<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18852">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT color=#0000ff face="Comic Sans MS">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).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT color=#0000ff
face="Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT color=#0000ff face="Comic Sans MS">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".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT color=#0000ff
face="Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT color=#0000ff face="Comic Sans MS">(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).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT color=#0000ff
face="Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT color=#0000ff face="Comic Sans MS">Yet
another piece of kretology (sorry, I don't know the English
translation):</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT color=#0000ff
face="Comic Sans MS">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)).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT color=#0000ff
face="Comic Sans MS">"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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT color=#0000ff
face="Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT color=#0000ff face="Comic Sans MS">It is a
bad, bad world. Goodnight.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT color=#0000ff
face="Comic Sans MS">reinier</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT color=#0000ff
face="Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT color=#0000ff
face="Comic Sans MS"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=the.real.edison.carter@gmail.com
href="mailto:the.real.edison.carter@gmail.com">Edison Carter</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net
href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">Pirate Parties
International -- General Talk</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, November 06, 2009 10:07
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [pp.int.general] Artificial
Scarcity</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Christian Hufgard <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:pp@christian-hufgard.de">pp@christian-hufgard.de</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV class=im>coretx wrote:<BR>> PP might be smart when they talk about
how to eliminate deadweight loss,<BR>> instead of eliminating "artificial
scarcity"<BR>> Artificial scarcity is not the issue, the consequence can
be.<BR>> And gues what, deadweight loss is one of the worst nightmares of
free<BR>> market liberalists, right wing and left wing extremists
etc.<BR>> Restoring the free market equilibrium is good for both<BR>>
consumers/citizens _and_ for business.<BR>> If explained the right way,
no sane person could argue against us.<BR><BR></DIV>Except those who lost
their jobs the last year due to the free financial<BR>market...<FONT
color=#888888><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>LOL.. so the market collapsed
because the government wasn't interfering and regulating it enough,
huh?<BR></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>____________________________________________________<BR>Pirate Parties
International - General
Talk<BR>pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net<BR>http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>