Don't corporations own enough without owning random bits on some LaCie hard drive somewhere? Information is universal and it should be free. End of story.
No, information is not universal. Information is contributed by individuals whether paid for by corporations, or devised through his/her own means.
The free-market system depends on scarcity of information. You cannot profit from something that everyone has a right to. FreeSoftware companies are not an example of this. They profit from service (i.e. a collection of information services provided by said company to an customer.) or proprietary innovation (MS is an example of expanding public information).
Without resources you interests have no value to society in this context. The correlary is that only things that interest society get the most attention. That is why counting cow farts can only get supported by the government.
This would neglect the fact that modern economics is based on the existence of scarcity, and scarcity is not based on the existence of the economy.
There is no logical need, reason, or purpose behind generating artificial scarcity. Many intellectual 'property' disputes raise barriers to productivity when they wouldn't previously have existed. If someone had patented the wheel then either patent law would have died then and there, or the course of history would have radically shifted.
There is no logical need, reason, or purpose behind generating artificial scarcity. Many intellectual 'property' disputes raise barriers to productivity when they wouldn't previously have existed.
Except that intellectual property laws are unconcerned with productivity. They are, however, very much concerned with *profit*, and profits can only be increased with scarcity due to the law of supply and demand (which has not be repealed, nor declared unconstitutional).
>Except that intellectual property laws are unconcerned with productivity. They are, however, very much concerned with *profit*, and profits can only be increased with scarcity due to the law of supply and demand (which has not be repealed, nor declared unconstitutional).
But supply and demand are not really in effect when the supply is being artificially restricted. If the supply of something is for all purposes infinite, don't expect me to pay much (if anything) for it.
"It's perfetcly possible to have a free market without scarcity of information."
Indeed it's required...
If price, quality, and history information isn't perfectly and universally available, it's not a free market.
So for example, trying to prevent the publishing of a shop's price list is an attempt to destroy a free market. People don't know enough to make a perfect choice, so the best supplier doesn't necessarily make the sales.
The free market depends upon the legitimacy of private property, and of the property owner's freedom to dispose of his property as he chooses.
If private property rights are abridged, you don't have a free market. If property owners aren't free to do what they want with their goods, you don't have a free market. It doesn't matter how scarce or abundant things are if private property rights are non-existent. It wasn't scarcity or abundance of material that made the Soviet economy so horribly broken; it was
Actually, the free-market system depends on the AVAILABILITY of information.
Buying, selling and investing decisions can't be rationally made in a socialist economy because all decisions are subject to the whim or politics of the current government. Thus scarcity, environmental effects, consumer preferences, quality and other information are largely unavailable to consumers and end users at every level, there is no mechanism to encourage increases in efficiency or productivity. Free market societies have to
The free-market system depends on scarcity of information.
Excuse me? A free market can't exist without open sharing of information. When information is hidden, people engage in transactions they wouldn't touch if they knew all the facts. E.g., lemon cars that break down a week after you buy them, or buying a computer for $1000 when you could have gotten the same thing for $300 at the shop down the street. Market forces can only operate when participants knows exactly what they're getting, and what th
The free-market system depends on scarcity of information.
Certain business models depend on the scarcity of information. The whole system only depends on scarcity of commodoties (that's why we have copyright - to impose artificial scarcity to information).
You cannot profit from something that everyone has a right to.
Lawyers don't seem to have any trouble profiting from the law. Or accountants from maths.
Without resources you interests have no value to society in this context. The correlary is that o
Free-market does not depend on scarcity, it depends on freedom from government interference in the various markets. The whole point of a free market is that the most efficient source of the product will be used rather than one dictated by, as in the case of state run industries, or influenced by, such as the US steel tariff, who ever is trying to control or influence the market. This leeds to politically motivated economic decisions which usually cost more than a free-market based approach.
The free-market system depends on scarcity of information.
In a truly "free" market, scarcity occurs because of limited supply, not through the machinations of government or cumpulsory licensing demanded by a corporation (the enforcability of which also depends on regulation). To say that the free-market depends on a scarcity of information is to say claim that free-markets will eventually fail due to thier dependancy of a commodity that cannot remain scarce without abandonong the free-market model.
I find
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Sigh... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
The free-market system depends on scarcity of information. You cannot profit from something that everyone has a right to. FreeSoftware companies are not an example of this. They profit from service (i.e. a collection of information services provided by said company to an customer.) or proprietary innovation (MS is an example of expanding public information).
Without resources you interests have no value to society in this context. The correlary is that only things that interest society get the most attention. That is why counting cow farts can only get supported by the government.
Re:Sigh... (Score:1)
There is no logical need, reason, or purpose behind generating artificial scarcity. Many intellectual 'property' disputes raise barriers to productivity when they wouldn't previously have existed. If someone had patented the wheel then either patent law would have died then and there, or the course of history would have radically shifted.
There is no point to
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
Except that intellectual property laws are unconcerned with productivity. They are, however, very much concerned with *profit*, and profits can only be increased with scarcity due to the law of supply and demand (which has not be repealed, nor declared unconstitutional).
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
But supply and demand are not really in effect when the supply is being artificially restricted. If the supply of something is for all purposes infinite, don't expect me to pay much (if anything) for it.
Re:Sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it doesn't.
The free-market system depends on scarcity of material.
That material may be 'intellectual property', or it may be physical goods.
It's perfetcly possible to have a free market without scarcity of information.
Re:Sigh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed it's required...
If price, quality, and history information isn't perfectly and universally available, it's not a free market.
So for example, trying to prevent the publishing of a shop's price list is an attempt to destroy a free market. People don't know enough to make a perfect choice, so the best supplier doesn't necessarily make the sales.
Close (Score:1)
If private property rights are abridged, you don't have a free market. If property owners aren't free to do what they want with their goods, you don't have a free market. It doesn't matter how scarce or abundant things are if private property rights are non-existent. It wasn't scarcity or abundance of material that made the Soviet economy so horribly broken; it was
Re:Sigh... (Score:1)
Buying, selling and investing decisions can't be rationally made in a socialist economy because all decisions are subject to the whim or politics of the current government. Thus scarcity, environmental effects, consumer preferences, quality and other information are largely unavailable to consumers and end users at every level, there is no mechanism to encourage increases in efficiency or productivity. Free market societies have to
Pardon? (Score:1)
The free-market system depends on scarcity of information.
Excuse me? A free market can't exist without open sharing of information. When information is hidden, people engage in transactions they wouldn't touch if they knew all the facts. E.g., lemon cars that break down a week after you buy them, or buying a computer for $1000 when you could have gotten the same thing for $300 at the shop down the street. Market forces can only operate when participants knows exactly what they're getting, and what th
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
Certain business models depend on the scarcity of information. The whole system only depends on scarcity of commodoties (that's why we have copyright - to impose artificial scarcity to information).
You cannot profit from something that everyone has a right to.
Lawyers don't seem to have any trouble profiting from the law. Or accountants from maths.
Without resources you interests have no value to society in this context. The correlary is that o
Not true (Score:2)
I'll give you
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
In a truly "free" market, scarcity occurs because of limited supply, not through the machinations of government or cumpulsory licensing demanded by a corporation (the enforcability of which also depends on regulation). To say that the free-market depends on a scarcity of information is to say claim that free-markets will eventually fail due to thier dependancy of a commodity that cannot remain scarce without abandonong the free-market model.
I find