Not Sustaining That Isnt a Sustainable

shovo0032

If They Cant Buy as Much Stuff in the Real World Then Google and Facebooks Advertisers Have Fewer People to Talk to That They Otherwise Would. It Was All a Social Construct to Begin With So What Changed to Get to Your Question is That at the Turn of the St Century It Was Really Sergey Brin at Google Who Just Had the Thought of Well if We Give Away All the Information Services but We Make Money From Advertising We Can Make Information Free and Still Have Capitalism. But the Problem With That is It Reneges on the Social Contract Where People Still Participate in the Formal Economy. And Its a Kind of Capitalism Thats Totally Selfdefeating.

Because Its So Narrow. Its a Winnertakeall Capitalism Thats  Situation Longterm. A Winnertakesall System Centralizes Wealth and Power at the Top Whilst Everyone Else Occupies the Long Tail. Google Has Deals in Place With Large Publishers Such as Ap Afp and Various European Agencies but Italy Telegram Number Data This Doesnt Extend to Smaller Publishers. Its the Same in Sports. The Very Top Get Paid Ridiculous Amounts of Money Whilst Those Only a Few Levels Down Are Unlikely to Make Rent on Their Earnings. But Doesnt Technology Create New Jobs People Who Were Employed at Kodak Just Go Do Something Else.

   

The Latest Waves of High Tech Innovation Have Not Created Jobs Like the Old Ones Did. Iconic New Ventures Like Facebook Employ Vastly Fewer People Than Big Older Companies Like Say General Motors. Put Another Way the New Schemes.....channel Much of the Productivity of Ordinary People Into an Informal Economy of Barter and Reputation While Concentrating the Extracted Old Fashioned Wealth for Themselves. All Activity That Takes Place Over Digital Networks Becomes Subject to Arbitrage in the Sense That Risk is Routed to Whoever Suffers Lesser Computation Resources The People Who Will Do Well in Such an Environment.