Different President, same bullshit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Random thoughts and interesting tidbits. . .
. . .focused on current economical and political events.
"But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
Thomas Jefferson
The Colonies
Oft Visited Websites
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(524)
-
▼
March
(19)
- Why Do Terrorists Hate Americans?
- Russia Supports Return To Gold Standard
- It Ain't Your Money To Spend!
- Fascism In Action
- Peter Schiff on Morning Joe
- Quote - Ernest Hemingway
- Quote
- The Real Problem With The Economy
- Cool Video
- Peter Schiff on The Hour (CBC)
- XKCD
- One World Currency On Its Way
- Lincoln Quote
- Another Cartoon
- Editorial Cartoon
- The Union: The Business Behind Getting High
- Regulation Not All Bad
- Pen and Teller Take Advantage Of Environmentalists
- Ron Paul: What If...?
-
▼
March
(19)
23 comments:
Sounds like the capitalists are using the state to protect their property, which is no different than the state protecting property in the first place.
I would agree if intellectual property was actually property.
Why isn't it "actually property"?
It's not scarce.
So, unless artists make their product "scarce", it is not property? I suppose that is in line with COPYrights.
An artist doesn't need to make their product scarce, it is scarce. There is only one original Mona Lisa.
Well, I do agree that music artists are basically lazy and should tour for their income, and movies can still make money in the movie theaters, but what about game manufacturers? If their games are pirated, they wont make anymore. Look at the PC game market. It is almost entirely dead.
The gaming industry has been one of the fastest growing industry in the world. I know you specifically said computer gaming is almost entirely dead, but thats bullshit as well. I know plenty of people that play games online from their computer, and copying games on an xbox isn't much harder than copying games on a computer.
Regardless, you're missing the point. Its not about an industry not making money.
Because information can be copied infinitely, it is no longer scarce. Like a song. There can only be one original recording, and only one way to see a song played live, but if you can copy that song an infinite number of times, then a copy of that song is no longer scarce and is noone's property. There can be as many copies of it as people would want, meeting the needs and wants of all people of that song at any one time; thus it is not scarce and because it is not scarce it is not property.
"The gaming industry has been one of the fastest growing industry in the world."
True.
"I know you specifically said computer gaming is almost entirely dead, but thats bullshit as well."
Go to any store that sells games and compare the number of console games to PC games. DO IT. I DARE YOU.
"I know plenty of people that play games online from their computer, and copying games on an xbox isn't much harder than copying games on a computer."
You don't get it. The companies shy away from computers, because it is harder for the average person to copy games (pc copying is more widespread and has a longer history) and the fact that game companies can sell consoles, which guarantees money.
"Because information can be copied infinitely, it is no longer scarce."
Limited, you mean. Your definition of scare is WRONG.
"Like a song. There can only be one original recording, and only one way to see a song played live, but if you can copy that song an infinite number of times, then a copy of that song is no longer scarce and is noone's property."
In the classic definition of property, that is true, except that your use of "scarce" is wrong.
"There can be as many copies of it as people would want, meeting the needs and wants of all people of that song at any one time; thus it is not scarce and because it is not scarce it is not property."
Property has nothing to do with limitedness or scarcity, Josh. It has to do with control of a separate object. That is property. The music companies lost control of their separate objects, music tracks, and thus, have no property to sell.
"Go to any store that sells games and compare the number of console games to PC games. DO IT. I DARE YOU."
It is still growing, not shrinking. Console gaming is just growing faster.
In regards to scarcity, economics is the study of the distribution of scarce goods. This I learned in Microecon at Dal.
Scarcity is what makes property, property, and you are not able to provide to me one example where this doesn't hold.
If there is not enough of a good to serve all demands and wants of every person at any one time, it is by definition scarce.
"It is still growing, not shrinking. Console gaming is just growing faster."
No, it's not growing. It is stable in some areas, like simulations, and non-existent in others. The console market firmly controls those others.
"In regards to scarcity, economics is the study of the distribution of scarce goods. This I learned in Microecon at Dal."
Do I have to get the dictionary out to disprove your prof? Oh, yes, I guess I do:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scarce
Scarcity has NOTHING to do with the definition of property. Scarcity has to with supply and demand and the resulting price of a good. If a resource or product is scarce, a high price results.
"Scarcity is what makes property, property, and you are not able to provide to me one example where this doesn't hold. "
Your professor is WRONG. Property has to with seperateness. I can own this glass of water, because it is a separate unit. Water is NOT scarce, but it is separatable. Land is the same way. Deeds and fences allow us to cut it up and parcel it off. For example, in America during the 18th century, land was plentiful (i.e. the opposite of scarce), so the property for new immigrants was also plentiful. GOVERNMENTS were basically giving it away so that the Indians or Mexicans couldnt lay claims to it.
You see, Josh, your department is has gorged its brains out to stay favorable with those in power. The profs at your school don't actually think and teach, instead they indoctrinate.
"If there is not enough of a good to serve all demands and wants of every person at any one time, it is by definition scarce."
If there are 1,000,000 apples sold on the market every week, and there is a population of 1,001,000 to eat them, apples are scarce, Josh. "1 : deficient in quantity or number compared with the demand : not plentiful or abundant" If there are 1 billion cups of water, and 1,001,000 people, then water is not scarce. BUT IT IS STILL PROPERTY>
Again, I think minor deficiency in relation to demand is not what is meant by scarcity in its common usage. If there are 100 apples, and 101 people want an apple, are apples "scarce" because one person doesn't get an apple? I don't think so. I think scarcity has something more to it than simple "deficiency in relation to demand". Significant deficiency is probably what scarcity is.
"If there are 100 apples, and 101 people want an apple, are apples "scarce" because one person doesn't get an apple? I don't think so."
That's because you're an idiot and you cannot understand a simple concept; also you're ignoring availability and time.
The question is, if all apples are considered equal in everyway, and if everyone can know they will have as many apples as they will ever need or want, does owning an apple as property have any meaning? No, because noone would ever need your apple and if someone took it for whatever unimaginable reason, you would always have more at your disposal to meet your needs and wants. So because apples are not scarce, they are not property.
If all apples are considered equal in everyway, and if everyone does not think they will always have as many apples as they will always want or need, then suddenly they have value derived from the fact that if someone takes your apple then they are taking something you are not guaranteed to be able to replace as you do not have enough apples to meet all of your wants and needs forever. Thus, property now exists as apples are scarce.
My professor didn't use "scarce" in this way to define property, however, the definition of economics from our text for that course was that economics is the study of the distribution of scarce goods and resources because if a good or resource was NOT scarce, there would be no need to study its distribution, everyone would always have as much of it as they need.
"Significant deficiency is probably what scarcity is."
Probably? lol.
You're defining a term based on your gut instinct, and ignoring your own quoted definition of "scarce".
""1 : deficient in quantity or number compared with the demand : not plentiful or abundant" If there are 1 billion cups of water, and 1,001,000 people, then water is not scarce. BUT IT IS STILL PROPERTY"
If there are 1 billion cups of water, and only 2 people, and 1 billion cups of water is not enough to last these two individuals for ever, then water is scarce as water is "deficient in quantity or number compared with demand"
"Sounds like the capitalists are using the state to protect their property, which is no different than the state protecting property in the first place."
The state isn't supposed to protect property. Its supposed to protect property rights.
And back to the water, even if 2 billion cups of water was enough, at some point these 2 people might decide its not, so because there is a limited amount of water, it can be considered scarce.
If an item can be reproduced infinitely, it is no longer scarce, which is why when I download a song or movie online I do so guilt free as I know I'm not stealing anything from anyone as it has no value as property.
From a business perspective, the music industry was stupid to release their material in such a vulnerable format, and as you said, the music industry lost control of their products. Its their responsibility to fix this, not the government's.
Copyright laws should be abolished as they inhibit society's progress and protect noone's property.
"also you're ignoring availability and time."
Nope, still not scarce.
"The question is, if all apples are considered equal in everyway, and if everyone can know they will have as many apples as they will ever need or want, does owning an apple as property have any meaning? No, because noone would ever need your apple and if someone took it for whatever unimaginable reason, you would always have more at your disposal to meet your needs and wants. So because apples are not scarce, they are not property."
No, Josh, that just means that apples are plentiful and as a result have a low value. For example, I say "I have a glass of water" or "It is my water". Water is plentiful. Most people wouldn't steal a glass of water, but it is still my water BECAUSE I can put it in a glass and separate it from other water. That is where the essence of property resides: in a thing's separateness and in person's ability to control that separateness.
"If all apples are considered equal in everyway, and if everyone does not think they will always have as many apples as they will always want or need, then suddenly they have value derived from the fact that if someone takes your apple then they are taking something you are not guaranteed to be able to replace as you do not have enough apples to meet all of your wants and needs forever. Thus, property now exists as apples are scarce."
No, sorry. The 100 paper clips and tacks in my drawer are mine, even though I think that I'll probably have no problems acquiring new paper clips in the future. They are plentiful, but that does not mean they are not property because they are so.
"My professor didn't use "scarce" in this way to define property, however, the definition of economics from our text for that course was that economics is the study of the distribution of scarce goods and resources because if a good or resource was NOT scarce, there would be no need to study its distribution, everyone would always have as much of it as they need."
Well, Josh, considering that it came from a textbook it can't help but being correct. LOL, NOT. Again, if 100 people want apples, and there are only 99 apples, are apples "scarce" because one person doesn't get an apple? I don't think so. I think something else is meant by "scarcity" by everyday people.
"The state isn't supposed to protect property. Its supposed to protect property rights."
That's the same thing.
"And back to the water, even if 2 billion cups of water was enough, at some point these 2 people might decide its not, so because there is a limited amount of water, it can be considered scarce."
No, Josh, there is a continual supply of water for 2 people.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. If we were at home, and i grabbed your glass of water, you'd say "Hey, that's my glass of water!", even though you could easily get more water. It is therefore not scarcity that defines property, but separatebility.
"which is why when I download a song or movie online I do so guilt free as I know I'm not stealing anything from anyone as it has no value as property."
They are certainly not controlling their product, that's for sure.
"Anyway, it doesn't matter. If we were at home, and i grabbed your glass of water, you'd say "Hey, that's my glass of water!", even though you could easily get more water. It is therefore not scarcity that defines property, but separatebility."
If I was sitting at a table, and from that position had an unlimited number of glasses of water (all equal) available, noone in that position would say boo if someone took a glass a water from the unlimited supply because it wouldn't be noticeable. Nothing would change for me.
"The 100 paper clips and tacks in my drawer are mine, even though I think that I'll probably have no problems acquiring new paper clips in the future."
Yes, but it takes money and time to get more, because you do not have an infinite supply of clips and tacks in your drawer.
"Again, if 100 people want apples, and there are only 99 apples, are apples "scarce" because one person doesn't get an apple? I don't think so."
Than you ignore your own quoted definition which you failed to mention this time around.
"If I was sitting at a table, and from that position had an unlimited number of glasses of water (all equal) available, noone in that position would say boo if someone took a glass a water from the unlimited supply because it wouldn't be noticeable. Nothing would change for me."
If you were trying to prove your argument correct, yes, you might sit there and not say boo, but if I just came out of nowhere and took your water, you'd definitely say, "Hey, that's mine". People do it all the time. They have an abundance of something, but they assert their ownership when someone takes it from them.
"Yes, but it takes money and time to get more, because you do not have an infinite supply of clips and tacks in your drawer."
Yes, but the cost of paper clips in relation to my income is so minute as to make the supply of paper clips infinite. I will still contest that they are mine if you try and take one without asking. Why is that? Oh yeah, because property has to do with seperatebility and power.
"Than you ignore your own quoted definition which you failed to mention this time around."
I am explicitly rejecting Merriam-Webster's definition. I think they have really made a mistake here. Instead of defining the word by how people use it, they have opted to use the definition of one school of thought in economics.
Here's a little homework assignment for you, Josh. Study how the word scarce is used in books and everyday discourse. I'm pretty sure my argument reflects the reality of the word.
"but if I just came out of nowhere and took your water, you'd definitely say, "Hey, that's mine"."
Why? I wouldn't even notice.
"They have an abundance of something, but they assert their ownership when someone takes it from them."
Abundance does not equal infinite.
"Yes, but the cost of paper clips in relation to my income is so minute as to make the supply of paper clips infinite."
Nope. If they were infinite they wouldn't cost you anything. However they are not infinite because the resources that are used to make them are not infinite.
"I am explicitly rejecting Merriam-Webster's definition. I think they have really made a mistake here. Instead of defining the word by how people use it, they have opted to use the definition of one school of thought in economics."
Yes, obviously you should write a letter to Merriam-Webster. They obviously know nothing about defining terms. And my economics text book used at an overly liberal Canadian university with an overly liberal economics professor obviously doesn't know anything about defining economics either. LOL. You don't understand scarcity, but you think you do, and therefore everyone that thinks different is wrong. Common use of the word does not define it. I'm sure you know of other words that are commonly used incorrectly.
Although the common use of "scarce" could reflect the common misinterpretation most individuals in our society has in regard to the abundance of resources available. You think your paper clips are not scarce because you can easily buy more, but on a macro level, because there are not enough paperclips in the world to meet the needs and wants of individuals, paperclips are scarce. You're too busy thinking about yourself, and not the global community. Clean water doesn't seem scarce to you because you have a seemingly infinite supply. From a macro level though, you do not have an infinite supply, noone does, and clean water is scarce; if it wasn't, noone on earth would die for lack of it.
So because individuals have trouble thinking beyond themselves, many use scarce and apply it to their own life, but this is false for reasons explained above. Using the term in this was does communicate the intended message, but when it is removed from the individual and applied to the entire world, we see the almost everything is scarce.
"Why? I wouldn't even notice."
You are purposely lying to yourself and me, Josh. Disingenious.
"Abundance does not equal infinite."
And, how does that refute that property has to do with seperatedness and power?
"Nope. If they were infinite they wouldn't cost you anything. However they are not infinite because the resources that are used to make them are not infinite."
Thank you, Captain Obvious. Again, the cost of paper clips in relation to my salary is so low that I don't care about the "cost".
"Yes, obviously you should write a letter to Merriam-Webster."
Nah, I'll just use the term how it is used in normal discourse and ignore Merriam-Webster.
"They obviously know nothing about defining terms."
No, they have made a mistake. The word "scarcity" has a general meaning used by everyday people, and an ideological meaning used by economics profs of a certain school of thought.
"And my economics text book used at an overly liberal Canadian university with an overly liberal economics professor obviously doesn't know anything about defining economics either."
Apparently not, because it contradicts how the term is actually used.
"LOL"
LOL.
"You don't understand scarcity, but you think you do, and therefore everyone that thinks different is wrong."
No, I have watched how the term is used in daily discourse, know where the dictionary definition comes from (the dominant school of economic thought), think YOU and your school are wrong as a result.
"Common use of the word does not define it."
Actually, yes it does. That's where dictionaries started: from common usage. 300 years ago there were no dictionaries. Where do you think they got their meaning?
"I'm sure you know of other words that are commonly used incorrectly."
Yes, and? I also know of thousands of words in Merriam-Websters that list multiple meanings.
Post a Comment