America's "Open Data Guru" speaks

[Michael Hardner]

Future Gov

Getting government agencies to embrace open data is a big challenge, he said. “We love scorecards in the US government. We use them to create competition and boost transparency – we score agencies on their open government plans.”

Adam Smith's "invisible hand" seems to be getting a run for its money here. People forget that money itself isn't natural, that it's a method and a technology that has changed very much since its inception.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[bloodyminded]

Future Gov

Adam Smith's "invisible hand" seems to be getting a run for its money here. People forget that money itself isn't natural, that it's a method and a technology that has changed very much since its inception.

Good point. Smith himself warned against the misuses of capitalism, that it could be engineered to serve only the "masters of mankind."

[Michael Hardner]

Good point. Smith himself warned against the misuses of capitalism, that it could be engineered to serve only the "masters of mankind."

Cash money - or its current electronic equivalent - is the most basic way of counting someone's value to society but falls short in many ways, because it is one dimensional.

Electronic money could have many more attributes than paper money - the 'from' and 'to' names for exchange, or a timestamp for example, or a 'best before' date. Does it make sense economically for money to accumulate forever, or should the government put an expiry date on it, like a coupon ?

People who think that money is as natural as white rice may have their minds blown by such things.

[Remiel]

I do not understand how, or why, you turned this article into being about futuristic uses of money. Did I miss something? It seems to be about future uses of technology to ensure open, transparent government.

[Michael Hardner]

The idea of using the web to spur competition struck me as being a parallel to the 'invisible hand'.

[Remiel]

The idea of using the web to spur competition struck me as being a parallel to the 'invisible hand'.

Forgive me, but I still do not quite understand in what way you think it is parallel to the " invisible hand " ... More precisely, I suppose, I am wondering what you think the " invisible hand " is, that it runs parallel to this other idea...

[Michael Hardner]

Forgive me, but I still do not quite understand in what way you think it is parallel to the " invisible hand " ... More precisely, I suppose, I am wondering what you think the " invisible hand " is, that it runs parallel to this other idea...

From my understanding of Smith`s idea - when open markets work properly, there is an invisible hand that provides other benefits than just the items that are traded. Trade was based on `money` both then and now, although money today is different than money back then.

[Remiel]

From my understanding of Smith`s idea - when open markets work properly, there is an invisible hand that provides other benefits than just the items that are traded. Trade was based on `money` both then and now, although money today is different than money back then.

This won't sound very convincing (since it is an intuition), but how you state it seems... off, to me. I am not quite sure how to state it myself, however. But, a more solid point to be aware of: I am pretty sure that it was " as if an invisible hand " not " there is an invisible hand " . It is a common error. There is no " invisible hand " ; it was only ever meant as an metaphor.

Edited June 27, 2010 by Remiel

[Michael Hardner]

Ok. Does that nuance in wording matter ? Churchill didn't really think that an iron curtain had descended between Russia and the west either.

But sometimes when considering the ideas of others, I start out with an instinctual feeling that there is something wrong with their idea, then I pursue my instincts.

The idea is that people working in their individual best interests create a situation that benefits society as a whole. All of this is based on trade, which is/was based on a certain kind of money.

But as money changes, so does the nature of money and of trade. One of the aspects of a market is information, and information moves more quickly now. I imagine that new media create more homogeneous prices, since price information is more plentiful and easier to get.

I'm not sure if I've articulated my idea any better but maybe this will give you something to chew on, and perhaps add to, or modify.

[Remiel]

The idea is that people working in their individual best interests create a situation that benefits society as a whole. All of this is based on trade, which is/was based on a certain kind of money.

But as money changes, so does the nature of money and of trade. One of the aspects of a market is information, and information moves more quickly now. I imagine that new media create more homogeneous prices, since price information is more plentiful and easier to get.

I'm not sure if I've articulated my idea any better but maybe this will give you something to chew on, and perhaps add to, or modify.

Alright. I think the implication of the homogenization of prices may be more akin to how the market was supposed to work all along, so it may not represent us needed a shift in our theories as much as the market has shifted to resemble our theories.

As for your earlier posts about changing how money works though: I am not sure it would be practical, or desirable.

For instance, an expiry date on money would be useless, if I understand it correctly. In very short order a system would emerge by which money which is about to expire is traded to people who are ready to spend it immediately in exchange for money with a later expiry date. That would just create a wasteful subsystem.

Also, could you elaborate more on what you mean by money with " to " and " from " aspects? I think there are significant problems with such an idea, though I would like to be sure I am properly understanding what you mean before voicing an opinion that may not be relevant.

[Michael Hardner]

As for your earlier posts about changing how money works though: I am not sure it would be practical, or desirable.

But money has changed a lot from its original concept as kind of civic central bank, to its current form.

For instance, an expiry date on money would be useless, if I understand it correctly. In very short order a system would emerge by which money which is about to expire is traded to people who are ready to spend it immediately in exchange for money with a later expiry date. That would just create a wasteful subsystem.

One thing I never got was that recessions were not about how much money people had, but how much money people spend. The idea is to keep enough in circulation to keep people employed and paying taxes.

So, sometimes the government gives out grants contingent on the money being spent within a time frame - this is the same thing. If there's an expiry date on it, they'll spend it or lose it ! They could trade it for 'fresher' money but only at a discount I think.

Also, could you elaborate more on what you mean by money with " to " and " from " aspects? I think there are significant problems with such an idea, though I would like to be sure I am properly understanding what you mean before voicing an opinion that may not be relevant.

The idea is that economic planning would be easier if we could track dollars through the system. If I buy a pack of gum from you with my welfare money, the government might want to know that for planning purposes.

[Remiel]

The idea is that economic planning would be easier if we could track dollars through the system. If I buy a pack of gum from you with my welfare money, the government might want to know that for planning purposes.

That sounds way too much like continuing towards the Surveillance State at full steam. A lot of tracking takes place under the current system, but at least you have the option to pay cash if you do not like being tracked.

[Michael Hardner]

That sounds way too much like continuing towards the Surveillance State at full steam. A lot of tracking takes place under the current system, but at least you have the option to pay cash if you do not like being tracked.

Surveillance is ok in my books, as long as all parties get to surveille equally.

[eyeball]

Forgive me, but I still do not quite understand in what way you think it is parallel to the " invisible hand " ... More precisely, I suppose, I am wondering what you think the " invisible hand " is, that it runs parallel to this other idea...

I think MH is talking about harnessing the “wisdom of the crowds” by following the money.

I think using jury-like citizen assemblies to vote directly on issues would be a better way myself. Following the money sounds like a good idea though. I don't mind accountability so long as everyone is subject to it.

[Remiel]

Surveillance is ok in my books, as long as all parties get to surveille equally.

We will have to respectfully disagree on that then.

[eyeball]

We will have to respectfully disagree on that then.

Me too, society would get a lot more transparency bang for the buck if we concentrated on souveilling them than them surveilling us.

[Michael Hardner]

Kind of like... if everyone is nude then the embarrassment of nudity goes away.

Is that too "bare" an analogy.... hee hee...