| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | We pick two principles that define an “ethical” approach to business. The first is Rawlsian “veil of ignorance,” which implies a set of preferred rules regardless of position in the genetic and geographic lottery. We also rely on Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative, which holds that no person can be used as a means to an end. | |
<
< | From behind the veil of ignorance it is clear that MC=0 goods should be free. We want access to music and the internet if born in New York or India. Less clear is how much access we want—perhaps there is a line to be drawn between necessary cultural goods (learning the classics) and luxury cultural goods (StarCraft? ). One empowers, lifts people from their station into the flow of human progress; the other entertains and distracts. The two are not synonymous in function and moral weight. The problem encountered in this distinction is who decides, and how. | >
> | From behind the veil of ignorance it is clear that MC=0 goods should be free.
This pop-Rawlsian stuff
isn't really necessary, is it? Why do we have to find some normative
justification for a descriptive theory strongly confirmed by
empirical evidence? That P=MC in free competitive market at
equilibrium doesn't require moral justification any more than the
Pythagorean Theorem does. It's a category error at the outset, isn't
it?
We want access to music and the internet if born in New York or India. Less clear is how much access we want—perhaps there is a line to be drawn between necessary cultural goods (learning the classics) and luxury cultural goods (StarCraft? ). One empowers, lifts people from their station into the flow of human progress; the other entertains and distracts. The two are not synonymous in function and moral weight. The problem encountered in this distinction is who decides, and how.
Only once basic economic
principles have been discarded in favor of some new theory of the
moral economy. The question is whether to have a free market or to
engage in creating monopolies for private benefit using public
coercive power. The ethics of that decision may be discussed, I
suppose, if they don't seem evident without substantial
"re-theorizing." But those aren't the ethics of business models.
Those are the ethics of public corruption. | | | Kant’s categorical imperative has several restrictive implications. We may not use information on users without their express permission. Advertising and data mining are prohibited unless consented to a priori. We postulate that few people would opt-in even if this funds the consumption of their favorite media junk food. Second, a business may not charge one set of users for one thing, and then arbitrarily give that thing away for free to everyone thereafter. Such a scheme would use one set of people as a means for others. | |
>
> | What? I will admit that
in general I am somewhat sympathetic to the position once expressed
by a distinguished professorial colleague of mine in this law school:
"Never lend money to a Kantian." But putting aside the teaching of
half a century toddling around universities with respect to the
heightened rate of immorality prevailing among moral philosophers, I
have no idea how you have reached the conclusion that Kantians can't
hold clearance sales. If this is a proposition you really want to
defend, I think you need to spell it out more fully, with no steps
missing, and be prepared to meet a good deal of vigorous
skepticism, | | | Onto Business
Goods with marginal costs of zero are pubic goods. They are nonrival, non-excludable, and subject to free ridership. While some cultural public goods may indeed be emergent (e.g., music, literature), others require significant capital investment and equity returns. Examples of such goods are blockbuster movies (Harry Potter), high-end video games (Blizzard), and professional software (Adobe Photoshop). These goods cost nothing to distribute, but they do need large sums of money to build initially, requiring employees, office buildings and financing. | | | Still, this breaches our ethical compass, at least for cultural necessities. It may not breach our ethics in the case of superfluous goods—it is one thing to provide Chinese students with textbooks, and quite another to give them movies that costs millions of dollars to produce. | |
<
< | But, we cannot coerce businesses to generate cultural goods without covering fixed costs and financing costs. Arbitrarily charging those first in line and distributing for free to the rest of the world is unethical. If advertising and data-mining are unethical as well, we must fund the product by user contributions and bifurcate paying users from non-paying users. There must be enough paying users to get the product to the point where MC=0. Two ethical models have emerged: (1) auction, and (2) freemium. | >
> | Really? Textbooks may
well embody knowledge it costs millions of dollars to produce and
acquire: ask what it has cost us to learn what is presented in any
text on planetary astronomy, for example. You're going to need an
additional element or two to make out the particular line of
distinction you are trying to set up here.
But, we cannot coerce businesses to generate cultural goods without covering fixed costs and financing costs.
Nor do we have to
subsidize with private ownership privileges forms of cultural
activity that a sufficient collection of people wouldn't voluntary
each pay a sufficient share of the costs of having made. The use of
state power to create monopoly only results in the coercion of those
who are made to pay for cultural production which, once existent,
they have as much right to share in as any other human being who
happens to have a larger disponible income.
Arbitrarily charging those first in line and distributing for free to the rest of the world is unethical.
Unestablished. See
above.
If advertising and data-mining are unethical as well, we must fund the product by user contributions and bifurcate paying users from non-paying users.
Not unless you can establish the very unlikely premise you are reusing above. Otherwise all we need to do is to adopt the principle of "from each according to his ability or her voluntary willingness to pay, to each according to his need or willingness to accept," and allow production and consumption of culture to reach the new, more just and not less satisfactory, equilibrium.
There must be enough paying users to get the product to the point where MC=0. Two ethical models have emerged: (1) auction, and (2) freemium.
No, if that's supposed
to be an exclusive list. Pure sharing has also done fairly well, as
has direct social subsidy to potential creators, for
example. | | | In the auction set-up, people self-discriminate and bid up to their willingness to pay. For some this is zero, for others it is a positive value. Successful examples are Radiohead’s “In Rainbows” (1.2 million downloads), Nine Inch Nails ($1.6 million in one week), and Kickstarter ($75 million raised). Inherent in the auction model is a utility so positive that people pay as expression of gratitude. The creator must be particularly good at signaling the differentiation of the good from a commodity such that price does not equal marginal cost. | | | These models do not guarantee that fixed costs are covered, especially for capital intensive, experimental projects. In that case, we need public subsidy to offset the innovator’s temptation to build club goods. A hybrid solution could involve indication of private interest (via Kickstarter), a significant public subsidy once a goal is reached, and a Creative Commons license on the final good produced. | |
>
> | At no point is it made clear why we need to foresee the large number of contexts in which people may choose to participate in the economy of sharing. We don't feel it's necessary, on the other side, to write essays explaining the two ethical business models for owning. We take for granted that the ecology of material society is complex: that there are many roles for participants in the market, and that the set is not closed, with clever people constantly inventing new ways of making a living. The same is true in the sharing economy, and this crabbed and static approach to analysis needs to be opened up more than a little if it is to avoid a framing error that we would never make on the other, more familiar side of the 21st century economy. | | |
|
|