Comment by amasad | Hacker News Reader

Comment by amasad | Hacker News Reader

I just finished reading Radical Markets (http://a.co/7cNafHl) and it's funny to see this HN story because the last chapter was about "data labor" where the authors claim that we're all working for FB/GOOG/etc to generate data to train the AIs that makes profit for these companies. And that it's time for "data workers of the world to unite" into a "data labor movement" so we can get paid for our work (I found it kind of silly but worth thinking about). This assumes that a single unit of data (say a person's personal data as in the OP) is worth something on it's own.

The counter-argument to that, which is also presented in the book, can be summarized as the resolution to Adam Smith's "diamond-water" paradox (roughly, why is it that while water is more useful, in terms of survival, than diamonds, diamonds command a higher price in the market). The answer is that the price is determined by the marginal value of the last unit of good available rather than the average value gained by its consumption. So while the average value of personal data is high (you can build a service like Google or Facebook) the single unit value (as in the OP) is low. I'm more convinced by this side of the argument.

> I found it kind of silly but worth thinking about

This was my reaction to 95% of the book. Until Radical Markets, I'd never read a nonfiction book that I found so absurd and detached from reality and yet provoked so much useful thought. I worry that others may not realize how detached it is, and that the net effect may not be positive, but we'll see.

> A nonfiction book that I found so absurd and detached from reality and yet provoked so much useful thought.

This is a really interesting category. Makes me think about other books I've read that are a bit like that. I'd probably put Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance in there. Maybe Understanding Media by Marshall McLuhan as well.

Gregory Clark candidly prefaces his "Farewell to Alms" with the admission that the arguments he presents in the book will most likely be proven "oversimplified, or merely false" but excuses his fallibility quoting Darwin:

"false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness: and when this is done, one path towards error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened.”

We do not need a "Radical Market" to realize the fact that individual personal data doesn't make so much of a value. Advertisers don't go hunting after individuals. That's advertising-101. Or rather internet-101. The whole point of OP is not to make money off of his personal data. Its to create awareness. You base all of your argument on single unit value being low. What if there are a billion such listings on eBay?

> This assumes that a single unit of data (say a person's personal data as in the OP) is worth something on it's own.

This is your assumption about other's assumption. Not true.

I'm struggling a bit with your second paragraph. I think there's something interesting here, but I'm not quite clear on your argument.

Data is the opposite of the paradox of value, in that one person's data is completely useless, but each additional person worth of data adds a greater and greater marginal utility (probably not linearly so, maybe an s-curve or something). Is this what you are saying?

I haven't read the book you link so perhaps that is why I misunderstand.

You have it mostly right. Thanks for clarifying my sloppy writing here. I just wouldn't say "completely useless," especially at the start of the s-curve but then at the shoulder of the s-curve you have diminishing returns.

I’m pretty sure diamonds are expensive due to artificial scarcity introduced by debeers holding on to huge quantities. No need for some fancy ideas there, they should really rename that paradox to some material that wasn’t market manipulated so heavily.

There's a curious anti-intellectual trend in HN where people think they can explain things simply without "fancy ideas".

Scarcity on it's own doesn't explain it. Your grandma's locket is scarce (only 1) yet no one will pay anything for it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com