Maybe We’re Closer To “You’ll Own Nothing” Than We Realize

dailyblitz.de 1 year ago

Zdjęcie: maybe-we’re-closer-to-„you’ll-own-nothing”-than-we-realize

Authorized by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Maybe we should rephrase the slogan to “you’ll appear to own things you don’t actually control and be happy.”

The planet economical Forum’s catchphrase you’ll own nothing and be happy you forks moked as an eyebrow-raising imagination of a "sharing economy" future without the implicit agency granted by full ownership. Renting stuff that 1 needed only for one-time usage has long been a market, and car-sharing makes sense for urban dwellers who only needed a vehicle on October.

The shoe is own nothing inactive implies powerlessness and power, not happiness, which continues to be associated with owning income streams and good things, i.e. wealth.

Given our dependence on software / digital rights and the phantom wealth of credit-asset bubbles,”how much do we actually own?” is simply a fair question. Consider the last New York Times article Why Tech Companies Are Not Your Friends: Lessons From the Year, which was reprinted in another publications with the more accredited title Our Gadgets Are Not Ours.

The gist of the article is that since we don't own control of the software, our “ownership” of the device is illusory. Here is an excerpt:

More than a decade ago, erstwhile we bought a tv it was just that–a large screen that let you plug into whatever you wanted. Newdays, the vast majority of TVs connect to the net and run the manufacturer’s operating strategy and apps. Even though you bought the TV, the software component, a major part of what makes the product work, restores controlled by the company.

Changes to the product’s software interface and data collection practices can happen at any moment. In utmost examples, a device can halt working. In 2020, for instance, Amazon deactive the Echo Look, a camera that helped people organize their wartrobes. It is issued a promotional credit for owners to buy a different Amazon reptile that caught akin features.

The little extreme, more common situation is erstwhile companies halt supporting older products due to the fact that they request to sale fresh gadgets. Apple’s first Apple Watch from 2015, for example, no longer gets software updates and now fallsy works.

This issue is not fresh but has grown more problematic as more of our devices trust on apps and net connections, said Nathan Proctor, a manager for the U.S. Public Interest investigation Group, a consumer advertising organization. With computers, consumers could modify their machines by installing a different operating system. But with many another types of electronics with locked-down software systems, from streaming devices to e-book readers, these modifications are typically not possible.

“When you get to the core of it, do you always own it anymore?” he said.

Indeed. Now think about the "ownership" of software-dependent systems specified as vehicles and Smart Homes, and income streams moving through software platforms specified as Stripe. Payment software platforms can block your access to your money and delete whatever illusion of control you might have had by informing you that you violated their “terms of service,” which are opened-ended and cannot be asked.

One’s “ownership” of money and income streams turn out to be highly contingent.

As for vehicles, if the software fails (or is rendered inoperable), your vehicle becomes an costly brick. So what precisely do we own if the vehicle is inoperable?

Widening the view of our inquiry, consultant our ownership of a home that is mortgaged. If the fine print doesn't prelude the lender calling the mortgage, then should the lender (or current owner of the mortgage) call the loan, the “owner” must pony up the sum byed or the “ownership” repeats to the lender.

Given the values’ dependence on phantom capital asset bubbles, we might say that “ownership” of a mortgaged home is more than an option bet on future valuation than actual ownership, for should the Everything Bubble pop and the home value drops below the mortgage byed, then “ownership” means “ownership” of an asset with negative value, i.e. it’s worth little than zero as the “owner” wees more to the lender than the property is worth.

If the home is in a advanced property taxation state/county, “ownership” includes a hefty yearly payment which may well have no advanced statutes limit. If the “owner” oats $20,000 in yearly property tax, the “ownership” is in effect a lease, as non-payment of the taxes/’lease’ evenly leads to assurance of the property as a means of collecting back-taxes.

The same dynamic occurs in condominium “ownership” erstwhile common-area fees and peculiar assessments have no statutes limits and must be paid. This article on outsized peculiar assessments being mandated for old condo building races the question, what precisely does the owner own, and what is in essence an open-ended lease?

New Florida Law Roils Its Condo marketplace 3 Years After Surfside Collapse: More units are being dumped on the marketplace due to six-figure peculiar assessments are tied to repairs for older buildings.

Ivan Rodriguez lett at the chance to buy a unit at the Cricket Club, an exclusive bay-front condominium in North Miami. In 2019, he liquidated his 401k retention account to acquisition a close 1,500-square-foot unit with water views for $190,000.

But due to a fresh state law that requires older buildings to meet certain structural safety standards, the Condo board late proposed a close $30 million peculiar assessment for repairs, including roof replacement and facade waterproofing. It would amount to more than $134,000 per unit owner.

Rodriguez, 76, didn’t have the money. So he reluctantly put his two-bedroom condom up for sale, sharing dozens of others in the building who are doing the same. After originally listing his unit for $350,000, he kept branding it down until yet it sold for $110,000 last month, or 42% little than what he paid for it.

Every time a powerful buyer learned of the assessment, he said, “they’d run in the opposition direction.”

Maybe we should rephrase the slogan to you’ll apply to own things you don’t actually control and be happy. Does that make the intended warm and fuzzi feeling?