Avoiding LispWorks Personal annoyances
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: &optional combined with &rest
Next: local-time on Clozure CL windows vista 64 Can't resolve foreign symbol "gettimeofday"
From: Tim Smith on 4 Oct 2009 04:47 In article <ha53rr$h3i$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > Tim Smith wrote: > > In article <ha31j7$tsk$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > >>> #3. Artificially, by force of law, imbue intellectual goods with some of > >>> the characteristics of real property so as to make it work like a > >>> regular good in the free market. > >> They already would "work like a regular good in the free market"; they > >> work like a regular good in the free whose marginal cost happens to be > >> approximately zero. > > > > [says I'm a liar] > > No, you are. Are you 5? I said you were wrong. I didn't say you were a liar. > > such goods do not work, in the sense that a free market, responding > > to supply and demand, does not result in the optimal allocation of > > resources for intellectual goods. > > It doesn't? Do you have proof or is this just you repeating an oft-heard > myth? It's standard economic theory--you should be able to find the details in any good university library if you want them. There are several situations in which a free market is not Pareto efficient. One of those is when the goods are non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Intellectual goods are non-rivalrous and non-excludable, hence there is a market failure. -- --Tim Smith
From: Dave Searles on 4 Oct 2009 15:35 Tim Smith wrote: > In article <ha53rr$h3i$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >> Tim Smith wrote: >>> In article <ha31j7$tsk$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >>> Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >>>>> #3. Artificially, by force of law, imbue intellectual goods with some of >>>>> the characteristics of real property so as to make it work like a >>>>> regular good in the free market. >>>> They already would "work like a regular good in the free market"; they >>>> work like a regular good in the free whose marginal cost happens to be >>>> approximately zero. >>> [says I'm a liar] >> No, you are. > > [personal attacks deleted] Wrong. >>> such goods do not work, in the sense that a free market, responding >>> to supply and demand, does not result in the optimal allocation of >>> resources for intellectual goods. >> It doesn't? Do you have proof or is this just you repeating an oft-heard >> myth? > > It's standard economic theory It's standard bollocks. The evidence is equivocal at best. Read Boldrin and Levine [2008].
From: Dave Searles on 4 Oct 2009 15:35 Kenneth Tilton wrote: > Dave Searles wrote: >> grasp of economics that both have doctorates in economics, and they >> happen to agree with me: http://www.againstmonopoly.org/ > > Having a firm grasp of economics is like being anchored in quicksand. PPOSTFU.
From: Tim Smith on 4 Oct 2009 22:13 In article <haatdi$pj$3(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > Tim Smith wrote: > > In article <ha53rr$h3i$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > > Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > >> Tim Smith wrote: > >>> In article <ha31j7$tsk$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > >>> Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: > >>>>> #3. Artificially, by force of law, imbue intellectual goods with some > >>>>> of > >>>>> the characteristics of real property so as to make it work like a > >>>>> regular good in the free market. > >>>> They already would "work like a regular good in the free market"; they > >>>> work like a regular good in the free whose marginal cost happens to be > >>>> approximately zero. > >>> [says I'm a liar] > >> No, you are. > > > > [personal attacks deleted] > > Wrong. There was no personal attack, and I did not call you a liar. Although if you continue to deliberately misrepresent things, liar will become an appropriate description of you. > > >>> such goods do not work, in the sense that a free market, responding > >>> to supply and demand, does not result in the optimal allocation of > >>> resources for intellectual goods. > >> It doesn't? Do you have proof or is this just you repeating an oft-heard > >> myth? > > > > It's standard economic theory > > It's standard bollocks. The evidence is equivocal at best. Read Boldrin > and Levine [2008]. Provide a precise cite. -- --Tim Smith
From: Dave Searles on 5 Oct 2009 16:13
Tim Smith wrote: > In article <haatdi$pj$3(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >> Tim Smith wrote: >>> In article <ha53rr$h3i$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >>> Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >>>> Tim Smith wrote: >>>>> In article <ha31j7$tsk$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >>>>> Dave Searles <searles(a)hoombah.nurt.bt.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> #3. Artificially, by force of law, imbue intellectual goods with some >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> the characteristics of real property so as to make it work like a >>>>>>> regular good in the free market. >>>>>> They already would "work like a regular good in the free market"; they >>>>>> work like a regular good in the free whose marginal cost happens to be >>>>>> approximately zero. >>>>> [says I'm a liar] >>>> No, you are. >>> [personal attacks deleted] >> Wrong. > > [says I'm a liar] No, you are. >>>>> such goods do not work, in the sense that a free market, responding >>>>> to supply and demand, does not result in the optimal allocation of >>>>> resources for intellectual goods. >>>> It doesn't? Do you have proof or is this just you repeating an oft-heard >>>> myth? >>> It's standard economic theory >> It's standard bollocks. The evidence is equivocal at best. Read Boldrin >> and Levine [2008]. > Provide a precise cite. http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm |