So you hate Capitalism in SL...

Hehe... didn't mean to basically repeat your point, guess that'll teach me to read further before posting.

Of course its a simplification - in the same way that I get mistakenly labelled as a communist because amongst all the other things I do, I happen to believe in things for the greater good of the game rather than just my own needs.

Lewis

But you make it sound as if you think someone can't do both. A person can't run a business in the game successful enough to benefit them in RL and yet still be of benefit to the rest of the community beyond that of their products, still have fun and be generous and giving and contribute to the overall enjoyment of others? People do all those things in First Life every day.

It's actually not all that hard. Add a seting for grups for employees as wel as oficers and simple members. employees are by invite only.. There are already time clocks for sale in SL that automatically pay employees at end of shift. Those same clocks can be turned of when there are no events or work shifts going so no one can cheat them. Ad to the AR report a clasification for both non payment of agreed wages on working and for riged gambling and gaming. BOTH of those ofenses would be two warnings, thirsd time around the owners would be BANNED. LL could enofrce it easily themselves.
On freebie reselling to my mind that comes under the heading of general bad behaviour. Certain capitolists can cal it distributing all they want, however until I see a signed distribution agreement, and NOT a forged notecard, then to me all they are doing is styealing from the creators and the ppl who buy the stuf. Same conditions should exist on this...two warnings..third strike they are banned.
Now as far as L market manipulation, that one's a bit harder but the server keps track of all transactions already. I don't care where you buy L's, they STILL ahve to be transferred IN WORLD. set up a system flag that spots transactions of anything over 1000 L's.....if no goods, or land of value have traded hands also, and if the money was not given to the user's own alt, all verifiable at source..buyer and seller should both be baned...all buying and selling of L's should be regulated by linden at a fixed rate. Example, cash out to Linden at 350 per USD, Buy at 300 per USD. Also stipend does need to be reinstated for newbs as that is the major source of income for content creators. those are the fixes for the economy. LL just doesn't want to do it because they are too busy caterring to those day trading money mongers and land baroneses to care about how badly the rest of us get scvrewed by them

You seem to be limiting the definition of fun to what you think is fun. I've looked around at the clubs, events, and games on SL, and I have found very little that I consider fun. There is only one thing on SL that seems like it might be fun for me. I find it interesting that I can play around with a virtual company in a virtual world. I wouldn't do this for money as I see way to much risk involved to take Second Life seriously when investment is involved. The play business is a fun idea for me. Clicking a button and watching a dressed up doll dance seems extremely boring to me, though it seems to be popular among other people. What one person sees as fun may not be what another person sees as fun.

Why do you want to limit the possibilities of the game. You can build an amazingly large amount of things to amuse yourself with through scripts and the FREE building tools that come with the game. Why do you want to take away part of the game that is fun to other people, just because you have a theory that money is ruining the world. I hope you can continue to enjoy what you enjoy about SL. Other people will do what they enjoy even if it makes them look like greedy magpies to you. Nobody forces you to support the business of someone you consider greedy.

1. How do we determine who those are?

2. How do we get rid of them?

When did the definition of "capitalism" become "having no rules whatsoever"? SL isn't capitalist. SL is an unregulated marketplace. It isn't even an economy. There is no labor force, there is no stock market, there are only durable goods and services. There are only consumer goods, no essentials. In fact it's a rather limited, specialized marketplace. Calling SL a capitalist economy is like calling the classified ads section of the newspaper a capitalist economy.

Regarding the protection of consumers, the guarantee of quality, and an honest retailer...I think there is a very strong chance of success for the public "guild" "union" that some have hinted at. This type of tool already exists in RL when it comes to similar issues, especially in professional areas with technology and intellectual issues.

"Certification"

If it is desirable for someone to know that a certain retailer is providing original content, or content of a certain level of quality, and does so consisitently in an honest and ethical manner...Have a group of these retailers join together, and agree that they will all meet the same standards, and police themselves for the good of themselves, each other, and the community at large. This can be based on whatever values those members of the organization wish to promote.

There are "green" retailers in RL who say to the consumer, "Come buy from me, because we support the envirnoment" or those who support the globabl community with "1% of our sales goes to assist the development of cures for AIDS" etc.... Whatever ones motivation is...find those who agree with you....and develop your own requirements for membership...and create a way with which your "Certification" can be displayed and verified by consumers. Some sort of symbol, or sign at the stores location, for example. Then, get the word out. "Fight freebie resellers and the evil capitalists, buy from the xxxx Organization, xxxx CARES about our community" or whatever catch phrase gets your group off.

If someone in your group turns into a jerk...BOOT them out. Revoke Certification. That does not require the backing of LL and their "government" power. Merely the commitment of the Organization and its Members to the moral and ethical standards they claim to value. Surely, they WILL be self policing, as the corruption of one, impacts the integrity of the whole.

Allana, that's the invisible hand theory, not a theory popular with the anti-capitalists here. The idea is that by creating things people want to buy, everyone is richer. People get the products they want, and you get compensated for it.

Working for the greater good isn't incompatible with being a capitalist, no matter what some think.

This idea has been kicking around in SL for awhile, but it keeps getting stalled on two points. 1 - someone has to administer it, which could be a full-time job 2. - human factor: accusations of favoratism, drama, anonymous means not accountable.. etc.

How would you answer these two problems?

There is a very small labor force concentrated in the sex trade, models and some store employees. There is certainly a hunger for jobs in SL - so it's not the lack of a labor force, but rather barriers to job creation I think.

For example, as a designer, if there were permission systems that let me pass stuff to a distributor while specifying a minimum resale, then I would be a lot more likely to hire people to sell for us.

I would say that an earlier poster who said that SL is a mishmash of economy styles is correct.

Regarding the two stalling points that you mentioned, I really do not see them as that large of a problem at all. To be honest, I see a seperate problem with it, but in the end, it is the ultimate responsibility of the consumer to judge. Certification simply provides a tool for assistance.

Problem #1 - Administration/Full time job. I am not sure why you would expect this to be a full time job. We are talking about cerfication by professional organizations, not by Linden labs. That means that retailers or groups with special interest in areas could require the cerftication process in their area of specialization. Once the standards were set and agreed upon by the members of the association that is formed, the only real administration has to do with the acceptance of new members, internal handling of complaints, and amendments and changes to internal policies. Other members would gladly bring complaints to the attention of the association to protect everyones good name. The members of the association would have knowledge of the internal rules of conduct to maintain membership and how complaints are handled. It could be a transparent system, or not. That is for each organization to decide. One would hope, that they would not have to be kicking people out every single day...or even once a week....but if it is once a week that one member has to be punished, or removed...that is hardly a full time job. It also need not be administered by simply one person. Of course, that is for each association and their membership to decide.

Problem #2 - Favoritism, drama, etc.... Again...It need not be one person to administer the rules of conduct for an organization, and it could even require a majority vote of membership to have someone removed...or whatever. It is simply in the hands of the group to decide. It does not need to be so complex.

I am not talking about something administed with high handed justice from the great almighty Big Giant Head from Above. If members of a certain group were to feel that its rules of conduct were enforced in a random and unfair manner, I am sure that the association would either find a way to correct itself, or it would collapse with the members seeking out other more fair associations.


It would be my opinion that the real reason that it has stalled, is that it takes quite a bit of work and leadership to bring everyone together to FORM the initial group that will put its foot forward, and MAKE an organization that stands for something, instead of simply complaining about all of the bad con artists out there. Not easy. Never said it would be.

It depends, though - you can't just pick things up from RL economic theory and apply them to SL.

Because SL doesn't have welfare (stipend is not welfare because rich people get it too) or inheritance, the extent to which these newly created items are available to everyone is much less. Moreover, the extent to which the newly created items make older items available to others is reduced because of the ability to deny transfer permission.

In RL, having more active businesses drives down prices - this sort-of happens in SL too, but not quite. The problem is that with no minimum price to produce each copy of a good, undercutting is a slippery slope, and "charging what the market will bear" becomes very different. So people tend to just charge what others on the market are charging, which means innovation doesn't drive prices down in the way it does in RL.

There's no issue of improving people's general lot by improving efficiency of resource use in SL because there's no limit on resources anyway - except for time and effort. There are relatively few things in SL that reduce the time and effort involved in making things and most of them are free.

Equally there's no issue of reducing the costs of public and merit goods, because SL doesn't really have any public goods, the only merit good is education, and the government has an unlimited amount of money anyway.

I'm not "anti-capitalist" and I do agree there is some amount of the "invisible hand" in SL but its operation is very different.

Are you talking about some professional organization outside SL? Like the Screen Actor's Guild for example? If so, I don't see how they would have any expertise in our environment.

Who reviews applications for membership. Who examines evidence if a member is accused of theft? Who goes around making sure the organizational seal is only displayed by members in good standing? Using graphic designers (clothes, skins, etc.) for an example, I can't even begin to estimate how many there are in SL. I personally know at least 100 and that doesn't even scrape the surface. It would require someone, or a couple of someones to serve as initial point of contact. Then you would ideally have a revolving committee who would review applications and problems. I think you underestimate how much your time can be devoured by this type of activity - especially at the size SL already is.

Why not? No economic system contains all elements. We have an economy and it is influenced by pretty much the same types of forces as an First Life economy (people, in other words) We've seen that over and over again - the Black Monday crash from Robin announcing LL eventually selling $L is a perfect example.



Just a point: Welfare has nothing to do with who gets it btw. Welfare is the idea of one set of people paying for another set of people's expenses. That translates into SL - free account stipends.

We do have inheritance. If my partner dies, she and I have written our wills so that a probate court will notify Linden Labs that the survivor has rights to the island sim and everything contained in the accounts. That's as real life as it gets. Not sure what inheritance has to do with whether or not something is available on the market though.



In first life as here, yes more supply of an item than demand does tend to drive down prices. Unique items, or things which are in very limited supply due to a single source typically cost more. The First Life market for digital goods such as music, books, etc. is a better place to find workable parallels than trying to compare one-to-one with brick & mortar businesses.



Again I disagree. Central server vendors have already saved me a bunch of time updating individual vendors thus enabling me to sell from more outlets and to more people. That's just one example of how new products, or improvements in the infrastructure enable me to be more successful - AND have more time.

But the motivations of those people, in many cases, are different. AFAIK the example you cite isn't a good one - RL governments selling money would be nothing unusual.



I don't think that's true. The key about RL welfare is that, because only the poorer people get it, it makes them a little less poor relatively than they were before. SL stipends go to everyone, which means that the poor people are in relative terms just as poor as they were before, there's just a more money around. Fortunately, in SL that's cancelled out by the lack of any manufacturing costs reducing the motivation for people to raise their prices.



Yes, but in RL almost every newbie gets at least some inheritance as their starting money - or at least they get a house. Inheritance ensures that new arrivals benefit from the present wealth level of the world - a newborn nowadays lives much better than one might have done 100 years ago. In SL, on the other hand, newrezzed citizens now get less than they used to in terms of L$ (although you could reasonably argue that OTOH there are more freebies available now)



And in that First Life market there are thriving discount and second-hand sectors - which usually don't exist, or exist to a much lower extent, in SL.



True, but those things are only useful to those who are already successful (ie, had already made the items they were going to sell). There is very little around in SL that will make it easier or quicker to make things, and in the absence of that it will get harder because of the rising experience of competitors. In RL, on the other hand, much of the "personal multimedia" sector has been about making it easier for average janes and joes to produce at least reasonable quality media - I've not seen anything like that within SL.

You missed my point completely. Economies have human factors. My example illustrated how humans moved an economy based on fear.



When people in SL call stipends welfare, they specifically mean that somone is getting $L which other people are paying for. All arguments are based on that definition. It has nothing to do with welfare program in first life, except as a stigmatizing term.



You're taking the comparison to first life too far. When we have to eat and shelter ourselves from winter in SL, then you can start worrying about Mazlo's heirarchy of needs. In the meantime, we are all adults in the first world and are expected to pay for our own entertainment, unless we make it.



Bah. I don't know what else to say. Who promised you anything was going to be easy? If you want easy, then BUY content. Otherwise do what every single other person who is good did, work long, hard, boring hours improving a skill.

The majority of your posts on this subject have struck me as very defeatist.

(nod) And that's exactly what makes the SL economy so different. The motivations involved are completely different from the RL ones. Ok, for people who are driven to succeed in business, they are probably similar, but for the customers they aren't.



That was actually my point. Welfare in RL is a means by which it's ensured that even those who would otherwise have no money have access to the benefits that capitalism has for the economy as a whole. Things get cheaper, things get better produced, the range of things available becomes better - that's how "the invisible hand" improves our lives. But if you have no money at all you are excluded from that, since you can still get nothing for nothing. Welfare is one of the ways of ensuring everyone benefits at least a bit.



No, but SL has something else in place of needs. Of course nobody's avatar is going to die in SL, but in order for someone to remain in SL and especially to participate in the economy, they have to be getting certain things that enable SL to be worth staying in for them ,and especially things that undo the fact that SL content is relatively speaking bad value compared to most RL entertainment.

Things like integration with the community, a sense of identity, a sense of a place in the world, all add value to all of SL's content and help it compete with RL entertainment where you still get an entire game and every mod anyone ever comes up with it for just under L$10000 equivalent. And it's worrying when capitalism seems to want to take these things away.



Well, I want to make it clear that this isn't meant to be a discussion about me personally and whether I am defeatist or lazy or anything like that. With that in mind - the problem with buying content is that it doesn't "make it easy", it leaves nothing left for the person at all. An awful lot of content is no modify, or if you want to modify it, you need the same skills as you would to create them. Compare that to, say, Poser, where you can download a model and it'll have a bunch of custom designed-in sliders to let you edit it in ways the designer recommended, thus making it easy while still giving you creative freedom... and which can sell its content for US$30 for a single model, probably for exactly that reason.

If it's true that you need to "work long hard boring hours improving a skill" then we need to ask, how many people are going to do that, and are the ones who don't (or the ones who fail) still going to get enough VFM to keep them in the world? Remember, we can't just say "oh well, not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up" because the economy depends on those who do not get to be astronauts but stay in-world anyway - they're the L$ buyers.

Woah. This is an excellent discussion on a complicated topic. Let me just start out by saying that the fact this discussion is even happening is magnificent in a way so many other discusssions are not. After reading and scanning this forum over the past few days it occured to me that it might be helpful now to organize the various topics and discussions constituting this thread. I say this because the conversation really turns upon some pretty complicated concepts that are difficult to probe with brevity. With so many points and sub-points surfacing in this thread and presenting a wealth of useful insights from diferent perspectives, I hope my analysis and perspective will serve to further and enrich the dialogue. Of course, I'll probably just end up muddying the waters.

I am going to break my post into parts since there are things I wish to comment on going back even to the initial post, and there is no way I could do that all in one go. But mainly I don't want this to be unreadable. Furthermore, what I say is far less important than what others have to say in return. This is the first thing to which I wish to respond.

The Framework of Discussion

Given that the first post frames this entire discussion I feel it warrants some analysis and a degree of deconstruction:

"So you hate capitalism in SL. What would you propose instead. Your answer has to actually work with human nature and our population size. Don't forget to factor in historical examples either."

The phrase 'So you hate capitalism in SL' is interesting to me in that it acknowledges a group of people who hate capitalsim in SL. We don't know exactly who or how many are in this group, nor entirely how/if/to what extent they define themselves as a group or groups. Nevertheless, the group is apparantely conspicuous enough to inspire this thread. Who are these people? What does it mean to hate capitalism in SL; why hate it? What does it mean to 'be a capitalist'; why be one? Finally, how is capitalism (and therefore hating it) different from SL to RL? These are important questions, which brings me to my first point of this frame analysis: While sentence 1 is rich in questions on structure, definition, identity, opinion, experience, roles and motives, sentence two sort of steers the discussion in an important, but (imho) unsatisfactory direction.

'What would you propose instead?' Let me first say that I do not disagree with the spirit of this question. While critique is of service in and of itself, critique without practice or suggestion is only impotent (though always potential) critique. My main discomfort with this question is its location in the discussion. It demands prescriptions before analysis and diagnosis have had time to take place (although the discussion seems to have more or less organically tried to correct this).

To offer a particular prescription as 'the best' solution is (imho) rather dogmatist at this stage of discussion, i.e. when we haven't yet achieved a relative consensus on the extent or nature of the illness -let alone how the disease itself procreates. If we carry the medical metaphor through to its conclusion, and (hypothetically) diagnose capitalism as an illness, it is an illness of many mutations over many generations and leaves no simple 'X instead of Y' solutions. Given that, the only workable proposals at this point must (imho) bear a degree of modesty. As such, it is unreasonable to expect a solution to accompany every critique.

It is sentence three where I feel the frame takes a decisive turn, and it is the crucial turn upon which so much hinges: "Your answer has to actually work with human nature and our population size." I have fundeamental problems with at least the first part of this caveat. Mainly, it assumes it knows human nature and that this human nature is both fixed and popularly understood. To what extent do/can we know this? Imho it is rather the height of hubris for a person to suggest they know the depth and breadth of that ineffable thing which makes us human.

The above statement assumes 'human nature' as a singular and unchanging thing which works through every individual in every society in a more or less uniform way. While things like hunger, fear of death, and the will to procreate are clearly basic instincts, there is nothing intrinsically mysterious about these things. I become hungry because my body must sustain. I fear death because non-death is much shorter and all I now know. I will to procreate (symbollically or biologically) because I sense it somehow might make me last. However, the fact of hunger in no way determines how a society structures the feeding of itself, the fear of death in no way dictates how a society chooses to survive. At a certain stage of human development hunting mammoth and eating grubs was 'natural'; now it is 'natural' to go to the grocery store; it is becoming 'natural' to order groceries off the internet. But we are not talking about groceries. I'll frame it otherwise. If we way human nature is selfish then how do we explain selfless acts/people? Likewise, if we say human nature is selfless how do we explain selfish acts/people? Clearly human nature is fluid and comlex enough to allow for these and all variety of natures. I think to reduce human nature to just one or two characteristics is to look at only one dimension.

To ask, 'what is human nature' is to ask what defines us as human? To say human nature is a single and unchangeable thing is, in reality, to remove much of the basis of any workable conception of free-will, change, and/or growth potential (or at least any such concepts I'd be willing to accept). It therefore also assumes that a particular system, in our case capitalism, is the 'best' that human beings can ever expect for humanity, since we are, 'by nature', fated to relate to each other in only this one 'natural' way. In fact, there is nothing natural about the way we relate to each other in capitalism or any other system. Indeed, wasn't it considered 'natural' at one point in human history to worship kings as gods? In a sense we replaced kings with money. Capitalism can be no more the 'highest' or 'most natural' order than was the religio/feudal relations of 700 years past, or any other social order now or present for that matter. Or, to frame this point another way, I accept that I sometimes make mistakes, but not that may nature is itself mistaken.

We collectively construct/inherit these systems; implicitly or explicitly live according to the constructued and 'agreed' upon rules. Systems are made of humans acting (incidentally, accidentally, and sometimes intentionally together [conflict is a form of togetherness]) within particular historical moments each with different (and changing) possibilities for social action/organization. Why do we cosntruct/struggle against the systems that we do at certain historical moments? Why, once constructed, do we tend to accept them as permanent and out of humanity's control? Whatever is human made can also be human unmade.

"I'm fully aware of some of the problems with capitalism, but I've traveled in communist countries, lived in both European and Latin American style socialist countries."

Indeed. I think (hope) few of us would disagree that the way any society organizes itself is the 'right' model for everyone everywhere. To what extent are the existing (as in have been implemented) alternatives really the only workable alternatives? Just a thought.

Surreal, I'd be really interested in hearing more of your observations, experiences, and insights on thesee different countries and systems to which you have borne witness. My experiences are pretty much limited to Western Europe and the US. Thanks again for starting this awesome thread. I had come to deposit my two cents; my apologies for leaving a nickel, i.e. sorry for all this text!!

I would say that rank capitalism isn't just hated in SL. Its hated irl too.

When you make oogobs of money and you give nothing back, regardless of how good the product is that you sell, people are eventually going to resent you.

Take Bill Gates, for example. Oh how high the mighty have floated! 10 years ago, his name was mud. All he did was own a company that anyone could see was trying to strong-arm a monopoly. But now, what you hear is about the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and how cool what they do is. As a result, Bill's now got a fairly good rep.

So you can say that a fairly small amount of people are taking money out of SL but remember -- there used to be a leader board. Some of us KNOW how much money is being made by that fairly small amount. And, even though you may not have ever been on that leader board, if you have a popular shop you may tend to get lumped in with those folks. So when a popular shop owner or someone who charges oogobs of cash for consulting or whatever -- someone who is perceived to have once been one of those on the leader board -- comes to the forums and complains because profits are down or the value of the $L is falling -- well yes there's bound to be resentment.

You can call this a hatred of capitalism if it makes you feel better but I'm not sure that that is what this is. No one likes to be abused, overcharged, or ripped off. Not saying any of you are doing any of that and this is not directed at any one person -- I'm speaking in generalities here.

To address a different tangent, I think it is perceived that making a rl business out of sl is a bad idea or just wrong because there are too many forces beyond your control. There's no FDIC here, no federal reserve, no gold standard. Nothing protects the value of the linden -- as you who have rl businesses here are finding out. To hear someone say on the boards, as I recently did (and i don't remember where and I'm sorry if I paraphrase inaccurately) that they 'quit their lucrative rl job to come make a business in sl and now its all gone to hell becuase of the falling value of the linden' doesn't make me (or many others) feel sorry for this person. I kind of have to shrug my shoulders and think that this person (and eveyrone else who has done this) knew the risks when they did what they did. Which is why some of us prefer to make our money in the real world where there are various protections. These protections don't exist in SL.

Asking LL to do something about the value of the falling linden after the fact and provide these protections after one has assessed and taken the risks is a bit disingenuous. Asking them to remove a benefit many are used to receiving so that the risk can be mitigated is absolutely going to cause resentment and I'm a little surprised why this isn't more fully grokked.

So in the end, I'd have to say that, other than a few, it isn't capitalism or shop owners or creators that are hated. What you are seeing is a reaction to perceived selfishness and profit mongering. It doesn't matter that you, yourself, aren't making a profit or that you barely have enough to pay tier. What is perceived -- and this is important because perception often doesn't mirror reality -- is that what the complaints are is less profits -- not no profits or even 'my shop is close to going out of business because it is draining money from my pocket.' I don't think many or even any shop owners are experiencing the latter but if they are, they've failed to make this clear. Hence the perceptions.

"They don't ever sign on to have fun."

Fun is a matter of opinion, because you feel its fun to walk around doing whatever it is you do, doesn't mean that is fun for others. If you sign on to escape real life, what about those who also sign on to escape real life, and in real life they happen to be broke. It's fun to make money, it's fun to sell items, it's fun to watch the L lose value so we can complain about it (the same as you seem to have fun complaining about those who complain).

I mean, the complaining must be fun, you are in every post I see. Of course I am assuming, I have no clue whats fun for you, as we have totally different perspectives on what is fun.


Now you can say, if you are broke in real life, find another way to make money and get a real life job. I will say the same, find another way to have fun, and maybe play a game where the creators themselves do not push this game as a platform, a place for users to make money and play economics.

Good day.

Regarding outside professional organizations, this is not what I meant. I did not mean that outside Professional organizations should manage in world activities. Only that they have provided a workable model that can be used. I simply meant that those who wish to join together in SL to protect their "products" could form an organization that vouches for its membership as those in RL do.

Yes, "seals" could be provided for members and their shops. However, it is not totally incumbent on the organization to ensure the authenticity of those displaying the seal through ON SITE "inspections" or whatever.

In the real world, there are organizations who provide such "certifications", and one of the key elements is a CENTRAL database of those who are granted such status. All that is required is issuing the seal to those who are in fact authorized, and then having the name and location of the membership displayed in a managed list in a single authorized location. Central Office? Call it what you will. If the store you are buying from is not on the list....they are not real. That simple.

THere are many combinations of how it can be implemented. What is the best way to maximize the effeciency of such a system? It really depends on what each organization wants to do, does it not? That is for them to decide, and manage.

The point is that options are available. In real life, producers and retailers protect their consumers with methods for verification of authenticity.

If the resale of products meant to be given away freely is truly considered to be theft, then those who feel that way can form an organization to protect their products and the intent with which they were manufactured.

That is an option that can be implemented ON THIER OWN, under their control. If they find that creating a method by which they can police their own products is too much work....

Well...then I guess it is not really that valuable of an issue then, is it?

Sometimes people have to find the solutions to their own problems and implement them. When others need help, you can point them in a good direction, but they have to make the walk themselves.

The problem is that this isn't quite the case anymore, and the very mechanisms of capitalism are what's stopping it.

Making money in SL now is a lot harder than it used to be - you have to produce a higher quality of work, and you have to market it against some fairly serious competition. In other words, it's far more work than it used to be. Now, that is fun for some people, but as the level of work required increases, the number of people who'll find that level of work to be fun drops. This results in a growing number of people stuck in the middle - who want to create something and have fun, but who find that creating something good enough to be recognised on SL would require going beyond the level of what is fun for them (or who find it requires an extra skill they don't have, or which they don't find to be fun), leaving them to a) get disregarded or (at worst) actively attacked for producing "bad" work, and b) to have to pay to create stuff, which is what all the capitalist types dislike so much.

Of course, as SL evolves, this will get more and more pronounced, until in order to be noticed you will also need to be supporting yourself from SL because if you aren't, your dayjob/study/jobhunting won't leave you enough time to be able to keep pace. On the other hand, there will be lots more, better, stuff to buy - all for US$, of course.

The problem is that floating there is the question "does the benefit of all the higher quality/more varied content being available to buy on SL, outweigh the loss of the freedom to create, or at least the value of creation, to more and more people? And if it doesn't, is there anything we can do about it without being antisocial?", and SL is going further and further acting as if the answer to the first question was "yes" without having actually clearly thought about it. In real life the answer is yes, but is it the same in SL where life is optional and creation is a major motivation for it?



Yes, but when you say that, you are a shop owner telling your customers to leave.