Independent Institute Response To Phillip Hallam-Baker ("network externality")
David Theroux <DTheroux@independent.org> wrote:
If you knew anything about the academic debate over "path dependence" ("network externality") theory you would know that the work by our research fellows, Stan Liebowitz and Stephen Margolis, has been appearing in the leading, scholarly, peer-reviewed, economics journals for the past ten years. They have conclusively shown that "network externality" theory has absolutely no empirical evidence. And, no economists or any others have been able to show any errors in the devastating Liebowitz/Margolis analysis. Indeed, hundreds academic economists have signed our Open Letter agreeing with this analysis.
Not an argument, of course -- also, would you be more specific? You appear to resemble remarks made by Paul Krugman in Slate a few years back: http://slate.msn.com/Dismal/96-08-15/Dismal.asp So why does the supply-side idea keep on resurfacing? Probably because of two key attributes that it shares with certain other doctrines, like belief in the gold standard: It appeals to the prejudices of extremely rich men, and it offers self-esteem to the intellectually insecure. The support of rich men is not a small matter. Despite its centrality to political debate, economic research is a very low-budget affair. The entire annual economics budget at the National Science foundation is less than $20 million. What this means is that even a handful of wealthy cranks can support an impressive-looking array of think tanks, research institutes, foundations, and so on devoted to promoting an economic doctrine they like. (The role of a few key funders, like the Coors and Olin Foundations, in building an intellectual facade for late 20th-century conservatism is a story that somebody needs to write.) The economists these institutions can attract are not exactly the best and the brightest. Supply-side troubadour Jude Wanniski has lately been reduced to employing followers of Lyndon LaRouche. But who needs brilliant, or even competent, researchers when you already know all the answers?
(For your information, it was the acclaimed, New Left historian Gabriel Kolko who first showed how antitrust has been used repeatedly for corporatist purposes since its initial adoption.)
Why should this impress us? Do you always break things down into left & right? Ralph Nader & Pat Buchanan can't /both/ be wrong about trade, can they? Oh, my.
you apparently prefer to defend the blatant campaign for corporate welfare (antitrust protectionism),
Fyi, Phill has opposed the MS antitrust case.
Incidentally, so you do not continue to embarrass yourself, I would suggest you first learn the difference between the terms, "network effects" and "network externalities." Reading the book, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT, would make an excellent way to do so.
Assuming we're suspicious of spending our money & our time, would you provide links to articles? Thanks, Paul
Paul Spirito wrote:
Why should this impress us? Do you always break things down into left & right? Ralph Nader & Pat Buchanan can't /both/ be wrong about trade, can they? Oh, my.
Since they both have the SAME opinion (crypto-fascist uber-nationalism disguised as populism) why not?
On Thu, 01 Mar 2001 09:41:01 -0800, lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com> wrote:
Paul Spirito wrote:
Why should this impress us? Do you always break things down into left & right? Ralph Nader & Pat Buchanan can't /both/ be wrong about trade, can they? Oh, my.
Since they both have the SAME opinion (crypto-fascist uber-nationalism disguised as populism) why not?
My point is that they ARE both wrong about trade despite a) being associated with opposite poles of the political spectrum; & b) largely agreeing with each other. That is, citing the agreement of leftists is no proof a conservative is correct. Paul
Fyi, Phill has opposed the MS antitrust case.
True, and I have been vindicated by recent events, since even divine power has proven unable to breakup Microsoft - although to be fair to the DoJ it must be pointed out that he felt the need to try. It is pretty wierd that the crank tank thinks that people who disagree with their reasoning must disagree with their conclusion, or for that matter that people who agree with their conclusion must agree with their whacky theories. The 'hundreds' of economists cited as backing the whacky theory turn out to have signed up for an open letter to support Microsoft, not quite the same thing at all. Now it is entirely true that I have not examined the specific evidence cited in the book, merely the tendentious press release being circulated. However, the press release makes the claims and the only evidence supplied is on the basis of the book. This sounds to me like reference to spurious authority. Particularly since the 'independent institute' that publishes the book was paid $100,000 by Microsoft in a transaction that most certainly did not influence a single pardon. Coupled with the bogus claim that 250 economists also deny the existence of network effects that turns out to be 250 economists support Microsoft, it seems fair to say that the press release does not cross the threshold of credibility, even if the claim being made was not so far reaching and revisionist. The behavior of the director of the institute only further confirms the impression. Phill
One problem with Phill's analysis is that the L-M work stands on its own, independent from the, well, Independent Institute. Criticizing the group does not score points against the L-M work. -Declan On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 01:20:41AM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Fyi, Phill has opposed the MS antitrust case.
True, and I have been vindicated by recent events, since even divine power has proven unable to breakup Microsoft - although to be fair to the DoJ it must be pointed out that he felt the need to try.
It is pretty wierd that the crank tank thinks that people who disagree with their reasoning must disagree with their conclusion, or for that matter that people who agree with their conclusion must agree with their whacky theories. The 'hundreds' of economists cited as backing the whacky theory turn out to have signed up for an open letter to support Microsoft, not quite the same thing at all.
Now it is entirely true that I have not examined the specific evidence cited in the book, merely the tendentious press release being circulated. However, the press release makes the claims and the only evidence supplied is on the basis of the book. This sounds to me like reference to spurious authority. Particularly since the 'independent institute' that publishes the book was paid $100,000 by Microsoft in a transaction that most certainly did not influence a single pardon.
Coupled with the bogus claim that 250 economists also deny the existence of network effects that turns out to be 250 economists support Microsoft, it seems fair to say that the press release does not cross the threshold of credibility, even if the claim being made was not so far reaching and revisionist.
The behavior of the director of the institute only further confirms the impression.
Phill
Declan would have more of a case if Theroux did not repeatedly refer to L-M as 'Institute fellows' as if they were interns. Actually they are faculty at a couple of state universities [albeit in admin roles]. The issue is not the case L-M actually make but the propaganda spin put on that case by the Independent institute for transparent political purposes. I find it very hard to lend any credibility to any 'research' institute that is committed to a particular political point of view - which 'The Independent Institutue' clearly is. Some additional information, it turns out that the original L-M paper on QWERTY is nine years old. http://www.economist.co.uk/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=196071&CFID=1294910&CFT OKEN=8639 Unfortunately the paper as reported does not make the case that Declan claims. It does not DISPROOVE QWERTY, it merely asserts that the example is USED WITHOUT PROOF. Also the fact that economists generally still appear to give the QWERTY story credence may indicate ignorance or may simply mean that they reject the L-M hypothesis. Since Theroux appears unable to actually state the L-M case, merely draw his own conclusions from it, let us turn to the economist for a precis: http://www.economist.co.uk/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=240761&CFID=1294910&CFT OKEN=8639 [[[To begin with, the authors question the theoretical appeal of the path-dependence paradigm. Network effects are real, and it follows that lock-in is a possibility. But note that lock-in is inefficient (that is, it is a kind of market failure) only if the inferior product survives despite the fact that the benefits of switching would exceed the costs. If the inferior product survives because the costs of switching are high, that is as it should be: in that case it would be inefficient to switch. (Recall that the point of the bogus QWERTY story was that the benefits of switching would be great and the costs low: the market failure consisted in the difficulty of making a co-ordinated jump to the new layout.) Taking switching costs into account immediately narrows the extent of plausible market failures. ]]] OK so what is being said here? Lock in is a possibility due to switching cost, BUT IT ISN'T A MARKET FAILURE, why? because it does not demonstrate an irrational choice. This is not actually contradicting anything in my argument. What they are actually arguing about is whether the lock in effect violates the tenets of rational choice theory. Lock-in may occur and you may only be able to buy your operating system from one vendor, but that is not a market failure AS WE CHOOSE TO DEFINE IT. So consumers may think it is a market failure to only be able to buy their O/S from one company and that may be their complaint but the Indpendent institutes of the world tell us that this is merely our ignorance. What we are experiencing is not 'market failure' (which could never happen by the way, no not ever, ever) but something else and until we work out what they specifically call that effect [or more precisely what they will allow that effect to be called] we ignorant peons have no right to complain about it. It is a sham intellectual process, it is the type of behavior that gives the 'soft sciences' a bad name. What this comes down to is a set of definitions, Theroux attempted me to use his terminology on several occasions and I declined specifically because I knew the game he was playing. Another similar trick often seen is to use the technical definition 'Pareto Optimal' to mean 'Optimal'. A system is Pareto Optimal if no improvement is possible without disadvantage to at least one party. This means that practically every real-world situation is Pareto optimal.[*] So 'free markets' (an elastic term with humpty-dumpty semantics) become 'optimal' since it is only necessary to find one person who would be harmed by each alternative policy. [[[Turning to the actual evidence, the authors find no such cases at all. Again and again they show that good products win. The standard lock-in stories are examined and, like QWERTY before them, debunked]]] The authors find no evidence to disprove their theory.... surprise! What this amounts to is the logical falacy A implies B, NOT B ==> A. Phill [*] Pareto was a 19th centry Italian railway official who was the first man to get the trains to run on time in that country. He did this by defining a train to be 'on time' if it could not have arrived any closer to its planned arrival time without causing any other train to be late.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu [mailto:owner-fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu]On Behalf Of Declan McCullagh Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 1:02 AM To: Phillip Hallam-Baker Cc: 'Paul Spirito'; 'Matthew Gaylor'; fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu; cypherpunks@cyberpass.net; CYBERIA-L@listserv.aol.com; 'Colin A. Reed'; 'Ken Brown'; 'David Theroux' Subject: Re: Independent Institute Response To Phillip Hallam-Baker ("network externality")
One problem with Phill's analysis is that the L-M work stands on its own, independent from the, well, Independent Institute.
Criticizing the group does not score points against the L-M work.
-Declan
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 01:20:41AM -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Fyi, Phill has opposed the MS antitrust case.
True, and I have been vindicated by recent events, since
has proven unable to breakup Microsoft - although to be fair to the DoJ it must be pointed out that he felt the need to try.
It is pretty wierd that the crank tank thinks that people who disagree with their reasoning must disagree with their conclusion, or for
people who agree with their conclusion must agree with their whacky theories. The 'hundreds' of economists cited as backing the whacky theory turn out to have signed up for an open letter to support Microsoft, not quite the same thing at all.
Now it is entirely true that I have not examined the specific evidence cited in the book, merely the tendentious press release being circulated. However, the press release makes the claims and the only evidence supplied is on the basis of the book. This sounds to me like reference to spurious authority. Particularly since the 'independent institute' that
paid $100,000 by Microsoft in a transaction that most certainly did not influence a single pardon.
Coupled with the bogus claim that 250 economists also deny
network effects that turns out to be 250 economists support Microsoft, it seems fair to say that the press release does not cross the
even divine power that matter that publishes the book was the existence of threshold of
credibility, even if the claim being made was not so far reaching and revisionist.
The behavior of the director of the institute only further confirms the impression.
Phill
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the L-M work. Even if I were so inclined, I read it years ago and I'm sure my memory has faded. I was merely pointing out a flaw in your argument against it. The two are distinct. -Declan
-- At 06:05 PM 3/3/2001 -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Also the fact that economists generally still appear to give the QWERTY story credence may indicate ignorance or may simply mean that they reject the L-M hypothesis.
I am unaware that economists continue to give the QWERTY story credence, and do not believe it. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG jEdFKNNSvCn94ugjqvbbemGK+xdjNf6v3oM++hRg 4QeDuOI+UPftf4COJUcvz0W4VS2Ww0dCYmA2eTF4H
Did they ever give it credence as the sole evidence on which the existence of network effects and lock in exist? I read the L-M evidence and came to a quite different conclusion. They discounted all evidence pointing to the fact that a re-organized keyboard could be more efficient as 'biased' but do not point to independent trials that found QWERTY better. The most obvious explanation for this is that the obvious costs of retraining the typists compared to the possible advantage meant that nobody thought it worth bothering to even *try* to break the QWERTY dominance. Psychological foreclosure can often be effective as the real thing. When everyone thought Apple was a gonner for sure the software houses deserted the platform in droves. It took the return of Jobs to give Apple a chance of avoiding chapter 11. The other effect of risk of foreclosure is the principal driver in the Internet industry. The risk of lock in is so clear that customers, particularly enterprise customers look to avoid it at all costs. To sell to an F500 company you have to generally fill in a 30-100 page RFP which essentially boils down to 'does it do what we want' and 'will it lock us into a proprietary product with high switching costs'. Linux exists because of the fear of lock in. So for that matter does Windows. It was the fear of OS/2 welded to proprietary IBM hardware that forced the industry to adopt Windows in the first place. That illustrates a second higher order 'lock in' effect, channel conflict. The effects of vertical integration are obvious, so market dominant suppliers in one market look to prevent a competitor gaining vertical integration. To the extent that the Independent Institute have a point company strategists look to prevent a 'lock in' effect occurring. In most cases they are successfull. The QWERTY parable is a vast simplification of what goes on in the real world. But don't imagine for a second that the 'it does not exist' fable they are attempting to peddle is true either. Phill
-----Original Message----- From: James A. Donald [mailto:jamesd@echeque.com] Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 12:30 AM To: Phillip Hallam-Baker; 'Declan McCullagh' Cc: 'Paul Spirito'; 'Matthew Gaylor'; fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu; cypherpunks@cyberpass.net; CYBERIA-L@listserv.aol.com; 'Colin A. Reed'; 'Ken Brown'; 'David Theroux' Subject: RE: Independent Institute Response To Phillip Hallam-Baker ("network externality")
-- At 06:05 PM 3/3/2001 -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Also the fact that economists generally still appear to give the QWERTY story credence may indicate ignorance or may simply mean that they reject the L-M hypothesis.
I am unaware that economists continue to give the QWERTY story credence, and do not believe it.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG jEdFKNNSvCn94ugjqvbbemGK+xdjNf6v3oM++hRg 4QeDuOI+UPftf4COJUcvz0W4VS2Ww0dCYmA2eTF4H
It occurred to me that this would be a good topic for an organized online debate. The results of which could be posted around. Jim Warren <jwarren@well.com> or "Jonathan Wallace" <jw@bway.net> would make good and fair moderators- Jonathan especially so since he has already participated in a similar debate on my mailing list and on his online zine The Ethical Spectacle http://www.spectacle.org/ . In that debate- Both participants were lawyers so they wrote rather extensive and good ground rules for the debate. But any trusted third party would work. A debate such as this will remove any "heat of the moment" commentary and might provide more light than heat? What do you think? Regards, Matthew Gaylor- ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************
For the simple reason that Theroux has shown no interest at all in debating the substance of his claim. All that he has done is to repeatedly state that the issue has been decided by 'experts' and published in 'peer reviewed' journals. He clearly does not want to debate the issues with mere mortals. Phill
-----Original Message----- From: owner-fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu [mailto:owner-fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu]On Behalf Of Matthew Gaylor Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 12:31 PM To: Phillip Hallam-Baker; 'David Theroux' Cc: 'James A. Donald'; 'Declan McCullagh'; 'Paul Spirito'; 'Colin A. Reed'; 'Ken Brown'; fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu; cypherpunks@cyberpass.net; CYBERIA-L@listserv.aol.com; Jim Warren; Jonathan Wallace Subject: Why Not debate "network externality"-path dependence?
It occurred to me that this would be a good topic for an organized online debate. The results of which could be posted around.
Jim Warren <jwarren@well.com> or "Jonathan Wallace" <jw@bway.net> would make good and fair moderators- Jonathan especially so since he has already participated in a similar debate on my mailing list and on his online zine The Ethical Spectacle http://www.spectacle.org/ . In that debate- Both participants were lawyers so they wrote rather extensive and good ground rules for the debate. But any trusted third party would work.
A debate such as this will remove any "heat of the moment" commentary and might provide more light than heat?
What do you think?
Regards, Matthew Gaylor-
************************************************************** ************ Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ ************************************************************** ************
The letter signed by the 'economists' is already prima facia evidence in support of 'network externality' and 'path dependence' as real effects. A debate would only be further evidence in favor of their existance. I've read only a small part of the various URL's that have been forwarded, and a major reason for these sorts of effects to be out there, which is ignored in this debate as near as I can tell, is 'nobody wants to be first' with respect to bucking the trend. The MS case is a perfect example: "Nobody ever lost their job for buying IBM." The reality is that people knew they were purchasing sub-optimal resources. Their hope was that market effects with respect to support and software would make up any difference. Sometimes the solution that gets selected is 'good enough' rather than 'best'. On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
For the simple reason that Theroux has shown no interest at all in debating the substance of his claim.
All that he has done is to repeatedly state that the issue has been decided by 'experts' and published in 'peer reviewed' journals. He clearly does not want to debate the issues with mere mortals.
____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Phill, Despite your repeated claims in this regard, we have presented the links to our work so that anyone can review this analysis themselves and make up their own minds. Clearly you have not examined our book by Liebowitz and Margolis, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT (http://independent.org/tii/content/briefs/BriefWLMS.html), and hence we are still waiting for you to so and then indicate how you believe the analysis by Liebowitz and Margolis might be erroneous. Your otherwise objecting to this work simply because you do not agree with the conclusions is hardly the basis for any serious, scientific discussion of the merits of the work. Best regards, David David J. Theroux Founder and President The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA 94621-1428 510-632-1366 Phone 510-568-6040 Fax DTheroux@independent.org http://www.independent.org
For the simple reason that Theroux has shown no interest at all in debating the substance of his claim.
All that he has done is to repeatedly state that the issue has been decided by 'experts' and published in 'peer reviewed' journals. He clearly does not want to debate the issues with mere mortals.
Phill
-----Original Message----- From: owner-fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu [mailto:owner-fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu]On Behalf Of Matthew Gaylor Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 12:31 PM To: Phillip Hallam-Baker; 'David Theroux' Cc: 'James A. Donald'; 'Declan McCullagh'; 'Paul Spirito'; 'Colin A. Reed'; 'Ken Brown'; fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu; cypherpunks@cyberpass.net; CYBERIA-L@listserv.aol.com; Jim Warren; Jonathan Wallace Subject: Why Not debate "network externality"-path dependence?
It occurred to me that this would be a good topic for an organized online debate. The results of which could be posted around.
Jim Warren <jwarren@well.com> or "Jonathan Wallace" <jw@bway.net> would make good and fair moderators- Jonathan especially so since he has already participated in a similar debate on my mailing list and on his online zine The Ethical Spectacle http://www.spectacle.org/ . In that debate- Both participants were lawyers so they wrote rather extensive and good ground rules for the debate. But any trusted third party would work.
A debate such as this will remove any "heat of the moment" commentary and might provide more light than heat?
What do you think?
Regards, Matthew Gaylor-
************************************************************** ************ Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ ************************************************************** ************
-- David J. Theroux Founder and President The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA 94621-1428 510-632-1366 Phone 510-568-6040 Fax DTheroux@independent.org http://www.independent.org
David, You still don't get it. 'Read my book' is not a valid move in a debate. If you were to stand up in front of the Oxford Union and say 'my book proves the case entirely' then sat down with no further elaboration you lose the debate. You introduced the motion, you try to defend it. Nothing in any of the references I have followed advances your claim in my view. Moreover since you have not addressed my counter thesis or any of the specific objections raised so far I don't see how raising further factual points would advance the argument. At the moment the debate has moved onto what could be quite an interesting digression on the counter-strategies employed to avoid lock-in. My principal objection however, as with Andrew is your apparent belief that those who attempt to influence public policy do not have to justify their theories to the public. Restating your conclusions does not constitute a justification of them. Phill
-----Original Message----- From: David Theroux [mailto:DTheroux@independent.org] Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 9:02 PM To: Phillip Hallam-Baker Cc: 'James A. Donald'; 'Declan McCullagh'; 'Paul Spirito'; 'Colin A. Reed'; 'Ken Brown'; fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu; cypherpunks@cyberpass.net; CYBERIA-L@listserv.aol.com; 'Jim Warren'; 'Jonathan Wallace'; 'Matthew Gaylor' Subject: RE: Why Not debate "network externality"-path dependence?
Dear Phill,
Despite your repeated claims in this regard, we have presented the links to our work so that anyone can review this analysis themselves and make up their own minds. Clearly you have not examined our book by Liebowitz and Margolis, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT (http://independent.org/tii/content/briefs/BriefWLMS.html), and hence we are still waiting for you to so and then indicate how you believe the analysis by Liebowitz and Margolis might be erroneous. Your otherwise objecting to this work simply because you do not agree with the conclusions is hardly the basis for any serious, scientific discussion of the merits of the work.
Best regards,
David
David J. Theroux Founder and President The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA 94621-1428 510-632-1366 Phone 510-568-6040 Fax DTheroux@independent.org http://www.independent.org
For the simple reason that Theroux has shown no interest at all in debating the substance of his claim.
All that he has done is to repeatedly state that the issue has been decided by 'experts' and published in 'peer reviewed' journals. He clearly does not want to debate the issues with mere mortals.
Phill
-----Original Message----- From: owner-fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu [mailto:owner-fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu]On Behalf Of Matthew Gaylor Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 12:31 PM To: Phillip Hallam-Baker; 'David Theroux' Cc: 'James A. Donald'; 'Declan McCullagh'; 'Paul Spirito'; 'Colin A. Reed'; 'Ken Brown'; fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu; cypherpunks@cyberpass.net; CYBERIA-L@listserv.aol.com; Jim Warren; Jonathan Wallace Subject: Why Not debate "network externality"-path dependence?
It occurred to me that this would be a good topic for an organized online debate. The results of which could be posted around.
Jim Warren <jwarren@well.com> or "Jonathan Wallace" <jw@bway.net> would make good and fair moderators- Jonathan especially so since he has already participated in a similar debate on my mailing list and on his online zine The Ethical Spectacle http://www.spectacle.org/ . In that debate- Both participants were lawyers so they wrote rather extensive and good ground rules for the debate. But any trusted third party would work.
A debate such as this will remove any "heat of the moment" commentary and might provide more light than heat?
What do you think?
Regards, Matthew Gaylor-
************************************************************** ************ Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ ************************************************************** ************
-- David J. Theroux Founder and President The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA 94621-1428 510-632-1366 Phone 510-568-6040 Fax DTheroux@independent.org http://www.independent.org
-- At 09:23 PM 3/4/2001 -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
David,
You still don't get it. 'Read my book' is not a valid move in a debate. If you were to stand up in front of the Oxford Union and say 'my book proves the case entirely' then sat down with no further elaboration you lose the debate.
This depends on the relative status of the debaters. Your status as an expert is perhaps less than you perceive it to be. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 7nyEypwoXGtjljpB281LxgekQkbzCtLPiWYid99E 4L9TA3M8sE2epY4cVpAqzGwPC9S1AKAsQ7SuF2+nq
Uh ... folks -- I'm not quite sure how I got on the cc-list of this ongoing harangue, but please DELETE MY NAME from further flames back'n'forth. Thanks. --jim
You still don't get it. 'Experts' don't get a free ride when they attempt to influence public policy. What does the 'status of the debaters' amount to if not an elitist and antidemcratic ad hominem? What meat does Theroux eat that means that he gets to decide who is and who is not an expert? Phill
-----Original Message----- From: James A. Donald [mailto:jamesd@echeque.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 10:53 AM To: Phillip Hallam-Baker; 'David Theroux' Cc: 'James A. Donald'; 'Declan McCullagh'; 'Paul Spirito'; 'Colin A. Reed'; 'Ken Brown'; fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu; cypherpunks@cyberpass.net; CYBERIA-L@listserv.aol.com; 'Jim Warren'; 'Jonathan Wallace'; 'Matthew Gaylor' Subject: RE: Why Not debate "network externality"-path dependence?
-- At 09:23 PM 3/4/2001 -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
David,
You still don't get it. 'Read my book' is not a valid move in a debate. If you were to stand up in front of the Oxford Union and say 'my book proves the case entirely' then sat down with no further elaboration you lose the debate.
This depends on the relative status of the debaters. Your status as an expert is perhaps less than you perceive it to be.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 7nyEypwoXGtjljpB281LxgekQkbzCtLPiWYid99E 4L9TA3M8sE2epY4cVpAqzGwPC9S1AKAsQ7SuF2+nq
What the hell does 'science' care about 'expert', now 'politics' is another game entirely. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 6 Mar 2001, James A. Donald wrote:
-- At 09:23 PM 3/4/2001 -0500, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
David,
You still don't get it. 'Read my book' is not a valid move in a debate. If you were to stand up in front of the Oxford Union and say 'my book proves the case entirely' then sat down with no further elaboration you lose the debate.
This depends on the relative status of the debaters. Your status as an expert is perhaps less than you perceive it to be.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 7nyEypwoXGtjljpB281LxgekQkbzCtLPiWYid99E 4L9TA3M8sE2epY4cVpAqzGwPC9S1AKAsQ7SuF2+nq
Hm. It's odd my two main hobbies -- arguing about libertarian politics and RPGs -- overlap, but check this out: http://www.rpgplanet.com/dnd3e/interview-rsd-0300.htm (Do a search on 'network' to find the relevant section of the interview.) Apologies to Matt and the II, but from where I stand, the theory seems pretty sound. People buy thing because other people buy them. People are stupid. So it goes. Where Phill, the DOJ, and the rest of the left-liberals screw up is going from this obvious conclusion to "Therefore, government must point guns at people to make them make smart buying decisions." All of leftist 'thought' hinges on the highly dubious premise that you can MAKE people smarter, either by threatening to shoot them (Stalinist/Hitlerist socialism) or simply tying them up so they can't hurt themselves (modern 'liberal' socialism). Neither works. Capitalism tends to produce superior goods and services over time, but this isn't it's moral justification. If it was, I'd argue for a massive AI project designed to produce a super-computer which could use evolutionary algorithms to make optimized everything and control the factories. The moral justification for capitalism is that it is based on individuals making their own decisions about how to spend the products of their own labor. If a lot of these decisions are illogical, short-sighted, emotionally biased, or self-destructive -- well, that's humanity. There isn't any New Socialist Man on the horizon, so we are much better off letting stupid people spend their OWN money on stupid things, rather than turning 'the means of production' over to these morons. Want to know what happens when 'the people control the means of production'? Picture no art but painings of Elvis on velvet -- forever. Is Microsoft on top because of stupid human buying patterns as opposed to superior software? Yeah, probably. What should the government do about this? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Serious missed point alert for the Lizard here! lizard wrote:
Apologies to Matt and the II, but from where I stand, the theory seems pretty sound. People buy thing because other people buy them. People are stupid. So it goes. Where Phill, the DOJ, and the rest of the left-liberals screw up is going from this obvious conclusion to "Therefore, government must point guns at people to make them make smart buying decisions."
The point about the "network" effect is that it is suggested that there is a natural monopoly in the supply of certain goods. When most other people have one of two competing products then in makes sense to buy that one for compatibility. So it isn't that *stupid* people buy microsoft, but that *rational* people buy microsoft. This has nothing to do with the product or standard being "better", just more popular. It could originate at random (the sums work like the sums for genetic drift & founder effect - maybe all economists should be forced to read McArthur & Wilson. Or even better RA Fisher :-) but once one way of doing things has taken the lead, there is a natural positive feedback, and that one is likely to become the de facto standard. Bloody obvious really. Back in the 1980s when we all got our first word processing software then we all got the ones our friends and colleagues used so we could share floppies with them. It can be argued that MacOS was "better" than Windows (I'm not saying it was, just that it can be argued that it was) or VMS "better" than Unix, VM better than MVS, Token Ring better than ethernet, X400 better than SMTP, ISO/OSI better than the ARPA Internet, Big-endian chips than Little-endian, almost anything better than Novell Netware, paper tape than punch cards, Betamax than VHS, PAL than whatever the other kind of TV is, driving on the left than driving on the right, broad gauge rail than narrow gauge... what can't really be argued is that in these special cases once most existing users go for one kind, new users ought to go for the same one. If the defacto standard is owned by a private company, then there is a monopoly. People who don't like monopolies may want to either liberate the standard or confiscate the company. That's what the argument is about - nothing to do with lefties thinking people are stupid or educable. Us lefties (& as far as I can tell I am the only one contributing to cypherpunks at the moment) don't think buying Microsoft products is stupid, or a matter of following fashion. (We think that buying McDonald's is stupid but that's another point entirely :-)
All of leftist 'thought' hinges on the highly dubious premise that you can MAKE people smarter, either by threatening to shoot them (Stalinist/Hitlerist socialism) or simply tying them up so they can't hurt themselves (modern 'liberal' socialism). Neither works.
Oh crap, you ignoramuses wouldn't recognise a Socialist if one but you on the bum. Not that I'm offering.
Capitalism tends to produce superior goods and services over time, but this isn't it's moral justification. If it was, I'd argue for a massive AI project designed to produce a super-computer which could use evolutionary algorithms to make optimized everything and control the factories.
You mean you would argue *against* the free market (which is what you mean when you say "capitalism" - but don't worry, nearly all Americans muddle them up so you are in good company) and in favour of central planning if you though the free market was morally better? Odd or what?
The moral justification for capitalism is that it is based on individuals making their own decisions about how to spend the products of their own labor. If a lot of these decisions are illogical, short-sighted, emotionally biased, or self-destructive -- well, that's humanity.
No, that's the moral argument for free trade. It happens to be correct, but that's beside the point.
There isn't any New Socialist Man on the horizon, so we are much better off letting stupid people spend their OWN money on stupid things, rather than turning 'the means of production' over to these morons.
Who cares what the stupid people want to buy? Anti-trust laws are to stop clever people buying what they want to buy.
Want to know what happens when 'the people control the means of production'? Picture no art but painings of Elvis on velvet -- forever.
Prat.
Is Microsoft on top because of stupid human buying patterns as opposed to superior software? Yeah, probably.
Much more likely it is just a random event. Someone had to be top of the pile & whoever it was was likely to clean up. Actually MS still isn't the largest computer company in the world - I think Intel, Cisco & IBM (still) have more turnover. MS is just the most profitable because software is almost free to distribute.
What should the government do about this? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
You may be right but if you are you don't seem to realise why. Tell me, is ignorance bliss? Ken
Mathew, Are you so ludicrously insecure that you have to resort to publishing put downs from private email? I called Theroux's institute a crank tank in public. If he could support his claims he would have made his reply public. The 'open letter' Theroux refers to is not in support of the Margolis crank book as he claims, it is in support of Microsoft - a very different matter. The rhetoricaln tactics are so close to those of the IHR, where is Barry Shien when you need him? The claim 'if you disagree with me it can only be because you are stupid'. Paul Krugman can explain very complex economic theories to a lay audience in the NYT. I have several degrees including a Doctorate in Nuclear physics. If Theroux cannot justify the claims he makes except by reference to subject authority then he is full of it. What this is really about is the political claim that economists have an expert mystical power that only they can understand that gives them and only them the ability to comment on political affairs, and that to ask them to ustify their ludicrous and contradictory claims is to show oneself to be a fool. Sounds like a couple of tailros who once worked for a certain emperor. Phill
-----Original Message----- From: owner-fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu [mailto:owner-fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu]On Behalf Of Matthew Gaylor Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 8:43 AM To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu; cypherpunks@cyberpass.net; CYBERIA-L@listserv.aol.com Cc: 'Colin A. Reed'; Ken Brown Subject: Independent Institute Response To Phillip Hallam-Baker ("network externality")
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:19:12 -0800 To: "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <hallam@ai.mit.edu> From: David Theroux <DTheroux@independent.org> Subject: RE: Microsoft Trial Judge Based His Break-Up "Remedy" On Flawed Theory, Not Facts Cc: freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor)
Dear Mr. Hallam-Baker,
If you knew anything about the academic debate over "path dependence" ("network externality") theory you would know that the work by our research fellows, Stan Liebowitz and Stephen Margolis, has been appearing in the leading, scholarly, peer-reviewed, economics journals for the past ten years. They have conclusively shown that "network externality" theory has absolutely no empirical evidence. And, no economists or any others have been able to show any errors in the devastating Liebowitz/Margolis analysis. Indeed, hundreds academic economists have signed our Open Letter agreeing with this analysis.
As a belief system without any scientific evidence and with people such as yourself who accept this urban legend without proof, "path dependence" is a house of cards that is being used to advance the corporate welfare ambitions of various major business and government interests. In so doing, the Microsoft case has nothing to do with consumer welfare and everything to do with corporate welfare. (For your information, it was the acclaimed, New Left historian Gabriel Kolko who first showed how antitrust has been used repeatedly for corporatist purposes since its initial adoption.)
So, since you have obviously not even seen the Liebowitz/Margolis book, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology, and you apparently prefer to defend the blatant campaign for corporate welfare (antitrust protectionism), who indeed is the crank and right-winger here?
Incidentally, so you do not continue to embarrass yourself, I would suggest you first learn the difference between the terms, "network effects" and "network externalities." Reading the book, WINNERS, LOSERS & MICROSOFT, would make an excellent way to do so.
David J. Theroux Founder and President The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA 94621-1428 510-632-1366 Phone 510-568-6040 Fax DTheroux@independent.org http://www.independent.org
Microsoft won because of superior reviews? Come on, how stupid do you think we are? So if a company pays for glowing reviews that would be okay?
Matthew's argument is that 'network effects' do not exist, based on a tendentious piece of propaganda pushed by a right wing crank tank. The crank tank is attempting to proove that the free market is perfect, unsullied by the possibility of monopoly that obviously ignorant writers such as Adam Smith wrote at great length about.
Hence the anecdotes such as QWERTY, Betamax are attacked as if they were the best evidence, the sole evidence even for network effects. This is historical revisionism in the service of dogmatic ideology.
Positive feedback exists, get over it.
Obviously they have never tried to sell a product. It's very dificult to get consideration such that you could prove the technical merits when there is a large existing supplier.
That is only a weak network effect. People buy from Amazon because they have a well known brand name, have established a customer reputation etc. But there is no intrinsic advantage buying from a large online bookseller than a medium sized one.
There is a big advantage having a VHS video over Betamax however. If you have VHS you can rent movies from stores, you can send tapes to friends who have equipment to play it. The fact that a modern day VHS recorder is technicaly superior to any Betamax machine made is irrelevant. At the time the standard was set Sony and Betamax had the clearly superior technology.
A network effect exists when there is an intrinsic advantage to join the bigger network. Operating systems have been understood to have strong network effects since the 1950s. My company only supports one version of UNIX for certain products because the cost of QA on each O/S variant is significant. If we were choosing the technically best O/S platform we would probably look at of the stripped down, hardened BSD variants, but we choose the platform that most of our customers are already familliar with - Solaris.
When I wrote video-games for a living I wrote for the Sinclair ZX Spectrum with a market of several million users, not the vastly more sophisticated BBC computer - even though the spectrums would die after about 100 hours use and need replacement. I would typically replace a spectrum three or four times within the guarantee period. Writing a game for the bigger market gave bigger returns. Customers bought the machines supported by the most games.
Network effects are the alpha and the omega of Internet business strategy.
Ironically despite paying for the tendentious propaganda Microsoft appears to be benefitting from the argument that network effects and 'tipping' explain the emergence of a single operating system.
I don't know if the DoJ should interpret recent events in Seatle as a divine attempt to breakup Microsoft. If so it is really time for the DoJ to give up since it evidently failed.
Phill
-- David J. Theroux Founder and President The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA 94621-1428 510-632-1366 Phone 510-568-6040 Fax DTheroux@independent.org http://www.independent.org
************************************************************** ************ Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ ************************************************************** ************
At 12:26 AM -0500 3/2/01, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Theroux runs some Potemkin village crank tank pandering to the predjudices of their narrow base of ultra rich supporters.
At 12:39 AM -0500 3/2/01, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I have several degrees including a Doctorate in Nuclear physics. If Theroux cannot justify the claims he makes except by reference to subject authority then he is full of it.
How does a bright guy like you get involved in so much name calling? Might it not be possible for you to just stick to the ideas and leave the immature behavior at home? Remember when you libeled physicist Laurence Godfrey, in a newsgroup, soc.culture.thai, first on January 12, 1997, there again later, and subsequently on uk.legal. Here's an article: Excerpt NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/yr/mo/biztech/articles/01britain.h tml "Mr. Godfrey's solicitor, Nick Braithwaite, did not return several telephone calls today, and it was unclear exactly what the substance of the remarks made against Mr. Godfrey was. He is no stranger to libel actions. In 1994, a fellow physicist, Philip Hallam-Baker, agreed to pay Mr. Godfrey an unspecified amount in damages after Mr. Godfrey sued him for libel in connection with a number of postings Mr. Hallam-Baker made on the Internet raising doubts about his professional competence." Regards, Matt- ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************
So you admit then, that the material in question has no basis whatsoever on anything that could be considered by anyone to be "science" and is in effect merely a bottle of Doc Theroux's patent "free-market medicine", guaranteed to cure what ails you. Because he says so. Just don't come back tomorrow, 'cause he'll have moved on to the next town by then. On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
At 12:26 AM -0500 3/2/01, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
Theroux runs some Potemkin village crank tank pandering to the predjudices of their narrow base of ultra rich supporters.
At 12:39 AM -0500 3/2/01, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I have several degrees including a Doctorate in Nuclear physics. If Theroux cannot justify the claims he makes except by reference to subject authority then he is full of it.
How does a bright guy like you get involved in so much name calling? Might it not be possible for you to just stick to the ideas and leave the immature behavior at home? Remember when you libeled physicist Laurence Godfrey, in a newsgroup, soc.culture.thai, first on January 12, 1997, there again later, and subsequently on uk.legal.
Here's an article:
Excerpt NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/yr/mo/biztech/articles/01britain.h tml
"Mr. Godfrey's solicitor, Nick Braithwaite, did not return several telephone calls today, and it was unclear exactly what the substance of the remarks made against Mr. Godfrey was. He is no stranger to libel actions. In 1994, a fellow physicist, Philip Hallam-Baker, agreed to pay Mr. Godfrey an unspecified amount in damages after Mr. Godfrey sued him for libel in connection with a number of postings Mr. Hallam-Baker made on the Internet raising doubts about his professional competence."
Regards, Matt-
************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per month) Matthew Gaylor, 2175 Bayfield Drive, Columbus, OH 43229 (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************
Yeah, but Godfrey is responsible for forcing a very damaging-to-free-speech ruling down the throats of UK ISPs. Methinks he deserveth what he gets. And to add more fuel to the fire -- Phill, a PhD in nuclear physics makes you no more competant to understand *economics* than a PhD in Medevial European History makes you competant to run a nuclear power plant. You are one of the last people I'd expect to fall into the trap of assuming 'brainz iz brainz' and that achievement in one field makes you qualified to pontificate on others. (I, personally, have acheived nothing in *any* field, hence, I am equally qualified to pontificate on all fields.)
Why not read the judges rulling? http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/courtser/judgements.nsf/054a30dbaca8b75e8025683c004e 82de/45de924a70f2270b802568690055b06c/$FILE/godfrey3.htm A payment into court of a derisory sum is a standard tactical legal maneuver. It does not involve any admission of liability. David Theroux began name calling, specifically everyone who does not accept his theory must do so out of ignorance. Matthew's selective editing of my posts deliberately misrepresents my argument. I simply stated that the following argument is bogus: 1) I am an expert on X 2) The subject matter of X is so complex that nobody who is not an expert can legitimately comment on it 3) Therefore all assertions I make in the field of X MUST be considered true 4) Therefore all assertions you make in the field of X MUST be considered false Theroux did not even attempt to justify his argument, he merely restated it and claimed that anyone who disagrees with his is a complete fool. I don't think that any field has the right to such defference. I can explain my argument to a lay audience. Theroux either cannot or will not. I suggest that in either case his argument MUST be rejected. Phill
-----Original Message----- From: lizard [mailto:lizard@mrlizard.com] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 12:27 PM To: Matthew Gaylor Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker; fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu; cypherpunks@cyberpass.net; Colin A. Reed; Ken Brown; CYBERIA-L@listserv.aol.com; David Theroux Subject: Re: Independent Institute Response To Phillip Hallam-Baker("network externality")
Yeah, but Godfrey is responsible for forcing a very damaging-to-free-speech ruling down the throats of UK ISPs. Methinks he deserveth what he gets.
And to add more fuel to the fire -- Phill, a PhD in nuclear physics makes you no more competant to understand *economics* than a PhD in Medevial European History makes you competant to run a nuclear power plant. You are one of the last people I'd expect to fall into the trap of assuming 'brainz iz brainz' and that achievement in one field makes you qualified to pontificate on others. (I, personally, have acheived nothing in *any* field, hence, I am equally qualified to pontificate on all fields.)
participants (12)
-
Colin A. Reed -
David Theroux -
Declan McCullagh -
Declan McCullagh -
James A. Donald -
Jim Choate -
Jim Warren -
Ken Brown -
lizard -
Matthew Gaylor -
Paul Spirito -
Phillip Hallam-Baker