Greenspan Examines the Economics of IP 401
lilgerry writes "Alan Greenspan is asking some tough questions about the correct balance between rewarding innovators and inhibiting follow-on innovators. There's not many answers here, but there's a hint that there could be some clear economic thinking coming to be added to the discussion. Several good questions raised, and in very precise terms that should get papers published on these topics for years to come."
All this patent crap can be resolved very simply (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:All this patent crap can be resolved very simpl (Score:4, Funny)
Re:All this patent crap can be resolved very simpl (Score:2)
Re:All this patent crap can be resolved very simpl (Score:2, Informative)
Neutrinos were originally theorized to explain a reaction which had to produce an extra particle with no mass (but with its other properties such as spin non-zero). I believe it was something along the lines of a particle decaying into other particles with the sum of the masses of the non-neutrino particl
Re:All this patent crap can be resolved very simpl (Score:2)
scripsit BetterThanCaesar:
I just did a quick search, and I think the Supreme Being has prior art there. Sorry.
Re:All this patent crap can be resolved very simpl (Score:5, Insightful)
Of COURSE not! (Score:2)
You shoudlnt be able to patent an algorithm. Its friggin mathematics, it is the laws of the Universe. What if someone patented 1*2? What, no more math textbooks? WTF are you talking about? Why in god's name should algorithms be patentable. They fall into the exact same case as software patents. (And don't go off on how if algorithms aren't paentable who will research them. Hint: people don't become methematicians for the "huge" profit margins. They do it because they love acedemia, and these people will con
Re:Of COURSE not! (Score:3, Insightful)
wrong. if drugs can't be patented then nobody will be willing to pony up the cash for the research. what we need, and it sounds like what greenspan is saying, is a balance between protection for corporations of intellectual property and a protection for consumers from privateering pharmaceutical companies.
Re:Of COURSE not! (Score:2)
Hence why I specifically said "All drug research should be publically funded"
Next time read the comment before posting rash reponses.
Re:Of COURSE not! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of COURSE not! (Score:2)
Um, with drugs being privately funded now, who determines which drugs are researched?
I think if it was public vs private funded, the thing being funded itself will not at all change.
Re:Of COURSE not! (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the free market will direct research towards the drugs that are profitable, not where there is a great humanitarian demand. For example, if AIDS is mostly an African problem, then nobody will be researching AIDS drugs because Africans cannot afford expensive drugs.
Re:Of COURSE not! (Score:2)
Re:Of COURSE not! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, but not because of the tens of millions afflicted in Africa. Some African nations had started to distribute "illegal" generics, because their dying population cannot afford the patented drugs.
I'll repeat it for you. The free market, by definition, optimizes for profit. If AIDS research costs $5B and earns $6B, while a special drug for an ailment only Bill Gates has costs $5B and he's willing to pay $10B, free market will invest in Bill Gates' drug.
The fact that AIDS is hotly researched is because many relatively rich people are affected. Many diseases (TB, for example) that primarily affect poor third world countries are neglected by the free market, because there's no money there.
The free Market is the only way. If it was supported by public research, that would mean MORE taxes as well as Political influence.
No, many health issues are not best handled (nevermind only handled) by private industry. It will lead to abuses like:
- "Poor people diseases" getting too little
funding
- "Rich people diseases" getting too much
funding
- Unnecessary medication. Remember their
objective is to sell you as many pills as
possible without killing you or otherwise
making you stop buying.
A better approach is a hybrid. Let private industry work on "rich people diseases", because there the demand aligns with profit, where private industries work best. However, somebody has to take care of the neglected diseases.Re:Of COURSE not! (Score:5, Insightful)
If drug research were publically funded, who would determine which drugs are researched? How would we know which are the best drugs to research, and which not? The free market is a wonderful mechanism to determine this
Umm, this is ridiculously false. First off, the free market is only good for determining how much money something is worth, not for determining how much society will benefit from something. And to answer the firts point, the same way everything else in public policy is done, the people* decide what drugs are to be researched.
History bears me out on this. Any student of economics knows that free markets invariably produce better outcomes overall than do centralised economies
Not when it comes to things of public welfare. Why do you think the US has what is generally regarded to be one of the worst health care systems in the first world, and the most expensive drugs? Why do you think senior citizens have to smuggle drugs across the border because they cannot afford them themselves? Answer: because health care in most all EU nations and Canada and Australia are publicly funded, and have massive publically funded drug research programs, because they try to look after the people, whereas the US is just interested in making a quick buck.
Re:Of COURSE not! (Score:2)
Basically if you are unfortunate enough to become sick then your best hope is that your illness has been deemed a profitable one by the pharmaceutical companies a
Re:Of COURSE not! (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, for crying out loud...
Mathematics is just a language. A logical language with nuiances of logic and a necessary language for computers, but it's just a language.
The universe got by for billions of years before the invention of mathematics, and it'd get by without mathematics, too.
You shouldnt be able to patent information (Score:2)
If everyone who invented math did this we wouldnt have progressed this far. Imagine if Egyptians patented math?
Or what about drugs? Why should you be able to patent this? Sure no one else should be able to sell the drug, but if sick people in countries who cannot afford to buy the drug want to make it themselves why cant they?
Re:All this patent crap can be resolved very simpl (Score:2)
It's the opposite you dolt! (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't patent a car, you patent the DESIGN. Think about it, you can't patent matter. That's absurd. "You've got 10 molecules of naturally occruing versions of a material I've patented. You owe me XXX!"
Thinking like yours is why people people oppose anything with the word patent in it. You don't understand it at all.
Re:It's the opposite you dolt! (Score:2, Informative)
some real crap (Score:2)
To parse this article.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am more concerned with giant corporations patenting everything - including the patently obvious, then the length of legitimate patents.
Re:To parse this article.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why? If the length of a patent is fairly short, then the only problem is the delay in innovation - I can't build on your stuff until your patent expires. And once something has been patented, you can't patent it again. If you have a long-term patent system, innovation will suffer more because I have to wait longer to build on your stuff.
Re:To parse this article.. (Score:2)
Re:To parse this article.. (Score:2)
If intellectual Property rights protection affects economic growth, it is because it affects growth in productivity [see note below]. [second sentence doesnt' say anything]. It will be hard to find a way to measure the effect of intellectual property protection on economic growth.
Note: economic growth (or growth in production) is the result of growth in how much we work and growth in how much we produce in a given unit of time. Growth in (labor) productivity is
Re:To parse this article.. (Score:5, Funny)
When Greenspan talks, everyone listens. Why? No one knows what the hell he's saying, but it really, really sounds important. Whether or not he's actually saying anything here is irrelevent; it is enough that he speaks. Usually, someone comes up with a rough translation of his words sufficient to determine his position, which is then assumed to be correct. If it turns out to be wrong, there was an error in the translation, or a misinterpretation of his position. Greenspan is always right.
Re:To parse this article.. (Score:5, Interesting)
It looks to me like he's trying to slowly admit that the real bubble is the IP bubble and not the DotCom bubble or the Internet bubble or the Telecoms bubble.
This is a very difficult thing for Mr. Greenspan to say in public and I was quite impressed. The implications are enormous and I've been saying the same thing all along.
The IP bubble he's referring to started with the "Reagan Revolution" which goes back through a large part of Mr. Greenspans previously succesfull career.
Greenspan gained a lot of respect in my eyes with this essay, but unfortunately he is forced to conclude that while he recognizes the validity of these points, he is in too deep to abruptly address the fundamental changes that will have to take place to address these issues.
Re:To parse this article.. (Score:2)
Yes, it does. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's meaningless. Next:
I am more concerned with giant corporations patenting everything - including the patently obvious, then the length of legitimate patents.
Greenspan is more concerned with the economy as a whole. The guy is looking down from 10,000 miles. Read the article in that light and it may make some more sense.
It seems that Greenspan
Re:To parse this article.. (Score:2)
Parsed Version (Score:5, Informative)
We need laws to govern the market. Without them, people could steal your stuff. But if the laws are too restrictive, that's also no good.
Way back when, there were no laws, and the economy wasn't good. Then people made laws, and things were better. People couldn't steal your stuff anymore. Or at least, they'd be punished for it. And punished the same way all the time.
In Russia a while ago, there were like, no laws. It was crazy. It was like that because for 40 years before that, there were a lot of really restrictive laws.
But it wasn't just that there were a lot of bad laws. It was also that the pigs were weird about it. Sometimes they'd arrest you, and sometimes they wouldn't. But now, the people in charge know what they're doing.
***
When technology changes, laws need to be updated, but some people like to keep them as they are. If you enforce the old laws in a weird way, lots of times it's no good, and the economy will suffer.
But it's hard to make new laws. Not only that, but there's only enough time and people to hear a few cases, so for almost all trades, both sides have to be cool. The law is only there "just in case."
I'm going to repeat here what I just said two paragraphs ago. Not only that, but I'm going to mention that I'm repeating it.
Here in the US, we made a constitution to deal with all this, and so far it's worked out pretty well.
***
Lately, the US has been producing a lot more conceptual stuff and a lot less physical stuff.
Lately, the US has been producing a lot more conceptual stuff and a lot less physical stuff.
The stuff we used to make was big. The stuff we make now is small.
It's like that because smaller stuff is easier to deal with.
When you make a physical thing, it costs money to make another one. When you make a virtual thing, it doesn't.
Businesses may be producing more virtual stuff becuase it's cheaper.
Because we're making more virtual stuff, intellectual property (IP) is becoming more important.
It hasn't been a big deal up until now, because physical property is easy to defend, but IP is hard.
IP isn't the same thing as physical property. How do we differentiate? Do we treat them the same, or do make different laws?
It's tricky. However we do it, we're gonna have to make some choices. Those choices are gonna be really important to people who make stuff and people who buy stuff.
With IP, you can't pay royalties to anyone who's ever thought up part of the idea - it would be silly. The whole thing is really complicated, so we decided to just copy the brits and put a time limit on the ownership of IP.
So lately, since we're making more virtual stuff, this whole IP thing has become really important. Duh.
One thing that's important is information technology. Laser and fiber optic lines deliver lots of information really quickly.
Getting information quicker lets businesses get a better handle on things, and that's been good for the physical and virtual realms. We should make sure to make laws that are good for both.
***
If we want as good an economy as possible, are our laws, which were made mostly for physical stuff, appropriate?
The fact that more of the stuff we make these days is virtual is gonna have an impact on the economic growth and standards of living. Protection of IP rights needs to deal with that in an appropriate manner. It's gonna be tricky.
So, we have to keep the economy good, while the market gets increasingly dominated with IP. It's good we all got together to talk about this now.
***
End of speech.
***
So no, he isn't really saying anything. Just asking some questions. But they need to be asked by him, even if
GDP Growth (Score:5, Insightful)
My advice, buy land. They stopped making it years ago.....
Re:GDP Growth (Score:2)
My wife wanted us to do that back before the .com bubble burst. We got one apartment paid in full, which is now generating income. Wish I had saved the rest of it though, as I sat blankly watching it vaporize.
I won't say that I'll never trust my money to stocks again, because you never say never. But it's not in the short-term future, and like you, I will put any excess income I get into real estate.
raises an interesting point (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Greenspan is a smart guy. He has the moral understanding of Capitalism that he got from Ayn Rand and that lot, but unlike your average ideological Objectivist, he's also pragmatic. He understands that, say, the inefficiency of the federal reserve affecting interest rates is balanced against the short-term chaos and unpredictability of an unregulated money supply.
So what he's saying here is interesting and balances the ideology of "intellectual property" with pragmatic reality. The main point I notice is this:
To put it another way: free markets are beneficial, we all agree on that. We also most note that free markets are self-organizing. Which means that most people act in a way that supports the existence of a free market. This idea is echoed by Greenspan's statement above.
When 20 million people trade files on P2P networks, they may be commiting an act which is morally wrong according to our present views, but they are merely exploiting a property of information that has always been bubbling under the surface: it can easily be copied. Technology today is simply exposing the false assumption, made long ago, that information is difficult to copy.
A "free market" in information is therefore not self-regulating, and should not be called a free market at all. It's more like a kind of "non-laissez-faire capitalism"
We should ask ourselves, is the massive regulation required to prop up this system worth it? Or should we just fix this assumption and start anew?
Re:raises an interesting point (Score:2, Interesting)
In that case, DRM is nothing more than a return to the status quo: "information" that happens _not_ to be easily copied.
While "easily copied" is perhaps part of the traditional definition of information, this same advance in technology can remove that property. Ease
Re:raises an interesting point (Score:2)
...And dictatorships don't need nearly as many laws as a democracy.
Re:raises an interesting point (Score:2)
That's funny because by definition Objectivists are pragmatic. Were you using the GNU dictionary where words are defined by their misuse?
Re:raises an interesting point (Score:4, Insightful)
That's funny, since I haven't yet met an Objectivist who wasn't more concerned with the purity of the way things ought to be than about dealing with the way things are to achieve the desired result.
I'll stipulate that in theory, Objectivists should be pragmatic. However, in practice I find that Objectivists are about as pragmatic as 2nd year philosophy majors.
Re:raises an interesting point (Score:2)
Re:raises an interesting point (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that it's a chicken-or-the-egg problem. I disagree that free markets are self-organizing; trade existed, and markets emerged, mereged, and organized. Organization of this kind of thing is nearly always an afterthought, or a reaction. To take the state of nature argument, people act in a way that support the existence of free markets, only in situations where actors are of near equal standing, have something the other wants. This prevents the force or fraud angle. It would be nearly impossible for a consumer to deal with Wal-Mart in good faith without government protecting him from force or fraud.
What objectivism relies upon is that force and fraud never enter the equation between free individuals because it is antithetical to life. Hence the constant struggle between the protagonists in Rand's novels and the "looters."
When 20 million people trade files on P2P networks, they may be commiting an act which is morally wrong according to our present views, but they are merely exploiting a property of information that has always been bubbling under the surface: it can easily be copied.
This hasn't always been the case, and only technology has made it easy to copy. We've moved -- progressed to technologies that are copy-friendly for quality reasons, rather than for purposes of copying and "sharing." The fact of the matter is, Napster wouldn't have been popular if the mp3 kiddies had needed to dub everything from 45's.
In my day, sonny, we made mix tapes. Darn right it was a pain in the ass. And we knew it was wrong, but we didn't have the money to buy the real tape ourselves. We were too busy buying beer and cigarettes......
Technology today is simply exposing the false assumption, made long ago, that information is difficult to copy.
Again, I don't think you can make that argument. We've created duplicating devices for convienience, and some people have chosen to abuse those. It's just the degree of abuse. Some of it, also, is a backlash against overwhelmingly high prices of music. I *could* make a photocopy of a thirty dollar, 350 page book, for about three dollars and fifty cents (assuming about $0.01 per page, which is what most high-end copiers do). It's just a pain in the ass, and not worth my time. If I'm real eager to read a book, and don't want to shell out the money for it, I'll go put it on reserve at the library. Barring that, I can wait the six to eight months it takes to come out in paperback. Yes, that costs more than the photocopies, but it's more portable, and easier to read. And legal.
The bottom line on filesharing is......If MP3's were a quarter or less to download from a publisher's website (and there was an easy way to be able to burn it to cd in cda format), p2p would dry up for music. It'd still be there for warez and pr0n.
A "free market" in information is therefore not self-regulating, and should not be called a free market at all. It's more like a kind of "non-laissez-faire capitalism"
I addressed that a bit above. Again, assuming adequate protections from force or fraud, laissez-faire capitalism can flourish. It just hasn't been tried very much.
We should ask ourselves, is the massive regulation required to prop up this system worth it? Or should we just fix this assumption and start anew?
The regulations that have been phased in since about 1900 have totally destroyed any opportunity for a nice, free capitalist system. And you have to be honest about the root of those regulations: Communist and Socialist influence. Alas, many people still subscribe to those morally bankrupt philosophies, so we're kind of stuck. Short of a bloody revolution, there is no way to start anew. I'm prepared to deal with the lousy situation we've got now. It's better than the alternative.
Re:raises an interesting point (Score:2, Insightful)
Then you go on about fraud. Free market is a market where the supply and demand are not regulated. Where does fraud come in to play? If free markets aren't self-organizing, then who is doing the organizing?
"This hasn't always been the case..."
Hence the reason he wrote "according to our present views."
"for quality reasons, rather than for purposes of copying and "sharing.""
Actually, we are moving towards more sharing of information, only corporatio
Re:raises an interesting point (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, I don't think you can make that argument. We've created duplicating devices for convienience, and some people have chosen to abuse those.
Claiming that it is an "abuse" is begging the question.
To claim that P2P and related technologies are an "abuse" is to assume things that the parent poster has explicitly claimed are false assumptions. You can't proove he is wrong by assuming he is
Re:raises an interesting point (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I assumed the purpose of law (and government) is for the common benefit. Unfortunately I agree with you that in practice far too many laws get passed that are not for the common benefit.
Me: Strong copyright protections attempt to increase the motivation to create more, and it allows publishers to make a large investment in distribution.
Clarification, I was talking
Shoot some people - we need more hospitals! (Score:5, Insightful)
I admire the simplicity of the capitalist ideal, but using it as a justification for making everything behave like property by enforcing scarcity where there is none, is an ugly perversion of capitalism, in fact, I would argue that it is the opposite of capitalism.
Capitalism is a means to manage scarcity, and it is very good at it, but artifically creating scarcity just so that capitalism may be applied is like shooting people to create a demand for hospitals:
"stop shooting people!"
"what, you don't like hospitals?"
Re:Shoot some people - we need more hospitals! (Score:2, Insightful)
Ahh, but there is scarcity in IP. Not in the dissemination of intellectual property, but in the creation of the intellectual property. It does take real, and scarce, intellectual resources to come up with a new idea, a new piece of fiction,
Re:Shoot some people - we need more hospitals! (Score:3, Insightful)
IP law doesn't apply to labor - that is property by its very nature, and the law already protects that, rather it applies to the product of that labor, which isn't the same thing. As can be seen from the multitude of ways that IP law is being used to inhibit technological advancement, it is clear that IP law is a very inefficient way to ensure effective use of creativity.
Re:That isn't an analogy... (Score:2)
Re:raises an interesting point (Score:2)
The most obvious example of this is: advertising works, and so does brand loyalty. The fact that these work means that people are basing their behaviour on them, and they could choose not to. And both of these significantly weaken the free market; the first by meaning that the system by which the best products are selected is distorted, and the second by freezing new competition out
Irony . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Irony . . . (Score:2)
Re:Irony . . . (Score:2)
Nice paper--- (Score:2, Funny)
I think he is a closet slashdot reader.
Yeah... I'd vote for him for President, but he's far to smart to do something like that.
Re:Nice paper--- (Score:2)
With whose fame every bourse in the universe rings;
The first Baron Juif; by the grace of his pelf,
Not 'The King of the Jews,' but the Jew of the kings.
WILLIAM THACKERAY
What balance? (Score:4, Informative)
What balance? Doesn't rewarding innovators with a patent naturally inhibit follow-on innovators?
From the speech: How appropriate is our current system--developed for a world in which physical assets predominated--for an economy in which value increasingly is embodied in ideas rather than tangible capital?
Can't wait to see what they come up with at the conference. We've been saying the patent system needs an overhaul, wonder if they'll reach the same conclusions we've reached here.
Re:What balance? (Score:2)
But if patents run too long, follow-on innovations are delayed until the expiration of the patent. So how do you reward people who come up with new ideas without making the exclusive period too long or too short?
The core assumption of the assertion is that economic reward is
Re:What balance? (Score:2, Insightful)
The balance Greenspan is speaking about is "the incentive to innovate" vs. "Prohibition of innovation". Things must be protected to provide incentive, but not overly protected to prohibit follow-on innovation.
AIDS victims often advocate that AIDS drugs should be free or have their patents nationalized or invalidated so that all of those who suffer from AIDS could afford medication. The big problem with this
Good article for the economist crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
Although said in the usual Econo-speak, one of his themes is that trying to use the court system to tame this frontier is a waste of time, and ultimately useless. Other markets don't need constant lawsuits and court intervention because everyone understands and respects the rules and have no desire to cross them. The rules seem fair and the market prices things at an appropriate level so there's little desire to break the rules by most participants.
That's Greenspans way of saying the DMCA and the Lawyer Heavy tactics are going to stunt growth. He's really suggesting that IP rules be re-written so everyone can respect them and live by them, and implicitly, the IP vendors should try learning to live in a true free market where their prices come down due to competition.
That's one of his themes.
Re:Good article for the economist crowd (Score:2)
Managing that dollar bill, although fun, is highly inefficient.
Excellent article by St. Alan. (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that in this speech he's really making the case for intellectual property regulations to be considered on the same footing as other economic legislation, rather than as criminal legislation.
And that's a major step. He asks:
These are enormously potent and volatile questions: if you ask the RIAA to make a solid numerical case for the benefits of infinite copyright extension coupled with strong DRM, for instance, they will fail.
If you ask Linux advocates to make a case for the GPL in these terms, they'll succeed.
Seriously. I think that this more-or-less represents the beginning of the end for the current modes of thinking on copyright and patents. The Higher Powers of Macroeconomics are descending upon them.
Compare to interest rates, if you'd like some notion of where this could go: dynamic ajustment of IP laws for specific economic effects.
Economy slowing down? Reduce patent length by two years!
Freeloader (Score:3, Funny)
Indeed, the nature of intellectual property is importantly different from physical property. In particular, one individual's use of an idea does not make that idea unavailable to others for their own, simultaneous use. Furthermore, new ideas almost invariably build on old ideas in ways that are difficult or impossible to delineate. From an economic perspective, this provides a rationale for making the calculus, developed initially by Leibnitz and Newton, freely available, despite the fact that those insights have immeasurably increased wealth over the generations. Should we have protected their claim in the same way that we do for owners of land? Or should the law make their insights more freely available to those who would build on them, with the aim of maximizing the wealth of the society as a whole? Are all property rights inalienable, or must they conform to a reality that conditions them?
Hmm.... This is the exact same line of reasoning that I've seen in hundreds of /. posts. I think it's more than likely that Mr. Greenspan has pirated one of these postings. If he wants to make a living discussing economic issues, he needs to go back and innovate his own arguments, then exercise the due dilligence to make sure that they are in fact totally novel. This previously used argument is the rightful property of those whoever first posted it here.
Attribution vs. Compensation (Score:5, Interesting)
One is attribution: Your idea is yours, and anybody quoting or using it should attribute it to you whenever possible. I think this is an inalienable right and cannot be argued away. The GPL, for example, is very clear on this.
Second is compensation: Your idea MAY be yours to profit from it. Society MAY decide to let you use the idea for profit and help defend yourself from imposters. This is NOT an inalienable right, but merely a social bargain and will change over time to reflect market and societal environment.
I think Alan Greenspan in his speech correctly goes back to the underpinnings of the second protection and asks whether our current system of IP protections benefits or hurts the economy.
Re:Attribution vs. Compensation (Score:2)
I think we need to put less emphasis on crediting people for their ideas as this can cause the loss of money or research and harm to one's ego.
And more emphasis on education a
Re:Attribution vs. Compensation (Score:2)
the same idea? Who gets attribution?
Both, I presume. Just like in bibliographies. Since attribution is only indirectly about money, there is much less fighting over it.
The truly paranoid could still patent or copyright or whatever their idea to make it clear that they were there first. In the end, attribution is basically a moral obligation.
But what's more important is the fact that attribution is inalienable. Your idea is always you
Gratuitous reference to EFF (Score:3, Informative)
Weightier Voice of Reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Glad to see someone in a position of such great power and influence (arguably he is the most influential single person in American) considering these issues with deliberation.
Reform of IP laws for the better have long suffered from the impediment of entrenched special interests benefitting from the current laws.
To gain the trust of the extremely important business community, Greenspan has had to cultivate an aura of being above the fray of petty politics where insistent congressman want him to push the gas pedal to the floor just in time to make the economy "look good" right around re-election time, even if such policies are not in the long term best interest of the economy as a whole. Since Volker, the Chairman of the Fed has been the Wizard of Oz and business people like the predictability of low inflation.
Being in that position gives special credence to his words.
What if we don't want to maximize growth? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh. He lost me right there. I thought our objective was to maximize joy and minimize suffering. (I guess I'm either a utilitarian or a Buddhist.) Almost everyone seems to believe that the society with the fastest-growing economy is the best society for its members, but I've never seen a coherent argument to that effect. In fact, until I see something of the sort, I'm inclined not to believe it.
OK, if you're done being apoplectic about me challenging this particular sacred cow, how about explaining this belief to me slowly and calmly, in a manner suitable for a weak-mided fool like myself who somehow misses the point.
Re:What if we don't want to maximize growth? (Score:2, Insightful)
So yea, he's doing the right damn thing. Its not some sacred cow you're attacking. In fact, you're pretty much off-topic. Greensapn couldn't get up in his speech and say "let's repeal
Re:What if we don't want to maximize growth? (Score:2)
Now maximizing growth, all else equal, surely lowers the unemployment rate, but that doesn't mean it does so opti
Re:What if we don't want to maximize growth? (Score:3, Insightful)
> >
> > I thought our objective was to maximize joy and minimize suffering.
I happen to believe on the basis of my observations that the two tend to go together pretty consistently, but I grok your point that my observation isn't universally accepted.
That said, you should understand that by definition, as Chair of the Federal Reserve, his objective is to maximize economic growth.
(And y
Re:What if we don't want to maximize growth? (Score:2)
This presumes a sort of linearity that may not apply. Just because growth times are better times doesn't mean growth is the right measure to optimize.
An alcoholic is happier when drunk, but that doesn't mean his drinking is making him happy. I think the possibility of an analogy to society's preference for periods of rapid growth is obvious enough that I needn't belabor it.
That said, you should understand that by de
Re:What if we don't want to maximize growth? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What if we don't want to maximize growth? (Score:5, Insightful)
The modern pauper commands more wealth than an ancient emperor: he wears clothing made in some other part of the world from fibres imported from yet other regions of the globe; he eats food shipped across thousands of miles and delivered fresh; he listens to music each minute of which has had hours of labour spent to maximise its value. That's all due to a growing economy. Sure, he's a pauper in relation to me--but he's a very rich man indeed in relation to the pauper of a dozen years ago, or a century, or in the time of King Edmund.
A rising tide floats all boats--consider it like that. As the size of the economy increases, each man's share of it increases. When a rich man makes money, he's got to spend it somewhere--those he spends it on (tailors, cooks, farmers, whatever) are now each a little richer; each person they money on will then be a little richer, and so on. `Well,' you may ask, `how do we ensure that the right people get that money to begin with?' That's the beauty of a free market: when everyone is free to spend his money where he will, whoever gets the most money is providing the good or service most desired. Who else could possibly claim that money? Whoever gets the least is doing the least for everyone else; how can he possibly claim more?
Two things screw up this happy arrangement: those who cannot work (and thus should and must be provided for by the rest of us), and when some external force screws up the market so that the man with the most money isn't the one who provides the most value. The first is a necessity; I have no wish to live in a world where the blind and lame are left to die because they do not produce enough. The second is as well: as long as we have government, we will have those who take more than they give. The goal is to keep that negative effect as small as possible.
a delicate question (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What if we don't want to maximize growth? (Score:2)
This popular nautical aphorism sounds nice. Of course the reason a rising tide raises all boats is that water is flat. Oddly, I've never heard any fans of this metaphor advocate that weath should be distributed so equitably.
There are two issues at play here. One concerns how and whether growth relates to happiness. The other concerns how the macroeconomic growth of the whole e
Re:What if we don't want to maximize growth? (Score:2)
You're misinterpreting it. What that's trying to say is:
Re:What if we don't want to maximize growth? (Score:2, Interesting)
A has an item Q. A and B value item Q differently. For simplicity, let's say Q is worth $2 to B and $1 to A. Then, they set up a trade. In order for a trade to occur, both parties must see the trade as beneficial to them. Let's say B gives A $1.5 for Q.
Let's pretend for a moment that there is nothing else in the world. Then the sum of all va
Re:What if we don't want to maximize growth? (Score:2)
A pragmatic approach "might" come to such a conclusion, but I haven't been shown such an approach. I concede the point that it "might".
What I'm saying is that I've yet to see coherent, never mind convincing, arguments for this, as applied to already wealthy societ
Re:What if we don't want to maximize growth? (Score:2)
The excess amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the preindustrial background levels is increasing exponentially. Do you suppose this might cause a problem some day?
On a more mundane level, the size of the average American home seems to be increasing exponentially, and the push for maximum growth encourages this. As some point, presuming a lack of servants or slaves, the size of the house reaches the point where the marginal extra square foot
Well.. (Score:2)
Are they tough questions because they're difficult to answer? Or are they tough questions because no one understands what the fuck he's talking about?
Being a fan of C-SPAN, I suspect it's the latter.
That charming "IF" (Score:4, Insightful)
Greenspan is a former "Randroid" and even though he has been holding a job that involves government micromanagement of a certain aspect of the economy, his exposure to the other side apparently still has him meeting Planned Economists with hesitancy.
"If our objective is to maximize economic growth.." If indeed.
And as for economic growth.. my cat got sick after many years of wellness. I took the cat to the vet and wrote a check for the bill she presented me. The vet's service and my payment -- that was economic growth. And thank Allah for the coming economic growth in the construction industry in Manhattan. More illness and disaster is just what this economy needs.
Let's ask Greenspan to do a Slashdot Interview! (Score:2, Funny)
Why not? What's the worst that could happen?
Hmmmm., maybe he doesn't have/use email.
Production is not Distribution (Score:3, Insightful)
"More generally, in the physical world, the usual situation is that each additional unit of output is more costly to produce than the previous one; that is, production, at least eventually, is characterized by increasing marginal cost. By contrast, in the conceptual world, much of production is characterized by constant, and perhaps even zero, marginal cost."
This is a common economic confusion of production with distribution. The production of an intellectual work is not the same thing as its reproduction, but economic theories evolved in the past have no conception of this.
To take Greenspan's example, creation of an on-line encyclopedia, the fact that "the cost of reproduction and distribution is near zero" does not enter into the cost of actual production, i.e., the foregoing creation.
What economists like Greenspan are attempting to do is justify ex post facto a regime that compensates those who reproduce and distribute works, when what is really needed is an economic model that compensates the producers of intellectual works. The two may often be assumed to be one and the same, but this is often (perhaps rarely) the case.
Ideas Are Not Intellectual Property (Score:2)
> nineteenth century was the cotton gin. Perhaps it
> was a harbinger of things to come that the
> intellectual property content of the cotton gin
> was never effectively protected from copiers.
Yet the invention was wildly successful and the inventor became wealthy and famous. This implies that the inventor's monopoly need not be perfect.
> Ownership of ideas is far less easily protected.
Ownership of ideas is not protected at all. Copyrights
Re:Ideas Are Not Intellectual Property (Score:2)
Baloney. Eli Whitney never made a nickel [tripod.com] off the cotton gin. Copiers drove him out of the cotton gin manufacturing business.
Real vs. intellectual property (Score:4, Interesting)
As I read, an interesting thought struck me.
Part of the problem is that unlike real property secured by a deed, intellectual property claims are terribly vague. In fact, the entire field of patent attourneys pride themselves on being able to be just specific enough to get the patent granted and no more.
No property deed is allowed to claim this house and the land out yonder as a valid description, but that's exactly what patents are like. The resulting uncertainty is increasing the risks at an alarming rate. A good first step would be to tighten up patent claims to be as concrete as possible.
Even a strong supporter of IP should agree to that.
Re:Real vs. intellectual property (Score:2)
You are confusing two parts of a patent - the claims and the description of the invention. The description of the invention, by law is supposed to allow anyone skilled in the art to reproduce the invention. Most inventions live up to this,
The claims are a very different thing - the value of the patent is really directly related to how broad the claims are. The breadth of the claims is determined (at least ideally) primar
IP in Health Care Markets (Score:3, Informative)
It is important for everyone to realize in health care markets, governments should fund most if not all research; in the health care market, intellectual property suffers from market failure and inefficient allocation of goods.
In markets dealing with physical goods, such as a potato, goods are allocated efficiently because people who need those particular goods recieve them at the right price; that is, the demand for such good will be met by the supply for such good. Following this logic, if there is a market for, say bottled beef, those demanding the good will be supplied. Markets that allocate physical goods TEST such products to determine if they are useful and needed by society. Bottled beef would clearly fail the market test because people demanding bottled beef would be little to none, and the cost to supply such good would be greater than the benefit users or society derives. Markets that allocate physical goods act as a testing mechanism, determining whether society needs a particular good.
Intellectual property in the health care industry, particularly patents on drugs, does not need such testing mechanism because EVERYONE deems physical health necessary. A patent on AIDS drugs unnecessarily excludes those that can't pay for such drugs. Hence, intellectual property in the health care industry suffers one of the greatest market failures because everyone that needs drugs cannot recieve them. In this sense, health care, like national security, is a public good. Governments should find ways to provide health care to everyone universally, NOT exclude them ineffciently.
Re:Thanks, Mr. Greenspan (Score:3, Interesting)
In finacial markets, this is likely akin to The Voice Of God coming down and asking you questions.
Re:Thanks, Mr. Greenspan (Score:2)
I think it would be more accurate to describe him as "the most powerful man in the world, period". Oh, you though that was the President? Silly you!
Re:Thanks, Mr. Greenspan (Score:2)
> I think it would be more accurate to describe him as "the most powerful man in the world, period". Oh, you though that was the President? Silly you!
No, he said the most powerful force in the universe, period, was God. (But yeah... still... silly him :)
Greenspan is aware that patents provide an incentive to innovate - cure AIDS, get a 13-y
Re:Thanks, Mr. Greenspan (Score:5, Insightful)
At the 2003 Financial Markets Conference of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Sea Island, Georgia
I think Greenspan is plainning on having the rest of the Fed look at this stuff real critically, thus he leaves the questions open. This is, hopefully a very good thing, as it might raise some questions about congress's continued protection of Mickey. As it is, I would have to place Greenspan as one of the more influential people in the US economy today. I swear, this man farts and the DOW drops three points. I think that, if Greenspan was to state that he dislikes the current Copyright "balance", we might see some changes to it come down the pipe.
As for trying to get some good answers, you do realize that this is
Sig (Score:2)
scripsit Sylver Dragon:
You can do that IFF a != b, else you're dividing by zero. You already knew that, though, right?
Still cute, though... I wonder what proportion of people can find where that doesn't work.
Re:Sig (Score:2)
Re:Thanks, Mr. Greenspan (Score:2)
Unfortunately we still believe it is these famous people who really do all the work.
Re:There is hope, although in a perverse way (Score:5, Interesting)
You can bet dubya's got no love at all for these folks. So, lets get it on. I can't wait, but you might want to take care about what you wish for.
Re:There is hope, although in a perverse way (Score:2)
Re:There is hope, although in a perverse way (Score:2)
Re:There is hope, although in a perverse way (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:There is another way... (Score:3, Funny)
1. Nullify the CAFC (pro IP federal court)
2. Place 10 year non-extendable limit on copyright.
3. Introduce self deflating electronic currency in parallel to the dollar to support a massive welfare state without causing inflation.
Wow, it's so easy.
It's like communism, but we get to keep all our favorite brands, business can stay right where they are and even grow and best of all everybody can watch TV off the net without commericals.
I'll be taking ten of your highest rated quest
Re:He sure talks a lot (Score:2, Funny)
sanitation engineer: I watch your **** float by
garbage engineer: I pick up trash (sometimes)
Architect: I draw pictures of houses
Professor: I profess. er, I'm a teacher with a spiffy name and better students. And usually better credentials, but mostly I use bigger words.