Then we can ask if it is a good idea or a bad idea to have more intellectual property rights or more protection of ownership of ideas. We know that the answer here is mixed. Sometimes some amount of it can be good, but it can also be harmful if the property rights are too strong or are given to the wrong types of ideas. But if you don’t even allow for the possibility of ex post monopoly rents from the discovery of ideas, you can’t even ask the question.
So it is scientifically unacceptable to have people who say, “We will never, as a matter of principle, consider a model in which there are ever any monopolies. We will dogmatically stick only to models of price-taking competition.” I think this an untenable scientific stance.Economist’s View
Romer on Growth Theory and 'Work That is Scientifically Unjustifiable'
Mark Thoma | Professor of Economics, University of Oregoon
I love the assumption in the middle 'We know that'.
ReplyDeleteDo we really?
Only in a world where co-operative creation of ideas and sharing of ideas is not considered.
Ideas flourish when there are lots of ideas available to work with, and you don't have to worry if you're standing on somebody else's patch.
And also if you're just paid to come up with ideas and play around with stuff.
I see little justification for allowing rents on ideas and development. The only justification is to maintain the competitive production of ideas and development - which is actually a wasteful pursuit since there has to be a lot of failure.
Co-operative production still has failure but it is shared out amongst the group, and correctly managed it eliminates duplication - since you can easily merge ideas.