Free Trade vs. Intellectual Property

How does IP affect trade barriers.

Also, the title of your post implies that free trade and IP are somehow opposed.

Free trade agreements involve compromise and the United States will never get everything we want. The political capital we spend twisting other countries’ arms to adopt our copyright policies is political capital we can’t spend on other, more urgent priorities like liberalizing agriculture or textile trade.

FTAs and “free trade” are not quite the same thing. You still don’t show how free trade and IP conflict though.

Look at the recent visit by China’s president. There were 2 or 3 main issues on the table, one of them was IP.

Still, the title of your post was misleading, as was your post yesterday about backwards reasoning in copyrigt law, where you criticized a litigation strategy rather than anything dealing with copyright doctrine.

How does IP affect trade barriers.

Also, the title of your post implies that free trade and IP are somehow opposed.

Free trade agreements involve compromise and the United States will never get everything we want. The political capital we spend twisting other countries’ arms to adopt our copyright policies is political capital we can’t spend on other, more urgent priorities like liberalizing agriculture or textile trade.

FTAs and “free trade” are not quite the same thing. You still don’t show how free trade and IP conflict though.

Look at the recent visit by China’s president. There were 2 or 3 main issues on the table, one of them was IP.

Still, the title of your post was misleading, as was your post yesterday about backwards reasoning in copyrigt law, where you criticized a litigation strategy rather than anything dealing with copyright doctrine.

Coincidently, I opend up the TLF webpage and Ed Foster’s Gripelog at the same time and Ed has a very humerous article on intellectual property taken from Food & Wine Magazine. Ed wrote: The article points out the case of an Australian chef whose cuisine was winning awards Down Under until it was discovered he was copying the dishes right down to the details of presentation from American restaurants. Ed’s post it titled A Recipe for Intellectual Property Madness” and can be found at: http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2006/10/12/103014/43

Tim, no offense, but you’re part of a very sheltered minority if you believe that the government of the United States should be even as concerned about foreign economies as it is about its own. I don’t want my government serving anyone’s interests but that of the American people, and if you ask the average person on the street, that’s the sentiment they’ll express as well. That’s what we elect our “leaders” for. Now, I support free trade in principle, but only in practice if it means a total negation of trade barriers and subsidies between countries. State-owned businesses are automatic fair game for raping and pillaging by a capitalist government, IMO, as they are not true businesses.

Free trade and open immigration to anyone who claims that they want to work seem to be the libertarian equivalent of the worker’s revolution. Once they’re in place, it’ll all be swell! Hell, there was a Cato@Liberty post recently bemoaning the apparent shortage of low-skilled labor! Is that why Northern Virginia is practically overflowing with illegal immigrants?

I think that the standard libertarian sentiments on labor and trade issues are naive and unrealistic, and ultimately destructive to liberty. A government that acts like an impartial administrative body, allowing the economy to be raped by foreign businesses with massive foreign government protection and financing, and a population diluted by waves of immigrants, is not going to be a government that gives a bloody hoot what you think about anything. It won’t represent you because you gave up any pretense that it should represent you and your people’s interests in the face of state-backed competition abroad. These things tend to cascade without exception from a seemingly innocent start into a horrible mess.

I do agree with Noel that copyright does not have any inherent conflict with free trade. Why would it, since it’s a separate issue that often gets tossed into a FTA?

I don’t want my government serving anyone’s interests but that of the American people, and if you ask the average person on the street, that’s the sentiment they’ll express as well.

That’s certainly true. But that doesn’t mean it’s a sentiment we should be cheering. Obviously, the primary job of the U.S. government is to protect the rights of Americans. But if it can promote policies that lift millions of foreigners out of poverty at little or not cost to Americans, I think that it should do so. My compassion for my fellow human being doesn’t stop at the Rio Grande.

Coincidently, I opend up the TLF webpage and Ed Foster’s Gripelog at the same time and Ed has a very humerous article on intellectual property taken from Food & Wine Magazine. Ed wrote: The article points out the case of an Australian chef whose cuisine was winning awards Down Under until it was discovered he was copying the dishes right down to the details of presentation from American restaurants. Ed’s post it titled
A Recipe for Intellectual Property Madness” and can be found at: http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2006/10/12/…

Tim, no offense, but you’re part of a very sheltered minority if you believe that the government of the United States should be even as concerned about foreign economies as it is about its own. I don’t want my government serving anyone’s interests but that of the American people, and if you ask the average person on the street, that’s the sentiment they’ll express as well. That’s what we elect our “leaders” for. Now, I support free trade in principle, but only in practice if it means a total negation of trade barriers and subsidies between countries. State-owned businesses are automatic fair game for raping and pillaging by a capitalist government, IMO, as they are not true businesses.

Free trade and open immigration to anyone who claims that they want to work seem to be the libertarian equivalent of the worker’s revolution. Once they’re in place, it’ll all be swell! Hell, there was a Cato@Liberty post recently bemoaning the apparent shortage of low-skilled labor! Is that why Northern Virginia is practically overflowing with illegal immigrants?

I think that the standard libertarian sentiments on labor and trade issues are naive and unrealistic, and ultimately destructive to liberty. A government that acts like an impartial administrative body, allowing the economy to be raped by foreign businesses with massive foreign government protection and financing, and a population diluted by waves of immigrants, is not going to be a government that gives a bloody hoot what you think about anything. It won’t represent you because you gave up any pretense that it should represent you and your people’s interests in the face of state-backed competition abroad. These things tend to cascade without exception from a seemingly innocent start into a horrible mess.

I do agree with Noel that copyright does not have any inherent conflict with free trade. Why would it, since it’s a separate issue that often gets tossed into a FTA?

Hey, Napster was an American company! So was ReplayTV. So was MP3.com. I’d argue that when nations like Brazil and India throw sand in the gears of Big Content’s power grabs at WIPO and other international venues, those nations are actually helping the American entrepeneurial spirit, in addition to serving their own interests.

I don’t want my government serving anyone’s interests but that of the American people, and if you ask the average person on the street, that’s the sentiment they’ll express as well.

That’s certainly true. But that doesn’t mean it’s a sentiment we should be cheering. Obviously, the primary job of the U.S. government is to protect the rights of Americans. But if it can promote policies that lift millions of foreigners out of poverty at little or not cost to Americans, I think that it should do so. My compassion for my fellow human being doesn’t stop at the Rio Grande.

You are a good man Charlie Brown, I mean, Tim Lee.

Hey, Napster was an American company! So was ReplayTV. So was MP3.com. I’d argue that when nations like Brazil and India throw sand in the gears of Big Content’s power grabs at WIPO and other international venues, those nations are actually helping the American entrepeneurial spirit, in addition to serving their own interests.

You are a good man Charlie Brown, I mean, Tim Lee.

Tim, no offense, but you’re part of a very sheltered minority if you believe that the government of the United States should be even as concerned about foreign economies as it is about its own. I don’t want my government serving anyone’s interests but that of the American people,

No man is an island, and no country is either in todays world. Jorge Castenada said it very well:

Thus, whatever immigration policy emerges in the US will have an enormous impact south of the Rio Grande well beyond Mexico. This will occur precisely at a time when Latin America is swerving left, with country after country drifting back to anti-American, populist stances: Venezuela in 1999, Bolivia last year, perhaps Mexico, Peru, and Nicaragua later this year. If the perception of further US hostility toward Latin America persists, the tilt toward an irresponsible, demagogic left will harden. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/castaneda8

Noel: the claim that there’s no inherent conflict between free trade and IP is the result of question-begging: you’re assuming content ‘owners’ are entitled to the bundle of rights they have been granted. If, on the other hand, you think these restrictions are wrong, the conflict is simple and direct: if I wish to buy, say, an unauthorized book set in the ‘Star Wars’ universe written by, say, a guy in Singapore, I can’t. A consensual, welfare-enhancing transaction has been prohibited. Just as trade quotas and tariffs prevent similar consensual transactions between, say, the Singaporean wanting to sell me something more tangible.

You may say, “Ah, but George Lucas is entitled to his monopoly on all things Star Wars.” Perhaps, perhaps not; all domestic industries seem to think they are entitled to be the lone supplier to “their” markets.

PLN, the way you put it, there is inherent conflict between all forms of regulation and policy. Thats a truism. IP laws are often balanced with antitrust and contract laws.

Also, PLN, your brief discussion shows you balancing the implications and trade-offs between IP and trade, thus I don’t think we’re that far from each other.

My disagreement with the original post is that Tim seemed to imply that we have some zero-sum game of free trade (or FTAs, I’m not sure which he means) vs strong IP laws.

Tim, no offense, but you’re part of a very sheltered minority if you believe that the government of the United States should be even as concerned about foreign economies as it is about its own. I don’t want my government serving anyone’s interests but that of the American people,

No man is an island, and no country is either in todays world. Jorge Castenada said it very well:

Thus, whatever immigration policy emerges in the US will have an enormous impact south of the Rio Grande well beyond Mexico. This will occur precisely at a time when Latin America is swerving left, with country after country drifting back to anti-American, populist stances: Venezuela in 1999, Bolivia last year, perhaps Mexico, Peru, and Nicaragua later this year. If the perception of further US hostility toward Latin America persists, the tilt toward an irresponsible, demagogic left will harden.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/cas…

Noel: the claim that there’s no inherent conflict between free trade and IP is the result of question-begging: you’re assuming content ‘owners’ are entitled to the bundle of rights they have been granted. If, on the other hand, you think these restrictions are wrong, the conflict is simple and direct: if I wish to buy, say, an unauthorized book set in the ‘Star Wars’ universe written by, say, a guy in Singapore, I can’t. A consensual, welfare-enhancing transaction has been prohibited. Just as trade quotas and tariffs prevent similar consensual transactions between, say, the Singaporean wanting to sell me something more tangible.

You may say, “Ah, but George Lucas is entitled to his monopoly on all things Star Wars.” Perhaps, perhaps not; all domestic industries seem to think they are entitled to be the lone supplier to “their” markets.

PLN, the way you put it, there is inherent conflict between all forms of regulation and policy. Thats a truism. IP laws are often balanced with antitrust and contract laws.

Also, PLN, your brief discussion shows you balancing the implications and trade-offs between IP and trade, thus I don’t think we’re that far from each other.

My disagreement with the original post is that Tim seemed to imply that we have some zero-sum game of free trade (or FTAs, I’m not sure which he means) vs strong IP laws.

I may have been unclear. What I meant was that there is an inherent conflict between intellectual property, at least beyond some minimal trademark issues, and the ideal of free trade (any two people who wish to engage in mutually beneficial transactions ought to do so). Indeed, Levine & Boldrin’s whole book is about how IP is anti-free-market, though their analogy is towards state-created monopolies rather than tariff and non-tariff barriers. But really, the arguments you make for IP–fixed-cost v. marginal cost disparities, etc.–seem really quite similar to standard infant-industries apologetics.

If all of this is so obvious as to be a truism, I apologize.

I think the zero-sum game issue was more along these lines: strong IP laws may or may not be bad for developed countries (we obviously differ), but they are much worse for developing states. At the very least, such states don’t seem eager to adopt them on their own. The whole WIPO/TRIPS stuff has been all about trying to tie IP protection, which developing states don’t want, to free trade advances, which they typically do. One might think of this as raising the cost for developing nations to signing onto free-trade agreements; at the margin, one might expect fewer FTAs to be signed. That, at least, was my gloss.

I may have been unclear. What I meant was that there is an inherent conflict between intellectual property, at least beyond some minimal trademark issues, and the ideal of free trade (any two people who wish to engage in mutually beneficial transactions ought to do so). Indeed, Levine & Boldrin’s whole book is about how IP is anti-free-market, though their analogy is towards state-created monopolies rather than tariff and non-tariff barriers. But really, the arguments you make for IP–fixed-cost v. marginal cost disparities, etc.–seem really quite similar to standard infant-industries apologetics.

If all of this is so obvious as to be a truism, I apologize.

I think the zero-sum game issue was more along these lines: strong IP laws may or may not be bad for developed countries (we obviously differ), but they are much worse for developing states. At the very least, such states don’t seem eager to adopt them on their own. The whole WIPO/TRIPS stuff has been all about trying to tie IP protection, which developing states don’t want, to free trade advances, which they typically do. One might think of this as raising the cost for developing nations to signing onto free-trade agreements; at the margin, one might expect fewer FTAs to be signed. That, at least, was my gloss.

PLN its interesting you mention the ideal of free trade and Levin/Boldrin, who advocate perfect free markets (by blindly applying Ken Arrows competition theory). Im somewhat of a realist though. Economic policies need to address economic realities, not yearn for Newtonian ideals that are only meant as guiding principles.

For the record, I did not means that free trade and IP were inherently contradictory concepts, as PLN suggests. Rather, I meant that the core goal of free trade in goods and services was being sidetracked by IP issues that are peripheral at best to liberalizing world markets.

PLN its interesting you mention the ideal of free trade and Levin/Boldrin, who advocate perfect free markets (by blindly applying Ken Arrows competition theory). Im somewhat of a realist though. Economic policies need to address economic realities, not yearn for Newtonian ideals that are only meant as guiding principles.

For the record, I did not means that free trade and IP were inherently contradictory concepts, as PLN suggests. Rather, I meant that the core goal of free trade in goods and services was being sidetracked by IP issues that are peripheral at best to liberalizing world markets.

Neither does my compassion end at geographical boundaries, but I don’t believe that it should be conflated with trade policies aimed at helping foreigners. I think that this is where libertarians fall down ideologically. Our government is supposed to reasonably look after the welfare of its own people first, and then provide policies which help others in a way that’s not at the expense of others. Libertarian policies that bring in millions of low-skilled workers are a perfect example. You can’t argue supply and demand on trade, then argue that wave of low-skilled workers won’t have a dilluting impact on low-skilled domestic wages, further straining domestic workers. By the same token, you really can’t have trade policies that help foreigners without passive aggressively hurting your own economy, especially since a lot of these small countries are dominated by socialist governments. As a capitalist, would you support allowing a foreign, state-owned corporation with the spending power of its government come in and buy up our privately owned businesses? If so, why?

Trade and immigration are both positive-sum games. Increased free trade does hurt some businesses in the United States, but those harms are more than offset by the gains to American consumers. On net, the United States benefits.

The same is true of immigration. Admitting more low-skilled immigrants may moderately depress the wages of some low-skilled Americans (although I’m told the evidence suggests this effect is very small if it exists at all). But it greatly benefits American consumers as a whole, who enjoy lower prices a larger, more robust economy. Restricting immigration doesn’t protect Americans from foreigners. It harms some Americans for the benefit of others, incidentally hurting foreigners in the process.

Neither does my compassion end at geographical boundaries, but I don’t believe that it should be conflated with trade policies aimed at helping foreigners. I think that this is where libertarians fall down ideologically. Our government is supposed to reasonably look after the welfare of its own people first, and then provide policies which help others in a way that’s not at the expense of others. Libertarian policies that bring in millions of low-skilled workers are a perfect example. You can’t argue supply and demand on trade, then argue that wave of low-skilled workers won’t have a dilluting impact on low-skilled domestic wages, further straining domestic workers. By the same token, you really can’t have trade policies that help foreigners without passive aggressively hurting your own economy, especially since a lot of these small countries are dominated by socialist governments. As a capitalist, would you support allowing a foreign, state-owned corporation with the spending power of its government come in and buy up our privately owned businesses? If so, why?

Trade and immigration are both positive-sum games. Increased free trade does hurt some businesses in the United States, but those harms are more than offset by the gains to American consumers. On net, the United States benefits.

The same is true of immigration. Admitting more low-skilled immigrants may moderately depress the wages of some low-skilled Americans (although I’m told the evidence suggests this effect is very small if it exists at all). But it greatly benefits American consumers as a whole, who enjoy lower prices a larger, more robust economy. Restricting immigration doesn’t protect Americans from foreigners. It harms some Americans for the benefit of others, incidentally hurting foreigners in the process.

Spot on, Tim. I agree with you, MikeT, that the role of the U.S. government is to protect U.S. interests, but trade protectionism (in commodity and labor markets alike) protects some U.S. interests while maintaining high costs for U.S. consumers overall. It makes the country worse off on balance.

Incidentally, it keeps low-cost producers overseas (plus would-be immigrants) poorer for no good reason. This, in turn, undermines American security interests because we are seen as a selfish global pariah where we could be extending friendly tendrils of trade.

Spot on, Tim. I agree with you, MikeT, that the role of the U.S. government is to protect U.S. interests, but trade protectionism (in commodity and labor markets alike) protects some U.S. interests while maintaining high costs for U.S. consumers overall. It makes the country worse off on balance.

Incidentally, it keeps low-cost producers overseas (plus would-be immigrants) poorer for no good reason. This, in turn, undermines American security interests because we are seen as a selfish global pariah where we could be extending friendly tendrils of trade.

I like how this blog turned to a discussion about the goals of trade policy. It had to because the suggested relation between IP and free trade in the original post was such a stretched effort.

I like how this blog turned to a discussion about the goals of trade policy. It had to because the suggested relation between IP and free trade in the original post was such a stretched effort.

Tim, the most important aspect of immigration is not economic, it’s cultural. Immigrants bring with them non-American ideas that warp American notions of liberty, the rule of law and things like that. The so-called melting pot has had the effect of dilluting American cultural connections to its ancestral liberal institutions. Open border libertarians are culturally brain dead on this point. The large waves of immigration in American history once our republic was founded corresponded to an increase in collectivism. Would FDR have been electable under a more culturally English America? I don’t think so!

Unlike a lot of libertarians, I am interested in preserving America’s cultural roots. Part of that involves a recognition that immigrants do not have those roots and that there is a big difference between coming here to work and coming here to be American. Most illegals from Mexico have no desire to become Americans, even just in terms of citizenship. I don’t want that type of immigrant to be allowed to live here and exercise any influence here. I’m willing to forego some of the economic benefits like cheaper fast food in order to have my kids grow up in a more American America.

I am not saying that immigration itself is a problem, but it must be in small, manageable numbers that don’t affect the weakest members of society like unskilled workers. Allowing over a million illegals to flood our borders a year is not manageable, it’s a migration, and migrations have never ended well in any example in history.

Tim, the most important aspect of immigration is not economic, it’s cultural. Immigrants bring with them non-American ideas that warp American notions of liberty, the rule of law and things like that. The so-called melting pot has had the effect of dilluting American cultural connections to its ancestral liberal institutions. Open border libertarians are culturally brain dead on this point. The large waves of immigration in American history once our republic was founded corresponded to an increase in collectivism. Would FDR have been electable under a more culturally English America? I don’t think so!

Unlike a lot of libertarians, I am interested in preserving America’s cultural roots. Part of that involves a recognition that immigrants do not have those roots and that there is a big difference between coming here to work and coming here to be American. Most illegals from Mexico have no desire to become Americans, even just in terms of citizenship. I don’t want that type of immigrant to be allowed to live here and exercise any influence here. I’m willing to forego some of the economic benefits like cheaper fast food in order to have my kids grow up in a more American America.

I am not saying that immigration itself is a problem, but it must be in small, manageable numbers that don’t affect the weakest members of society like unskilled workers. Allowing over a million illegals to flood our borders a year is not manageable, it’s a migration, and migrations have never ended well in any example in history.