He’s old, green and fascist so best ignored Tim. He’ll soon be dead and buried in a cardboard coffin under some sustainable ash trees (after a state funeral).
Van_Patten
Tim
Sorry to say this ‘evidence’ won’t be sufficient for your critics….
Where is the assertion that your own belief has become ‘fundamental to economic thought’? (Howard Reed)
Where is the self-confident proclamations that ‘wise men agree with you’ or that ‘you are the expert’? (Richard Murphy)
Where is the carefully crafted evidence that things were actually a good deal better in 1978, and were best of all in the period immediately following the Second world war, under the ‘greatest government of all time’ – the Attleee administration? (Ivan Horrocks)
Where is the youtube quote featuring Tony Benn or Dennis Skinner that ‘unequivocally proves’ the contentions of partisans of the Courageous State? (Arnald)
Until you can bring a similar weight of evidence to bear, then I’m afraid your contentions will remain the musings of a ‘troll cheerleader. who lies ‘far from the political mainstream’ and who portrays all the characteristics of ‘a captive Neoliberal’.
Ironman
Could you please answer me Tim!
Interested
@VP – perfect!
Bloke in North Dorset
@VP
You missed the link that eventually leads back to something written by Tim.
Van_Patten
Bloke in North Dorset
I did indeed miss that – in fairness to Arnald (That’s not a typo) he alone has the apparent nous and attention to detail to check the links within the links – though it might be entertaining to see the impact on Murphy’s health of seeing a link he approves of dissected to the point where it does reference something Tim produced – what price a third hospitalization in 14 months?
Rob
Could you PLEASE answer the unspecified question I might ask you in the future.
Out of interest, what’s the ASI/libertarian take on the Green Party’s proposal to reduce regulation by shortening copyright to 14 years? Surely worth it to see the outrage.
Tim Worstall
I expect Madsen would be pretty pissed off, he still makes good money out of something he wrote 30 years ago.
Officially, I dunno. Seriously? Probably a bit short but better than current.
14 years is plenty, but there should be an exception for works which take a long time to take off.
I suggest that copyright should expire ten years after peak annual sales (and could be reasserted if there’s a higher peak thereafter).
NiV
“Out of interest, what’s the ASI/libertarian take on the Green Party’s proposal to reduce regulation by shortening copyright to 14 years? Surely worth it to see the outrage.”
Copyright exists because it takes a significant effort to write the first instance of a book, but virtually none at all to copy the next million. Information tends to be a public good. So if you want people to write books that it takes a significant effort to write, then you have to find some other way to make sure they get paid.
If you reduce the amount they get paid, you’ll get fewer and lower quality books, because it simply won’t be worth people’s time to write them. (Or books will become more expensive, to pay for them in the shorter time.) You have to trade that against the cost to society of all the people unable to access the knowledge because they’re unwilling or unable to pay the price.
There’s no doubt some optimum price point somewhere in the middle, but I’ve no idea how you’d find it. The problem in those situations when free markets don’t work is that there’s nothing even half as good to replace them with.
The problem in those situations when free markets don’t work is that there’s nothing even half as good to replace them with.
It’s bizarre to equate the granting of monopolies with free markets.
We want to encourage the writing of books people will pay money to read. But all of us strongly discount uncertain income decades in the future. No one at all writes a book they wouldn’t otherwise have bothered with because of the possibility that it will support their remote descendants long after their death.
Interested
@PaulB
So you may vote green, with all their ludicrously inane and economy wrecking policies, because you’re worried that JK Rowling’s grandchildren might be making money off Harry Potter?
Truly mad priorities, there.
Bloke in Wales
Interested, surely the more socialists that vote Green (or Scotch Natzi – thanks IanB), the better!
Where you got the evidence that women are differently subject to the income effects relating to taxation? I think.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=women+taxation+labour+supply
If you really want to rub it in, use http://lmgtfy.com/
He’s old, green and fascist so best ignored Tim. He’ll soon be dead and buried in a cardboard coffin under some sustainable ash trees (after a state funeral).
Tim
Sorry to say this ‘evidence’ won’t be sufficient for your critics….
Where is the assertion that your own belief has become ‘fundamental to economic thought’? (Howard Reed)
Where is the self-confident proclamations that ‘wise men agree with you’ or that ‘you are the expert’? (Richard Murphy)
Where is the carefully crafted evidence that things were actually a good deal better in 1978, and were best of all in the period immediately following the Second world war, under the ‘greatest government of all time’ – the Attleee administration? (Ivan Horrocks)
Where is the youtube quote featuring Tony Benn or Dennis Skinner that ‘unequivocally proves’ the contentions of partisans of the Courageous State? (Arnald)
Until you can bring a similar weight of evidence to bear, then I’m afraid your contentions will remain the musings of a ‘troll cheerleader. who lies ‘far from the political mainstream’ and who portrays all the characteristics of ‘a captive Neoliberal’.
Could you please answer me Tim!
@VP – perfect!
@VP
You missed the link that eventually leads back to something written by Tim.
Bloke in North Dorset
I did indeed miss that – in fairness to Arnald (That’s not a typo) he alone has the apparent nous and attention to detail to check the links within the links – though it might be entertaining to see the impact on Murphy’s health of seeing a link he approves of dissected to the point where it does reference something Tim produced – what price a third hospitalization in 14 months?
Could you PLEASE answer the unspecified question I might ask you in the future.
A musickal interlude:
Sad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqbKzYI-Y6Q
Classic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsOnvsf6zBM
Strangely Upbeat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CCmwQKMkHM
Take your Pick
Out of interest, what’s the ASI/libertarian take on the Green Party’s proposal to reduce regulation by shortening copyright to 14 years? Surely worth it to see the outrage.
I expect Madsen would be pretty pissed off, he still makes good money out of something he wrote 30 years ago.
Officially, I dunno. Seriously? Probably a bit short but better than current.
Thanks Luke, that might get me to vote for them.
14 years is plenty, but there should be an exception for works which take a long time to take off.
I suggest that copyright should expire ten years after peak annual sales (and could be reasserted if there’s a higher peak thereafter).
“Out of interest, what’s the ASI/libertarian take on the Green Party’s proposal to reduce regulation by shortening copyright to 14 years? Surely worth it to see the outrage.”
Copyright exists because it takes a significant effort to write the first instance of a book, but virtually none at all to copy the next million. Information tends to be a public good. So if you want people to write books that it takes a significant effort to write, then you have to find some other way to make sure they get paid.
If you reduce the amount they get paid, you’ll get fewer and lower quality books, because it simply won’t be worth people’s time to write them. (Or books will become more expensive, to pay for them in the shorter time.) You have to trade that against the cost to society of all the people unable to access the knowledge because they’re unwilling or unable to pay the price.
There’s no doubt some optimum price point somewhere in the middle, but I’ve no idea how you’d find it. The problem in those situations when free markets don’t work is that there’s nothing even half as good to replace them with.
Ageist!
The problem in those situations when free markets don’t work is that there’s nothing even half as good to replace them with.
It’s bizarre to equate the granting of monopolies with free markets.
We want to encourage the writing of books people will pay money to read. But all of us strongly discount uncertain income decades in the future. No one at all writes a book they wouldn’t otherwise have bothered with because of the possibility that it will support their remote descendants long after their death.
@PaulB
So you may vote green, with all their ludicrously inane and economy wrecking policies, because you’re worried that JK Rowling’s grandchildren might be making money off Harry Potter?
Truly mad priorities, there.
Interested, surely the more socialists that vote Green (or Scotch Natzi – thanks IanB), the better!
So you may vote green, with all their ludicrously inane and economy wrecking policies…
I suppose the alternative would be to vote for a party whose policies I agree with. I’ll let you know when that option becomes available.