I'm not sure what kind of -ism would go with government protecting the interests of big business. Some kind of state-capitalism, I guess. Some people consider this part of fascism.
Actually Mussolini called his system, fascism, the corporate state. At first he started out as a communist/socialist but then Mussolini came to believe in a third way, between communism and capitalism. What's ironic is that FDR's New Deal was also the third way.
a very capitalistic thing. Not having patents or other IP protections would mean that effectively, the property belongs to The People - society as a whole. Quite a socialistic/communistic idea, wouldn't you say?
No, patents are government granted monopolies which real capitalism and free markets oppose. Of course the corporate aristocracy supports patents. But otherwise capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production and property. Patents are neither.
Patents, on the other hand, actually prevent the re-implementation without some form of agreement and/or compensation to the original author.
No, patents are only supposed to protect specific implementations as other have said above. If two people invent two different devices that do the same thing but in different ways neither one infringes on the other. Of course the Eolas case screwed that up.
The hammer/executable is neither patented nor copyrighted. But making a copy of the hammer/executable would be patent infringement. So the effect would be the same (you can't copy this unless I say so) except the duration of protection would be about 20 years instead of 70+ years.
That is not reasonable. Patents have a negative impact on economics.
A lot of things will seem obvious once I do all the engineering and testing and release the product, so why should I do that if my only guarantee is that you will follow my blueprint and profit off my work - not in addition to, but instead of, me?
Why should I spend my tyme and money to invent something when someone else can beat me to patenting it? After I spent all that tyme and effort someone else can block my use of my own hard work. However without patents I have an incentive to make my item better or cheaper. And if someone else can also make it then that only encourages me to do better and faster so I can have First mover advantage.
He claims that patents aren't intended for the benefit of the inventors, but for the benefit of society.
Well he is wrong because he fails to consider the incentives that patent protection creates.
The incentive of patent protection is to encourage disclosure for the benefit of society. "We will give you a tyme limited monopoly if you disclose your invention so that someone with the skills can make their own." Unfortunately as practiced today patents do not do that, instead they stifle innovation and progress.
Well, I think the main point he's making is that software programs are demonstrably equivalent to Turing machine, lambda calculus expressions and effective methods. Effective methods have never been patentable (I'm not sure if business method patents qualify however) and lambda calculus expressions are unquestionably mathematical expressions, and maths is not patentable.
However he, TFA writer Martin Goetz, argues software should be patentable.
I think that copyrights should still be used to protect a particular implementation of any algorithm in code. Not one or the other, black and white,
Except only specific implementations are supposed be patented. That is why reverse engineering is legal.
The big problem is that the USPTO can't seem to recognize when the situation does not call for a patent.
It's not just the patent office that don't know that patents are bad. But there has been a number of studies on the economic effects of patents, many of which find strong indications for patents having a negative impact.
You have a point about Linux users but the Mac users, especially the switchers are a fickle bunch who would happily go back to Windows if it meant their MSN Messenger would work the same as it used to. Mac's gained a small amount of market share over vista's crappiness but this has all been fixed(TM) in Windows 7 at least according to MS marketing.
I am one of those switchers, and I don't use MSN Messenger. The only IM client I have used is Yahoo! Messenger, which besides Windows in available for OS X, there is also a web based version. I didn't switch because of Vista's happiness's either, I switched because I wanted something stable and because I hate being treated like a criminal. I first switched to Linux for my desktop, which has the capabilities so I can setup it up as a server. Then for a laptop I got a MacBook Pro.
Many of the switchers I know were just as unhappy with their Macs as they were with their Vista boxes
Before I ever got my Linux PC and Mac I wondered why I ever got a Windows PC instead of a Mac, back when I got my first Windows PC you had to be a wizard to install and use Linux. But SGI Irix PCs were available.
so many are jumping at the chance to go back to 7 after being promised that it was all fixed(TM)
As long as Microsoft requires activation and spyware I will not willingly buy Windows or a Windows PC.
what about us dual booters. Like many Linux users I'm counted twice as I dual boot most machines I own.
Currently I have one PC that dual boots Redhat Linux and NT4, but I have not booted it up in years. I plan though to setup my Mac I'm typing this on to dualboot, Snow Leopard and Ubuntu.
I bet most of those using Windows 7 bought new PCs with it installed. Most people do not upgrade the OS their PC uses. And businesses as well as others who need to get work should wait until MS releases the first service pack before upgrading. Wait until MS fixes the bugs and holes.
I'm curious to know which category you would file patents in. Adam Smith dodged the question but you are still alive and so you can answer it. Tell us.
Me, I'd abolish patents. Here I'm arguing against software patents as I am here. Here with inventions altogether I argue inventors have the First mover advantage. I've argued that if patents are issued then their monopoly term should be shortened as well.
China, is so dependent on the US debt they hold, that they have no choice but to keep supplying the US with credit.
Now I consider that as totally different. What you said before was that the US was China's only customer when in fact it is not. Nor is China the US's only lender. India also owns a chunk of US debt. Both China and India compeat with each other to lend money to other nations as well. Both Chinese and Indian businessmen travel the world looking for places to invest money.
As for China being dependent on the US, because China has other customers they are not dependent on the US. Sure, if the US economy crashed China would suffer but they'd ride it out better than the US would. China's own domestic consumerism is growing.
I am highlighting the simplisticness of your question. Your argument is even more arbitrary than my numbers. You suppose that the purchasing power of the poor must rise but this is not the case.
No, you are spposing purchasing power must rise for the poor if the iPod is made in the US and not in China. They are made in China because it is cheaper to make them there. By making them here, they will neither cost less nor raise the wages of US workers.
The wealthiest of the US, to whom these profits are returning need not, and in fact do not, translate that wealth into dollars to help shore up the US economy.
The wealthy got that way by investing and if they have more money they will invest more which does help the economy. Are you really that dense so you don't understand that? Or are you trolling?
All this is relevant because the notion that returned profits from offshoring increases the wealth of the country, is heavily undermined if that wealth gets put into the hands of a functionally transnational section of society (i.e. people who invest and purchase internationally, rather than strictly domestically).
Do you see what I did there? I understood your reply and made a logical explanation of the problems with it, rather than just make comments about you pulling things from your arse.:)
And what you left out is that international investments go both ways, foreigners invest in the US and US citizens invest internationally. American Depositary Receipts or ADRs allow me, you, and any other American to buy stocks in foreign corporations. That is if the corporation is not listed on US exchanges, but many are. Those Japanese car manufacturers opening factories in the US, they are listed on US exchanges. For those who don't have enough to buy individual stocks, foreign or domestic, there are mutual funds. They allow money from many different people to be pooled and invested. Another way individuals can pool money is with investment clubs. Using them a person can put just say $10, less than the cost of 2 packs of cigarettes, a week into a pool. Add in the money saved by not buying a 6-pack of beer a day and growing some food in a garden and it adds up. There are a number of others ways people can save and invest money as well. Even a McDonald's employee can save and invest money, though they'd be better enrolling in college taking classes part tyme.
The low income can be investors, but it is logically flawed to say that this is a universal case. More frequently, people are living from month to month (sometimes week to week) trying to feed themselves and their families, pay for health care, keep a roof over their heads, etc.
They are also poor because they spent money to buy an iPod and had a family. I myself am one of the poor. Just an hour or two ago I got back from a food pantry where I picked up free food. My medical expenses are paid for with Medicare and Medical Assistance. I get them because I am disabled. So I don't go around spending money on lots of things I don't need. Nor did I get married or have children when I could not afford them
Where did you read any mentions about jobs in my post about debt ?
And where in my post did I say anything about debt?
The whole point of my post was to show that in fact China does not have just one customer. I included that in my post in respond to your saying China has just one customer.
I am honestly guessing you did not read any of the links I provided in my post...
You'r e right, I didn't. Instead I did my own research and provided the links I came up with. Now let's see what you post:
Beijing (The Guardian)- More than 450 slave workers - many of them maimed, burned and mentally scarred - have been rescued from Chinese brick factories in an investigation into illegal labour camps, it emerged yesterday.
Notice where is says "illegal labour camps". Illegal is not legal and is not condoned by the government.
The victims, including children as young as 14, were reportedly abducted or tricked into labouring at the kilns, where they toiled for 16 to 20 hours a day for no pay and barely enough food to live.
Abducted or tricked? Those are illegal as well. Going over the rest, they were illegal too. Oh but that makes all employers in China bad. By that standard the US is bad too. Because some US employers are bad they all are. Look at all those illegal aliens being employed. Look at the substandard building materials being used. Look at all the so called accidents, most of which are not accidents but is instead negligence if not malfeasance. As a college student I was hit one day after classes leaving me with a disability and because the driver was working and driving his employer's van the company is ooh so bad.
What would we need to do to have a pure free market as you suggest in this country?
I wouldn't, don't, say have a pure free market but make it freer than it is. If a business employer offers employees health insurance the business will get a tax break. However if I, you, or anyone else goes and buy their own health insurance then we do not get the same tax break. The business has their taxes cut but we have to pay just as much in taxes, it obviously better for the employer. What I want is a level playing field, businesses get tax cuts so should individuals. I also want to be able to cross state lines to buy health insurance, that is not possible now because each state regulates insurance. If an insurance company in Florida offers lower priced insurance there than in my state I should be able to buy from the Florida company.
I's also like to be able to open a walk-in clinic in my neighborhood. Before she died Mother Teresa tried to open a homeless shelter in NYC but the city demanded one requirement after another until she dropped her plan. The city cared more about it's rules than about the homeless. Things like this and zoning laws make it hard to open low cost walk-in clinics in areas where they can help people.
Get rid of medicare and medicaid. Aside from those programs, pretty much we have market driven health insurance and health care today
See above, there isn't much market driven health care. As for Medicare, which I am on, and Medicaid I say get rid of them. What I would do instead is have health insurance policy issuers pay into a pool which would then provide insurance for those who can not get insurance, either because no one will sell them insurance or because they can not afford it. I'd also require insurance to accept preexisting medical conditions. Now so there isn't a misunderstanding, I would not require insurance to pay for everything, for instance if someone without insurance breaks an arm then applies for insurance, it would not have to cover the broken arm. However if a diabetic gets a new policy, after say a year it would have to cover diabetes. As I said above I get Medicare. I get it because I am disabled, now if I were to get a private health insurance after a year it would cover my disability.
One last thing, I'd have all medical expenses tax deductible. That is insurance, treatments, and medications.
What I laid out isn't a compleatly free market but it's freer than the market is now.
And what you miss is the US is the third largest exporter in the world. While the US imports more it exports a lot too. Here's what the US exports to China.
I think this guy is missing the obvious. Who is guying the Ipods....Americans. That means every time apple sells an Ipod there is a net flow of $4 to china.
And you're missing something. Every tyme a Chinese buys something made in the US money flows from China to the US.
I don't see the Chinese buying products manufactured here.
Because you're not looking and seeing the whole picture. Behind Germany and China the US was the third largest exporter in 2007. Here are some things China buys from the US.
Remember that this profit still exists after paying workers wages to make these goods, which still has far more significant benefits for the economic security of a country that 'net profit' to one company.
The Right Wing nuts always choose ignore this fact
More like anti-capitalists ignore the fact that most people want to make money and communism failed. Why do so many people oppose voluntary exchanges of goods and services?
Slashdot Mirror
No patents mean anyone can copy the invention without paying the inventor, so I win that argument.
Because the inventor has the first mover advantage you lose.
the inventor has full rights to profit from the invention
Again you lose here too. No no one, inventor or not, has the right to a profit. All anybody has the right to is to attempt to make a profit.
Lol, the walling off is to protect the weak (inventors) from abuse (copycat jackals, greedy companies and consumers).
Yea, Microsoft is so weak. NOT!!!
Falcon
I'm not sure what kind of -ism would go with government protecting the interests of big business. Some kind of state-capitalism, I guess. Some people consider this part of fascism.
Actually Mussolini called his system, fascism, the corporate state. At first he started out as a communist/socialist but then Mussolini came to believe in a third way, between communism and capitalism. What's ironic is that FDR's New Deal was also the third way.
Falcon
even in a hypothetic society where there is no government, so long as large corporations persist
If there were no government there would be no corporations. It's government that gives corporations their corporate charters.
Falcon
a very capitalistic thing. Not having patents or other IP protections would mean that effectively, the property belongs to The People - society as a whole. Quite a socialistic/communistic idea, wouldn't you say?
No, patents are government granted monopolies which real capitalism and free markets oppose. Of course the corporate aristocracy supports patents. But otherwise capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production and property. Patents are neither.
Falcon
Patents, on the other hand, actually prevent the re-implementation without some form of agreement and/or compensation to the original author.
No, patents are only supposed to protect specific implementations as other have said above. If two people invent two different devices that do the same thing but in different ways neither one infringes on the other. Of course the Eolas case screwed that up.
Falcon
The hammer/executable is neither patented nor copyrighted. But making a copy of the hammer/executable would be patent infringement. So the effect would be the same (you can't copy this unless I say so) except the duration of protection would be about 20 years instead of 70+ years.
That is not reasonable. Patents have a negative impact on economics.
Falcon
An alternative to pharmaceutical patents
Falcon
our whole patent system in the U.S. should be completely dismantled.
Many economists and I agree. Patents have a negative impact on the economy.
Falcon
A lot of things will seem obvious once I do all the engineering and testing and release the product, so why should I do that if my only guarantee is that you will follow my blueprint and profit off my work - not in addition to, but instead of, me?
Why should I spend my tyme and money to invent something when someone else can beat me to patenting it? After I spent all that tyme and effort someone else can block my use of my own hard work. However without patents I have an incentive to make my item better or cheaper. And if someone else can also make it then that only encourages me to do better and faster so I can have First mover advantage.
Patents are the problem.
Falcon
He claims that patents aren't intended for the benefit of the inventors, but for the benefit of society.
Well he is wrong because he fails to consider the incentives that patent protection creates.
The incentive of patent protection is to encourage disclosure for the benefit of society. "We will give you a tyme limited monopoly if you disclose your invention so that someone with the skills can make their own." Unfortunately as practiced today patents do not do that, instead they stifle innovation and progress.
Falcon
Well, I think the main point he's making is that software programs are demonstrably equivalent to Turing machine, lambda calculus expressions and effective methods. Effective methods have never been patentable (I'm not sure if business method patents qualify however) and lambda calculus expressions are unquestionably mathematical expressions, and maths is not patentable.
However he, TFA writer Martin Goetz, argues software should be patentable.
Falcon
I think that copyrights should still be used to protect a particular implementation of any algorithm in code. Not one or the other, black and white,
Except only specific implementations are supposed be patented. That is why reverse engineering is legal.
The big problem is that the USPTO can't seem to recognize when the situation does not call for a patent.
It's not just the patent office that don't know that patents are bad. But there has been a number of studies on the economic effects of patents, many of which find strong indications for patents having a negative impact.
Falcon
You have a point about Linux users but the Mac users, especially the switchers are a fickle bunch who would happily go back to Windows if it meant their MSN Messenger would work the same as it used to. Mac's gained a small amount of market share over vista's crappiness but this has all been fixed(TM) in Windows 7 at least according to MS marketing.
I am one of those switchers, and I don't use MSN Messenger. The only IM client I have used is Yahoo! Messenger, which besides Windows in available for OS X, there is also a web based version. I didn't switch because of Vista's happiness's either, I switched because I wanted something stable and because I hate being treated like a criminal. I first switched to Linux for my desktop, which has the capabilities so I can setup it up as a server. Then for a laptop I got a MacBook Pro.
Many of the switchers I know were just as unhappy with their Macs as they were with their Vista boxes
Before I ever got my Linux PC and Mac I wondered why I ever got a Windows PC instead of a Mac, back when I got my first Windows PC you had to be a wizard to install and use Linux. But SGI Irix PCs were available.
so many are jumping at the chance to go back to 7 after being promised that it was all fixed(TM)
As long as Microsoft requires activation and spyware I will not willingly buy Windows or a Windows PC.
what about us dual booters. Like many Linux users I'm counted twice as I dual boot most machines I own.
Currently I have one PC that dual boots Redhat Linux and NT4, but I have not booted it up in years. I plan though to setup my Mac I'm typing this on to dualboot, Snow Leopard and Ubuntu.
Falcon
I bet most of those using Windows 7 bought new PCs with it installed. Most people do not upgrade the OS their PC uses. And businesses as well as others who need to get work should wait until MS releases the first service pack before upgrading. Wait until MS fixes the bugs and holes.
Falcon
I'm curious to know which category you would file patents in. Adam Smith dodged the question but you are still alive and so you can answer it. Tell us.
Me, I'd abolish patents. Here I'm arguing against software patents as I am here. Here with inventions altogether I argue inventors have the First mover advantage. I've argued that if patents are issued then their monopoly term should be shortened as well.
If I had my way patents would be abolished.
Falcon
China, is so dependent on the US debt they hold, that they have no choice but to keep supplying the US with credit.
Now I consider that as totally different. What you said before was that the US was China's only customer when in fact it is not. Nor is China the US's only lender. India also owns a chunk of US debt. Both China and India compeat with each other to lend money to other nations as well. Both Chinese and Indian businessmen travel the world looking for places to invest money.
As for China being dependent on the US, because China has other customers they are not dependent on the US. Sure, if the US economy crashed China would suffer but they'd ride it out better than the US would. China's own domestic consumerism is growing.
Falcon
There's a reason real people don't listen to libertarians. They're economically illiterate.
No, communists and socialists are economically illiterate.
Falcon
I am highlighting the simplisticness of your question. Your argument is even more arbitrary than my numbers. You suppose that the purchasing power of the poor must rise but this is not the case.
No, you are spposing purchasing power must rise for the poor if the iPod is made in the US and not in China. They are made in China because it is cheaper to make them there. By making them here, they will neither cost less nor raise the wages of US workers.
The wealthiest of the US, to whom these profits are returning need not, and in fact do not, translate that wealth into dollars to help shore up the US economy.
The wealthy got that way by investing and if they have more money they will invest more which does help the economy. Are you really that dense so you don't understand that? Or are you trolling?
They don't pay much tax, either.
Are you really saying the wealthy don't pay taxes either? The Top 1% Pay More Income Tax Than Bottom 90%. Through 1999 the top 5% pay 50% of all taxes. And that comes from the Congressional Budget Office. For an argument of who pays more How much tax do the Jones' pay? has the arguments for both why the rich pay more and why they don't.
All this is relevant because the notion that returned profits from offshoring increases the wealth of the country, is heavily undermined if that wealth gets put into the hands of a functionally transnational section of society (i.e. people who invest and purchase internationally, rather than strictly domestically).
Do you see what I did there? I understood your reply and made a logical explanation of the problems with it, rather than just make comments about you pulling things from your arse. :)
And what you left out is that international investments go both ways, foreigners invest in the US and US citizens invest internationally. American Depositary Receipts or ADRs allow me, you, and any other American to buy stocks in foreign corporations. That is if the corporation is not listed on US exchanges, but many are. Those Japanese car manufacturers opening factories in the US, they are listed on US exchanges. For those who don't have enough to buy individual stocks, foreign or domestic, there are mutual funds. They allow money from many different people to be pooled and invested. Another way individuals can pool money is with investment clubs. Using them a person can put just say $10, less than the cost of 2 packs of cigarettes, a week into a pool. Add in the money saved by not buying a 6-pack of beer a day and growing some food in a garden and it adds up. There are a number of others ways people can save and invest money as well. Even a McDonald's employee can save and invest money, though they'd be better enrolling in college taking classes part tyme.
The low income can be investors, but it is logically flawed to say that this is a universal case. More frequently, people are living from month to month (sometimes week to week) trying to feed themselves and their families, pay for health care, keep a roof over their heads, etc.
They are also poor because they spent money to buy an iPod and had a family. I myself am one of the poor. Just an hour or two ago I got back from a food pantry where I picked up free food. My medical expenses are paid for with Medicare and Medical Assistance. I get them because I am disabled. So I don't go around spending money on lots of things I don't need. Nor did I get married or have children when I could not afford them
Where did you read any mentions about jobs in my post about debt ?
And where in my post did I say anything about debt?
The whole point of my post was to show that in fact China does not have just one customer. I included that in my post in respond to your saying China has just one customer.
Falcon
I am honestly guessing you did not read any of the links I provided in my post...
You'r e right, I didn't. Instead I did my own research and provided the links I came up with. Now let's see what you post:
Beijing (The Guardian)- More than 450 slave workers - many of them maimed, burned and mentally scarred - have been rescued from Chinese brick factories in an investigation into illegal labour camps, it emerged yesterday.
Notice where is says "illegal labour camps". Illegal is not legal and is not condoned by the government.
The victims, including children as young as 14, were reportedly abducted or tricked into labouring at the kilns, where they toiled for 16 to 20 hours a day for no pay and barely enough food to live.
Abducted or tricked? Those are illegal as well. Going over the rest, they were illegal too. Oh but that makes all employers in China bad. By that standard the US is bad too. Because some US employers are bad they all are. Look at all those illegal aliens being employed. Look at the substandard building materials being used. Look at all the so called accidents, most of which are not accidents but is instead negligence if not malfeasance. As a college student I was hit one day after classes leaving me with a disability and because the driver was working and driving his employer's van the company is ooh so bad.
Falcon
What would we need to do to have a pure free market as you suggest in this country?
I wouldn't, don't, say have a pure free market but make it freer than it is. If a business employer offers employees health insurance the business will get a tax break. However if I, you, or anyone else goes and buy their own health insurance then we do not get the same tax break. The business has their taxes cut but we have to pay just as much in taxes, it obviously better for the employer. What I want is a level playing field, businesses get tax cuts so should individuals. I also want to be able to cross state lines to buy health insurance, that is not possible now because each state regulates insurance. If an insurance company in Florida offers lower priced insurance there than in my state I should be able to buy from the Florida company.
I's also like to be able to open a walk-in clinic in my neighborhood. Before she died Mother Teresa tried to open a homeless shelter in NYC but the city demanded one requirement after another until she dropped her plan. The city cared more about it's rules than about the homeless. Things like this and zoning laws make it hard to open low cost walk-in clinics in areas where they can help people.
Get rid of medicare and medicaid. Aside from those programs, pretty much we have market driven health insurance and health care today
See above, there isn't much market driven health care. As for Medicare, which I am on, and Medicaid I say get rid of them. What I would do instead is have health insurance policy issuers pay into a pool which would then provide insurance for those who can not get insurance, either because no one will sell them insurance or because they can not afford it. I'd also require insurance to accept preexisting medical conditions. Now so there isn't a misunderstanding, I would not require insurance to pay for everything, for instance if someone without insurance breaks an arm then applies for insurance, it would not have to cover the broken arm. However if a diabetic gets a new policy, after say a year it would have to cover diabetes. As I said above I get Medicare. I get it because I am disabled, now if I were to get a private health insurance after a year it would cover my disability.
One last thing, I'd have all medical expenses tax deductible. That is insurance, treatments, and medications.
What I laid out isn't a compleatly free market but it's freer than the market is now.
Falcon
That'll drive up the price of land. But don't worry, the market will fix it - people will produce more of it.
Fixed.
Falcon
And what you miss is the US is the third largest exporter in the world. While the US imports more it exports a lot too. Here's what the US exports to China.
Falcon
I think this guy is missing the obvious. Who is guying the Ipods....Americans. That means every time apple sells an Ipod there is a net flow of $4 to china.
And you're missing something. Every tyme a Chinese buys something made in the US money flows from China to the US.
I don't see the Chinese buying products manufactured here.
Because you're not looking and seeing the whole picture. Behind Germany and China the US was the third largest exporter in 2007. Here are some things China buys from the US.
Falcon
Remember that this profit still exists after paying workers wages to make these goods, which still has far more significant benefits for the economic security of a country that 'net profit' to one company.
The Right Wing nuts always choose ignore this fact
More like anti-capitalists ignore the fact that most people want to make money and communism failed. Why do so many people oppose voluntary exchanges of goods and services?
Falcon