Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 2 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend (2 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   19 comments, 2 series

OpEdNews Op Eds

Who should profit from the Commons?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Group(s): , Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 5   Supported 5   Well Said 4  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 6/27/14

Become a Fan
  (70 fans)
- Advertisement -

Money Tree - grown from the Commons?
(image by Bing Images)
  DMCA

In a recent interview of Lawrence Wilkerson, by Rob Kall, Wilkerson makes some interesting comments into how to de-billionairize the economy without killing incentives to achieve. He comes close to recognizing the public value of the Commons but not quite, and how to collect this value is a critical pivot point between allowing reasonable incentives and profiting from things one didn't create, but merely collects the rent from.

For example, suppose you are Bill Gates as a young man and you decide to create a new OS for a new computer from IBM. At first, you are rewarded for your tech savvy, and you have to struggle hard to overcome the competition (back then, it was CP/M, Apple, and some proprietary hardware-OS combinations). But eventually you succeed and then so many people are using your system that more people start to use it just because others have used it first. This is profit from the commons, and one should not make money on that. In fact, it is collecting rent that rightfully belongs to the people. This is not to say that competition ever ceases, but just that at some point, which may be hard but not impossible to determine, many people will use your product because many other people use your product. I know this from personal experience. I started my career as an I.T. professional at a major university just as the original IBM PC was being introduced. Later, when Microsoft DOS and then, MS-Windows, came out, I had a choice of what to recommend to the two divisions I was the Manager of Information Systems for (when I first started we had an Apple II and 2 NCR computers with their own OSes and 8" floppy drives!). Only, it really was no choice - one had to use DOS or Windows to use the most popular business PC (IBM too, was a beneficiary of the Commons, and ought to have been paying rent back for that, at least as a form of taxes). Yes, there was OS/2 from IBM, but it was a niche product that never made it deeply into the Commons, and which died in a few years.

Tech companies actually realize the value of the Commons to some extent; this is why Facebook does not charge a monthly fee to use its product, you can use it for free and then they charge advertisers to access that huge pool of users in the commons.

But, this needs to go further.

If a Google, let's say, profits from a huge user-base, they ought to pay more for renting bandwidth in that congested "virtual city," just as a store owner in the middle of Manhattan, NY would pay more rent than one in the middle of New York State (locational value is often under-charged even in Manhattan, especially on under-used lots, encouraging further under-use, and wasting billions in potential city revenue).

This is the question that must be answered for a fair, progressive, sustainable economy: At what point are profits coming from the commons vs. innovation? That is the point to start returning rent to the people.
- Advertisement -


Oh, and if people are worried that entrepreneurs like Elon Musk will pack their bags and move elsewhere, don't be:
1. Elon Musk was and is a huge beneficiary of government investment and (ongoing) subsidies. He got nearly half a billion dollars from the DOE for Tesla, and continues to be able to sell his expensive cars in part because of large national and state subsidies for electric cars. SpaceX nearly went under, by Musk's own admission, before NASA contracted with them and NASA remains by far their largest customer. His third company, Solar City, also benefits from government subsidies to encourage home solar installation. This is not bad, in spite of occasional blow-ups like Solyndra; the best societies have a combination of public and private enterprises and support.

2. Elon Musk is not paying for most of his companies with his own money. Even as rich as he is now (8.4 billion US$ (2014) says celebritynetworth), he still needs investors and government contracts and subsidies to start and run his companies, and remember, his wealth is a recent phenomenon, and not one that under current S.E.C. rules and other laws, that he can quickly access without paying large tax penalties (I'm not saying he ought to pay lower taxes; just that it already limits what he can do with his wealth; it is "tied up" so to speak, so the huge money he needs in the future has to come mostly from elsewhere, as it always has).

3. As society processes the rent from the commons, it will, or at least could, put that money to use in education, infrastructure, other start-up companies on the cutting edge, and other things that will provide opportunities for a whole new crop of Elon Musk-like entrepreneurs. Even if we take a bit off the top of Elon Musk's output (which is by no means proven) with Commons-taxes eventually, we can instill that sense of entrepreneurship in a whole new generation. In fact, we ought to be simultaneously un-taxing actual labor and sales, and only collecting rent from the commons, including land, which, economists who have studies this, like Michael Hudson and Mason Gaffney and Nic Tideman, tell us is more than 1/3 of GDP (second video in link). That ought to be enough though we might have to give up a few wars, and let those countries develop their own entrepreneurs.

At the opposite end, billionaires who barely innovate at all, like the Koch Brothers, would have to pay for their pollution of the commons, their access to coal and other minerals of the commons (what the U.S. collects in royalties for this is woefully inadequate, going back to the oil-land fire sale prices of James Watt, Interior Secretary under Reagan, economists generally agree).

Finally, we have to move away from what economists call a "willingness to pay (for clean water and air, etc.)" model to a "willingness to accept (payment for pollution of water and air, etc.)" model. The latter imposes the onus of payment on the polluter, not on the person who drinks water and breathes air, who may or may not have the money to pay to keep those relatively clean. We should always start from the presumption that everyone has an equal right to the fruits of nature, and that those who want to use them beyond minimal use should pay rent to everyone else to do so, rent to the Commons.

 

http://newthinking.blogspot.com/

Scott Baker is a Managing Editor & The Economics Editor at Opednews, and a blogger for Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and Global Economic Intersection.

His anthology of updated Opednews articles was published by Tayen Lane Publishing (March, 2015) and may be found here:
https://tayen-lane.squarespace.com/america-is-not-broke/

Scott is President of Common Ground-NYC (http://commongroundnyc.org/), a Geoist/Georgist activist group. He has written (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Obama Explains the FEMA Camps

Was Malaysian Flight MH370 Landed Safely in Afghanistan?

Let the Sun Shine on a State Bank in Florida

Batman, The Dark Knight Rises...and Occupy Wall Street Falls

The Least Productive People in the World

The continuing plight of Malaysian Flight MH370 - 2 month update

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
8 people are discussing this page, with 19 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

This is a really interesting idea. I'd like to hea... by Rob Kall on Friday, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:57:02 AM
I think, though not fully covered in the article, ... by Art Costa on Friday, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:44:36 PM
Hello Art :)Yes, certainly George and others befor... by Scott Baker on Friday, Jun 27, 2014 at 2:26:06 PM
It has (and I think Stiglitz confronts this) there... by Art Costa on Friday, Jun 27, 2014 at 3:41:07 PM
We might be able to consider having no taxes at al... by Pal Palsimon on Friday, Jun 27, 2014 at 5:00:47 PM
Interesting to see reference to Sun Yat-Sen, whose... by Charles Roll on Friday, Jun 27, 2014 at 2:49:49 PM
How about land leases, luxury taxes and royalty ta... by Pal Palsimon on Friday, Jun 27, 2014 at 4:51:27 PM
We have to charge someone, somewhere for "upkeep" ... by Scott Baker on Friday, Jun 27, 2014 at 6:58:00 PM
Thanks, your article and comments are very valuabl... by BFalcon on Friday, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:35:14 PM
Thanks for the input. I can see the needs. Don't k... by Pal Palsimon on Saturday, Jun 28, 2014 at 4:24:59 AM
In my real estate law courses I was taught the own... by Pal Palsimon on Saturday, Jun 28, 2014 at 4:29:19 AM
Actually, neither is true. The R.E. owner doesn't... by Scott Baker on Saturday, Jun 28, 2014 at 8:05:24 AM
Florida real estate law, at least at time I became... by Pal Palsimon on Sunday, Jun 29, 2014 at 3:17:19 AM
Hmph, in an ever-expanding wedge into space, to th... by Scott Baker on Sunday, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:28:27 AM
So that is how to become a multi-billionaire Scott... by David Brittain on Saturday, Jun 28, 2014 at 5:29:48 AM
The VAT is the wrong kind of tax. A Tax on the Co... by Scott Baker on Saturday, Jun 28, 2014 at 7:53:26 AM
In this whole discussion, I believe that Pal has... by Paul Krumm on Saturday, Jun 28, 2014 at 11:31:52 AM
Well, I like your ideas too, especially your point... by Pal Palsimon on Sunday, Jun 29, 2014 at 3:14:03 AM
Even some monetary reformers need to be convinced ... by Scott Baker on Sunday, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:25:57 AM