Raw

This might be a nightlight illusion, but after reading this lineparty post from Jon Udell, it clicked why I experience dissonance cognitive at the phrase "Markets are conversations". In one interpretation it's equating two plurals, but the English there says a lot more. In another interpretation (the usual one) it helps explain why the web blows away traditional assumptions about commerce and communications. But the phrase is directional. I reckon what it says is exactly front to back. Markets aren't conversations, conversations are markets. Markets are commodity exchange systems, the commodity of conversations is information. (Ok, the commodity of money markets is information too, but traditionally, at least notionally, they're grounded to real-world artifacts. That ain't necessarily so no more, no more. Go ask Elwood.)

@en