surreal and more surreal

[Trinidad]

Patents distort the free market.

?!?

 

If there is one thing that can really be traded freely it is a patent. If you hold one, you can sell it to anybody who is interested and if you are interested in one you can buy it from the owner. Nobody will stop you.

 

The problem you have is that you are not willing to pay the market price for it. And then you conveniently call it a distortion of the free market.

 

I don't know whether you own some land somewhere, but your remark is as silly as saying that the deeds to register land ownership distort the free market. I can't build my dream house without buying the right to build it on a piece of land first. It's a distortion of the free market!

 

It is pretty simple:

- If you want intellectual property, you either buy it or you do the research and develop it yourself. Either way is fine, but it is going to cost money.

- If you want a piece of land, you either buy it or you take a lake, put in some dikes and windmills, and make it yourself. Either way is fine, but it is going to cost money.

 

What you want is for someone else to do the work and/or put in the money and then give the result for free to the rest of the world.

 

Rik

[hrothgar]

?!?

 

If there is one thing that can really be traded freely it is a patent. If you hold one, you can sell it to anybody who is interested and if you are interested in one you can buy it from the owner. Nobody will stop you.

 

The problem you have is that you are not willing to pay the market price for it. And then you conveniently call it a distortion of the free market.

 

 

I rarely agree with Blackshoe on things economics, however, definitionally he is quite correct... Patents distort free markets.

 

Patents grant individuals the legal right to block others from engaging in production.

The fact that a patents can be traded and are temporary doesn't impact their core nature.

 

Some people believe that the benefits of patents outweigh the costs (I'm torn on the issue).

However, they are clear distortionary.

[mike777]

From an exchange between Alan Greenspan and Henry Waxman after the collapse of the financial system in September 2008:

 

 

We are shocked!

 

 

 

very famous quote and one I wish was discussed more often. Note 40 years of evidence seems to have been worthless?

 

 

Can we just say the science of macroeconomics at this point in time is crap and close to worthless? AT the very least I wish there was more discussion and open to the point it may at the very least be bad science.

 

 

I am very much in favor of the rigor of the scientific method in the traditional sense when it comes to economics.

[Winstonm]

very famous quote and one I wish was discussed more often. Note 40 years of evidence seems to have been worthless?

 

 

Can we just say the science of macroeconomics at this point in time is crap and close to worthless? AT the very least I wish there was more discussion and open to the point it may at the very least be bad science.

 

 

I am very much in favor of the rigor of the scientific method in the traditional sense when it comes to economics.

 

One can count on Mike to leave out the significant part of the quote ;) :

"....I have been very distressed by that fact. I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."

 

The data seems quite clear - remove the safeguards installed following the 1929 crash and after a period of years the same result occurs.

[Trinidad]

I rarely agree with Blackshoe on things economics, however, definitionally he is quite correct... Patents distort free markets.

 

Patents grant individuals the legal right to block others from engaging in production.

The fact that a patents can be traded and are temporary doesn't impact their core nature.

 

Some people believe that the benefits of patents outweigh the costs (I'm torn on the issue).

However, they are clear distortionary.

That reasoning is like saying that traffic lights distort the free flow of traffic.

 

Rik

[cherdano]

I rarely agree with Blackshoe on things economics, however, definitionally he is quite correct... Patents distort free markets.

 

Patents grant individuals the legal right to block others from engaging in production.

The fact that a patents can be traded and are temporary doesn't impact their core nature.

 

Some people believe that the benefits of patents outweigh the costs (I'm torn on the issue).

However, they are clear distortionary.

 

Theorem: Software patents are harmful.

 

Proof: Developers never go looking for a patent when they have to solve a problem. The only people in a software company browsing patent databases are lawyers, to see whether developers may have accidentally used a method described in an accepted patent.

 

This seems very different in the case of, say, car engineering.

[jeffford76]

Developers never go looking for a patent when they have to solve a problem.

 

Developers are told not to go look for patents. If you do so, you can end up liable for treble damages for willful infringement. If you never look at patents, then infringement is accidental.

[cherdano]

Developers are told not to go look for patents. If you do so, you can end up liable for treble damages for willful infringement. If you never look at patents, then infringement is accidental.

Yes, that's my point. Car developers, on the other hand, are told to look out for useful technologies that competitors or supplies have developed, and that could be licensed.

 

In short, car engineering advances are patented in order to license them. Software engineering advances are patented in order to sue other companies.

The former means successful development can in effect between different car companies, everyone wins. The latter means everyone loses (except for the lawyers).

[y66]

From today's paper:

 

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, will try to sell his colleagues on the Senate proposal during an early meeting of the Senate Republican conference at 11 a.m. Mr. McConnell reached the agreement on Monday evening with Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader; Mr. Reid also plans to discuss the arrangement at a Democratic caucus meeting on Tuesday afternoon.

 

The deal would reopen the government until Jan. 15 and raise the debt limit until Feb. 7. In addition, lawmakers would agree to conclude negotiations on a longer-term budget by the middle of December.

In a Senate still dominated by men, women on both sides of the partisan divide proved to be the driving forces that shaped a negotiated settlement. The three Republican women put aside threats from the right to advance the interests of their shutdown-weary states and asserted their own political independence.

 

“I probably will have retribution in my state,” Ms. Murkowski said. “That’s fine. That doesn’t bother me at all. If there is backlash, hey, that’s what goes on in D.C., but in the meantime there is a government that is shut down. There are people who are really hurting.”

 

Two powerful women on the Democratic side of the aisle — Senators Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland and Patty Murray of Washington — took a hard line and pressed their Republican counterparts to temper their demands, but they also offered crucial points of compromise.

 

Together, the five senators starkly showed off the increasing power of women — even those who are not on the relevant committees — as their numbers grow in the upper chamber. Of the 13 senators on a bipartisan committee who worked on the deal framework, about half were women, even though women make up only 20 percent of the Senate.

 

The women are hardly in lock step politically. But their practice of meeting regularly and working on smaller bills together, even in a highly polarized Congress, set the stage for more significant legislation. Ms. Ayotte and Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, hosted an informal get-together for women in the Senate last Monday evening.

 

“I don’t think it’s a coincidence that women were so heavily involved in trying to end this stalemate,” Ms. Collins said. “Although we span the ideological spectrum, we are used to working together in a collaborative way.”

[kenberg]

We have reached a point where postponing disaster until the early part of next year will be, if it succeeds, regarded as a major triumph. I was listening to some guy on MarketPlace saying that there is no way that we can avoid suffering some serious consequences of this craziness, agreement or no agreement. More serious w/o the agreement, of course.

 

I believe i mentioned this before: When I was 15 or 16 I found myself at one end of a block in my 47 Plymouth, my friend Neil was at the other end of the block in his 40 Ford. All spontaneous. We both moved to the center and accelerated. We gave way simultaneously with, I think less than a foot between us as we passed. Several things: We were 16, it's an age to be stupid. Also, we would only have killed ourselves. But most importantly, we talked it over afterward and agreed that we had absolutely no interest in ever repeating this idiocy, In short, we had a growth spurt. Time for our elected representatives to develop some sense of what works and what doesn't. . Besides being dangerous, Congress has become a national embarrassment.

[Winstonm]

We have reached a point where postponing disaster until the early part of next year will be, if it succeeds, regarded as a major triumph. I was listening to some guy on MarketPlace saying that there is no way that we can avoid suffering some serious consequences of this craziness, agreement or no agreement. More serious w/o the agreement, of course.

 

I believe i mentioned this before: When I was 15 or 16 I found myself at one end of a block in my 47 Plymouth, my friend Neil was at the other end of the block in his 40 Ford. All spontaneous. We both moved to the center and accelerated. We gave way simultaneously with, I think less than a foot between us as we passed. Several things: We were 16, it's an age to be stupid. Also, we would only have killed ourselves. But most importantly, we talked it over afterward and agreed that we had absolutely no interest in ever repeating this idiocy, In short, we had a growth spurt. Time for our elected representatives to develop some sense of what works and what doesn't. . Besides being dangerous, Congress has become a national embarrassment.

 

Although the entire Congress can be blamed for allowing this problem to fester to this point, the idea of using the debt ceiling as a weapon is a decidedly Republican strategy that can be traced to Newt Gingrich as House Speaker. That the Supreme Court has fostered a political landscape where the richest 1% of the top 3% control the money flow to politicians is also a factor in this attack on self-determination as a method of governing.

 

Perhaps we have crossed the Rubicon and there is now no turning back - hopefully, sanity will ultimately prevail but I no longer have faith that it will occur within my lifetime.

[kenberg]

yes it is true that the republicans bear all, or almost all, of the blame here. They announced that they would shut down the government and they did it. very much the results will and should be laid at their feet.

 

But Republicans are individuals, like everyone else is an individual. Saying "It's the Republicans" let's individuals off too easily. A large part of teh Republican party, individuals who vote republican, think this all is just as nutty as I do. It is way past time for them to effectively raise their voices.

 

I can't help but notice a family resemblance to the thread on religious moderates. There does come a time when a moderate has to tell the crazies that they should go play with themselves somewhere else. Crash their cars inti each other if they must, but leave the rest of us out of it.

[barmar]

But Republicans are individuals, like everyone else is an individual. Saying "It's the Republicans" let's individuals off too easily. A large part of teh Republican party, individuals who vote republican, think this all is just as nutty as I do. It is way past time for them to effectively raise their voices.

I think it's clear that people are specifially referring to "Republican members of Congress" in this case, and perhaps the party leadership, not all or even most Republican voters (their only fault is in electing the idiots in the first place).

 

One of the ideas of a representative government is that we're supposed to elect people who are smarter than the average bear, so they'll make better decisions on our behalf. This has even worked in the past -- civil rights laws were probably not popular among the constituents of many of the representatives who voted for them, but they were the right thing to do. But now the ideological divide is bringing the country to a standstill.

[Winstonm]

Bill Moyers has this interactive that shows the handful who pull the strings of the ultra conservative movement.

[kenberg]

I think it's clear that people are specifially referring to "Republican members of Congress" in this case, and perhaps the party leadership, not all or even most Republican voters (their only fault is in electing the idiots in the first place).

 

One of the ideas of a representative government is that we're supposed to elect people who are smarter than the average bear, so they'll make better decisions on our behalf. This has even worked in the past -- civil rights laws were probably not popular among the constituents of many of the representatives who voted for them, but they were the right thing to do. But now the ideological divide is bringing the country to a standstill.

 

Right. What I meant was that we should think of Republicans in Congress as individuals, rather than helpless cogs in a machine, and hold them responsible. I absolutely agree that our representatives should be expected to be better informed than we are and to make the right calls even if we from time to time are not in alignment with them But they are not supposed to wreck the economy and shut down the government.

[y66]

One of the ideas of a representative government is that we're supposed to elect people who are smarter than the average bear, so they'll make better decisions on our behalf.

 

According to Adam Bonica et al, "0.01 percent of American households (one hundredth of one percent) contributed more than 40 percent of campaign contributions in 2012." Surely these households are more concerned about electing people who make decisions on their behalf than on ours.

[y66]

Jonathan Weisman is reporting on unfolding events here. As of 12:35 PM today, House Republicans are still in disarray. Meanwhile

 

House Democrats, along with one moderate House Republican, met Tuesday morning with the chief negotiators of a bipartisan Senate deal to reopen the government, signaling movement to force the plan to a vote in the House if it passes the Senate.

[y66]

Bill Moyers has this interactive that shows the handful who pull the strings of the ultra conservative movement.

This answers Trinidad's question from a few weeks ago.

[Winstonm]

I wonder at what point do you start calling this atrocity a Constitutional crisis?

[blackshoe]

What Constitution? You mean the one the folks in Washington have been ignored almost since the day it was written?

[mike777]

Surreal:

 

You shut shut down the government yet around 83% or so does not die and spending goes on.

 

 

Now we debate debt limit and how long spending goes on BUT WE DONT PAY OUR BILLS.

 

 

 

SURREAL

[mike777]

According to Adam Bonica et al, "0.01 percent of American households (one hundredth of one percent) contributed more than 40 percent of campaign contributions in 2012." Surely these households are more concerned about electing people who make decisions on their behalf than on ours.

 

 

 

I DONT HAVE the exact numbers but the reason is they pay for most everything...without them we go broke...whatever that means.

 

 

forget 1% think .01%

 

Now to be fair they don't control the votes so they must try and control "after"

If more than 50% don't pay income taxes the .01 must try and control after voting ends.

 

You miss the most important question, why...what do they want? They already have more money than god. Their kids are drug addicts and have a zillion std's so w hat are they after?

[Winstonm]

....Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-Wash.).... broke ranks.... "It’s time for my colleagues to face reality."

 

The problem here is that you are dealing with a small group who is convinced that with enough conviction beliefs change reality.

[Winstonm]

I DONT HAVE the exact numbers but the reason is they pay for most everything...without them we go broke...whatever that means.

 

 

forget 1% think .01%

 

Now to be fair they don't control the votes so they must try and control "after"

If more than 50% don't pay income taxes the .01 must try and control after voting ends.

 

You miss the most important question, why...what do they want? They already have more money than god. Their kids are drug addicts and have a zillion std's so w hat are they after?

 

What they control more than anything is who will be on the ballot, followed closely by how many advertising dollars each candidate receives. If you can't directly control the votes, next best is to control for whom the votes are cast.

[kenberg]

The local football team is the Washington Redskins. There has been a big push to delete "Redkins" because it is offensive. A wit has suggested removing "Washington" because it is too embarrassing.