5 ms·

> How do you quantify "for free"? If we mean "at no cost to the taker," then it's equal to theft, which is obviously not much of a position to take. I'm guessin

> How do you quantify "for free"? If we mean "at no cost to the taker," then it's equal to theft, which is obviously not much of a position to take. I'm guessing this isn't what you mean. This usage of the word "theft" only makes sense when dealing with private goods, as I explained in my original post. We're dealing with a good (information) that is entirely nonrival and fairly non-excludable, putting it somewhere on the spectrum between a common good and a public good. > Excluding that cost from our analysis of the situation leads to a distorted view of economics and reality. Applying the economics of private goods to goods that are neither rival nor excludable leads to a distorted view of reality as well.

chc 14y ago
> This usage of the word "theft" only makes sense when dealing with private goods, as I explained in my original post If I had indeed used the word "theft" to refer to it, that would be a good point. However, I did not. I said that if you're only considering the cost to the recipient, then the same analysis could apply with equal validity to theft. > Applying the economics of private goods to goods that are neither rival nor excludable leads to a distorted view of reality as well. Talent is both rival and excludable. That is my point. The marginal cost of transmitting the information is essentially nonexistent, but the cost of producing it in the first place (which depends on a finite supply of talented time) must be taken into account or we'll come to bad, unrealistic decisions.
- chimeracoder 14y ago
  > I said that if you're only considering the cost to the recipient, then the same analysis could apply with equal validity to theft. If I choose to redistribute a piece of software, there is zero opportunity cost to either me, the supplier, or to the receiver. > Talent is both rival and excludable. ...No, it's really not. "Talent" isn't even a good; it's an attribute - the fact that you're using the word in this way makes me suspect you don't really understand the underlying economic principles. > The marginal cost of transmitting the information is essentially nonexistent, As is the cost of producing a copy, which cannot be said for physical goods. > but the cost of producing it in the first place (which depends on a finite supply of talented time) must be taken into account I understand that you're trying to draw a comparison to the logic behind drug patents, but when you're dealing with a good for which the redistribution and production of all units beyond the first has zero opportunity cost, artificially imposing (by fiat) a cost on the redistribution and production is neither feasible nor efficient[1] [1] In the economic sense of the word, not the ways it's often used colloquially.

chc 14y ago

> This usage of the word "theft" only makes sense when dealing with private goods, as I explained in my original post If I had indeed used the word "theft" to refer to it, that would be a good point. However, I did not. I said that if you're only considering the cost to the recipient, then the same analysis could apply with equal validity to theft. > Applying the economics of private goods to goods that are neither rival nor excludable leads to a distorted view of reality as well. Talent is both rival and excludable. That is my point. The marginal cost of transmitting the information is essentially nonexistent, but the cost of producing it in the first place (which depends on a finite supply of talented time) must be taken into account or we'll come to bad, unrealistic decisions.

chimeracoder 14y ago
> I said that if you're only considering the cost to the recipient, then the same analysis could apply with equal validity to theft. If I choose to redistribute a piece of software, there is zero opportunity cost to either me, the supplier, or to the receiver. > Talent is both rival and excludable. ...No, it's really not. "Talent" isn't even a good; it's an attribute - the fact that you're using the word in this way makes me suspect you don't really understand the underlying economic principles. > The marginal cost of transmitting the information is essentially nonexistent, As is the cost of producing a copy, which cannot be said for physical goods. > but the cost of producing it in the first place (which depends on a finite supply of talented time) must be taken into account I understand that you're trying to draw a comparison to the logic behind drug patents, but when you're dealing with a good for which the redistribution and production of all units beyond the first has zero opportunity cost, artificially imposing (by fiat) a cost on the redistribution and production is neither feasible nor efficient[1] [1] In the economic sense of the word, not the ways it's often used colloquially.