You're making my head hurt. In a purely capitalist system-- which I am not advocating, again-- the government wouldn't give loans to companies or bail them out because it wouldn't be allowed to. Doing so requires POLITICAL interference via government. Socialists might actually be OK with that as long as the government is also allowed to exert control over the market-- which of course, is not very capitalist.
I wasn't advocating a pure capitalist system. I was pointing out that the idea of "government bailing out corporations" in a capitalist system was extremist nonsense.
You don't, fortunately. But we long ago passed the sweet spot, where reasonable regulations minimized fraud protected the consumer, to the current state of crony capitalism.
Sure there is. Most of their debtors could default at the same time most of their depositors withdrew their funds. Unlikely, but possible. Fractional reserve banking, which is not only legal but practiced by the Fed, helps make this possible.
Government bailing out corporations? That's definitely not a free-market principle, and we'd all benefit if such ridiculous falsehoods weren't spouted off by every junior blogger. Whether you like capitalism or not, in a pure system a failed company fails and whatever assets it has go to its creditors.
As already pointed out the existing world wide patent regime is only putting roadblocks into innovation by making sure that the only ones who innovate are the ones that can run multi decade lawsuit wars about ill granted patents on quasi generic topics about mildly similar processes.
Sounds like a legal problem, not a problem with the patent concept.
There's more on the page about patents and registered trademarks than the tech itself. Tell me again how IP law encourages creativity?
It wouldn't have been created in the first place if the company wasn't able to make money off of it. You see, when a company wants to create something new, they often spend millions of dollars on R&D. Who's going to do that if someone else clones the product within a few months, before they've even recouped their costs? The length and scope of patents is arguable; the value of patents to technological progress is not.
Does anyone think that the time that oil might give us will be used to seriously look for alternatives? Hell no, we'll probably see them start building Hummers again!
"Them" must refer to GM, which is now owned by the federal government, so blame Obama if that happens. OK, so GM starts building Obummers. Who's going to buy them? People with alzheimers? Oh, I forgot. You're one of those elitist Marxists who thinks you're more brilliant than the great unwashed. Ironic.
The interstate system was created post-war for defense an technological reasons: not for a "stimulus". The earlier U.S. highway system was created in the middle of the 1920s economic boom: again, not a "stimulus". Good government does things like these to make the country stronger, not to enrich the pockets of cronies in the name of "stimulus".
I believe the debate was over the impact of carbon dioxide on the global mean temperature and whether any temperature increases were caused by man-- not whether carbon dioxide levels were increasing. But thanks for trolling.
Protip: we have both consumer protection laws and sugar maple trees in the USA. The fake stuff is called "pancake syrup"; calling it "maple syrup" would be fraudulent. And Vermont is very proud of its maple syrup.
The ability to reproduce is even more important that the survival of an individual in some species. There are insect species that don't even seek nourishment as an adult.
It's not unrelated. His opinion is that, considering how the war in both countries has dragged out, he remains skeptical of any talk of leaving EITHER. It's relevant to his opinion on the report. This only requires moderate reading comprehension, which you and Sir Razzlefrog the Snarky appear to lack.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not pick on Sotomayor or Stephens, then?
You're making my head hurt. In a purely capitalist system-- which I am not advocating, again-- the government wouldn't give loans to companies or bail them out because it wouldn't be allowed to. Doing so requires POLITICAL interference via government. Socialists might actually be OK with that as long as the government is also allowed to exert control over the market-- which of course, is not very capitalist.
I wasn't advocating a pure capitalist system. I was pointing out that the idea of "government bailing out corporations" in a capitalist system was extremist nonsense.
You don't, fortunately. But we long ago passed the sweet spot, where reasonable regulations minimized fraud protected the consumer, to the current state of crony capitalism.
Sure there is. Most of their debtors could default at the same time most of their depositors withdrew their funds. Unlikely, but possible. Fractional reserve banking, which is not only legal but practiced by the Fed, helps make this possible.
Government bailing out corporations? That's definitely not a free-market principle, and we'd all benefit if such ridiculous falsehoods weren't spouted off by every junior blogger. Whether you like capitalism or not, in a pure system a failed company fails and whatever assets it has go to its creditors.
Sounds like a legal problem, not a problem with the patent concept.
It wouldn't have been created in the first place if the company wasn't able to make money off of it. You see, when a company wants to create something new, they often spend millions of dollars on R&D. Who's going to do that if someone else clones the product within a few months, before they've even recouped their costs? The length and scope of patents is arguable; the value of patents to technological progress is not.
The two men you mentioned are not politicians, and I fail to understand why you would want to harass them.
"Them" must refer to GM, which is now owned by the federal government, so blame Obama if that happens. OK, so GM starts building Obummers. Who's going to buy them? People with alzheimers? Oh, I forgot. You're one of those elitist Marxists who thinks you're more brilliant than the great unwashed. Ironic.
Sounds like Big Appliance needs a windfall profits tax!
North Dakota.
The interstate system was created post-war for defense an technological reasons: not for a "stimulus". The earlier U.S. highway system was created in the middle of the 1920s economic boom: again, not a "stimulus". Good government does things like these to make the country stronger, not to enrich the pockets of cronies in the name of "stimulus".
Fewer expensive two-hour jaunts by the President to stump for other Democrats on election day, paid for by the taxpayers... nah, that won't happen.
I believe the debate was over the impact of carbon dioxide on the global mean temperature and whether any temperature increases were caused by man-- not whether carbon dioxide levels were increasing. But thanks for trolling.
Protip: we have both consumer protection laws and sugar maple trees in the USA. The fake stuff is called "pancake syrup"; calling it "maple syrup" would be fraudulent. And Vermont is very proud of its maple syrup.
AIM didn't have netsplits.
He probably lives in Upper Darby.
So your point is that incompetence is dangerous, right? Maybe they shouldn't have pumped hundreds of barrels of soap into the hole.
No, kinda like people arguing that we could never fly faster than sound were discredited.
Straw man much?
The ability to reproduce is even more important that the survival of an individual in some species. There are insect species that don't even seek nourishment as an adult.
Your retort is a bit odd, being that tea party types usually lean quite libertarian and would agree with Ron Paul on his less radical opinions.
It's not unrelated. His opinion is that, considering how the war in both countries has dragged out, he remains skeptical of any talk of leaving EITHER. It's relevant to his opinion on the report. This only requires moderate reading comprehension, which you and Sir Razzlefrog the Snarky appear to lack.
FTFY