心智元-美股學院

美股團隊討論: 被動收入的另一個面向

  1. 部落格
  2. »
  3. 股動人心
  4. »
  5. 美股團隊討論: 被動收入的另一個面向
作者:  時間:
 Line@嗨投資小幫手  『 募集中 』 

我們團隊對於被動收入有另一層思考的面向, 供大家參考概念介紹(一 ) 人心智能:即人的心智所產出的能量。擴增集智系統所收集的「智能」,是來自於公司團隊,打動其客戶群的心智,而願意提供的能量,並不是該公司「人才團隊」所具備的智能,因為那既無法測量、也無從收集或調配。A: 這篇新聞將經營網站、及Youtube頻道,視為「被動收入」,似乎有些誤導?https://www.cw.com.tw/article/5120723?utm_campaign=email_edm-email-cwdaily-220408-5120723&utm_medium=email&utm_source=email_edmA: 似乎在CNBC上刊登的原文,就是強調passive income,但應該有內容農場的嫌疑https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/05/this-38-year-old-makes-160000-per-month-in-passive-income-and-only-works-5-hours-a-week-now.htmlB: 的確是常看到類似的說法https://rich01.com/make-passive-income-by-blog/C: 這樣感覺已與以前對被動收入的定義不同,文中經營頻道跟教學比較接近當事人的本業,而且這麼做其實有很多隱形成本,不管是過去要當部落客還是現在當youtuber,常常除了睡覺以外其實都處在工作的狀態,因為無時無刻都要想經營模式、寫腳本、拍照/錄影、累積素材、製作、後製、宣傳,整個生活都被占據,並非表象上那麼輕鬆。所以也是有人起初是為興趣拍片,但當把這當正職後,反而將熱情消磨殆盡了。 A: https://medium.com/斜槓達叔/被動收入是假議題-bdf8cb68384aA: 似乎象徵「集智」的維基百科,也還是難免被傳統、或有心人士操縱的問題,因此目前出現了新的走向。https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Main_PageA: 像是強調「開源」的Linux系統,反而成為IBM等科技廠商的獲利工具,故成為所謂的「資本共產主義」Today we have a paradox, the more communistic the sharing license we use in the peer production of free software or open hardware, the more capitalistic the practice, with for example the Linux commons becoming a corporate commons enriching IBM and the like …https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/From_the_Communism_of_Capital_to_a_Capital_for_the_CommonsB: 開源文化,一度變成共同創造但被資本私有機構獲利的工具,相當於是剩餘價值被資本給全部取走。而 Creative Commons non commercial license 想要對抗這樣的文化,卻也可能造成負面,即創造出來的知識無法幫助經濟。而文字裡提到的Peer Production License,則是讓企業也可以做商用,但必須支付對應的授權費,而將剩餘價值留在公民及知識創造的社群內部。A: 我們過去曾經將「資本」當成訴求重點,因為在傳統經濟學上,資本是生產要素之一,更因此而成為在財富分配(或好聽一點的「成果分享」)上的依據。但隨著科技發展,目前的資本家也「進化」了,將共產主義的思想,融合進資本主義之中,透過慈善捐贈,將之前像是「剝削」而來的財富,回饋給社會。但如同前述的P2P,以及下面文章中提到的「Commons (共有)」觀念,則是比資本的性質更為「根源」,也就是更接近人心智能。Drawing on this insight, Hardt and Negri (2009) as well as others (e.g. De Angelis, 2007) have come to emphasise the role of ‘the common’ or ‘the commons’ in contemporary capitalist production (see also discussions in previous issues of ephemera, in particular Hoedemaekers et al., 2012; Burston et al., 2010; Dowling et al., 2007). Hardt and Negri define ‘the common’ as ‘the common wealth of the material world’, such as that which constitutes nature, as well as ‘those results of social production that are necessary for social interaction and further production’, such as language, knowledge and affect (2009: viii). These are resources and capacities that precede capital and that capital can only harness through processes of expropriation. Dealing in particular with the social aspects of the common, Hardt and Negri emphasise the fact that not only does contemporary ‘immaterial’ or ‘biopolitical’ production draw on pre-existing subjectivities and ‘forms of life’, but it also produces such subjectivities and forms of life. Put differently, ‘production today is production from the common, in common, of the common’http://www.ephemerajournal.org/contribution/communism-capitalA: 上文中最後的「'production today is production from the common, in common, of the common’」,將common用people來取代,似乎與「民有、民治、民享(of the people, by the people, for the people)」有點呼應B: 706 共學小組裡看到有人在翻譯的書,第一本這個的P2P 看起來和這裡的是同一個東西。https://commonstransition.org/peer-to-peer-a-commons-manifesto/
 Line@嗨投資小幫手  『 募集中