Surplus means that previously valuable things stop being valuable
It is our misfortune to live through the largest increase in expressive capability in the history of the human race, a misfortune because surplus always breaks more things than scarcity. Scarcity means valuable things become more valuable, a conceptually easy change to integrate. Surplus, on the other hand, means previously valuable things stop being valuable, which freaks people out.
Another great quote from Clay Shirky.
8 comments
Jan 19, 2010
CrudBasher said...
Yes I totally agree but there is another part to it. Surplus is half of it but distribution is the other part. When things are digital, it can be replicated without loss infinitely, and with the Internet the cost of distribution approaches zero. Many business models are based on distribution of goods. They are dead now.
Jan 19, 2010
CrudBasher said...
I meant based on distribution of Information Goods. Traditional goods (like cars) still have high distribution costs.
Jan 20, 2010
Carl Anderson said...
From an economic standpoint of supply and demand for tangible goods this might be true but I think this argument starts to break down when you move toward less tangible goods. There is no limit to how much knowledge a person can possess or how much love they have yet these things do not diminish in societal value when a group has a surplus. In fact, for those two particular commodities a surplus actually probably increases the value a society places on them.
Jan 20, 2010
CrudBasher said...
That's a good point Carl. The question becomes then, do we desire non tangible goods enough to pay a cost to acquire them? I guess some we do, and some we don't. Would everyone want a Ferrari if everyone else had one? Partly that is driven by the status of having a Ferrari. I am not speaking from personal experience btw :)
Jan 20, 2010
anderscj said...
I suppose you also have to consider what we mean by "pay." Are we talking money, time, effort, etc.?
Jan 20, 2010
Scott McLeod said...
Carl, I think Seth's referencing the viewpoint of the seller, not the buyer (which is all of us). So if we no longer live in an environment of information scarcity, that's good for the buyer but not the seller. And, as he notes, if your livelihood depends on being a seller, you're likely freaking out right now!
Jan 20, 2010
Carl Anderson said...
Oh, absolutely! However, in a society where info is abundant education is likely to be valued and thus a willingness to pay might still exist. Education is not the same thing as info though. Big difference between information and understanding.
Jan 21, 2010
Carl Anderson said...
Came across this clip. Made me think of this conversation. Kind of the antithesis of what we are talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejdff257dMQ
