I would first like to assert that if you’re reading this and have not read Chris’s current blog post, I suggest that you exit the page and do so. First because it is excellent, and second because this project that we have embarked upon is coauthored, so it would not make sense to read them out of order.

The way I see it, there were several key problems with the guest lecture. The first was it ignored certain facts while simultaneously extorting others. I am going to examine some big assertions  and what I see as faulty claims throughout the lecture on Monday.

Google is Functioning through Gift Economics:

The basic answer is no. I see this as being an argument that is full of holes. (Kind of like Swiss cheese). First off, Google makes money off of us through collecting and distrusting our data. Whether or not advertisement block software is used in the equation, the user is still factored as a piece in googles massive puzzle. From this they get stock through advertising, by virtue of getting the use. So while it is true that Google does not ask for money in exchange for use of their services, they do get an implied return of the right to access data. This is independent of free will, which is an inherent component of a gift economy.  So google still is a product of a capitalist economy.

Self-Driving Cars and Gift Economics

As a handicapped citizen, who ironically can drive, I am a huge advocate for self-driving cars. I feel like there is a great potential for them to add safety to the road. With that said Google has been cited saying that self-driving cars still have a long way to go. We are nowhere near close to being able to “drive” an automated car by ordering the service on our iPhones as the guest lecturer suggested. He projected his argument way beyond the current capabilities of the technology. So much so that it causes me to question the fundamentals of his futuristic argument. (See link at the bottom of the page)

Gift Economy to Avoid the Hunger Games….

This was funny. It tried to enforce a popular cultural element as a method for supporting gift economics. There are a mirage of other methods for solving this problem that do not result in the Hunger Games or in a gift economy. Raising taxes, minimum salary guarantees, progressive public education reform. All of these could exist within a capitalist model and would be more effective than a gift economy, because at least reciprocity is expected and paid in my system. Additionally none of these could lead to the “Hunger Games” either. (Although I could personally envision a scenario where value being exchanged in unpredictable services could lead to mass starvation and elitist control.) Something tells me the hunger games will not be the next super bowl anytime soon.

The Avoidance of a Proximity Diameter and the Laws of the Current System

I am going to end on this big point because I feel like it connects the two blog posts pretty well. The first is that the administer for “Kindista” pointed out that gift economy was the predominate model of exchange in small tribal communities. I’ll give him this point completely. I cannot have been the only one that noticed that he failed to readdress this point when he was discussing how he was going to reintegrate a gift economy model outside of the Willamette Valley.   That is because this kind of system is not sustainable when we get into massive groups, despite how romantic it is. There is a reason why this was the preferred method with a small group, because reciprocity was always given. The recipient and giver did not have to even be aware of this, they just had to save one another lives during a lion hunt and the debt was repaid. Today, so many interactions are done interpersonally that this relationship cannot be developed. As a result this value system stands in replace of that honor code that is felt among a small community.

My closing point will be brief. It involves the fact that this system depends on current property laws to enforce a gift economy system. So a gift economy cannot even be established in our system unless it is wrapped in the comforting wings of capitalism. If I get my bike stolen in this system, I depend upon the authorities to hunt the thief (or loaner) out. I will probably not use Kindista after this experience; because Kindista’s method of enforcement is “no one will share with you.” Since society is more complicated than nap time, I fail to see this as being a sustainable system.    

In conclusion, I am open to the idea of any economic theory, but as a Political Scientist I feel as if it is my duty to seek the truth, no matter how qualified the speaker is.

Sources:

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles-for-googles-self-driving-cars/