Web 2.0 Expo NY 09: Douglas Rushkoff, “Radical Abundance: How We Get Past “Free”…
June 14th, 2010 | by admin |
Douglas Rushkoff (Author, “Life Inc.”),
“Radical Abundance: How We Get Past “Free” and Learn to Exchange Value Again” English and Dutch captions by Martien van Steenbergen.
Duration : 0:15:46
[youtube OHMvknT_uk4]
24 Responses to “Web 2.0 Expo NY 09: Douglas Rushkoff, “Radical Abundance: How We Get Past “Free”…”
By Netherborn on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
Is he aware of The …
Is he aware of The Venus Project?
By usuryfree on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
Some relevant …
Some relevant background information is posted at “The UsuryFree Eye Opener” – just do a search for it at any search engine, bookmark it and browse the posts when you have time.
By cense13 on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
… “cash flow of …
… “cash flow of the soul” … that’s noble and I like it.
However, on planet earth, the material dimension is our common base and trade secures that base so that souls can reach for the next step.
The destructive mess we’re all in depends big time on our parasitic money system and the corporate rule that both congenially suck the liveblood from humanity.
The beneficiaries secure their freedom by making sure that nothing else is free but them. It has to be ended by dissent and noncompliance.
By 911elijah on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
Really the only …
Really the only reason we need currency is because we have not discovered the value of the human individual to the greater community. Recognizing this leads to the cash flow of the soul. I think the concept behind money is the same concept that keeps us from recognizing ourselves and others.
By 911elijah on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
You say that …
You say that everything being free leads to unoriginal music or art. I don’t agree with that. I think the only reason someone would copy is to make money. I think free allows living art to emerge. You cannot serve God and money.
By MrDjangofan on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
A more modern money …
A more modern money system would work well if it didn’t have the inflationary problems that the Federal Reserve system has. If that were the case then the “labor” that creates value would retain it’s value over time.
By saydaysago2008 on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
really liked most …
really liked most of the points. everything up until 11:00 or so was gold. once he started talking about creativity he lost me a bit. i’ve seen an amazing flourishing of creativity online.
it was an nice explanation of the problems of our money system, but i’m not sure i followed the train of thought to his proposed solutions.
By krigeravis on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
uhhh…i think that …
uhhh…i think that was the point
By jacobromu on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
This guy makes too …
This guy makes too many fiat asswertions for my taste.
By Didgebaba on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
Claims of …
Claims of originality versus plagiarism are dubious when it comes to mass cultural production. I fail to see why examples of mass cultural production and consumption being based on copying means we are living in a time of low creativity.
We are living in a time when major players, as Rushkoff points out in relation to finance, are finding it difficult to gain traction. In small scale a lot is being produced by many. Relatively few people are consuming from any one source.
By variousprojectsnames on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
Further, people …
Further, people respect the work of others, but they see the flaws more easily because they are not so close to the work.
I think that perspective is inherently, infinitely valuable.
By variousprojectsnames on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
I honestly think he …
I honestly think he lost his point a few times. I’m open to his ideas, but I’m confused by this speech.
There seems to be an idea among some that people are lazy by nature. I think people seek the quickest path to optimal, and when they see people ignoring the possibility of something better they become discouraged.
In other words, people want to work, but they also want to make work easier.
I think that fact is noble.
By kingofthepaupers on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
Jct: Sure, …
Jct: Sure, grain-based chips are fine but as Doug Rushkoff notes the primitive local currencies such as Timebanks, Itex, Superfluid’s Quids, he fails to note the ideal global UNILETS time-based currency.
By zurapDOR on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
According to a UN …
According to a UN representative , white money and black money are now interacting to fight any “new economy” or alternative economy or currencies. Listen to Charles Eisenstein or Chris Lindstrom at Reality Sandwitch. Thanks for this imminent speach form DR..
By JoeyRec on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
Why does …
Why does throwabricks comment here have thubs down?
Are you people saying we DONT need to value individual creativity and productivity?
Why would this be a bad thing? You people need to open your minds and realize we are all slaves to this ridiculous system, but in place to push the people down and limit out potential.
By ChristiansMustLearn on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
Is there an open …
Is there an open source search engine?
By fridemar on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
…
CreatingAndSharingWealth with Google
The statement: We are are working for free (as bloggers and posters in forums) to create an interesting reading background for GoogleAds, is not quite the truth, since GooglePays the authors by clickrates. (Continued as SideWikiComment)
By fridemar on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
However the current …
However the current model might not even pay the minimal costs of living for most of the authors.
We should enter the dialogue with Google how to improve the life conditions for all people involved and this is really a hard problem, that can only be solved in a collaborative way, (See SideWikiComment)
By ayayay111 on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
he looks like a …
he looks like a white version of obama
By throwabrick on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
“Nonsense”?
He …
“Nonsense”?
He is saying we (as a networked culture) need to value individual creativity and productivity, and we need more modes of exchange based on abundance, not scarcity.
“Bottom-up-value creation”? Sounds good to me.
By pishposhthis on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
woah
woah
By matchbox555 on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
complete nonsense
complete nonsense
By JonathanStray on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
Jumbled and …
Jumbled and reactionary. Near useless.
In terms of economics, his arguments are unclear and historically inaccurate. I agree that we need peer-peer money systems, but they are still going to be based on scarce money (or else you get unlimited inflation.)
In terms of culture, he’s startlingly reactionary and backwards-looking. “We haven’t had new music in 20 years”? Wikipedia is a “copy of encyclopedia britannica”? Come on.
By ourearthhome on Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
Yes, money as …
Yes, money as currently configured is a scheme for the few to extract wealth from everyone else without actually having to do or produce anything new of value. But it is only half the story. Monopoly owners of land and natural resources obtain and receive a wholly unearned income by charging the rest of us for access to our own planet. Every thing we do for free increases land value and we all then have to pay more for access. This is why free/open source doesn’t yet work in theory or practice.