To Mr. Kinsella, the question wasn't really a question. It was a valid rhetorical question that does not ask for an answer, but instead casts doubt on your line of reasoning. I'm surprised you didn't catch that.
To Richard, to be fair, wouldn't we commenters here on TechDirt refer people to articles on this site if they have an opinion about business models [et cetera] that we know to be unsupported by facts? That said, what Mr. Kinsella posits isn't necessarily factual; economics has not truly been settled and will never be settled because it is the study of human behavior, and that changes over time. And I agree that simply linking us to books promoting the Austrian school of economics essentially cops out on the argument, because it essentially says that "I can't synthesize a good counterargument using my knowledge of Austrian-style economics and keep the discussion going, so instead I'll pretend to have the upper hand by referring you to this one-sided book and hope that you come around to agreeing with me."
I should have been more clear that what I was referring to regarding using cheaper labor to achieve greater production assumes perfectly competitive labor and goods markets. Of course these are not true in real life; workers do have some minimum nonzero bargaining power for their wages and benefits, and as voting citizens they have the power to force corporate action through non-market means.
Now, it is possible for there to be a system without any unemployment/health benefits for those out of work or for those with low-paying jobs. Such a system would have no government intervention whatsoever, and more people would be working, yet more workers would have really low-paying jobs that would lead them to barely get by/live in squalor. It's capitalism in its purest form. Is that something I want to see? Of course it isn't. But the reason for you and I to assume that there are health benefits [et cetera] is a moral one, not an economic one. There is no economic reason for us to assume a priori that there are to be health benefits [et cetera] in what we discuss. So what I said above is true, holding other things equal and making it such that the only government intervention being considered is that of the enforcement of a minimum wage.
Also, how does the tragedy of the commons play into this at all? Nothing that I have said involves multiple individuals depleting a common resource in their own rational self-interest.
Cheaper labor is a lower marginal cost, because the total amount of wages changes with output. To the firm, there is really no difference between achieving a lower cost of production through technological means or through cheaper labor, because in the end all that matters for determining the level of production is the point where marginal cost equals marginal revenue.
Minimum wages are actually inefficient because they create a disparity/disequilibrium between the demand and supply for labor. The minimum wage is essentially a price floor in the market for labor, so there are more workers than there are positions. Because firms will not employ more than a number of workers given by the intersection of their demand for labor and the minimum wage line, both consumer (firm) and producer (worker) surpluses decrease, and that decrease is not compensated for by an increase anywhere else, so the result is a deadweight (efficiency) loss to society.
The current wave of advancing technology can actually be traced back only to the industrial revolution. Between the dark ages (i.e. plague) and the industrial revolution, there was certainly a lot of scientific advancement but not as much economic progress as you might think. The real reason for increased efficiency is because using steam and coal instead of human-power produces vastly more output. As a result, less human labor is needed, while the labor that is needed is more skilled, so the result of that is a higher wage for the workers that are there, and this pretty much follows any advancement in technology.
Actually, I am going to have to agree with Mr. Kinsella on this. Being able to achieve lower marginal costs (and that includes labor) is the way to compete in a free market. That said, the whole point of a minimum wage is to be able to guarantee workers in the labor market a certain decent standard of living. The side effect is that firms' ability to supply contracts, so although employees are better off, there are fewer employees as a result. The question then becomes whether you would prefer to guarantee a lot of workers employment with a decent standard of living and then require the state to take care of the unemployed, or whether you are OK with everyone having a job (minus those experiencing frictional or cyclical unemployment, because minimum wage issues are structural) but barely getting by/possibly living in squalor.
OK, then let me be more clear. Monopolies are not good for consumers unless they are natural monopolies (again, in the economic sense). If you plot the possible cost and revenue curves for a monopolistic firm versus a competitive firm in the same industry, it almost always happens that the competitive firm produces more output at equilibrium and at a lower price than the monopolistic firm. The competitive outcome is thus for sure better for consumers. I don't think that is a point that can be disputed.
But really, the problem doesn't come so much in that itself. It comes when monopolies start abusing their powers to affect other industries, and especially when monopolies use the courts and laws to effect such abuse.
So I guess really my point is that while I don't think that monopolies are a good thing for consumers, antitrust laws are to be enforced not when one company simply dominates a particular market but when said company starts abusing said market power to either forcibly stifle competition or unilaterally affect other industries. Also, once again, although implementation of antitrust suits are often poorly-executed due to too much zeal, they aren't usually bad in principle (unless used against natural monopolies, and I use "natural monopoly" here in the economic sense).
I do have one disagreement. "Impose antitrust law" doesn't really fit in with the other statements around it except that it is also a case of people asking the government for help. That particular bit of help would, in my opinion, help free-market capitalism instead of promoting crony capitalism. And it is meant to be done by the people who should be innovating but can't...because of the large corporations blocking them through the other mentioned means.
Here's how you play...be an a**hole to parodies:
You stalk a parody.
You jump on them like you're about to sue.
You've got to keep hammering them for as long as possible, but once your arguments are destroyed, you *leg it*.
The clock stops when you arrive at the most profitable legal settlement. SIMPLE.
This is why more politicians need to learn basic calculus. Not all functions of time are linear, and it's important to know when to recognize that.
See: the exponential pace (i.e. initially very slow, but later very fast) of the Human Genome Project.
DietGoal, with the patent, has not used it to put up its own recipes online. It has no incentive to do so.
Other companies, without the patent, have put up recipes online. Clearly, there was no need for the patent to incentivize such behavior.
Therefore, as the patent is producing the exact opposite behavior as is intended by both the plaintiff and the defendant, the patent should be invalidated.
Simple.
This cyberoveremphasis on the cyberprefix "cyber" could cyberlead to some interesting cyberrecursion. When cyberself-anointed cyberpoliticians cyberfind that not enough cyberemphasis is being placed on cyberissues relating to cyberthreats, the cyberprefix "cyber" will be cyberadded to the cyberbeginning of every cyberword. "Cyberwar" is always the first cybercasuality, so it will cyberbecome "cybercyberwar", then "cybercybercyberwar", cyberetc.
In cybershort, cyberthink of the cyberchildren! Please, Cyber-I cyberbeg cyber-you!
Apparently, EA has convinced itself that it makes a boutique product. While this argument can be reasonably used by, say, Rolls-Royce to show why keeping the product expensive would help the brand, for EA this is utter nonsense.
Correction: as the artists' assets are the copyright protection, the protection must be seized and removed (which in the end necessitates putting the art into the public domain anyway).
Yeah, I suppose it's a bit of a stretch. TLDR: just as banks are stakeholders while homeowners and beneficiaries of houses, the public is the real stakeholder while artists are beneficiaries of copyright protection.
"We are the 99%" seemed to work fairly well as a slogan/call to action. How about "we are the real IP stakeholders"? That's short, blunt, and informative, methinks.
Let's do this analysis like a balance sheet. Let us consider first for the sake of example a homeowner and a bank. The homeowner has, as his ("his" being a gender-neutral pronoun for the purpose of this comment) asset, the house. The liabilities are the mortgage, which is debt, and the homeowner's own payments directly to paying off the house, which is equity. The bank has, as its asset, the mortgage, and as its liabilities, other deposits as debt along with possibly some equity. If the homeowner can no longer pay off the debt, the bank is allowed to seize the house. If the homeowner has too little equity, the chance of this happening is higher, ceteris paribus.
Now let's put this in terms of art and copyright. There are two entities: the public, and copyright-dependent artists (because more forward-thinking artists know what they're doing). The public has equity in the form of copyright, as it has given up its right for a limited time (please, no laughing) to works which should otherwise fall into the public domain. In return, the public consumes art, which is its asset. It does not have any debts in terms of arts. Artists have to have something to show (again, no laughing please) for greater copyright protection, so the copyright protection is its asset while the art itself is the liability. It must give said art to the public, so the art is debt rather than equity for the artist.
The public has infinite leverage over the artist, because the artist has no equity to show for greater copyright protection. This means that anytime the artists use copyright to stifle rather than create new art, they have defaulted on their obligations and the art should be seized and put into the public domain.
What of high prices though? I read a lot of TechDirt pieces regarding how the fact that ebook prices are often higher than physical book prices drives a lot of piracy of ebooks. Of the piracy of ebooks being done today, what percentage might be eliminated simply by doing something like offering them for $0.99 or even $4.99 instead of $19.99?
Re: Re: Re: The Postal Service must be saved because it beats the alternative
+1 for a Seinfeld reference! (By the way, the spelling is "Newman", for the record.)
Anyway, I agree that the postal service should not be privatized. It should be allowed to compete with private services, for sure, but the only way for remote locations to be served is through a government postal services, because private companies wouldn't find it profitable enough to be worth their time. And it would be a travesty if remote locations got cut off from mail deliveries.
On the post: Every Successful New Technology Has Created Panic From Those It Disrupts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One disagreement
To Richard, to be fair, wouldn't we commenters here on TechDirt refer people to articles on this site if they have an opinion about business models [et cetera] that we know to be unsupported by facts? That said, what Mr. Kinsella posits isn't necessarily factual; economics has not truly been settled and will never be settled because it is the study of human behavior, and that changes over time. And I agree that simply linking us to books promoting the Austrian school of economics essentially cops out on the argument, because it essentially says that "I can't synthesize a good counterargument using my knowledge of Austrian-style economics and keep the discussion going, so instead I'll pretend to have the upper hand by referring you to this one-sided book and hope that you come around to agreeing with me."
On the post: Every Successful New Technology Has Created Panic From Those It Disrupts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One disagreement
Now, it is possible for there to be a system without any unemployment/health benefits for those out of work or for those with low-paying jobs. Such a system would have no government intervention whatsoever, and more people would be working, yet more workers would have really low-paying jobs that would lead them to barely get by/live in squalor. It's capitalism in its purest form. Is that something I want to see? Of course it isn't. But the reason for you and I to assume that there are health benefits [et cetera] is a moral one, not an economic one. There is no economic reason for us to assume a priori that there are to be health benefits [et cetera] in what we discuss. So what I said above is true, holding other things equal and making it such that the only government intervention being considered is that of the enforcement of a minimum wage.
Also, how does the tragedy of the commons play into this at all? Nothing that I have said involves multiple individuals depleting a common resource in their own rational self-interest.
On the post: Every Successful New Technology Has Created Panic From Those It Disrupts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One disagreement
Minimum wages are actually inefficient because they create a disparity/disequilibrium between the demand and supply for labor. The minimum wage is essentially a price floor in the market for labor, so there are more workers than there are positions. Because firms will not employ more than a number of workers given by the intersection of their demand for labor and the minimum wage line, both consumer (firm) and producer (worker) surpluses decrease, and that decrease is not compensated for by an increase anywhere else, so the result is a deadweight (efficiency) loss to society.
The current wave of advancing technology can actually be traced back only to the industrial revolution. Between the dark ages (i.e. plague) and the industrial revolution, there was certainly a lot of scientific advancement but not as much economic progress as you might think. The real reason for increased efficiency is because using steam and coal instead of human-power produces vastly more output. As a result, less human labor is needed, while the labor that is needed is more skilled, so the result of that is a higher wage for the workers that are there, and this pretty much follows any advancement in technology.
On the post: Every Successful New Technology Has Created Panic From Those It Disrupts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One disagreement
On the post: Every Successful New Technology Has Created Panic From Those It Disrupts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One disagreement
But really, the problem doesn't come so much in that itself. It comes when monopolies start abusing their powers to affect other industries, and especially when monopolies use the courts and laws to effect such abuse.
On the post: Every Successful New Technology Has Created Panic From Those It Disrupts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One disagreement
On the post: Every Successful New Technology Has Created Panic From Those It Disrupts
One disagreement
Otherwise, it's a really great article.
On the post: Charles Carreon Keeps Digging: Promises To Subpoena Twitter & Ars Technica To Track Down Parody Account
Neg's instructions
You stalk a parody.
You jump on them like you're about to sue.
You've got to keep hammering them for as long as possible, but once your arguments are destroyed, you *leg it*.
The clock stops when you arrive at the most profitable legal settlement. SIMPLE.
On the post: Matthew Inman To Charles Carreon: Take Time Off, Stop Saying Crazy Sh*t To Journalists, Calm Down
Carreon stopping
On the post: Disruptive Innovation Is Not An Orderly Process
Exponential progress
See: the exponential pace (i.e. initially very slow, but later very fast) of the Human Genome Project.
On the post: Patent Holder Sues Basically Anyone Who Offers Recipes Or 'Meal Planning' Online
Counterproductive usage
Other companies, without the patent, have put up recipes online. Clearly, there was no need for the patent to incentivize such behavior.
Therefore, as the patent is producing the exact opposite behavior as is intended by both the plaintiff and the defendant, the patent should be invalidated.
Simple.
On the post: The Cyberpolitics Of Cyberbellicosity Cyberpushing Cybersecurity To Cyberprevent Cyberwar
Cyberrecursion
In cybershort, cyberthink of the cyberchildren! Please, Cyber-I cyberbeg cyber-you!
On the post: The Cyberpolitics Of Cyberbellicosity Cyberpushing Cybersecurity To Cyberprevent Cyberwar
Tell it like it is
He isn't an idiot, for sure.
He's a cyberidiot.
On the post: EA Believes That Making A Lot Of Money Is Less Important Than Keeping Games Expensive
Convincing themselves
On the post: Hollywood Bending Over Backwards To Appease China
Sounds like Microsoft
On the post: Dear Hollywood: The 'Stakeholders' For Copyright Policy Don't Fit In A Room
Re: Basic balance sheet
Yeah, I suppose it's a bit of a stretch. TLDR: just as banks are stakeholders while homeowners and beneficiaries of houses, the public is the real stakeholder while artists are beneficiaries of copyright protection.
On the post: Dear Hollywood: The 'Stakeholders' For Copyright Policy Don't Fit In A Room
Re: Re:
On the post: Dear Hollywood: The 'Stakeholders' For Copyright Policy Don't Fit In A Room
Basic balance sheet
Now let's put this in terms of art and copyright. There are two entities: the public, and copyright-dependent artists (because more forward-thinking artists know what they're doing). The public has equity in the form of copyright, as it has given up its right for a limited time (please, no laughing) to works which should otherwise fall into the public domain. In return, the public consumes art, which is its asset. It does not have any debts in terms of arts. Artists have to have something to show (again, no laughing please) for greater copyright protection, so the copyright protection is its asset while the art itself is the liability. It must give said art to the public, so the art is debt rather than equity for the artist.
The public has infinite leverage over the artist, because the artist has no equity to show for greater copyright protection. This means that anytime the artists use copyright to stifle rather than create new art, they have defaulted on their obligations and the art should be seized and put into the public domain.
How does that sound to everyone?
On the post: Not Only Can You 'Compete With Free' You Have To If You Don't Want Your Business Overrun By Piracy
High prices
On the post: Sen. Harry Reid: The Postal Service Must Be Saved Because 'Seniors Love Junk Mail'
Re: Re: Re: The Postal Service must be saved because it beats the alternative
Anyway, I agree that the postal service should not be privatized. It should be allowed to compete with private services, for sure, but the only way for remote locations to be served is through a government postal services, because private companies wouldn't find it profitable enough to be worth their time. And it would be a travesty if remote locations got cut off from mail deliveries.
Next >>