Home Page
05.21.2004 (previous | next)
Databases and Monopolies (Government Monopolies, That Is)

Stephen Moore, President of the Club for Growth (a political organization dedicated to government fiscal responsibility and deregulation) has a column in today's Washington Times on "Who Needs the NYSE?" His basic point, echoing Richard Baker, the Chair of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets of the House Financial Services Committee, is that the New York Stock Exchange "derives its power not from the marketplace, but from government charter."

A focus of Moore's critique is the information problem: "Perhaps the most harmful monopoly power bestowed on the NYSE is its status as an information cartel for the stock market. Brokerage firms are forced by regulation to send information . . . of great value . . . to the exchange . . . . Those same firms are then forced to buy the aggregated data stream back whem providing a stock quote . . . . This grants the NYSE an information cartel and impairs the liquidity of the stock market."

Protection of property rights and investment in databases is important to the long-term health of the economy and to simple Lockean justice. But the NYSE situation illustrates the problems when the government creates and continues ossified monopolies unrelated to real value added, monopolies that will be defended to the max with political contributions and other forms of influence.

The correct approach is to define the property rights correctly and assign them to the people doing the work -- and this in itself presents exquisitely difficult issues -- and then let the parties deal by private contract. The firms that produce the data, and their customers, should be able to bargain with the aggregators to share the value created.

This "less government action is more" approach is particularly important in a time of great uncertainty over the role of information in the economy and the society and over how information will produce value in the future. Part of the genius of F. A. Hayek was his emphasis on Competition as a Discovery Procedure, a process of learning and feedback rather than the static equilibrium of the academic blackboard.

posted by James DeLong @ 10:02 AM | General

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)









 
IPcentral WebLog

Blog Main

IPcentral Blogosphere Archives

Search the Blog

Recent Posts
  - IP and Marginal Cost
- Academics and Copyright
- More on Jammie Thomas from DOJ
- More Studies of Downloading
- Facebook, MySpace, and Network Externalities
- Copyright and the University: An Academic Symposium
- Tyler Cowan on Chinese Movie Piracy
- More WHO Antics--Roger Bate Reports
- Patents, Meds, and the Developing World: Clips & Links
- Jermaine Dupri's Gripe with iTunes
Archives by Month
  - December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
  - (see all)
Archives by Subject
  - Academia
- Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain
- Accounting
- Analog Holes
- Antitrust
- Art
- Aspen
- Big Tent
- Biotech
- Books
- Comments from Readers
- Counterfeit
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- DMCA
- DRM & Watermarks, etc.
- Economics, Game Theory & Public Choice
- Enforcement & Remedies
- Free Culture Movement
- Games
- General
- Infrastructure
- International
- Internet: P2P, Search Engines...
- Legislation and Legislators
- Liberty and IP
- Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation
- Media: Video, Music...
- Patents
- Pharma
- Physical Property
- Prices, Terms, and Licensing
- Privacy and Security
- Radio
- Software
- Spectrum & Wireless
- Standards
- Supreme Court
- Tax-Funded IP
- Telecom
- Theft of Service
- Universities
Links
 

Site Feed

  - Atom
- RSS 1.0
- RSS 2.0
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.


 
Home Page