Economics: I, Pencil

[shanek]

I don't think so. In this case the company decides voluntarily to not protect its innovations in a protected market. That means there would be no difference for them if they operated in an unprotected market.

Exactly. So it's a proper real-world example of how companies can profit from their inventions without patents.

Sure, whatever. They are irrelevant. Use a company that does use patents to protect its works as an example.

Why? We're examining how companies profit from inventions and innovations without using patents.

The easiest way a competitive company can get a hold of another company's innovation is by simply buying the product like any other consumer. So the buyer's license that makes it illegal to reverse engineer it must be the same for consumers and competitors.

Not really, since a person acting is different form a corporation acting.

Represented by the Supreme Court or however you have organised it.

We have organized it so that the people can vote out the smegheads who won't obey the Constitution. The problem is, the vast majority is completely uneducated as to what the Constitution is and what it says.

But a story about a talking pencil clearly belongs under 'fiction', imho.

But this isn't "a story about a talking pencil."

No, it isn't. Just because the story teaches people something about real-life, does not make it non-fiction.

There are no fictional events in the "story" whatsoever. It's not even technically a story. The pencil itself is not even fictional, just personified.

Don't keep me guessing: what does it say?

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Note, "for limited times." And it specifically refers to "authors and inventors," not their publishers or companies or even their inheritors.

 

[shanek]

Which shows that even private companies can show reluctance to change, just like the government.

Wrong. The MPAA and the RIAA are cartels supported by government.

That's the point.

How is that any kind of point?

You'll also need the Taiwanese government enforce it, or any other nation's government.

No moreso than the normal extradition laws.

 

[shanek]

Tell me something: Why can you use real-life examples to support your imaginary scenario, when others can't use them to show that you are wrong?

Because the real-life scenarios must apply to what we're talking about. If you're trying to say that I'm "proven wrong" by pointing to sweatshops, then the so-called "proof" is completely invalid unless the sweatshops are a result of the free market.

This is clear to anyone with a modicum of skeptical abilities. You, apparently, have none.

 

[shanek]

I'd just like to point out that the 'East Asian Tigers' generated literally the fasted economic growth in human history using a development model that relied heavily on government protection and guidance.

Bzzt, wrong. The East Asian Tigers refers to Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Singapore, which have largely adopted free market practices. This was the cause of their economic growth.

 

[CFLarsen]

Because the real-life scenarios must apply to what we're talking about. If you're trying to say that I'm "proven wrong" by pointing to sweatshops, then the so-called "proof" is completely invalid unless the sweatshops are a result of the free market.

But all of your arguments are based on a free market. What part of the globe are you talking about, then??

This is clear to anyone with a modicum of skeptical abilities. You, apparently, have none.

Do you honestly think you can get away with all those little jabs about my supposed lack of skepticism?

 

[digitalmcq]

Bzzt, wrong. The East Asian Tigers refers to Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Singapore, which have largely adopted free market practices. This was the cause of their economic growth.

That is completely wrong. You need to read some economic history. These states subsidized firms, protected infant industries, encouraged innovation, provided export incentives, provided cheap capital, etc.

Most (if not all) of these countries emulated the Japanese model of development. I can give you many, many reports to back this up.

 

[CFLarsen]

Bzzt, wrong. The East Asian Tigers refers to Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Singapore, which have largely adopted free market practices. This was the cause of their economic growth.

Low wages had nothing to do with it, I suppose? That they were export-driven? And this little gem:

Domestic consumption was discouraged through government policies such as high tariffs.

As well as these ones:

The common characteristics of the East Asian Tigers were:
* Focused on exports to rich industrialized nations
* Sustained rate of double-digit growth for decades
* Non-democratic and relatively authoritarian political systems during the early years
* High tariffs on imports
* Undervalued currencies
* Trade surplus
* High level of U.S. Bond holdings
* High savings rate

Hardly "free market practices".

Yes, I can Wikipedia, too.

 

[CFLarsen]

That's because shanek doesn't read the full article. He merely glances at it, and picks what he thinks it means. Which is why he gets in trouble.

Compare:

The East Asian Tigers refers to Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Singapore

with:

The East Asian Tigers, sometimes also referred to as Asia's Four Little Dragons, referred to the economies of Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Singapore
Wikipedia

Four countries in the same order. Go figure.

 

[shanek]

Are all of your synapses misfiring??? Subsidies, cheap capital, tariffs, authoritarian political systems, etc. are hardly limited to these four countries...Yet, somehow, only in the countries that had free market reforms they somehow succeeded? And everywhere else they failed, yet, somehow, the success of the Tigers is from this and not its free market reforms???

And Claus, since when are exports, sustained growth, currency trade, bonds, and savings not part of a free market?

 

[digitalmcq]

Are all of your synapses misfiring??? Subsidies, cheap capital, tariffs, authoritarian political systems, etc. are hardly limited to these four countries...Yet, somehow, only in the countries that had free market reforms they somehow succeeded? And everywhere else they failed, yet, somehow, the success of the Tigers is from this and not its free market reforms???

And Claus, since when are exports, sustained growth, currency trade, bonds, and savings not part of a free market?

These countries' growth was guided by the government. The government put up high tariff barriers, import controls, capital controls, etc. The governments pursued an export oriented strategy. The Government, not the market, the government actively pursued specifically anti-market strategies in order to encourage growth of infant industries that were heavy exporters. Are these free market principles?

 

[CFLarsen]

Are all of your synapses misfiring??? Subsidies, cheap capital, tariffs, authoritarian political systems, etc. are hardly limited to these four countries...Yet, somehow, only in the countries that had free market reforms they somehow succeeded? And everywhere else they failed, yet, somehow, the success of the Tigers is from this and not its free market reforms???

And Claus, since when are exports, sustained growth, currency trade, bonds, and savings not part of a free market?

Since when are high tariffs on imports (implemented by the government), undervalued currencies (determined by the government), non-democratic and relatively authoritarian political systems during the early years (determined by the government) part of a "free market"??

If anything, the East Asian Tigers proves that it takes government control to create an economical miracle.

Are you still going to claim that the East Asian Tigers have operated under non-governmental control?

I will await your reply, but expect the usual frothing rants and hissy fits.

 

[shanek]

These countries' growth was guided by the government. The government put up high tariff barriers, import controls, capital controls, etc. The governments pursued an export oriented strategy. The Government, not the market, the government actively pursued specifically anti-market strategies in order to encourage growth of infant industries that were heavy exporters. Are these free market principles?

Answer the question: why did these countries see such success while other countries that did these but had no free market reforms stay where they are?

 

[shanek]

Since when are high tariffs on imports (implemented by the government), undervalued currencies (determined by the government), non-democratic and relatively authoritarian political systems during the early years (determined by the government) part of a "free market"??

I never said they were, you LIAR. In fact, in the part that YOU QUOTED, I SPECIFICALLY said they WEREN'T. You don't even read what I write; you just make up LIES and attribute them to me.

 

[CFLarsen]

Answer the question: why did these countries see such success while other countries that did these but had no free market reforms stay where they are?

But the East Asian Tigers did not see success because of a free market. On the contrary, they saw success because of heavy government control.

Surely, you are not going to claim that the East Asian Tigers were not under heavy government control?

Because if you do...shanek, you're living in a dreamworld.

Don't you just hate it when your best argument turn against you?

 

[shanek]

But the East Asian Tigers did not see success because of a free market. On the contrary, they saw success because of heavy government control.

Why did other countries with equal control but no free market reforms not see the same success?

This is the third time I've asked you this question.

 

[CFLarsen]

I never said they were, you LIAR. In fact, in the part that YOU QUOTED, I SPECIFICALLY said they WEREN'T. You don't even read what I write; you just make up LIES and attribute them to me.

It has to be LIES, doesn't it? There is absolutely no chance of you not being able to state your case clearly.

No, everybody else has to be at fault.

 

[CFLarsen]

Why did other countries with equal control but no free market reforms not see the same success?

This is the third time I've asked you this question.

Avoiding the issue, as usual.

Why did the East Asian Tigers become an economical success with heavy government support?

Evade that.

 

[shanek]

Oh, and by the way:

Hong Kong: World's Freest Economy

Since 1970, Hong Kong has ranked as the world's freest economy. In the just released Economic Freedom of the World, 2004 Annual Report, Hong Kong remains number one. The report, published by The Fraser Institute in conjunction with the Cato Institute and other think tanks around the world, ranks countries on their adherence to a set of policies that measure the degree of economic freedom. Those countries that safeguard property rights, enforce contracts, allow free trade, maintain low marginal tax rates, ensure sound money, and limit the size and scope of government will score well on the Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) index.

Japan, one of the world's richest economies from past growth, ranked only 36 out of 123 countries, with a score of 7.0; Taiwan placed 22nd, with a score of 7.3; China, the fastest growing economy in the world, ranked 90th with a score of 5.7; while India, another high-growth country, placed 68th, with a score of 6.3; Russia came in at 114th, with a score of 5.0. The lowest scoring countries were the Central African Republic (4.5), the Democratic Republic of Congo (4.4), Zimbabwe (3.4), and Myanmar (2.5). North Korea and Cuba were not ranked because of lack of data.

Although China has made considerable progress, it still has a long way to go before it reaches the level of Hong Kong and other top scorers. But at least it is moving in the right direction, unlike Argentina whose rating has gone from 7.2 in 2000 to 5.8 in 2002. Unfortunately, Argentina, which was one of the world's top industrialized countries prior to World War II, failed to maintain its commitment to free markets and free people.

Also:

If Only the United States Were as Free as Hong Kong by Milton Friedman:

What accounts for the remarkable success of Hong Kong? Clearly not the special qualities of either its Chinese inhabitants or its former British governors--or else mainland China too would be one of the high-income areas of the world and Hong Kong's per capita GDP would not exceed Britain's by more than a third.

The answer to the puzzle is simple: the role of government. Direct government spending is less than 15 percent of national income in Hong Kong versus 40 percent in the United States. Indirect government spending via regulations and mandates on private individuals and businesses is negligible in Hong Kong but accounts for around 10 percent of national income in the United States.

 

[shanek]

Avoiding the issue, as usual.

Why did the East Asian Tigers become an economical success with heavy government support?

Evade that.

YOU'RE the one evading, Claus. As my above links show, government intrusion was hardly "heavy," at least in Hong Kong, not even as much as the United States. Answer the question.

 

[digitalmcq]

Answer the question: why did these countries see such success while other countries that did these but had no free market reforms stay where they are?

Because the Japanese and other East Asian success stories followed a specific growth model. Many failed countries used import-substitution and ineffective protection. The EAs encouraged exports and didn't protect everything. They protected industries/firms that met government export quotas, certain standards, etc. I'm not sure why you equate all forms of govt intervention.

The Japanese and other EAs were also successful in part because their govt bureaucrats were not rent-seekers and they were particularly skilled.

Shanek, these countries developed because of the work of both their govts and their private sectors. We're not arguing that the private sector played no role. It played a vitally important role. However, this does not change the fact that these were countries that depended on govt guidance and support to get where they are.