Economics: I, Pencil

[CFLarsen]

Oh, where do I start?

Claus, you are a patheic, desperate bigot. You don't care one bit for the millions and millions of lives that I have shown to have been destroyed by government practices. And these are people who can't even avoid the mess if they're only properly educated as is the psychics, etc.

Pure paranoia. Pure conspira-noia. "Millions and millions of lives" "destroyed"? Not a single piece of evidence. Nothing has to do with paranormal claims. Everything is about political advocacy. I am not surprised at all.

You are no skeptic, Claus. You are a joiner. You see skepticism as some list of issues and a skeptic as someone who gives the right answer to those issues and never questions it. That's why you have driven off poster after poster who could have been converted just because they didn't come around immediately and stick their tongue straight up your @$$.

I don't wish for people to stick their tongues up my "@$$". I do wish if they would provide evidence of their claims. Something you have consistently been unable to. Hence, the constant hissy-fits, the evasions, the cop-outs.

That's why you immediately took to personal abuse when I made a perfectly honest and straightforward request for information about a potential link between autism and MMR. Look at the attitudes of the other posters in that thread—the real skeptics, who provided information and helped explain things to me so I could understand it. You, on the other hand, provided irrelevant links and got all testy when I pointed out that they didn't apply to this article. You kept bleating on about thimerosal and how it was long shown to not be linked with autism even though the study specifically said that these vaccines contained no thimerosal and others had pointed out that MMR never contained it. That's the action of someone blindly spouting dogma, Claus, not someone seriously examining the evidence. You insisted that it was just me going on about my political agenda, but refused to answer my questions as to what that could possibly be. You then took it personally, as a slight against your precious Denmark, when that's just where the study happened to have taken place. You resorted to namecalling and bullying. You kept bleating on and on about an irrelevant EPA study we discussed in a completely different forum. The other skeptics, especially Eos, were wonderful in giving me the information I needed to reach the proper conclusion. You didn't do a damn thing. And then you wonder why I don't want to open up myself to even more abuse from you by posting in areas outside of politics.

Such accumulated hatred. You keep score of your personal defeats, and try to make it look as if you won. Why do you insist on making it personal, instead of keeping it factual? Because you lose. You are a loser, shanek, and you bl**dy well know and hate it.

Claus, pseudo-skeptics like you are one of the biggest hurdles we face. Whenever I talk to someone who could be converted, and start arguing the skeptical view, they always tell me about they argued with some skeptic or another and he treated them very badly, and it sounds like an almost perfect description of you. Unfortunately, there are a lot of pseudo-skeptic joiners like you; James Randi and Penn & Teller even spoke out against them in an interview on the Bulls--t! DVD. You are the ones holding back skepticism, not the rest of us.

"We", shanek? How dare you put yourself on the same level as James Randi? I don't do that. How dare you claim that you are a skeptic? You have spent precious little time on this forum countering false paranormal claims. You have a history of political propaganda, not skeptical activism.

And you still want to claim that you are a skeptic?

Even worse, you don't care ONE BIT how many people are hurt and even DIE from political agendas that you agree with. And yet you have the gall to throw in my face the lives of people destroyed by psychics, etc.

You are no skeptic, Claus, just a pathetic joiner participating in nothing more than setting the movement back.

Now, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

True to form, you don't address the issue at all. You just want to boil this down to a political issue. It isn't. It's a case of people dying. And you don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about that.

You are detrimental to skepticism. You are harmful to the cause. Just stop, back down, and leave.

 

[shanek]

How would they stop another company doing a chemical analysis of their product, and just producing the same molecule for sale?

They wouldn't stop it. But such an analysis is lengthy and time-consuming. So the protection would still last for a limited time.

How would this prevent a company with no license agreement from doing a chemical analysis of their product, and just producing the same molecule foe sale?

It wouldn't, but this makes no sense. You could just as easily say that a company that does not take out a patent for its invention doesn't get the protection that patents give them.

How would this stop another company from doing a chemical analysis of their product, and just producing the same molecule for sale?

By that company also taking part in this. The company would be able to get the entire formula for free, with the stipulation that they not release a product using that formula until the expiration date; they would also be able to get formulae for numerous other products, far more than they could hope to be able to reverse-engineer themselves. Also, their inventions would also be protected by this agreement. So there would be every incentive to participate voluntarily. And again, this is nothing more than a more organized version, with a central planning organization, of the patent exchanges that already take place among corporations.

And keep in mind that these are things I just came up with, after a minute's thought or so. Much better minds, working as teams, for much longer perious of time could doubtless create better ways or find lots of ways around the problems with these possibilities.

The point is, the possibilities exist, so Claus's claim is wrong. Pointing out problems hardly resolves anything since there are numerous problems with the patent system, too.

 

[shanek]

Pure paranoia. Pure conspira-noia. "Millions and millions of lives" "destroyed"? Not a single piece of evidence.

Wrong, Claus. You have seen the evidence; you have responded to the posts where I provided it. And your reaction is to deny that it exists. What a woo-woo.

I do wish if they would provide evidence of their claims.

But when they do, you ignore it and start lying about what they've said! And you do all this without answering any of their questions!

Your inability to consider valid criticism of yourself speaks volumes.

Such accumulated hatred. You keep score of your personal defeats, and try to make it look as if you won.

One example is "keeping a score"? What a woo-woo...

"We", shanek? How dare you put yourself on the same level as James Randi?

Another strawman, solely for the purpose of ignoring the point. Typical.

And BTW, James Randi is just a man. An incredibly intelligent and principled man, but in the end, just a man. He's not a demigod to be worshipped.

You have spent precious little time on this forum countering false paranormal claims. You have a history of political propaganda, not skeptical activism.

Thank you for admitting that you throw skepticism out the window when you enter the realm of politics; otherwise, you would not see these as mutually-exclusive.

It's just more evidence that you're a joiner. These topics aren't on your magic list, so skepticism doesn't apply to them.

True to form, you don't address the issue at all. You just want to boil this down to a political issue. It isn't. It's a case of people dying. And you don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about that.

Submit evidence that I don't care about this. If not, issue an immediate apology.

You are detrimental to skepticism. You are harmful to the cause. Just stop, back down, and leave.

You'd love that, because then you'd get rid of the main person responsible for exposing your bigotry.

I ain't goin' anywhere.

 

[CFLarsen]

Wrong, Claus. You have seen the evidence; you have responded to the posts where I provided it. And your reaction is to deny that it exists. What a woo-woo.

Whaaa? Where is the evidence that "millions and millions of lives" have been "destroyed"?

But when they do, you ignore it and start lying about what they've said! And you do all this without answering any of their questions!

Your inability to consider valid criticism of yourself speaks volumes.

Evidence, shanek. Always evidence. You can filibuster all you like, but you will never get around the demand for evidence.

One example is "keeping a score"? What a woo-woo...

No, shanek. You keep track of your defeats and try to pass them off as victories. It doesn't work here. We need evidence, and you just can't provide it.

Another strawman, solely for the purpose of ignoring the point. Typical.

And BTW, James Randi is just a man. An incredibly intelligent and principled man, but in the end, just a man. He's not a demigod to be worshipped.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. Which is why I question your reasons to invoke him as the all-time decisive figure on who is right and who is wrong. You are the one trying to leech on the earned reputation of James Randi. I am not. I stand on my own terms. I run SkepticReport.com. I go to psychic fairs and challenge the false claims. I challenge the false claims of woos on debate fora. I go on television to do the same. I go on radio, too. I get my skeptical POVs published in national media.

What do you do?

Thank you for admitting that you throw skepticism out the window when you enter the realm of politics; otherwise, you would not see these as mutually-exclusive.

It's just more evidence that you're a joiner. These topics aren't on your magic list, so skepticism doesn't apply to them.

You don't understand, do you? Politics is a matter of opinion, not fact. You have admitted to this yourself, yet you keep on claiming that your political stance is right, based on skepticism. It isn't.

Submit evidence that I don't care about this. If not, issue an immediate apology.

You have more than 11,000 posts here (not counting those who got lost during the various crashes etc).

You have exactly 10 posts in the "General Skepticism and The Paranormal" sub-forum.

10, shanek. How many of these can be counted as "countering paranormal claims"? Hey, I'll let you do the counting....

You do, however, have 8727 posts in the "Politics, Current Events, and Social Issues" sub-forum.

Please explain how you are countering - on this forum - the false claims and beliefs of those who believe in the supernatural.

I will accept your apology any time. I do not expect it, though.

You'd love that, because then you'd get rid of the main person responsible for exposing your bigotry.

I ain't goin' anywhere.

And by doing that, you are causing the movement immense damage. Your choice.

 

[shanek]

Here's another example, in the estimation of a poster who hardly agrees with me on anything (but whom I, nonetheless, respect), in a situation that has nothing to do with me:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870560348#post1870560348

Originally posted by Thanz

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Beg to differ.

Clancie left, because she could not maintain her stance that "there is something to mediumship", after she was found out to be a fervent believer in mediumship.

Carry on.

Beg to differ.

Considering that she stated that she was leaving due to your boorish behaviour, and you have provided no evidence (only your twisted opinion) to the contrary, your assertion here is male cow excrement.

But, I expect nothing else from you.

But no, the problem has to do with her (and, somehow, she brainwashed Thanz into defending her leaving), and has to do with me; it couldn;t possibly be you.

Oh, and I've never accused anyone on this forum of committing a crime, either...

 

[shanek]

Whaaa? Where is the evidence that "millions and millions of lives" have been "destroyed"?

Well, there's the evidence of the 4+ million people killed by the FDA's practices. There's all the lives lost in the name of the War on Drugs. Oh, and don't even pretend you haven't seen the figures on DGUs...

No, shanek. You keep track of your defeats and try to pass them off as victories. It doesn't work here. We need evidence, and you just can't provide it.

Then why are you avoiding answering so many of my questions? YOU made a claim, Claus, and ALL of this is just so you can avoid providing evidence to back it up.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. Which is why I question your reasons to invoke him as the all-time decisive figure on who is right and who is wrong.

Strawman. I didn't do that.

What do you do?

I have exposed three separate "psychic" businesses in my home county as frauds, and their businesses closed down as a result. I have spoken to a couple of high school classes about astrology and UFOs. I have worked to get James Randi's, Michael Shermer's, and others' books in the local library. I have provided information to the hosts of Free Talk Live about con/chemtrails so they can more effectively debunk callers that bring them up. I have had several letters to the editor published debunking creationist claims. I've provided evidence in Libertarian mailing lists debunking conspiracy theories behing the 9/11 attacks. I've made progress in convincing a Libertarian Presidential candidate that JFK was shot by a lone gunman (and convinced a lot of other people in the process). I can go on and on and on and on and on.

You don't understand, do you? Politics is a matter of opinion, not fact.

I'm sure you wish to believe that. But pretty much every other poster here whom I have seen express an opinion on the fact believes that we need skepticism in politics at least as much as in other areas.

You have exactly 10 posts in the "General Skepticism and The Paranormal" sub-forum.

So? The others there are far more effective at debunking those claims, at least in the threads I've seen, than I ever oculd be. And I learn a lot by lurking in threads in that forum which I then turn around and apply to areas where I can be effective and am needed. This one forum isn't the whole world, Claus.

 

[CFLarsen]

But no, the problem has to do with her (and, somehow, she brainwashed Thanz into defending her leaving), and has to do with me; it couldn;t possibly be you.

Oh, and I've never accused anyone on this forum of committing a crime, either...

You have just left this planet.

Shanek, Clancie admitted to being Irene. She admitted to having put on a false pretense here, admitting that she was lying all along, that she was not a fence-sitter, but a full-blown believer in mediumship, having spent thousands of dollars on a proven fake psychic.

You summoning up this ghost from the past is evidence that you will not stop at anything. I do ask of you to stop, though. You are not serving skepticism, but only your own political agenda.

Your hatred of me has taken a very nasty turn. You should seriously consider taking a long break from this forum.

Stop, shanek. Please stop. You are hurting the skeptical cause. You are a vampire, sucking on skepticism, for your own political goals.

Please stop.

 

[shanek]

Shanek, Clancie admitted to being Irene.

Then I have two questions: 1) where did she admit to this, and 2) who's Irene? In either way, if this was some sort of ruse then naturally I'll retract the statement...but it was actually Thanz's conclusion, not mine. So here's a third question: did Thanz retract this statement anywhere?

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, there's the evidence of the 4+ million people killed by the FDA's practices. There's all the lives lost in the name of the War on Drugs. Oh, and don't even pretend you haven't seen the figures on DGUs...

OK. You have just claimed that there is a genocide the size of the Jewish Holocaust, and yet - yet - I have not seen any evidence of this heinous crime.

Please instruct me to contact the UN, and the international court of crimes against humanity, because this, we cannot simply sit back and let go of.

Then why are you avoiding answering so many of my questions? YOU made a claim, Claus, and ALL of this is just so you can avoid providing evidence to back it up.

No, you made a claim. You have yet to back it up.

Strawman. I didn't do that.

Then, why bring up James Randi?

I have exposed three separate "psychic" businesses in my home county as frauds, and their businesses closed down as a result. I have spoken to a couple of high school classes about astrology and UFOs. I have worked to get James Randi's, Michael Shermer's, and others' books in the local library. I have provided information to the hosts of Free Talk Live about con/chemtrails so they can more effectively debunk callers that bring them up. I have had several letters to the editor published debunking creationist claims. I've provided evidence in Libertarian mailing lists debunking conspiracy theories behing the 9/11 attacks. I've made progress in convincing a Libertarian Presidential candidate that JFK was shot by a lone gunman (and convinced a lot of other people in the process). I can go on and on and on and on and on.

Yeah. So, you say. But, where's the evidence? What impact have you made? Why aren't you challeging the woos here?

I'm sure you wish to believe that. But pretty much every other poster here whom I have seen express an opinion on the fact believes that we need skepticism in politics at least as much as in other areas.

Sure, we do. But we cannot determine what is right and what is not, politically. You yourself have admitted this.

So? The others there are far more effective at debunking those claims, at least in the threads I've seen, than I ever oculd be. And I learn a lot by lurking in threads in that forum which I then turn around and apply to areas where I can be effective and am needed. This one forum isn't the whole world, Claus.

Of course not. But it does provide hard-core evidence that you are not interested in countering paranormal claims.

 

[CFLarsen]

Then I have two questions: 1) where did she admit to this,

Here

and 2) who's Irene?

You didn't even check to see what your claim was about, before you launched this personal attack on me? Jeebus, creebus, shanek....will you get a grip??

In either way, if this was some sort of ruse then naturally I'll retract the statement...but it was actually Thanz's conclusion, not mine. So here's a third question: did Thanz retract this statement anywhere?

I don't give a flying frig about Thanz's claim. You pointed to Clancie/Irene's claims, but were not able to back it up.

As usual.

Get a friggin' grip, shanek!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Well, there's the evidence of the 4+ million people killed by the FDA's practices.

Link?

And while you're at it, can you tell me who's rights take precedence when you have a smoker and a non-smoker in a public park? You keep ignoring that in the other thread.

 

[shanek]

Here

Okay; I thought you were referring to another poster here.

You didn't even check to see what your claim was about, before you launched this personal attack on me? Jeebus, creebus, shanek....will you get a grip??

Claus, I found another poster who took you to task for your behavior on this forum. I wasn't on the forums over at SD, so I didn't recognize the name when you said it. Get a grip. You still have a lot in this situation to take responsibility for. Thanz made his comment having read this post; this was the one he was referring to. Your behavior has been taken to task here by others.

Look in that thread, Claus. Bearguin, Mark, DanishDynamite, Cleopatra and others said that her leaving was a "loss to the forum" (in the words of Bearguin). I debated her several times, and I'd have to concur. I found her to be very reasonable and open. But you, as usual, made it personal by taking in baggage from a completely different forum. Read the rest of the posts in that thread, Claus. You lost a LOT of credibility with that fiasco. Okay, you "outed" her. Big whooptie-doo. But there was no way to verify your claims of what she said as the SD forums went down and the other posters agreed that it had "no significance" (DanishDynamite's words) on the issue.

You were taken to task for being rude and offenseive not only to Clancie, but to anyone who disagrees with you. Sounds like a nail-on-the-head assessment to me.

Now, are you going to answer the questions or not?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Now, are you going to answer the questions or not?

Are you?

 

[RichardR]

Re: One option was the protection of trade secrets, which does not require government.

They wouldn't stop it. But such an analysis is lengthy and time-consuming. So the protection would still last for a limited time.

This is a really weak argument. For how long would the protection last? I doubt it would take long for some profiteer to produce a generic. Currently patents protect for many years. Drugs cost millions to develop. Why would companies invest millions if another company could just copy it?

Re: Another option was a contractual license agreement, which requires no government intervention, only the normal contract laws to be enforce to resolve disputes.

It wouldn't, but this makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. A company can copy the drug and make all the profits without having to do all the hard work of discovering it. This is exactly what the patents are for. You agree this wouldn’t stop it – that’s why pharmaceutical companies (and others) require patents.

You could just as easily say that a company that does not take out a patent for its invention doesn't get the protection that patents give them.

Pharmaceutical companies do get the protection that patents give them. Until the patents run out. Then the generics come in.

Re: The third option was the private "patent" exchange company, which, like #1, would require no government intervention and would only require the contract laws as protection to resolve disputes.

By that company also taking part in this.

But they don’t have to take part in it, so the point is moot.

The company would be able to get the entire formula for free, with the stipulation that they not release a product using that formula until the expiration date

That’s what happens now.

they would also be able to get formulae for numerous other products, far more than they could hope to be able to reverse-engineer themselves.

So the company doing the R&D has to give away more of its inventions for this to work. This makes the situations worse for them.

Sorry, none of these ideas make sense.

 

[shanek]

This is a really weak argument. For how long would the protection last?

As there is no formal protection in place I obviously can't answer specifically. The length of the protection would depend on how much time it takes to reverse-engineer the product. I can certainly imagine that companies might build in some kind of obfuscation into their products to make this more difficult.

Currently patents protect for many years.

Yes, but drugs take so long to get FDA approval there's only a few years left on the patent when they're finally released. So this doesn't seem to be much of a point.

It makes perfect sense. A company can copy the drug and make all the profits without having to do all the hard work of discovering it. This is exactly what the patents are for.[/qoute]

Right. You get the protection of a patent, and, in return, anyone who wants to can look up the patent and find out how it works and have a product ready to launch the day the patent expires. That's why I don't really have much of a problem with patents per se, just the way in which they've become implemented.

But they don’t have to take part in it, so the point is moot.

They would have an enormous incentive to participate. And those who chose not to would be limited in the number of inventions they could copy.

So the company doing the R&D has to give away more of its inventions for this to work. This makes the situations worse for them.

Not at all. The situation is no more worse than it is with patents.

Now, let me bring up a big problem with patents, and this has happened numerous times before: let's say that Company A is working on a drug and comes up with a winning formula. Company B, working completely independently, comes up with the same formula. Why should Company A profit at the expense of Company B just because they made it to the patent office first? Why should Company B lose out on all that R&D money?

 

[RichardR]

As there is no formal protection in place I obviously can't answer specifically. The length of the protection would depend on how much time it takes to reverse-engineer the product. I can certainly imagine that companies might build in some kind of obfuscation into their products to make this more difficult.

I can’t imagine it would take long to reverse-engineer it. There is the profit motive, remember? Companies would soon spring up specifically to exploit this weakness.

No, they have no protection this way.

Yes, but drugs take so long to get FDA approval there's only a few years left on the patent when they're finally released. So this doesn't seem to be much of a point.

Then speed up the FDA process and/or award longer patents if this is really a problem. But at least they have some protection. Your way they would have none.

They would have an enormous incentive to participate. And those who chose not to would be limited in the number of inventions they could copy.

I see little incentive to participate when they can copy for free, and I see no limit to the number of inventions they could copy.

Now, let me bring up a big problem with patents, and this has happened numerous times before: let's say that Company A is working on a drug and comes up with a winning formula. Company B, working completely independently, comes up with the same formula. Why should Company A profit at the expense of Company B just because they made it to the patent office first? Why should Company B lose out on all that R&D money?

Market forces – that’s the incentive to get it developed first.

Patents may not be perfect but millions of inventions have come into existence under this system. Before you throw it away you’d better be really sure you haven’t thrown away the baby with the bathwater.

 

[shanek]

Then speed up the FDA process

Actually, I can't think of any justifiable reason not to just eliminate all of the efficacy testing and go with just the safety testing. That would cut the time to market by about two thirds. I'd like to see the FDA go away entirely, personally, or be privatized, but this would be a good first step.

In any case, companies engage in reverse engineering all the time, and it has always been an enormously expensive and time-consuming process. And yes, there already are companies that specialize in this. Here's an example. Your assertions just do not jive with reality.

and/or award longer patents if this is really a problem.

Longer and longer and longer patents is the problem. Not in pharmaceuticals, but this issue is hardly limited to just pharmaceuticals.

I see little incentive to participate when they can copy for free,

They'd have to participate in order to copy. That's the point. To get the inventions for free, they'd have to sign on to the agreement first.

and I see no limit to the number of inventions they could copy.

Once they agree, there wouldn't be...but they'd also in the process agree not to copy them before the expiration date.

Patents may not be perfect

Then why go on and on about how the alternatives aren't perfect, either?

but millions of inventions have come into existence under this system.

And millions of others came into existance without it. I kind of doubt the wheel was ever patented. And the Father of American Invention, Thomas Jefferson, never patented a single one of his inventions.

Before you throw it away you’d better be really sure you haven’t thrown away the baby with the bathwater.

Unless, of course, it's Rosemary's Baby...

 

[CFLarsen]

Now, are you going to answer the questions or not?

I answer your questions again and again, while you evade mine constantly. And others, too.

Who owns the logo, you or me?

 

[Daylight]

Daylight…No!!!! You’ve shown in a “free market” there is no government intervention

shanek…IN...THE...ECONOMY!!! You still have laws against murder etc.

Daylight…and hence no protection of the little guys (or start-ups) of unscrupulous behavior by big business.

shanek…Such as?

I listed several ways above. One example to refresh you, a large company tying up a smaller companies new product in court for years just to keep them off the market.




Daylight…In a “free market” the bigger the company, the more power it has.

shanek...Completely 100% wrong. In a free market, there is NOTHING a company can do to you, short of getting the support of government or resorting to criminal activity, that you don't voluntarily agree to.

No, completely right. A large company can manipulate the retail chains and throw its muscle around. The bigger they are, the more they can manipulate things. Small companies have no chance in your “free market”. The big company just says to the retailer, you want the 10% discount, don’t buy from the smaller company. If you do buy from the smaller company you get no discount and we give your competition a 20% discount.




Daylight…In a natural disaster a big company even more so would price gouge.

shanek…I have proven time and time again in this forum that price gouging is impossible in a free market as prices have equilibria, and I have debunked every single example of price gouging that people have come up with. This concept has exactly as much support as UFO abductions.

I’ve not seen this. If it went the way this thread is going I doubt you did. If your water supply is cut off by a natural disaster, after a couple days without, you’ll pay any price for a sip. And the government can’t bring it to you since that would infringe in the rights of the “free market” to sell it to you at $10,000 a gallon.

So far you've just convinced me the "free market" concept is NOT the way to go if you're an average citizen.

 

[Kerberos]

WTF does this have to do with anything?

Sunk costs are barriers to entry.

What barriers to entry can there be that aren't either the nature of the business or government imposed?

Barriers to entry that are part of the nature of the buisness are no less barriers to entry than any other barriers to entry.

Common sense is neither common nor sense, and nothing any skeptic should appeal to. Common sense once told us the sun went around the Earth. Only the desperate appeal to it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=common sense
"common sense
n.

Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment."

Not all skepticism must be based on specialized knowledge. Or perhaps it is sound judgement that you opose - that would explain sooooo much.

First of all, there's no such thing as a "competitive equilibrium."

And you call other people ignorant of economic theory? A competitive equilibrium is the market equilibrium in a competitive market.

Ah, so wait a minute—the other company will lower its prices to prevent new competition? Congratulations, you just made my point for me!

Thanks for killing the big nasty straw man, I feel much safer now. Having perfomed this heroic deed, would you mind answering my question instead of quoting me out of context?

No, it isn't. The pencil proves you wrong.

Having looked forward in the thread I see that you apparently claim that anybody who argues against you, thinks that your inability to provide plausible solutions to problems we raise with libertarianism, proves that no solutions exist. The pencil does indeed slay this mighty straw man.