The Piracy Paradox
My post Knock It Off discusses Jacob Sullum's Reason article about knockoffs in the high-fashion industry, and the lobbying by designers for copyright-like protection of clothing designs.
A recent article in The New Yorker, The Piracy Paradox, also discusses this issue. There were two fascinating aspects to this story. First, the author notes that cheap knockoffs actually help the designers maintain high prices. Why? Because "for the industry to keep growing, customers must like this year’s designs, but they must also become dissatisfied with them, so that they’ll buy next year’s." In the high-tech industry, continual technical improvements help make old products obsolete and new ones continually in demand. But this is not true of fashion. However, it is knockoffs that serve this function: "Copying enables designs and styles to move quickly from early adopters to the masses. And since no one cool wants to keep wearing something after everybody else is wearing it, the copying of designs helps fuel the incessant demand for something new."
Fascinating. So... copiers actually help the fashion industry, precisely because fashion designers cannot count on technical obsolescence to help keep their newer designs in demand. By the same token, one would think, copying of high-tech designs (methods and designs that are now protected by patent) would not harm the innovators, who can "rely on improvements in power and performance to make old products obsolete". In other words, technical innovators have an advantage of being first to market, since their new products offer technical advantages that previous products do not have. The inevitability of knockoffs being produced later on by copiers does not change this fact.
The second, and more interesting, point, to me, was this one:
In 1932, a group of American fashion manufacturers found themselves beset by a proliferation of cheap knockoffs. Designs, then as now, were not protected by patents or copyrights, so the manufacturers decided to take direct action to stop the copying. They set up the Fashion Originators Guild of America to monitor retailers and keep track of original designs; if you look at vintage dresses from the thirties, you can find labels reading “A registered original design with Fashion Originators Guild.” Retailers selling knockoffs were “red-carded,” and guild members wouldn’t sell their merchandise to red-carded stores. This was unpopular with the retailers, but it seems to have put a damper on the copying. The only hitch in the plan was that it was illegal: in 1941, the Supreme Court ruled that the manufacturers’ arrangement violated antitrust law, and the knockoff artists stayed in business.
People often ask how firms could protect their innovations in world without IP. Perhaps something like the "Fashion Originators Guild" could do the trick--if the state did not outlaw it.
Comments (39)
Manuel Lora
Albert Esplugas and I wrote an article about this called Fashion Has No Owner where we outline the problems with the concept of intellectual property on the clothing industry.
Published: September 20, 2007 7:04 PM
JW Deming
Stephen Kinsella, a world in which firms protect their innovations via contract and market mechanisms is not "a world without IP." It's a world without state interference and control over how IP is accredited, protected & distributed.
In such a world IP would be protected far more effectively and thus accorded a higher market value than in today's defunct world of state patents and copyrights.
When IP protection is fully privatized, the returns to innovation will soar. As a result, we will see not only more innovation but the evolution of myriad new & different commercial channels competing to move innovation more quickly & effectively into products at all stages of the structure of production.
In that world, IP will be accorded far more importance than it is now.
Published: September 20, 2007 10:40 PM
Jean Paul
JW, 'IP by contract' is not 'IP' at all. You may like to keep using the familiar term, but contractual 'IP' feels even less like true property than our current version of violence-based IP.
'P' - Property - by definition implies an owner who has a universal right of exclusion. But a contract is not ownership. A contract does not provide a universal right of exclusion. It allows some rights of exclusion between its participants, but has no power to compel the exclusion of anyone else.
The only way contractual control of information can exclude anyone who is not party to the contract is to ensure absolute secrecy of the information. Sorry, but I don't see the future innovation avalanche you describe happening behind airtight curtains of red tape.
Innovation happens when people get so irritated by a problem they invest in solving it. The way to 'promote' innovation is to clear the obstacles out of the way. This is true whether it's a government obstacle or a private one.
The nicest thing about a private obstacle is, since there's no bullets forthcoming, you can just happily ignore it - which is what everyone and his dog will do once the bullet-wielding government obstacles are gone.
Here's my prediction: Without violence to back it, any attempt at private IP will quickly be recognized as an impossible-to-achieve waste of time and resources; the IP-addicted dinosaurs will adapt or perish; and the rest of us will enjoy a slightly saner world for a change.
Published: September 21, 2007 1:43 AM
Billy Beck
I watch guitar markets very closely. In the past three years or so, the rise of Chinese "knock-offs" of Gibson guitars has been just appalling. We're talking about fine musical instruments of quality second to none, with over a hundred years of painstaking innovation established in consumer confidence ranging from campfire amateurs to top-flight professionals. People who know guitars understand what they're getting when they buy the brand. And now, they're turning up with a look that will play in an online photograph, but in no way even approach the real thing when actually taken in hand.
Now, I have a question, Stephan:
If you're dealing in principles, then explain to me how any of this could be remotely "help[ful]" to Gibson or their customers.
Published: September 21, 2007 1:48 AM
ktibuk
"Here's my prediction: Without violence to back it, any attempt at private "propety" will quickly be recognized as an impossible-to-achieve waste of time and resources; the pivate property-addicted dinosaurs will adapt or perish; and the rest of us will enjoy a slightly saner world for a change."
So many socialist have said this in the past. So too many.
Published: September 21, 2007 3:22 AM
ktibuk
Also what stephan and these other anti IP crusader are doing is the same thing as full socialist attackin capitalism by the way of actually ponting out corporatism.
Today there is no real capitalms in the world and what is branded as capitalism is actually mostly state sponsored coporatism.
Also today there is no free market IP, so attacking todays state sponsored IP issues has no relevance on IP in the free market.
I am sick of the intellectual dishonesty of the socialist, full or just IP.
Published: September 21, 2007 3:30 AM
jeffrey
Billy, when I read your post, I was expecting you to praise these Chinese knockoffs and then I was taken aback that you said they are appalling. I don't know the guitar market but I know the piano market. The same is true in pianos. The Chinese instruments look great, have nice action, stay in tune, are durable, and mostly they are really inexpensive.
The trouble is that they sound, to my ear, like xylophones. The plus side is that these instruments are bringing good quality pianos to millions of home. But no serious pianist would ever own one. I just don't see the problem here. This is just the way a growing market works, providing ever more neat stuff in a variety of packages to meet every need.
And by the way, I do think these Chinese instruments are generally good for the piano industry. Many people own them who otherwise would never own a piano, which increases the interest in and demand for pianos generally. Many of these people will eventually buy a better piano with a famous name - or maybe some Chinese company will figure out how to make an even better quality instrument, in which case, all to the good!
Published: September 21, 2007 7:38 AM
Jean Paul
Ktibuk, being anti IP is not a socialist stance.
You're frustrating. So frustrating. Hair pulling infuriating frustrating.
Socialism says there are no private borders and everyone is subjected to everyone else's rule at all times.
Your pro-IP stance says that if you have an idea, you get a free pass to invade my borders and compel my actions with violence.
Who's calling who socialist?
Published: September 21, 2007 9:59 AM
Robert M.
Your anti-IP stance is saying that if I have an idea, everyone is free to invade my borders and steal my idea.
If discovering new drugs and inventing complex new technology was as easy as cutting the sleaves a bit shorter or changing the color, then your article would make sense to the issue as a whole. But, the fashion industry is a backwards, non-technological industry, and it doesn't compare to more complex industries. No on is going to stop taking a drug that is keeping them alive because "everyone else is doing it."
Published: September 21, 2007 11:00 AM
ktibuk
Jean Paul,
You are a socialist because you deny pivate intellectual property.
You can not deny that a the movie Star Wars exist.
But you claim society owns it and it can not be owned privately. You claim anyone in the society may copy it and use it for free.
Thus you are a socialist.
P in IP is property, and only socialists attack propety rights.
It is as simple as that
Published: September 21, 2007 11:09 AM
Jean Paul
"Your anti-IP stance is saying that if I have an idea, everyone is free to invade my borders and steal my idea."
You can't just switch words around and ignore their definitions and pretend you've made a shining point.
You're abusing the words 'invade', 'steal', and 'borders' here. They do not mean what you want them to mean, no matter how much you scream and cry about it.
If I hear a song, have I 'invaded' the song, or has the song invaded me? Or is it ridiculous to even consider using that word?
Stealing is defined by the owner's losing, not by the supposed thief's gaining. If I learn your idea, that's all that has happened: I have LEARNED. I have not STOLEN. Stealing DEPRIVES you of something that was yours. After I learn the idea, you have been deprived of nothing that was yours. All your contractual obligations and privileges remain in place; all your physical posessions remain in place ready for you to use however you see fit; absoultely NOTHING has changed in your empire. You and your empire are 100% undamaged. There is neither harm nor loss. It's not stealing. Stop abusing that term.
If some idea that you were trying to keep a secret gets outside your borders, that's your failure. I think it's a pretty perverse viewpoint to think that someone else learning your idea represents them forcibly crossing your border. If you really insist that your having an idea extends YOUR borders around that idea, fine, view it that way. It doesn't change anything:
If your border around your fist actively propelled under your will to consequently collide with my border around my passive face is recognized as an assault committed by you - you do recongnize this as an assault, for which YOU are at fault, yes? - likewise your idea actively manifested in the world through your actions to consequently be passively observed by me, is AT MOST an assault committed by you. There is no way I could ever be considered at fault for this - except by misguided IP aggressors.
These are the problems with pro-IP thinking.
Published: September 21, 2007 11:58 AM
Billy Beck
Jeffrey: the guitars I'm talking about are playable, and I can see the point about delivering music to the masses.
My essential question is this: if that is the value here, then why do these manufacturers have to steal Gibson's reputation in order to do it?
Published: September 21, 2007 12:00 PM
ktibuk
"Stealing is defined by the owner's losing, not by the supposed thief's gaining. If I learn your idea, that's all that has happened: I have LEARNED. I have not STOLEN. Stealing DEPRIVES you of something that was yours."
According to whom?
Lose what?
According to decreasing marginal utility $100 is worth almost nothing to Bill Gates.
And if something is of no value it may as well dont exist at all.
Can you steal $100 from Bill Gates and argue that he hasn't really lost anything?
Published: September 21, 2007 12:13 PM
Jean Paul
ktibuk, that's some really flawed argumentation on your part.
Something isn't property just because you say it is. And a socialist isn't a socialist just because they disagree when you redefine some random thing as property. You're just playing with words.
I believe in 100% absolute private property rights in your person, and your 'extended' person comprising your posessions. I think anyone can do what they like with their stuff, always and forever, and they get zero say over anyone else's stuff. Individuals free to be sovereign individuals to the fullest and most absolute extent conceivable. That's not socialist. That's the opposite of socialist. See?
Meanwhile IP violates the absolute right of 100% ownership over my stuff. This is what you support ktibuk. See all those posts where you are supporting the erosion and violation of 100% absolute private self ownership to establish IP? Remember all those times you said individual sovereignty should be restricted because someone else has an idea? Remember all those times?
I say again: who is calling who socialist?
Published: September 21, 2007 12:22 PM
Jean Paul
No kitibuk, you can't take 100 dollars from bill gates and say it isn't stealing, because no matter what ridiculous calculus of limits you apply to try and equate 100 dollars to zero, the fact is 100 dollars isn't zero, it's the finite nonzero amount of 100 dollars, and after you take it, bill's posessions have been reduced by 100 dollars. Thus he has been damaged / harmed by a finite nonzero amount, and thus it IS stealing.
Seriously, you need me to clarify that?
Published: September 21, 2007 12:29 PM
George Gaskell
P in IP is property, and only socialists attack propety rights
"Intellectual property" is no more genuine property than the "social contract" is a genuine contract.
Published: September 21, 2007 12:37 PM
Jean Paul
To Billy Beck:
You can't steal a reputation. You can't even own a reputation. A reputation is just thousands and thousands of individuals' opinions about something, and they're free to change those opinions as they see fit.
Gibson can attempt to persuade and massage thousands of individuals' opinions through its nonaggressive actions, but in the end, if people are just too stupid or just don't care to recognize a difference between a genuine Gibson and a chinese knockoff - that's just tough luck for Gibson.
Published: September 21, 2007 12:47 PM
ktibuk
`I believe in 100% absolute private property rights in your person, and your 'extended' person comprising your posessions.`
How do you extend you person to obtain propety?
The only way I know is intellectually. Even picking up an apple from a tree is intellectual extension of yourself.
You dont get to own property by randomly stumbling on it.
Intellectual property right is at the root of every property right and if you deny that you are left with the absurd homesteading you IP socialist are left with.
If you deny IP you may deny the existence of every private property by the extension of your logic.
So either you are a genuine socialist or you are confused when it comes to homesteading and property rights.
Published: September 21, 2007 12:49 PM
Jean Paul
well ktibuk, i give up. you and i will exist in peace so long as you don't trample my physical property. if you come to my house, trampling my stuff and telling me what i can and can't do with my stuff, then i can assure you we won't be at peace any more. call me a socialist if you want. shrug. i know justice when i see it, and you're out to lunch.
Published: September 21, 2007 1:02 PM
David Bratton
Billy, Gibson was an exceedingly bad example for the point you were trying to make. Gibson used to sue competitors left and right for mimicking their body shapes. But in a suit against PRS a court ruled that guitar shapes could not be patented. So they had to learn to compete without monopoly protection and they came up with what I think was a brilliant strategy. Gibson revived the trade name of a company they had bought and folded decades earlier and created the Epiphone brand. The Epiphone line consists of cheap knock-offs of Gibsons own products and is targeted at the entry level and economy minded buyers who wouldn't have bought Gibson's somewhat expensive guitars anyway. Since dealers could point to the fact that Epiphones are made by Gibson, Epiphone quickly drove the competing cheap knock-offs out of the market.
It was a strategy that Fender also adopted with their Squire brand.
BTW Squire is made in China and Epiphone is made in Mexico.
Published: September 21, 2007 1:04 PM
David Bratton
Correction to my previous post. Epiphone is also made in China.
Published: September 21, 2007 2:25 PM
jake
Just to way in on the IP issue in a very general way. IP was started for monopolistic reasons. The people that started it did not have good intentions at all. There is no doubt that IP laws involve telling people what they can do with their own property, and hence reeks havoc on a beautiful and logical system of natural rights. IP laws involve a level of arbitrariness totally at odds with any sound idea of justice or natural rights. Any theory with this many fundamental flaws can not inspire confidence.
Published: September 21, 2007 2:42 PM
Billy Beck
Jean Paul: "You can't steal a reputation."
Well, then, explain to me what value the Chinese manufacturers are acting for. Hold that thought and watch this:
David: "Billy, Gibson was an exceedingly bad example for the point you were trying to make. Gibson used to sue competitors left and right for mimicking their body shapes."
I'm not talking about "body shapes", David. I'm talking about the outright fraud of these people putting the "Gibson" name on guitars that are not Gibsons. Neither Yamaha or Ibanez (two companies known for their body-shape copies) ever did that.
BTW: your history --
"Gibson revived the trade name of a company they had bought and folded decades earlier and created the Epiphone brand."
...is wrong. The Epiphone brand has never been out of the market since 1928.
Published: September 21, 2007 3:39 PM
David Bratton
Billy: I'm not talking about "body shapes", David. I'm talking about the outright fraud of these people putting the "Gibson" name on guitars that are not Gibsons. Neither Yamaha or Ibanez (two companies known for their body-shape copies) ever did that.
So what you are objecting to is theft of trademark then. I thought you were objecting to the imitation of Gibson's designs. I completely agree that falsely claiming that you are selling one thing when it's really something else is fraud.
The question then becomes do we need government to deal with this or would the free market - if we had a free market - deal with it. I think buyers would shun dealers who have a reputation selling fake products.
Billy: ...is wrong. The Epiphone brand has never been out of the market since 1928.
I stand corrected.
Published: September 21, 2007 4:28 PM
Billy Beck
I think the issue goes considerably past trademark, David. Look: I can see copying body designs. The last time I was in Japan, I sat down with a copy of a Gibson solid-body electric guitar made by a company called Tokai. These things have gained serious reputation, and I was very impressed. I was even more so when I saw the price. This thing would have cost a bit over half of what I paid for a real Gibson of the same type, and while I could definitely tell differences of quality between the two, I wouldn't mind owning one and I would easily recommend it to any student.
Here's the thing: when the guitar is so close a copy that it cannot be distinguished from the real thing in the photographs presented on a website, and it's got the Gibson name on it, then the name silkscreened on the machine head (like Gibson does it) is not all there is to the imposture. The whole fraud is bound up in design and "trademark". It all works together to impress a potential buyer as something that it just isn't.
Now, this is something like fashion knock-offs.
And my question to Kinsella still stands. I want to know how he squares this, in general accord with the argument that he's making with reference to fashions.
Published: September 21, 2007 6:25 PM
Billy Beck
Excuse me: "This is not something like fashion knock-offs."
Published: September 21, 2007 6:26 PM
David Bratton
Let's look at the question from a different angle. Who is the victim? As I see it, only the guitar buyer who thought he was getting a Gibson, but got something else is a victim. Gibson is not a victim because they have no intrinsic right to the customer's business.
Are you familiar with Heritage guitars? They are ex Gibson employees working out of a former Gibson manufacturing facility, making very nice high quality Gibson-like guitars. The company's reputation is mostly derived from past relationships to Gibson. They are clearly using Gibson designs, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they were even using some old Gibson jigs in the manufacturing process. Their guitars are sold under their own name though. Would you say they are doing something wrong?
I have to disagree that the fraud is bound up in both design and trademark. I think the fraud is only the attempt to pass a product off as something it is not; and I think the only victim is the deceived buyer.
Published: September 21, 2007 7:21 PM
Billy Beck
"As I see it, only the guitar buyer who thought he was getting a Gibson, but got something else is a victim."
Isn't that enough, in order to condemn this?
Yes: I'm aware of Heritage.
Background: I have played a guitar nearly every day of my life for thirty-eight years, now. I've owned more than I can remember, and seen, handled, and heard about more than anyone could ever tally.
Published: September 21, 2007 7:29 PM
David Bratton
Billy: Isn't that enough, in order to condemn this?
Yes it is enough. But it is only fraud by misappropriation of a trademark.
Background: I've only played for about six months. I have two guitars - and yes one is most definitely a Gibson. The other is a Strat.
Published: September 21, 2007 7:37 PM
Billy Beck
Very well then, David. I think you might understand this more than most here:
"I have to disagree that the fraud is bound up in both design and trademark."
Okay, consider this: if someone built a Fender-type copy and put a Gibson logo on it, nobody would be taken in by that.
See what I mean?
Published: September 21, 2007 9:16 PM
David Bratton
"...if someone built a Fender-type copy and put a Gibson logo on it, nobody would be taken in by that."
But this would still be an attempt at fraud by misrepresenting what is being sold. There is nothing wrong with making a guitar that looks like a Fender. It's putting the Gibson label on it that is the fraud.
I don't deny that the makers of fake products copy other company's designs in order to make their deception work. I just deny that the coping of the design is the offense.
You never said if you thought Heritage was in the wrong.
Published: September 21, 2007 9:33 PM
Billy Beck
"I don't deny that the makers of fake products copy other company's designs in order to make their deception work. I just deny that the coping of the design is the offense."
The offense is fraud. The design is an essential element of it.
"You never said if you thought Heritage was in the wrong."
Why would I? They're doing all the work and they're not putting anyone else's name on it. Besides, Heritage guitars are distinctive. The technical lineage is obvious, but one can tell them at a glance.
Published: September 21, 2007 9:57 PM
David Bratton
"The offense is fraud. The design is an essential element of it."
I agree with you. But I think you want to infer from this that just copying a design is therefore necessarily also an offense. I don't agree with that.
"Besides, Heritage guitars are distinctive."
Well I'll defer to your judgment on that. I thought the Les Paul copies were awfully good though.
Published: September 21, 2007 10:37 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Some people here are throwing the concept "fraud" around very cavalierly. To allege fraud, you have to identify a victim of fraud. For the libertarian, this can only be the person you are dealing with--the person you are defrauding. If some knockoff artist sells a guitar with the "Fender" label on it, it does not "defraud" Fender; the seller is not dealing with Fender, so how can it be defrauding Fender? No; it is only the buyer that is a possible "fraud victim" of the seller of the knockoff Fender.
Now, this depends on what the buyer (reasonably) believes. If some 19 year old girl from a working class family buys a Gucci knockoff purse for $15 from some guy in a van on the corner, he is not defrauding her, since she knows good and well. When my father in law went to China on business and returned with a "Rolex" he paid $5 for, he was not "defrauded".
The only genuine case of fraud, in this context, that I can think of would be if some knockoff artist somehow manages to establish a legitimate looking retail store, and sells fake "Fender" guitars for normal full-Fender price to normal buyers, while representing to them that they are real Fenders. Of course, it is doubtful that such a store can exist, since to make a knockoff that can fool discerning buyers willing to spend such large sums of money, one would have to have a legitimate guitar manufacturing facility with lots of skilled designers, engineers, capital equipment, and the like--can we really imagine a bunch of shady knockoff artists managing this? No; anyone who can manage this would want to come out with their own guitar under their own name.
Anyway, the yelps of "fraud" are just silly here.
Published: September 21, 2007 11:20 PM
David Bratton
"Some people here are throwing the concept "fraud" around very cavalierly."
Any people in particular?
"To allege fraud, you have to identify a victim of fraud. ...No; it is only the buyer that is a possible "fraud victim" of the seller of the knockoff Fender."
Yes. This point was made.
"Now, this depends on what the buyer (reasonably) believes..."
It has been explicit throughout the discussion that the buyer is deceived. Of course there is no fraud if he knows he's buying a fake, or if the sale is obviously too good to be true.
"...would be if some knockoff artist somehow manages to establish a legitimate looking retail store..."
Guitars are sold over the web also. And to say something probably won't happen begs the question of whether it's a legitimate thing to do. Also, Billy claims to have actually seen guitars with fake Gibson labels on them, so it's not just a hypothetical.
The debate ended up at an impasse over whether it is legitimate to copy some else's design - which is where it started. Comment on that if you like.
Published: September 22, 2007 12:28 AM
Stephan Kinsella
"'Some people here are throwing the concept "fraud" around very cavalierly.'
"Any people in particular?"
Yeah; anyone who is asserting we have a case of fraud.
Bratton: "It has been explicit throughout the discussion that the buyer is deceived. Of course there is no fraud if he knows he's buying a fake, or if the sale is obviously too good to be true."
In most conceivable real-world situations, where there is a knockoff, it is much cheaper, and also obviosly (apparently) inferior, and therefore, it's not a case of fraud, since the buyer does, or ought to, know it's not the genuine article. Where the knockoff is so good that it can fool the buyer, and he pays full price, and it's in a context where the buyer has no reason to be suspicious (the type of storefront, etc.)--in this case, the manufacturer is extremely good, and in such cases, such a manufacturer would probably set up his own shop under his own name anyway. At most he would compare his guitars to the leading brand--"Buy my Johnson--it's just as good as [or better] than a Fender--and 15% cheaper!" or whatever.
In the typical case, say a Gucci purse knockoff, the buyer clearly knows it's a knockoff. They go looking for knockoffs to buy.
In the rare case of a real trick on a stupid buyer, it's got nothing to do with copyright or reputation or trademark; it's simply a case of fraud (if not caveat emptor).
Caveat emptor; or fraud.
Fraud is a type of theft. Sure.
I really doubt that a *legitimate*, reputable store can get away with this for long. Therefore, the only real-world context one can imagine this happening, with in any sort of regularity or significance, is in some fly-by-night shady shop, where the buyer has enough clues to be aware of this anyway.
Published: September 22, 2007 1:49 AM
Billy Beck
"Some people here are throwing the concept 'fraud around very cavalierly. To allege fraud, you have to identify a victim of fraud. For the libertarian, this can only be the person you are dealing with--the person you are defrauding. If some knockoff artist sells a guitar with the 'Fender' label on it, it does not 'defraud Fender; the seller is not dealing with Fender, so how can it be defrauding Fender?"
It took you a while to notice what was going on in this discussion, Stephan, and it will serve you well to pay attention to everything that was actually written before you turned up, and stop being silly.
Published: September 22, 2007 8:58 PM
Wiggly
This is one area me and libertarians part company.
Intellectual property is property, period. Someone mentioned Bill Gates, a name we know because he has sold so many copies of software to people who willingly conceded their value and paid for them. As such copies of MS software DO have a value and price.
If someone works to rearrange bytes of data into something valuable that others will pay for, and DO pay for, agreeing to a contract in the process, then any attempt to claim it is "not real property" means that NOTHING is real property.
I find it fainly ridiculous, if not obscene, that one the one hand libertarians bemoan central banks printing fake money (because it steals the value of existing money) yet spit in the face of Gates on the topic of people stealing the value of his software? Either stealing the value of other's labor by making unauthorised copies of that which holds value is theft, or it isn't. Make your minds up!
W.
Published: September 24, 2007 12:48 PM
RWW
You (purposely?) misunderstand the argument against fiat money.
Published: September 24, 2007 3:40 PM