Comment public/market good (Score 1) 49
So what do you think: is information a public good (by characteristics) or a market good?
Almost all information should be public. Of course, this is up to the creator of the information. It's good that you brought up those terms.
I'm no economist, but I like to play one ....
In capitalism, you make something (imbuing it with effort), and sell it. An ideal capitalistic economy will ensure that you get paid in an amount of goods equal to the effort you put into it. If you get paid less, you make something else; If you get paid more, other people start making what you make and competition drives the price down.
The degree to which you need preliminary (one-shot) cost to set up your trade is the degree to which capitalism doesn't apply. In most cases, this doesn't matter much because you soak up the preliminary costs in the per-item cost, but when the per-item cost is close to or equal to 0, the system breaks down.
For example, does <random fabulously wealthy or fabulously poor musician> really deserve every bit of his money? as in, does the amount of effort <musician> put into his craft equal the compensation he receives?
Since information will become a commodity it will be governed by the laws of supply and demand in much the same way as any other product
But it shouldn't. What I'm trying to get to is that, basically, easily replicable commodities, or information, is better served by socialism. In socialism, there is (presumably) some kind of body that decides who deserves what (presumably) fairly. This way once a person is paid for his effort, everyone can benefit.
Net gain: A bunch of people can use information they normally couldn't.
Net loss: None.
I think it would be really neat if an organization could emulate this kind of system inside the capitalist countries
Disclaimer: This was mostly the fruit of my cumulative daydreaming trips (it's been fermenting for a while now). I may be wrong; take it as you will....
Almost all information should be public. Of course, this is up to the creator of the information. It's good that you brought up those terms.
I'm no economist, but I like to play one
In capitalism, you make something (imbuing it with effort), and sell it. An ideal capitalistic economy will ensure that you get paid in an amount of goods equal to the effort you put into it. If you get paid less, you make something else; If you get paid more, other people start making what you make and competition drives the price down.
The degree to which you need preliminary (one-shot) cost to set up your trade is the degree to which capitalism doesn't apply. In most cases, this doesn't matter much because you soak up the preliminary costs in the per-item cost, but when the per-item cost is close to or equal to 0, the system breaks down.
For example, does <random fabulously wealthy or fabulously poor musician> really deserve every bit of his money? as in, does the amount of effort <musician> put into his craft equal the compensation he receives?
Since information will become a commodity it will be governed by the laws of supply and demand in much the same way as any other product
But it shouldn't. What I'm trying to get to is that, basically, easily replicable commodities, or information, is better served by socialism. In socialism, there is (presumably) some kind of body that decides who deserves what (presumably) fairly. This way once a person is paid for his effort, everyone can benefit.
Net gain: A bunch of people can use information they normally couldn't.
Net loss: None.
I think it would be really neat if an organization could emulate this kind of system inside the capitalist countries
Disclaimer: This was mostly the fruit of my cumulative daydreaming trips (it's been fermenting for a while now). I may be wrong; take it as you will....
