There is a nice article about them here.
defending the right to innovate
Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.
Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.
There is a lot of talk in academic circles about open publishing models - but mostly for journals. However efforts are underway for books as well: Openbook publishers has been taking the lead in this - they are the publishers of my recent book Is Behavioral Economic Doomed. They publish under a creative commons license that allows free reproduction and modification - yet we still think we can cover the costs and even make a buck or two.
There is a nice article about them here.
Thanks for the great book, and for making it free culture.
It's worth mentioning that they don't publish most of their works under a licence that allows modification - your book is a rare exception to their preferred CC BY-NC-ND licence.
[Comment at 10/12/2012 04:41 PM by Chris Sakkas]
Great work! Here's my quick review of the book:
It seems to me that behavioral economists generally set up a straw man for traditional economics. Their straw man says that monetary rewards are the only valid rewards and that everyone cares about money only. Behavioral economists then go on to show the myriad ways that people have other concerns besides money or treat money in complex ways that isn't purely about maximizing their finances.
Traditional economics sets up a straw man of behavioral economics too. Your book seems to paint behavioral economics as people who say that all these complex behaviors are senseless, the behavioral straw man attacks people and shows how bad their decisions are. But I don't think real behavioral economists are quite so extreme really.
The reality seems to be that there is much to agree about.Traditional economics can explain most behavior if we accept that motives and utility are quite varied and relate to all sorts of biological reward mechanisms that are not limited to money. Traditional economics via game theory can show that much of the "irrational" behavior psychologists observe can make perfect sense if we consider the context the right way.
Unfortunately, relying on lab tests in which subjects are expected to learn the rules of a game doesn't answer one big thing about reality: the fact that lots of people have NOT learned the rules of the game. A lot of the irrationality out there seems to be people not understanding the game rules well. And some aspects of our economy are built on people having a poor understanding of the rules and so being manipulated by sales tactics and all sorts of biases.
I think we can reconcile all of this by accepting the influences of evolutionary traits, learning, and complex motives. Any traditional economist who accepts those can continue to develop worthwhile theories within the bounds of traditional economics. And behavioral economists would do well to invite these insights. I don't think behavioral economics is doomed. Rather, I think it has helped traditional economics clarify its views in order to remain relevant. And hopefully we can proceed by learning to get along and value everyone's insights.
[Comment at 11/27/2012 08:38 PM by Aaron Wolf]
Most Recent Comments
Killing people with patents I'm not really commenting the post, but rather asking if this blog is going to make a comeback
at 01/09/2018 03:46 AM by Anonymous
The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges Finally got around to looking at the comments, sorry for delay... Replying to Stephan: I'm sorry
at 05/08/2015 08:35 AM by Dan Dobkin
Let's See: Pallas, Pan, Patents, Persephone, Perses, Poseidon, Prometheus... Seems like a kinda bizarre proposal to me. We just need to abolish the patent system, not replace
at 04/10/2015 10:44 AM by Stephan Kinsella
The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges I'm a bit confused by this--even if "hired to invent" went away, that would just change the default
at 04/10/2015 10:34 AM by Stephan Kinsella
Do we need a law? @ Alexander Baker: So basically, if I copy parts of 'Titus Andronicus' to a webpage without
at 01/08/2015 08:58 PM by Sheogorath
Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do
at 11/17/2014 04:48 AM by David K. Levine
Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous
at 10/29/2014 10:49 AM by Alexander Baker
Yet another proof of the inutility of copyright. The 9/11 Commission report cost $15,000,000 to produce, not counting the salaries of the authors.
at 09/20/2014 03:19 PM by Alexander Baker
WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:
at 06/28/2014 10:03 AM by Doris
WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,
at 06/28/2014 10:00 AM by Doris
What's copywritable? Go fish in court. @ Anonymous: You misunderstood my intent. I was actually trying to point out a huge but basic
at 05/05/2014 01:03 PM by Sheogorath
Rights Violations Aren't the Only Bads I hear that nonsense from pro-IP people all the
at 04/07/2014 04:47 AM by Dan McCracken
Intellectual Property Fosters Corporate Concentration Yeah, I see the discouragement of working on a patented device all the time. Great examples
at 01/13/2014 06:13 AM by Anonymous
Music without copyright Hundreds of businessmen are looking for premium quality article distribution services that can be
at 11/28/2013 05:03 PM by Stephanie Smith
at 11/28/2013 09:23 AM by Anonymous
at 11/28/2013 09:22 AM by Anonymous
Patent Lawyers Who Don't Toe the Line Should Be Punished! Moreover "the single most destructive force to innovation is patents". We'd like to unite with you
at 11/24/2013 10:48 AM by SpaceCorp Technologies
at 11/20/2013 03:18 PM by Anonymous
Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? So, if our patent system was "broken," TFP of durable goods should have dropped. Conversely, since
at 11/02/2013 08:09 PM by Anonymous
Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? I wondered about TFP, because I had heard that TFP was increasing. Apparently, it depends on who
at 11/02/2013 08:08 PM by Anonymous