gilroy's Journal: Nobody weeps for the buggy-whip makers

The title is a phrase I like to offer, as a shorter means of conveying what Heinlein wrote:

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit."

The idea is, as technology changes, business models change also. People must adapt or go out of business. There is no money-making model that is immune or sacrosanct -- there are no businesses "too big to be allowed to fail". At the dawn of the 21st century, we see much less innovation in business and much more turf protection. When that extends to bribing, er, lobbying the legislature, then democracy itself is fundamentally threatened.

After one of my tirades, the following exchange occured, which helped me flesh out more of my thinking.

Blockquoth the poster:

Nobody weeps for the buggy-whip makers!

Or the buggy makers, not all of whom turned to making "horseless buggies".

Fair enough. I like to use the whip manufacturers because their product is only incidental to the goal. That is, you use the buggy to travel. You just use the whip to motivate the horse. It's necessary for movement if your model is horse-and-buggy. But it's not fundamentally necessary for movement.

It's much the same for all these content providers, who are -- under the current model -- needed for the distribution of music, TV, whatever. Under a new model, they become overpriced unnecessary middlemen... just like the buggy-whip makers. (And I like the connotation that the content providers whip their artists to motivate them...)

another illustration: fabric weavers

[eugene ts wong]

When I was reading about economics, an author was explaining that at the time of the late 1800's and early 1900's, many fabric weavers were replaced by machines. There was an outcry because people were being put out of a job. Companies and corporations were perceived as cold and callous, yet nobody bothered to consider the low income families who couldn't afford hand woven fabrics. Now that fabrics are being woven by machines, clothing has become so common to us, that even the poorest families have more clothing and better quality in craftsmanship, than they did at that time period.

I appreciate you sharing this with us, because it's good to get to know what others believe.

Re:another illustration: fabric weavers

[Saeger]

There'll be a lot of bumpy luddites on the road to the technological Singularity [caltech.edu].

--

Re:another illustration: fabric weavers

[eugene ts wong]

I don't know if you are joking are not, but for what it's worth, I believe that technology can actually set people back sometimes, because of the hidden costs involved. Cars, for instance, have health costs and many others, that aren't listed on the price tag.