'Americans Own Less Stuff, and That's Reason To Be Nervous' (bloomberg.com) 554
Bloomberg's Tyler Cowen writes about "the erosion of personal ownership and what that will mean for our loyalties to traditional American concepts of capitalism and private property." An anonymous Slashdot reader shares the report: The main culprits for the change are software and the internet. For instance, Amazon's Kindle and other methods of online reading have revolutionized how Americans consume text. Fifteen years ago, people typically owned the books and magazines they were reading. Much less so now. If you look at the fine print, it turns out that you do not own the books on your Kindle. Amazon.com Inc. does. I do not consider this much of a practical problem. Although Amazon could obliterate the books on my Kindle, this has happened only in a very small number of cases, typically involving account abuse. Still, this licensing of e-books, instead of stacking books on a shelf, has altered our psychological sense of how we connect to what we read -- it is no longer truly "ours."
The change in our relationship with physical objects does not stop there. We used to buy DVDs or video cassettes; now viewers stream movies or TV shows with Netflix. Even the company's disc-mailing service is falling out of favor. Music lovers used to buy compact discs; now Spotify and YouTube are more commonly used to hear our favorite tunes. Each of these changes is beneficial, yet I worry that Americans are, slowly but surely, losing their connection to the idea of private ownership. The nation was based on the notion that property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system. It set Americans apart from feudal peasants, taught us how property rights and incentives operate, and was a kind of training for future entrepreneurship. We're hardly at a point where American property has been abolished, but I am still nervous that we are finding ownership to be so inconvenient.
The change in our relationship with physical objects does not stop there. We used to buy DVDs or video cassettes; now viewers stream movies or TV shows with Netflix. Even the company's disc-mailing service is falling out of favor. Music lovers used to buy compact discs; now Spotify and YouTube are more commonly used to hear our favorite tunes. Each of these changes is beneficial, yet I worry that Americans are, slowly but surely, losing their connection to the idea of private ownership. The nation was based on the notion that property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system. It set Americans apart from feudal peasants, taught us how property rights and incentives operate, and was a kind of training for future entrepreneurship. We're hardly at a point where American property has been abolished, but I am still nervous that we are finding ownership to be so inconvenient.
Millennial murder spree! (Score:5, Funny)
What have Millennials killed this time?
Re: Millennial murder spree! (Score:5, Insightful)
Their parants overconsumed is all.
100 years you didnt have all of these entertainment options to waste your money on and probably felt it was more important to save for a rainy day
Re: Millennial murder spree! (Score:5, Insightful)
Owning DVDs doesn't strike me as an important thing in life.
Still, despite these two things, I own a crapload of stuff.
Re: Millennial murder spree! (Score:2, Interesting)
You can take books from the library for free. No need to own them. It has come to the point where people think its fine to rent everything In lice and own nothing. The big corps aren't helping because they like this arrangement. Xbox is a prime example. My kids ask me to buy a game online cause the want I stant gratification. But I say no let's buy an actual copy. When the powers and internet out for 7 days its nice to have some DVDs and games to play when the generator is running
Re: Millennial murder spree! (Score:5, Insightful)
Better still, reading ebooks you actually own.
Re: Millennial murder spree! (Score:4, Interesting)
Better still, reading ebooks you actually own.
Why? I rarely read a book twice. Reference books are handy to own.
Re: Millennial murder spree! (Score:5, Insightful)
Retaining access to books in a form that :
1) Can't later be withdrawn by the owner.
2) Guarantees the contents can't later be revised after publication.
3) It's possible to give to or share with others in future.
4) Reading can't be monitored or controlled by others.
These things are not often important, but sometimes they can be _very_ important.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That's funny... (Score:5, Funny)
Reading books is much more important than owning them. EBooks eliminates waste.
Owning DVDs doesn't strike me as an important thing in life.
Still, despite these two things, I own a crapload of stuff.
Did you know that there has been a trend to reduce or even eliminate the savings that you, as a consumer, could realize by buying the electronic book as opposed to the physical one, despite how much more waste making and selling physical books creates?
When I asked a customer service rep at a company that shall remain namelesz, why in some cases the phsycial book is CHEAPER, NEW than the ebook when this retailer sells both, the response I got was that people are still buying physical books. (Inasmuch as that's not really an explanation why something that by rights SHOULD be cheaper ISN'T,) I replied with something like, "but... don't you have to pay the same royalties on both, based on intellectual property, but NOT have to pay to print the book itself, nor pay for the physical storage space of each in warehouses, on trucks, and ultimately on bookshelves in actual, brick-and-mortar stores whenever you start opening those for books, for the electronic books you DO sell? Why not make it easer to buy THOSE?"
The response I got basically was that they make more money pricing them this way, so this is the way they price them. (Sigh.)
Did you know there is this thing called 'the market', in which sellers determine how much people are willing to pay for something, and use that to determine price?
Re: Millennial murder spree! (Score:5, Insightful)
no place on earth? of course there is. it's called "outside the concentration camp walls" - because a concentration camp is where the outraged pensioners will end up if they don't shut the fuck up to avoid getting labelled "terrorist".
what, you thought all those fascist "anti-terror" laws were about suicide bombers and angry white men with guns? get real! it's preparation for when the general public finally realise how badly we're all being fucked over by the corporate kleptocrats and their servant politicians.
Re: Millennial murder spree! (Score:5, Insightful)
The SSI trust is backed by the full faith and power of the US Federal government, if it goes bust, then we're going to have much bigger problems than the loss of our entire retirement savings. We likely won't have a functioning military or law enforcement either.
And yes, I mean entire retirement savings as those stocks and bonds, assuming that one is lucky enough to have any, will also lost nearly their entire value.
The real issue is that the government, especially under GOP administrations, likes to borrow from the trust with no particular intention of paying the money back and when those tax bills come due, it's going to result in significant inflation as you know damn well that neither party is committed to doing the things that are necessary to make it work, namely increasing the ceiling on social security tax collection and taxing the wealthiest individuals and corporations, the ones that got rich in part by stiffing employees on pay and retirement benefits.
Re: Millennial murder spree! (Score:3)
You do know right now that $10 trillion of the national debt is money owed by the general fund go the social security trust fund. ,In 2010 that did start happening, and workers wages instead of rising stayed stagnet.
In 1998 we knew that you 2010 social security would be paying more than they take in.
Now 9 years later the debt ballon owed to social security is rising g rapidly, the economy is good and Trump tries to heat it up more. We now have 3-4 ballons about to pop.
Do not forget that the number of publi
Hardly (Score:5, Insightful)
" I worry that Americans are, slowly but surely, losing their connection to the idea of private ownership. The nation was based on the notion that property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system. "
Hardly. It made us into a bunch of hoarders.
I know I don't own my kindle books, I'm using Kindleunlimited for a couple of bucks a month and I read a book almost every day. (I'm retired) Much cheaper than buying them.
After my first kindle (I'm on my 6th) I donated almost 5000 books to a local library and now I got a full new room I can use.
I also got rid of my music tapes, my music cassettes, my music vinyl, my music CDs, my super8 films, my betamax, Video2000 and VHS tapes, my Laser-disks, DVDs and blurays,Ditto for my photo albums.
A small server does all that now.
Good riddance.
Re:Hardly (Score:5, Insightful)
Same here. When they stopped selling things I could legally play, I simply stopped buying. That doesn't mean I switched to rentals, though. And I don't abstain, either.
Netflix didn't kill owned media. DRM killed owned media. It changed the most reasonable consumer approach from buying to pirating.
You should pirate too. You. The person reading this. Stop paying money until they are willing to sell you something that you are allowed to play.
Your life will be easier, have almost no ads at all, you'll have massively more selection, and shit is just overall all-around nicer. You also might save a little money too, if that matters.
Re:Hardly (Score:5, Informative)
Also be aware of the attempts to turn computers into locked-down content rental/consumption devices. Support open hardware and software platforms where available, if you want to continue to own your own computing devices and software. The idea of ownership doesn't have to give way to rental, but too many people are ignorant and willingly chaining themselves within the walled gardens of large corporations. These entities desire to rent all works in perpetuity, and will continue to strip your rights until none remain. If you haven't already, please spend a few minutes to absorb The Right to Read [gnu.org].
We have choices. Support creators that use a donation model, or at least sell their works in DRM-free formats. Paying for works that strip or violate your rights should be avoided if possible. Violating copyright is the moral option in these cases, or avoiding such works entirely. Publisher's including Disney have effectively stolen the public domain, and people should resist, or it will only get much worse. Copyright should be reformed or preferably abolished, as "intellectual property" is a highly regressive concept. See Everything Is a Remix [everythingisaremix.info] and Against Intellectual Monopoly [dklevine.com].
Re:Hardly (Score:4)
Ripping (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a friend who had a massive DVD collection and a really nice home theater setup. When he bought a DVD that he would plan on watching again in a short time span, he would rip it losslessly to another DVD (this was before massive, cheap hard drives.) He would set up the new DVD to only have the movie with the best soundtrack, and *nothing* else. You pop the DVD in and the movie starts immediately. No trailers, no menus, no ads, no warnings.
The sad thing is he had to technically break the law to get something he owned into a format he wanted it in. He wasn't stealing anything or infringing on anyone's IP, he just wanted to watch what he payed for without wasting time.
Re: (Score:3)
This is me, as well (though I'm not retired). I always hated having to store and curate hundreds/thousands of books/DVDs/CDs - I'm interested in the message, not the medium. All my old stuff got ripped/scanned/uploaded, backed up, and I got rid of the physical media. For new stuff, all-you-can-eat services are perfect for me. For the few pieces of media I want to own, I get a digital version, and I'm done. No extra piece of plastic in my house, nothing had to be manufactured or transported, and I still get
Re:Hardly (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think you quite got the point of TFA. If you ripped and stored it, you still have ownership. It won't go poof just because you didn't make a subscription payment of someone somewhere changed their mind.
TFA is about things that go poof.
Re:Hardly (Score:5, Interesting)
For the few pieces of media I want to own, I get a digital version, and I'm done. No extra piece of plastic in my house, nothing had to be manufactured or transported, and I still get to enjoy it.
You get to enjoy it until something happens to the DRM server, then like that South Park meme, ...and it's gone!
I have a bunch of paid iOS games that died during the 32-bit purge [wired.com]. It's a bit ironic that I can fire up Windows XP under VMware and play Worms Armageddon (which I bought almost two decades ago), but my copy of UNO (yup, the card game) for iOS has gone to Apple's digital graveyard.
Don't even get me started on Netflix removing content. It was what finally motivated me to set up my own server at home, and bought Fire Sticks to run Kodi, for each TV. Content providers can shove their "kill switch" up their ass.
Re:Hardly (Score:5, Insightful)
You make good points. But the OP left out on important thing - take for example pieces of history than can (and have) been altered over time such that changes are made en-mass to all know copies at the touch of a button. Recently "little house" has original has fallen out of favor because of certain language. All CURRENT copies have been edited. The only way to read the original is if you find it in a REAL book.
To your point, I do find it more convenient, but future generations may pay dearly for that convenience when history as _THIS_GENERATION_ knows is ceases to exist and is replaced by whatever the content holders wish.
Need another example - Original version of Star Wars where Han shoots first. Can you stream that anywhere (legally)? didn't think so - the story has been altered, and future generations are none the wiser.
Re:Hardly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hardly (Score:4, Insightful)
After my first kindle (I'm on my 6th) I donated almost 5000 books to a local library and now I got a full new room I can use.
I also got rid of my music tapes, my music cassettes, my music vinyl, my music CDs, my super8 films, my betamax, Video2000 and VHS tapes, my Laser-disks, DVDs and blurays,Ditto for my photo albums.
A small server does all that now.
Good riddance.
Are you backed up in duplicate on two, non co-located mirror servers or drives?
I hope so.
Re: (Score:2)
Were the original media backed up on different servers? Owning stuff carries with it a risk of loss -- get insurance or deal with it.
If you want to be cloudfree, it's a lot easier to stick a few TB of hard drives in a safe deposit box than copies of 100s of tapes and CDs.
Re: (Score:3)
+1 Insightful.
I download and store a lot of stuff (including ripping and storing stuff I buy or rent or borrow). I end up hoarding a lot, with the knowledge that I could really just download again from the Pirate Bay.
BTW, I do have copies on two separate servers in two other parts of the country. I have a static IP address and set up my friends' computers automatically make a mirror of my media every time they start up Kodi. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Until the first EMP destroys most of recorded history...
Re:Hardly (Score:5, Insightful)
It didn't take an EMP to destroy the Library of Alexandria.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And before you tell me those don't count, let's take a look at the definition of the word "hobby" [merriam-webster.com]:
hobby noun: a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation
So by that definition, even following trending stuff on Twitter counts, unless they're paid to do it of course.
Re: (Score:2)
The bad part is that companies who have put their eggs in these particular baskets are going to have an increasingly unsustainable business model. Oh, and Socialism!
Re: (Score:3)
With respect to "this shift is no big deal"...
Ironically, one of the first times a book was revoked from kindle owners was Orwell's *1984*, due to a contract dispute between Amazon and the publisher. It was quickly resolved (a few weeks? I don't remember).
The ideas of mass re-editing (mentioned upthread) and revocation is a very very big deal. These capabilities give someone whose priorities are theirs alone a greater degree of control over information flow than we are accustomed to, and I do not think the
Conservation of resources is a negative now? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I don't burn fossil fuels acquire a book made of murdered trees processed with toxic chemicals, and instead transfer some bytes down a wire, I'm a bad American?
Yeah, right.
Re: (Score:3)
There are so many books out there that there's no reason to buy anything under DRM except perhaps nonfiction or technical references. I don't even have the time to read every classic on Project Gutenberg and now there's free web novels popping up everywhere.
Gaming tried to go the DRM route and failed. So did music. Why should books should be any different?
Having less junk around sounds good to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It also makes sense for hardware that you bought, and is violated if amazon can arbitrarily delete files on it.
Re: (Score:2)
The notion of "ownership" makes perfect sense for things like houses and cars. For books, DVDs, and other IP-based materials? Not so much.
Other IP-based materials like your OS, your Office license etc. where you lose access if you don't pay upkeep? And short of MMORPGs I couldn't really imagine paying monthly fees for games. I think owning - well, owning-ish perpetual licenses anyway - bits and bytes is important, just not entertainment. I mean it's not Doctor Who episodes from the 60s, they're not going to get lost. It won't kill me to pay a second time to watch it a second time rather than guesstimate whether I'll want to watch this again l
Re: (Score:3)
The notion of "ownership" makes perfect sense for things like houses and cars. For books, DVDs, and other IP-based materials? Not so much.
I would go one step further. I think for many people ownership of cars, bikes, ladders, hammers, and many other things is very inefficient. The average person uses a ladder maybe once a month yet it takes up space in their home year around. The average car sits idle 23 hours a day. It wasn't that long ago that communities shared many more resources instead of the private castles we have today and it makes sense to move back in that direction. Just like fractional reserve banking, a neighborhood with 20
Re:Having less junk around sounds good to me (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of the new Millennial hipster types don't even own their house or car.
I feel like that has more to do with the ballooning price of new cars and homes verses the stagnant growth in wages the last few decades than anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
since they can't understand the concept that renting everything is far more expensive than buying outright.
Although this is true in many cases, there is no reason to assume this is true in all cases. Even in the cases where it is currently true, it is mostly due to overhead and friction that causes renting to be more expensive. There are many things that people buy that are considerably more expensive than renting. For instance, I know lots of people who own expensive boats that they use maybe 30 days a year. They would be much better off either renting a boat when they want one or joining a boating timeshar
Re: (Score:3)
You're both right and you're both wrong. It just depends where you live. The property market is one of the few markets which cannot be globalised. The situation people face depends upon where they happen to live, and on how their government is managing, not managing or mismanaging the situation.
Re: Having less junk around sounds good to me (Score:4, Informative)
You are talking out your ass. Most of us cannot afford to start buying anything at any size, and for those of us who could, the interest alone on the cheapest available purchase would exceed the cheapest available rent, so we'd be even more fucking paying money-rent (interest) to the bank then we are paying land-rent to our landlords now. We desperately want to own, and have been trying desperately to get on that ladder our entire lives, but it keeps getting pulled even further up out of reach.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Fewer of some, more of others (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a much smaller physical library than I used to, true.
I dumped almost all of my old magazines.
But I have a LOT more of the sort of gadgets that I used to have one of, at most. Multiple desktop computers, a couple of laptops, several tablets, a phone, and an array of VR gear.
Smaller number of things overall, but much more concentrated value, in general.
Trillions in consumer debt. (Score:3, Insightful)
Americans haven’t “owned” anything in 2-3 generations. This trend is bad news for creditors and other bloodsuckers.
I read more books and listen to more music than 10, 20 or 30 years ago. I call that an improvement, not a problem.
I still have boxes of old paper books and CDs. They don’t give me an iota of an extra stake in some high ideal of ownership in America.
Most people don’t even own their own homes (Score:4, Insightful)
... and that is capitalism’s fault, not an attack on capitalism. Capitalism wants most people owning nothing and being beholden to the property-owning elites.
Re:Most people don’t even own their own home (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism doesn't "want" anything.
Assholes who claim to be capitalists (but are mostly crony-capitalists) want this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Crony capitalism" is a misnomer. Nobody has to give favorable treatment to their cronies for property-owners to exploit non-property-owners. That's just capitalism. That's what capitalism is: a market distorted in favor of those who own capital.
What you call "crony capitalism" is just capitalism. What you call "capitalism" is just a free market. A free market where capital is widely distributed in a decentralized way, not held by one class of people to the exploitation of another, is market socialism. "Soc
Re: (Score:2)
You can attempt to redefine things (presumably to suit your own preconceived notions) as much as you like, but it doesn't mean sh*t.
Re:Most people don’t even own their own home (Score:5, Interesting)
As the other commenter said, your definitions have nothing to do with any standard use of these terms and everything to do with your personal screed.
What they're calling "crony capitalism" is not just capitalism; indeed it may be said not to be capitalist at all. The entire point of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, which launched capitalism as an economic policy, was to oppose mercantilism - the system where the government granted special rights and benefits to particular companies to attempt to increase the government's power - by pointing out that such favors were not only unethical but also tended to impoverish the nation. From every problem with IP law (Eldred v Ashcroft, the patent mess, etc) to the closed-door 'tax incentive' discussions between cities and large corporations, there are a thousand ways in which people who sit on corporate boards or Chambers of Commerce or legislative bodies purport to support capitalism but actually work against a legally level playing field.
Rent is not a market distortion. Your ideal of socialism and your notions of class are a century out of date as well as far removed from reality.
The closest thing to what you're calling "market socialism" is called distributivism. Many bright people have thought about the problems of centralization but no one has found a practicable or just way to put real correctives into practice.
Re:Most people don’t even own their own home (Score:5, Insightful)
Adam Smith wrote nothing about capitalism he wrote about free markets. Try actually reading him.
The term “capitalism” was coined by a socialist. Its conflation with “free market” (and “socialism”’s conflation with “command economy”) is the propagandist redefinition.
The particular words you use don’t matter so long as you use enough of them to distinguish four different things:
-a market where ownership is widely distributed among many people
-the opposite of that, a market where it is concentrated in a few hands who can use that to exploit others
- the orthogonal matter of a market where trades are dictated by a central authority
- and the opposite of that, a market where trades are made freely between equals
If you only use one word (“socialism”) for 1 and 3, and another word (“capitalism”) for 2 and 4, or worse still only talk about 3 and 4 using those words while others are talking about 1 and 2 using the same words, then it’s impossible to even have a meaningful discussion about any of this.
Re:Most people don't even own their own home (Score:5, Informative)
Adam Smith wrote about free markets, not about capitalism. The term capitalism as originally coined did not refer to the same thing as a free market. It is a redefinition of terms to equate the two.
Market socialism predates Shaw. It predates even Marx. Marx is the one who first claimed that free markets entail capitalism and that socialism therefore required a command economy, but many of his socialist contemporaries disagreed with him, only to be largely forgotten by history now. So clearly "market socialism" is not a contradiction in terms in their original sense, and "socialism" therefore cannot simply mean the opposite of "free market".
"It doesn't matter what words you use" as in I'm not trying to defend the purity of language for its own sake here, but to be able to distinguish between concepts, however you want to label them. If by "capitalism" you mean only the opposite of a command economy, a free market, then you now have no word to describe the opposite of widely distributed ownership, unless you'd like to coin one, but then nobody's going to understand what you mean until you explain you new word.
Likewise if by "socialism" you mean only the opposite of a free market, a command economy, then you now have no word to describe widely distributed ownership. You're using the word "distributivism" here, but that means specfically a market-based kind of distributed ownership, and not just the concept of distributed ownership agnostic to the market or command nature of the economy. So, again, do you want to have to coin a new word?
The earliest free market thinkers like Adam Smith did not favor concentrations of wealth and did not call themselves capitalists. The earliest socialists did not favor command economies, but they opposed concentrated ownership of capital and systems that favored it, which they called "capitalism". Back then we had these four clear terms -- free market, command economy, capitalism, socialism -- and could discuss things coherently.
Then Marx and his followers and their opponents over the past century or so heavily conflated free markets with capitalism and socialism with command economies to the point that now people cannot even think about the two different issues at play there. I am simply informing people of the older, undistorted meanings of the words, and opening up the possibility of discussing things more clearly with them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This becomes most clear when we try to discuss anarchism. Not to argue for or against it, but just to talk about what it is and how it relates to other ideas.
Most anarchists would say that anarchism is inherently socialist, and that capitalism is wholly incompatible with anarchism. What they mean by that is that in an anarchic society, ownership would necessarily be widespread, because if it was concentrated in just a few hands then those few owners would effectively rule everyone else so it couldn't be ana
Re: (Score:3)
Crashes are a sin of governments and fiscal policy, which turn moderate market fluctuations into disasters.
As for the very wealthy, they come in two varieties: the robber barons, who enrich themselves through government, and the entrepreneurs, who enrich themselves through creating
WARNING! (Score:5, Funny)
NOTICE: ACTION REQUIRED
Americans aren't filling their homes with crappy books they might have read once and will never read again. This is a warning that capitalism and freedom are at risk of disappearing!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like the scientific definition of freedom. In science "Freedom" is not a nebulous feeling-good term. It has an actual quantifiable definition. Freedom means options. For example, a water molecule has three degrees of vibrational and rotational freedom. That's a number, that's important.
So, what does "freedom" mean when it comes to free-markets? It means the number of options a person has to purchase a good or service or perform a task. How many options do we have to buy e-books? Actually a lot. Google, Am
I "own" most of my digital stuff. (Score:5, Insightful)
My ebooks are epubs stored on two RAID hard disks. I do not bother with kindles, my ereader is a cybook muse HD. They cannot erase my stuff. My music and videos are also files on my hard disc. I still have some classical books on real shelves. I took the habit of favouring digital books while growing up in Europe's tiny apartments.
My steam library is licensed stuff that could disappear, though. My GOG games are "mine" but i could end up with incompatibilities with a too recent Linux distro and have my stuff unplayable. Although with all those emulators and retro computing stuff you never know.
To each his own. I like my way of managing my digital assets. If you prefer other methods, more power for you. :)
Re: I "own" most of my digital stuff. (Score:2, Interesting)
I do research on obscure, Latin literature of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Back when owning physical books was the only way to read, I would have had to travel to European libraries to do research. Today I do it from home in America via HathiTrust and Google. Electronic books have opened up access to centuries of literature that had been lost to neglect.
Re: (Score:3)
My ebooks are epubs stored on two RAID hard disks.
Yes, but do you have backups? ;-)
It means ownership is more meaningful (Score:2)
I stream music too. But I still buy music from bands I REALLY like.
Only now because I do not do that as often, It means I can spend a lot more for some wildly packaged music, or a really cool experience with the band.
Buying less doesn't mean the remaining things you do buy are treasured less; it is the opposite in fact, you treasure the remaining things you buy more.
I’ve never owned most books I read (Score:5, Informative)
There’s this place called a “library” which let’s you take out books for weeks at a time. Apparently the author never heard of it.
I do have a Kindle. But I don’t often buy books, since that “library” place actually lets me check out Kindle books same as printed ones. Plus there are programs like “Kindle Unlimited” which will let you borrow lots of stuff too.
There are very few books I want to read more than once... but those I do buy - and, when I buy a Kindle book, the first thing I do is strip the DRM off of it and save a backup copy.
Same thing with movies... there aren’t that many I want to ever see more than once. Those few that I do, I purchase (and rip a DRM-free copy so I can stream them from my media box).
Besides, the DVD/videocassette argument doesn’t really support the author’s premise. For most of the time movies have been around, people did not own them... that’s only the past few decades.
Quality is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Property ownership becomes a burden when you buy things that don't last as long as they should.
Re: (Score:2)
You kids ... (Score:2)
It's a problem because of the poor (Score:5, Insightful)
Yoho yoho a Pirates life for me (Score:2)
I of course didn't acquire these in, horror of horrors, traditional capitalist means and methods! I'm sure that makes me some sort of commie, and not the good commie like the Nazis say the Russians are now (didn't the Nazis have a treaty with them last time too?). Oh no, I'm an anti-corporate commie! That's the worst kind of all. But hey, I can access my data without paying an eter
We need to change our assumptions (Score:2)
First, having lots of stuff isn't necessarily healthy. I've had the family members that could have probably beaten any two exhibits on Hoarders combined with a large farmhouse, barn, and multiple sheds reduced to tiny crawlspaces and all sorts of safety and health hazards. They don't just hurt themselves doing that.
Second, we shouldn't glamorize minimalism which relies on having great families, great jobs, trust funds, and social networks to work. Pretentious yoga types, don't preach. It's not minimalis
No Actual Article...? Just a Bunch of China Articl (Score:5, Interesting)
Where's the actual article? The link in the headline has nothing to do with the quoted text. All the articles listed are just about Chinese economic activity.
If you scroll down, the article under discussion is linked to here. [bloomberg.com]
How about some actual moderation, slashdot...?
Re:No Actual Article...? Just a Bunch of China Art (Score:5, Interesting)
You seem to be the first commenter to notice that. Guess no-one prior wanted to read the article?
Re: (Score:2)
Here ya go:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view... [bloomberg.com]
I tried to read it, but the author’s attention span seemed to wander somewhere along the way... plus he doesn’t do a very good job of developing his thesis even when he is on-topic. When he started pulling gmail into the story, I decided that was far enough.
Re: No Actual Article...? Just a Bunch of China Ar (Score:2)
The extremely interesting thing is when people reply to my comment, and their replies ALSO show that they did not fully comprehend my reply, when they include information that I already included...
This helps me realize that not everyone should have a voice that is listened to. Many people do not actually read, or if they do, understand. Their voices are used for sound a fury, signifying nothing.
The problem is I don't want any central authority deciding whom has a voice, and whom does not.
Welcome to the Unit
Wha? (Score:2)
Personal property isn't what matters (Score:4, Informative)
The type of property that this refers to, is real property. The clothes on your back don't give you a stake, the ground beneath your feet does. This is why some feel those that only rent their home should not have the right to vote.
Re: (Score:3)
The nation was based on the notion that [real] property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system...This is why some feel those that only rent their home should not have the right to vote.
Not entirely unreasonable. But how far does one take it? Is it a can/can't vote, period?
What about when you own lots of property, though....is it fair that someone who has only a tenth of the stake you do (real property) has the same amount of say as you?
Does this extend only to issues affecting property ownership (such as zoning, taxation, rights, etc) or to everything? If just to property issues, what about people with jobs? Is it fair that people without jobs be able to vote about issues that con
Be the change you want to be (Score:4, Interesting)
Go out and buy books, buy CDs and DVDs, buy the very things the author complains you no longer own.
Yes, your OS isn't yours, and your phone is welded shut (as are Macs in general), but there is nothing stopping someone from going out and buying a physical product.
But instead of doing this there will be those who will whine about the loss ownership.
Lost Heritage (Score:2)
I think it's sad that we're stepping away from giving kids the books we had when we were young.
Yeah, there may be digital copies. But having a physical copy with your parent's name imprinted in them by your grandparents will be something sorely missed.
that's not the reason (Score:3, Interesting)
Americans, in particular, younger Americans, own less stuff because they are poorer. And they are poorer because half a century of progressive politics has transferred the wealth they should have been earning into the hands of crony capitalists, political elites, and government employees.
Unfortunately, many younger Americans still believe that the answer to the government destroying their futures is to vote for more government and more taxes. Fortunately, more and more seem to be figuring out what's actually going on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:that's not the reason (Score:5, Insightful)
A simple look at government spending and the size of federal regulations says otherwise.
More specifically, the stagnation of middle-class incomes and the sluggish growth are clearly the result of more regulations (labor, environmental, health care, etc.) and more public spending.
Though Reagan paid lip service to the problems of big government and the need to return to a liberal democracy, Reagan little to actually rein in progressivism.
Place for physical books (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's Sunday.... (Score:2)
...it's Fash the Nation! [therightstuff.biz]
Imagine... (Score:2)
Non-physical book can conveniently "disappear" (Score:2)
Good! (Score:2)
It probably reflects just more of a transition of one sector of capitalism to another.
But in the long run, I'm thinking owning less stuff per capita can only be good for the planet. Though less so for the people trying to sell that stuff.
It's all fun and games (Score:2)
Blame the RIAA/Metallica/MPAA crowd. (Score:2)
> We used to buy DVDs or video cassettes; now
> viewers stream movies or TV shows with Netflix.
> Music lovers used to buy compact discs; now Spotify
> and YouTube are more commonly used to hear our
> favorite tunes.
The erosion of property rights, and the elimination of the notion of personal ownership of media you've bought, isn't dying from lack of interest. It's been under assault for decades by powerful corporate thugs like Hillary Rosen, Lars Ulrich, and Jack Valenti. That lot has already
You never owned what you think you did (Score:2)
You didn't own a copy of a movie, CD or book.
You owned a piece of plastic or a bundle of paper, and were granted a limited license to the content.
In a lot of places it's still technically illegal to media-shift your CD so you can listen to it with your MP3 player.
"big media" got the best of both worlds. They charge you for a licence to listen to a song. They charge you again when you buy a new CD because your old one got scratched - you don't get a rebate because you already own a licence. They charge you a
Information vs physical objects (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans own less information, be it books, music or software. Heck, Americans have given up rights to their own information, tacitly trading it for services, like use of email and social media. Or to companies like Equifax, which our politicians allowed to happen.
But physical objects? Kitchen knives, cars, houses, desks - that non-information stuff I think is harder to force a lease on. But if companies can figure out a way to force consumers to lease physical objects, that will happen too.
Comment removed (Score:3)
complicity reduction would be good, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Normally, anything that reduces the average citizen's complicity in their own oppression by the powers that be(*) is a good thing....but replacing ownership of personal property with rental and/or licensing does not achieve that. it's worse. It removes even the choice to "opt-out" if/when you decide your life would be much better without wage-slavery (not uncommon if you manage to pay off your house mortgage or otherwise own it outright).
(*) i.e. the actual capitalists (not the working and middle-classes who have been deluded into thinking that THEY are capitalists), the 0.001%, those who actually own & control everything of significant value - including the "means of production".
This IS feudal system (Score:4, Insightful)
The nation was based on the notion that property ownership gives individuals a stake in the system. It set Americans apart from feudal peasants
Nothing set that apart from the feudal system. If you consider property ownership as the base of political participation, you basically have the feudal system back with the guys at the end of the food chain being the poor peasants and the guys with money who run the country.
Having less stuff is great (Score:3)
Re:disaster reset button (Score:5, Informative)
Depends on the pinch. Doubt there'll be any much better place to live than where I do already if climate change kicks in, but then as an old fart, I'm not going to be able to hold my breath too long either. If you think you're going to have to move, do it now when it's easier...fewer zombies in the way.
Re:Sorry (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll keep my shelves full of books and my AR-15 to protect them.
Thank you, and drive through.
I wish that I could mod you crazy but you do have a bit of a point here. Read Robert Heinlein's take on the future at his most cynical level of red neck inspired madness in Farnham's Freehold. [wikipedia.org] For instance in the plot he has the son of the hero redneck book hording evangelist castrated.
I know guns don't kill people etcetera on and on until they all go bang for real and end our propensity for hording as well as the insanity of consumerism run amok. Faults which causes in the primitive species Homo sapiens the penchant for partaking in wars of acquisition rather than the potlatches we were once commanded to have. As the plane worshiping tribes of the south pacific once said of us westerners "the airplane people carry too much cargo and that is why they are crazy and kill each other"
However everything is going to be fine, our species replacements are all safe and sound under area 51 waiting for the storm to pass. The reliable and humane gray aliens are completely in control and in charge of the operation to rid the planet of the plague of primitive Homo sapiens. FYI our replacements are a very hairy peaceful race of vegetarians that have life spans measured in the of thousands of years. They were seen infrequently in the mountains and wooded places all over this planet until very recently. So rest assured your AR-15 might come in useful very soon.
Re:Sorry (Score:4, Informative)
As the plane worshiping tribes of the south pacific once said of us westerners
What is the name of this religion and how do I convert?
Cargo cult [youtube.com] Their understanding of the people on the airplanes is that the planes are just protecting them from harm because they rely upon far too much cargo. The people on the planes are in danger of killing each other if the planes do not protect them and all their cargo. So they worship the airplanes for this reason in their eyes airplanes have a been given a divine spirit regardless of how or who made them. They believe that all material things including that which we modify and create have spirit. And if you fight over cargo or the ownership of any material thing you will become a mad evil spirit after death that needs to be exorcised.
Cargo in their language is simply anything that you must carry around with you as you travel through life. Their lives rely on not having to carry cargo because cargo is shared by all. Materialism is beyond their understanding, the ownership of any material thing of the earth and sky is not a good thing in their eyes.
The beginnings of same type of belief was still present in most of North America until we fucked the natives over, in British Columbia and elsewhere there are still echoes of the potlatch economy. Would that an economy and laws based on potlatch become more advanced. Any economy that is based upon ever cheaper labour, the overconsumption and hording of material things will eventually fall as did Rome. Economic growth has limits that are defined by the availability of food and materials and we are quickly using everything up and are doomed as a civilization for this very reason.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why you buy a duplex:
(1) Often cheaper than a single-family.
(2) The tenant next to you (ATM on the hoof) pays your taxes and mortgage.