Many C.E.O.s receive a lot of stock and stock options. Over time, they and other rich people earn a lot of money from the capital they have accumulated: it comes in the form of dividends, capital gains, interest payments, profits from private businesses, and rents. Income from capital has always played a key role in capitalism. Piketty claims that its role is growing even larger, and that this helps explain why inequality is rising so fast. Indeed, he argues that modern capitalism has an internal law of motion that leads, not inexorably but generally, toward less equal outcomes. The law is simple. When the rate of return on capital—the annual income it generates divided by its market value—is higher than the economy’s growth rate, capital income will tend to rise faster than wages and salaries, which rarely grow faster than G.D.P.

John Cassidy: Is Surging Inequality Endemic to Capitalism? : The New Yorker

Another piece on Piketty, more balanced than the Guardian interview and with some additional interesting insights into the emergence of “supermanagers” and the important point that economics and politics must be studied together.

There is a fundamentalist belief by capitalists that capital will save the world, and it just isn’t so. Not because of what Marx said about the contradictions of capitalism, because, as I discovered, capital is an end in itself and no more.

Occupy was right: capitalism has failed the world | Books | The Observer

So I came across the book by Piketty on capitalism and was blown away. It appears he’s delivered conclusive proof that under capitalism the rich do indeed keep getting richer…

Revive (and destigmatise) social housing, so that we can live well yet cheaply. Make all higher education free at the point of use, in order that the cognitive gap between the “serving” and the “serviced” classes become even more untenable. Strongly regulate capitalism (shorter working weeks, citizen’s incomes, powerful public infrastructures and networks) so that men, women and children can experiment with new mixes of the productive and the emotional in our lives. In short: support our autonomy, don’t prescribe our happiness.

Not wellbeing, but wellbecoming | Comment is free | theguardian.com

More post-Play-Ethic Pat Kane, arguing for supportive but non-prescriptive government. Government as play coach.

A green politics has to be thinking passionately about zones of creativity and innovation for human beings, as well as the constraints and duties of low-carbon living. Otherwise the transformative dimension of our own nature will end up repressed and frustrated.

The ‘I’m-happy-I’m-green’ consensus won’t placate our lust for novelty | Pat Kane | Comment is free | The Guardian

I was looking up what Pat Kane had bene up to after writing The Play Ethic and found this piece from 2011. An attempt to connect open-ended play with sustainable living. Makes quite a bit of sense.

In life, you will become known for doing what you do. That sounds obvious, but it’s profound. If you want to be known as someone who does a particular thing, then you must start doing that thing immediately. Don’t wait. There is no other way. It probably won’t make you money at first, but do it anyway. Work nights. Work weekends. Sleep less. Whatever you have to do. If you’re lucky enough to know what brings you bliss, then do that thing at once. If you do it well, and for long enough, the world will find ways to repay you. This fall, in a toilet stall in Burlington, Vermont, I saw this scrawled on the wall: “Don’t ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive. The world needs more people who have come alive.” If you’re doing something you love, you won’t care what the world thinks, because you’ll love the process anyway. This is one of those truths that we know, but which we can’t seem to stop forgetting. In America, success is a word we hear a lot. What does it mean? Is it money, power, fame, love? I like how Bob Dylan defines it: “A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do.”

Transom » Jonathan Harris

Harris is good when he talks about his work and his motivations for getting into the things he did. I find him less convincing when dishing out advice such as this. It’s almost as if he hasn’t really learned from his own experiences. The first section of this quote fetishises a work ethic which does not respect anything else in life. (The guarantee it will bring you riches if you toil long and hard enough I find very unconvincing.

The key is in the final section in which he quotes Bob Dylan but fails to interpret the meaning in full. “Doing what you want to do” is as much about doing nothing in particular at all, as it is about “chasing your dream”. And in fact, the former might be the best way to achieve the latter.

That’s what I’ve learned, anyway. But I’m no Jonathan Harris.

Butterfield is a strange choice for a two-time CEO of a gaming company. He’s no Mark Pincus — by his own admission, he’s not that into gaming. As a former philosophy student with a master’s from Cambridge, he was more interested in play as a framework for social interaction than play for play’s sake. “Infinite games are what we collectively do as a species for building culture,” Butterfield explains. “It’s fundamental for human beings, as deep a desire as hunger and thirst and sex.” From an early age, he was intrigued with how online communities like IRC allowed people to experiment with their identities. His then-wife Caterina Fake found the topic compelling too. “There are at least two kinds of games,” Butterfield says, paraphrasing a favorite scholar of his. “The first type is played for the purpose of winning and the second type you play for the purpose of play.” When they brainstormed a company to start, they settled on building “Game Neverending.” Butterfield and Fake spent a year and a half creating it.

Third life: Flickr co-founder pulls unlikely success from gaming failure. Again | PandoDaily

It’s a shame James P. Carce isn’t explicitly referenced in this passage. I never found the finite versus infinite game dichotomy very useful as a design guide, though.

It’s also odd to me that if the aim was to make a “never ending” game with Glitch, why so many of its mechanics were about achieving things and making progress. The game was chock full of things that could be “used up”. Hardly infinite.

I hate hipsters, I hate liberals, I hate rock’n’rollers, I hate the counter-culture, I hate movie people. I want to go somewhere quiet, peaceful and decorous, and be radical in my mind.

James Ellroy – Books – ShortList Magazine

I don’t know, I’m a fan of Ellroy’s LA quartet and hadn’t expected him to be such a reactionary. (Although some of the material in the books should’ve given me a hint.)

And it occurred to me then that fun is only fun when it’s stupid. That there is no joy without stupidity, without abandon, without judgment – that music is best enjoyed in this stupid way, in a stupid place like this, with people you love holding stupid tambourines and playing with strangers amid strangers, who are dancing around to a song about spaceship-people building municipalities without permits or city planners but with pop songs.

Dave Eggers: what’s so funny about peace, love and Starship? | Books | The Guardian

I really did not like how this piece started out, I thought Eggers was being an apologist for state-sponsored gambling, which to be honest I really dislike. But once you get past this, he succeeds wonderfully in conveying the joy of a particularly silly night out.

As a result of “manifest social complexity” and “concealed electronic complexity,” “the plight of members of the technological society can be compared to that of a newborn child …” yet in contemporary technological civilization people “are less fortunate than children” for they “never escape a fundamental bewilderment in the face of the complex world that their senses report.”

On Technology and Human Agency | | Ben BrucatoBen Brucato

Good summary of the positions of a number of thinkers who seem at odds with Latour on the subject of human agency and technology but as it turns out really aren’t.