Read this before having an opinion on economics

[estevo]

Even while being robbed at gunpoint, they are generous enough to give away their money. How many more billionaires would feel generous if they weren't already being forced to give away their money? We will probably never find out.

Or even better: how many more billionaires would feel generous if the government gave them money instead?

You don't need to be a millionaire to donate money to a good cause either, do you?  If your point is that aggregation of resources makes efforts more effective or that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet will put the money to better use than your average NGO, nothing stops non-millionaires from donating to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Not arguing for or against taxing here, but frankly, that kind of statement makes you sound like a hammer desperately looking for nails.

Relatively speaking, this is questionable.  Warren Buffet has been quoted as saying that he pays less in federal income taxes than his own secretary.  The point he was trying to make was that the tax code is so complicated that one needs a professional in order to utilize it to one's full advantage, which he can afford and his secretary cannot.

[Emphasis mine]

I suppose he pays way more than his secretary overall, via other kinds of taxes.  If not... well, problem solved?

[1713958386]

1713958386

[1713958386]

1713958386

[NghtRppr]

You don't need to be a millionaire to donate money to a good cause either, do you?

I never claimed otherwise.

If your point is that aggregation of resources makes efforts more effective or that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet will put the money to better use than your average NGO, nothing stops non-millionaires from donating to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

No, that wasn't my point.

Not arguing for or against taxing here, but frankly, that kind of statement makes you sound like a hammer desperately looking for nails.

You clearly weren't following the discussion. Before you make anymore snide comments, go back and read the thread a little more so you know what you're talking about.

[estevo]

I had read the thread, even participated a bit, even proposed rich sponsors as an option for the funding of medical research (especially when they, or their loved ones, were affected by disease --not ruling out philanthropy though).

I wasn't intending to put words in your mouth.  I was illustrating my disagreement with the stress you placed on (a) rich people and (b) taxes, in this context.  My point is that if you're the philanthropic type, you'll contribute, rich or not, within your possibilities.  If you can otherwise afford philanthropy, taxes will not change that, qualitatively.  You'll contribute less.  Some research will still get done.

If you mean that taxes will resent rich people out of causes they otherwise believe in... doesn't sound rational to me.  I don't think that's how philanthropically inclined people think either.  Sounds more like a cop out.

Maybe some rich people without much of a philanthropic inclination would be guilted into otherwise "giving back" if taxes didn't exist?  Makes sense to me.  Would that allow for more research than taxing them?  Not sure.

(I'm not discussing whether medical research would justify taxing.  Only the relative effectiveness of taxing vs trusting people to contribute on their own.)

And sorry if the tone came across as trying to ridicule your position.  Our cultural backgrounds are very different and I was amused (not in a paternalistic way, but in a "this is refreshing to hear" way) by the dissonance, hence the jocular tone.

[NghtRppr]

If you mean that taxes will resent rich people out of causes they otherwise believe in... doesn't sound rational to me.  I don't think that's how philanthropically inclined people think either.

If you perceive society as parasitic and coercive, you're going to be less inclined to feel generous towards it. That seems fairly uncontroversial to me. It's irrational to think that will have no effect whatsoever. There's also the matter of simply having less money to give to charity.

[estevo]

It's irrational to think that will have no effect whatsoever.

Yes, it will certainly have some effect.  Now, if taxes didn't exist, some ability to fund research would be lost too.  I'm not convinced that the increased generosity would make up for that.

Just for your puzzlement/horror: 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8321967.stm

[NghtRppr]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8321967.stm

It's one thing to give your own money away voluntarily. It's another thing to force everyone else to do the same thing.

[MoonShadow]

It's irrational to think that will have no effect whatsoever.

Yes, it will certainly have some effect.  Now, if taxes didn't exist, some ability to fund research would be lost too.  I'm not convinced that the increased generosity would make up for that.

Just for your puzzlement/horror: 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8321967.stm

I'm not shocked, really.  All governments are functionally owned by the wealthy citizens, and a good show of social solidarity would generally encourage the middle classes to not complain later if the wealthy are willing to put up now.  Of course, the middle class is who pays for almost everything anyway, and the wealthy will get their taxes cut again later on, but it's always a horse and pony show anyway.

[estevo]

It's one thing to give your own money away voluntarily. It's another thing to force everyone else to do the same thing.

I agree.  I brought up the link only for the man-bites-dog appeal.

[The Script]

It's irrational to think that will have no effect whatsoever.

Yes, it will certainly have some effect.  Now, if taxes didn't exist, some ability to fund research would be lost too.  I'm not convinced that the increased generosity would make up for that.

Just for your puzzlement/horror: 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8321967.stm

"Mr. Volmer said that it was 'really strange that so few people came out.'".  Lol.

[JA37]

In this hypothetical scenario, I posit that there will be a significant incentive for large pharmaceutical organizations to pool their resources for research. They do research, even lacking IP law, because they want new treatments to sell. They pool their resources because otherwise their large competitors would use their work without any compensation. This way, they all get access to the research and they all share its costs. Perhaps the ones furthest along take the lead and thus get some form of monopoly rights inside this pool. The agreements made by these entities do not bind, in any way, entities (I posit it will be the small to medium size ones) that are not part of the agreement.

Another thing you overlook is the role of trade secrets. Any entity is free to try to keep any or all information secret. Corporate espionage is still a violation of property rights, and I feel you underestimate the time and effort required to reverse engineer a drug. Even if it's only a matter of months, that's still a huge advantage for the initial developing entity.

The justification for compensation derives from consent, not work. If you dig a hole in my lawn, I owe you nothing and in fact you may owe me damages. If I hire you to dig a hole in my lawn, I owe you whatever amount I agreed to pay you.

They want new treatments to sell, except that they can't sell them, not for profit anyway. So why would they want new treatments? Anyone with enough money to build a factory can just take the research and make the product cheaper than anyone who participated in the research.

Most, if not all, big pharma today already do reverse engineering of the competitors products to learn something that might be useful for their own research. I don't underestimate it I'm afraid. And a few months is peanuts compared to the 20 years or so it takes to find a good drug through research. The time it takes to reverse engineer the drug is about the same time it takes for someone to make it known to the customers, through advertising.

I think you did stumble on the reson for IP in the first place in your comment above. Trade secrets. With no IP I would be a fool to try to capitalize my inventions. Better to keep them secret and make money that way. Let's say I invent a drug that cures every disease known to man, I wouldn't put it on the market, I'd keep it and only give it to those who work for me. That way they'll never be sick and I'd make tons of money more than my competitors. Until someone else figures it out, which may or may not happen. That's the original thought with IP. You get a temporary monopoly for your invention, in exchange for sharing it with the world. It doesn't work flawlessly, but it works.

The thing about IP is the "I" in it. It's hard, if not impossible, to use analogies to physical property. They're just different beasts. But let's say I write a book. You then feel that you have the right to all the hours I spent writing and researching it. Not writing your own book about the same subject, but to take my work away from me. That's not right.

[AaronM]

[...]

The pharmaceutical industry does not require IP to be profitable. (Nor does any other industry.)

The companies who manufacture drugs where patents have expired sure don't. Not so sure about the companies who actually do the research. They spend a lot of money developing drugs, and most of them don't make it to the consumer, so the few that does have to carry all costs. It takes about 30 years from initial research to consumer, and you apply for a patent when you have a candidate drug, which is around year 12-15, and then you start clinical trials, if they go well you can have a drug in the market in 2-3 years, so you have about 10-15 years to make enough money to cover your costs and make a profit.
[...]

I can think of only one way to fund pharmaceutical research without IP: funding from a government that collects taxes to cover the cost of research.  It's either this kind of government, or we have intellectual property.

[BitterTea]

Just because you are unimaginative does not mean those are the only options.

For instance, there could be competing for profit research organizations who then sell their data to pharmaceutical companies. They might even have arrangements by which they share resources and results, to save costs on very expensive research.

Alternatively, the pharmaceutical companies themselves may pool together for research, perhaps with an internal bidding process to determine which entity gets a short "monopoly" on producing the drug.

[JA37]

Just because you are unimaginative does not mean those are the only options.

For instance, there could be competing for profit research organizations who then sell their data to pharmaceutical companies. They might even have arrangements by which they share resources and results, to save costs on very expensive research.

Alternatively, the pharmaceutical companies themselves may pool together for research, perhaps with an internal bidding process to determine which entity gets a short "monopoly" on producing the drug.

But why do the research in the first place. That's the key issue here. It's like you homestead a house and spend a lot of time and effort on fixing it, and when it's done me and some friends move in and use it as we see fit. You do the work, we get the benefit. Sure, you do too, but we get it for free.

[BitterTea]

But why do the research in the first place.

How many times do I have to explain this to you? They research because there is money to be made, and humans are inherently curious, and because if they don't somebody else will.

It's like you homestead a house and spend a lot of time and effort on fixing it, and when it's done me and some friends move in and use it as we see fit. You do the work, we get the benefit. Sure, you do too, but we get it for free.

No, it's absolutely nothing like that, information is not an excludable good.

[JA37]

How many times do I have to explain this to you? They research because there is money to be made, and humans are inherently curious, and because if they don't somebody else will.

No, it's absolutely nothing like that, information is not an excludable good.

I can understand that curiosity can play a part. Some people will experiment no matter what. But money to be made? By bearing the cost and not getting the profit? You go write a book, borrowing money to sustain yourself while writing it, and then send it to me so that I can compete in selling it. Sounds fair, right? I can sell it for the printing cost plus a fraction of a percent and still make a profit. Can you?

I would say that data isn't an excludable good. Information sure is. Someone has taken time to order the data and make it useful. That's worth something.

[LH66]

This whole discussion about anti-IP is quite fascinating. I actually have a small amount of IP so obviously I am in favor of it.

One argument against IP seems to go along the lines that ideas don't change if they're copied. However, it seems to me that the more widespread ideas become, the more "diluted" they become. They don't transfer from one person to the next in an exact "copy." The more people they pass through, the more changed they are. I remember the "telephone" game in school. The teacher got us all in a line, and whispered a single word to the first kid. That kid then whispered the word to the next kid, and so forth all the way through the line of kids. By the time it got to the end, the last kid said what he heard. It was a completely different word.

I am of the opinion that more harm is done by a lack of IP than with IP. "People respond to incentives," is one of the first things learned in an econ class. IP provides a powerful incentive for people. As a very practical example from my own life: I sell a few ebooks on my site. They are $9.97 each. I wrote them myself, and they're based on my years of experience working with clients. They address very real issues and solve very real problems.

If a client were to pay me for my time to convey all that knowledge to them in person, by the hour, it would cost them literally thousands of dollars. I am not exaggerating here. But instead, I created four ebooks, and for under $40 the person can learn everything I've written there. It's really a bargain for both parties. I make money via scale by selling to many people, and the end user gets my knowledge for a tiny fraction of having me be there in person.

IP works for me at this time.

[BitterTea]

¶1: Computers are machines that are very good at perfectly copying information. The cat's already out of the bag.

¶2: Holding a gun to someone's head provides a powerful incentive for them to do what you say, but it does not justify the action.

¶3: You're assuming that you would not be paid without IP law. I don't acknowledge IP as valid, yet I still purchase books, movies, music that I enjoy or find useful.

[NghtRppr]

I am of the opinion that more harm is done by a lack of IP than with IP.

Harm to you personally or society as a whole? If it's the latter then I'd really love to see some kind of argument for that. The burden of proof is on you.

[JA37]

I am of the opinion that more harm is done by a lack of IP than with IP.

Harm to you personally or society as a whole? If it's the latter then I'd really love to see some kind of argument for that. The burden of proof is on you.

Read his post again. IP lets her/him share his knowledge to a lot of people. I wouldn't go so far as to say that depriving society of this knowledge does it harm, but it does benefit society to have it shared cheaply. And no IP won't mean the knowlege will be free. It means it'll be expensive, just like s/he wrote.

Perhaps s/he'll provide an example where it does harm. I can however think of several other examples where IP does harm instead. It's a double edged sword, that.

[LH66]

I am of the opinion that more harm is done by a lack of IP than with IP.

Harm to you personally or society as a whole? If it's the latter then I'd really love to see some kind of argument for that. The burden of proof is on you.

Just off the top of my head....

Harm to me personally, yes.

Harm to society as a whole, yes.

The way I see it, you can't harm a single person and not have it effect others. Therefore, harming a single person harms society. The OP referred to a book, and a story about the broken window. It wasn't just the shop owner who was harmed in that incident. One can look at any sort of harm inflicted on a single person. It's NEVER just that person alone who suffers. Others suffer too.

It's like throwing a small pebble in a pond, the effects ripple away from the point of impact. Of course the biggest splash is where the rock landed, but it does create a ripple that travels outward.

Question: Do you believe that a single person can be harmed without it having a negative impact on others?