Frankly, I had no idea tha the purpose, or at least the goal, of blogging was to be “economically productive” – IOW, for blogs to “pay” their writers. My impression was that its value lay in it being an exercise of First Amendment rights on the most grassroots level. The greatest contribution of the Net has not been “helping businesses to cut costs”, but in providing a medium where individuals, of their own free will, can share information.

When blogs become an “industry,” how will they be any different from the MSM? I don’t see that sort of change as a good thing, no matter how profitable it may be for a handful of people.

Change is good if we are becoming more economically productive. This is the key to eradicating poverty. The hell with the John Rawls emphasis on equality. That is pure idiocy. We should instead try to make the pie bigger. Donít worry if Bill Gates is worth billions. The real question is whether the masses are living far better than their ancestors a few decades ago. In this case, the answer is easily yes.

Change, however, can be somewhat stressful. Joseph Schumpeter rightfully warned us that economic growth is premised upon the principle of creative destruction. This means we will create new jobs—and destroy others. That last aspect is the tricky one, especially if youíre job is the one being destroyed! But this is the price that has to be paid. At the start of 20th Century perhaps half of the American work force earned its living on the farm. That figure is now down to 3%, and dropping. A lot of people had to find new jobs. This almost certainly was not always a pleasant experience.

The Internet is helping businesses of all sorts to cut costs. These savings are always passed along to the consumer. We will see rapid gains in the next few years as the price of computer devices continue to lower and internet access is taken for granted even in our automobiles and restaurants. The central dilemma for the blogging community might be the one concerning financial remuneration. Eventually, though, this will be worked out. My guess is that blogging will be considered a type of ìlost leader product.î Most nonfiction writers take for granted that they will earn peanuts for their work. Itís the speeches and academic appointments which bring in the real money.

Change is inevitable. But not all change is good.

http://photoncourier.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_photoncourier_archive.html#109561242461819620

Twenty years, nothing. Ebay hasn’t been around any twenty years. The first exclusively blogosphere market forces are starting to emerge. Anyone contemplating entering the competitive market for high end fashion shoes today would have to include the Manalo in their strategy, and I would bet that he is close to making a living off his blog if he is not already.

Word History: The similarity in form between sanguine, “cheerfully optimistic,” and sanguinary, “bloodthirsty,” may prompt one to wonder how they have come to have such different meanings. The explanation lies in medieval physiology with its notion of the four humors or bodily fluids (blood, bile, phlegm, and black bile). The relative proportions of these fluids was thought to determine a person’s temperament. If blood was the predominant humor, one had a ruddy face and a disposition marked by courage, hope, and a readiness to fall in love. Such a temperament was called sanguine, the Middle English ancestor of our word sanguine. The source of the Middle English word was Old French sanguin, itself from Latin sanguineus. Both the Old French and Latin words meant “bloody,” “blood-colored,” Old French sanguin having the sense “sanguine in temperament” as well. Latin sanguineus was in turn derived from sanguis, “blood,” just as English sanguinary is. The English adjective sanguine, first recorded in Middle English before 1350, continues to refer to the cheerfulness and optimism that accompanied a sanguine temperament but no longer has any direct reference to medieval physiology.

Source: The American HeritageÔøΩ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright ÔøΩ 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.