Intellectual pooperty.

[ardeegee]

Nope, not a typo.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...erty-minibooks

Caution-- site NSFFMCBOFG (Not Safe For Free Market Capitalists But Okay For Giggleton.)

[Giggleton]

That's great, can't wait to download the ebook to my Kindle.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Nope, not a typo.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...erty-minibooks

Caution-- site NSFFMCBOFG (Not Safe For Free Market Capitalists But Okay For Giggleton.)

Just glancing at the site I don't see how the idea is anything but a free market in principle. Is there more behind the site, that I should have seen?

Luck;
Ken

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Just glancing at the site I don't see how the idea is anything but a free market in principle. Is there more behind the site, that I should have seen?

The actual comics, linked in the article:

http://mimiandeunice.com/category/ip/

[apbschmitz]

I'll defend to the death (well, maybe not exactly) her right to give away her own ideas.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

The actual comics, linked in the article:

http://mimiandeunice.com/category/ip/

I'll take your word for it, from what I could see on the site, they would not
be of any interest to me.

The marketing ideas presented fit into a free market, no problem. They
seemed designed to fail but failure is not a problem in a free market, the
assets that they temporarily control will be reallocated to the next guy with
a promising idea.

It's when government or some other controlling force try to manipulate a
free market that the real problems appear. Both "supports" and limitations
cause unwanted distortions. Probably that worst of these are attempts to
save failing economic endeavorers by financial intervention alone, a flat out
government edict to prohibit or require purchase and use of a product would
fall in as only a little less damaging. Generally governmental attempts to limit,
restrict of prohibit commerce just creates a clandestine criminal market. It
also usually creates conditions to enrich those who can pick and choose who
the government supports, ie.. graft, corruption, "the Chicago Way", ect..

Those who would condemn the "Evil Corporation" for bribing the inspectors, or
for their spending $Millions$ on lobbing efforts seem to forget that the very
controlling laws/regulations are what is allowing the inspectors and political
machines to make their "extra income". Without the controlling laws and the
inspectors or lawmakers, there would be no one or no reason to bribe. (Do
you really think those who want to regulate and want to set the terms of the
regulation, aren't envisioning $$$ in their future?)

This site presents a relatively naivete approach that most often fails in the
real market place, but is no threat to a free market.

Luck;
Ken

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

I'll take your word for it, from what I could see on the site, they would not
be of any interest to me.

Look-- it is very simple, and you for some reason have chosen to not understand the issue by ignoring the information being spoon fed to you. Let me spell it out in small words:

The. Comic. Is. About. Being. In. Favor. Of. Priracy. And. Breaking. Intellectual. Property. Laws. Therefore. It. Is. Anti. Free. Market. Capitalism. The. Marketing. Is. An. Attempt. To. Spread. Comics. About. Breaking. Intellectual. Property. Laws. For. Free. Like. Tracts.

(Okay, some of the words are bigger than others.)

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

It's when government or some other controlling force try to manipulate a
free market that the real problems appear. [snip] It
also usually creates conditions to enrich those who can pick and choose who
the government supports, ie.. graft, corruption, "the Chicago Way", ect..

Those who would condemn the "Evil Corporation" for bribing the inspectors, or
for their spending $Millions$ on lobbing efforts seem to forget that the very
controlling laws/regulations are what is allowing the inspectors and political
machines to make their "extra income". Without the controlling laws and the
inspectors or lawmakers, there would be no one or no reason to bribe. (Do
you really think those who want to regulate and want to set the terms of the
regulation, aren't envisioning $$$ in their future?)

According to this logic, we should just get rid of the FDA, restaurant inspectors, and fire inspectors, since they are distorting the holy market. In fact, it's *their fault* that poor beleaguered businesses are tempted to bribe the inspectors to overlook the rat feces, contaminated drugs, or locked fire doors. After all, the free market will take care of all of this - if 200 people die because of a contaminated drug, well, maybe in future people won't buy from that company.

The 1994 Northridge earthquake in Calif. caused 33 deaths. The 2010 earthquake in Haiti caused 300,000 deaths. The primary difference is the strict earthquake building codes in California. These were not enacting with the idea of enriching building inspectors - it's not like the building inspectors passed the law in the first place.

And of course cell phone carriers were falling all over each other to offer number portability before it was required. Oh, wait, no they weren't.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Look-- it is very simple, and you for some reason have chosen to not understand the issue by ignoring the information being spoon fed to you. Let me spell it out in small words:

The. Comic. Is. About. Being. In. Favor. Of. Priracy. And. Breaking. Intellectual. Property. Laws. Therefore. It. Is. Anti. Free. Market. The. Marketing. Is. An. Attempt. To. Spread. Comics. About. Breaking. Intellectual. Property. Laws. For. Free. Like. Tracts.

(Okay, some of the words are bigger than others.)

Again I'll take your word for it, the comic that you thought worth checking out
but that I have no interest in, is most likely very anti-free market. The manner in which the comic is being marketed as described at the site, fits in
with a number of "Gigggleton's" prior postings, so I took that as an issue.

Luck;
Ken

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Again I'll take your word for it, the comic that you thought worth checking out
but that I have no interest in, is most likely very anti-free market.

You know, I have a very hard time understanding people like you-- and I run into them every once and a while on the internet. The data is presented to you, but you have "no interest" in looking at it, but you continue to talk out of your a$$ without even educating yourself on what is being discussed. Are you proud of having willful ignorance of a topic you are jumping in with both feet? Bananas.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/9972

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

According to this logic, we should just get rid of the FDA, restaurant inspectors, and fire inspectors, since they are distorting the holy market. In fact, it's *their fault* that poor beleaguered businesses are tempted to bribe the inspectors to overlook the rat feces, contaminated drugs, or locked fire doors. After all, the free market will take care of all of this - if 200 people die because of a contaminated drug, well, maybe in future people won't buy from that company.

The 1994 Northridge earthquake in Calif. caused 33 deaths. The 2010 earthquake in Haiti caused 300,000 deaths. The primary difference is the strict earthquake building codes in California. These were not enacting with the idea of enriching building inspectors - it's not like the building inspectors passed the law in the first place.

We could get into a battle of competing examples of where regulation provides
some needed prevention of some bad result and where it is easy to show that
it has become, at most, a mechanism to avoid responsibility and at least the
engine for graft that I described. The failures of regulation that you describe
just demonstrate a small part of the problem.

When was the last time anyone took a close look at, much less held
accountable the regulators? All these regulatory laws passed with a claim
that they will accomplish some benefit, how many have meet those claims?
How many have done any good that in anyway justifies their cost? What are
the actual numbers, the factual data, for their performance? Why is no one
looking?

It is nice to assume that we can pass a law and that the government will
see to it that our interests are protected, but there is little factual data
to suggest that it will actually work out that way.

I'm also skeptical that the poor people of Haiti had the resources to build to
the California building codes, and that if the regulations had been in place,
they could have been followed.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

And of course cell phone carriers were falling all over each other to offer number portability before it was required. Oh, wait, no they weren't.

I suspect that if one of them thought it would bring in more customers, than a
"free" phone, they would have been eager to do so. I guess they thought it
was not that big a thing to those in the market for a cell phone.

Luck;
Ken

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

You know, I have a very hard time understanding people like you-- and I run into them every once and a while on the internet. The data is presented to you, but you have "no interest" in looking at it, but you continue to talk out of your a$$ without even educating yourself on what is being discussed. Are you proud of having willful ignorance of a topic you are jumping in with both feet? Bananas.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/9972

Pardon me, I thought the OP was:

"Nope, not a typo.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...erty-minibooks

Caution-- site NSFFMCBOFG (Not Safe For Free Market Capitalists But Okay For Giggleton.) "

As a "Free Market Capitalist" myself I thought that a comment on your
"Caution" that the site would be a problem for me. But it seems that
you are refering to the Comic being sold on the site.

I realize that I did not have your permission to comment on the site, and it's
free market implications, well that's the internet for you. All those pesky people who refuse to see things the way you do.

Luck;
Ken

[Giggleton]

The comic and the site are undifferentiable. Some of those comics are funny, but I can't seem to just download a bunch of them at one time to read at my leisure.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

We could get into a battle of competing examples of where regulation provides
some needed prevention of some bad result and where it is easy to show that
it has become, at most, a mechanism to avoid responsibility and at least the
engine for graft that I described. The failures of regulation that you describe
just demonstrate a small part of the problem.

Of course there are examples of regulations not working, and of corruption. I won't deny that. Your argument, though, was that regulation never worked.

When was the last time anyone took a close look at, much less held
accountable the regulators? All these regulatory laws passed with a claim
that they will accomplish some benefit, how many have meet those claims?
How many have done any good that in anyway justifies their cost? What are
the actual numbers, the factual data, for their performance? Why is no one
looking?

Since you are claiming that regulatory laws have no benefit, you have the burden of presenting this evidence, I would think.

It is nice to assume that we can pass a law and that the government will
see to it that our interests are protected, but there is little factual data
to suggest that it will actually work out that way.

There's *plenty* of factual data to support this. Look at the earthquake example. Look at the effects of making lead paint illegal. Look at seatbelt laws. Look at requiring fire escapes.

I'm also skeptical that the poor people of Haiti had the resources to build to
the California building codes, and that if the regulations had been in place,
they could have been followed.

I have no doubt that Haiti couldn't follow imitate California's building codes. But that's not the point. The point is that these codes *are a good idea* and *save lives.*

I suspect that if one of them thought it would bring in more customers, than a
"free" phone, they would have been eager to do so. I guess they thought it
was not that big a thing to those in the market for a cell phone.

What they thought was that it would make it easier for consumers to switch to another carrier if they weren't happy with the existing carrier. What they didn't want was to be exposed to more competition. What they wanted was to lock in customers.

All of these things are bad, and it was only regulation that created the (more) competitive environment we have now.

[spellbanisher]

The notion that markets are efficient without government intervention is as antiquated as laissez fair capitalism. All throughout the capitalist nineteenth century there were boom and bust cycles. Additionally, markets are always inefficient in two ways; they always produce too much pollution, and too little basic research.

On the part of research, I'll let a friend from another forum explain(I hope this is all within the rules):

Originally Posted by Edgewaters

The free market, I think, is definately useful in allocating resources. But it's also very poor at maximizing economic potential. Subsistence economies and black market ghetto economies in the Third World are far more free from government influence than the traditional economy, and yet, they are terribly poor at generating wealth: for the simple reason they lack, almost totally, any capability to generate the public infrastructure upon which a strong market economy depends. The free market just isn't any good at building roads, raising literacy rates and educating the workforce as a whole, generating electrical power, public transportation, and so on.

Also while it's very good at copying and refining technological developments, its not very good at taking big risks to make major breakthroughs. Many of the really big developments that make our modern world what it is - jets, the internet, helicopters, computers, nuclear power, radar, GPS, satellites and space exploration - were funded and developed by governments. A private corporation simply can't afford to gamble. While they're very good at refining these things, it's often up to the public to develop them initially.

On pollution, I'll give an example. Recently, tea partiers wanted to repeal cement regulations in California that were costing cement companies hundreds of millions of dollars a year. The Environmental Protection agency estimated that the additional health care costs caused by the neurotoxins and carcinogens that would be released into the environment without those regulations would be 13-18 billion dollars a year. So the regulations actually increase the efficiency of the overall macroeconomy by over twelve billion dollars. I could go more in depth and debunk the assumptions behind the efficient free market economy, perfect competition, perfect information, and perfectly rational decision makers, but this is not the thread for that.

It is true that there can be corruption and inefficiency in government regulation, but to conclude from that that there should be no regulation or government oversight is a hasty generalization. That would be like saying that because some governments have been oppressive, all governments must be oppressive, or because some businesses fail, all businesses must fail. Of course there will be efficiencies, but there are also inefficiencies in the market as well. There is no perfectly efficient system, but a private-public synergy creates the most efficient system that we know of.