 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Just a hunch. Definitely open to changing my mind on this one. I'm very far
away from the issue.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/07/2013 06:42 PM, 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.
Bear in mind that it takes human effort to make each individual net.
However, software - once created - can be duplicated ad infinitum at
almost zero cost. The cost is all in the design. The point being, three
craftsmen probably can't supply an entire city, but one computer
programmer (given enough time) can.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid Win7 v1" wrote in message news:51f95292$1@news.povray.org...
> Bear in mind that it takes human effort to make each individual net.
> However, software - once created - can be duplicated ad infinitum at
> almost zero cost.
Zero cost to a distributor. The creator's cost (time) has still been paid.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Bear in mind that it takes human effort to make each individual net.
>> However, software - once created - can be duplicated ad infinitum at
>> almost zero cost.
>
> Zero cost to a distributor. The creator's cost (time) has still been paid.
Indeed. The cost is all in the creator's original effort in creating the
item.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid Win7 v1" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:51f9822d$1@news.povray.org...
>>> Bear in mind that it takes human effort to make each individual net.
>>> However, software - once created - can be duplicated ad infinitum at
>>> almost zero cost.
>>
>> Zero cost to a distributor. The creator's cost (time) has still been
>> paid.
>
> Indeed. The cost is all in the creator's original effort in creating the
> item.
... and his effort is becoming the hardest thing to monetize. If I decided
to express my good will towards man by working for free in a factory, I
think a lot of people would be upset with me.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> * 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
One could argue that overall for society it's better to have cheaper
mosquito nets (more people will be able to afford them and disease is
then probably lower).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-8-2013 9:41, scott wrote:
>> * 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
>
> One could argue that overall for society it's better to have cheaper
> mosquito nets (more people will be able to afford them and disease is
> then probably lower).
>
However, the local craftsmen having disappeared, society becomes
dependant on charity. No win-win situation, except for the charity's
good conscience.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > * 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
> One could argue that overall for society it's better to have cheaper
> mosquito nets (more people will be able to afford them and disease is
> then probably lower).
The real-life example is clothing.
Rich countries are dumping free clothing by the ton to poor countries,
especially in Africa. Some *African* sociologists are pleading the rich
countries to stop that because they are killing the local textile economy
with it. There are actually many wealthy people there who don't buy any
clothes because they just can go and get it for free. There's an
overabundance of it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> One could argue that overall for society it's better to have cheaper
>> mosquito nets (more people will be able to afford them and disease is
>> then probably lower).
>>
> However, the local craftsmen having disappeared, society becomes
> dependant on charity.
If the charity stops then surely the craftsmen will appear again just as
quickly to return to the original situation?
> No win-win situation, except for the charity's
> good conscience.
The craftsmen who previously made mosquito nets can't make anything else?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Rich countries are dumping free clothing by the ton to poor countries,
> especially in Africa. Some *African* sociologists are pleading the rich
> countries to stop that because they are killing the local textile economy
> with it.
You'd need to weigh up what was better, having a local textile economy
with a group of people unable to afford clothes, or no local textile
economy but everyone gets clothes. I don't know for sure what the answer
would be, but I suspect it's better that everyone gets free clothes
(some proportion of the ones who worked in the textile companies would
find other jobs). It seems the majority of Africans agree otherwise
there wouldn't be the "problem".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
