Le samedi 14 octobre 2006 à 09:33 +0200, Lourens Veen a écrit : > On Friday 13 October 2006 16:46, Dieter wrote: snip > > We need a whole new economic system. Capitalism is killing people > > and the planet. Communism didn't work out so well either. We need > > a way to eliminate the motivation for trade secrets. Patents and > > copyrights are supposed to do this, but they aren't getting the job > > done, despite the widespread abuse of them. > > I don't think it's in the ideas, it's in the execution. Free markets are > nice, but they don't exist. Corporations have way too much power and > influence on the market. Just about all markets are oligopolies: a few > huge companies that know exactly what the others are doing. While what > we need is a whole lot of companies all competing against everyone > else, and a market with a very low barrier to entry. I think that you make a confusion between the atomistic market of a rational, and ideal, economy and the "free" market that the free software pratice is showing (see below) Now, why the market end-up in an oligopole, if not a monopole, rather than in a pure and perfect market?
snip > What we have is not capitalism, it's corporatism. It's governments > competing for the favour of the corporations, making the rules the way > they want them, so that the corporations will come and create jobs for > the people. People that can't create those jobs themselves, because the > corporations control the market. You have partially given the answer, though, corporatism isn't the real point. Simply the democracy has never been hold for itself, what we face nowadays it's the ploutocracy, which has alway been and lie in the property. Unfortunately, the property isn't the purpose of a democracy and it's an implicit fact for the economists, because it is a social value, not an economical value in first. That appears now since the information matters, because in its nature this is something which is shared, thus, all the contrary of the property. Beside that, a market tend to be oligopolistic because the volume is never enough and the monetary system implies that as well. On the other hand, manufacturing is no more juicy, hence, more volume is needed, only IP can bring a stream of revenue (look at Nokia for example) So, one doesn't treat the information with an out-dated economical conception, one treats it with the usual practice of the property indeed, and the property drives the economy. > > Free software gave us back the free market for software-related > services. If we can crack the manufacturing problem then we can do the > same for hardware. OGD1 is the first step towards that: anyone with > such a card can manufacture all kinds of different hardware in their > own home, simply by reprogramming the card. It creates a free market > for hardware design services. More exactly, FOSS has inhibited the implication of the property since everybody play with the same cards because they belong to nobody. That leads to an apparent pure and perfect market, but fundamentaly that leads to ca hange in the meaning of the competition: a joust, not a "struggle for live". > > Lourens > _______________________________________________ > Open-graphics mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics > List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com) _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
