3 ms·

I'm a bit irked by the conclusion here: "Apparently the typewriter example is of such importance to many writers because it can so easily persuade people that a

by kaddar 17y ago

I'm a bit irked by the conclusion here: "Apparently the typewriter example is of such importance to many writers because it can so easily persuade people that an interventionist technology policy is necessary. How else to explain its continued use in this literature? Since an interventionist technology policy is no more likely to benefit consumers than are the myriad other government interventions in the market, we should not be surprised that good examples are largely fictional." I don't see how you can infer that because the basis for an argument of government intervention by some writers is flawed, that government intervention is flawed. Regardless of whether or not government intervention is the right idea, it seems strange for a magazine based on reason to make the claim : "A → ~B" is true, But A is false, therefore B is true.

Nwallins 17y ago
I don't think Reason is saying that this example proves that gov't intervention is flawed. I think they take it as a premise that gov't intervention is generally flawed, and the conclusion here is that we have an example of champions of gov't intervention disingenuously promoting this phenomenon as an example of why gov't intervention is needed.
- jacobolus 17y ago
  The problem is that I don’t personally know of any “big-government” proponents who use QWERTY as an example of how regulation is necessary (only that they say it proves that markets can have path-dependency, and inefficiencies, &c., which is true whether this example holds or not).
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
randallsquared 17y ago
"Since an interventionist technology policy is no more likely to benefit consumers than are the myriad other government interventions in the market[...]" This seems to imply that they're taking "government intervention is flawed" as a given for the argument, rather than a conclusion. This isn't surprising, since _Reason_ is pretty libertarian.
- davidw 17y ago
  If it's on that site, it's always (as far as I can tell) an article arguing for free markets or less government or something like that. Indeed: "Founded in 1968, Reason advances a free society by developing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law." So it's not really a serious economics journal (with varying points of view) or anything like that, it exists to promote one particular political view. I think that if we see articles from there, we can reasonably expect to see articles posted here from the other side, too, like, say, Paul Krugman or marxists.org or whatever. My desire is that neither one should appear here and that we stick to startups and hacking and things of that ilk, as those don't tend to produce the "SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!" reaction quite so much.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    It's not an economics journal at all: it's a pop-politics and pop-culture magazine, similar to Scientific American or Popular Mechanics, but on different subjects. You wouldn't say that "Popular Science is not a real astrophysics journal" is a mark against the magazine, I assume.
  - william-newman 17y ago
    For a more academic-economics-oriented article on the same theme by the same authors, see http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html , from _Journal of Law and Economics_. Incidentally, I would be very interested in a pointer to a comparably serious/academic rebuttal of Fable of the Keys. It has been a very long time since Fable of the Keys was published, and it has been a long time since I last tuned into the controversy, and at that time my understanding was that a rebuttal had long been promised but never produced.
dpatru 17y ago
The authors point out that the QWERTY example is currently the most favored by those arguing for government intervention. By attacking the QWERTY example, the authors are attacking the case for government intervention. > Stanford University economist Paul Krugman offered the central claim of this literature boldly and with admirable simplicity: "In QWERTY worlds, markets can't be trusted." The reason that he uses "QWERTY worlds," and not DOS worlds, or VHS worlds, is that the DOS and VHS examples are not very compelling. Almost no one uses DOS anymore, and many video recorder purchasers thought VHS was better than Beta (as it was, in terms of recording time, as we have discussed at length elsewhere). In an argument about government intervention, the burden of proof should always be on those arguing for government intervention because they are arguing that freedom should be restricted. To take a simple example, if you publish something on the Internet and I want the government to force you to take it down, the burden should be on me to show why the government should interfere with you. If I don't make a case that is more convincing than yours, you should be left alone. I should not be allowed to require that you prove why you should be allowed to publish. This is an important distinction because freedom often depends on this. Many activities that free people engage in would not happen if people had to ask permission first-- either because there is no plausible reason why the particular activity should be allowed, or just because it would not be worth the trouble. In a free society, government must have a good reason to prohibit. In a non-free society, people must have a good reason to get permission. The authors are assuming a free society, so they content themselves with attacking government's reasons to prohibit.

by kaddar 17y ago

Nwallins 17y ago

I don't think Reason is saying that this example proves that gov't intervention is flawed. I think they take it as a premise that gov't intervention is generally flawed, and the conclusion here is that we have an example of champions of gov't intervention disingenuously promoting this phenomenon as an example of why gov't intervention is needed.

jacobolus 17y ago
The problem is that I don’t personally know of any “big-government” proponents who use QWERTY as an example of how regulation is necessary (only that they say it proves that markets can have path-dependency, and inefficiencies, &c., which is true whether this example holds or not).
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

randallsquared 17y ago

"Since an interventionist technology policy is no more likely to benefit consumers than are the myriad other government interventions in the market[...]" This seems to imply that they're taking "government intervention is flawed" as a given for the argument, rather than a conclusion. This isn't surprising, since _Reason_ is pretty libertarian.

davidw 17y ago
If it's on that site, it's always (as far as I can tell) an article arguing for free markets or less government or something like that. Indeed: "Founded in 1968, Reason advances a free society by developing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law." So it's not really a serious economics journal (with varying points of view) or anything like that, it exists to promote one particular political view. I think that if we see articles from there, we can reasonably expect to see articles posted here from the other side, too, like, say, Paul Krugman or marxists.org or whatever. My desire is that neither one should appear here and that we stick to startups and hacking and things of that ilk, as those don't tend to produce the "SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!" reaction quite so much.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  It's not an economics journal at all: it's a pop-politics and pop-culture magazine, similar to Scientific American or Popular Mechanics, but on different subjects. You wouldn't say that "Popular Science is not a real astrophysics journal" is a mark against the magazine, I assume.
- william-newman 17y ago
  For a more academic-economics-oriented article on the same theme by the same authors, see http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html http://www.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/keys1.html , from _Journal of Law and Economics_. Incidentally, I would be very interested in a pointer to a comparably serious/academic rebuttal of Fable of the Keys. It has been a very long time since Fable of the Keys was published, and it has been a long time since I last tuned into the controversy, and at that time my understanding was that a rebuttal had long been promised but never produced.

dpatru 17y ago

The authors point out that the QWERTY example is currently the most favored by those arguing for government intervention. By attacking the QWERTY example, the authors are attacking the case for government intervention. > Stanford University economist Paul Krugman offered the central claim of this literature boldly and with admirable simplicity: "In QWERTY worlds, markets can't be trusted." The reason that he uses "QWERTY worlds," and not DOS worlds, or VHS worlds, is that the DOS and VHS examples are not very compelling. Almost no one uses DOS anymore, and many video recorder purchasers thought VHS was better than Beta (as it was, in terms of recording time, as we have discussed at length elsewhere). In an argument about government intervention, the burden of proof should always be on those arguing for government intervention because they are arguing that freedom should be restricted. To take a simple example, if you publish something on the Internet and I want the government to force you to take it down, the burden should be on me to show why the government should interfere with you. If I don't make a case that is more convincing than yours, you should be left alone. I should not be allowed to require that you prove why you should be allowed to publish. This is an important distinction because freedom often depends on this. Many activities that free people engage in would not happen if people had to ask permission first-- either because there is no plausible reason why the particular activity should be allowed, or just because it would not be worth the trouble. In a free society, government must have a good reason to prohibit. In a non-free society, people must have a good reason to get permission. The authors are assuming a free society, so they content themselves with attacking government's reasons to prohibit.