> Look, this is part of my ongoing interest in how the
> hell we're going to pay for journalism and popular art
> in a world where everyone wants stuff on the Internet
> for free. His isn't the last word, but it's all worth thinking
> about.
Any (conventional) public-finance economist would say -- "Music, journalism, popular art, etc. are nonrivalrous and very expensive to exclude, hence they fit very closely the definition of 'public goods.'
The market will fail in trying to provide them. They should be publicly provided."
So, basically, we need our public agencies to tax us as individuals (ideally, take from us the net marginal benefit each of us gets from the goods) and use the proceeds to compensate the producers. If the tax equals the "vertical" sum of the individual marginal benefits (so-called "consumer surplus"), then -- bingo! -- we will be providing ourselves and consuming the socially optimal amount of music, journalism, etc.
Easier said than done.