EPTNot all barriers to industry are bad or need to be removed. Many do not need to be. We can fix the IP system where necessary, removing it is not a solution to anything.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3248
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Not all barriers to industry are bad or need to be removed. Many do not need to be. We can fix the IP system where necessary, removing it is not a solution to anything. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 10 2016 06:07 IgnE wrote: @oneofthem ip is a huge barrier to entry in many of the American-led tech industries. what do you think apple v samsung was about? or pharma patent thickets? or the gross startup culture of science profs at leadig research universities? i'm not really defending any particular ip system, just the abstract idea of one. it certainly should not be understood to be 'property' in the reptilian sense of the idea. big part of the property approach is the lack of consideration for market development and chilling effect. then we have things like licensing vs enforcement, so the strategic choice of the use of a patent affects its impact too. of course, just looking at the market effect would lead to expansion of ip in some areas but contraction in others. medical diagnostics may be expanded (myriad imo is a bit too narrow with respect to patentability of medical diagnostic information) but the power to extract money for all patents can be lowered, from 100% of market loss to something less, so as to encourage reasonable licensing and negotiation over made profits. (allow the production to go on but give some profit back, rather than litigate to stop any and all competition) i'm not really an expert at this area so idk, but patents is still important in encouraging a culture of innovation. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On March 10 2016 05:49 trulojucreathrma.com wrote: So your example is a made up example. Nice to know. Honestly though, your hypothetical person is slow and doesn't turn up to work on time. Her true worth is near 0 dollars. Can you imagine the team morale that this one person gets paid but can't even get to work on time and doesn't even do her one simple job properly? It's probably for the best that your hypothetical office got a coffee machine instead.Are you even reading? Those people exist. Under our current system they are jobless, collecting handouts. They can't find a job because their value is below the minimum wage. You can give them minimum income. Then, companies can hire these people for whatever their true worth is. Let's say it is 50 dollar a week. What I describe is a truly sad sad life with almost no pay, though you get a basic income so you can live above the poverty standard. Are you really envious about that? That's sad. Also, before we had coffee vending machine, every company had exactly such a person. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
A coffee machine has no personality and they make inferior coffee. If you like to interact with robots all the time, maybe. But maybe you want to get coffee from that nice coffee lady who asks how your daughter is doing and actually wants to listen, unlike your cutthroat colleges. Made up and hypothetical? Go ask your parents. True worth near zero? Last time I checked a coffee vending machine didn't go for 0 dollars. Also, if she has no job, you still have to pay for her. Pretty sure you aren't getting it. Having the vending machine is actually more expensive for society as a whole. In 30 years every budget restaurant will no longer have human service. Too expensive to pay minimum wage to a waiter when a robot can also do the job. So the waiter sits at home, collecting handouts. And you get poor robot service. Add another 30 years and it gets more extreme, until the majority of the work force is priced below minimum wage. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Assuming this wouldn’t bankruptcy a nation, the social ramification to this would be profound. I also don’t know if the government controls prices for basic goods. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4428 Posts
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-09/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories-bernie-sanders-16-hours | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10924 Posts
Main reason for it: It wouldn't be much (if at all) more expensive than normal social services (facture in the whole "social" industry which would become way smaller, not inexistant because people that just can't handle money would still need help). So you basically cut TONS of buerocracy and people get what they would get anyway whiteout running thru a miriads of loops. Could this be exploited - No/much less (having more babies to get more money could be named an exploit), but the baseline is everyone gets the same no matter what. Our system right now? Well, a tiny fraction of the people are exploiting the systems, which actually isn't hard at all, but the B I G majority of people still go to work because... More money/dignity/something to do, whatever, tons of reasons  .Now in the US, with its horrid social services, this might seem even more alien than here (it also does here) but it is an interesting tought experiment. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
when you study welfare and esp in the south, the southern states efforts at sabotaging blacks is extremely important and repugnant. the same dudes will not let a 'free handout' stand | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
We have to dispel the myth that the minimum wage is good for the poor. It is not good for all the poor. You have to be able to admit that there are people that are less productive than minimum wage. If you can't just put the minimum wage at the average income, or double that. I hope you can see it now. I have never heard a solution from the so called left wing on this issue. These people are literally banned from working, unless you want companies to be forced to hire them. They want to work, they can work, there are companies that would hire them, but they cannot get a job. We already have a race to the bottom and we can't be stopping it with a higher minimum wage. It is bad, but you circumvent the wage issue with basic income, and improve working conditions on the other facets of the race to the bottom. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
On March 10 2016 05:20 Plansix wrote: The more important question is how do we prevent the system from collapsing. The moral arguments are a dead end and he will take the high road of "all people have a minimum value". The better, more compelling argument, is the problematic areas government will need to become involved with to sustain such a system. Like: Population control for non-workers Voting for non-workers - do they get equal say? Level of basic education allowed for non-workers Access to public services - Do people who work get more access? And so on. How does the goverment prevent a massive growth of non-worker population if it starts to happen? What morally questionable activity will we need to engage in to stop that? I mean, if you take the fuck-the-unemployed-and-their-families position, a lot of those things would self-regulate based on the fact that the unemployed have no money. Things like voting and public services are currently available to people who are a net drain on national resources. The unemployed would have to breed like absolute rabbits before public opinion considered taking those away, and breeding is pretty difficult with no income unless there are big welfare incentives in play. The real issue would be a colossal spike in the various forms of crime, as the unemployed got desperate and started doing dumb things to avoid starving. Something like four people can live off the amount it costs to keep a single dude in prison, not to mention the huge costs incurred by law enforcement and the justice system during a crimewave. At the end of the day it's going to be far cheaper just to pay people to stay off the streets. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
But one of the smaller EU governments can take a swing before the US burns that bridge. edit: I am fully in support of welfare and other safety net services. People starving or being homeless just leads to crime, so the best way to prevent that is to provide them with basic welfare. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
Like always, I can't understand much of what Plansix is saying. Is he actually responding to me? I can't tell. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On March 10 2016 07:17 Nyxisto wrote: If welfare societies would drown in kids we would have more kids. Like always with these anti-welfare arguments I seriously wonder what the empirical basis for these claims is yeah I mean afaik the Welfare State with the most children/women is France, and it's barely over the natural regeneration rate (2 kids per woman) | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
Maybe you do still have enough money left to waste by not negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry/insurance companies, accepting their first offer and not using any purchasing power. Or pay for white tigers like the B2, the F-35 and all other huge defense contracts that only made the military industrial complex stronger. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
On March 10 2016 07:12 Plansix wrote: My main concern with the process is when you do when people start behaving in ways that could cause the system to fail. Child birth is one of those issues. How many children on “basic services” be allowed to have? Are people willing to legislate that? And the issue of raising the “basic service” pay amount as a political football to seek votes. But one of the smaller EU governments can take a swing before the US burns that bridge. edit: I am fully in support of welfare and other safety net services. People starving or being homeless just leads to crime, so the best way to prevent that is to provide them with basic welfare. That's the point though. For a person who is unemployed, basic welfare is essentially the same thing as a universal wage, just with a whole bunch of hoops and bureaucracy piled on top to make it less efficient. If it's not the same thing, people on welfare must be living below the poverty line, or at least buried in crippling uncertainty and make-work that's not going to keep them all out of homelessness and crime when their numbers explode in 10 years. When the numbers get high enough, there's a point where it becomes more efficient to just scrap the red tape and pay everyone. A world with a universal wage is going to be both morally and economically superior to a world with like 50% of the population on shitty means-tested strings-attached welfare. I don't know exactly what strings you guys use, but ours are having pretty stupid side-effects even at like 6% unemployment. Of course, a universal wage is certain to introduce new problems and nobody can predict how many people will drop out of the workforce entirely (which is why I'm also waiting for some Scandinavian country to do it first), but it's still the only promising answer to the automation crisis I've seen. | ||
|
trulojucreathrma.com
United States327 Posts
In a minimum wage with handout system, they are banned from working, forced to stay at home and watch tv, locked in place under the poverty with very little prospects or perspective on a professional life. | ||
|
frazzle
United States468 Posts
On March 10 2016 07:00 Plansix wrote: He is proposing a utopia where the government gives everyone a Living Salary and then there is a capitalistic economy on top of that. The lower level government income isn’t taxed and is supported by the “higher” economy in taxes. Assuming this wouldn’t bankruptcy a nation, the social ramification to this would be profound. I also don’t know if the government controls prices for basic goods. I don't know. I became familiar with a guaranteed minimum income and the negative income tax through some Milton Friedman I choked down. Milton Friedman's writing style is so burdened by his seeming need to paint his ideological foes as latent commies it is hard to read. But I was impressed that his GMI and NIT proposals seemed to be well intentioned and genuine attempts to arrive at an alternative taxing and social redistributionist models that humanely attempt to resolve the issues inherent in the present paradigm. Just googling the topic I see that the concept of a GMI goes way beyond Friedman and was in one form or another advocated by figures as diverse as MLK and even Thomas Paine. In some small way it is implemented in policies such as SSI in the US already. While it would certainly be a break from the status quo, I don't see its implementation as utopian. All that having been said, I haven't personally delved in to any detailed criticisms of various proposed implementations, and I'm sure there are many. While I can't say I am educated enough on such a system to advocate for it, I don't think it's proposal is out of bounds by any means. | ||
| ||
