Will Technology Make Big Businesses Obsolete

[EdEarl]

Competition is a driving force for businesses. For example, AT&T was once almost the only telephone company, and telephone costs were high, especially long distance. In 1984 AT&T was broken up into several "baby bells" and the long distance firm named AT&T. Then other long distance companies began competing with AT&T, the price of long distance dropped to $0/min, and AT&T was purchased by the baby bell named Southwestern Bell, which renamed itself AT&T.

 

Competition destroyed a portion of the telephone business Of course, cell phones became a new telephone business.

 

Another development, the Open Hardware initiative, may also threaten business.

 

Below are a few relevant links.

 

http://www.openhardware.org/

http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://open3dp.me.washington.edu/

http://www.tantillus.org/Home.html

http://www.wikihouse.cc/

 

Will mega businesses become obsolete and eventually fail?

I think it is probable.

[Phi for All]

Will mega businesses become obsolete and eventually fail?

I think it is probable.

 

I would love to see the size and political influence of corporations shrink. Imo, a large part of what is wrong with US capitalism is that the biggest corporations are skewing the system by sheltering themselves unfairly from natural market pressures using taxpayer dollars and special interest legislation.

[swansont]

AT&T isn't a representative example because they were a monopoly, which is an exception in the US.

[EdEarl]

AT&T isn't a representative example because they were a monopoly, which is an exception in the US.

There is no longer a long distance business. AT&T and other companies were victims.

[Amaton]

Will mega businesses become obsolete and eventually fail?

I think it is probable.

 

Elaborate what is meant by "business". A specific corporation focused on a particular technology? The broad market for that technology? Or the continuity of mega corporations in general?

[swansont]

There is no longer a long distance business. AT&T and other companies were victims.

 

No there isn't. But it wasn't broken up by competition. There was almost no competition until after it was broken up.

[EdEarl]

Elaborate what is meant by "business". A specific corporation focused on a particular technology? The broad market for that technology? Or the continuity of mega corporations in general?

Not a specific corporation. Vague on purpose to allow people freedom. Definitely mega corporations are included, but business also refers industries such as manufacturing. The links are the tip of the iceberg, one might also consider what the AI singularity will mean for businesses, for example.

 

No there isn't. But it wasn't broken up by competition. There was almost no competition until after it was broken up.

True, significant long distance competition started after AT&T was split into baby bells and the long distance company. Maybe I did not state that clearly before.

Edited May 25, 2013 by EdEarl

[Amaton]

The links are the tip of the iceberg, one might also consider what the AI singularity will mean for businesses, for example.

 

If the singularity event turns out as its proponents believe, one might think of significant consequences much more significant than those affecting the business sector. Seeing as it's a rather flexible prediction, the outcomes and impacts on anything can be approached in different ways.

 

I've barely gotten any depth into the idea, and indeed many think the event will have a huge impact on the economy, increasing the rate of exponential growth in the global economy. Personally, I don't see how one could draw that out so directly. Thoughts?

[EdEarl]

The singularity seems to imply incredible change to an unknown world. That is, the world is unknown because we do not know when in the future the singularity may occur; thus, we can know neither the state of the world nor the changes that will be occurring. Even if we knew the state of and change of the world when the singularity occurs, we are unable to predict many of its consequences. In fact, we do not have a clear idea of what the singularity will be.

 

I think it is safe to assume the singularity will be a superior intellect, and that a superior intellect will advance science rapidly. The reason for that assumption is simple, scientists are working towards making the singularity and want it to help their quest for knowledge. Since the military and businesses have money to fund research, they are likely to benefit as well.

 

Whether the singularity is able to understand human psychology and society may depend on whether a singularity can be built without feelings and a body. In other words, if the singularity can be built to satisfy scientific, military and business needs without having a body and feelings, and without understanding human psychology and sociology, then those sciences may not benefit immediately.

 

I started this topic because I wanted to know other opinions, and have not thought much about the effects of the singularity. I hope someone else knows of someone smarter than I who has considered this issue and perhaps written of it.

[iNow]

Technology can make SOME businesses obsolete, but ultimately it will do little more than shift us more toward a services and consulting oriented culture, IMO.

[EdEarl]

I agree iNow.

If we consider our basic needs (food, clothing, and shelter) and the result of automation, costs should decrease, as long-distance costs have, to near zero, excluding exploitative costs, e.g., an air tax or protection racket. A robot or nanobot could build, maintain and remodel our earth-ship home, make our clothing, and maintain a garden.

 

http://earthship.com/

 

I know it sounds a bit utopian, which is almost scary. But, what is the flaw?

Edited June 3, 2013 by EdEarl

[iNow]

I think of this subject more in terms of the replicator technology on Star Trek, TNG. If everyone has a replicator, then they will never be in need or want. The question becomes whether or not the technology is equally available to all, or whether this too will be something that asymmetrically benefits the rich over the poor.

[EdEarl]

Replicator technology, exactly! And business competition seems to be developing a real solution for our benefit, regardless of capitalist attempts to assure asymmetric benefits. I do not exclude the possibility of armed conflict that redistributes wealth, especially since climate refugees will be unsettling if they occur en-mass.

[John Cuthber]

I think of this subject more in terms of the replicator technology on Star Trek, TNG. If everyone has a replicator, then they will never be in need or want. The question becomes whether or not the technology is equally available to all, or whether this too will be something that asymmetrically benefits the rich over the poor.

Given past behaviour, which option would you bet on?

[EdEarl]

Given past behaviour, which option would you bet on?

Which past behavior, history tells many stories.

 

History tells us about many people were once owned by a monarch that are now not owned by a monarch. On the other hand, history tells us people were once mainly organized into small families of hunter-gatherers who were very free. Today that freedom has been lost. Many people are controlled by corporations who employ them and manipulate their governments, and other people who are more directly controlled by their governments. The history of the universe, from the big bang until now tells us things are constantly changing.

[john5746]

I know it sounds a bit utopian, which is almost scary. But, what is the flaw?

The flaw would be human nature. We are still apes wearing clothes. We want more. More than those around us, with less work if possible.

[iNow]

Ed - I think you might appreciate this article I read earlier today, as it relates quite well to the topic you initiated and the questions inherent within:

 

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/05/robots-artificial-intelligence-jobs-automation

What do we do over the next few decades as robots become steadily more capable and steadily begin taking away all our jobs? This is the kind of thing that futurologists write about frequently, but when I started looking for answers from mainstream economists, it turned out there wasn't much to choose from. The economics community just hasn't spent much time over the past couple of decades focusing on the effect that machine intelligence is likely to have on the labor market.

<...>

During the Industrial Revolution, machines were limited to performing physical tasks. The Digital Revolution is different because computers can perform cognitive tasks too, and that means machines will eventually be able to run themselves. When that happens, they won't just put individuals out of work temporarily. Entire classes of workers will be out of work permanently.

 

In other words, the Luddites weren't wrong. They were just 200 years too early.

<...>

Increasingly, then, robots will take over more and more jobs. And guess who will own all these robots? People with money, of course. As this happens, capital will become ever more powerful and labor will become ever more worthless. Those without money—most of us—will live on whatever crumbs the owners of capital allow us.

 

This is a grim prediction. But it's not nearly as far-fetched as it sounds.

The article also references this ebook called "Race Against the Machine" that is supposed to be a really good explanation of these ideas: http://www.amazon.com/Race-Against-Machine-Accelerating-Productivity/dp/0984725113

[Amaton]

Replicator technology, exactly! And business competition seems to be developing a real solution for our benefit, regardless of capitalist attempts to assure asymmetric benefits. I do not exclude the possibility of armed conflict that redistributes wealth, especially since climate refugees will be unsettling if they occur en-mass.

 

Replicators would be quite the thing, but a publicly-accessible distribution seems less likely than the technology itself. I would think governments will have a rather strict regulation over that. They'll have to.

 

One product of analogy that we have today is far from that, but it might have that impact in the long run. 3D Printers. Just look what they're doing now, and they're on the rise.

[EdEarl]

Ed - I think you might appreciate this article I read earlier today, as it relates quite well to the topic you initiated and the questions inherent within:

TY iNow,

It is a very rosy story, the people don't want to hear about pitfalls. Transition from today until we arrive in tomorrow is uncertain. It is an intricate puzzle that depends on the timing of many things. Some of them are: singularity, climate, mountain glaciers, renewables, businesses, governments, nanotechnology, circuits, robotech, economy, and desertification.

 

One product of analogy that we have today is far from that, but it might have that impact in the long run. 3D Printers. Just look what they're doing now, and they're on the rise.

Exactly, and the Open 3D printers are in their earliest stages, but have great promise. Re: links in the OP. The initial development is difficult, but once they can make parts for themselves, their use should accelerate.

[iNow]

I was reminded of 3D printers when I made my comment about replicators, too. They're even working on printing food, being funded withe objective of improving what astronauts eat while in space, including a company here in Austin right now trying to print a pizza as their first item: http://news.yahoo.com/3d-printers-could-reinvent-nasa-space-food-114705491.html

[EdEarl]

IMO organic foods are best. My imagination says 3D printing of food will make it taste like paper.

[john5746]

I can see it now. "This food is 100% organically printed using recycled materials by people who roam the facility freely"

Edited June 4, 2013 by john5746

[krash661]

from a CEO-

 

" how do you compete with free ?

 

answer,

execution,

 

it you are not part of it,

you do not exist. "

[iNow]

Separate, but related points...