RE: Some interesting economic facts

[Andrew Sear <asear@macquarie.com.au>]

Hi

I asked my wife (who has an economics/politics background) to comment on this 
thread.  She does not follow the M$ issues (that's my interest - computing/public policy)
but her points seemed relevant.

Problems: our society *does* limit the flow of info, despite the 
Freedom of info Act, etc.  That's Oz, though and may not be true in 
the US.  He is taking the very libersl 'free trade' approach here and 
saying there should be no caveats on the free flow of info, no 
'ownership' of info etc. *That* has problems eg what about those who 
collect royalties from such things?  But you weren't asking me about 
that.  You were asking me about the' economics' argument.  

Depends.  I haven't been following the case.  From what this says  I 
assume BG has raised this idea of an 'info economy'. ?This Matt dude 
is arguing that for an economy to exist there are parameters- a 
closed system.  If the system were not finite, closed, you wouldn't 
know whether resources were actually scarce or not.  Nor would you 
know how many people there were to allocate these to.  He's saying 
info falls outside of this idea b/c it is an open, dynamic system.  
Where, for example, the consumption (liistening I suppose you 
could say here) of one piece of info doesn't detract from the overall 
pool.  

Why is this bullshit?  Because you could parallel it to the 'music 
economy', where the consumptionof music doesn't detract from the 
larger pool either.  Essentially both music and info can be divided 
into two sections:  that you pay for and that which is free.  As with 
info, you pay to listen to some paeople talk, and at other times you 
listen for free.  He';s a lecturer.  By whose grace is he paid?  It 
isn't by the grace of God.  Students pay to hear the info he gives 
out. The uni pays him to purvey information.  His lectures come at a 
price.

He might say the students are paying to rent the desks and chairs and 
for paper and admin *services* and it's the *service* of teaching he 
is being paid for.  But how would he feel if I taped all of his 
lectures and gave them verbatim, to my students.  Is that information 
free?  *Should* it be (given he was arguing against patents and the 
like)?  I don't think so.  People should have a proprietary right 
over their own work, their own ideas.  Otherwise plaguarism could go 
unpenalised in unis.  How would he feel about that?

The Microsoft situation is dfferent.  I don't think the argument 
should be over a 'info economy'.  It is about *monopoly*.   *That's 
the issue.  If there were ony one uni and therefore only one course 
in economics available in the world, it is immaterial that the uni 
says the fee is for the info. Really, the info can be provided in 
another forum *if* another forum (ie another uni) exists.  The fee at 
the uni is chargeable because it is the sole environment where htat 
information can be accessed.  And *that's* the problem - the 
restriction on the number of environments that can call themselves 
'University'.   

Translated into Microsoft terms:  the information that passes through 
the Microsoft system is as free or as restricted as it always has 
been given our laws (on Freedom of info/patents/copyright etc).  The 
problem is not the info, but that Microsoft is, or is seting itself 
up to be, the only carrier; the only 'university', from the previous 
example.  

As to whether others should have access to the ideas that Microsoft 
have ie access to their technical blueprints or whatever, in order to 
break the monopoly, our current system doesn't provide for that.  Our 
system does allow for monolpoly and it would seem that Lenin's views 
on new imperialism based on monopoly contain some truth.  When faced 
with a power in the 'IT economy' whereby being on the 'ouside' of 
that power (ie not installing or using Microsoft systems as a firm; 
or, and increasingly, choosing *not* to work for Micrsoft)  may limit 
your prospects ability to integrate with the market in the long term, 
does this not smack of neo-colonialism?  In this colonised countries 
in SEAsia, for example, those ho did well were those who 'came 
across' to the british/Dutch side.  Even on gaining independence 
those who were successful were those who understood the new 
environment. In terms of Microsoft one could say that carried to its 
extension, those who will do well in IT are/will be, those who 'side' 
with Microsoft.  If it continues to burgeon and become a hegemonic 
power in computing. Given how slowly our system changes, and the 
upper hand the liberals have in the promotion of the 'free market' it 
is quite likely Microsoft will  be able o continue its growth (and I 
didn't even mention the political punch it can pack).  If/when the 
system does change, those who will be best positioned to take up 
roles in the post-Microsoft era will be those who were on the cutting 
edge at the time of the change over - typically, those well versed in 
the Microsoft way, in their systems.

Anyhow, i'll wind up that tangent.  You asked me esssentially, what 
the economist thought of the 'information econmy'.  It's a wank, for 
the reasons stated somewhere above the last paragraph.