If output displacement hides productivity, so does input displacement.

Sir, Dr Peter Johnson, responding to Diane Coyle’s “Conventional measures pose the wrong productivity question” August 16, argues that “Shift in output definition [is] at the heart of the productivity puzzle” and concludes “We are not counting apples for apples”,August 20.

As one example of “output displacement” output Johnson writes that “A great deal of retail banking activity has been displaced to private individuals [as a result of internet technology] and is not included in the calculations of output or productivity.”

There is also the other side of that same mirror namely that which you could call input displacement. 

In a letter to you referring to that same article by Diane Coyle I mentioned a post by Dan Dixon, in Bank of England’s “bankunderground” blog, titled “Is the economy suffering from the crisis of attention?” 

It said, “With the rise of smartphones in particular, the amount of stimuli competing for our attention throughout the day has exploded... we are more distracted than ever as a result of the battle for our attention. One study, for example, finds that we are distracted nearly 50% of the time.”

Sir, if those interruptions were recorded for what they really are, reduced working hours and increased consumption of distractions, we would probably see a dramatic increase in productivity, in real salaries, in voluntary unemployment and in GDP.

In other words our current economic compasses might not be working properly, risking taking us in the wrong direction.

@PerKurowski

The marginal cost for others than my friends to connect and bother me on the web, should not be zero.

Sir, Rana Foroohar, with respect our lives and adventures on the web advises us “to think much more carefully about three things. First, the extent of information that we reveal and all the myriad ways in which it can be used. Second, whether the products and services we receive in exchange for our data are worth it, or whether the terms of the exchange should be reconsidered. And third, how governments may shift the rules of the new digital playing field, and what it will mean for capitalism in the 21st century.” “Tech’s fight for the upper hand on open data” October 9.

She might be right, but boy that is a big task. I get tired of even thinking I must get through all that.

My current day-to-day concerns are much more mundane, like that of being able to get the most of what I want out of the web, with my very limited attention span. Let us say out of the 180 minutes I might be on the web each day, I would be happy if I were not rudely interrupted more than 50% by distractions; like those fake-news that require so much self-discipline not to click. But the truth is that, for the time being, the robocalls I get on my cell and on my landline are much worse. These demand an immediate attention that the web does not.

There is though one aspect of this all that I have given a lot of thought; and that is on how all revenues generated by exploiting our own preferences should be distributed.

If I, as the owner of the intellectual property rights on my own preferences, cannot be duly paid a royalty for these, at least I do not want others to be able to exploit them for their own causes.

If 50% of all web revenues went to help fund a Universal Basic Income, perhaps that could be an acceptable compromise for me.

But back to our limited attention span, the major problem is that the marginal bothering cost for social media or other service providers to connect with us is zero. If each connection that does not originate from someone directly authorized by us is taxed with US$ one cent… then I am sure those connecting would at least think a bit more before bothering me.

And, of course, those taxes should also help feed a Universal Basic Income. The last thing we need is social media and redistribution profiteers teaming up in order to engage in mutually profitable crony statism. 

@PerKurowski

Our biggest problem with Internet, Google, Facebook, Twitter, is that our attention span scarcity is not duly valued

Sir, you write: “It is clear that Google, Facebook, Twitter and a few others have become an important part of the social fabric. The dissemination of fake political news around elections in the US and Europe has illustrated as much”, “New realities confront a maturing Internet” September 12.

I don’t get it. If there was any “fake political news around elections in the US and Europe” that was that Hillary and Remain were shoe-ins. And although the dissemination is important the fact is that others produced these news… mostly the political correctness clans.

But let me get to the real issue here. We humans do not have more than 7 days a week with 24 hours each with 60 minutes each and 60 seconds each. That’s all! And social media is claiming more and more of that limited attention span and there is little we can do about it, if we do not want to disconnect entirely.

Perhaps if anyone outside our circle of friends would want to send us a message, like a fake news or an irresistible click-ad, had to pay us something, then we could perhaps align the incentives better. Some could charge one cent per message, others one dollar and perhaps a Nobel Prize winner or an important politician 100 dollars for 30 seconds.

If it were so, many more would think differently about losing their time with their silly useless messages… and we would all live happier.

@PerKurowski

In order to revive the pioneering spirit of America, start by kicking out dangerous risk adverse bank regulators

Sir, Gillian Tett writes: “The US used to be renowned for having a more flexible and mobile workforce than Europe; in previous centuries millions of people travelled in search of land, riches and jobs. But mobility has declined… [and] if mobility keeps falling, the sense of political polarisation and rage in [some] places will rise”, “The pioneering spirit America would do well to revive” October 21.

Ms Tett argues that this is all a bit counterintuitive since “the internet is supposed to have created a hyperconnected world that makes it easier to connect workers with far-flung jobs”.

Not necessarily, for instance we do not know how many can thanks to Internet be working somewhere else, without having to move. Also, much the same way internet can inform about existing job opportunities, it can make it much harder to sell those illusions of other green valleys that stimulated much mobility in the past.

As a possible countermeasure Tett advances that “The next president may also need a 21st-century version of the 1862 Homestead Act — which offered land to settlers who went west — and find new ways to encourage workers to relocate.”

Ms Tett should not forget that “land” to settlers is just a resource, just like bank credit is; and that we live in a world where mindless risk adverse regulators, with their risk weighted capital requirements, have de facto hindered credit mobility; telling the banks to stay where it seems safe, and not to go where it could be risky.

For the umpteenth time I quote from John Kenneth Galbraith’s “Money: whence it came, where it went”,1975:

“For the new parts of the country [USA’s West]… there was the right to create banks at will and therewith the notes and deposits that resulted from their loans…[if] the bank failed…someone was left holding the worthless notes… but some borrowers from this bank were now in business...[jobs created] 

It was an arrangement which reputable bankers and merchants in the East viewed with extreme distaste… Men of economic wisdom, then as later expressing the views of the reputable business community, spoke of the anarchy of unstable banking… The men of wisdom missed the point. The anarchy served the frontier far better than a more orderly system that kept a tight hand on credit would have done…. what is called sound economics is very often what mirrors the needs of the respectfully affluent.”

Clearly, the Basel Committee and the Financial Stability Board represent Galbraith’s “men of economic wisdom… [who serve] the needs of the respectfully affluent”.

So, if Ms Tett really wants the pioneering spirit of America to revive, then she should start by wanting to also allow credit to move freely; condemning the dangerous mumbo-jumbo preaches of the Basel Committee and the Financial Stability Board. That would in essence mean using one single percentage capital requirement for all assets, no matter in which risk-land these assets reside.

Unfortunately Ms Tett (and you too Sir) has been steadfastly mum on the issue of the regulatory distortion of bank credit, no doubt defending (“without favor”) her choice of “wise men” with their affluent and mostly Davos settled constituency.

“Wise men”? To know that unrated SMEs are risky to banks, is of knowledgeable men; but to understand that AAA rated assets are dangerous to bank systems, is of wise men.

@PerKurowski ©

Brussels and US, when ruling on cyber space, never forget it is we, the undefended accessed, who most need assistance.

Sir, Carl Bildt holds that “Digital mercantilism — a misguided attempt to regulate away competition, or build up new boundaries to achieve some imaginary sovereignty in cyberspace — can only hurt Europe’s ability to innovate, compete and succeed in this new world.” “Brussels should resist the urge to rig the rules of cyber space” May 4.

Absolutely, but that does not mean all is fine and dandy.

Bildt writes: “Google, Facebook and Twitter have been extremely successful in establishing services that have a commanding lead in the markets in which they operate… not by exploiting the advantages of incumbency, but through groundbreaking innovations that have led users to flock to the services they provide.”

Indeed, but those companies did not create the internet Mr. Bildt; and all of us flocking to obtain their services are paying a price for it, by means of allowing these to access information about us, in order for them to resell advertising access to us. And that price could be reasonable or not.

If it constrains too much our ability to access information freely, the price would be way too high.

And it is in the area of unfair restrictions in the competition for information of all sort, that we, the undefended accessed, sure need some assistance from regulators, whether European or American, or from anywhere else on the globe where they might be hosted.

PS. Should I have a copyright over my own preferences, so that I could share in the ad-revenues from advertising directed to me, because of my preferences?

@PerKurowski

I want a net 40 percent of the revenues generated by ads on the web in which I am the target. Who can help me?

Sir, I refer to Robert Cookson’s “Web publishers in arms race with adblockers” March 30.

Clearly picking up information about what we are up to on the Internet, and screening us for what we might like, in order to reach us for with some advertising, is big big business. And stopping that from happening seems also to be big big businesses… and now we read that sometimes those two big big interests even collude to get the most out of us.

But what about us, the targets? Is there no way we can participate in those revenues? Anyone who figures that out could have a very interesting business model in his hands.

For instance: “I want to prohibit any ad blocker to block any ad in which I am the target and in which I do not get a share of the ad-revenues… let’s say 50 percent”. Who can help me with that? I am willing to pay 20 percent out of my revenues for that service… in order to retain a quite modest 40% of my value as a target.

PS. Sir, between us, to block any ads targeted at me, without my explicit authorization, sounds like something quite criminal to me.

@PerKurowski

If erasing, Google must be sure it is duly authorized to do so, and should keep a public record on the erasers

Sir in principle I agree with John Gapper in that “People do not have the right to erase the web’s memory” May 15. That said, thinking on my own youth, and though I do not remember all my doings very well, I guess there might have been occasions when I was lucky these were not memorized by a web, and so I guess my grandchildren should have the same right.

What I am more concerned about is the possibility that someone else instructs Google or someone in Google takes it upon himself, to erase without authorization one of my memories causing me to suffer from web Alzheimer. And in this respect, were the erasing to start, then Google needs to make sure the erasing is authorized and keep a public record of all erasing going on preferably with an identification of what was erased, a photo or something else. At least in this case John Gapper could have seen that his developer was hiding something. 

And what if there is a photo of two and one wants it erased and the other dearly wants to hang on to the memory?

Sorry music industry, the ball is completely in your park

Sir in “The ISP police” February 23 it is when you say “The music industry meanwhile, must help itself and offer cheap, accessible downloads to expand the legal online market” that you get to the inescapable truth about the piracy of music at the internet.

For bad and for worse, the internet signifies and immense technological breakthrough and that has the power of changing society even more than music, something which as a true music lover it pains me to say.

We can not therefore hold back the society from fully exploiting the potential of the internet just in order to accommodate to the collection of music copyrights; much less can we afford to criminalize the hundred of millions of persons that are de facto and de jure infringing on copy rights; much less can we afford to dedicate scarce resources in the pursuit of these crimes when there are so many worse threats calling for our attention; much less can we afford to create in the music market another booming market opportunity for the entrepreneurs of illegal activities.

And so, sorry music industry, the ball, or in this case the song, is completely in your park

A not so transparent someone else’s life

Sir in “A transparent life” July 7 you mention that “privacy is so last century” and comment about how the new internet technologies risk us losing our privacy. That may well be so but simultaneously you just need to go to any of the millions of web based discussion forums to notice that very few speak in their own name but hide out behind strange pseudonyms and avatars. I myself have opted for always using my own name, as the best way to assure I will never forget who I am and start talking in someone else’s name. And so, while we definitely must help to assure the right to privacy for the right private person we also need to simultaneously deal with the multi-personality disorders created on the web.

Should there be resurrection fees?

Sir, Thomas Rubin is very right in that “Copyright must be respected as culture goes online” March 6, but he sure does sound excruciatingly rightful, when instead humility is much called for in this difficult issue. Perhaps he needs to be reminded that all the new protected culture is genetically a descendant of previous culture, in the same vein that Microsoft would not be able to pay for Rubin’s services had not the computers existed. Society should respect copyrights and similar but the copyrighters should also respect the society, not only because it invests copious resources defending their intellectual properties, but because it has every right to expect it.

There are currently hundred of thousand books, movies, photos and other copyrightable matter out there, that were it not for the power of the web they would be condemned to eternal darkness. Shall now the saviors that bring them to life and light again have to pay for the resurrections? I am not sure, but then again I am no expert as Mr Rubin.