When economists try to understand inefficiencies resulting from lack of ownership, they consider what would happen if one person owned it all.
For example, if you want to find an economic solution to air pollution, think about what would transpire if one person owned all the air in the world. She could charge polluters for their damage to the air and put that money into clean air programs. She could also charge the most avid clean air seekers to pay more for the “best” air, using those funds for clean air programs as well. The air owner would not be investing in clean air programs for the sake of world benevolence. She simply wants to have lots of valuable clean air to sell, so she would gladly put her profits back into cleaning her air. At the end, we’d all have cleaner air, paid for by the people who made it dirty and the people who most want it clean. Nice and efficient and the whole world is better off.
Same concept can apply to what I’m talking about in this blog. Think about this…Imagine that YOU own all the consumer time and attention that marketers are buying. Rather than 300 million people all owning a minuscule fraction of it, you own it all. What would you do with it? Sell it to marketers? Or give it to the media companies in exchange for news and entertainment?
If your answer is that if you owned it, you would keep it and sell it, that is what I’m proposing we do collectively. If it’s the right decision with 1 owner, it’s the right decision with 300 million owners.
