Leave it to market forces (ya, like that would work so well with pollution)
Pollution regulation falls under the same category of property rights - it is not an exception that 'proves' market failure.
The market works only if there is a right to private property. The air I breathe in my house is private property - if anyone pollutes it, they are violating my right.
When the majority of the customers are uninformed the few making rational decisions....
Well, the question is, how do you know who is uninformed and who is making the rational decisions? Rational according to whom? That leads to making subjective judgements like 'Linux is better than MS'; it might be better for me, but not for you.
Of course the solution is NOT govt regulation.......Like "truth in lending", "truth in advertising" laws we could demand proper disclosure of conflicts of interest of the think tanks, columnists, trade practices etc.
Well that *is* govt regulation!
Say my wife makes Linux servers and I recommend Linux in my popular syndicated column. Now, am I recommending Linux because my wife (may) profit? Or am I recommending it because I really believe in Linux?
See, it leads to the govt:
a) needing to know what my wife (and sister and mother...) does; and, more importantly,
b) needing to know what my intentions were/are.
That is a dangerous situation.
Re:Interoperability and market dominance
on
The Home Server Cometh
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Theoretically free market should react and break it up
No, the free market is just that - people acting freely and spending their money however they want. 'It' has no free will, nor does it act in any certain way. People acting freely will make good and bad choices (btw, who defines what is good and bad?) - some people will buy Hondas and Toyotas, others will buy *some bad car*.
The trouble starts when someone says "oh my, people are spending their money on X, which is clearly bad. Let us regulate these imbeciles."
Heh. I'm trying to fix my sister's computer right now (third install since this morning). It is a Gateway system about a year old with Windows Media Center. She complained that many applications (Media center, iTunes) keep crashing and it does not start up properly. Plus the usual spyware, popups,etc.
I'm trying to reinstall Windows - this is the third attempt this morning. The 'Restore CD' from Gateway results in the same crashes and startup problems.
A fresh install from a Windows XP Professional CD results in hardware problems - the multimedia controller comes up in the 'New Hardware Found' wizard. But it cannot find the drivers for it. It cannot search for any drivers because the 'VIA.... network card' also comes up as unknown hardware - so there is no network connection.
A Knoppix Live CD finds all the drivers and everything *just works*.
What was your point again?
Re:Wrong comparison - money and information
on
Wikinomics
·
· Score: 1
You're going to say something like, "Oh but the consumers were able to make do with something else that was produced by another company more efficiently."
No, I won't say that. I can give you a personal example. I cannot get a decent LISP compiler/IDE anymore. It has gone out of the market. There are a few, but they are expensive, no libraries, etc. I hate Java and others. So, the free market has failed me. A good product has been driven out by inferior products and there is less choice for me.
Failure of the free market, right? Wrong. The point is, if I want something I have to be willing to :
a) build it myself; or
b) pay/convince someone else who has the expertise and motivation to build it for me.
I cannot use LISP anymore because I am not willing to do either (a) or (b). To phrase it differently, it is cheaper and easier for me to use Java than do (a) or (b) above.
So even though I keep bitching about LISP disappearing, I am the one making the choice not to use it because it is easier to obtain JAVA than LISP.
The free market is one where anything you want is available... at a price. No free lunches.
"But look at the reduction of choice from a merchant that knows little about local differences."
This is laughable.
If local differences are so important, why did the local store go out of business? Wouldn't customers say, "I'm not going to BIG BOX INC because they don't have what I need" ? Maybe the customers care more about prices that choices. Or maybe it is the big box that is providing the choice due to their economies of scale. In any case, the big box succeeds and the small store fails because of one and one reason only - the big box gives customers what they want - price or choice or ease...
re really arguing from different points of view and so there will never be any convergence
I mentioned it before - you want choice for the sake of choice. You assign some inherent value to things and mourn when that thing dissappears.
I am saying that having choice for its own sake is stupid and things do not have inherent value - a product's value is what people think its value is. And I have given many examples to back up my arguments.
It was nice chatting with you.
Re:Wrong comparison - money and information
on
Wikinomics
·
· Score: 1
I'm using the same weighted average of society to measure good as you are. I'm not assuming that there's some central force. That's just your assumption because I'm complaining about market failure.
The market *is* the avg weighted opinion of society.You will not have a situation where a product that is good (according to the avg opinion in the society) fails. Can you give me an example of a situation where a product was well liked by the public but was taken away from the market (aka "market failure")?
The weighted average opinion of society regarding a product is reflected in the product's price and performance. Eg.,:
1. Toyota Camry - the avg opinion of society is that it is good. Hence #1 selling car.
2. Yugo - the avg opinion of society is that it is bad - car is out of the market.
When an information producer creates and sells something for n cents, then every consumer sends a message back to the producer when they pay n cents. That is how the consumers communicate with the producers. This is how the market helps producers discover what the world as a whole wants.
Yes, that is absolutely correct.
When you have free information, that feedback loop is broken. The consumers don't send a message back to the producer when they consume it. Oh, maybe the producer can gain some information from log files, but that doesn't happen in a P2P world. The consumer stops driving the production of knowledge. The consumer's definition of "good" becomes less influential. The game changes.
Let us ignore log files and assume that there is no way to monitor P2P networks or the popularity of a blog. Let us also assume that feedback and comments do not exist and that the content producer is in a complete vacuum.
If the consumers do not want that free information, what is it doing in P2P networks? Who downloads it and shares it in the P2P networks?
You do raise a valid point about the feedback role that prices play and that that is a differentiator between free and paid. But that is insignificant to your main concern which was (I think), "free information driving out paid information".
Say I'm a stupid free information producer - nobody reads my stuff but I'm under the impression that a lot of people read it. So what is the problem here again? I keep on producing content that nobody reads. I don't lose anything because I never intended to make any money out of this anyway. The ppl don't lose anything because they've moved on to other (free/paid) information providers*. I'm getting what I want, the ppl are getting what they choose.
*If you are a paid information producer whom I put out of business, you have to do the research and see that ppl are not getting the info they want from me and tell them "here, pay me $x and you can have this info that you are not getting from Raja". Any producer has to do the research to find out what his consumers want and what they are not getting from the market.
There is no basis to claim that a free/cheaper/slightly cheaper/expensive/most expensive product will drive out another product.
Re:Wrong comparison - money and information
on
Wikinomics
·
· Score: 1
I never said that.
Here is what you said:
One of the biggest problems with the libertarian embrace of the marketplace is that quasi-govenrments can evolve when marketplaces evolve in the wrong way.
My question was "wrong according to who?". I don't know what your answer means in this context.
I just said that the internet's bias toward free information makes it difficult for people to producers to collect from consumers. I never said anything about some central force controlling anything. It's alll about whether the mass collection of producers can connect and collection from consumers.
And your implication was that, as a result of this, 'good' information is driven out. Which leads back to my question - 'good according to who'? If that information is 'good' as you say, people will pay for it (just like ppl pay for Ferrari while they could buy a Pinto). OTOH, if that information is useless to people, it goes out of the marketplace (just like car-phones).
So either way, the information that stays in the market is the information that ppl want. The information that is 'driven away' from the market is the information that ppl have clearly said they do not want.
And my orig point was this was unlike the scenario with money - the 'good' money (again, according to someone's opinion) goes out of the market for the exact opposite reason - because people *like* it and want to keep it for themselves. And the driving force behind this is the govt edict that assigns the same value for both 'good' and 'bad' money ignoring that people assign different values to the 'good' and 'bad' money. This is what drives good money out.
Left to itself, the market provides the products people want and destroys what people do not want. Any interference in this process causes artificial scarcity, artificial monopoly, choices reduced and bad products forced down people's throats.
Re:Wrong comparison - money and information
on
Wikinomics
·
· Score: 1
Here's another way of looking at it. Certainly zero is just an epsilon away from.0001 cents and a bit more away from $10. But the world is often discontinuous. One of the bigger hurdles to micropayments on the Internet is the cost of a transaction
We are talking about principles here - not practicalities. Your principle is that 'free information has a 'dumping' effect and that is unfair'. My point was that free and cheap are the same - your principle becomes 'cheaper information has a dumping effect and that is unfair'. Which I believe to be false.
You're quite right that the news about Britney and Tara is theoretically just as valid as any other. My larger point is that the cheap information drives out the dear.
My larger point was, who decides what is cheap information and what is dear information? You? How do you know what is more dear to me? The free market lets me choose what the right information for me is. If I make a mistake, too bad - I pay for it. But if you make the decision that Britney is not important and the other stuff is important and make everyone pay for the other information - who pays if you were wrong? What if in some bizarre world my life depended on Britney gossip?
One of the biggest problems with the libertarian embrace of the marketplace is that quasi-govenrments can evolve when marketplaces evolve in the wrong way.
Again, wrong according to whom? Do you see a pattern here? You are deciding what is 'good' and what is 'bad'. And guess what? These 'quasi-governments' exist at the mercy of the market - the real governments do not. Everyone here in Chicago thought Sears was king and no one could beat them - Walmart and Kmart gave ppl what they wanted and Sears is (almost) history. And if enough people feel that Walmart is evil and stop shopping there, they are gone. Would that happen with govt?
Now on to explaining what I mean by both ways:
Way 1: Markets serve consumers and provide choices because Ferrari hasn't been destroyed by cheap competitors.
Way 2: Markets serve consumers by destroying the choices that weren't produced efficiently.
I don't see the dichotomy here - (1) says that what people want will always exist in the market and (2) says that products people do not want disappear from the market. The end result is that people get what they want. It is a dichotomy only if you want choice for its own sake not as a means to supply people what they want.
But if you want to maximize choice, then Way 2 is a problem. And my point is only that the explosion of cheap goods is destroying some choices. That's good if you want efficiency, but bad if you want something else.
Let us look at what is wrong with 2 - "product that nobody wants goes out of the market". How is this reducing choice?
You seem to think that things have an intrinsic value - Product A is 'good', it should not be driven away by commercial interests. My point is that a value is subjective. A thing's value is what people assign to it.
The whole problem starts with people believing that they know what is 'good' and what is 'bad' for others, not realizing that they are asking for a free lunch (have other people pay for things that they think are good/necessary/important).
Re:Wrong comparison - money and information
on
Wikinomics
·
· Score: 1
Wait, you can't have it both ways.
I don't see where I wanted something both ways. Can you pls explain?
What if I like the products from the inefficient producers?
You buy that. You buy what you want - if it comes back to bite you, you learn and the next time buy the quality one. And you tell your friends about it.
What if there's some civic good in having a newspaper send an independent reporter to the city council meeting? If that reporter can't compete for ad dollars with, say, gossip about Britney or Tara, then who knows what could go on at that meeting.
Now, *you* cannot have it both ways - if the public like gossip about Britney, then that is the public good. If sending an investigative reporter to a meeting is a public good, then how come the public doesn't want to pay for it? This only works if you assume that you know better than the public what is good for them. If that meeting goes unreported and hurts the people, they'll value that information the next time and be willing to pay.
A good's value is not intrinsic - it is depending on the consumer's need.
What if I said "government subsidized producers" instead of "free information producers"?Can you see how a subsidy can distort the marketplace and provide unfair competition?
The difference here is that govt. has to forcefully take money from someone and give it to someone else - the use of force to appropriate money is the unfair part. In the case of 'free information producers', they want to give me something for nothing. This would be "unfair" to the commercial producers only if somehow the public owed them a business. Nobody owes anybody anything - you make money if you produce something that your fellow man wants to buy; if he does not, find something else to do.
BTW, you have not addressed my question - would it be any different if the people who produce free info charged $10? How about $1? how about $0.0000001? Where do you draw the line?
Re:Wrong comparison - money and information
on
Wikinomics
·
· Score: 1
I think I mean that hoarde=not produce.
If companies/people stopped producing because of cheaper competition, you would not see any products on the market. Ferrari does not stop producing cars because of Toyota. Adobe does not stop producing because of GIMP. The only people who will stop producing are the ones whose products/information cannot compete with others and who cannot adjust quick enough.
More / cheap (and free is just really cheap) competition is good for consumers in any industry.
Re:Wrong comparison - money and information
on
Wikinomics
·
· Score: 1
People share the cheap stuff and hoard the expensive stuff, if they have any expensive stuff at all.
But why would it be because of free information? Wouldn't people hoard the expensive stuff anyway? You could argue that "because of the free information, some people cannot charge much for paid research (many websites which were subscription based in 2000 are now free) and have to lower their prices and hence, quality."
But this is what happens in every other industry. Companies have to lower prices (or increase quality) to compete and in the end, the consumer benefits.
The fact that here it is 'free' vs 'cheaper' in other industries does not change anything (would it make a difference if information cost $0.0001 instead of free?).
So, just like in any other industry, free (or cheaper) goods tend to benefit the consumer. The basic laws of economics do not change suddenly in an 'information economy' - there is and has always been only one economy; the one where people create wealth by serving the needs of other people.
Wrong comparison - money and information
on
Wikinomics
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I've begun to feel lately that there is a real danger that free information will drive out paid information in much the same way that economists note that cheap money drives out the dear.
Not the same thing.
"cheap money drives out the dear" means that when you have counterfiet (or bebased/ inflated) coins/money in the market, people will hoard the genuine coins (thereby driving it out of the market). This is what happened to US silver coins and what is currently happening to nickels and dimes. In this case, the good money is driven out of the market because it is more precious and people prefer the good money to the bad.
In the case of information, if free information 'drives out' paid information from the market, it will be because the people reject the paid information and prefer the 'free information'.
So, good money and paid information are driven out of the market, they happen for different (and opposite) reasons.
Re:Smoking bans: reducing freedom, or increasing i
on
2006's Bill of Wrongs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
public place (a bar)
Unless it is owned by the govt, it is private property - not a public place.
Re:Smoking bans: reducing freedom, or increasing i
on
2006's Bill of Wrongs
·
· Score: 1
According to the majority of the people in my country, yes, and the law now reflects that.
So if a majority of the people are in favor of slavery and the law reflects that, there should be no problem right?
My right not to be killed trumps your freedom to murder me with a broken glass at my table.
I have the 'freedom to murder you' only if you enter my property (with fair warning). Unless the restaurant belongs to your non-smoking friend, she has to stay out.
My right not to be hurt trumps your freedom to punch me in the face in the queue.
See above.
And now, my right not suffer health problems trumps your freedom to smoke next to me.
This argument would work if I smoked in your property or a common property (like a park, road, etc). However, I can do whatever the hell I want in my property - if you don't like it, stay out. My property, my rules.
Is there any dust in your home? Do you use carpet freshner? My friend is allergic to those things - does my friend's right not to get asthma trump your right to live as you please in your home? How come you can do somethings in your home that cause harm to some people and yet a restaurant owner cannot do what he pleases on his property?
Re:Smoking bans: reducing freedom, or increasing i
on
2006's Bill of Wrongs
·
· Score: 1
Hint #1: Will my non-smoking, asthma-suffering friend who will finally be able to go to a bar in the evening have her freedom restricted?
Does your non-smoking, asthma-suffering friend have a right to go to any bar and find an environment that suits her?
Hint #2: Will a family member who gave up smoking years ago and no longer has to suffer the smoky atmosphere he wanted to leave behind every time he goes out for a drink have his freedom restricted?
See above
Hint #3: Will the many non-smokers who will now be able to take work in the hospitality trade without risking their own health to do it have their freedom restricted?
Again, do people have a right to work anywhere? I'm scared of heights - what about my right to work in construction? Sky-scrapers take away that right.
People have a right to freely trade goods and services - if your friend likes a smoke-free bar (as I do), she has to find a person/business that is willing to cater to her tastes. She has no right to impose her needs and tastes on the rest of the world.
Considering how many of the people in the states of New York and Washinton have their health care paid for by the state
By that logic, shouldn't they limit the consumption of cheese, sugar and butter? How about mandating (and monitoring) exercise? Liquor and smoking? How about choice of sexual partner? After all, those things have a much better influence on health than trans fat. If your answer is that these things are not practical, then you must agree in principle that it is ok for the govt to tell you what to eat, when to eat, who to sleep with and how much to exercise.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The problem here is socialized health. If I tell you that I will cover your health insurance (whether you like it or not) and then proceed to tell you what you can and cannot do, would that be a good deal for you? Why is it any different when the govt tell you the same thing?
Nothing in life is free - the cost of socialized medicine (indeed socialized anything) is your freedom.
monopoly: Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.
I'm typing this on an Ubuntu system. If Microsoft is a monopoly, then I should not be able to obtain any other desktop system. So how is Microsoft a monopoly again?
The legal system is redefining words to suit their political ideals.
And yes, Standard Oil was not a monopoly because people were still free to buy oil from others and start their own oil company if they wanted to. People who could not compete with Std Oil in the market ran to the govt to get protection.
Where did I accuse you of being all that? You wanted wealth fairly distributed & I wanted to know if you wanted beauty, talent fairly distributed as well. And you did not answer that.
Ok - maybe I have not been clear with my previous posts. I am referring to his statement about free trade when I say that he is advocating restrictions on businesses while advocating freedom for software users. If you re-read my post, esp the part in italics (the part that looks like this, you may understand what I meant.
At a very broad level, the biggest political battle today is democracy vs. the corporate masters of the World. Thus, free trade treaties are designed to transfer power from governments that can be democratic to businesses that never try to be democratic and therefore, free trade treaties are dangerous. I believe they should be abolished.
He does not want govt telling me, as a software user, what I can and cannot do with my computer. But he wants the govt telling me, as an evil businessman, what I can and cannot do with my business.
He advocates the same rules for everybody.
Oh, so he prohibits software developers from contributing and using any software they want? I was not aware of that.
Well, here is one reason I do not think he is as wise as people think he is:
He wants freedom for software users to use software as they wish, but not for consumers or businessmen. If I want to buy tomatoes from China, he wants restrictions placed on me (prevent free trade) or I wish to buy widgets for my factory from India, he wants govt to take away my freedom to do so.
And the irony is that it is only big companies that want to abolish free trade so they can jack up prices and he claims he is against big corporations.
I thank him for his efforts toward free software and I would not be able to make money without free software, but his hypocrisy I cannot tolerate his hypocrisy.
Finally, they don't seem to have an appetite for superpower status
Every country aspires to be a superpower - if not to bully others around, atleast to prevent being bullied by superpowers.
Do you think everyone is happy being screwed by the USA?
Slashdot Mirror
Leave it to market forces (ya, like that would work so well with pollution)
Pollution regulation falls under the same category of property rights - it is not an exception that 'proves' market failure.
The market works only if there is a right to private property. The air I breathe in my house is private property - if anyone pollutes it, they are violating my right.
Not only that, if they had MS's market share, the Apple fanboys will be praising the wisdom of Jobs for protecting them from the evil Linux users.
When the majority of the customers are uninformed the few making rational decisions....
Well, the question is, how do you know who is uninformed and who is making the rational decisions? Rational according to whom? That leads to making subjective judgements like 'Linux is better than MS'; it might be better for me, but not for you.
Of course the solution is NOT govt regulation.......Like "truth in lending", "truth in advertising" laws we could demand proper disclosure of conflicts of interest of the think tanks, columnists, trade practices etc.
Well that *is* govt regulation!
Say my wife makes Linux servers and I recommend Linux in my popular syndicated column. Now, am I recommending Linux because my wife (may) profit? Or am I recommending it because I really believe in Linux?
See, it leads to the govt:
a) needing to know what my wife (and sister and mother...) does; and, more importantly,
b) needing to know what my intentions were/are.
That is a dangerous situation.
Theoretically free market should react and break it up
No, the free market is just that - people acting freely and spending their money however they want. 'It' has no free will, nor does it act in any certain way. People acting freely will make good and bad choices (btw, who defines what is good and bad?) - some people will buy Hondas and Toyotas, others will buy *some bad car*.
The trouble starts when someone says "oh my, people are spending their money on X, which is clearly bad. Let us regulate these imbeciles."
Heh. ,etc.
.... network card' also comes up as unknown hardware - so there is no network connection.
I'm trying to fix my sister's computer right now (third install since this morning). It is a Gateway system about a year old with Windows Media Center. She complained that many applications (Media center, iTunes) keep crashing and it does not start up properly. Plus the usual spyware, popups
I'm trying to reinstall Windows - this is the third attempt this morning. The 'Restore CD' from Gateway results in the same crashes and startup problems.
A fresh install from a Windows XP Professional CD results in hardware problems - the multimedia controller comes up in the 'New Hardware Found' wizard. But it cannot find the drivers for it. It cannot search for any drivers because the 'VIA
A Knoppix Live CD finds all the drivers and everything *just works*.
What was your point again?
You're going to say something like, "Oh but the consumers were able to make do with something else that was produced by another company more efficiently."
No, I won't say that. I can give you a personal example. I cannot get a decent LISP compiler/IDE anymore. It has gone out of the market. There are a few, but they are expensive, no libraries, etc. I hate Java and others. So, the free market has failed me. A good product has been driven out by inferior products and there is less choice for me.
Failure of the free market, right? Wrong. The point is, if I want something I have to be willing to :
a) build it myself; or
b) pay/convince someone else who has the expertise and motivation to build it for me.
I cannot use LISP anymore because I am not willing to do either (a) or (b). To phrase it differently, it is cheaper and easier for me to use Java than do (a) or (b) above.
So even though I keep bitching about LISP disappearing, I am the one making the choice not to use it because it is easier to obtain JAVA than LISP.
The free market is one where anything you want is available... at a price. No free lunches.
"But look at the reduction of choice from a merchant that knows little about local differences."
This is laughable.
If local differences are so important, why did the local store go out of business? Wouldn't customers say, "I'm not going to BIG BOX INC because they don't have what I need" ? Maybe the customers care more about prices that choices. Or maybe it is the big box that is providing the choice due to their economies of scale. In any case, the big box succeeds and the small store fails because of one and one reason only - the big box gives customers what they want - price or choice or ease...
re really arguing from different points of view and so there will never be any convergence
I mentioned it before - you want choice for the sake of choice. You assign some inherent value to things and mourn when that thing dissappears.
I am saying that having choice for its own sake is stupid and things do not have inherent value - a product's value is what people think its value is. And I have given many examples to back up my arguments.
It was nice chatting with you.
I'm using the same weighted average of society to measure good as you are. I'm not assuming that there's some central force. That's just your assumption because I'm complaining about market failure.
The market *is* the avg weighted opinion of society.You will not have a situation where a product that is good (according to the avg opinion in the society) fails. Can you give me an example of a situation where a product was well liked by the public but was taken away from the market (aka "market failure")?
The weighted average opinion of society regarding a product is reflected in the product's price and performance. Eg.,:
1. Toyota Camry - the avg opinion of society is that it is good. Hence #1 selling car.
2. Yugo - the avg opinion of society is that it is bad - car is out of the market.
When an information producer creates and sells something for n cents, then every consumer sends a message back to the producer when they pay n cents. That is how the consumers communicate with the producers. This is how the market helps producers discover what the world as a whole wants.
Yes, that is absolutely correct.
When you have free information, that feedback loop is broken. The consumers don't send a message back to the producer when they consume it. Oh, maybe the producer can gain some information from log files, but that doesn't happen in a P2P world. The consumer stops driving the production of knowledge. The consumer's definition of "good" becomes less influential. The game changes.
Let us ignore log files and assume that there is no way to monitor P2P networks or the popularity of a blog. Let us also assume that feedback and comments do not exist and that the content producer is in a complete vacuum.
If the consumers do not want that free information, what is it doing in P2P networks? Who downloads it and shares it in the P2P networks?
You do raise a valid point about the feedback role that prices play and that that is a differentiator between free and paid. But that is insignificant to your main concern which was (I think), "free information driving out paid information".
Say I'm a stupid free information producer - nobody reads my stuff but I'm under the impression that a lot of people read it. So what is the problem here again? I keep on producing content that nobody reads. I don't lose anything because I never intended to make any money out of this anyway. The ppl don't lose anything because they've moved on to other (free/paid) information providers*. I'm getting what I want, the ppl are getting what they choose.
*If you are a paid information producer whom I put out of business, you have to do the research and see that ppl are not getting the info they want from me and tell them "here, pay me $x and you can have this info that you are not getting from Raja". Any producer has to do the research to find out what his consumers want and what they are not getting from the market.
There is no basis to claim that a free/cheaper/slightly cheaper/expensive/most expensive product will drive out another product.
I never said that.
Here is what you said:
One of the biggest problems with the libertarian embrace of the marketplace is that quasi-govenrments can evolve when marketplaces evolve in the wrong way.
My question was "wrong according to who?". I don't know what your answer means in this context.
I just said that the internet's bias toward free information makes it difficult for people to producers to collect from consumers. I never said anything about some central force controlling anything. It's alll about whether the mass collection of producers can connect and collection from consumers.
And your implication was that, as a result of this, 'good' information is driven out. Which leads back to my question - 'good according to who'? If that information is 'good' as you say, people will pay for it (just like ppl pay for Ferrari while they could buy a Pinto). OTOH, if that information is useless to people, it goes out of the marketplace (just like car-phones).
So either way, the information that stays in the market is the information that ppl want. The information that is 'driven away' from the market is the information that ppl have clearly said they do not want.
And my orig point was this was unlike the scenario with money - the 'good' money (again, according to someone's opinion) goes out of the market for the exact opposite reason - because people *like* it and want to keep it for themselves. And the driving force behind this is the govt edict that assigns the same value for both 'good' and 'bad' money ignoring that people assign different values to the 'good' and 'bad' money. This is what drives good money out.
Left to itself, the market provides the products people want and destroys what people do not want. Any interference in this process causes artificial scarcity, artificial monopoly, choices reduced and bad products forced down people's throats.
Here's another way of looking at it. Certainly zero is just an epsilon away from .0001 cents and a bit more away from $10. But the world is often discontinuous. One of the bigger hurdles to micropayments on the Internet is the cost of a transaction
We are talking about principles here - not practicalities. Your principle is that 'free information has a 'dumping' effect and that is unfair'. My point was that free and cheap are the same - your principle becomes 'cheaper information has a dumping effect and that is unfair'. Which I believe to be false.
You're quite right that the news about Britney and Tara is theoretically just as valid as any other. My larger point is that the cheap information drives out the dear.
My larger point was, who decides what is cheap information and what is dear information? You? How do you know what is more dear to me? The free market lets me choose what the right information for me is. If I make a mistake, too bad - I pay for it. But if you make the decision that Britney is not important and the other stuff is important and make everyone pay for the other information - who pays if you were wrong? What if in some bizarre world my life depended on Britney gossip?
One of the biggest problems with the libertarian embrace of the marketplace is that quasi-govenrments can evolve when marketplaces evolve in the wrong way.
Again, wrong according to whom? Do you see a pattern here? You are deciding what is 'good' and what is 'bad'. And guess what? These 'quasi-governments' exist at the mercy of the market - the real governments do not. Everyone here in Chicago thought Sears was king and no one could beat them - Walmart and Kmart gave ppl what they wanted and Sears is (almost) history. And if enough people feel that Walmart is evil and stop shopping there, they are gone. Would that happen with govt?
Now on to explaining what I mean by both ways:
Way 1: Markets serve consumers and provide choices because Ferrari hasn't been destroyed by cheap competitors.
Way 2: Markets serve consumers by destroying the choices that weren't produced efficiently.
I don't see the dichotomy here - (1) says that what people want will always exist in the market and (2) says that products people do not want disappear from the market. The end result is that people get what they want. It is a dichotomy only if you want choice for its own sake not as a means to supply people what they want.
But if you want to maximize choice, then Way 2 is a problem. And my point is only that the explosion of cheap goods is destroying some choices. That's good if you want efficiency, but bad if you want something else.
Let us look at what is wrong with 2 - "product that nobody wants goes out of the market". How is this reducing choice?
You seem to think that things have an intrinsic value - Product A is 'good', it should not be driven away by commercial interests. My point is that a value is subjective. A thing's value is what people assign to it.
The whole problem starts with people believing that they know what is 'good' and what is 'bad' for others, not realizing that they are asking for a free lunch (have other people pay for things that they think are good/necessary/important).
Wait, you can't have it both ways.
I don't see where I wanted something both ways. Can you pls explain?
What if I like the products from the inefficient producers?
You buy that. You buy what you want - if it comes back to bite you, you learn and the next time buy the quality one. And you tell your friends about it.
What if there's some civic good in having a newspaper send an independent reporter to the city council meeting? If that reporter can't compete for ad dollars with, say, gossip about Britney or Tara, then who knows what could go on at that meeting.
Now, *you* cannot have it both ways - if the public like gossip about Britney, then that is the public good. If sending an investigative reporter to a meeting is a public good, then how come the public doesn't want to pay for it? This only works if you assume that you know better than the public what is good for them. If that meeting goes unreported and hurts the people, they'll value that information the next time and be willing to pay.
A good's value is not intrinsic - it is depending on the consumer's need.
What if I said "government subsidized producers" instead of "free information producers"?Can you see how a subsidy can distort the marketplace and provide unfair competition?
The difference here is that govt. has to forcefully take money from someone and give it to someone else - the use of force to appropriate money is the unfair part.
In the case of 'free information producers', they want to give me something for nothing. This would be "unfair" to the commercial producers only if somehow the public owed them a business. Nobody owes anybody anything - you make money if you produce something that your fellow man wants to buy; if he does not, find something else to do.
BTW, you have not addressed my question - would it be any different if the people who produce free info charged $10? How about $1? how about $0.0000001? Where do you draw the line?
I think I mean that hoarde=not produce.
If companies/people stopped producing because of cheaper competition, you would not see any products on the market.
Ferrari does not stop producing cars because of Toyota. Adobe does not stop producing because of GIMP. The only people who will stop producing are the ones whose products/information cannot compete with others and who cannot adjust quick enough.
More / cheap (and free is just really cheap) competition is good for consumers in any industry.
People share the cheap stuff and hoard the expensive stuff, if they have any expensive stuff at all.
But why would it be because of free information? Wouldn't people hoard the expensive stuff anyway? You could argue that "because of the free information, some people cannot charge much for paid research (many websites which were subscription based in 2000 are now free) and have to lower their prices and hence, quality."
But this is what happens in every other industry. Companies have to lower prices (or increase quality) to compete and in the end, the consumer benefits. The fact that here it is 'free' vs 'cheaper' in other industries does not change anything (would it make a difference if information cost $0.0001 instead of free?).
So, just like in any other industry, free (or cheaper) goods tend to benefit the consumer. The basic laws of economics do not change suddenly in an 'information economy' - there is and has always been only one economy; the one where people create wealth by serving the needs of other people.
I've begun to feel lately that there is a real danger that free information will drive out paid information in much the same way that economists note that cheap money drives out the dear.
Not the same thing.
"cheap money drives out the dear" means that when you have counterfiet (or bebased/ inflated) coins/money in the market, people will hoard the genuine coins (thereby driving it out of the market). This is what happened to US silver coins and what is currently happening to nickels and dimes. In this case, the good money is driven out of the market because it is more precious and people prefer the good money to the bad.
In the case of information, if free information 'drives out' paid information from the market, it will be because the people reject the paid information and prefer the 'free information'.
So, good money and paid information are driven out of the market, they happen for different (and opposite) reasons.
public place (a bar)
Unless it is owned by the govt, it is private property - not a public place.
According to the majority of the people in my country, yes, and the law now reflects that.
So if a majority of the people are in favor of slavery and the law reflects that, there should be no problem right?
My right not to be killed trumps your freedom to murder me with a broken glass at my table.
I have the 'freedom to murder you' only if you enter my property (with fair warning). Unless the restaurant belongs to your non-smoking friend, she has to stay out.
My right not to be hurt trumps your freedom to punch me in the face in the queue.
See above.
And now, my right not suffer health problems trumps your freedom to smoke next to me.
This argument would work if I smoked in your property or a common property (like a park, road, etc). However, I can do whatever the hell I want in my property - if you don't like it, stay out. My property, my rules.
Is there any dust in your home? Do you use carpet freshner? My friend is allergic to those things - does my friend's right not to get asthma trump your right to live as you please in your home? How come you can do somethings in your home that cause harm to some people and yet a restaurant owner cannot do what he pleases on his property?
Hint #1: Will my non-smoking, asthma-suffering friend who will finally be able to go to a bar in the evening have her freedom restricted?
Does your non-smoking, asthma-suffering friend have a right to go to any bar and find an environment that suits her?
Hint #2: Will a family member who gave up smoking years ago and no longer has to suffer the smoky atmosphere he wanted to leave behind every time he goes out for a drink have his freedom restricted?
See above
Hint #3: Will the many non-smokers who will now be able to take work in the hospitality trade without risking their own health to do it have their freedom restricted?
Again, do people have a right to work anywhere? I'm scared of heights - what about my right to work in construction? Sky-scrapers take away that right.
People have a right to freely trade goods and services - if your friend likes a smoke-free bar (as I do), she has to find a person/business that is willing to cater to her tastes. She has no right to impose her needs and tastes on the rest of the world.
Considering how many of the people in the states of New York and Washinton have their health care paid for by the state
By that logic, shouldn't they limit the consumption of cheese, sugar and butter? How about mandating (and monitoring) exercise? Liquor and smoking? How about choice of sexual partner? After all, those things have a much better influence on health than trans fat. If your answer is that these things are not practical, then you must agree in principle that it is ok for the govt to tell you what to eat, when to eat, who to sleep with and how much to exercise.
Two wrongs don't make a right. The problem here is socialized health. If I tell you that I will cover your health insurance (whether you like it or not) and then proceed to tell you what you can and cannot do, would that be a good deal for you? Why is it any different when the govt tell you the same thing?
Nothing in life is free - the cost of socialized medicine (indeed socialized anything) is your freedom.
Total so far, $8310 (not counting your own electrician).
... $6690.
So, not counting needing to hire your own electrician, that puts the cost of their installation at roughly
It is, if you ignore overheads, profit, cost of capital...
Let us see who is redefining words here :
monopoly: Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.
I'm typing this on an Ubuntu system. If Microsoft is a monopoly, then I should not be able to obtain any other desktop system. So how is Microsoft a monopoly again?
The legal system is redefining words to suit their political ideals.
And yes, Standard Oil was not a monopoly because people were still free to buy oil from others and start their own oil company if they wanted to. People who could not compete with Std Oil in the market ran to the govt to get protection.
Here is a link you might find interesting:
The Gates-Rockefeller Myth
Where did I accuse you of being all that? You wanted wealth fairly distributed & I wanted to know if you wanted beauty, talent fairly distributed as well. And you did not answer that.
The good looking people get good looking spouses and have good looking children. The healthy people have healthy children.
Musically gifted people have gifted children.
Do we need a revolution to fix that too? What you have is called 'class envy'.
Ok - maybe I have not been clear with my previous posts. I am referring to his statement about free trade when I say that he is advocating restrictions on businesses while advocating freedom for software users. If you re-read my post, esp the part in italics (the part that looks like this, you may understand what I meant.
At a very broad level, the biggest political battle today is democracy vs. the corporate masters of the World. Thus, free trade treaties are designed to transfer power from governments that can be democratic to businesses that never try to be democratic and therefore, free trade treaties are dangerous. I believe they should be abolished.
He does not want govt telling me, as a software user, what I can and cannot do with my computer. But he wants the govt telling me, as an evil businessman, what I can and cannot do with my business.
He advocates the same rules for everybody.
Oh, so he prohibits software developers from contributing and using any software they want? I was not aware of that.
Well, here is one reason I do not think he is as wise as people think he is:
He wants freedom for software users to use software as they wish, but not for consumers or businessmen. If I want to buy tomatoes from China, he wants restrictions placed on me (prevent free trade) or I wish to buy widgets for my factory from India, he wants govt to take away my freedom to do so.
And the irony is that it is only big companies that want to abolish free trade so they can jack up prices and he claims he is against big corporations.
I thank him for his efforts toward free software and I would not be able to make money without free software, but his hypocrisy I cannot tolerate his hypocrisy.
Finally, they don't seem to have an appetite for superpower status
Every country aspires to be a superpower - if not to bully others around, atleast to prevent being bullied by superpowers.
Do you think everyone is happy being screwed by the USA?