I don't think bitcoin has the potential to unseat oligopoly. I believe that people are scared to be themselves, i.e. unique individuals who don't give a shit about what others think about them. It's not about NFT's. It's about bringing soul into everyday life. The soul of the world, anima mundi, is not doing so well. It all begins with individuals who are not afraid to be weird. Like my next door neighbor who worships his front lawn and has a 1968 Mustang in his garage that he never drives.
This is something I've been thinking a lot about. Is there more or less deviance today than in the past?
It's a slippery question to answer because some previously-forbidden things are now allowed: premarital sex, all kinds of visible self-expression, breaking gender norms. Some people still oppose these things, but they don't have the power to actually stop them anymore. But some previously-allowed things are now forbidden, which is everything that can get you canceled online. So what proportion of people were rulebreakers under the Old Rules, and what proportion are rulebreakers under the New Rules?
My gut says it was higher in the past. But I don't really know, and I'm not even sure I'm specifying the question correctly.
Some of the things you are mentioning are simply effect of power laws. Which is how certain things work, because of the “meritocracy” principle that the winner takes all. Of course this principle can have terrible effects if it is left acting alone without any regulation. Mainly because it creates efficiency (think about Google in a world of 10+ search engines) but also barriers (again, Google, but now). But if you call it “oligopoly” you seem suggesting there is an agreement between few players to dominate a market/scenario. Which is not the case. The solution is regulation (and some degree of faith in the technological disruption that make hard also for Facebook to remain a leader in its own market)
Big things tend to get bigger, but not always and not everywhere. It seems we’re in a particular moment of big getting bigger, which demands some explanation. I agree that regulation seems like a useful tool!
I’m not quite sure yet where this line of thinking will take us Adam, but I continue to think it’s worth pursuing. Is it enough to get a little weird? How many of us will have to do so to bring an appreciable level of change?
Every bit helps! Small, weird things don't need that many people supporting them to survive. And small, weird practices help produce freethinking people. If more people rebelled against the Spotify algorithm like you have, for example, what might they do next? I think it all adds up in ways that are hard to measure beforehand. Regardless, I think there's an intrinsic good in people encountering more stuff outside of what they'd get by default.
And yet, for most people the Spotify algorithm (and electoral politics and religion and so on) seem to work well enough, or they are not so dissatisfying that it’s worth changing. So we suffer along with good enough. That’s the logjam that we need to break, and it feels most imperative in politics. Do you happen to read Robert Reich’s Substack? He’s plowing similar ground right now.
Good article. What about certain fields that have seen de-oligopolization? Say, going from ABC/CBS/NBC to all the stuff we have today, or music, or books? Not at all saying this as a counterargument, just that it seems like some fields seem to be more prone to it - probably those with reinforcing network effects for consumers - it is highly beneficial for me to cluster on political party - we win elections! - but not so much on music, where just listening to two songs or artists would get boring.
Thanks! There's some evidence that music, TV, and books are more oligpolized than they used to be: https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/pop-culture-has-become-an-oligopoly. While there are more options than there used to be, the actual market share seems to go more to the most-popular franchises and artists.
It must be the case, though, that some things have poly-opolized. Global GDP output is one. The US made up 40% of the world economy in 1960, and now makes up 24% (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-share-of-global-economy-over-time/). One reason might be that, unlike most of the domains I talked about, global GDP doesn't have to be zero-sum. The US is way wealthier today than it was in 1960, and part of that wealth came from markets opening in more places, which made everybody better off.
Well, there I think we start to encounter some issues with our definitions. Is the relevant category for market concentration in TV the network, or franchises - and is market share measured in money, eyeballs, viewer time? I think in different contexts we'd want to know one or all of them. You are certainly right that "zero sum" vs "not zero sum" matters, and that definition of market share affects that. The most famous music artist might have a larger % monetary market share today than 1950, but I certainly feel like the average listener is listening to more hours of different artists today. (maybe I'm wrong)
This is called the Pareto Principle / Distributions... Over time, those that win tend to win more and more, and a logical end point, given enough time, is one group with everything and the majority with nothing. It's an interesting problem for very libertarian-minded people to deal with.
I am dismayed there was no discussion of the Pareto distribution. It governs the height of trees and sizes of planets. (Cf Jupiter). Income inequality dates back to near prehistoric times. Algorithms and capitalism can't answer for that nor a Molotov cocktail change the size of planets. Jordan Peterson has discussed this at length.
The Pareto distribution is a description of what's going on, rather than an explanation for why it's going on. I think the most important part of the data here is not that things are unequal, but that they have become more unequal, especially recently. That's something that deserves explanation!
The explanation is a tough one, but I think it is something like "Those that win a round of the game get a little more, meaning they can play more rounds of the game in the future. Those that lose a round of the game end up with a little less, meaning they can play fewer rounds of the game in the future. At some point, you lose enough that you can't play any more games and you are stuck. At some point, you win enough games that you start to alter the rules of the game to make it more likely that you keep winning (increase bet sizes, change the rules, etc)"
No, you put it quite well. I think that you are right about more rules being broken in the past. The military-industrial complex is very concerned about rule breakers. They present a threat to the power structure. The elite control this country and won't let go. The super rich are in love with the divide in this country because it diverts people's attention to bullshit. There are also unconscious forces at work here too. The Feminine wants to be recognized for what She is. You could say that this upheaval started many centuries ago. What we are painfully witnessing is the emergence of a wider consciousness. The environment of our Mother Earth, women's reproductive rights, salary equality for women and all sorts of other issues like gender norms. Men are hurting invisibly. The Grail legend emphasizes a deep wound in our feeling side. This is an epidemic that has gone unnoticed. Men are usually on the trigger end of an AR-15. Someone once said that in the 18th century, Nietzsche went through alone what we are all experiencing now.
Addresses aren’t people. Big addresses typically belong to exchanges. I can find other sources on this but the TL;DR is you need to do a more complex analysis to figure out things like the gini coefficient of bitcoin.
Thank you! I added a comment there, hopefully that unpacks things a bit, although honestly this is the start of a rabbit hole much too deep for a comment box.
The shortest intuition to understand why I believe this is a belief that the effects of banks having this ability to print money end up corrupting ~everything~ money touches which includes movies and academic research.
I don't think bitcoin has the potential to unseat oligopoly. I believe that people are scared to be themselves, i.e. unique individuals who don't give a shit about what others think about them. It's not about NFT's. It's about bringing soul into everyday life. The soul of the world, anima mundi, is not doing so well. It all begins with individuals who are not afraid to be weird. Like my next door neighbor who worships his front lawn and has a 1968 Mustang in his garage that he never drives.
This is something I've been thinking a lot about. Is there more or less deviance today than in the past?
It's a slippery question to answer because some previously-forbidden things are now allowed: premarital sex, all kinds of visible self-expression, breaking gender norms. Some people still oppose these things, but they don't have the power to actually stop them anymore. But some previously-allowed things are now forbidden, which is everything that can get you canceled online. So what proportion of people were rulebreakers under the Old Rules, and what proportion are rulebreakers under the New Rules?
My gut says it was higher in the past. But I don't really know, and I'm not even sure I'm specifying the question correctly.
Some of the things you are mentioning are simply effect of power laws. Which is how certain things work, because of the “meritocracy” principle that the winner takes all. Of course this principle can have terrible effects if it is left acting alone without any regulation. Mainly because it creates efficiency (think about Google in a world of 10+ search engines) but also barriers (again, Google, but now). But if you call it “oligopoly” you seem suggesting there is an agreement between few players to dominate a market/scenario. Which is not the case. The solution is regulation (and some degree of faith in the technological disruption that make hard also for Facebook to remain a leader in its own market)
Big things tend to get bigger, but not always and not everywhere. It seems we’re in a particular moment of big getting bigger, which demands some explanation. I agree that regulation seems like a useful tool!
I’m not quite sure yet where this line of thinking will take us Adam, but I continue to think it’s worth pursuing. Is it enough to get a little weird? How many of us will have to do so to bring an appreciable level of change?
Every bit helps! Small, weird things don't need that many people supporting them to survive. And small, weird practices help produce freethinking people. If more people rebelled against the Spotify algorithm like you have, for example, what might they do next? I think it all adds up in ways that are hard to measure beforehand. Regardless, I think there's an intrinsic good in people encountering more stuff outside of what they'd get by default.
And yet, for most people the Spotify algorithm (and electoral politics and religion and so on) seem to work well enough, or they are not so dissatisfying that it’s worth changing. So we suffer along with good enough. That’s the logjam that we need to break, and it feels most imperative in politics. Do you happen to read Robert Reich’s Substack? He’s plowing similar ground right now.
I haven’t! I’ll check it out
Good article. What about certain fields that have seen de-oligopolization? Say, going from ABC/CBS/NBC to all the stuff we have today, or music, or books? Not at all saying this as a counterargument, just that it seems like some fields seem to be more prone to it - probably those with reinforcing network effects for consumers - it is highly beneficial for me to cluster on political party - we win elections! - but not so much on music, where just listening to two songs or artists would get boring.
Thanks! There's some evidence that music, TV, and books are more oligpolized than they used to be: https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/pop-culture-has-become-an-oligopoly. While there are more options than there used to be, the actual market share seems to go more to the most-popular franchises and artists.
It must be the case, though, that some things have poly-opolized. Global GDP output is one. The US made up 40% of the world economy in 1960, and now makes up 24% (https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-share-of-global-economy-over-time/). One reason might be that, unlike most of the domains I talked about, global GDP doesn't have to be zero-sum. The US is way wealthier today than it was in 1960, and part of that wealth came from markets opening in more places, which made everybody better off.
Well, there I think we start to encounter some issues with our definitions. Is the relevant category for market concentration in TV the network, or franchises - and is market share measured in money, eyeballs, viewer time? I think in different contexts we'd want to know one or all of them. You are certainly right that "zero sum" vs "not zero sum" matters, and that definition of market share affects that. The most famous music artist might have a larger % monetary market share today than 1950, but I certainly feel like the average listener is listening to more hours of different artists today. (maybe I'm wrong)
I'm inventing a new science that explains this. It's the result of human genetic inequality and how power works.
https://josephbronski.substack.com/p/exousiology-manuscript-beta-10-is
This is called the Pareto Principle / Distributions... Over time, those that win tend to win more and more, and a logical end point, given enough time, is one group with everything and the majority with nothing. It's an interesting problem for very libertarian-minded people to deal with.
I talk about the concept here:
https://newsletter.butwhatfor.com/p/takeaway-tuesday-stand-up-straight
I am dismayed there was no discussion of the Pareto distribution. It governs the height of trees and sizes of planets. (Cf Jupiter). Income inequality dates back to near prehistoric times. Algorithms and capitalism can't answer for that nor a Molotov cocktail change the size of planets. Jordan Peterson has discussed this at length.
The Pareto distribution is a description of what's going on, rather than an explanation for why it's going on. I think the most important part of the data here is not that things are unequal, but that they have become more unequal, especially recently. That's something that deserves explanation!
The explanation is a tough one, but I think it is something like "Those that win a round of the game get a little more, meaning they can play more rounds of the game in the future. Those that lose a round of the game end up with a little less, meaning they can play fewer rounds of the game in the future. At some point, you lose enough that you can't play any more games and you are stuck. At some point, you win enough games that you start to alter the rules of the game to make it more likely that you keep winning (increase bet sizes, change the rules, etc)"
I talk about the concept here:
https://newsletter.butwhatfor.com/p/takeaway-tuesday-stand-up-straight
No, you put it quite well. I think that you are right about more rules being broken in the past. The military-industrial complex is very concerned about rule breakers. They present a threat to the power structure. The elite control this country and won't let go. The super rich are in love with the divide in this country because it diverts people's attention to bullshit. There are also unconscious forces at work here too. The Feminine wants to be recognized for what She is. You could say that this upheaval started many centuries ago. What we are painfully witnessing is the emergence of a wider consciousness. The environment of our Mother Earth, women's reproductive rights, salary equality for women and all sorts of other issues like gender norms. Men are hurting invisibly. The Grail legend emphasizes a deep wound in our feeling side. This is an epidemic that has gone unnoticed. Men are usually on the trigger end of an AR-15. Someone once said that in the 18th century, Nietzsche went through alone what we are all experiencing now.
Perhaps this is just my inner weirdo coming out but: I believe bitcoin fixes this.
I really don't see how - please elaborate.
Also: https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html
The best I can do is link to longer explanations of why fiat money leads to these oligopoly mechanics.
You might consider “the bitcoin standard” by saifdean amous, or a video like this one:
https://youtu.be/5Q4-E5K7tW0
The short version is, “when new money can be printed, the gains will inevitably accrue to the people with the most wealth.”
Hard money limits this rich-get-richer phenomenon by placing limits on what even the wealthiest people in the world can do.
Yikes, less than 1% of addresses hold more than 50% of the Bitcoin wealth.
Addresses aren’t people. Big addresses typically belong to exchanges. I can find other sources on this but the TL;DR is you need to do a more complex analysis to figure out things like the gini coefficient of bitcoin.
Interesting! I know nothing about this world, so I appreciate it. To Arbituram's question, how do you see it undoing oligopolies?
Thank you! I added a comment there, hopefully that unpacks things a bit, although honestly this is the start of a rabbit hole much too deep for a comment box.
The shortest intuition to understand why I believe this is a belief that the effects of banks having this ability to print money end up corrupting ~everything~ money touches which includes movies and academic research.