Algorithms
Peter Barnes: Capitalism
3.0 — Chapter 4: The Limits of Privatization (pages 49-63)
It’s tempting to believe that private owners, by pursuing their own
self-interest, can preserve shared inheritances. No one likes being told
what to do, and words like statism conjure fears of bureaucracy at best and
tyranny at worst. By contrast, privatism connotes freedom.
In this chapter, we look at Garrett Hardin’s second alternative for
saving the commons: privatism, or privatization. I argue that private corporations,
operating in unconstrained markets, can allocate resources efficiently but
can’t preserve them. The latter task requires setting aside some supplies
for future generations — something neither markets nor corporations,
when left to their own devices, will do. The reason lies in the algorithms
and starting conditions of our current operating system.
The Algorithms of Capitalism 2.0
If you’ve ever used a computer spreadsheet, you know what an algorithm
is. Each cell in the spreadsheet contains a set of instructions: take data
from other cells, manipulate the data according to a formula, and display
the result. The instructions within each cell are algorithms.
If you think of the economy as a huge spreadsheet, with each cell representing
a producer, consumer, or property owner, you can see that the behavior of
the whole is driven by the algorithms in the cells. Our current operating
system is dominated by three algorithms and one starting condition. The algorithms
are:
(1) maximize return to capital,
(2) distribute property income on a per-share basis, and
(3) the price of nature equals zero.
The starting condition is that the top 5 percent of the people own more property
shares than the remaining 95 percent.
The first algorithm is what drives corporations. It tells them to sell as
much as they can, pay as little as possible for labor, resources, and waste
disposal, and make shareholders happy every quarter. It focuses the minds
of managers every day. If they work in marketing, they wake up thinking about
how to sell more; if there’s no demand for their product, they must
create some. If they work in finance, they worry about margins and leverage.
If they’re in labor relations, they bargain hard, replace long-term
employees with temps, and shift jobs to places where wages are lower. All
the while, the CEO feeds sweet numbers to Wall Street.
The second and third algorithms then mesh with the first. It’s the
combination of these algorithms that causes the wheels of capitalism to devour
nature and widen inequality among humans. At the same time, nothing in the
algorithms requires or encourages corporations, either individually or collectively,
to preserve anything.
This doesn’t mean people inside corporations don’t think about
protecting nature, raising their workers’ pay, or giving something
back to society. Often, they do. It does mean their room for actually doing
such things is too narrow to make a difference. Nor does it mean that, from
time to time, some brave mavericks don’t briefly flout the corporate
algorithm. They do that, too. What I’m saying is that, in the great
majority of cases, the corporate algorithm and its brethren are obeyed. For
all practical purposes, the publicly traded corporation is a slave to its
algorithm. ... read
the whole chapter
Peter Barnes: Capitalism
3.0 — Chapter 5: Reinventing the Commons (pages 65-78)
Thus far I’ve argued that Capitalism 2.0 — or surplus capitalism — has
three tragic flaws: it devours nature, widens inequality, and fails to make
us happier in the end. It behaves this way because it’s programmed
to do so. It must make thneeds, reward property owners disproportionately,
and distract us from truer paths to happiness because its algorithms direct
it to do so. Neither enlightened managers nor the occasional zealous regulator
can make it behave much differently. ... read
the whole chapter
Peter Barnes: Capitalism
3.0 — Chapter 8: Sharing Culture (pages 117-134)
The larger lesson of this chapter is that all three branches of the commons — nature,
community, and culture — are under similar assault from corporations,
and all need to be fortified. The means of fortification will vary with the
particular commons. When commons are scarce or threatened, we ought to limit
aggregate use, assign property rights to trusts, and charge market prices
to users. When commons are limitless (like culture, the Internet, and potentially
the airwaves), our challenge is the opposite: to provide the greatest benefit
to the greatest number at the lowest cost. To create scarcity where it doesn’t
need to exist diminishes rather than enlarges our well-being.
In both limited and unlimited commons, corporate and commons algorithms
clash. In limited commons, the corporate algorithm says: use as much as you
can as quickly as you can, because if you don’t, someone else will.
The commons algorithm, by contrast, says: preserve the asset for future generations,
enhance it whenever possible, and live off income rather than principal.
In unlimited commons, the corporate algorithm says: restrict use and charge
what the market will bear. The commons algorithm, by contrast, says: the
more users the merrier, and the cheaper the better. In both situations, the
commons algorithm conflicts head-on with the corporate one, and that’s
just fine. Indeed, it’s precisely the point.
Commons algorithms need to be unleashed in real-time markets, where they
can duke it out with their corporate counterparts. Managers in each sector
will know what to do, and the public will know what to expect. If corporations
keep winning, then add more property to the commons. Eventually, we’ll
get the best of both worlds, and when there’s conflict, more balanced
outcomes than we get today. We’ll also gain clarity about the real
costs of current practices.
After we fortify, we should enhance; just as we take from the commons, so
should we give back. Art and music can be reproduced by corporations, but
they don’t come from corporations; they come from the commons. Folk
music, country music, jazz, blues, garage bands — these are the roots
of our musical heritage. We must nourish the soil in which these roots grow.
This, not copyright extension, is the way to enrich culture. ... read
the whole chapter
|
To
share this page with a friend: right click, choose "send," and
add your comments.
|
|
Red
links have not been visited; .
Green
links are pages you've seen |
Essential Documents
pertinent to this theme:
essential_documents |
|