How to Contribute an Idea to Idea-Mill.net

Have an idea of your own you want to be free? Send me an email with the idea and as much context or thought around it as you care to pull together, and I'll review it and post it.

Oh, and you can make money in the process. Read the FAQs below:

Contributing an idea FAQs:

How do I contribute an idea?
Via email. Use full paragraphs that don't need to be edited. It should be spell-checked, grammar-checked, fact-checked and ready for posting.

Why would I contribute an idea?
Because you've come up with a way to make the world a better place, or make people's lives easier or more rewarding, or simply found a way for someone to make some money. And now that you've got this idea, you're probably not going to do anything about it anyway except bellyache when someone else finally does it, lamenting that it was your idea and that you wish you had done something with it. Giving it away IS doing something with it.

Why should I give a lot of context instead of just giving you the elevator pitch?
The further along you can show that the idea is, the more likely someone will recognize its potential and want to run with it. Also, more context makes the idea more actionable, resulting in a greater likelihood that someone might make an offer on the idea in order to keep it from would-be competitors.

If I change my mind, can I have my idea back?
No. Once you give it to me, it belongs to the world. But you can always make an offer on it.

If someone makes an offer, how much do I get paid?
You and the offerer will agree on a price. You'll get all of it, sans a 10% commission.

If I accept an offer on my idea and get paid for it, do I give up all rights to the idea?
No, nothing here is protected in any way. You're not selling the idea; you're agreeing to have the idea taken down from this site so it's not visible to anyone else. But you still have it, and until it's patented or trademarked or otherwise protected, you can do whatever you want with it.

What if I use the money I get from an offer on my idea as seed money to fund the same idea?
That would be ballsy. And ironic. But since I came up with it first, it would also be unoriginal. (And given this context, even more ironic.)

Comments

[Jack Manger]

The problem is what scholars in economics/political science/public choice call the free rider problem as related to the tragedy of the commons, the idea being that it is completely irrational for individuals to use as much of a public resource (the resource/energy pool) as possible unless they have rational incentive (deeply held societal norms or state coercion to govern the commons) not to do so.
The point is that we can do a lot of little things that do not reduce our quality of life, but it is not "rational" for us to do so. One of the main points I hit often over at TOD is that societal norms, attitudes, and behaviors have to change about oil consumption, and in a hurry, whether earlier by choice or later on by force.

But this is nonsense. Oil is not, in any economically relevant sense, a "public resource." It's a private resource, owned by private oil companies (or foreign governments), traded in private markets, and consumed by private individuals in their private cars. There is no "commons" to be overused.

Those people who over-use energy, by, say, driving a fuel-hungry car or buying a low-efficiency air conditioner, pay for that choice through higher energy costs. Those who find ways of conserving energy save money. There is no commons here.

This, incidentally, is the general response to the "peak oil" crowd. They seem completely oblivious to the fact that higher prices cause people to conserve. The reason we consume as much oil as we do is because it's so cheap. If it became more expensive, people would reduce their consumption. The higher the price rises, the more people will curtail their consumption.

Which means that there will never be a "hard landing." Let's say the Peak Oil crowd is right that oil production has begun an irreversible decline. All that's going to result is a steady rise in oil prices over the next couple of decades. As the price goes up, consumers and companies will try harder and harder to conserve oil because the payoff will be bigger and bigger. There will be a gradual adjustment process as industries increasingly find ways to cut energy use or switch to other energy sources. Since this will happen gradually over the course of several decades, there's no reason to expect "oil shocks" or severe recessions. Energy-intensive products will get more expensive, but that's not the end of the world.

Here's the thing: once that process begins, no government action at all will be needed to bring about widespread adoption of conservation measures. People will seek them out themselves, because it will save them money. Most of the money the government now shovels into conservation measures is wasted (see ethanol for Exhibit A). Private investors, in contrast, will invest in alternative fuels, not as a public service or to impress voters but because they can make a boatload of money off of motorists fleeing $10/gallon gas.

For similar reasons, his specific solutions are inane. I have no idea if organic food uses less oil than normal food. But here's the thing: I don't need to. If he's right that organic food uses fewer petroleum products, then as oil prices rise, normal food will rise in price. Hence, as consumers, all we need to do is buy the cheapest food and we're doing our part to conserve. Likewise, as oil gets more expensive, packaging will also get more expensive, and companies will reduce the amount of packaging material they produce to save money.

That's what markets do. They give people incentives to conserve scarce resources automatically, without anyone having to specifically worry about it. As a resource becomes more scarce, its price will rise, and everything that is made from that product will become proportionately more expensive. When you buy the cheapest product, generally speaking, you're choosing the product that consumed the fewest resources. And as oil prices rise in response to market forces, they'll ensure that consumption drops to a sustainable level, preventing that dreaded "hard landing."

Posted by Jack Manger 03/01/07