Q: Are there any industries where you think that your theories simply can't apply? For example, the airline industry, where you just manage the brand. Under your model, you would just source your planes and their operators at the best price on the web for example. But safety issues stop them from doing that.
A: I'm not sure that that is exactly correct. The example that I would like to use is Porsche. When you buy a Porsche Boxster - nice car, but not made by Porsche. It has fully outsourced parts and equipment, with the final assembly in Finland. And it is built better that way. It is better than a bunch of German engineers huddling over the car - although Porsche still wants you to believe that.
I think that the same can be true in the case of airlines. Right now we are working on the restructuring of a major airline and one of the issues is the leasing cost for the aircraft, and the other is maintenance. They have to maintain maintenance terminals in major airports around the world with parts and inventory. In fact a superior model would be to not own the aircraft at all. The company would just involved in marketing, pricing, booking and managing the service side of the airline, and someone else actually manages the planes.
Q: And the safety issue?
A: And as in the Porsche example, you might find that is actually safer because you end up with people who are very skilled at focusing on a part of the supply chain, like maintenance, repair, and pilot training. You want professionals that aren't worrying about all the different aspects of their business.
Q: What are some of the social implications of "metacapitalism"?
A: I think that it is worth contemplating the social benefits from all of this. In the book, you will find a section on higher education. One of the industries that hasn't changed is education, if you think of the supply side. You build these huge stone buildings, with little classrooms. What if you took the best faculty on earth, and surround them with good content producers who can then package it and distributed it over the internet where you are broadcasting it to 2 million people and not 200 people. The interesting thing is that you would be able to get a much better quality than if you had people sitting in classrooms. It would be student paced and not faculty paced, it would be well produced and packaged, and the economics are dramatic. Compare $30,000 to $40,000 a year to $100 for a yearlong course.
Q: But, certainly from my university experience, 70% to 80% of my experience of going to university was the human interaction and lifestyle. That goes beyond learning.
A: But parents will be skeptical of paying $30,000 a year for dating services, fancy babysitting and partying dressed up as networking. The question is, do I want to spend a lot of money with the old model, or do I want a better education, at their own pace for a couple of hundred bucks.
Q: What makes up education anyway, is it purely intellectual gain or does it also include emotional development?
A: I think that when people confront the cold economics of the situation, they will say that my child can socialize itself through other vehicles. I think that it was a nice concept in the 1960s and 1970s, but that was a century ago. My guess is that whilst it was an enriching experience it will be regarded as a quaint view of things and I think you will be amazed how quick that view passes away. Maybe my kid will miss out on the social development stuff, but it is about getting them a good job and this looks like a good track. Certainly in developing countries, I think that they will think that this is a good option. Suddenly, people have access to wonderful quality education. You may have in these countries tremendously high IQ people who can't afford higher education.
