Howard Rheingold, author of Street Mobs and invited lecturer at
What Howard is really trying to get across to us is that through the cooperation, collective action, and interdependencies new forms of wealth can and are being created. In an example he gives early in his lecture he compares this collaboration to prehistoric times when small family units survived by hunting small game like rabbits and other animals. At some point however, hunters gathered together and collaborated to hunt the massive mastodon. His point being that today we can collaborate to conquer bigger “game.”
While the ideas presented could be criticized as rudimentary, it’s no farce that this level of collaboration is occurring today and is being led by some of the world’s biggest corporations. IBM, Sun Microsystems, and other leading IT firms are open-sourcing much of their software and encouraging other developers, be it graduate students or high school kids, to work and advance the available research.
For example, by allowing bloggers to earn money through its Adsense program, Google enriched itself by creating a new market for advertisers. Amazon.com opened its application interface to over 60,000 designers which in turn has grown the number of Amazon stores significantly while making money for virtual store owners. EBay, the auction giant, created an enormous market by creating a feedback mechanism that allows users to trust each other. All these examples reinforce how collaboration can turn a Prisoners Dilemma into an Insurance Game.
The Prisoners Dilemma, as in all game theory, states that “the only concern of each individual player is maximizing his/her own payoff, without any concern for the other player's payoff. The unique equilibrium for this game is a Pareto-suboptimal solution—that is, rational choice leads the two players to both play defect even though each player's individual reward would be greater if they both played cooperate.” The distrust players have for each other in this model is what dictates their rationale. If both could trust each other, they would be apt to work together and obtain larger rewards. This model in which trust is present between actors is known as the insurance game. This is what is beginning to happen. The most evident example of this is EBay. By establishing trust between buyers and sellers a huge new market was established where lower prices are often found for buyers and many new markets for goods that normally can’t be sold are now a click away for sellers.
Sources:
Wikipedia: Game Theory & the Prisoners Dilemma –
Trackback: http://grantdeken.blogspot.com/2008/04/coming-wold-of-collaboration-follow-up.html
Posts
1 comment:
"Globalization is shaking the foundation of traditional thought."
Truer words were never spoken. Grant, since you're a student of economics, you may find my book interesting. "Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America" proposes that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption begins to decline. This occurs because, as people are forced to crowd together and conserve space, it becomes ever more impractical to own many products. Falling per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.
This theory has huge ramifications for U.S. policy toward population management (especially immigration policy) and trade. The implications for population policy may be obvious, but why trade? It's because these effects of an excessive population density - rising unemployment and poverty - are actually imported when we attempt to engage in free trade in manufactured goods with a nation that is much more densely populated. Our economies combine. The work of manufacturing is spread evenly across the combined labor force. But, while the more densely populated nation gets free access to a healthy market, all we get in return is access to a market emaciated by over-crowding and low per capita consumption. The result is an automatic, irreversible trade deficit and loss of jobs, tantamount to economic suicide.
One need look no further than the U.S.'s trade data for proof of this effect. Using 2006 data, an in-depth analysis reveals that, of our top twenty per capita trade deficits in manufactured goods (the trade deficit divided by the population of the country in question), eighteen are with nations much more densely populated than our own. Even more revealing, if the nations of the world are divided equally around the median population density, the U.S. had a trade surplus in manufactured goods of $17 billion with the half of nations below the median population density. With the half above the median, we had a $480 billion deficit!
Our trade deficit with China is getting all of the attention these days. But, when expressed in per capita terms, our deficit with China in manufactured goods is rather unremarkable - nineteenth on the list. Our per capita deficit with other nations such as Japan, Germany, Mexico, Korea and others (all much more densely populated than the U.S.) is worse. In fact, our largest per capita trade deficit in manufactured goods is with Ireland, a nation twice as densely populated as the U.S. Our per capita deficit with Ireland is twenty-five times worse than China's. My point is not that our deficit with China isn't a problem, but rather that it's exactly what we should have expected when we suddenly applied a trade policy that was a proven failure around the world to a country with one sixth of the world's population.
Our enormous trade deficit is rightly of growing concern to Americans. Since leading the global drive toward trade liberalization by signing the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947, America has been transformed from the weathiest nation on earth - its preeminent industrial power - into a skid row bum, literally begging the rest of the world for cash to keep us afloat. It's a disgusting spectacle. Our cumulative trade deficit since 1976, financed by a sell-off of American assets, is now approaching $9 trillion. What will happen when those assets are depleted? Today's recession may be just a preview of what's to come.
Why? The American work force is the most productive on earth. Our product quality, though it may have fallen short at one time, is now on a par with the Japanese. Our workers have labored tirelessly to improve our competitiveness. Yet our deficit continues to grow. Our median wages and net worth have declined for decades. Our debt has soared.
Clearly, there is something amiss with "free trade." The concept of free trade is rooted in Ricardo's principle of comparative advantage. In 1817 Ricardo hypothesized that every nation benefits when it trades what it makes best for products made best by other nations. On the surface, it seems to make sense. But is it possible that this theory is flawed in some way? Is there something that Ricardo didn't consider?
Ricardo's principle of comparative advantage is overly simplistic and flawed because it does not take into consideration this population density effect and what happens when two nations grossly disparate in population density attempt to trade freely in manufactured goods. While free trade in natural resources and free trade in manufactured goods between nations of roughly equal population density is indeed beneficial, just as Ricardo predicts, it’s a sure-fire loser when attempting to trade freely in manufactured goods with a nation with an excessive population density.
If you‘re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, then I invite you to visit my web site at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com where you can read the preface for free, join in the blog discussion and, of course, buy the book if you like. (It's also available at Amazon.com.)
Please forgive me for the somewhat "spammish" nature of the previous paragraph, but I don't know how else to inject this new theory into the debate about globalization and trade without drawing attention to the book that explains the theory.
Pete Murphy
Author, Five Short Blasts
Post a Comment