<nettime> digesting regulating destructing [x3: recktenwald, newmedia, holmes]

["nettime's_epicyclical" <nettime@bbs.thing.net>]

Re: <nettime> Michael Malone : Regulating Destruction
     Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106@uni-bonn.de>
     Newmedia@aol.com
     Brian Holmes <brian.holmes@wanadoo.fr>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:15:32 +0100
From: Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106@uni-bonn.de>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Michael Malone : Regulating Destruction

> Who cares about the "Californian Ideology" today? <g>

We should. What is "Web 2.0"?

H.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Newmedia@aol.com
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 09:15:07 EST
Subject: Re: <nettime> Michael Malone : Regulating Destruction

H./Brian:
 
>> Who cares about the "Californian Ideology" today?  <g>
> >

> We should. What is "Web  2.0"?

Not Web 1.0.  But how are they different?
 
> The question raised by Mark Stahlman, as to whether all this signifies  a 
> turn away from financialization and the beginning of a new industrial  
> cycle of the kind described by Carlota Perez, is pretty uncertain imho.  

My point -- echoing Ms. Perez -- is that we have entered the second half of
the "Long Wave" economic cycle associated with semiconductors.  The
Bubble/Crash phenomenon punctuates these Long Waves as speculators and an
impatient public get worked up into a frenzy -- pushing everything to the
extreme that must collapse.  
 
What we went through in the 90's isn't the "end" of the cycle, it's the
middle.  As Perez describes it, "Synergy" (and a sort of "Gided Age")  follows
the Frenzy and, ultimately, this leads to maturing of what she terms the  
"Techno-Economic Paradigm" (TEP.)
 
Today we are in the equivalent of the 1950's.  Semis are the new  oil, "War on
Terror" is the new "Cold War," YouTube is the new BoobTube and P.  Diddy is the
new Frank Sinatra (yes, Eminem is the new Sammy Davis, Jr.).
 
Malone's point is that Silicon Valley has far too much money and nothing to  do
with it.  As someone who has spent many years working in venture capital  and
as a securities analyst (and briefly as an investment banker), I can assure you
that "financialization" of the ICT industry is over.  Dead and  over.  Too bad
for Mr. Malone.
 
He can rattle on forever about "regulation" but it won't change the  facts.
The next opportunity for a speculative bubble based on a  new TEP -- which,
btw, will be driven by "Molecular Manufacturing" -- will  not come for a long
time.  I'll be dead by then.  So will many of  you.
 
But don't be too upset.  There is another development that you might  enjoy!
 
What follows the "50's" (i.e. now) is the "60's."  Right?
 
You will know when the semiconductor TEP is mature when we start to notice  a
groundswell of the next COUNTER-CULTURE.
 
Just as the "first" Counterculture flourished in the 1900's (in places like
Munich, Zurich and Ascona, as documented by Martin Green) following the earlier
steel-based TEP Gilded Age and just as our very own Counterculture (i.e.  the
1960's -- DRUGS, SEX and ROCK&ROLL) followed the maturing of the
Oil/Auto/Plastic/Pharma/Mass-Media-based TEP, there will certainly be a
semiconductor-based TEP Counterculture.
 
Just what the CULTURE which this development will be "counter" to, however,  
shall remain a topic for another thread and another time.
 
Happy New Year!
 
Mark Stahlman
New York City

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:01:02 +0100
From: Brian Holmes <brian.holmes@wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Michael Malone : Regulating Destruction

Hello Mark -

And happy New Year to you too!

> What we went through in the 90's isn't the "end" of the cycle, it's the 
> middle.  As Perez describes it, "Synergy" (and a sort of "Gided Age") 
> follows the Frenzy and, ultimately, this leads to maturing of what she 
> terms the "Techno-Economic Paradigm" (TEP.)
>  
> Today we are in the equivalent of the 1950's.  Semis are the new oil, 
> "War on Terror" is the new "Cold War," YouTube is the new BoobTube and 
> P. Diddy is the new Frank Sinatra (yes, Eminem is the new Sammy Davis, Jr.).

Well, something like that anyway. I do understand a few things about the 
long cycle of a new technological paradigm (and Perez has a decent, 
middle-of-the-road read on it too, I was happy to see you mention her on 
a list like this - even if on this particular topic I prefer the 
regulation school theorists. I mean the people around Aglietta and Boyer 
in France, Jessop in England, if that means anything to you). We had a 
good discussion of these ideas on nettime not long ago, with Alex Foti, 
around his chronology of major industrial-political transformations (see 
http://www.adbusters.it/alexfoti/critical_dynamics.pdf). The upshot of 
the debate - and of most informed discussions of this kind of 
paradigm-theory - is that a lot depends on the way a new technological 
paradigm is instituted, in terms of organizational forms, class 
relations, monetary policy and inter-state relations. Alex and I are 
both probably a little dubious about how this process of institution is 
going, and what productive and social results that's going to give. Will 
there be a period of broad, somewhat egalitarian development like the 
one following the so-called "second industrial revolution" of the 
1890s/1920s? Will we have to go through a period of planetary war to get 
there, as they did in the 20h century? For me, the word "destruction" is 
the one that stands out in Michael Malone's title, but since he doesn't 
understand much, all that worries him is the destruction of his license 
to get rich quick! Or to write about others doing it...

> Malone's point is that Silicon Valley has far too much money and nothing 
> to do with it.  As someone who has spent many years working in venture 
> capital and as a securities analyst (and briefly as an investment 
> banker), I can assure you that "financialization" of the ICT industry is 
> over.  Dead and over.  Too bad for Mr. Malone.

Well, yes, the first point is that the tech bubble burst, and that's 
over, we agree of course. But beyond the conventional view of venture 
capitalists and securities analysts, my point is that most of ICT has 
actually grown up around and been used for the much larger financial 
turn of the developed economies, around the so-called FIRE sector 
(finance, insurance, real-estate). Think about the ATM network, look at 
how much bandwidth and sophisticated computing is used by financial 
centers like NYC. Hong Kong, London etc. Well beyond the phenomenon of 
bubbles, the growth of the Internet has run parallel to the growth of 
the financial economy and is deeply involved with it, because fast and 
robust communications networks are the necessary supports of finance. 
One of the themes I have developed in my work around "Continental Drift" 
(www.u-tangente.org) is the notion that the emergence of what is widely 
known on the left now as "immaterial labor" is directly linked to the 
growth of the financial economy, and that this is resulting in a new 
global division of labor and power. So we are just concerned with two 
different points here.

> Just as the "first" Counterculture flourished in the 1900's (in places 
> like Munich, Zurich and Ascona, as documented by Martin Green) following 
> the earlier steel-based TEP Gilded Age and just as our very own 
> Counterculture (i.e. the 1960's -- DRUGS, SEX and ROCK&ROLL) followed 
> the maturing of the Oil/Auto/Plastic/Pharma/Mass-Media-based TEP, there 
> will certainly be a semiconductor-based TEP Counterculture.
>  
> Just what the CULTURE which this development will be "counter" to, 
> however, shall remain a topic for another thread and another time.

Yeah, it's my favorite part of the long cycles theories!

best, Brian

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net