Americans don't hold monopoly on stupid ideas
- Thread starter RussSchultz
- Start date
Willmeister
Newcomer
So a person develops a product to specificially become rich... that's interesting. That means any can become rich then. If it's this desire to make money that is what drives one to innovate, why then, the need to supply demand suddenly is irrelevant. So, necessity isn't the mother of invention after all. It's greed.
Interesting.
Interesting.
Willmeister
Newcomer
Businesses aren't there to innovate. Their function is solely to generate revenue. Innovation is something they use, like any other tool, like a factory, or photocopier. They may fund, but a competitor's central and most dominating motivation isn't innovation, not by a long shot. The purpose of a competitor is to win, and victory is measured in profits. If it means using the innovation of others, that's one thing, but it can also be advantagous to a competitor, or an industry as a whole, to RESTRICT innovation to ensure increased profit.
Neither are we as humans.And they do that through innovation and production of products that sell. They inturn in investing and improving products so they can compete agains their competition to continue to produce products that sell.
This is a strawman. They have people who are a part of the corporation develop products for them or outside contractors. Their money and power is what made the innovation plausable and marketable. As i said before competition is apart of innovation. Their fierce competition puts pressure on them to higher bright minds and scour the earth for marketable innovations. They then purchase the rights to produce and improve them. That is how technology has advanced so quickly; a form of evolution.
You have a very warped and marxist esque view of capitalism. its humorous to read your comments in the past cocerning monopolies (non competive business) and their negative affect on markets. Yet you turn and promote noncompetition? If there wasn't competition we'd end up having major monopolies or government susbisdized business. In short we'd have communism.
Why does it matter how business acquire these innovations? It can clearly be demonstrated business do develope products at rapid rates. Many times faster then a singular person could ever do or a poorly funded research foundation.
Willmeister said:
Interesting how you start out with a premise and come to a completely illogical solution.
We live in a world with imperfect information, and inventors aren't mind readers. Inventors sit around and try to brainstorm what they THINK people want, what they NEED.
When the inventor is correct, he ends up providing a product that has huge demand, and he's got a winner.
When he fails, such as thinking that millions of people have a burning desire to buy petfood online, he fails, and he business goes belly up.
The investor might be driven by greed (if he is inventing for OTHER PEOPLE), but his success is driven by neccessity of the consumers of the product.
An investor might be driven by his OWN NEED, and he might invent something strictly for himself, but since he didn't consider other people, he viewpoint might be warped, such as people who think online Petfood might be a good idea and "I would use it! And surely if I like it, so too will millions more!"
Moreover, there is a further imperfection. People often don't know what they need. Was the internet a "neccessity" for the average person before 1990? No. Now, most people here can't live without it, like electricty or water.
Each time some new-fangled invention comes to the market, people have no idea if they "need it" or not, so there are always early adopters, he buy before the rest of everyone. So even bad ideas can make money, but when it appears the general population isn't picking it up, because the early adopters thought it sucked, the company is in trouble.
Your problem is you have a very binary static view of way the economy works, driven by your need to put things into rigid categories according to your limited worldview (it's all greed and fear man! And we Canadians don't have any of that, we're morally better creatures) and your need to find some chink in the armor of capitalism, which pulled us out of the jungles and brought us to the point we are at today.
Willmeister said:
No one is questioning that the people with inferior products will try to lie in marketing to compete against an innovation, or use a BIG GOVERNMENT STICK to beat down the inventor.
The question is not that this doesn't happen, the economy is big enough that "non optimal" things are happening everyday. Some things which don't deserve to win, do, and some things which don't deserve to lose, do. No one is asserting the market is perfect. The question is, on par, is it the best system, pareto optimal. Is there any modification that will make only those products which deserve to win, win? Since no one human being, or even small group of humans, can really say who deserves to win, I think not.
You of course will bring up that stupid univac keyboard story, or others will bring up the Dvorak keyboard, but for an invention to really be valuable, it has to be WORTH THE UPGRADE, and frankly, my typing level is good enough for me that Dvorak isn't a neccessity and the changing costs vs the benefit aren't good enough. Ditto for the UNIVAC example which introduced a keyboard data entry system would could not interoperate with existing installed base of business machines and databases (files filled with punch cards)
Is Esperanto a superior language to the English language? Maybe (on certain measurements like simplicity), but for it to "win" we would all have to start speaking Esperanto, is the change really worth it? Being technically the best in one particular feature is not the sole measure of an invention.
There is no universal algorithm for evaluating two products and declaring one to be an absolute winner. The only determinate of who wins is what the vast majority of people decide to buy.
We know "scientific" Marxism is bogus, but now you labor under some delusion that we can scientifically or logically determine who should win, and because people you thought "should win", in fact "lost", competition is bad. Well, what's the alternative to not letting consumers decide which products are best?
Willmeister
Newcomer
Again, Demo, you're making way too many assumptions about others, or putting words into other people's mouths. Do you do this to all those you disagree with? Where have I ever stated we are morally superiour? What was that? Never. When have I ever said ANYWHERE that Canada had no fear and no greed? Both are parts of the human condition that everyone has to deal with and as I've said before most the result of instinct.
Capitalism is just another competitive jungle. But instead of being geared to who are better at physical survival, our new jungle is gear more to those who are more clever.
diarrhea_splatter
Banned
RussSchultz said:
Sorry to get off topic everyone.
See, though, this is what I don't understand. If people back up what they say with facts, why do people still call it a conspiracy theory or as you put it "utter bullshit'? The way I see it is if you have the facts, what's there to argue about?
had to edit and add: That's why I like Alex Jones, he might sound like a cooke to some of ya'll, but he backs his stuff up with the facts. That is something I respect.
I see. You're willing to believe the facts as presented by indymedia, but question the international press that reports that these two people that were killed were indeed Uday and Qusay tracked down and killed by the US army, and these pictures are genuine?
Lemme guess, you think that the 19 hijackers are still alive, and that the airplanes were all remote controlled by the CIA (or the mossad)? No? Then it was a cruise missile from a rogue US pilot that struck the pentagon, in an unreported failed coup. Or that there's a mind control sattelite called HAARP that the CIA uses to keep the junta in power.
There's a difference between presenting the truth and supporting it with facts, and inventing "the truth" with only the facts that support it. In investigative journalism, there's a feedback mechanism that should be applied to hone in on the truth, but these people simply discard any evidence against their theories as a ruse, a black op, a product of the mossad, or whatever regardless of how much stacks up against their theories.
It amuses the hell out of me to peruse indymedia occasionally and see the same characters deluding themselves and building up their own little mythos of conspiracies. Nothing is a mistake, its all planned. The CIA is at the same time omnipotent, omniscient, and all powerful but also full of bumbling fools who can't manage to see the obvious truths that our independant reporters have uncovered. The arab media is given full credence while Fox news is in the pocket of the jewry and discarded as propaganda. The amount of vitriol over people who post that don't "swallow the coolaid" is amazing, for such a supposed bastion of free speech.
Indymedia could be such a powerful tool for the freedom of press and especially useful for local reporting of items that get left behind by the networks, buts its wasted on a bunch of deluded conspiracy theorists.
Lemme guess, you think that the 19 hijackers are still alive, and that the airplanes were all remote controlled by the CIA (or the mossad)? No? Then it was a cruise missile from a rogue US pilot that struck the pentagon, in an unreported failed coup. Or that there's a mind control sattelite called HAARP that the CIA uses to keep the junta in power.
There's a difference between presenting the truth and supporting it with facts, and inventing "the truth" with only the facts that support it. In investigative journalism, there's a feedback mechanism that should be applied to hone in on the truth, but these people simply discard any evidence against their theories as a ruse, a black op, a product of the mossad, or whatever regardless of how much stacks up against their theories.
It amuses the hell out of me to peruse indymedia occasionally and see the same characters deluding themselves and building up their own little mythos of conspiracies. Nothing is a mistake, its all planned. The CIA is at the same time omnipotent, omniscient, and all powerful but also full of bumbling fools who can't manage to see the obvious truths that our independant reporters have uncovered. The arab media is given full credence while Fox news is in the pocket of the jewry and discarded as propaganda. The amount of vitriol over people who post that don't "swallow the coolaid" is amazing, for such a supposed bastion of free speech.
Indymedia could be such a powerful tool for the freedom of press and especially useful for local reporting of items that get left behind by the networks, buts its wasted on a bunch of deluded conspiracy theorists.
There is nothing wrong with greed for earned reward. That is huge driver of economic development and the advancement of civilization. When a smart person figures out how to take iron ore and make steel out of it, or how to take sand and aluminum and make microchips out of it, and then sells it and gets filthy rich, or when a kid says "I want more money" and runs a newspaper route at 4am every morning before school, there's nothing wrong with that at all.
It's greed for unearned reward that is the problem. Such greed drives people to rob others, or drives governments to colonize South America and ship all their gold back to Europe.
What is an "earned reward"? Either the provision of a product or service that is useful to other people (who demonstrate that usefulness by paying for it), or by taking raw materials, and applying intelligence and work to them, making them into something worth more than the original sum of its parts.
Willmeister said:
That my friend is perhaps the greatest accomplishment in the history of humankind: the first sustainable social system that directs men's energy toward enlarging the pie rather than toward enlarging his own share of it at the cost other men's shares (or lives). It boggles me when people overlook this, and angers me when social utopians conveniently ignore it in their quest to persuade the world that Capitalism begat human nature rather than vice versa. As Democoder pointed out, socialism/communism/etc. fail b/c they are based on the flawed premise that man and his economy follow laws akin to the Classical/Newtonian Mechanics of the physical world, when in reality they are based on unpredictable, probabalistic laws akin to those of Quantum Theory.
Willmeister
Newcomer
Social norms encourage this enlarging of the pie, not the system itself. The system doesn't care about this enlarging this pie at all. If the system had this magical property, then why do we see, time after time, those who manipulate and swindle? People continue to hoarde. It's is because of these social conventions that the overt violence of the past are considered inappropriate today and certainly not because of 'capitalism'.
To put it simply: the system has changed slightly. Man has not.
No, communism and 'socialism' failed because they just other systems in a long line of failed political and economic systems. All of them were brought to their knees by those who competed with others for power. No mystery; no absurd comparison to physics. To think that our capitalistic, and even democratic systems will somehow escape this same fate while all the previous systems succumbed is rather childish. The believers of all these systems thought the same about their own at the height of their grandeur as we do of ours.
Man is unable to create anything perfect. So all-encompassing cure-all ideologies will always have some flaw. And like I said earlier, there will be people out there constantly pushing the envelope to see just how much they can get away with. They'll find the exceptions and the flaws and exploit them.
Sabastian said:pax said:As for our bankrupting welfare system we spend in terms of capita less on it than you do especialy because of our very efficient health care system which though underfunded would still compare very favorably if it was allowed to grow to 13% of gdp vs your 16% (its now at 11% approx). Not to mention it would be gold plated at that level of funding. I find it very funny how taxes are seen to be such an evil but insurance premiums and other bills for essentials arent. Ill pay tax anyday as I know the bang for the buck I get out of it.
Gov has been running surpluses since 1998...
Oh but we're bankrupt...
Average taxation in Canada is approximately 50%, that is too high.
You can get relatively the same blue cross plan in the US for about $70 US, no dental or eye coverage no asthetics.
Healthcare may be viewed as an extension of welfare.
Many Canadians go south of the boarder to get better service.
The government does not allow for private run health services at all.
Health care is in serious trouble in Canada and the service we receive, considering how much we pay, is quiet poor. If you don't use it much or at all then you are being forced to pay for something you don't use.
The budget surplus instead of being used to pay down the debt is re-spent and thrown out the window on interest payments.
Canada has more debt per capita then the US by far.
I don't argue we should have no taxes, just less I would be happy with an average taxation of around 30%.
Just sayin.
Well dont agree there either. 70$ a month will not get you good coverage. I know guy in caribou right across the lines who pays 450$ us for family of 4, a month for very basic coverage. His wife had to leave the hospital one day after giving birth. I know chicks from work whove stayed 3 days easily this side and some 5 days. I certainly dont pay 50% tax... Im not sure that average is good as I know nurses who make 45g who tell me how much they pay in terms of sales and income tax.
Averages are very distorted by failing to realize the diffs tween official and effective rates of taxation and usually including the official rates of ultra wealthy class who never actually pay that much.
Many more americans come north to get affordable care. Even those insured. My sis is a doc in Edmundston and a full third of her patients are cash or private insurance paying americans.
I agree that the surplus should not have been earmarked to the tune of 80% for tax breaks for the rich. While we have surpluses paying down the debt would have made more sense.
I say again. Our health care probs in those areas where there are probs (Ive been to the hopsital 2x in last 18 months and the care was superb) is simply a matter of lack of funding.
11% in Canada vs 16% of gdp in the US is an enormous difference...
Our gov debt in terms of gdp is coming down pretty fast vs the US thats rising. Im not a prophet but I dont think the state of affairs at 4-500 billion a year deficit can last and the US not find itself in a worse position in a few years. Heck the entire fed Can debt is about 560 billion. The us right now is nearly adding that each year...
First of all, communism/socialism clearly failed as an economic theory. It impoverished people when it was supposed to uplift them. Secondly, to implement communism meant applying force and drafting everyone as an employee of the state or society. Communism didn't fail because of some fluke, like, it expired because of a time limit. It died because it simply could not be made to work (as Von Mises proved mathematically in the 1800s)
The fundamental fact of capitalism is that it directs people to engage in trade to enrich themselves. But trade between people doesn't only affect the traders, it affects the rest of society as well. Sometimes negatively (pollution), but on balance, much more positively. Inventions, firms, and other organizational structures are created, and these persist long after the trade has taken place, propagating like waves through the economy.
The thing that people (namely marxist leaning individuals) miss is that trade builds structures in the physical world, and in the meme-space, and these structures have value that is greater than the value of the original trade. Not only is a trade between two people NOT A ZERO SUM EXCHANGE, but many times, it is a net value increase for society as well.
When Nvidia and ATI engage in competition and produce video cards, which we exchange money for, not only do both sides benefit, but the cards themselves enable more things to be possible. People benefit in terms of more beautiful artwork, and the games market benefits by being able to sell more games.
Thus when 3dfx, engaged in simple pursuit of profit, helped created the consumer 3d HW accelerator market, they created a lasting value that stands today even after 3dfx went out of business, a new market segment, that continues to exist and employee thousands of people, and allows games to be written which delight the eye.
Capitalism harnesses men's greed and indirectly everyone benefits, by influencing people to be clever and creative. These people leave behind lasting structures that have raised man's standard of living and advanced the state of the art. A net plus.
Your argument that capitalism "might eventually" run its course is irrelevent. All good things must come to an end. This is no way explains communism's quick decline, nor the disparity in wealth between market based societies and centrally planned economies.
The fundamental fact of capitalism is that it directs people to engage in trade to enrich themselves. But trade between people doesn't only affect the traders, it affects the rest of society as well. Sometimes negatively (pollution), but on balance, much more positively. Inventions, firms, and other organizational structures are created, and these persist long after the trade has taken place, propagating like waves through the economy.
The thing that people (namely marxist leaning individuals) miss is that trade builds structures in the physical world, and in the meme-space, and these structures have value that is greater than the value of the original trade. Not only is a trade between two people NOT A ZERO SUM EXCHANGE, but many times, it is a net value increase for society as well.
When Nvidia and ATI engage in competition and produce video cards, which we exchange money for, not only do both sides benefit, but the cards themselves enable more things to be possible. People benefit in terms of more beautiful artwork, and the games market benefits by being able to sell more games.
Thus when 3dfx, engaged in simple pursuit of profit, helped created the consumer 3d HW accelerator market, they created a lasting value that stands today even after 3dfx went out of business, a new market segment, that continues to exist and employee thousands of people, and allows games to be written which delight the eye.
Capitalism harnesses men's greed and indirectly everyone benefits, by influencing people to be clever and creative. These people leave behind lasting structures that have raised man's standard of living and advanced the state of the art. A net plus.
Your argument that capitalism "might eventually" run its course is irrelevent. All good things must come to an end. This is no way explains communism's quick decline, nor the disparity in wealth between market based societies and centrally planned economies.
Pax, there is no way I would go to Canada for medical care. I hurt my ankle last week and had unbearable joint pain, and got a doctor's apointment the SAME DAY (not emergency room, private office visit). I had an CAT scan of my ankle the next day. Waiting time for advanced equipment is like MRI is much lower in the US.
Part of the way Canada achieves low costs is by rationing care. Simply put, the lower costs mean there is less money to buy enough equipment to satisfy current medical demandhence, waiting lists. (despite the absurd Health Canada conclusion that this is "excess capacity" even if you have to wait 12 weeks for something):
So, perhaps some small percentage of Americans who don't have insurnace might go get on a Canadian waiting list, but there are plenty of Canadians waiting months for an MRI to diagnose their problem, or cardiac surgery, cancer therapy, etc who would be willing to come to the US and get instant diagnosis and help (and pay more for it)
MRIs are like fast food here, there are even companies that can schedule you to get one on a walk in basis the SAME DAY. http://www.ameriscan.org/locations.asp Meanwhile, MRIs in Canada are scarce.
It's all based on your time preference. When I need health care, I WANT IT IMMEDIATELY. If I had blood drawn, I want the results back tommorow. If I have a weird chronic pain in my stomach, I want an MRI to ease my mind that it is not cancer ASAP.
I simply am not willing to tolerate a Canadian style system that achieves cost savings by making me wait in line. I'd rather keep the expensive health system and just pay more taxes for the percentage of people who can't get insurance. I'll keep my more expensive private insurnace thank you, the insurance that allows me to get medical care on demand.
Apparently, Canada also has private MRI clinics as well, but Canadian doctors had to find a loophole in the law to run them, because it is ILLEGAL TO CHARGE OUT OF POCKET FEES FOR MEDICALLY NECCESSARY PROCEDURES by the Canadian Health Act. This would have shut down Canadian access to private MRI (to avoid ludicrous wait times) if they had not found a legal loophole (that is not guaranteed to be closed by the government)
Part of the way Canada achieves low costs is by rationing care. Simply put, the lower costs mean there is less money to buy enough equipment to satisfy current medical demandhence, waiting lists. (despite the absurd Health Canada conclusion that this is "excess capacity" even if you have to wait 12 weeks for something):
So, perhaps some small percentage of Americans who don't have insurnace might go get on a Canadian waiting list, but there are plenty of Canadians waiting months for an MRI to diagnose their problem, or cardiac surgery, cancer therapy, etc who would be willing to come to the US and get instant diagnosis and help (and pay more for it)
MRIs are like fast food here, there are even companies that can schedule you to get one on a walk in basis the SAME DAY. http://www.ameriscan.org/locations.asp Meanwhile, MRIs in Canada are scarce.
It's all based on your time preference. When I need health care, I WANT IT IMMEDIATELY. If I had blood drawn, I want the results back tommorow. If I have a weird chronic pain in my stomach, I want an MRI to ease my mind that it is not cancer ASAP.
I simply am not willing to tolerate a Canadian style system that achieves cost savings by making me wait in line. I'd rather keep the expensive health system and just pay more taxes for the percentage of people who can't get insurance. I'll keep my more expensive private insurnace thank you, the insurance that allows me to get medical care on demand.
Apparently, Canada also has private MRI clinics as well, but Canadian doctors had to find a loophole in the law to run them, because it is ILLEGAL TO CHARGE OUT OF POCKET FEES FOR MEDICALLY NECCESSARY PROCEDURES by the Canadian Health Act. This would have shut down Canadian access to private MRI (to avoid ludicrous wait times) if they had not found a legal loophole (that is not guaranteed to be closed by the government)
Well considering your income level in the top what? 1-2%? Of course I wouldnt come north either. But indulge me, what are your premiums for your health care program.
I dont think mri's wait lists are months... more like 2-3 weeks. But again we dont spend enough its a fact... I do know a special equipemtn budget was setup last year to deal with the shortfall. However were I to have cancer (depending on the type of course as I wouldnt worry too much about prostate cancer for ex) now and have to wait more than 2 weeks Id likely go to the private ones in Quebec. 1200$ I can swing that...
There would be no waiting lists at 13% gdp. If we matched the US at 16% (who do have a higher priority for healthcare if you base that fact to make a judgement call) we'd have better care hands down and for everyone.
But this is a decision taken by the people who have believed the neo con lie that health care costs were out of control and had to be stopped. I dont see how a privatized scheme would have helped here other than increase costs.
Private mri's are widely available in most provinces and easily obtained by a short trek across the border...
Canada health act is full of holes and does not preclude private care. Private mri's are in no danger and pretty well established as is...
I dont think mri's wait lists are months... more like 2-3 weeks. But again we dont spend enough its a fact... I do know a special equipemtn budget was setup last year to deal with the shortfall. However were I to have cancer (depending on the type of course as I wouldnt worry too much about prostate cancer for ex) now and have to wait more than 2 weeks Id likely go to the private ones in Quebec. 1200$ I can swing that...
There would be no waiting lists at 13% gdp. If we matched the US at 16% (who do have a higher priority for healthcare if you base that fact to make a judgement call) we'd have better care hands down and for everyone.
But this is a decision taken by the people who have believed the neo con lie that health care costs were out of control and had to be stopped. I dont see how a privatized scheme would have helped here other than increase costs.
Private mri's are widely available in most provinces and easily obtained by a short trek across the border...
Canada health act is full of holes and does not preclude private care. Private mri's are in no danger and pretty well established as is...
No, I'm nowhere near the top 1-2%. If you combine my salary with my wife, it's definately top 10, close to top 5%.
The way my health insurnace works is this:
Every pay period, I get paid $X based on my yearly gross salary. The company gives me an addition $150 to per pay period to spend on benefits.
I then choose which private health plans I want. If I choose something where the premium is less than $150, then the leftover money is mine. For example, I could choose no health insurance at all, and pocket the $150 every period. Or you could choose an HMO and it's pretty cheap.
But given my salary, I didn't mind going overboard, so I purchased the top of the line plans (see any doctor, any time, anywhere, medical, dental, vision, mental health, life insurance, accident insurnance, etc)
My premium (just looked) is $173 per period, my company gives me $150, so I spend $23 per period, or about $46 per month extra, less than my satellite TV, cell phone, and cable modem bills.
All I know is, the justification for government sponsored health insurance, IMHO, is not cost cutting. It is covering those who can't afford it. Even if the US had single payer insurance like Canada, I'd prefer they keep spending levels the same. Just cover poor people.
The way my health insurnace works is this:
Every pay period, I get paid $X based on my yearly gross salary. The company gives me an addition $150 to per pay period to spend on benefits.
I then choose which private health plans I want. If I choose something where the premium is less than $150, then the leftover money is mine. For example, I could choose no health insurance at all, and pocket the $150 every period. Or you could choose an HMO and it's pretty cheap.
But given my salary, I didn't mind going overboard, so I purchased the top of the line plans (see any doctor, any time, anywhere, medical, dental, vision, mental health, life insurance, accident insurnance, etc)
My premium (just looked) is $173 per period, my company gives me $150, so I spend $23 per period, or about $46 per month extra, less than my satellite TV, cell phone, and cable modem bills.
All I know is, the justification for government sponsored health insurance, IMHO, is not cost cutting. It is covering those who can't afford it. Even if the US had single payer insurance like Canada, I'd prefer they keep spending levels the same. Just cover poor people.
PAX why shouldn't we allow for doctors to practice a private clinic? Why couldn't we have privatized health care? It would relieve the weight on the public system. Make an appointment to get into see a specialist and see how long it will take. 6 month average depending on the sort of specialist you want to see here in Fredericton. The Canadian system should allow for private health care and we ought to end this ridiculous government monopoly.