[pp.int.general] Artificial Scarcity

[Reinier Bakels]

  This is very much a debate on abuse of economic concepts that are often misunderstood. (Sure everybody on this list is so smart that they do not make the mistakes that even people do who call themselves "economists" , you know, those people who were unable to predict the present economic crisis).

  If you want to play the game of using terms like "artificial scarcity", "deadweight loss", and "market failure", you may add that the traditional idea of the "tragedy of the commons" has turned into a "tragedy of the ANTIcommons".

  (The former theory is old: it says that a common good is neglected if there is no (legal) owner. The latter theory says that to much ownership is disastrous for welfare (and was coined in the late 1990s by Michael Heller).

  Yet another piece of kretology (sorry, I don't know the English translation):
  Property rights on public goods like information commonly lead to a market failure that can be remedied by legal means that allow "internalisation of externalities". Incidentally, this is a strong example of an attempt to make economics look like a serious science by using complicated words: the idea is that you won't invest if you expect little benefit for yourself, even if other people would benefit, unless (legal) provision is made to reroute the benefit of others to yourself. (Perhaps negative externalities are more commonly known: you won't stop polluting if you don't have to pay for the damage (as an economic agent without a conscience)).
  "Internalisation enabling" is a typical argument for copyright. The missing link is that the scheme does not work if the internalisation cost is higher than its potenbtial yield. Unless that cost is borne by the taxpayer = yet another externality = yet another market failure = what the record companies want.

  It is a bad, bad world. Goodnight.

  reinier


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Edison Carter 
  To: Pirate Parties International -- General Talk 
  Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 10:07 PM
  Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Artificial Scarcity





  On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Christian Hufgard <pp at christian-hufgard.de> wrote:

    coretx wrote:
    > PP might be smart when they talk about how to eliminate deadweight loss,
    > instead of eliminating "artificial scarcity"
    > Artificial scarcity is not the issue, the consequence can be.
    > And gues what, deadweight loss is one of the worst nightmares of free
    > market liberalists, right wing and  left wing extremists etc.
    > Restoring the free market equilibrium is good for both
    > consumers/citizens _and_ for business.
    > If explained the right way, no sane person could argue against us.


    Except those who lost their jobs the last year due to the free financial
    market...


  LOL.. so the market collapsed because the government wasn't interfering and regulating it enough, huh?



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  ____________________________________________________
  Pirate Parties International - General Talk
  pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
  http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20091106/7b18a470/attachment.htm>