> Transparency doesn't stiffle innovation it allows any innovation to spread quickly across the whole market which enables further innovation.
Not necessarily. It can happen in some cases, but in others it leads to a lack of innovative behavior because you shouldn’t invest in generating trade secrets or better products because you can just wait for your competitor to do so and then just obtain what they do. This is well understood.
> There are places where there's transparency about this. And they don't fare worse than other places.
What are you basing this claim on?
> Yes. Exactly. I'm afraid of disclosing my address because published addresses are rare.
Well your address is public record and can be obtained easily, but if transparency is a moral virtue as you claim I find it odd that you need others to engage in moral behavior before you do so.
With that being said, I publish my real name and a link to my LinkedIn profile so anyone who reads a comment can attribute it to me (good or bad). I actually find it helps engage better online, so I guess there is some virtue to transparency. Why not do the same in your profile?
> Not necessarily. It can happen in some cases, but in others it leads to a lack of innovative behavior because you shouldn’t invest in generating trade secrets or better products because you can just wait for your competitor to do so and then just obtain what they do. This is well understood.
It's a theory proposed in the defence of intellectual property system. There's zero actual evidence for it that I know of. But there's evidence that economies that disregarded intelectual property rights can grow and become dominant or at least seriously challenge current leaders. UK, USA, Germany, China and others became what they were and are today by blatantly copying innovation with complete disregard to any intellectual property which they introduced only after they rose to prominence to stifle competition.
> transparency is a moral virtue as you claim I find it odd that you need others to engage in moral behavior before you do so
People are immoral by nature. Being moral while others are not puts you at a disadvantage. I have no idea why are you surprised by my reluctance.
I don't do what you do because it wouldn't bring me any benefit.
> Continued existence of the entire country of Norway.
Compared to what? Quality of life? Median income per-person? Longevity? Norway existing and having this feature in absence of some comparable isn’t very helpful.
But also how are you going to account for cultural differences and expectations? Or are you asserting that this is good for all countries no matter what?
> It's a theory proposed in the defence of intellectual property system. There's zero actual evidence for it that I know of.
I don’t think it’s a defense of the intellectual property system although perhaps others have mixed the two. You don’t need an intellectual property system to find the behaviors of companies or other mercantile endeavors where secrets were kept to obtain an advantage. Many companies today don’t publish or try to protect their IP because the act of publishing it makes it open to reverse engineering.
Do you know of any country or even company for that matter that is completely open about all trade secrets, strategic plans, hiring decisions, or other business related activities? Can I see the CEO’s calendar, or read their internal chat messages or email?
> I don't do what you do because it wouldn't bring me any benefit.
> I have no idea why are you surprised by my reluctance.
I wouldn’t say I’m surprised, but it undermines your strong moral claims around transparency in my view. If you won’t be transparent, then why should others? Someone has to be first. Why not you?
> Compared to what? Quality of life? Median income per-person? Longevity?
Whatever. If the argument is that transparency of income inevitably leads to some kind catastrophy then it's your burden to explain why it didn't lead to any catastrophy in Norway. And that's impossible since there are so many factors at play as you noticed that you can't really convlusively prove that income transparency is not benign or even beneficial by itself.
> Many companies today don’t publish or try to protect their IP because the act of publishing it makes it open to reverse engineering.
That's true. Because for them it's not worth it. You could make it worth it for them if you strengthened the external incentive. For example let products on the market only if details of their operation are properly documented and published. We are doing something like that about impotrant products like food which composition must be revealed.
You want to keep your secret ingredients in your food a secret? Sure, but you need to sell it in some other country. We could be doing that about all products which would offer immense consumer protections.
> Do you know of any country or even company for that matter that is completely open about all trade secrets, strategic plans, hiring decisions, or other business related activities? Can I see the CEO’s calendar, or read their internal chat messages or email?
Unfortunately not, but there are some rules about public companies that let you get a lot of very enlightening information about them. I really see no downside to extending those rules to all companies and extending the scope of those rules as much as possible. Imagine how many environmental and health disasters could be avoided.
> Someone has to be first. Why not you?
Because it doesn't work like that. If I do it, it doesn't improve probability of others doing it. It might even lower it because being moral among a morals puts me at visible disadvantage. And benefits of transparency grows with the number of transparent entities.
It's the same argument as with millionaires whi want higher taxation on millionaires. Why they don't just tax themselves voluntarily? Because others wouldn't follow and it's not about taxing them and putting themselves at disadvantage. It's about taxing all, so that the poor can benefit but it's still fair game between the rich.
> I wouldn’t say I’m surprised, but it undermines your strong moral claims around transparency in my view.
I never claimed to be a moral person myself. I won't do things I consider moral and benefit to society if they put me at a disadvantage. But that doesn't make me not see that those things in fact are moral and would benefit the society if they were enforced on everybody equally including me.
Not necessarily. It can happen in some cases, but in others it leads to a lack of innovative behavior because you shouldn’t invest in generating trade secrets or better products because you can just wait for your competitor to do so and then just obtain what they do. This is well understood.
> There are places where there's transparency about this. And they don't fare worse than other places.
What are you basing this claim on?
> Yes. Exactly. I'm afraid of disclosing my address because published addresses are rare.
Well your address is public record and can be obtained easily, but if transparency is a moral virtue as you claim I find it odd that you need others to engage in moral behavior before you do so.
With that being said, I publish my real name and a link to my LinkedIn profile so anyone who reads a comment can attribute it to me (good or bad). I actually find it helps engage better online, so I guess there is some virtue to transparency. Why not do the same in your profile?