Comments on: Change the Incentive Structure

By: Our Health Care Problems Are More Vivid When Presented in Colorful Graphical Video Form | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine

Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:27:29 +0000

[...] we get less for it. The explanation — you’ll be unsurprised to hear — lies in our screwy incentive system. By making health care a matter of profit for various sets of people — doctors, hospitals, [...]

By: Lab Lemming

Lab Lemming — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:24:14 +0000

Dear Sean,
What happens if you normalize this graph to the total number of patents filed each year, to account for innovation inflation?

By: B

Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:03:22 +0000

Hi Neil B:

Thanks. Yeah, sorry, I guess I didn’t use the word monetarism how you define it. I don’t think though ‘capitalism’ is the correct word either, since its an economical model, whereas I was referring to a governmental tool. Sorry if that is confusing, what I mean is that ‘capitalism’ which is a form of economy increasingly infiltrates politics, which is extremely bad since politics is supposed to be the tool to balance capitalism. Maybe it’s ‘consumerism’ what I mean, should consult an encyclopedia.

And yes, I like your remark about the ‘free marketplace’. In a certain way, relying on the existence of a free marketplace is similar to working in a fixed background. What we consider ‘free’ depends on the market itself and will change over time (dynamically…), so maybe we should drop the fixed laws and allow for some background independence

Best,

By: D

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:56:28 +0000

I know the article does not make this implication, but it should be pointed out that an increase of the number of granted patents does not necessarily imply that innovation will follow. There are plenty of patents, which have been granted, for which nothing ‘good’ ever followed. So yes, incentives…and perhaps innovation (probably likely as money drives us all), but not necessarily.

By: Jason M. Hendler

Jason M. Hendler — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:02:53 +0000

Regarding patents, it really is going to come down to companies that perform operationally most effectively, and not what patents they have. The companies that can move tech from the bench to the store shelf will prevail, period. Anything short of that is hype, the value of which is deflating more and more.

By: What happens when regulations are enacted « Later On

What happens when regulations are enacted « Later On — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:22:26 +0000

[...] Daily life, Global warming, Government at 12:22 pm by LeisureGuy People get to work thinking up ways to meet the regulations: Via Climate 411, through the intermediaries of Matthew Yglesias and Bradford Plumer, here’s a [...]

By: Neil B.

Neil B. — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:54:35 +0000

Bee, thanks for dropping by here again. You made a good point, and here’s more to support suspicion of not merely the efficacy, but the very existence in principle of “the free market”: it isn’t really free as a *background* entity anyway, even aside from specific, “overt” regulatory action! Just one example, look at how the money supply (at least in the USA) works: We have a fiat money based on monetization of debt, not a hard currency. That means that some authority (here, the Federal Reserve) has to decide whether to grow or shrink the money supply, raising and lowering interest rates etc. That has all kinds of effects on employment, ease of doing business, etc – that just can’t be made a neutral background to “letting it be.” Indeed, there is some evidence that the Fed even interferes for political results – many find some of Greenspan’s rate changes not rationally explicable unless you suspect he was trying to make the economy change in short term ways that made Bush et al more electable (in 2004 AFAIK.)
(BTW, I don’t think that’s what you meant by “monetarism” which is the idea that money supply is the critical factor in the economy – I suspect you meant consumerism or market capitalism, did you?)

As for patents etc: The government’s decision to have intellectual property protected for n years and not n’ years instead is of course somewhat arbitrary, as also how strongly to enforce and define “originality” (see my previous post.) That certainly affects how well you can do business, and it can’t be left to “the market” because enforcing encroachment is precisely what governments are for.

By: B

Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:07:16 +0000

The ‘invisible hand’ on the free market alone is no guarantee the system evolves towards what the society considers the best. To begin with, one needs to assure the market is actually ‘free’. But besides this there are factors that a priori have no monetary value and need to be included through politics. Call it ‘incentives’. Monetarism needs democracy for optimization to work properly. This implies a voice in the democratic system should not depend on the person’s wealth. Consumer democracy is the anti-thesis of democracy, it’s the biggest irony of western ‘civilization’ that people believe it works. Think variational principle, money is one dimension in a multi-dimensional plane.

Goes for science as well. The number of publications is pretty much one-dimensional.

Incentives?

By: Neil B.

Neil B. — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:46:45 +0000

Speaking of the incentive provided by patentability/protection against infringement: Does anyone have opinions on the likely effect (or what has already happened) resulting from the recent SCOTUS decision KSR v. Teleflex diminishing the effectiveness of technical patents (I’ve put it roughly, you can find more) on their worth? For example, I am involved with a company’s efforts to get either licensing (preferred) or sell (last resort!) a patent regarding smart card operations. (If you need or care, it is USPTO number 6,609,655) Is it now likely effectively worth less (for either purpose) now due to that ruling? BTW how easy is it to sell a patent, and who is a good buyer if you have a clue. Thanks.

Good dish at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_v._Teleflex.

By: Mark B.

Mark B. — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:45:17 +0000

Ugh. Is there anything more torturous than listening to self-righteous “free”-marketeers, who clearly did not read the fine article, construct ad hominem attacks?