![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This idea's not mine; it's from a copy of Wired Magazine from a few years ago, when Wired was still new and shiny and offbeat.
Basically, it goes like this. We're approaching an economy where money, subsistence-stuff, abstract-of-labour, is not that important any more. If the world was organised right, we could all live perfectly comfortably doing about four hours work a week. Obviously, that's not the case, but the fact remains that in the West, we just don't have to put in the amount of sheer EFFORT that our ancestors did.
People still need a medium of exchange, though. For a long time, money has been more than a way to get food and shelter, it's been a way of keeping score. We're starting to see the switch, for score-keeping purposes, from money to fame. We equate one with the other - someone rich MUST be famous, someone famous MUST be rich. We ignore the fact that we're talking about two different kinds of wealth here, as nobody knows the name of the guys who have the Swiss bank accounts, and celebrities declare bankruptcy all the time.
The way we measure this wealth is in attention, in eyeball-minutes, if you like. Somone looking at me (or my work, or my journal, which is me for purposes of this) for an hour is more valuable than someone who looks for a minute. Sixty people looking for one minute each may be more valuable, especially if some of them mention me to friends.
Then there's the second tier of attention, which is based on the fact that the attention of attention-wealthy people is better than the attention of attention-poor people. If you discover that Neil Gaiman is reading your journal, or Warren Ellis, you're far more pleased than if you discover that Sean Nolan is. It's more valuable because they reflect attention onto you. We can see this in Oprah's book club, when it existed. Oprah (one of the attention-wealthiest people in the world) said "I'm reading this", and thousands of people went out and bought the book. She could have directed that attention at any book, down to Ann & Barry Go To The Sea, and people would have bought it in droves.
This means that the people to whom we pay attention benefit from it. They gain attention-wealth - not just one eyeball-minute, but if we're any way famous, in the small way that journallers can be - ten, or a hundred.
So, what I'm finally driving at is: by responding to people, by thinking about them, by giving them attention, you're making them wealthy. And I want to think a little more about who I want to pay that attention to, sometimes.
Basically, it goes like this. We're approaching an economy where money, subsistence-stuff, abstract-of-labour, is not that important any more. If the world was organised right, we could all live perfectly comfortably doing about four hours work a week. Obviously, that's not the case, but the fact remains that in the West, we just don't have to put in the amount of sheer EFFORT that our ancestors did.
People still need a medium of exchange, though. For a long time, money has been more than a way to get food and shelter, it's been a way of keeping score. We're starting to see the switch, for score-keeping purposes, from money to fame. We equate one with the other - someone rich MUST be famous, someone famous MUST be rich. We ignore the fact that we're talking about two different kinds of wealth here, as nobody knows the name of the guys who have the Swiss bank accounts, and celebrities declare bankruptcy all the time.
The way we measure this wealth is in attention, in eyeball-minutes, if you like. Somone looking at me (or my work, or my journal, which is me for purposes of this) for an hour is more valuable than someone who looks for a minute. Sixty people looking for one minute each may be more valuable, especially if some of them mention me to friends.
Then there's the second tier of attention, which is based on the fact that the attention of attention-wealthy people is better than the attention of attention-poor people. If you discover that Neil Gaiman is reading your journal, or Warren Ellis, you're far more pleased than if you discover that Sean Nolan is. It's more valuable because they reflect attention onto you. We can see this in Oprah's book club, when it existed. Oprah (one of the attention-wealthiest people in the world) said "I'm reading this", and thousands of people went out and bought the book. She could have directed that attention at any book, down to Ann & Barry Go To The Sea, and people would have bought it in droves.
This means that the people to whom we pay attention benefit from it. They gain attention-wealth - not just one eyeball-minute, but if we're any way famous, in the small way that journallers can be - ten, or a hundred.
So, what I'm finally driving at is: by responding to people, by thinking about them, by giving them attention, you're making them wealthy. And I want to think a little more about who I want to pay that attention to, sometimes.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
If I know a hundred people (or, in context here, a hundred people are paying attention to me), and I ask that group for something - help with a project, a certain out of print book, a lift to someplace - I have a far better chance of getting it than if I know ten people. And if those people are themselves popular, then if they pass the request on, I get an even higher chance. That's more than ego.
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
Ahem.
But to return to the question at hand; let me counterchallenge your challenge. It's true that if you make a request to a larger group, then in general you'll have a better hit rate than with a smaller one. But I contest that in an "acquaintanceship" or "friendship" group, who tend to be an assortment of mixed talents rather than an array of experts. If I want a specific thing, I'll get a far better hit-rate with a group of experts in that field than with my "friends". The only benefit of asking my "friends" is cheapness (I'll get my Linux kernel support/Weber carburettor info/lift to the pub/backrub for free) and sometimes expediency, both of which can be overcome with enough money.
This sounds a little like friends are superfluous, that they can't give you anything you can't buy elsewhere. In a way the second part of that sentence is true, and I'm struggling to try to quantify in what ways it's not. Instinct tells me it's untrue; logic tells me it is. What am I missing?
From:
no subject
What you're missing above is the good feeling. I feel far better about getting a shirt made by
So by using my attention-wealth to get something, rather than my money-wealth, two people end up pleased, AND I get whatever it was I'm looking for. If I use money-wealth, the experience goes more that two people are indifferent, I'm down a fiver, BUT I have what I wanted.
Also, you can't overcome cheapness with more money; it kinda takes the point out of it.
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
Indeed, and a wise point. But is that saying that an extension of being in a popular group is getting an increased number of these "good feelings" with the increased attention/favours going around? Is the idea to get "good feelings" by "paying attentions" to "friends"? If someone is "attention-wealthy", does that mean they're surrounded by a cloud of people with good feelings from all that attention they've given that person? Conversely, can you not get a good feeling from producing a good quality product or service, one which you're satisfied with as the creator, for a faceless cash transaction?
Also, you can't overcome cheapness with more money; it kinda takes the point out of it.
What I meant was, if you're poor, then five quid for a commercial taxi ride is too expensive and you are forced to rely on "friends" giving you a lift. If you throw money at the problem and are thus rich, then that five quid is neither here nor there and you don't need to rely on the convenience of getting a free ride from a "friend"
("friend" in inverted commas to mean circle of acquaintances, etc)
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
So in other words, good "Whuffie"/"attention-wealth" can be more valuable than a phat bank account.
Example:
OJ slaughters wife and innocent bystander, OJ gets out of the deal with his wealth and former good "whuffie". OJ lives a relatively nice life with his continued, though diminished, wealth. However, OJ has serious karma issues and does not receive the good Whuffie he is used to. OJ's life sucks, and it should. Money cannot buy "attention-wealth", therefore "attention-wealth" can have more value.
What's the point? Our current social system does not formerly recognize this, and often attention-wealth comes too late, as in the case of artists, engineers, or humanitarians who recieve recognition after their demise.
What is the solution? Some sort of "vehicle" that tracks and calibrates or enumerates this social value("attention-wealth","Whuffie") in a timely manner.
x (http://www.whuffie.com)
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
I blogged about the notion of Whuffie stock, that one could trade and invest in other's good reputation, but as Tim Oren at <a href="http://www.pacificavc.com/blog/2003/02/21.html#a97" target="_blank>PacificFund said here</a> "it is not fugabile". Could it be just a feel good state, where unexpected gifts and reverence "show up" like job opportunites, free concert tickets, and seemingly unmertited favor are simply from a bigger sphere than friends/family/co-worker/student/peeers? Would there be a tax on Whuffie Gifts? (I am sure the IRS would like that.) x