How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists

[Richy_T]

while the state evaluates social benefit vs. research cost.

Lol.

[1714824223]

1714824223

[cunicula]

while the state evaluates social benefit vs. research cost.

Lol.

As usual, I am overpowered by the careful reasoning supporting your libertarian convictions.

[bb113]

if you don't want the government to do research and put stuff in the public domain, then you have to support private research through strong IPR.

There are other ways. Most of known history has proceeded without either, progress has only slowed as government has become more involved. Of course researchers are dealing with ever more complicated problems as well.


Edit:

while the state evaluates social benefit vs. research cost.

Lol.

As usual, I am overpowered by the careful reasoning supporting your libertarian convictions.

You asserted something without providing reasoning or evidence as well.

[cunicula]

if you don't want the government to do research and put stuff in the public domain, then you have to support private research through strong IPR.

There are other ways. Most of known history has proceeded without either, progress has only slowed as government has become more involved. Of course researchers are dealing with ever more complicated problems as well.

Right, we can return to the 16th century before the government became involved in IPR protection. Britain was really idiotic to reform IPR in 1622. That whole industrial revolution thing really set us back. The US was really really stupid to improve upon Britain's IPR protections. It just made the mess even worse.

Is this some kind of joke? Your head is already comfortably lodged in your ass, there is no need to try to stretch it further.

You asserted something without providing reasoning or evidence as well.

Pretty rich statement coming from Mr. Asshat himself. Mr. Asshat speaks of alternatives. It is not clear what he means, but let's be charitable and assume he has a concrete idea.

One libertarian alternative is to have a coalition of potential inventors bribe the initial patent holder to put his IPR in a pool that is commonly held by the coalition. Research suggests that this is more harmful for innovation than the initial monopoly patent right. It creates a persistent cartel which is more difficult for outsiders to break than the original monopoly.

http://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/NBER_US/N090616L.pdf

[bb113]

if you don't want the government to do research and put stuff in the public domain, then you have to support private research through strong IPR.

There are other ways. Most of known history has proceeded without either, progress has only slowed as government has become more involved. Of course researchers are dealing with ever more complicated problems as well.

Right, we can return to the 16th century before the government became involved in IPR protection. Britain was really idiotic to reform IPR in 1622. That whole industrial revolution thing really set us back. The US was really really stupid to improve upon Britain's IPR protections. It just made the mess even worse.

Is this some kind of joke? Your head is already comfortably lodged in your ass, there is no need to try to stretch it further.

You asserted something without providing reasoning or evidence as well.

Pretty rich statement coming from Mr. Asshat himself. Mr. Asshat speaks of alternatives. It is not clear what he means, but let's be charitable and assume he has a concrete idea.

One libertarian alternative is to have a coalition of potential inventors bribe the initial patent holder to put his IPR in a pool that is commonly held by the coalition. Research suggests that this is more harmful for innovation than the initial monopoly patent right. It creates a persistent cartel which is more difficult for outsiders to break than the original monopoly.

http://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/NBER_US/N090616L.pdf

Without reading the whole thing I skipped directly to the data and wondered why they fit a "fourth-order polynomial", why is 1905 or whatever it is less than 1900 in figure 5. Why is number of patents not normalized to total patents for that year. The fact these figures exist makes me immediately suspect crap paper with crap reviewers. Perhaps it is explained within, if so where?

[bb113]

Also, to cunicula. I have been running some simulations of t-test results on data from various random distributions and it looks like ones similar to the pareto distribution are most likely to cause false positives and exaggerated estimates of effect size. Have you ever seen any econ literature saying this? I searched a bit but got a bunch of noise.

[cunicula]

if you don't want the government to do research and put stuff in the public domain, then you have to support private research through strong IPR.

There are other ways. Most of known history has proceeded without either, progress has only slowed as government has become more involved. Of course researchers are dealing with ever more complicated problems as well.

Right, we can return to the 16th century before the government became involved in IPR protection. Britain was really idiotic to reform IPR in 1622. That whole industrial revolution thing really set us back. The US was really really stupid to improve upon Britain's IPR protections. It just made the mess even worse.

Is this some kind of joke? Your head is already comfortably lodged in your ass, there is no need to try to stretch it further.

You asserted something without providing reasoning or evidence as well.

Pretty rich statement coming from Mr. Asshat himself. Mr. Asshat speaks of alternatives. It is not clear what he means, but let's be charitable and assume he has a concrete idea.

One libertarian alternative is to have a coalition of potential inventors bribe the initial patent holder to put his IPR in a pool that is commonly held by the coalition. Research suggests that this is more harmful for innovation than the initial monopoly patent right. It creates a persistent cartel which is more difficult for outsiders to break than the original monopoly.

http://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/NBER_US/N090616L.pdf

Without reading the whole thing I skipped directly to the data and wondered why they fit a "fourth-order polynomial", why is 1905 or whatever it is less than 1900 in figure 5. Why is number of patents not normalized to total patents for that year. The fact these figures exist makes me immediately suspect crap paper with crap reviewers. Perhaps it is explained within, if so where?

You need to read the entire paper and weigh all of the evidence presented.

[bb113]

if you don't want the government to do research and put stuff in the public domain, then you have to support private research through strong IPR.

There are other ways. Most of known history has proceeded without either, progress has only slowed as government has become more involved. Of course researchers are dealing with ever more complicated problems as well.

Right, we can return to the 16th century before the government became involved in IPR protection. Britain was really idiotic to reform IPR in 1622. That whole industrial revolution thing really set us back. The US was really really stupid to improve upon Britain's IPR protections. It just made the mess even worse.

Is this some kind of joke? Your head is already comfortably lodged in your ass, there is no need to try to stretch it further.

You asserted something without providing reasoning or evidence as well.

Pretty rich statement coming from Mr. Asshat himself. Mr. Asshat speaks of alternatives. It is not clear what he means, but let's be charitable and assume he has a concrete idea.

One libertarian alternative is to have a coalition of potential inventors bribe the initial patent holder to put his IPR in a pool that is commonly held by the coalition. Research suggests that this is more harmful for innovation than the initial monopoly patent right. It creates a persistent cartel which is more difficult for outsiders to break than the original monopoly.

http://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/NBER_US/N090616L.pdf

Without reading the whole thing I skipped directly to the data and wondered why they fit a "fourth-order polynomial", why is 1905 or whatever it is less than 1900 in figure 5. Why is number of patents not normalized to total patents for that year. The fact these figures exist makes me immediately suspect crap paper with crap reviewers. Perhaps it is explained within, if so where?

You need to read the entire paper and weigh all of the evidence presented.

Well figure 3 does show sewing machine patents normalized to all patents, so now I am not sure you have read the paper either. Why a fourth order polynomial fit? How will reading the paper help me understand how they came to their conclusion if searching for that yielded nothing.

[bb113]

The Pareto principle is an illustration of a "power law" relationship, which also occurs in phenomena such as brush fires and earthquakes.[20] Because it is self-similar over a wide range of magnitudes, it produces outcomes completely different from Gaussian distribution phenomena. This fact explains the frequent breakdowns of sophisticated financial instruments, which are modeled on the assumption that a Gaussian relationship is appropriate to, for example, stock movement sizes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80-20_law

It's wikipedia sure, but can we trace back the failure of our financial system to faulty statistics classes funded by government?

This figure was generated via a monte carlo experiment. I've done a couple and this pattern keeps showing up as maximizing false positives and exaggeration of effect size:



If you actually want to think for yourself and question which economic literature this effect may be relevant to, this may be of interest.

[cunicula]

Also, to cunicula. I have been running some simulations of t-test results on data from various random distributions and it looks like ones similar to the pareto distribution are most likely to cause false positives and exaggerated estimates of effect size. Have you ever seen any econ literature saying this? I searched a bit but got a bunch of noise.

If the random distribution generating individual observations does not have a mean and/or variance (true for some pareto distributions), then the central limit theorem doesn't hold and you are in trouble. Similarly, if the variance exists but is just really large, then it will take a huge sample size to get an approximately normally distributed test statistic.

I suggest you look at Hayashi's textbook: Econometrics.

[bb113]

Also, to cunicula. I have been running some simulations of t-test results on data from various random distributions and it looks like ones similar to the pareto distribution are most likely to cause false positives and exaggerated estimates of effect size. Have you ever seen any econ literature saying this? I searched a bit but got a bunch of noise.

If the random distribution generating individual observations does not have a mean and/or variance (true for some pareto distributions), then the central limit theorem doesn't hold and you are in trouble. Similarly, if the variance exists but is just really large, then it will take a huge sample size to get an approximately normally distributed test statistic.

I suggest you look at Hayashi's textbook: Econometrics.

I've done a bunch of these. T-tests are really robust to pretty much everything except multiple or sequential testing unless you get something like the above. CLT is an approximation to real life.

Edit: t-tests are also greatly affected by outlier filtering.

[Rudd-O]

while the state evaluates social benefit vs. research cost.

Lol.

https://i.imgur.com/pr0WA.gif

[Rudd-O]

If you think funding research to put it in the public domain make sense, you are absolutely welcome to do it. If you're spending your own money, it's much more likely you'll get the cost/benefit analysis right. Perhaps you are right, perhaps I am getting it wrong. The beauty of a free market is that everyone gets to do their own such analysis.

The point that statists are trying to make, isn't whether "research is valuable" or similar nonsense, but rather that you should be ruined if you don't agree that such things should be funded by you.

Slightly different things.

[Rudd-O]

Lemme illustrate what statists want:

https://i.imgur.com/2nXr8.jpg

[FirstAscent]

Lemme illustrate what statists want:

Really? Seek help dude. People don't want to live in a cage. Your cartoon is only for people such as yourself to share with others like yourself.

[myrkul]

People don't want to live in a cage.

That whooshing sound you heard? Yeah... that was the point, as you flew straight past it.

[FirstAscent]

People don't want to live in a cage.

That whooshing sound you heard? Yeah... that was the point, as you flew straight past it.

Actually, you're the one who just heard the whoosh. The cartoon is designed to make people think that government is going to put us all in a cage. Thus, if we believe in government, we must want to end up in a cage. Obviously we don't want to be in a cage, and yet we do still believe in government, so there is some disconnect going on there. Who are the deluded? The reality is, it's the paranoid individuals who think most of today's democracies are on the verge of becoming fascist governments.

The cartoon is only really applicable to the paranoid delusionals to share among themselves in contexts such as this.

[myrkul]

People don't want to live in a cage.

That whooshing sound you heard? Yeah... that was the point, as you flew straight past it.

Actually, you're the one who just heard the whoosh. The cartoon is designed to make people think that government is going to put us all in a cage. Thus, if we believe in government, we must want to end up in a cage. Obviously we don't want to be in a cage, and yet we do still believe in government, so there is some disconnect going on there. Who are the deluded? The reality is, it's the paranoid individuals who think most of today's democracies are on the verge of becoming fascist governments.

The cartoon is only really applicable to the paranoid delusionals to share among themselves in contexts such as this.

Still digging, I see. No, the cartoon is intended to point out that dissenters get caged.

[Richy_T]

Still digging, I see. No, the cartoon is intended to point out that dissenters get caged.

I think he thinks it's the guy in the bow tie who is supposed to be him.

[FirstAscent]

People don't want to live in a cage.

That whooshing sound you heard? Yeah... that was the point, as you flew straight past it.

Actually, you're the one who just heard the whoosh. The cartoon is designed to make people think that government is going to put us all in a cage. Thus, if we believe in government, we must want to end up in a cage. Obviously we don't want to be in a cage, and yet we do still believe in government, so there is some disconnect going on there. Who are the deluded? The reality is, it's the paranoid individuals who think most of today's democracies are on the verge of becoming fascist governments.

The cartoon is only really applicable to the paranoid delusionals to share among themselves in contexts such as this.

Still digging, I see. No, the cartoon is intended to point out that dissenters get caged.

No shit. Typically liberal hippie types who like music and the arts and peace and love for everyone. Liberals. The opposite of libertarians, who want to crap on the little guy. Thus the cartoon loses its bite.