William Hornaday was a conservationist from the late 19th century who was instrumental in saving the buffalo from extinction. He stated, "Here is an inexorable law of Nature, to which there are no exceptions: No wild species of bird, mammal, reptile, or fish can withstand exploitation for commercial purposes." He stated this as he watched the buffalo’s population plummet from approximately 60 million in 1800, to an estimated 300 in 1884. That's some pretty efficient resource extraction, so how are there still buffaloes on the Great Plains today? Because a few powerful people, such as William Hornaday and President Theodore Roosevelt, decided these animals needed protection and made a stand on their behalf in Washington.
Now let’s ask ourselves, are humans exempt from this inexorable law of nature? Simply because we have opposable thumbs and the possibility to conceive things beyond what is right in front of us, are we able to defend ourselves from a system of commercial exploitation focused on us? Well, let’s check in and see how that’s going. Reed Hastings, then CEO of Netflix, was asked in 2017 who his biggest competitor was, and he responded “we actually compete with sleep…and we’re winning!” Take a second to let that sink in. Netflix’s focus isn’t even on being someone’s choice once they plop down on the couch after a day of work, they’re battling the constraints of human biology to get just one more episode out of you.
So how does this relate to Will Page’s Tarzan Economics? After reading his book and watching a few of his interviews, I don’t think he’s that bad of a guy. He seems to have a knack for using economics and outside the box thinking to come up with innovative solutions to complex problems. However, even though he mentions this quote from Reed Hastings in his chapter ‘Paying Attention’, adding the caution “When Netflix wins more attention, everyone else had better prepare to lose’, he heel turns in his chapter ‘Pivotal Thinking’ by arguing that monopolies are not bad in the digital age (post-1990) because they employ the flywheel effect. He states, “We usually think of badly behaving monopolies in terms of the bigger they get, the more they can abuse the consumer. Businesses that incorporate the flywheel effect often do the opposite - the bigger they get, the more convenience they can provide to the consumer”. On a piece of paper, Will is probably right. That flywheel effect probably does result in added convenience for both parties and the story ends there with a calligraphic THE END written across the page. But we don't live on a piece of paper, we live in the real world in which the stories of monopolies begin, not end, once they corner the market.
Let’s take Google as an example. Will accurately described Google’s rise to dominance around the start of the millennium by describing how the company focused on how little attention a user must pay before finding what they're looking for, while competitors such as Yahoo focused on getting users to spend as much time on their sites as possible. To Will, this is where the story ends. The flywheel is in effect, value has been provided to the consumer, and Google should get a nice, big pat on the back. Now let’s read the rest of the story. The DOJ sued Google in 2023 for monopolistic behaviors, citing evidence that Google was cooking its search results to keep users scrolling for answers longer. These purposefully bad search results prompted users to enter more search queries, which in turn showed more ads, which in turn kept printing money for Google. On top of that, all of these search queries (even those in incognito mode) are kept in a repository for Google to sell to advertisers. But we don't get any sympathy from Will on the sale of our personal data, as he states, “Concerns about the value of our data being traded are real, but the convenience that comes from sharing data is real, too”. I’m not sure if Will thinks that just because he has a book deal that he exists outside this system, but we’re all in this together champ.
So where are we going here? Is the goal of the biggest economy in the world to have its people glued to screens with their personal data available to anyone willing to pay for it? Surely someone can stick their head above the crowd and realize that just because everyone is walking in the same direction doesn't change the fact that there's a cliff right in front of us. I’d really hope that someone like Will Page who’s fluent in today’s digital landscape could be the modern Hornaday or Roosevelt and come up with some creative solutions on how to protect people from exploitative business practices. Unfortunately, as long as he and others like him are categorizing a human’s ability to pay attention as a rivalrous, excludable good, humans of the 21st century may just go the way of the buffalo.