Byrne response to blog

Byrne response to blog (original blog entry in italics)And now that the entry has loaded:Businesses, analyst [sic], markets and the media again are focusing on the results rather than understanding the systemic nature that produces today's results.The results are Rosetta Stone Language the part that one can measure. The underlying system is something you understand by measuring the results. How would anyone get more useful information through nebulous speculation about the nature of a process than about predicting the results of that process? One of the reasons markets are so useful is that the creation from raw materials of an iPod or a pencil or a newspaper is beyond the comprehension of one human being -- and the optimal distribution is even harder. Markets let us focus on the outputs when they matter to us, and ignore the inputs when they don't -- I really don't have to care whether it's a labor dispute or an ink shortage that increases the price of a newspaper relative to other forms of amusement, as long as the price tells me I'd get a better return buying something else. Of what use is it to know the information you won't act on that underlies the information you do act on? The attraction of over a half a billion individuals engaged in today's "networks" is a business attraction motivated by economic possibilities.Awesome! A Business Attraction! Economic Possibilities! With buzzwords like these, he must be smart! I mean, I'm so slow I don't know what a 'business attraction' is. Does he mean that people are joining Myspace for corporate networking purposes, or installing Facebook apps to impress their customers? And what are 'economic possibilities'? I know what 'economic' means, and I know what 'possibilities' are, but that may be the single least meaningful way to say "People are joining social networks because they think joining social networks is something they should do." He's linking Language Learning Software cause and effect by noting that the effect of a cause is usually caused by a cause having an effect. If you reflect on Doc Searls comments above you will see a systemic failure of "business" to make progress in the fundamentals of human interaction, relationships.The same way modern "medicine" fails to make progress in leech technology. Relationships and interactions are useful, but that doesn't mean that every action should require me to navigate a sea of interconnected relationships. When I want coffee, I don't want to wait until someone with coffee decides they owe me a favor and might as well repay it with a beverage; I just want to buy it and drink it. This blogger is a pretty radical primitivist -- he wants us to regress to something more basic than barter. Businesses have been consumed by financial measures as dictated by public and private markets that measure economics. The social web is creating a new measure of business based on the fundamentals of relationships.Again, this is a meaningless string of buzzwords propelled by adolescent outrage. Of course businesses -- abstract entities that aggregate capital, labor, and information to spread risk and produce wealth for their owners -- do not make good neighbors. And your neighbors probably don't make good international oil companies or investment banks. Specialization is a very useful way to separate what we want from the world and what we want to do -- it just doesn't make sense to conflate relationships with material needs if you don't have to. The people Hindi Learning Software have known and continue to know how "business has failed them".Yes!