Economics: I, Pencil

[shanek]

Shanek, these countries developed because of the work of both their govts and their private sectors.

Seems to me that, at least in the case of Hong Kong, the work of the govenrnment involved removing trade barriers and getting the smeg out of the economy, at least in comparison to where it was before.

We're not arguing that the private sector played no role.

That's certainly what Claus is arguing. Perhaps you should distance yourself from his comments.

 

[RichardR]

You have done no such thing. You have evaded them.

Can anyone please explain what shanek's response to how companies protect themselves against copy-products is? I can't see it anywhere.

Anyone? Please?

I think his answer was to keep the original product a secret.

He didn’t explain how that can be done with a pharmaceutical product, which is easy to copy.

And I don’t believe he answered the question, “who owns the rights to the logo? You or me?”

 

[RichardR]

Interestingly I think you may have discovered a new fallacy and you are using it. You use an argument from incredulity backwards.

An argument from incredulity is usually used to speak about things that happened in the past, for example: "I can't conceive that life could have arisen without a God, so there must have been a God"
Your argument tries to show that something will be true in the future, even though one cannot imagine yet how it will.

The problem with your argument is that if no one yet knows how a problem will be solved in the future, there is no evidence that it will be solved. Your argument is similar to the following argument:

"I don't know exactly how a time machine can be made, but I don't know how to make a pencil either... and neither does anyone else.

The pencil proves that asking—nay demanding— to know how to make a time machine before accepting that it is possible to build one are invalid. They are arguments from incredulity."

Of course they are not arguments from incredulity at all: they are reasonable questions about how something might work and you don't have to answer them in great detail. But if you can't even sketch a rough outline of how it might work, then you have no evidence that it will work the way you claim it will.

It is your claim that innovators will still be motivated to innovate without government protection of their innovations. Asking how they will be is not an argument from incredulity, because asking something is not providing an argument or making a claim.

You nailed it!

Actually shane is arguing from ignorance: he is saying the market will find a solution, because no one can prove it won’t.

 

[Daylight]

So far what I’m understanding from the discussion here is a pure “Free Market” would evolve into one giant company. Any startup would be pounded on by the larger company either through predatory legal methods, the startups designs stolen and copied or just simple under pricing the startup until the startup died.

Since large companies are pure dictatorships internally, a pure “free market” would take away the freedom of the citizens.

Is this about right?

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

But if it's heavy in the other three countries, your "East Asian Tiger" example falls flat.

Try again.

 

[CFLarsen]

Seems to me that, at least in the case of Hong Kong, the work of the govenrnment involved removing trade barriers and getting the smeg out of the economy, at least in comparison to where it was before.

Ever been to Hong Kong, shanek? I have. They don't all live in nice houses or flats, I can assure you of that. The riches of Hong Kong do not trickle down.

As for the history of Hong Kong as a trade haven, read some goddamn books. In your case, you also need to understand what you read...

That's certainly what Claus is arguing. Perhaps you should distance yourself from his comments.

I am most certainly not arguing that! There is no question that the private sector played a crucial role. What you want to ignore is the part of the governments.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think his answer was to keep the original product a secret.

And then what? Sit on it?

He didn’t explain how that can be done with a pharmaceutical product, which is easy to copy.

Just ask NOVO.

And I don’t believe he answered the question, “who owns the rights to the logo? You or me?”

He didn't, because he can't.

 

[CFLarsen]

You nailed it!

Actually shane is arguing from ignorance: he is saying the market will find a solution, because no one can prove it won’t.

Agreed on both counts.

 

[shanek]

I think his answer was to keep the original product a secret.

I have provided three such possibilities.

 

[shanek]

Actually shane is arguing from ignorance: he is saying the market will find a solution, because no one can prove it won’t.

AND because it always has, and because we know the mechanisms by which it does so. Amazing how people keep ignoring that...

 

[shanek]

So far what I’m understanding from the discussion here is a pure “Free Market” would evolve into one giant company. Any startup would be pounded on by the larger company either through predatory legal methods, the startups designs stolen and copied or just simple under pricing the startup until the startup died.

Since large companies are pure dictatorships internally, a pure “free market” would take away the freedom of the citizens.

Is this about right?

Completely wrong, and completely 100% impossible in a free market. I have no idea how you were able to reach such an insane inclusion from the arguments here.

 

[shanek]

But if it's heavy in the other three countries, your "East Asian Tiger" example falls flat.

Try again.

What's the matter, can't answer the question?

 

[shanek]

Ever been to Hong Kong, shanek?

My stepfather lived in Hong Kong for several years. So you can skip the anecdotes.

I am most certainly not arguing that! There is no question that the private sector played a crucial role.

That's not what you said above:

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.

As I have shown, Hong Kong has less government control of their markets than America does.

Now, where are those sweatshops you keep bleating on about?

 

[CFLarsen]

What's the matter, can't answer the question?

Nothing's the "matter". Your example is invalid. End of (your) argument.

As for questions, perhaps you would care to answer this: Who owns the logo, you or me?

 

[CFLarsen]

My stepfather lived in Hong Kong for several years. So you can skip the anecdotes.

It's not anecdotes at all. I use my personal experience. What did he see, shanek?

That's not what you said above:

But they don't have a free market, shanek. They have a regulated market, but it is regulated differently than ours.

As I have shown, Hong Kong has less government control of their markets than America does.

But they don't have a free market.

Now, where are those sweatshops you keep bleating on about?

Not even on Christmas day can you keep a civil tongue.

 

[shanek]

But they don't have a free market, shanek. They have a regulated market, but it is regulated differently than ours.

But they don't have a free market.

Did you not read the links?

Not even on Christmas day can you keep a civil tongue.

It's not Christmas Day, liar. And don't make up any crap about time zones; Denmark's time (I looked it up) is GMT+1. So now it's only about 4:15 on December 24th.

By the way, you still haven't answered the question.

Oh, and by the way #2: since when do YOU care about a CHRISTIAN holiday?

 

[CFLarsen]

Did you not read the links?



It's not Christmas Day, liar. And don't make up any crap about time zones; Denmark's time (I looked it up) is GMT+1. So now it's only about 4:15 on December 24th.

By the way, you still haven't answered the question.

It's Christmas day here. Have a nice Christmas.

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh, and by the way #2: since when do YOU care about a CHRISTIAN holiday?

It's not particularly Christian here. Learn something about other countries, before you scorn those who live in them.

Buh-bye.

 

[shanek]

It's not anecdotes at all. I use my personal experience.

Once again Claus the Pseudo-Skeptic shows how much of a skeptic he isn't, and how much of a hypocrite he is.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870712913#post1870712913

POC 6 - Dismissal of Witnesses (Page 42)
The article complains that Randi "dismissed" the accounts of PK happenings given by local electrician (and "family friend...." hmmm) Bruce Claggett.

Not having read Randi's SI report, I don't know how dismissive it was towards Claggett. However, none of this changes the fact that Claggett is yet another person claiming to have seen something which, if true, would rock the sciences of physics and neurology to their foundations.

These PK witness testimonies have interesting things in common. Whether Roll, Harden or Claggett, each person was alone (or the only one looking), each event was irreproducible and there is no objective record for any of them. Even the most famous photo, the Flying Phone, is useless since the camera operator only snapped the picture after seeing it in flight from the corner of his eye.

True. These anecdotes are worthless - we can't know what really happened, and we only have the word of those who want it to be true.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870695994#post1870695994

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Yes, anecdotes can be data, if verified or validated to be factual.

Do you consider Tony's story verified or validated?

(And for the record, here is Tony's "story" from that thread: "In my personal experience, I was in London less than 2 weeks and met someone who carried a gun. I'm sure if I really wanted one, I could have bought one through his connections. Guns are relatively rare in the UK, you could say that the few amount of guns makes it hard to get one. That could be true, but it isn’t an absolute certainty as you make it out to be.")

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870684950#post1870684950

So what you have is an unverifiable anecdote. You do understand that unverifiable anecdotes have no value? That they leave skeptics unimpressed?

I could go on (and on and on and on), but you get the idea. Personal experience are anecdotes, unless they're Claus's personal experiences, in which case they're evidence and what response do you have for that, mister?

Just like the woo-woos.

 

[shanek]

It's Christmas day here. Have a nice Christmas.

It's 4:36pm on December 24th there, liar.

http://www.amblondon.um.dk/en/menu/...aysInDK/PublicHolidaysinDenmark-until2010.htm