Dana Blankenhorn

Technology’s Dilemma

There is a bug at the heart of innovation, of technology, and of capitalism itself.

It lies in the incentives we give innovators.

It lies in stock ownership.

What liberals have condemned is the fact that nearly all the profit from innovation is going to a very small number of people. The winners’ founders, and their venture capital partners, get fortunes measured in the billions of dollars. Their key people also wind up as multi-millionaires. Everyone else, whether they’re line staff or just ordinary schmoes, can pound sand.

Sure, we all get some of the benefits. It’s cool to have cat litter delivered. It’s amazing that I can learn anything I want to know within moments. I can call my kid in Europe free. The software and hardware my son accesses, to automate cutting-edge medical tests is amazing. As a result, we’re starting to understand not only the genetic code, but what lies beneath it.

Still it’s true. The rewards are all going to a very small number of people. Jeff Bezos will never be able to spend the $150 billion he has access to. Bill Gates will never be able to give away the fortune he has won. Philanthropists are taking on the role of governments, self-appointed boards deciding the priorities on the nation’s wealth.

World War III, The Internet War

World War III is an Internet war. It has been ongoing for over a decade.

When the conflict was between countries like Pakistan and Ireland, or Ukraine and Russia, we could afford to ignore it.

Then it came to our own shores. November 8, 2016 was this war’s Pearl Harbor.

Yet we still haven’t reacted, because once the enemy is in the tent the media thinks going after them is friendly fire.

There’s nothing friendly about it.

Sure, there are efforts underway at Google and Facebook to boost “real news” and dissuade “fake news.” Yes, there are efforts underway in Congress to control online political spending. Yes, there is the Mueller probe.

But these are nothing. We still see the Internet War as something we can stop with higher firewalls, or bigger budgets.

We can’t.

The Streaming Crash of 2019

For the last several years, a lot of companies have been trying to fit through a very narrow door.

That door is streaming.

The success of Netflix, and of podcast stars like Marc Maron, has caused a heart attack in the entertainment world. Suddenly everyone, and every company, is aiming for a taste of this action.

They can’t all get it.

There aren’t enough hours in the day to listen to a fraction of the podcasts available now. I have a half-dozen in my phone, and I can’t get to all of them. Long-haul truck drivers can get to a lot, and people who work as security guards may listen for 8 hours per day. But a single Joe Rogan podcast can run 4 hours. Maron does 3 hours every week.

CBS, NPR, the BBC and others are hitching their wagon to podcasts. Spotify plans to spend $500 million on podcasts, an industry that generates $700 million in annual revenue.

These numbers make no sense.

The Elite Web

A lot of people like to complain about the lack of online freedom in China.

It’s true. The government there decides what people can and can’t see, what they can and can’t say. The social conditioning is impressive and made more impressive by the constantly-growing economy.

But if Jack Ma, or anyone in his Alibaba executive team, wants to learn something from the online world, or say something online, it’s not a problem. The same at a thousand other large enterprises. Freedom is doled out with an eye dropper, but for those who need it the firehose is available.

Is the situation better in our country?

Democracy's Business Model Problem

When I started as a reporter, 40 years ago, there was a strict separation between “data” and “service.” There was usually just one layer of data.

The service was a phone call. The data was the time, duration and number called. The data was used to generate a bill for service. AT&T still mails customers this data.

There was also another layer of data, hidden beneath the services data, namely the content of the call. This was only available to law enforcement, with a warrant. A number might be tapped or (when technology permitted) a subject might have all the numbers they used tapped. This data was secured. It could only be used in criminal investigations. Civil cases could be tossed if this data were misused.

In print, there were similar splits between service and data. Editorial was the service. Subscriber lists were the data.

Facebook and the Fall of Free

Facebook has no friends.

Mark Zuckerberg thought he had billions of friends. He was wrong.

That’s one of the clear lessons of the Facebook scandal.

The way competitors, celebrities and the media are piling on Facebook is something to behold. I said they were vulnerable to something like this at the start of the month.  I was right.

Facebook is uniquely vulnerable because it has no customers. It doesn’t sell anything to people. Amazon sells stuff to people, and so when Trump goes after Amazon, Jeff Bezos sees his customers defending him. The same thing is true of Apple, which is why Tim Cook didn’t hold back on attacking the heart of the Facebook business model when given the chance on MSNBC.

Microsoft and Google have (so far) kept quiet about Facebook’s troubles, and for the same reason. Both run services supported by advertising. Microsoft has been backing away from this throughout the century (the MS on MSNBC is like the Cheshire Cat’s smile as it disappears). Google has been trying to diversify into products and autonomous cars. But their dependence still exists.

There’s one more important point to make about all this.

Winning The 1978 Game

We are approaching 10 years since the financial crisis that launched a new generation in American political history. As was true before, we’ve had the election of a President from the wrong party, one devoted to policies that defy the will of the rising business class, because older voters refused to leave the stage.

This happened because our government allowed deflation to run riot, which sent the benefits of productivity scurrying to the top of the economic pyramid, leaving those who should have been the beneficiaries with nothing. The nature of our crisis is to broaden the base, recycling the wealth of deflation into inflation, generating economic power that can meet the needs of the world’s people.

It so happens that 1978 was also the year I entered the work force. I was in Houston, then a wide-open town growing like gangbusters, much like Silicon Valley today. Houston was driving the economy but not getting what it needed from policymakers, who were more interested in the fate of manufacturing cities like Detroit than in the resource industries.

What Jeff Bezos Can’t Do

Word that JP Morgan Chase, Berkshire Hathaway and Amazon.Com were exploring ways to “fix” health care caused a lot of reporters to quickly make asses of themselves. 

They had little choice. The announcement was deliberately opaque. The goals are amorphous. The aims of the players are different. Warren Buffett is looking for a legacy, Bezos for a profit, Dimon for cash flow.

All very fine, but it will come to nothing if they can’t make progress against the key driver of health care costs, non-compliance. Some 75% of health care costs today are for chronic conditions that could be prevented, like diabetes and heart disease. If people took care of themselves, if they even took their medicines as prescribed, we would save trillions.

Some doctors are just as bad. Surgeons don’t use checklists, physicians don’t use best practices, others prescribe the high-priced drugs patients saw on TV where cheap generics would work just as well. Still others think a medical license means they can push any quack nostrum that comes into their head. It’s not just malpractice. It’s abuse of the system in the ordinary course of business, most of it perfectly legal, even ethical.

On Net Neutrality

If you have been reading this blog for any length of time, you no doubt believe that I’m a radical. A liberal. A fanatical criminal. 

In some ways this is true. On foreign policy I’m an internationalist who believes in peace. On social policy I believe people should be free to love who and what they want, and to kill themselves in any way that suits them.

This is not true in economic policy. I still consider myself a liberal here, but business was always a liberal force before the Nixon era. Progress is a business word, still often used in advertisements to denote the aims of oil companies and manufacturers, as well as tech outfits.

My economic beliefs are based on those of Adam Smith, who saw wealth inclining the wealthy toward the common good. I consider Trump and his acolytes to be Nietzscheites. (Ayn Rand is just Nietzsche in a skirt.)

More to the point, I consider them Fascists, and resent that I can’t use the word in public without being condemned.

So, when it comes to the subject of net neutrality, I’m sure you’re thinking, Dana is going to tell us that the FCC is wrong, that Democrats are right.

I’m not.

Beating Fascism in Our Time

Before this era is over there will be a global demand to “eat the rich,” at which point the Kochs, the Mercers, the little Trumps and Peter Thiel expect this nation’s intellectuals to save them from the guillotine.

The rich do have their purpose. Wealthy people supply capital for opportunities that create jobs. They stand by the banks that provide liquidity to the system. But they were amply paid for these services before they launched all-out war on the poor (and middle class), starting with Nixon, accelerating with Reagan, becoming obvious under Bush and climaxing under Trump. 

At Christmas 2017, the day of victory over these forces seems far off. The rich and their castles of money seem as impregnable as the castles of stone were for their 14^th century forebears. Everywhere you look, it seems, fascism reigns supreme. Russia has taken down America, China is “communist” only in name, the Middle East is ruled by the Saud Kings, and throughout the developing world absolute rulers of all stripes know the great powers have their back.

The world is much like it was in 1942, except that democracy and capitalism are being squeezed from above, not from the sides.

But victory is in sight.