Hello Michel,Sorry its taken me so long to reply. Much going on.Re the article:Can't say I'm sure he yet has a thesis... but rather is in search of one based on the perspective he presents. Whether or not I can agree with what he comes up will have to remain for the time being unknown.BUT... for me what is important is the discussion regarding the problematic evolution of what is called the attention economy... that the domination of human attention by narrow interests is a threat (my characterization) facing global society largely because of the concentration of influence capability (media and the evermore capable lizard-brain approach used by its corporate backers in advertising whether for commercial or political purposes).In that sense, he seems to realize (or merely hope) that technologies and social evolution will more broadly distribute influence capability and combine with a more granular* economic capacity (which he seems to characterize as an evolution of the corporation into a more individualized construction not dependent on the monopolization of resources, time or attention in the way it has in the past) will drive an evolution in the nature of the corporation. Whether or not some legalistic alteration in the nature of the corporation is part of the path to that is a very fair question.From the piece:"...the Schumpeterian corporation, the oil rig of human attention, will start to decline at an accelerating rate. Lifestyle businesses and other oddball contraptions — the solar panels and wind farms of attention economics — will start to take over."He calls this Coasean growth:"Coasean growth is not measured in terms of national GDP growth. That’s a Smithian/Mercantilist measure of growth.
It is also not measured in terms of 8% returns on the global stock market. That is a Schumpeterian growth measure. For that model of growth to continue would be a case of civilizational cancer (“growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell” as Edward Abbey put it).
Coasean growth is fundamentally not measured in aggregate terms at all. It is measured in individual terms. An individual’s income and productivity may both actually decline, with net growth in a Coasean sense."
He then closes with an honest admission that he doesn't quite know what the metrics for 'Coasean' growth might be and is open to ideas...* By "granular" I mean an individual or localized capability for economic production with less dependence on external interests with extractive agendas. (E.g. the pathology of Monsanto and banking interests in destroying the independence of the farmer in India.)Don't know where the author is on the question of credit and currency creation but no solutions will be ultimately found without addressing this problem.I share with you (I believe) a fundamental disagreement with our current monetary system and believe competing currencies and credit-creation mechanisms are necessary.My hypothesis is that the path to viable alternatives, as regrettable and/or counter-intuitive as it may be... lies in establishing first a robust peer-to-peer capacity for transaction and especially networking in currencies they are familiar with. (And NO... they don't have that now in any practical sense that's useful to the average individual.)The potential for the catalyzation of what will I believe be eventually realized to be a fundamentally necessary network offered by the method I propose (the Pooled-Usler-Determined Account model) distinguished by its microtransaction capability (vital in scaling social intercourse) offers such a path. Its an opportunity which has arisen only very recently in human history. And if it is allowed to pass may not return.Regards,Tom CrowlOn Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't really get that article, so any summary of the main thesis would be most appreciated,
Michel