Economics: I, Pencil

CFLarsen said:
I was trying to get shanek to withdraw his threat.

After much ballyhoo from him, he finally did.

End of story.
Click to expand...

Claus, you are still committing libel by insisting it was a threat.
 
At this point, I would suggest the two of you just unzip, whip them out, and measure yourselves to settle the issue, but then you'd probably spend another ten pages arguing over the Standard and Metric systems.
 
Luke T. said:
At this point, I would suggest the two of you just unzip, whip them out, and measure yourselves to settle the issue, but then you'd probably spend another ten pages arguing over the Standard and Metric systems.
Click to expand...

:D :D :D

Post of the year...
 
shanek said:
And yes, there already are companies that specialize in this. Here's an example. Your assertions just do not jive with reality.
Click to expand...
Er, yes they do. From your link:

“Chemir Analytical Services has developed expertise in deformulating or reverse engineering products or materials. Our experienced chemists have performed many deformulations and have the problem-solving skills and the tools to successfully deformulate almost any type of product or material.”

What I said was, companies would be able to copy or reverse-engineer any other company’s pharmaceutical products. Your link was to a company that does just that. So my assertion jives precisely with your own link. :confused:

shanek said:
Longer and longer and longer patents is the problem. Not in pharmaceuticals
Click to expand...
Well, we were talking about pharmaceuticals, so isn’t your point moot?

shanek said:
but this issue is hardly limited to just pharmaceuticals.
Click to expand...
I know. I was just using pharma as one example, since the products are expensive to develop but easy to copy.

shanek said:
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.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? They would NOT have to participate – your own link shows the products can be copied WITHOUT participating. Why do you keep insisting on this fantasy world where they would HAVE to participate?

shanek said:
Then why go on and on about how the alternatives aren't perfect, either?
Click to expand...
Because I believe your alternative would be worse for many industries.

shanek said:
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.
Click to expand...
Some products are cheaper to develop and harder to copy than others. You keep ignoring that.

shanek said:
Unless, of course, it's Rosemary's Baby...
Click to expand...
You haven’t demonstrated that it is.
 
RichardR said:
What I said was, companies would be able to copy or reverse-engineer any other company’s pharmaceutical products. Your link was to a company that does just that. So my assertion jives precisely with your own link.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh. Sure. As long as you misrepresent my point. There's a reason why you have specialized companies doing this kind of thing: because it's not an easy thing to do!

Well, we were talking about pharmaceuticals, so isn’t your point moot?
Click to expand...

No. You suggested longer patents as a solution for the pharmaceutical problem while ignoring the problem in most other markets: that patents were already too long there. Trying to fix one market destroys others.

I know. I was just using pharma as one example, since the products are expensive to develop but easy to copy.
Click to expand...

Then why are there entire organizations set up which specialize in exactly that? You don't make money "specializing" in something that's easy to do.

What are you talking about? They would NOT have to participate – your own link shows the products can be copied WITHOUT participating.
Click to expand...

What link are you talking about? We were discussing a hypothetical idea I came up with! Stop with the dishonesty! They would HAVE to participate to get the plans; otherwise, they'd be left on their own to reverse engineer it, and they could get access to many more products by joining than they could reverse engieer! I've explained this so many times there's absolutely no way you could not have gotten that point.

Because I believe your alternative would be worse for many industries.
Click to expand...

Yet, you are completely unable to show it without resorting to dishonesty.

Some products are cheaper to develop and harder to copy than others. You keep ignoring that.
Click to expand...

No, I don't; you're evading the point.
 
shanek said:
Uh-huh. Sure. As long as you misrepresent my point. There's a reason why you have specialized companies doing this kind of thing: because it's not an easy thing to do!
Click to expand...
Ah, but with no restrictions the free market will make it cheap and efficient to reverse egineer.

There are two companies in Ottawa that only reverse engineer integrated circuits. They do it as a service for companies checking if other companies are violating a patent of theirs. Considering they make a good profit in this lower volume system, imagine if they could use it to produce product instead of a one or two off report on patent infringement.

If the free markets make other industries cheaper/more efficient, it will do the same thing to the reverse engineering of medicine/integrated circuits or anything else.

In addition ICs are an example of more difficult products to reverse engineer. Many products are simply two common and mature products stuck togethor to give a new function. There is an initial investment to 'mate' the technologies, but reverse energy is a piece of cake.

Walt
 
shanek said:
Monopolies can only exist with government support.
Click to expand...

Say WHAT?

:dl:

Please, PLEASE tell me that this was the result of posting at the end of a really, really good Christmas party.

All of history suggests you're wrong. That's a pretty big dead weight sitting on that statement.
 
RichardR said:
Because I believe your alternative would be worse for many industries.
Click to expand...

Look at it from the industries' perspective in a political environment. If what shanek claims would be better for them, don't you think they would support the Libertarian Party? They will seek the political platform where they themselves will benefit the most.

Actions speak louder than words: The industries stay the hell away from Libertarianism, because they can see that such politics would destroy them.

And I am also sure they don't like to be told that they are stupid not to follow the Party line...
 
shanek said:
Then why are there entire organizations set up which specialize in exactly that? You don't make money "specializing" in something that's easy to do.
Click to expand...

Ehhh...yes, you do. Well, I do. I specialize in usability and user interface design. That's something that's hard to do, if you don't know how.

But I do, because I benefit from the work of others, in the sense that I can design a user interface based on previous studies and the experience of others. Nielsen, Spool, Pearrow, Rosenfeld/Morville, Veen, Fleming...my work would be impossible to do properly without these guys.

For me, it's easy to design an interface. Sure, I have had to learn a lot, but I didn't have to start from the beginning.

Precisely as it is with those who can simply reverse engineer a drug.
 
Unlimited, uregulated political freedom--Anarchy--tends to lead to dictatorship, as Burke wisely observed. For similar reasons, unlimited, unregulated economic freedom--complete "free market" capitalism--tends to lead to hume monopolies, as the "Robber Barons" era of industry showed.

The trick is to have MAXIMAL freedom in both cases without having such outcomes. I have no perfect solution, of course (nobody has). Probably Jefferson was right (or nearly right): the best government, both economically and politically, is that that governs LEAST--but not, unlike what some people think, NOT AT ALL.

In any case, Shane's argument that in the long run monopolies are unstable due to becoming inefficient, domineering, beurocratic, etc., is correct but irrelevant. The "long run" can mean decades or more--and what do you do until then? By the same argument, one should not worry about political anarchy leading to an opressive dictatorship because, after all, in the long run, dictatorships fall.
 
shanek said:
Then why are there entire organizations set up which specialize in exactly that? You don't make money "specializing" in something that's easy to do.
Click to expand...
What about pencil companies? :p(ducks and runs for cover)
 
jj said:
Say WHAT?

:dl:

Please, PLEASE tell me that this was the result of posting at the end of a really, really good Christmas party.

All of history suggests you're wrong. That's a pretty big dead weight sitting on that statement.
Click to expand...

Okay, fine. Provide an example. If you say "Standard Oil" or "Microsoft," it'll be my turn to use the laughing dog...
 
CFLarsen said:
Look at it from the industries' perspective in a political environment. If what shanek claims would be better for them, don't you think they would support the Libertarian Party? They will seek the political platform where they themselves will benefit the most.

Actions speak louder than words: The industries stay the hell away from Libertarianism, because they can see that such politics would destroy them.

And I am also sure they don't like to be told that they are stupid not to follow the Party line...
Click to expand...

Yes, industries want to get their corporate welfare at the expense of everyone else. That's why they give to both Democrats and Republicans. What does this prove?
 
Skeptic said:
Unlimited, uregulated political freedom--Anarchy--tends to lead to dictatorship, as Burke wisely observed.
Click to expand...

Good thing, then, that Libertarians aren't anarchists, as I have pointed out to you several times. Of course, that doesn't stop you from coming back with this strawman time and time again.

For similar reasons, unlimited, unregulated economic freedom--complete "free market" capitalism--tends to lead to hume monopolies, as the "Robber Barons" era of industry showed.
Click to expand...

Debunked, again and again and again.

Probably Jefferson was right (or nearly right): the best government, both economically and politically, is that that governs LEAST--but not, unlike what some people think, NOT AT ALL.
Click to expand...

And who, in this thread, thinks that?
 
 
shanek said:
Yes, industries want to get their corporate welfare at the expense of everyone else. That's why they give to both Democrats and Republicans. What does this prove?
Click to expand...
That they don't think the Libertarian Party will provide a society that is good for them?
 
We have seen monopoly mess in the early 1900's. That happend. And enough of this debunked nonsense. Not everything bad is because of the government. Free flying capitolism will lead to these promblems. You always seem to think that govt regulation pops up just cause the govt has nothing better to do.
 
shanek said:
Previous debunkings:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870128301#post1870128301
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870131427#post1870131427
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870242612#post1870242612
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870342813#post1870342813
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870342929#post1870342929
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870344317#post1870344317
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870348026#post1870348026
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870349579#post1870349579

Now, people, please read these posts. I'm really getting tired of repeating myself in thread after thread after thread.
Click to expand...

Do you think it might have something to do with your inability to convince people with sound arguments?

Why does it have to be everyone else who are stupid?
 
CFLarsen said:
That they don't think the Libertarian Party will provide a society that is good for them?
Click to expand...

They don't think the LP will provide boondoggles that they're used to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom