4 ms·

> It always* comes from scarcity of some kind.* Meaning, if you want to gain any wealth, then work on something scarce, and make sure it stays scarce. Let eve

> It always* comes from scarcity of some kind.* Meaning, if you want to gain any wealth, then work on something scarce, and make sure it stays scarce. Let everyone do that, and we get a world of scarcity. Hmm… I thought that a world of abundance was better?

davidw 16y ago
Competition has a way of ensuring that scarce things become abundant. Look at, say, automobiles or computers or food or most normal goods. Sure, monopolies exist, but we also have laws to limit their harm as well. You don't just get to wave your hands and make things "abundant", someone has to do the work, and in order to do the work they have to make a living at it, at the very least.
- dexen 16y ago
  > Sure, monopolies exist, but we also have laws to limit their harm as well. A monopoly large enough is able to self-sustain, by adjusting the environment to its needs. And let's say that openly: including adjusting the law. Of course, at some point their growth is stopped by growing pains of internal communication & management. What does the development of management theory and practice spell for the future, we shall see.
  - davidw 16y ago
    As I've said numerous times here, I don't think that IP laws in their current form are ideal, just that the idea of tossing them out entirely is likely to have some very serious consequences in terms of the production of information goods.
- intended 16y ago
  Counter example - affordable new AIDS medicines Or better internet connectivity/speeds in America. While competition does have its place for helping humanity, it should also be recognized as not being useful in the production of other types of goods.
  - davidw 16y ago
    How is throwing out IP laws completely going to get you those things? I don't see it. Who's going to bring drugs to market? Sure, government sponsors basic research, but to get there to the market is not exactly a walk in the park.
    - intended 16y ago
      I've read the thread again, could you tell me where I came across as "throwing out IP Laws completely"?. I think - A) Competition is good for some types of goods, not all. (I don't remember/know the correct economic criteria to define this.) B) IP laws are good/great for some research, and bad/terrible for others. C) I do not see the current system incentivizing humanity's good over personal/shareholder profit. D) The current system has 'Human Good' occur as a side effect of rewarding people to do their best. It is vastly better than any system which has existed before. it will be better if we can fix C).
      - davidw 16y ago
        The original article was about Chomsky saying IP was a bad thing, and a lot of commenters here seem to like the idea of ditching it, lock stock and barrel. I agree with your points, and think that D and C are incremental improvements to the existing system to try and make with time, rather than a reason to junk the entire thing.
        intended 16y ago
        I agree that ditching the whole thing would be ineffective. Even if we did, I would bet that the new system would be the old system with minor differences. There is good in the system, it needs more people to help managed and identify fraudulent/cheating behavior which is aimed at gaming the system. I also think we need a smaller net so that fewer things can be patented. Again, this is for the freedom to exchange information and ideas, which leads to the betterment of humanity as a whole. Everything we do has been built on the ideas and labor of others before us. It makes little sense to me to imagine we will be better off by not letting future generations do the same.
dexen 16y ago
There exists concept of Gift economy [1] where scarcity is not a driving factor. The (historical) implementations we had so far aren't exactly shining examples of quick development. But it may have been just partly related, or even unrelated, to the economic model. ---- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy
- dolokhov 16y ago
  the online gift economy does not have to remain limited to digital culture www.giftflow.org (still in alpha)

davidw 16y ago

Competition has a way of ensuring that scarce things become abundant. Look at, say, automobiles or computers or food or most normal goods. Sure, monopolies exist, but we also have laws to limit their harm as well. You don't just get to wave your hands and make things "abundant", someone has to do the work, and in order to do the work they have to make a living at it, at the very least.

dexen 16y ago
> Sure, monopolies exist, but we also have laws to limit their harm as well. A monopoly large enough is able to self-sustain, by adjusting the environment to its needs. And let's say that openly: including adjusting the law. Of course, at some point their growth is stopped by growing pains of internal communication & management. What does the development of management theory and practice spell for the future, we shall see.
- davidw 16y ago
  As I've said numerous times here, I don't think that IP laws in their current form are ideal, just that the idea of tossing them out entirely is likely to have some very serious consequences in terms of the production of information goods.
intended 16y ago
Counter example - affordable new AIDS medicines Or better internet connectivity/speeds in America. While competition does have its place for helping humanity, it should also be recognized as not being useful in the production of other types of goods.
- davidw 16y ago
  How is throwing out IP laws completely going to get you those things? I don't see it. Who's going to bring drugs to market? Sure, government sponsors basic research, but to get there to the market is not exactly a walk in the park.
  - intended 16y ago
    I've read the thread again, could you tell me where I came across as "throwing out IP Laws completely"?. I think - A) Competition is good for some types of goods, not all. (I don't remember/know the correct economic criteria to define this.) B) IP laws are good/great for some research, and bad/terrible for others. C) I do not see the current system incentivizing humanity's good over personal/shareholder profit. D) The current system has 'Human Good' occur as a side effect of rewarding people to do their best. It is vastly better than any system which has existed before. it will be better if we can fix C).
    - davidw 16y ago
      The original article was about Chomsky saying IP was a bad thing, and a lot of commenters here seem to like the idea of ditching it, lock stock and barrel. I agree with your points, and think that D and C are incremental improvements to the existing system to try and make with time, rather than a reason to junk the entire thing.
      - intended 16y ago
        I agree that ditching the whole thing would be ineffective. Even if we did, I would bet that the new system would be the old system with minor differences. There is good in the system, it needs more people to help managed and identify fraudulent/cheating behavior which is aimed at gaming the system. I also think we need a smaller net so that fewer things can be patented. Again, this is for the freedom to exchange information and ideas, which leads to the betterment of humanity as a whole. Everything we do has been built on the ideas and labor of others before us. It makes little sense to me to imagine we will be better off by not letting future generations do the same.

dexen 16y ago

There exists concept of Gift economy [1] where scarcity is not a driving factor. The (historical) implementations we had so far aren't exactly shining examples of quick development. But it may have been just partly related, or even unrelated, to the economic model. ---- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy

dolokhov 16y ago
the online gift economy does not have to remain limited to digital culture www.giftflow.org (still in alpha)