The Yen was deflating fairly recently. It has since gone back to very modest inflation, which is a good thing because it means the Japanese economy is finally growing again.
Did you not read my question? I'm not saying that fiat currency can't deflate or only inflate at a small pace over shorter periods of time. I'm saying that fiat currency will inflate at a much much higher rate than a gold currency.
Currencies can inflate or deflate based on a number of factors, and the ability of the government to print more money is only one of them.
Yes, another allowing banks to create money out of thin air because they can loan money out against a debt.
Inflation isn't just a function of money supply, its a funciton of velocity - how quickly that money changes hands. You could spend gold coins on ten different items, or you could spend one gold coin ten times on each different item.... but the price per item would remain at one gold coin because the change in velocity has negated the change in money supply.
Read the mises link someone posted and tell me why it's wrong. It makes alot more sense than you do
This is to point out but one reason that the notion that there would be no inflation under a gold-backed money regime is clearly wrong. To pick historical examples of inflation in gold-backed economies, there was significant inflation throughout Eurasia during the 12th to 14th centuries, the 16th-17th and centuries, and the later 18th and early 19th century.
Of course there would be some fluctuations in a gold economy but they would be alot smaller because you can't make gold out of thin air.
You can't seriously propose that fiat money and gold money are even near each other in stability.
Yes, theoretically fiat currency could be as scarce as gold and not be overproduced. But could you name even one fiat currency that isn't inflating and hasn't been inflating? I didn't think so. Why then would you propose that paper money and gold money is more or less equivalent when they clearly are not other than in theory?
The report is anti patent, yes? It shows that less innovation has taken place in absolute numbers after patents are introduced.
I asked you to provide some sort of empirical evidence that strongly suggests that patents are beneficial. I think I did anyway, you shouldn't have answered to that malformed post as half of it disappeared.
"Well, the status quo would be one form of evidence - tons of drugs on the market and patents are currently allowed. Obviously it is hard to do experimentation without making it an all-or-nothing proposition.
"
The only thing that 'status quo' shows is that patents do not devastate the medical research completely. Really convincing evidence should show a clear increase before and after patents. I'm not necessarily talking about an increase in absolute numbers mind you.
"
Another piece of evidence is pediatric extensions. A recent law (well, that is in the last 20 years) allowed pharam companies to extend their drug patents if they did testing on pediatric formulations of their drugs. As a result almost all major drugs are tested for pediatric use. Before the law this was very rare - who is going to test cholesterol medication on children when the market is non-existant? However, the fact is that a small number of kids do need this medication and as a result of the patent extension the companies have incentive to perform the testing. If the patent extension wasn't needed it would have been done before, but it wasn't."
That only shows that if you subsidize something it has a positive effect for the thing subsidized and a negative effect on everyone else. It has nothing to do with patents per se.
"
Rather than just abolishing drug patents, there is a middle-ground solution. You could just have the NIH fund drug research, defensively patenting the resulting compounds and licensing them for free use by anyone. Then after a few years or a decade you could see how well publicly-funded medicine works out in comparison to the pharma industry. Patients would have a selection of cheap public medicines and expensive private ones. If the public R&D works out well, then the private industry will dwindle and the patent issue becomes moot. If the public R&D effort becomes a boondoggle as libertarian-minded folks argue, then it will be obvious and we will still at least have the status quo. This is better than just abolishing patents and potentially decimating the entire drug industry, which would be slow to recover even if the laws were reversed (after all, investors will be shy to spend a lot if the public could just destroy their investments again in the future)."
Of course there are different sollutions. A revamp of the patent system is needed. I propose that it should be abolished but anything is better than now. I'm not really interested in a utilitarian debate on how patents should be reformed because I'm not sure I could do it well in english and I definately would have problems doing it within the slashdot comment system. I'm interested if there are any reports that supports the thesis that patents increase inovation.
My comment was horribly mangled and half of it dissappeared that's why I told you to ignore it. I was referring to this report, chapter nine: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/again st.htm
The point was that patent protection did not increase the ammount of drugs created. It also leads to patenting of redundant drugs and redundant drugs are bad from a utilitarian perspective. Note that I nor the report are talking not talking about redundant drugs per se.
Read the report if you want to. I don't have the time to write a decent reply.
See the against intellectual property report chapter nine.
"In fact, only 238 out of 1035 drugs approved by the FDA contained
new active ingredients and were given priority ratings on the base of
their clinical performances. In other words, about 77% percent of
what the FDA approves is "redundant" from the strictly medical
point of view.""Research by Sandy Weisburst and mentored by me showed,
for example, that Italy, with a vibrant generic drug industry,
did not achieve any significant increase in the discovery of
innovative drugs during the first decade after the Italian
Supreme Court mandated the issue of pharmaceutical
product patents.
Sounds more or less correct. This is Abraham Lincolns own words:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union."
Basically he didn't give a shit about the slaves.
Slashdot Mirror
Would it be bad if someone took away a few percent of your house every year? I mean it gives incentives to spend money (for house repairs).
Did you not read my question? I'm not saying that fiat currency can't deflate or only inflate at a small pace over shorter periods of time. I'm saying that fiat currency will inflate at a much much higher rate than a gold currency.
Yes, another allowing banks to create money out of thin air because they can loan money out against a debt.
Read the mises link someone posted and tell me why it's wrong. It makes alot more sense than you do
Of course there would be some fluctuations in a gold economy but they would be alot smaller because you can't make gold out of thin air.
You can't seriously propose that fiat money and gold money are even near each other in stability.
Yes, theoretically fiat currency could be as scarce as gold and not be overproduced. But could you name even one fiat currency that isn't inflating and hasn't been inflating? I didn't think so. Why then would you propose that paper money and gold money is more or less equivalent when they clearly are not other than in theory?
g as-for-89-cents-per-gallon-today/
If I'm not mistaken the price of gas measured in gold is lower than it's ever been.
Source: http://gold.unanimocracy.com/2006/05/15/i-bought-
Can this be because theory and practice differs somewhat?
I asked you to provide some sort of empirical evidence that strongly suggests that patents are beneficial. I think I did anyway, you shouldn't have answered to that malformed post as half of it disappeared.
Thank you for the debate.
The only thing that 'status quo' shows is that patents do not devastate the medical research completely. Really convincing evidence should show a clear increase before and after patents. I'm not necessarily talking about an increase in absolute numbers mind you.
That only shows that if you subsidize something it has a positive effect for the thing subsidized and a negative effect on everyone else. It has nothing to do with patents per se.
Of course there are different sollutions. A revamp of the patent system is needed. I propose that it should be abolished but anything is better than now. I'm not really interested in a utilitarian debate on how patents should be reformed because I'm not sure I could do it well in english and I definately would have problems doing it within the slashdot comment system. I'm interested if there are any reports that supports the thesis that patents increase inovation.
Thank you for taking time. Have you seen any empirical evidence that supports patents?
My comment was horribly mangled and half of it dissappeared that's why I told you to ignore it. I was referring to this report, chapter nine: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/again st.htm
The point was that patent protection did not increase the ammount of drugs created. It also leads to patenting of redundant drugs and redundant drugs are bad from a utilitarian perspective. Note that I nor the report are talking not talking about redundant drugs per se.
Read the report if you want to. I don't have the time to write a decent reply.
Goddamnit. Ignore my poor mangled comment. I can't even hit the preview button if I try.
See the against intellectual property report chapter nine. "In fact, only 238 out of 1035 drugs approved by the FDA contained new active ingredients and were given priority ratings on the base of their clinical performances. In other words, about 77% percent of what the FDA approves is "redundant" from the strictly medical point of view." "Research by Sandy Weisburst and mentored by me showed, for example, that Italy, with a vibrant generic drug industry, did not achieve any significant increase in the discovery of innovative drugs during the first decade after the Italian Supreme Court mandated the issue of pharmaceutical product patents.
Sounds more or less correct. This is Abraham Lincolns own words: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." Basically he didn't give a shit about the slaves.