“The best way to predict the future is to inspire the next generation to build it better.”
– Jim Spohrer (one of my many mentors, Alan Kay, at Apple, often said, “The best way to invent the future is to build it.” So I tweaked Alan’s words a bit.)
Why social capital/human capital matters….
Rotman D (2014) Technology and Inequality: The disparity between the rich and everyone else is larger than ever in the United States and increasing in much of Europe. Why? Technology Review On Line, October 21, 2014, URL: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/531726/technology-and-inequality/
“As Piketty points out, it is a radical departure from how we have thought about progress. Since the 1950s, economics has been dominated by the idea—notably formulated by Simon Kuznets, a Harvard economist and Nobel laureate—that inequality diminishes as countries become more technologically developed and more people are able to take advantage of the resulting opportunities. Many of us suppose that our talents, skills, training, and acumen will allow us to prosper; it is what economists like to call “human capital.” But the belief that technological progress will lead to “the triumph of human capital over financial capital and real estate, capable managers over fat cat stockholders, and skill over nepotism” is, writes Piketty, “largely illusory.””
We need to change this…
Underline above is mine. Opinion: we need to change this. There are between 20M and 30M developers/data scientists/open community members in the world. Makers in the “maker movement” is even larger.
Observation…
Wikipedia, GitHub, Kaggle – are all about co-creation of value in communities where it is possible to build social capital/human capital and build technical eminence.
Wikipedia – democratization of compilation and access to information
GitHub (Microsoft intends to acquire) – democratization of compilation and access to code/algorithms
Kaggle (Google acquired) – democratization of compilation and access to data + algorithms = performance on tasks
How to change cultures?
Derderian, Beth. “AnthroPod presents The Familiar Strange: Designing Agency with Vijayendra Rao.” AnthroPod: The SCA Podcast, Cultural Anthropology website, June 12, 2018. https://culanth.org/fieldsights/1446-anthropod-presents-the-familiar-strange-designing-agency-with-vijayendra-rao
“Lead economist at the WorldBank…not an anthropologist, but he works with anthropology… working on a science of deliberate social change … not all anthropologist are on board with this…. the development industry … Randomized control trials…. large scale social experiments…. champion of commonsense… policy making…. ethnography… science of medical trials to development… all disciplines have standards for rigorous use of methods… advocate for using the right method on the right questions… ”
Idea: Compare this method to question to Kaggle performance on task with data and algorithms.
In response to the above Hunter Hastings commented:
Hi Jim,
From an economist’s perspective, one has to be very careful with Picketty. He is accused of factual and data errors in the effort to support his Marxist position on the distribution of income and wealth. The Financial Times, Bloomberg, and Huffington Post (as well as many academic journals) published corrections, stimulating a lot of debate.
https://www.ft.com/content/e1f343ca-e281-11e3-89fd-00144feabdc0
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/23/piketty-data-flaw_n_5380947.html
The normal distribution curve is the most common statistical phenomenon in both the natural and the economic worlds, and Nassim Nicholas Taleb (in Fooled By Randomness as well as elsewhere) has warned us to be careful when observing long tailed distributions and projecting broad conclusions about random data embedded in those long tails.
One of the points of view to balance Picketty is to focus on the amount that the curve has been elevated throughout its length by economic and technological progress. Prof Deirdre McCloskey’s shorthand is “3000% in 200 years” – the amount of increase the average citizen of developed countries has experienced in income per capita.
http://www.aei.org/publication/bourgeois-equality-a-chapter-by-chapter-exploration/
The point is not to focus on the long tail of the distribution (the super-rich like Rockefeller and Morgan and Gates and Bezos) but on the general improvement in living standards and the wonderful escape from poverty brought about by capitalism and technology.
In our book, Jeff and I generally take this optimistic point of view and project it into the future. In the Individual Economy, when everyone becomes an entrepreneur, with the help of cognitive assistants, cloud computing, and global exchange platforms, there will be elevating pathways for many more people. Jack Ma has an interesting take on how this opportunity might present itself to the individual. He describes Alibaba as an economy – the twentieth biggest in the world (and he’s aiming for 5th). In this economy, Alibaba provides individuals with all the technology infrastructure and support they need to create their own entrepreneurial business on the platform. Jack Ma might get rich, but at the same time, millions of entrepreneurs will seize new opportunities for themselves, with success determined by their own initiative and ingenuity.
I don’t know how you feel about George Gilder, but he agrees that the new innovations in technology, including blockchain and associated crypto-related developments, will democratize opportunity further, and result in the break-up of what he calls the GAFA (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon) concentration.
Undesired disparities in income distribution are worthy of our attention, of course, but broadly distributed, technology-augmented entrepreneurial capacity is a much more productive field for technology to address; raising the curve all along its length is better policy than redistribution.
Best regards, Hunter
P.S. [If you share the above] You might mention that my blog is at https://centerforindividualism.org
More from Hunter:
Hi Cristina [Pietronudo],
Thank you for your e-mail. It sounds like you are working in an interesting field. I would love to learn more about co-distribution. Jeff and Jim and I have all written extensively about co-creation of value, and co-distribution of value sounds related.
As Jim knows, I am an advocate of the Austrian School of Economics, the school of Carl Menger, Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises and F.A.Hayek and, today, Jesus Huerta de Soto and Peter G. Klein. This school sees the economy as a self-governing spontaneous order. The individual entrepreneur is the driving force in the economy, in this view, pursuing co-creation of value with customers to generate the most value for all. In this view, government can not create value, since its role is simply to take value from some market participants and redirect it to others or use it for its own purposes. Government interventions, while often well-intended, can only distort a self-organizing spontaneous order.
If you are interested in finding out more, Jesus Huerta de Soto’s book, The Austrian School: Market Order And Entrepreneurial Creativity, is an excellent introduction and a short read (129 pages). It includes a side-by-side table comparing the Austrian School principles with neo-classical, Keynesian and Chicago School economics.
Huerta de Soto’s position is that the most just society is the one that most freely unleashes the creativity of its entrepreneurial citizens. This produces what he calls a dynamic efficiency – the most good for the most market participants.
I look forward to hearing more about co-distribution. Perhaps you could direct me to some reading or papers. Thank you.
Best regards,
Hunter Hastings
From Jeff Saperstein:
Hi Cristina [Pietronudo],
I believe that a way to speak to young people is to start with their own aptitudes and skills (what comes easily to them) so they can identify success in their own life experience. The APP Knack has an education game series that is designed for children 10+, who can see a way to understand themselves unfamiliar from conventional school and home life.
One question Jim has posed for young people is: “What problem do you want to solve?” Do you have a passion for social justice, global warming, sports, online gaming? Any category is relevant. I suggest they watch TedTalks from both Kelly and Jane McGonigal (twins) who each have articulated a vision for living life and work that is a mind blower for young people. Since many young people are visual learners videos may be more easily absorbed than books. A series of Ted Talks from people such as: Brene Brown (Power of Vulnerability), Chimamanda Adichie (The Power of Story), Seth Godin (Tribes on the Internet), Randy Pausch’s Last Lecture on Achieving Your Childhood Dreams, and Bruno Torturra: Got a SmartPhone? Start Broadcasting, will inspire young people to see Gamification, Social Science, Creative Arts, Leadership, Teaching, and Journalism in a whole new way.
Hope these leads and perspectives can help.
Best,
Jeff