LegalHub: theory: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 12: Line 12:
==The problem==
==The problem==
===[[Rent-seeking]]===
===[[Rent-seeking]]===
'''''[[Rent-seeking]]''''' in that no [[reg tech]] provider has figured out a business model for how to be suitably paid, other than by extracting [[rent]]. This they commonly do by reference to the ''value'' their product provides, which they equate to the ''total cost of labour and infrastructure it saves''.  
We’re yet to find a [[reg tech]] provider who has figured out a business model for how to be paid, other than by extracting [[rent]]. This they commonly justify by reference to the ''value'' their product provides, which they equate to the ''total cost of labour and infrastructure it saves''.  


Historians, and lovers of crushing irony, will note the resemblance of this notion to the [[labour theory of value]] — that the economic value of a service is equals the total amount of labour required to produce it — or in this case, that you would have to hire to produce it ''without this new piece of kit''. Why “ironic”? Because it is odd to hear a bedrock intellectual foundation of ''Marxism'' babbling from the mouths of small-time [[rentier capitalist]]s, that’s why.
Historians, and lovers of crushing irony, will note the resemblance of this notion to the [[labour theory of value]] — that the economic value of a service is equals the total amount of labour required to produce it — or in this case, that you would have to hire to produce it ''without this new piece of kit''.


Cynics might wonder how these [[reg tech]] [[thought leader]]s  can ''know'' how much money their technology will save, and how much time they have spent calculating the indirect costs of its implementation.
In any case you might wonder how they can ''know'' how much money their technology will save a specific client, much less what the indirect costs of implementation of their “solution” will be.


Should we be so fixated on cutting the wage bill of a handful of school-leavers in Sarajevo, that we will pay a guy in Old Street for code he bought from some school-leavers in Bucharest, if the price is that he can intermediate our process for the hereafter, adding nothing but the cheerful chime of a clipped ticket each time his machine spits out another document, or even just while our documents collect dust on his server (this is called “hosting”)?  
But should we be so fixated on cutting the wage bill of a handful of school-leavers in Sarajevo, that we will pay a guy in Old Street for code he bought from some school-leavers in Bucharest, if he can then intermediate our process for the hereafter, adding nothing but the cheerful chime of a clipped ticket each time his machine spits out another document, or while it collects dust on his server?<ref>This is called hosting and it seems to be a cash cow. But aren’t terabytes of data storage, like, ''pennies'' these days?</ref>


Wasn’t the promise of the information revolution something grander than that? Wasn’t stuff meant to be ''free'', not just ''marginally cheaper and more complicated''?
Wasn’t the promise of the information revolution something grander than that? Wasn’t stuff meant to be ''free'', not just ''marginally cheaper and more complicated''?