3 ms·

> The way to "beat" piracy is to consider it as a competitor... I hope it's not too tangential, but I think of economics and politics the same way: XYZ-ism is

> The way to "beat" piracy is to consider it as a competitor... I hope it's not too tangential, but I think of economics and politics the same way: XYZ-ism is good you say? ABC-ism is bad? Sure, grow your XYZ-ism naturally, go for the bootstraps. If it's more awesome it should be more efficient and productive, people should choose it naturally, happily, and calmly in their own best interest without coercion or propaganda. But, of course, that never happens.

pmyteh 6y ago
One problem with this idea is that collective action problems exist. I truly want this new world, but my employment and promotion decisions are based on the old one (closed journals are older, and most of the prestigious journals are old and closed, and to get a job that's where I need to publish). Critically, the same is also true of all of my colleagues. So we all submit to the old journals, which thereby retain their prestige. In many ways, it's similar to platform economics, with Elsevier in place of WhatsApp. (I'm also not sure that awesome == efficient + productive, but that's a different issue).
- kleer001 6y ago
  yup, awesome will need to include charisma and deep pockets to bootstrap. then again I can see a smooth transition from an extant system with an oddly benificent CEO, but I can be delusional like that. if awesome = neither effective nor productive then we're going to get mass starvation and mass death, or at the very least feudalism, and that doesn't sound nice I know of no competitive natural system that's more wasteful than its competitors
thatcat 6y ago
what's a monopoly?
- kleer001 6y ago
  In this context, in my personal opinion and world view? A monopoly is MAGLIGNANT FUCKING TERATOMA! Excuse my emphasis and emotion, but that's the best analogy I can come up with. Unless of course you want an economic or dictionary definition, but I don't think that's what you were asking.
- deathlight 6y ago
  A miserable little pile of secrets.
cratermoon 6y ago
https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/ https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/
- kleer001 6y ago
  yea, but no thanks, neo-liberalism is obviously garbage laisez faire is no way to solve the tragedy of the commons

pmyteh 6y ago

One problem with this idea is that collective action problems exist. I truly want this new world, but my employment and promotion decisions are based on the old one (closed journals are older, and most of the prestigious journals are old and closed, and to get a job that's where I need to publish). Critically, the same is also true of all of my colleagues. So we all submit to the old journals, which thereby retain their prestige. In many ways, it's similar to platform economics, with Elsevier in place of WhatsApp. (I'm also not sure that awesome == efficient + productive, but that's a different issue).

kleer001 6y ago
yup, awesome will need to include charisma and deep pockets to bootstrap. then again I can see a smooth transition from an extant system with an oddly benificent CEO, but I can be delusional like that. if awesome = neither effective nor productive then we're going to get mass starvation and mass death, or at the very least feudalism, and that doesn't sound nice I know of no competitive natural system that's more wasteful than its competitors

thatcat 6y ago

what's a monopoly?

kleer001 6y ago
In this context, in my personal opinion and world view? A monopoly is MAGLIGNANT FUCKING TERATOMA! Excuse my emphasis and emotion, but that's the best analogy I can come up with. Unless of course you want an economic or dictionary definition, but I don't think that's what you were asking.
deathlight 6y ago
A miserable little pile of secrets.

cratermoon 6y ago

https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/ https://bitworking.org/news/2008/01/the-free-market-fairy/

kleer001 6y ago
yea, but no thanks, neo-liberalism is obviously garbage laisez faire is no way to solve the tragedy of the commons