Revolutions podcast - Russian Revolution

[Hastur]

I think certain industries can be socialized to an extent, but pretty much fail at any kind of scale. The diminishing returns due to bureaucracy cannot be overcome.

In practice, I have noticed that, in industries with no competition possible (like your electric utility),
there exists no difference in efficiency between the state and the private corporation. The inefficiencies of the state-run passenger train system, for example, do not arise from the mere fact that Amtrak is a state entity, but because there exists no competition.

Where socialism becomes total shit is when it wipes out a competitive industry to become the sole producer. But if the nature of that industry precludes competition, then there typically is no efficiency loss either way by virtue of organization, and actually a small favorable point for socialism since, in that case, profit represents lack of efficiency.

I couldn't agree more. There is no difference in efficiency between state owned and private monopolies. They might as well be publicly owned.
Areas where there is no reason for monopoly should be hands of for the state. State owned media being the prime example.

[DrYouth]

What's your take on IP, for a start on that question?

IP?

[Speaker to Animals]

Intellectual Property.

[DrYouth]

I think certain industries can be socialized to an extent, but pretty much fail at any kind of scale. The diminishing returns due to bureaucracy cannot be overcome.

Which is why I come pack to partially socializing medicine.
Medicine is a practice of caring for and sometimes curing the ill.
Imagining that capitalism alone can manage such a complex social undertaking is ludicrous.
Certain aspects of it can and should be outsourced to free enterprise.... such as surgical tools, hospital equipment, cleaning staff and the large scale manufacture of certain drugs...
But allowing for profit enterprises to capture the entire medical field such as Big Pharma has is a recipe for the disaster that we are currently living out.

[DrYouth]

What's your take on IP, for a start on that question?

IP?

IP is an important incentive for the creative effort necessary to come up with new inventions.
It is totally arbitrary as to length of time before it expires of course.
Something the state can tweak to deal with various contingencies... might be necessary to say incentivise antibiotic development over palliative meds which bring in fortunes as it is.

[Fife]

They might as well be publicly owned.

Why Public Utility Monopolies Fail

[Fife]

What's your take on IP, for a start on that question?

IP?

IP is an important incentive for the creative effort necessary to come up with new inventions.
It is totally arbitrary as to length of time before it expires of course.
Something the state can tweak to deal with various contingencies... might be necessary to say incentivise antibiotic development over palliative meds which bring in fortunes as it is.

*tweak*



Save us Federal City! You're Our Only Hope!



Here's yet another freebie from your old buddy Fife: https://mises.org/library/against-intel ... property-0

And here's the TL;DR even more to the point: The Case Against Pharma Patent Monopolies

Since monopoly rents are unearned, there must be some justification for monopoly privilege. One justification is the protection against the “theft” of an idea or intellectual property. Stephan Kinsella has made a free market argument against intellectual property. A car can be used to illustrate the argument. A car is property. Property rights are assigned to the car. If a thief stole my car, I would be aware of the theft when the car was no longer available for my use. I cannot use the car because it has been stolen. Ideas do not have this characteristic, so ideas should not be considered as property with property rights attached to them. If someone “copies” a drug molecule, nothing has been stolen. The idea has not been wiped from the inventor’s mind. The copycat does not restrain or impair use of the idea by the inventor in any way. The only loss suffered by the inventor is the ability to realize monopoly rents, but these monopoly rents are unearned and their loss cannot be considered to have been stolen.

[Speaker to Animals]

What's your take on IP, for a start on that question?

IP?

IP is an important incentive for the creative effort necessary to come up with new inventions.
It is totally arbitrary as to length of time before it expires of course.
Something the state can tweak to deal with various contingencies... might be necessary to say incentivise antibiotic development over palliative meds which bring in fortunes as it is.

It's actually the opposite of incentive.

[DrYouth]

IP?

IP is an important incentive for the creative effort necessary to come up with new inventions.
It is totally arbitrary as to length of time before it expires of course.
Something the state can tweak to deal with various contingencies... might be necessary to say incentivise antibiotic development over palliative meds which bring in fortunes as it is.

It's actually the opposite of incentive.

What are you proposing?
Abolishing Intellectual Property?

Explain how that would work.

How do you get rewarded for new ideas and creative effort if anyone can just pirate your ideas.
China is going to love you.

[Speaker to Animals]

IP is an important incentive for the creative effort necessary to come up with new inventions.
It is totally arbitrary as to length of time before it expires of course.
Something the state can tweak to deal with various contingencies... might be necessary to say incentivise antibiotic development over palliative meds which bring in fortunes as it is.

It's actually the opposite of incentive.

What are you proposing?
Abolishing Intellectual Property?

Explain how that would work.

How do you get rewarded for new ideas and creative effort if anyone can just pirate your ideas.
China is going to love you.

First tell me how one can "pirate ideas". You need to defend that principle. It is not my role to defend common sense. It is your role to defend what violates common sense.