Re: Some interesting economic facts

["Matt Deatrick" <mattd@shocking.com>]

> 
> 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.  
> 
	What I said was, and I can quote from a begining economics text:
ECONOMICS: is the study of how individuals and societies choose to use the
SCARCE resuorces that NATURE and previous generations have provided. THe
key word in this definition is CHOOSE. - Principles of Microeconomics
CASE/FAIR fourth edition1996

> 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. 

	The music market... Your point is very well taken. And I will respond with
a question. Given the fact that every musician or record label has a
monopoly via copyright laws why don't we see the same thing? Number one
there are thousands upon thousands of producers; an amazing amount of
diversity and supply. No music is free, even the music you listen to on the
radio comes at the price of putting up with the advertisements, the
marketing pitch. That semantic aside, a CD for a monopolistically created
musical CD is, at most 16.99. Win95 is $109! And basically they are
operating under the same laws with the exception that music can be
performed live, and is a matter of personal preference. Being able to get
onto the internet, to turn on your computer and have it run, is just a
little-tad bit more improtant of an information source than rocking out to
Led Zepplin, don't you think? . 

> 
> 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?
> 
	Don't we subsidize education? Is it not of such importance that it falls
under the theory of public goods? Doesn't Win95? Doesn't the great
INFORMATION REVOLUTION deserve better than one O/S?  Propreitary rights are
fine, but a proprietary right to a standard? It would be like me owning the
rights to the periodic tables, or the charts of weights and measures.
Owning the rights to a particular look, or format, is one thing, but the
substance of a standard, by definition, is a public good. Period. 

> 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'.   
> 
	Ok, I'll buy that.

> 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.  
> 
	Ok, I'll buy that too. 

> 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. 
	It sure as hell does. What do you think AT&T being required to allow
competitors to gain acces to their hardware was all about when they
deregulated it?

 
> 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.
> 
	You do not have to be rude about my ideas. I am not full of bullshit and
my ideas about the IT economy are not wank as you so eloquently state. If I
were easily riled I might strike back, but as it is, I'll accept your
ignorance along with the rest.
	Matt


> 
> 
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From:	Andrew Sear 
> 	Sent:	Wednesday, April 22, 1998 2:32 PM
> 	To:	Meg Jones (E-mail)
> 	Subject:	FW: Some interesting economic facts
> 
> 	Does this make sense to the economist in the family?
> 
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From:	Matt Deatrick [SMTP:mattd@shocking.com]
> 	Sent:	Wednesday, April 22, 1998 2:18 PM
> 	To:	Multiple recipients of list
> 	Subject:	Some interesting economic facts
> 
> 		It is little known, and "they" are keeping it a secret. But there
> 	is an interesting economic twist on this whole "informational economy"
> 	idea. 
> 		Economics is based in the idea of scarcity; economics is the
> 	science of discovering how to allocate those scarce resources. The basic
> 	assumption: I eat a can of soup, there is less soup for you. Information
> 	escapes this dillema. When I provide you with access to information, you
> 	probably provide me with information. Rather than degrade the amount of
the
> 	resource, it actually expands due to its "consumption"(sharing is a
better
> 	word). Even if you do not provide me with access to information, you
have
> 	gained knowledge which you may pass on, etc.... To infinity and beyond.
> 		The point I am getting at is this: an information economy is a
> 	contradiction of terms. Information should be, and by definition is, a
> 	public good. The theory of public goods states that my consumption does
not
> 	affect your consumption, sounds like information! 
> 		I thought this group might find this interesting. The fact that our
> 	basic economic principles make the case against Microsoft having sole
> 	control and ownership of information. Non-disclosure agreements,
patents,
> 	copyrights, if not completely removed(as a liberal reading of this might
> 	suggest), should be in fact limited severely. 
> 		Matt Deatrick
> 		Dept. Of Economics
> 		CSU, Chico
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Matt Deatrick [SMTP:mattd@shocking.com]
> > Sent:	Thursday, April 23, 1998 2:40 AM
> > To:	Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject:	Re: Some interesting economic facts
> > 
> > 	Well said Doug. My point is that in information, in some but not
> > all cases, patents are antithetical to progress.
> > 	Matt
> > 
> > On Wed, 22 Apr 1998, Doug Masson wrote:
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > It is true that patents and copyrights provide exclusivity for a
limited time
> > > > both as an incentive to create and as a way of eventually bringing
the> 
> > > > invention or artistic work into the public domain.
> > > > 
> > > > --Brett Glass
> > > 
> > > Without patents or copyrights, the process or expression would be in
the
> > > public domain as soon as it was>  distributed to the public I would
imagine.
> > > Another thing that bears mentioning is the constitutional basis for
> > > intellectual property. 
> > > 
> > > The authority of Congress to pass copyright and patent laws is
> > > grounded in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U. S. Constitution
which
> > > says, "The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of
> > > Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times
> > > to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings
> > > and Discoveries." 
> > > 
> > > This is an instrumental clause which gives congress the power to
promote
> > > the progress of science and the useful arts. Arguably, Congress does
not
> > > have the power to secure to authors and inventors the exclusive right
to
> > > their respective writings and discoveries if securing those rights
does
> > > nothing to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.
> > > 
> > > 
> >