"How about open source Monetary Policy?" Bitcoin? "Open source economics [destroys IP, thus incentives for civilization]" Actually, private property is the go-to solution for *rivalrous and excludable* ("private") goods. But my having a copy of something doesn't prevent you from having one; data, e.g. software, is a (technical term:) public good. Open source (etc.) is the private sector making public goods for non-monetary gains. Which isn't socialist. It's more libertarian, if anything.

Who is "solving the issues" politicians? "Intellectuals" deal with peer review at the very least. These are the people who change the world with new technology, medicine, and ideas-- all of which you feel the advantages of every day.

The final piece of the puzzle for Open Source productivity is crowdfunding platforms. Crowdfunded incentives for programmers helping in Open Source projects will be a revolution that will DWARF the others. If I were Adobe, I'd want to tap into this ASAP to stay on top of their markets. Crowdfunding also happens to be the greatest disproof of copyright law out there: get incentives for your creativity as your creativity progresses, and you have a business model that can survive without copyright.

the problem with open source is that its voluntary, I can design a robot and either patent it or throw the plans and software out on the internet for all the world under a GNU license. Nothing socialist about it

What exactly do you mean by open-source monetary policy and why do you think it's not a legible possibility?

Sadly with intellectuals, the whole discussion ultimately turns into some kind of Oratorical Tournament instead of Solving the Issues. and most of the Ideas as just mental master*****on.

You can tell he must be a linux user by his beard.

you might be interested in a "Dan Pink RSA" lecture on youtube. He gets into the science of motivation and why people do what they do

wow that one really got real at the end there!

As the guy said- not all the things we think are incentives necessarily have to be, nor are they the only ones. In fact I recall some study showing that above a certain level, money doesn't really incentivise much.

Not sure what you mean here- are you saying open source is a bad thing?

Gene Roddenberry, star trek 1960's, we are heading towards the social and economic system that he envisaged. Like it or lump it, it's coming, slowly, step by step. human kind working for the betterment of human kind. all the "battles" we see happening now, social, political, economic, it's going to end up with the only way we can progress as a species, to work together, all for one and one for all. there will be no "individual" or "company" profit margins to worry about.

"5 minutes. Just because it's interesting" Beautiful...

@DonutAtWork00 But the source material is not owned by anyone. So it IS "non-market" to use your term.

The example of open source software as a non-market product is misleading. The software itself is free but there is a big market in servicing the software.

Many words to say that: computers and internet increase productivity (allows people to achieve their goals for less), this changes the structure of production. Overall an interesting talk, but the same old economic laws of the market still apply, unlike what the synopsis suggested. From an economic standpoint, Professor Benkler is confused in his distinction between "Market-based" and "non Market-based". The market is not about money, it is about voluntary transactions.

@PolliFaxToaster Yeap. How do you maintain quaility. Apache web server s/w is an easier example.

@chambly111 I can see the value clash of Gen X/Y etc now. Latter is trying to throw off the industrial/economic structure even if they don't realise it. No wonder they don't want to leave home !

I love listening to this speech and the ideas that develop from it.

sounds great, less filling