This is a most lucid explanation—and very disheartening. It feels like the exploitative forces arrayed against us as individuals are overwhelming. What should we do to push back?
I appreciate the deep dive - it helped me connect the dots on a deeper level. It's challenging to encourage people to opt out of extractive systems! This is incredibly helpful. I firmly believe going small is the best way forward at this point. Rebuild our own platforms. Invest in our local communities. Opt out of the creator economy or at least own your own platform and extract value from tools like Etsy and Substack in tandem before they collapse under their own weight.
I won't argue with any part of your argument, just came to point out how effectively the current rentier capitalism model has been at robbing humans beings - pretty much globally now - of their desire to couple, form families, and reproduce. Hard to extend your gate-keeping empire into a sunny future when there's no one left to extract from. This weird corner of history? We've allowed the worst of us to optimize us all into a self-extinguishing corner.
lol. Trained political scientist. If I was truly going Marxist there’d have been a lot more talk about class and structures… along with the inevitable conclusion that without violence it’s inescapable.
That’s how Marxists write… lol. If I’m a woman Marxist I also say it’s because of men and their penises… you add rape and sexual violence to the mix as a Marxist-Feminist.
lol.
Since I’m none of those… not very hard for me to write a cogent essay on economics without jumping the shark.
Unfortunately here in Italy we focus too much on tourism and agriculture: those who own the land rent to those who own the company who rents the company to those who hire desperate underpaid workers. And there are not enough labor inspectors to check all the companies.
Is what you're describing similar to what fine artists have long lived under in this country: it's difficult to sell your art yourself. Some art fair, gallery, or online platform must take a cut without ever investing in your work. They aren't wholesalers; they are gatekeepers, such as you've described.
This is one of the most fascinating things I've ever read and it answered a lot of the things I've been pondering for a long time. I'll be sharing it with my subscribers.
I’m so glad i found your stuff. I’m tired of being harvested!
And I’m sorry for this, truly. This is one of my soap box issues …. The reason that that Josh violin guy didn’t get noticed is because classical music is often boring. Lots of street performers get big attention from passerbys but if you’re boring, you don’t.
The violinist stunt doesn’t prove what people say it proves. Its proves that beautiful music can be boring and not illicit excitement (especially under conditions like people in their way to work). If you’re trying to entertain people as a performer and you fail to entertain them, that doesn’t mean that the people are dumb and not paying attention. It just means that you failed to entertain them.
Why is it considered proof of a problem with the people passing by? Because he’s a world famous classical musician, so that means he is objectively entertaining? That’s bullshit. if people aren’t entertained, that’s their fault? He failed at entertaining. Simple as that.
Sorry again for this entirely off-topic screed. But it does prove I read the whole article!
No need to apologize—this was a great comment, and I’m really glad you brought it up.
You're right that Bell’s performance didn’t hook people emotionally. But that’s why I used it—not to shame the crowd, but to show how brilliance without context gets ignored. And that is the point. Bell is one of the most technically gifted musicians in the world. But in that Metro station, without prestige, branding, or a frame to tell people, “this has value,” they walked past him. Because the default isn’t curiosity—it’s filtration.
And no, I don’t think Bell failed as an entertainer. He wasn’t trying to entertain. He was testing a hypothesis: would sheer excellence, presented without the signals of value, still be seen?
It wasn’t.
And that’s not just about music. It’s about everything. We’re trained to ignore anything that doesn’t arrive pre-approved by algorithms, institutions, or commercial signals.
Which brings us back to the core of this piece: you are the yield.
If something isn’t immediately useful to your productivity, consumption, or monetized attention, it disappears. The system doesn’t just harvest you for engagement or data. It shapes what you notice. It filters your perception. It turns value into signal, and signal into profit. And anything that doesn’t yield revenue—beauty, brilliance, insight—gets ignored.
That’s not a glitch. That’s the design.
So yeah, your comment proves the point beautifully. Bell didn’t fail. The system succeeded in training us to walk past it and ignore it entirely. One of the best performers in the world, and people just walked on by.
Thanks for reading to the end and jumping in with something real.
Additionally, the performance was in a time and place where people are on their missions of transport through their day, chores, obligations. I can imagine feeling too rushed to stop or even, possibly, for the outstanding performance to register fully.
Your article is a really helpful explanation of what has developed. Thank you.
People pay a lot to see Josh play in a posh opera house. In the subway, they're on their way home, to work, to run errands. Not to see someone play music. That's why they didn't listen. He is entertaining, but not in every context.
Brilliant summation. All these niggling observations over the years have been evident for all of us, and yes, came out to be aired from time to time in bits and pieces, but tying it all together into a picture that’s easy to process and hard to deny is important. Thanks.
Yes, you are part of the problem, but so are all of us who contribute in one form or another to this uncontrolled extinction process because that’s what we’re doing to ourselves.
This new capitalism isn’t working. Hell, the old one didn’t really, either. We need a new model. It’s something I’ve wondered about for a good while; however, when you’re looking at 8+ billion people on this planet, the task seems too monumental without also looking at extensive collateral damage, also. It’s one of those things that causes you to throw up your hands in despair. But, the fact still remains—we simply need a new, workable model that will create the least amount of horror and catastrophe because that’s where we’re headed.
I think the powers that be in the US now are driven by that same need for a new model. Only theirs ideas are partnered with narcism & cruelty. What a waste of an opportunity to make real positive change with all that power & money. And so the wheel spins….
Nice piece. As someone that has worked for tech startups, the funding systems are upside down. It is absolutely about access to capital, about how much you can spend, not how much you can make. The idea always seems to be, if you can undercut the market for long enough, you might just be the last one standing (after all it worked for Bezos).
To add a little more to this convo I suggest reading up on techno-feudalism (think this was a term originated by Zizek) - A very similar vein of thinking but frames it as a comparison to the old feudal economic models where wealth generation is all about land ownership - and in the case of modernity digital land ownership. Which of course frames us, the content creators and data assets, as the serfs.
This Long Memo piece critiques the notion that Substack is the "only platform not owned by billionaires." The author makes a compelling argument that while Substack may not be owned by billionaires today, it’s only a matter of time before it follows the trajectory of other once-independent platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. These platforms started with grand ideals but eventually became massive media empires focused on growth and profit, not their original missions.
This piece provides a sharp and unflinching critique of where capitalism has evolved. It emphasizes how traditional notions of profitability have been replaced by a focus on controlling access—whether through platforms, data, or narratives. The idea that we're no longer living in "capitalism" as we know it, but something else—something more insidious and extractive—feels like a necessary wake-up call for anyone still clinging to the old ideals of merit and hard work.
The notion that value is now extracted from people rather than created by them is a sobering reflection of how much of our modern economy operates—especially with platforms like Amazon, Spotify, and Substack, where the users are not the customers but the yield. This deconstruction of the system, where you aren't just a consumer but the commodity itself, might seem overwhelming, but it's also liberating in that it encourages us to rethink how we engage with and exist within these frameworks.
Ultimately, the piece forces us to confront uncomfortable truths: you can’t “hustle” your way out of a system designed to extract, and the only way to move forward is to reclaim sovereignty, resilience, and leverage. It's a call to stop being the yield and start writing the rules—however challenging that may be.
Finnegan, for me, has become the best most articulate deep thinker & synthesizer concerning humanity's current socio-economic-technological evolution and possible future.
The really big extraction is yet to come. In the era of AI, all copyright, trademarks and patents will be owned by the Tech Bros. This is already the case in Hollywood where the writer has to give up ownership of their copyright to the studios/distributors. This model will expand out to anything and everything created under the sun.
As software is now licensed behind a paywall, imagine a world where architecture is generated by AI. You build your dream house (if you’re lucky enough to own your own home - which is not the plan), but you pay a monthly licensing fee to the AI software company which drew up, but you pay a monthly licensing fee to the AI software company which drew up the architectural plans and all the AI functions within it to run your household. The deregulation of AI under the Trump administration is designed to win a Cold War against China. Big Tech will become Big Government. They first made themselves indispensable to the future of the defense industries and it rippled out from there.
The Tech Bros. are into nose-to-tail dining and you are dinner! From the moment you come out of the womb until you die, you are just a usable, billable asset.
But this is small potatoes, the real problem as I see it is AI IS A KILL SWITCH ON THE HUMAN IMAGINATION, SELF DETERMINATION AND SELF-REALIZATION and particularly so if the human brain is integrated with AI technology then you will pay to rent your own brain back, but importantly it won't be your own mind anymore. It will come in small useful steps e.g. chip to monitor your vital signs etc.
Your mind will atrophy, your imagination won't be needed, your self determination will slip away and most seriously of all your only real purpose on this planet, Self-Realization, will be shut down....
This isn't just science-fiction, it will become a tech-reality.
Agree that AI kills imagination. Because it gives you cheaply and easily the 90% of what you wanted, so why bother with the effort to create the remaining 10% "by hand"? Slop will prevail.
This is a most lucid explanation—and very disheartening. It feels like the exploitative forces arrayed against us as individuals are overwhelming. What should we do to push back?
YES YES YES YES
I appreciate the deep dive - it helped me connect the dots on a deeper level. It's challenging to encourage people to opt out of extractive systems! This is incredibly helpful. I firmly believe going small is the best way forward at this point. Rebuild our own platforms. Invest in our local communities. Opt out of the creator economy or at least own your own platform and extract value from tools like Etsy and Substack in tandem before they collapse under their own weight.
Wow, now I just want to walk into the mountains and freeze to death. Thanks!
LOL.
I won't argue with any part of your argument, just came to point out how effectively the current rentier capitalism model has been at robbing humans beings - pretty much globally now - of their desire to couple, form families, and reproduce. Hard to extend your gate-keeping empire into a sunny future when there's no one left to extract from. This weird corner of history? We've allowed the worst of us to optimize us all into a self-extinguishing corner.
I find it remarkable that an American can write this without a Pavlovian reflex that stops him screaming "communist!!"
Here in Italy it feels different because this parasitic economy has always been very present.
lol. Trained political scientist. If I was truly going Marxist there’d have been a lot more talk about class and structures… along with the inevitable conclusion that without violence it’s inescapable.
That’s how Marxists write… lol. If I’m a woman Marxist I also say it’s because of men and their penises… you add rape and sexual violence to the mix as a Marxist-Feminist.
lol.
Since I’m none of those… not very hard for me to write a cogent essay on economics without jumping the shark.
Nice answer
Interesting! Thanks for this perspective.
Unfortunately here in Italy we focus too much on tourism and agriculture: those who own the land rent to those who own the company who rents the company to those who hire desperate underpaid workers. And there are not enough labor inspectors to check all the companies.
Fascinating article.
Is what you're describing similar to what fine artists have long lived under in this country: it's difficult to sell your art yourself. Some art fair, gallery, or online platform must take a cut without ever investing in your work. They aren't wholesalers; they are gatekeepers, such as you've described.
Creepy and absolutely right. The Long Tail, corrected and updated.
This is one of the most fascinating things I've ever read and it answered a lot of the things I've been pondering for a long time. I'll be sharing it with my subscribers.
I’m so glad i found your stuff. I’m tired of being harvested!
And I’m sorry for this, truly. This is one of my soap box issues …. The reason that that Josh violin guy didn’t get noticed is because classical music is often boring. Lots of street performers get big attention from passerbys but if you’re boring, you don’t.
The violinist stunt doesn’t prove what people say it proves. Its proves that beautiful music can be boring and not illicit excitement (especially under conditions like people in their way to work). If you’re trying to entertain people as a performer and you fail to entertain them, that doesn’t mean that the people are dumb and not paying attention. It just means that you failed to entertain them.
Why is it considered proof of a problem with the people passing by? Because he’s a world famous classical musician, so that means he is objectively entertaining? That’s bullshit. if people aren’t entertained, that’s their fault? He failed at entertaining. Simple as that.
Sorry again for this entirely off-topic screed. But it does prove I read the whole article!
No need to apologize—this was a great comment, and I’m really glad you brought it up.
You're right that Bell’s performance didn’t hook people emotionally. But that’s why I used it—not to shame the crowd, but to show how brilliance without context gets ignored. And that is the point. Bell is one of the most technically gifted musicians in the world. But in that Metro station, without prestige, branding, or a frame to tell people, “this has value,” they walked past him. Because the default isn’t curiosity—it’s filtration.
And no, I don’t think Bell failed as an entertainer. He wasn’t trying to entertain. He was testing a hypothesis: would sheer excellence, presented without the signals of value, still be seen?
It wasn’t.
And that’s not just about music. It’s about everything. We’re trained to ignore anything that doesn’t arrive pre-approved by algorithms, institutions, or commercial signals.
Which brings us back to the core of this piece: you are the yield.
If something isn’t immediately useful to your productivity, consumption, or monetized attention, it disappears. The system doesn’t just harvest you for engagement or data. It shapes what you notice. It filters your perception. It turns value into signal, and signal into profit. And anything that doesn’t yield revenue—beauty, brilliance, insight—gets ignored.
That’s not a glitch. That’s the design.
So yeah, your comment proves the point beautifully. Bell didn’t fail. The system succeeded in training us to walk past it and ignore it entirely. One of the best performers in the world, and people just walked on by.
Thanks for reading to the end and jumping in with something real.
Additionally, the performance was in a time and place where people are on their missions of transport through their day, chores, obligations. I can imagine feeling too rushed to stop or even, possibly, for the outstanding performance to register fully.
Your article is a really helpful explanation of what has developed. Thank you.
People pay a lot to see Josh play in a posh opera house. In the subway, they're on their way home, to work, to run errands. Not to see someone play music. That's why they didn't listen. He is entertaining, but not in every context.
This is a brilliant analysis. Kudos, and thank you for helping to clarify what's going on for everyone else.
Brilliant summation. All these niggling observations over the years have been evident for all of us, and yes, came out to be aired from time to time in bits and pieces, but tying it all together into a picture that’s easy to process and hard to deny is important. Thanks.
Yes, you are part of the problem, but so are all of us who contribute in one form or another to this uncontrolled extinction process because that’s what we’re doing to ourselves.
This new capitalism isn’t working. Hell, the old one didn’t really, either. We need a new model. It’s something I’ve wondered about for a good while; however, when you’re looking at 8+ billion people on this planet, the task seems too monumental without also looking at extensive collateral damage, also. It’s one of those things that causes you to throw up your hands in despair. But, the fact still remains—we simply need a new, workable model that will create the least amount of horror and catastrophe because that’s where we’re headed.
I think the powers that be in the US now are driven by that same need for a new model. Only theirs ideas are partnered with narcism & cruelty. What a waste of an opportunity to make real positive change with all that power & money. And so the wheel spins….
Nice piece. As someone that has worked for tech startups, the funding systems are upside down. It is absolutely about access to capital, about how much you can spend, not how much you can make. The idea always seems to be, if you can undercut the market for long enough, you might just be the last one standing (after all it worked for Bezos).
To add a little more to this convo I suggest reading up on techno-feudalism (think this was a term originated by Zizek) - A very similar vein of thinking but frames it as a comparison to the old feudal economic models where wealth generation is all about land ownership - and in the case of modernity digital land ownership. Which of course frames us, the content creators and data assets, as the serfs.
This Long Memo piece critiques the notion that Substack is the "only platform not owned by billionaires." The author makes a compelling argument that while Substack may not be owned by billionaires today, it’s only a matter of time before it follows the trajectory of other once-independent platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. These platforms started with grand ideals but eventually became massive media empires focused on growth and profit, not their original missions.
Billionaire VCs- early investors in Substack
Series A (July 2019):
Andreessen Horowitz led a $15.3 million Series A funding round in July 2019.
Series B (March 2021):
Andreessen Horowitz led a $65 million Series B funding round in March 2021, valuing Substack at around $650 million.
This piece provides a sharp and unflinching critique of where capitalism has evolved. It emphasizes how traditional notions of profitability have been replaced by a focus on controlling access—whether through platforms, data, or narratives. The idea that we're no longer living in "capitalism" as we know it, but something else—something more insidious and extractive—feels like a necessary wake-up call for anyone still clinging to the old ideals of merit and hard work.
The notion that value is now extracted from people rather than created by them is a sobering reflection of how much of our modern economy operates—especially with platforms like Amazon, Spotify, and Substack, where the users are not the customers but the yield. This deconstruction of the system, where you aren't just a consumer but the commodity itself, might seem overwhelming, but it's also liberating in that it encourages us to rethink how we engage with and exist within these frameworks.
Ultimately, the piece forces us to confront uncomfortable truths: you can’t “hustle” your way out of a system designed to extract, and the only way to move forward is to reclaim sovereignty, resilience, and leverage. It's a call to stop being the yield and start writing the rules—however challenging that may be.
and here we have a creepy AI generated comment (user?) to underline the point of this article.
LOL! :) Was waiting for someone to see the irony, Kristina. Gold star for you. :)
What's with these popping up? Is it something substack has rolled out, or ... ? I am genuinly confused. Who triggers them?
Finnegan, for me, has become the best most articulate deep thinker & synthesizer concerning humanity's current socio-economic-technological evolution and possible future.
Project Liberty and their People's Internet suggests an alternative future https://us.onair.cc/category/about/the-peoples-internet/
I read regularly T.Cowen, N.Smith, P.Krugman, M.Block, LKotlikoff, MStoller, E.Klein D.Rothkopf, R.Reich, DPepper, M.Yglesias, N.Ferguson, T.Snyder, A.Applebaum, Y.Mounk
S.Choudary, B.Evans, M.Tegmark, G.Marcus ,S.Harris E.Nehorai, etc.
The really big extraction is yet to come. In the era of AI, all copyright, trademarks and patents will be owned by the Tech Bros. This is already the case in Hollywood where the writer has to give up ownership of their copyright to the studios/distributors. This model will expand out to anything and everything created under the sun.
As software is now licensed behind a paywall, imagine a world where architecture is generated by AI. You build your dream house (if you’re lucky enough to own your own home - which is not the plan), but you pay a monthly licensing fee to the AI software company which drew up, but you pay a monthly licensing fee to the AI software company which drew up the architectural plans and all the AI functions within it to run your household. The deregulation of AI under the Trump administration is designed to win a Cold War against China. Big Tech will become Big Government. They first made themselves indispensable to the future of the defense industries and it rippled out from there.
The Tech Bros. are into nose-to-tail dining and you are dinner! From the moment you come out of the womb until you die, you are just a usable, billable asset.
But this is small potatoes, the real problem as I see it is AI IS A KILL SWITCH ON THE HUMAN IMAGINATION, SELF DETERMINATION AND SELF-REALIZATION and particularly so if the human brain is integrated with AI technology then you will pay to rent your own brain back, but importantly it won't be your own mind anymore. It will come in small useful steps e.g. chip to monitor your vital signs etc.
Your mind will atrophy, your imagination won't be needed, your self determination will slip away and most seriously of all your only real purpose on this planet, Self-Realization, will be shut down....
This isn't just science-fiction, it will become a tech-reality.
IF YOU ALLOW IT.
Agree that AI kills imagination. Because it gives you cheaply and easily the 90% of what you wanted, so why bother with the effort to create the remaining 10% "by hand"? Slop will prevail.