feels like rent-seeking. Even if I don't have to sign up with a publisher because a gun is pointed at my head, the fear that my competition might do it first puts me in a situation where I kind of _have_ to. The publisher signing up with my competition is the threat that you say needs to be present for it to be true rent-seeking. It is coercive to an extent that I don't differentiate it from robbery in principle, simply in degree. Now publishers can exist exactly as they do now and recognize their power and effect on the industry and intentionally negotiate better contracts with developers because of these inherent power imbalances, and I would say they are completely ethical if they do so. Heck in such a situation, I would probably be blissful even if they were somehow proven to not be "adding value" because I would at least feel like I am helping people be employed by my labor. But the way it is now, and this is a problem with modern capitalism -- I feel that the publishers are the Capitalists and I am the Labor and I take a Marxian view that Labor will inevitably have their livelihoods wrecked by Capital as the winner-takes-all Monopoly effect kicks in and the inevitable army of unemployed alternate labor options kept numerous by automation and globalization keeps wages (potential capital to escape the system and go independent) down. It's a slow and painful death and I did not study game design as a child to grow up and have the remainder of my life end up as a cog in a machine mass producing uninspired forms of electronic distraction for suits because I can't start my own company to compete with said suits as we are already in the end game .