Unbundling or rebundling?

Allison Schrager writes,

Up until fairly recently, we consumed many goods and services bundled together. Your airline ticket price included a meal and checked luggage. Your cable bill included hundreds of channels. A newspaper subscription offered content from many journalists. But changing economics and technology have made bundling less necessary and attractive—at least in the short run. A bundled service offers lots of variety for a fixed price, but you end up paying for things you don’t want. Now, when we book flights online, we can see other airlines’ prices for identical routes; an airline can appear more competitive by breaking out different services. Streaming platforms mean that we no longer must pay for cable channels we don’t watch. And now, members of the media whom colleagues deem “problematic” don’t have to tolerate a hostile newsroom; they can send out an email newsletter or broadcast a podcast to their audience and collect money directly.

I don’t think that unbundling is the endgame in music, journalism, or punditry. Yes, we have pretty much seen the end of bundling music from physical forms, such as a vinyl record or a CD. And we are pretty near the end of the unbundling of the written word from physical forms, such as magazines and newspapers. But as Allison points out, only a few high-profile writers can expect viable subscription revenue in a totally unbundled world. If nothing else, what Clay Shirky called the mental transactions costs make people unwilling to pay for all the content they might like on a case-by-case basis.

Instead, I return to a prediction I made twenty years ago.

For an economic model, I continue to recommend the idea of “clubs.” A club would provide content aggregation, recommendation, and annotation services. Journalists would be paid by clubs, rather than by individual publications. For a consumer, joining a club will provide access to value-added services relative to online content.

Where we something that most closely resembles the club model I had in mind is in the video streaming world. Netflix, Amazon, etc.

If my prediction eventually holds, most writers, will not be able to make it on their own. Instead, they will be bundled together, just not in the traditional magazine or newspaper format. I think that once the club model gets going, the superstars will be recruited by the clubs for competitive purposes.

Books on the future of labor

I made a list, including

Neal Stephenson, The Diamond Age, 1995. In this science fiction novel, Stephenson depicts a world in which nanotechnology, as described in Eric Drexler’s monograph “Engines of Creation,” has matured. As a result, no one lives in hardship. Any standard product can be made cheaply by a “matter compiler,” what we would now think of as a 3D printer with superlative capabilities. Machines have substituted for labor to the point where a lower class, called “thetes,” enjoys a coarse consumer lifestyle without having to work. An upper class, called “Vickies,” has skills that complement the machines, and this elite indulges in a taste for old-fashioned hand-crafted goods.

21st-century classic books?

EconJournalWatch asked contributors to name works published so far in this century that will still be valuable to read in 2050. I don’t think I could possibly agree with most of the selections. I contributed my own, including this one:

Ray Kurzweil, 2005, The Singularity Is Near. If Kurzweil’s extrapolations are correct, then the reader in 2050 will be a transhuman cyborg, who probably will find the rest of this list trivial. If instead the human race remains much as it is in 2020, then the reader should be curious to figure out “what went wrong.”

Miscellaneous: political posturing; WEIRD families; Turchin on turbulence

I wanted to note these links for future reference.

1. A classic election-year post of mine from 2008 that a Twitter user chose to highlight recently. An excerpt:

no politician will figure out a way to bring the bottom half of America’s children up to the level where they can benefit from a college education.

2. Alex Mackiel’s unsatisfyingly brief review of the WEIRD Henrich book. And an essay by Robert Henderson that is interesting to read in light of Henrich’s view of the importance of Christian family values in seeding the emergence of liberal society. Henderson writes,

American society has fewer people in poverty and less bigotry compared with decades past; and police use of force is far less pervasive than it was during higher-crime periods. What has been getting far worse, however, is family life. Stable families have been in free fall over the last few decades. In 1960, the out-of-wedlock birthrate in the U.S. was 3 percent. In 2000, it was about 30 percent. Today, it is 40 percent. (This figure obscures class divisions: for college graduates, only one out of ten children is born out of wedlock. For those with only a high school diploma, six out of ten are born to unmarried parents.)

3. Jack A. Goldstone and Peter Turchin claim to have predicted the current political turbulence.

From the Wayback Machine

An email correspondent asked me for my essay on competitive government vs. democracy, and I had to go to the Wayback Machine to find it.

What is needed to implement competitive government are rules, procedures, and norms that allow groups of citizens to secede from existing government programs and regulations while forming new organizations to provide services in different ways. Competitive government requires easy entry and easy exit relative to government functions.

Worth re-reading. Contains the core ideas of the widely-unread Unchecked and Unbalanced.

On capitalism and socialism

Russ Roberts writes,

I think a lot of people are attracted to socialism because they believe it means capitalism without the parts they don’t like. How to get there from here is left unspecified.

I think that this critique needs to be made more often. When Marx says “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs,” how does that play out? Who becomes a sanitation worker and who becomes a movie actress? If we all take turns doing everything, not much will get done. Without specialization, economic activity will collapse. But if we choose our specialties voluntarily, based on our preferences without regard to market forces, we will have a surplus of movie actresses and a shortage of sanitation workers.

Capitalism will never be perfect. In Three Problems with Capitalism, I wrote,

Capitalist societies have three problems:
They elevate material values over others.
They create winners and losers.
They undermine communities.

You can always criticize capitalist societies on these grounds. But getting rid of these problems without creating worse problems is a lot trickier.