Shay wrote:
> We've all heard stories of misguided charity organizations destroying
> micro-economies with no-cost goods. The stories go something like
> this:
> 
> * Wealthy people give poor people mosquito nets
> * The poor people sell the nets for food
> * The now-flooded mosquito-net market collapses
> * The indigenous mosquito-net craftsmen disappear
> * The no-cost mosquito nets get sold-off / used up
> * No more mosquito nets. No more craftsmen.
> 
> Google, Apple, and Microsoft are now monetizing no/low-cost software
> and *intentionally*(?) creating the above situation. The creators of
> that software are making nothing or (MUCH worse) very little. The
> 'very little' is much worse, imo, because I suspect the half-starved
> parasites will fight to defend the host.
> 
> Not saying (or not saying) the large companies are evil, just
> wondering if we should all be more careful where we put our "spare"
> money, time, talent, and personal information.

Let me make an attempt to answer this question by giving my personal 
opinion. We indeed should be more careful:

We must not buy products from companies that don't educate people or try 
to prevent people from educating themselves.

What some charity organizations don't understand is that it is much more 
important to improve education than delivering finished goods, even if 
the latter has the short-term effect of saving more lifes. You certainly 
know the saying "Give a man a fish and he has food for one day. Teach 
him how to fish and he has food for his whole life."

In the case of the mosquito net, the right thing is to give them a 
machine that produces mosquito nets and teach them how to operate it. 
But only one such machine, because they must build further machines 
themselves. This has the advantage that
1. The number of mosquito nets increases.
2. Some workers lose their jobs because mosquito nets are now produced 
more efficiently.
3. The workers who lost their jobs now build mosquito net machines.
4. They will modify the machine to improve the nets and to produce other 
things.
5. Machine and net producers maybe even teach the next generation their 
new skills.

Compare this with software and schools. Microsoft sells software to 
schools with a huge discount. Closed source software is like a mosquito 
net, because the students don't learn how to produce software. The right 
thing is to give them the tools to inspect and modify software. Like 
this, more students will start to write software. The irony is that 
Microsoft itself is moaning about the lack software developers.

So:
- Free (as in beer) closed source software is bad.
- Free (as in speach and beer) software is good.
- Free (as in speach but not beer) software is good too.

Then there is something else: Some hospitals here in Switzerland are 
constantly complaining that they can't find enough competent personell. 
On the other hand, they only have a handful of apprenticeships. (You 
know the system of apprenticeship in Switzerland? Young persons just 
having finished school start working at a company for about four years. 
During this period the company must thoroughly educate the apprentices 
in a profession. At the end, they have an exam and get a diploma.) So a 
hospital complains that they can't find enough employees, although they 
are supposed to educate them? Ridiculous. (In fact, this is just a way 
for the hospitals to justify the employment of foreign workers, with 
smaller wages of course.)

And you know what the joke is? Every human wants to learn. But then, 
there is corruption and domination, also something humans want. Efforts 
of helping poor people to get an education can work against corruption, 
but they are also stiffled by corruption.

In my opinion, you should avoid the following:
- Closed source software
- Stuff produced far away, except if it is of very high quality
- Cheap stuff (Always try to imagine what everything must be done to 
produce a good before you buy it!)
- Large companies
- Giving something for free without the recipient learning something 
from it

Greetings
Urs

Post a reply to this message