If you start posting those, others will start posting Krugman or whoever on the left. Both will attract people not interested in hacker news.
As I post this, the number 3 article on HN is a Krugman piece which has nothing at all to do with software, so it looks like those will get posted anyway. Not only that, but Krugman is, as usual, late to the game. The dollars been getting hammered for a long time and he finally notices.
This artice, however, at least uses the interwebs as an interesting example of a free market.
> This artice, however, at least uses the interwebs as an interesting example of a free market.
And doesn't mention that the hated, loathed government was the one that actually created it.
They also don't mention some of the more problematic businesses on the internet such as as spyware, botnets, DOS extortion and so on.
But when it all comes down to it, just like Krugman's columns, they're pushing a political point of view, which is why I don't think either one belongs here.
The gov't had to fund the early beginnings of the Internet because it took so much out of the economy to fund Moon/Space/Spy satellite programs against an enemy that could barely produce a decent TV set. They even took a small army of scientists and engineers out of the economy.
This does not even include the telecom regulations preventing competition and innovation during the 50s through 80s. MCI prospered and gave AT&T competition after some regulations were dropped.
When the Gov't takes so much, it's no wonder why scientists/engineers needed it as sugar daddy back then: That's where all the money was.
> spyware, botnets, DOS extortion and so on
We have a market to develop countermeasures: YCombinator and its copycats. The last place you would want protection is from the same gov't that still has problems running the post office and Amtrak.
> the hated, loathed government was the one that actually created it.
The Gov't also used private firms and pre-existing innovations from the market to develop a lot of the programs. Mises.org has published articles about NASA and related programs using pre-existing technologies from the market. The growth of the Internet and Web also came when the Gov't de-regulated large portions of it.
> they're pushing a political point of view
True. Their political POV is: get politicians out of lives, businesses, and private property.
I agree. Krugman/NYTimes articles do not get a warning like the link above.
The link above shows what happens when a series of tech innovations allows a group of people to interact with little to no Gov't intervention. That is a lot more interesting than the latest Krugman/NYTimes perspective on engineering a miracle recovery.
However, I also agree that Mises.org links do not belong on Hacker News. The HN audience, like most Americans, seems to have embraced the idea that you can engineer economic miracles. Anything remotely related to Mises.org is slapped with a warning.
This is Neo-Keynesian town, buddy. No Miseans need apply.
Try post-2012. That's when some Austrian sympathizers are predicting The Greatest Depression. People, even on HN, will be more open to the Austrian POV then. (Maybe even to the Hoppean view. Oh joy!) Meanwhile, I'm going back to this Celente PDF linked on LRC. It mentions micro-farming as a growth industry.
i don't care about this link: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=885138 and it's content. I care about the article and it's relation to startups. thus letting the founder possibly see that success is solely on their own shoulders. ie - you fail if you don't listen to customer's bug reports/requests. Similar to determining what link should/shouldn't be posted on HN. Let the HN people vote; if you feel insecure about a mises link, I bet you don't have a startup...
I found it interesting that Austrian economics supports strong government protection of physical property while here the author is arguing against government intervention in intellectual property.
As I understand it, Austrian economists tend to define property with respect to scarce goods; because intellectual property is not a scarce good, they (and, in particular, those at the Mises Institute) argue that an individual cannot legitimately own it as "property." Instead, they view "intellectual property" as something of an oxymoron. More properly, it is a government enforced monopoly on particular ideas -- not property at all.
For much more about Austrian views on intellectual property, take a look at Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella.
You are 100% correct. The fact that it's called intellectual property is a misnomer, it's a temporary government granted monopoly.
One common confusion is that Trademarks are often called intellectual property where they are more realistically anti-fraud devices. Though I believe that a trademark can only then be enforced by the defrauded party (the person buying the knockoff good) the person being knocked off has no recourse, unless they purchase the knockoff.
