Observations

I think it says something about how irrelevant our President has become that the most anticipated aspect of tonight’s State of the Union speech is that certain members of Congress are going to sit together.

Advertisements

18 Responses to Observations

  1. Bettawrekonize says:

    Obama based most of his presidency on the lie that he will not serve corporate interests, but that he will serve the public interests. Yet, almost every step of the way, he has been serving corporate interests and appointing corporate shills to positions of power.

    Obama Nominates Former Top RIAA Lawyer To Be Solicitor General

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110124/17422712805/obama-nominates-former-top-riaa-lawyer-to-be-solicitor-general.shtml

  2. nate says:

    When it comes down to it there isn’t much of a line between the two “interests”. Whats good for business is good for the public. Most people forget that the public works for business and the public owns business’s. Without business there is no income for people to pay taxes out of.

    I don’t watch the state of the union. I have better things to do with my time like… I don’t know watch the grass grow, and in Maine, in winter its quite a show.

  3. nate says:

    I do read the transcript after. Takes me 5 minutes as opposed to an hour and a half I can never get back.

  4. Bettawrekonize says:

    What Obama is doing is not good for business, it’s only good for big incumbent businesses. It’s bad for small businesses and upstarts that want to compete.

    Free market capitalism is what’s good for business, the economy, and innovation. It provides the most aggregate output (the whole purpose of having an economy and businesses to begin with), the most jobs, and the most innovation. but the U.S. keeps protecting its big businesses at the expense of the American public. As a result we are becoming less innovative and less productive.

    and just because something is good for business doesn’t make it good for the public. A law maybe good for a few businesses but it may come to a cost to the rest of the public.

  5. Bettawrekonize says:

    at a cost to the rest *

  6. nate says:

    Oh hey, got our wires crossed there. I’m no Obama fan, I just think its funny when people try to define public interests, typically its something that leads to raised taxes and than who knows, reduced hiring, layoffs, increased price for goods and services.

    The two are so closely linked that its foolish to try and separate them.

    Generally speaking what makes people prosperous is good for business, when business is prosperous that’s good for the people.

    One follows the other. It’s not possible to punish business and not punish “the people”. Sorry Obama man, keep government where it belongs, outside the market.

  7. Bettawrekonize says:

    “Sorry Obama man, keep government where it belongs, outside the market.”

    This is where I couldn’t agree more, which is why I tend to be against things like patents and copy’right’ privileges.

  8. Bettawrekonize says:

    “typically its something that leads to raised taxes and than who knows, reduced hiring, layoffs, increased price for goods and services.”

    Absolutely not, but things that cause higher prices are things like patents and copyrights, which do virtually nothing to promote the progress and advancement but only seek to deprive me of my rights for the sake of creating more income inequality.

  9. nate says:

    I agree with you to an extent, but I also feel very strongly about property rights.

    If a company invests a great deal of money to research a new drug, for example, they need to be allowed to have exclusive ownership of it for a while. They need to make back what they put into it plus enough profit to justify the investment, which is more often than not individuals and other companies who need a return to justify their investing in the company in the first place!

    In the their own way patents and copyrights serve to create not only prosperity but also to incite innovation and investment.

    They often times go too far. Hundreds of years on occasion for things other than drugs. To stick with drugs, part of the cost issue is the short duration in which companies hold a patent and thus have to recover research, development, government certification and marketing. If they extended the period on those patents we might see a drop in new drug prices.

    Might. Who knows. I agree with you that they can be a great hindrance to over all well being and prosperity, time periods just have to be balanced to justify the creation of new things.

  10. Bettawrekonize says:

    I’m not against free market capitalism and I’m not against big businesses prospering. What I am against is the government giving anyone an unlevel playing field through anti – competitive laws. This is exactly what Obama has been trying to do practically since day one. If a company is to succeed it must succeed on its own merits, not because it lobbies the government to grant it monopoly privileges. Yet, practically everything in this country benefits from a government imposed monopoly in one way or another.

    Regarding patents, patents have been around the U.S. pharmaceutical industry for a very long time and, today, it is probably one of the least (if not the least) innovative industries. There is virtually no innovation in pharmaceuticals or medicine in the U.S., most of the medical innovation is coming from countries that don’t have patents so deeply ingrained in their system (like Japan, which does have patents now but they’re not as bad as the U.S. Examples include camera pills and more advanced camera pills being developed in Japan, among many others). Virtually no medical innovations are being produced in the U.S.

    Tech used to be a lot more innovative in the U.S. back when tech companies rarely enforced their patents. It was almost an unspoken code, tech patents shouldn’t be enforced. Now that they are getting more and more enforced, the U.S. is once against behind the rest of the world in that regard. New technologies come out in other countries before making their way in America many years later. New technologies (ie: 3D TV) are being developed elsewhere.

    Look at the history of pharmaceuticals and technological advancement.

    http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm

    (read chapter nine).

    The most innovation occurred in countries, during times, where patents didn’t exist or weren’t strongly enforced.

    There is virtually no evidence that these things promote the progress and practically all the evidence says otherwise. The founding fathers were very skeptical of patents and copyrights, Jefferson was initially against them but later allowed them under the condition that their impact be made very limited.

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html

    He even understood that these ‘rights’ are not natural rights, they’re only legal rights. In actuality, they’re privileges.

    The reason is because they require an institution to implement (and governments don’t exist in nature).

    It is my inherit right to independently invent or copy what I please, regardless of who claims to have invented it first. Depriving me of that right is actually stealing, because you are taking away something that is rightfully mine and depriving me of the economic value (ie: money) I can gain from doing something that it is my inherit right to do. Depriving you of a monopoly privilege isn’t stealing because you still the entirety of the idea to use for yourself (I’m not preventing you from using the idea) and you are not rightfully entitled to such a privilege, so I am not depriving you of anything that is rightfully yours. It’s like if I made a copy of your car, it’s not stealing, you can still use your car. Now, if you took away my copying device (ie: taking away my ability to copy something via a patent), you have literally stole from me, you have deprived me of something that’s rightfully mine. IP is legalized theft and even the founding fathers recognized this (and not just Jefferson, they all pretty much agree with him on this one). This wrong needs strong justification, which is why the constitution says that congress may grant these privileges only to the extent that they promote the progress. Unfortunately, there is little to no evidence that they do that.

  11. Bettawrekonize says:

    Depriving you of a monopoly privilege isn’t stealing because you still have the entirety of the idea to use for yourself *

    Also, even Jefferson recognized that countries without patents were at least just as innovative as those with them (from the above link, if it gets through moderation).

  12. Justin says:

    Look at China, they don’t innovate. They copy. Not much innovation comes from China because, for example, they sell copies of Windows for $5. Jefferson might have been mistaken.

  13. Bettawrekonize says:

    “Look at China, they don’t innovate. They copy. ”

    That’s not true. China does innovate. A lot of things are developed there and often make their way their before they make their way here. Don’t believe everything the U.S. media tells you.

  14. Bettawrekonize says:

    and, despite the fact that China does innovate quite a bit, most of their problems have to do with a lack of free market capitalism and a lack of freedom to innovate (things like the great firewall of China), which are many of the same innovative obstacles that patents impose on the U.S.

    It’s freedom to innovate that spurs innovation, patents take away that freedom and hence limit innovation. If anything, the lack of freedoms in China prevent them from innovating, and it’s the lack of freedoms that patents impose on us that prevent us from innovating. But China does their share of innovation, often developing technologies that are available there before being available here. and there is indication that their future in innovation looks bright as well.

    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/China-will-become-global-leader-in-innovations-Premji/articleshow/5958838.cms

  15. kenetiks says:

    Just what does a $5 copy of windows mean? Other than that the Chinese are obviously not that impressed with Microsoft?

  16. Bettawrekonize says:

    and you think people don’t pirate Microsoft windows in America?

  17. Bettawrekonize says:

    Also, China had IPad like devices, that can do basically everything the IPad can do, considerably before we had the IPad.

  18. Bettawrekonize says:

    Also, something I read about research that was being done in China quite some time ago (mostly because it’s a topic I’m interested in)

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/LH26Cb01.html

    and there are many other research fields that they do well in, this was just something I came across a while ago because it’s something I’m somewhat interested in.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: