704 karma · joined December 20, 2010
shutt.in
It's easier to see the problem in publishing or the game industry than in music, since musicians can make money from performances. Taking your example of Mendelssohn, he made his money from holding concerts and getting stipends from German monarchs. Authors and game designers can't hold performances, so the only way they can make money is by actually selling copies of their work, which requires intellectual property rights, or by hoping to attract a rich sponsor. If Amazon could sell books without having to give any royalties to the copyright holders, they would.
The idea that copyright only benefits the select few in the music industry isn't true, either. Labels often get caught plagiarizing songs that were written by small artists and handing them to big-name artists that they have under contract. With copyright, the smaller artists have an uphill battle. Without copyright, they have no weapons whatsoever.
Also, elite prep schools do try to fill their classes with nothing but brilliant students, for a variety of reasons, including money and prestige. There are some negative consequences, to be sure, but it happens. At least Y Combinator increases the size of its classes every year, unlike prep schools.
1) The Assad family would have to find the threat from NATO credible. 2) They would have to believe that there is no chance of defeating the rebels militarily and outlasting NATO bombardment. 3) The major power players in the Assad government would have to be willing to accept life in exile, with no opportunity for travel or engagement with the rest of the world. (Even Ben Ali, the dictator who left Tunisia semi-voluntarily, has an international warrant out for his arrest.) 4) Some country (presumably America) would have to be willing to either pay them a significant lump sum out of their own pocket or allow them to loot Syria before they leave.
You could pick any one of these apart.
Google, Facebook, Youtube, and other sites that either allow user-generated content or generate links through web crawlers are "offering goods or services in a manner that (...) enables or facilitates [copyright violations]." Since linking facilitates copyright violation, this affects every site that doesn't manually vet every single link it makes.
For example, if Warren Buffett invests in a company, that company's stock generally rises. That's why Warren Buffett was able to get sweetheart deals when he made short-term loans to Goldman, Sachs and Bank of America recently. They were willing to pay him billions of dollars just for his imprimatur. Buffett received options to buy shares of their stock at the much lower, pre-bump price.
It's not really stock manipulation, though. If you're big enough, or respected enough, you have to expect your trades to move the market.
The first three you listed are well on their way to being automated within a few decades. The last one seems out of place, since electricians are relatively well-paid and often self-employed. I think that we're seeing a gradual shift away from a service economy, mirroring earlier shifts from industrial and agricultural economies, as service jobs are automated or taken over by people in poorer countries. I'm not sure what to call the economy that's coming, though. A creative economy? A reputation economy? An economy where people work on the things they find interesting, and if other people find them interesting, too, they get paid. Many of the menial or boring jobs will be automated.
The big problem when you place a huge buy or sell order is that it shifts the price in a direction you don't want it to go. For a large sell order, the price goes down, as the market becomes skittish about the security. For a large buy order, the price goes up, as the market becomes bullish and arbitrageurs quickly buy up securities to resell to you. So, many traders use algorithms to hide their trades. The purpose of these algorithms is to avoid volatility, so they shouldn't be dangerous to the market, as long as they're designed correctly.
(Although, to be fair, algorithms may automatically stop trading when the market becomes too volatile, which contributes to flash crashes by reducing liquidity.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distr...
I know what you mean, and I have the same problem. I think that the big difference between the present and the past is that the monetary value of our attention has increased dramatically, and companies are spending hundreds of billions of dollars just to get us to look at them. It takes a lot of discipline to keep yourself from looking at a trillion-dollar lightshow.
I just don't buy the premise of this article, which is that because of all of these distractions, people are no longer grappling with big ideas. To extend your grocery store metaphor, it's as if the author were to argue that because there are so many candy bars, vegetables no longer exist. He mentions Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould as examples of people who would be superstar public intellectuals in an earlier time period, but I think that they are now. This is pure conjecture on my part, but I think that the percentage of the population that knows who Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould are is higher than the percentage of the population that knew who Marshall McLuhan and John Maynard Keynes were when they were active. In fact, I would venture a guess that Marshall McLuhan and John Maynard Keynes are also more well-known now than they were in their day. It's a lot easier for big ideas to reach the general public through the Internet than through old media and local word-of-mouth. Most of these people will never penetrate beyond the surface level, but at least they're aware that these big discussions exist. For the people who want to go deeper, they still can, will, and are, even if it means taking dramatic measures to focus their attention.
A positive side effect is that the interesting conversations are now available to everyone. For example, most chatter in a Philadelphia bar in 2011 is of no interest to anyone except the people having the conversation, but chatter in a Philadelphia bar in 1776 would make a fascinating read. I sure wish we had a record of that. Take Twitter as an example, since Gabler singles it out for criticism. Most of the time, I don't care what Muhammad Everyman in Cairo is tweeting about, because the quality level is the same as that of ordinary conversation. But when a revolution breaks out, I can listen in on tens of thousands of conversations talking about what is happening on a street-by-street level. Conversation is mundane, except when it isn't.
As for the comment about the Internet following a sort of Gresham's Law, with trivial information pushing out the big ideas, I think it's off the mark. Nothing is getting pushed out because there is nothing to get pushed out of. More bytes of kitten photos does not mean less bytes of Nietzsche. The amount and availability of big ideas and trivial data are increasing concurrently. The issue is one of attention: You can seek out and pay attention to big ideas, or you can look at cats. Most people look at cats. But that's always been true.
1. There is such a thing as rational utility, and 2. Bureaucrats can figure out what it is.
In any case, if you accept online payments via credit card, there wouldn't be much point to converting them to bitcoins after the fact, unless you actually prefer to hold BTC instead of USD. You've already paid the transaction fees.