I'm pretty sure the basic assumptions of the economics y'all are discussing are not met because they require concave production functions. According to micro theory (I'm trying to recall Mas-Colell here so maybe way off), a linear production function as we have with internet distribution results in corner solutions of 0 or infinite production, and either way can't be priced (taking record production to be a sunk cost, which it is by common definition).
Point being, any argument that relies on a micro framework is bunk because we've reached a level of technology where convex production sets are no longer an obvious assumption.
I am also confused by the uproar about this, why is what Dodd said wrong? Are campaign contributions not a sign that you support the goals of the politician in question? So if that politician is no longer espousing your values, you move your contributions somewhere else.
I guess my question comes down to what is the difference between contributing to whichever campaign forwards a platform and bribery (the assumption that Dodd was engaging in the latter being what caused the furor)?
This is a fine and very important point that has gotten too little coverage. It seems all the arguments here come down to a philosophical argument about how much control over others (the consumers) should we, as a society, agree to exert?
Sidebar question: how did you find these? I'm researching a related topic and need to perform bulk searches for patent related litigation data. Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for raising this point, because it's only in this case that lower (free) prices are anti-competitive. If the company raises prices to _above_ fair market value after their artificially low prices have driven out competition then the DOJ comes after them. If they leave the product free forever, that's not a problem because it's good for the consumer.
So my question to the Google nay-sayers is do you expect Google to raise prices on Android once they have forced MS and Apple out of the smartphone market? Or do they just have a superior product model in which they can offer free software and make money on ads while their competition must charge for the software. I personally don't think they will ever raise Android prices so it's just good competition.
Did anyone else get a sense that this article provided no special insight? It mentioned repeated examples like "I just know" works for Ted but not flying saucers. What is the difference between Ted out the window and a saucer? I felt the author relies heavily on the audience sharing his sense of the obvious and absurd, but provides no argument to support his claims.
~Your position on Nuclear power is completely irrational.
Your opening statement is pointlessly inflammatory. He obviously just has a different risk preference than you do. Why be so antagonistic? Personally I'm all for having a Nuclear power plant in my back yard, but I would also respect other's aversion without mockery.
Seconded, this book caused me to do more research to cover my ignorance than any text book I've ever picked up, but I absolutely enjoyed every minute of it. I also think Anathem is Stephenson's best book by far.
I was not claiming I want him to add comments, I was explaining why I can't stomach reading his blog. A claim which is obviously contradicted by my act of posting a comment.
I can't read Gruber's posts anymore. The inability to respond to his specious claims is infuriating. For example in this post, the policy does not explicitly state the ability to opt out. Also he ignores the studies showing that with large enough data sets, individuals can be identified by their behavioral patterns, nullifying Apple's claim to the contrary. Gruber constantly passes off pejorative arguments as cogent analysis, yet unbelievably is still well respected in most circles. I weep for the loss of independent reasoning.
Barely be described as a paradox? What does this even mean? Is the state of paradox not binary? As was stated it could lead to great discussions, the foremost of which in my mind would pertain to GEB and fans thereof. It was a Socratic approach to initiating discussion, and in your mind this warrants flagging?