Subject: Re: [not part of the spew!] Re: A few here may have an opinion on this
From: L Jean Camp <jcamp@camail1.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:09:06 -0500

On Saturday 26 October 2002 06:50, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> Nor does it (all) disappear in the monopoly case.  Much of it is
> captured by the monopoly, which according to surplus accounting nets
> to zero.  

Yes. And that is what is being measured here - cpatured surplus which is easy 
to measure because it is captured in a transaction. 


> Yeah, and you know something, Jean?  The means that all Western
> societies have adopted to deal with this is _enclosure_, which is the
> real estate equivalent of IP.  

I completely agree. You have pegged the commons problem --  the metaphor is a 
fundamentally flawed. But  environmental economics has progressed in the last 
two centuries. And it is the same problem: trying to extract secondary 
benefits that do not appear in transactions. However, much of what it does 
now is focused on risk and risk assessment. Is there an equivalent measure 
for open source? In risk assesssments you can remove value of life and 
measure by lives. What would be the core measure for 'risks' from closed 
source? Is this worth thinking about more? Or is it an obvious dead end?
 
> Then you need to quantify the hidden costs and benefits that never
> "break out" into market transactions.

Exactly!

-Jean