The Five Steps of Corporatism

[I.Goldstein]

https://i.imgur.com/r08m4.jpg

Refute.

[Danzou]

Heinz tomatoe ketchup forced through FDA regulations rather than start an information campaign or fund an independant regulation board certifying the use of non-rotten tomatoes. A century later, Teresa Heinz vast fortune is used to launch the career of a Senator John Kerry for president. It's terrifying how they prey on people's sense of weakness and need to feel secure by a paternal figure (daddy issues).

I think with barriers of entry into the information game lowering at exponential speed, it's fucking ridiculous to think companys can't bring us quality products on their own. I mean, does ANYBODY think Heinz would start putting rotten tomatoes in their sauce? No, they'd be done for and boycotted.

Now before you say other companys have done shitty things and gotten away with it (like Gerber and Aspirin), but honestly, when the will of the people is sated by their daddy-state spanking all those naughty corporations for them, there just isn't the motivation to take it upon ourselves. The internet has great potential to change the world on fundamental levels, as Bitcoin is testament to, and if it was truly required, the internet would solve the problem of market regulation. Hell, with Bitcoin, maybe for the first time will the sort of software necessary to truly provide consumer feedback and information (Some sort of cell phone app) will be developed for the burgeoning Bitcoin economy.

Basically, everybody who disagrees with government corporatism, and actually has the intelligence to understand politics disagrees merely because they don't believe in the power of the people. They are misanthropes, possible self esteem cases who should be ignored in the face of the greater future technology brings.

[JeffK]

Refute.

LargeCorp can't gain monopolies/lower costs because of regulations.
LargeCorp lobbies for regulations to be removed
Large becomes MegaCorp

[I.Goldstein]

https://i.imgur.com/r08m4.jpg

Refute.

LargeCorp can't gain monopolies/lower costs because of regulations.

How so? You have my undivided attention. Enlighten me to why there is no way regulations and law in general could work towards the benefit of a company.

[herzmeister]

Another factor that favors the consolidation of corporations and monopolization maybe even more are patent laws.

[Hawker]

...snip...

LargeCorp can't gain monopolies/lower costs because of regulations.

How so? You have my undivided attention. Enlighten me to why there is no way regulations and law in general could work towards the benefit of a company.

Because it will benefit all the companies in that sector - not just one company. 

[I.Goldstein]

...snip...

LargeCorp can't gain monopolies/lower costs because of regulations.

How so? You have my undivided attention. Enlighten me to why there is no way regulations and law in general could work towards the benefit of a company.

Because it will benefit all the companies in that sector - not just one company. 

So, it's just not possible for the government to grant monopolies? Historically they have never done so? Is that a fact?

[Hawker]

...snip...

Because it will benefit all the companies in that sector - not just one company. 

So, it's just not possible for the government to grant monopolies? Historically they have never done so? Is that a fact?
[/quote]

Its hard to get from your OP to a suggestion that direct monopolies are being granted.  Do you have some concrete examples from the present day in mind?

[I.Goldstein]

...snip...

Because it will benefit all the companies in that sector - not just one company. 

So, it's just not possible for the government to grant monopolies? Historically they have never done so? Is that a fact?

Its hard to get from your OP to a suggestion that direct monopolies are being granted.  Do you have some concrete examples from the present day in mind?
[/quote]

Patents are a good one. They give companies an exclusive right to produce a certain kind of good and ban other companies from selling a product in a country. This raises prices for consumers and limits innovation over the long-term as more is invested in legally protecting an idea rather than profiting from constantly innovating.

[Hawker]

...snip...


Because it will benefit all the companies in that sector - not just one company. 

So, it's just not possible for the government to grant monopolies? Historically they have never done so? Is that a fact?

Its hard to get from your OP to a suggestion that direct monopolies are being granted.  Do you have some concrete examples from the present day in mind?

Patents are a good one. They give companies an exclusive right to produce a certain kind of good and ban other companies from selling a product in a country. This raises prices for consumers and limits innovation over the long-term as more is invested in legally protecting an idea rather than profiting from constantly innovating.

A patent is short term reward for hiring staff to do research.  Its equally useful for the individual and for companies.  That's hardly evidence of Corporatism.

[I.Goldstein]

...snip...


Because it will benefit all the companies in that sector - not just one company.  

So, it's just not possible for the government to grant monopolies? Historically they have never done so? Is that a fact?

Its hard to get from your OP to a suggestion that direct monopolies are being granted.  Do you have some concrete examples from the present day in mind?

Patents are a good one. They give companies an exclusive right to produce a certain kind of good and ban other companies from selling a product in a country. This raises prices for consumers and limits innovation over the long-term as more is invested in legally protecting an idea rather than profiting from constantly innovating.

A patent is short term reward for hiring staff to do research.  Its equally useful for the individual and for companies.  That's hardly evidence of Corporatism.

That is the intent but it's hardly short-term. Twenty years is a long time without competition. A lot of patents are conniving which include monopolies over software interfaces. Does somebody really have the right to tell me how I can write the code on my device?

The fact is patents can be very damaging especially when it's over essential life-saving drugs. Prices can easily be overly inflated in those cases. Is it ethical to gouge the price of a drug that is essential to preserve somebody's life through monopolistic force?

Not only is it harmful through a utilitarian aspect, it limits the property rights of others including small companies. Patents can limit smaller companies and individual's ability to adapt in market places in the face of a patent by another company. Let's say Company A patents a way to make a chair ten times more profitable. The method is very open, very clear and almost obvious. Company B and individual chair-maker C can no longer compete with the low prices of Company A. Both companies go out of business and Company A raises its price as high as profitably possible all because Company B and Individual C can't use their wood in the manner they please; all because Company A is using government force to enforce it's monopoly over the most rational way to make chairs.

Is this correct to you?

[Hawker]

...snip...


Because it will benefit all the companies in that sector - not just one company.  

So, it's just not possible for the government to grant monopolies? Historically they have never done so? Is that a fact?

Its hard to get from your OP to a suggestion that direct monopolies are being granted.  Do you have some concrete examples from the present day in mind?

Patents are a good one. They give companies an exclusive right to produce a certain kind of good and ban other companies from selling a product in a country. This raises prices for consumers and limits innovation over the long-term as more is invested in legally protecting an idea rather than profiting from constantly innovating.

A patent is short term reward for hiring staff to do research.  Its equally useful for the individual and for companies.  That's hardly evidence of Corporatism.

That is the intent but it's hardly short-term. Twenty years is a long time without competition. A lot of patents are conniving which include monopolies over software interfaces. Does somebody really have the right to tell me how I can write the code on my device?

The fact is patents can be very damaging especially when it's over essential life-saving drugs. Prices can easily be overly inflated in those cases. Is it ethical to gouge the price of a drug that is essential to preserve somebody's life through monopolistic force?

Not only is it harmful through a utilitarian aspect, it limits the property rights of others including small companies. Patents can limit smaller companies and individual's ability to adapt in market places in the face of a patent by another company. Let's say Company A patents a way to make a chair ten times more profitable. The method is very open, very clear and almost obvious. Company B and individual chair-maker C can no longer compete with the low prices of Company A. Both companies go out of business and Company A raises its price as high as profitably possible all because Company B and Individual C can't use their wood in the manner they please; all because Company A is using government force to enforce it's monopoly over the most rational way to make chairs.

Is this correct to you?

Its nonsense.  If you want companies to hire teams of researchers, you have to offer them a way to get their money back on stuff they find.  The days of hoping little Timmy discovers the cure for cancer in his basement are long gone. 

[I.Goldstein]

...snip...


Because it will benefit all the companies in that sector - not just one company.  

So, it's just not possible for the government to grant monopolies? Historically they have never done so? Is that a fact?

Its hard to get from your OP to a suggestion that direct monopolies are being granted.  Do you have some concrete examples from the present day in mind?

Patents are a good one. They give companies an exclusive right to produce a certain kind of good and ban other companies from selling a product in a country. This raises prices for consumers and limits innovation over the long-term as more is invested in legally protecting an idea rather than profiting from constantly innovating.

A patent is short term reward for hiring staff to do research.  Its equally useful for the individual and for companies.  That's hardly evidence of Corporatism.

That is the intent but it's hardly short-term. Twenty years is a long time without competition. A lot of patents are conniving which include monopolies over software interfaces. Does somebody really have the right to tell me how I can write the code on my device?

The fact is patents can be very damaging especially when it's over essential life-saving drugs. Prices can easily be overly inflated in those cases. Is it ethical to gouge the price of a drug that is essential to preserve somebody's life through monopolistic force?

Not only is it harmful through a utilitarian aspect, it limits the property rights of others including small companies. Patents can limit smaller companies and individual's ability to adapt in market places in the face of a patent by another company. Let's say Company A patents a way to make a chair ten times more profitable. The method is very open, very clear and almost obvious. Company B and individual chair-maker C can no longer compete with the low prices of Company A. Both companies go out of business and Company A raises its price as high as profitably possible all because Company B and Individual C can't use their wood in the manner they please; all because Company A is using government force to enforce it's monopoly over the most rational way to make chairs.

Is this correct to you?

Its nonsense.  If you want companies to hire teams of researchers, you have to offer them a way to get their money back on stuff they find.  The days of hoping little Timmy discovers the cure for cancer in his basement are long gone. 

How so? Why can't there be any other way to fund research?

[Hawker]

...snip...

Its nonsense.  If you want companies to hire teams of researchers, you have to offer them a way to get their money back on stuff they find.  The days of hoping little Timmy discovers the cure for cancer in his basement are long gone. 

How so? Why can't there be any other way to fund research?

Of course there can.  But the patent system is designed to take the risk away from the public.  If we want private companies to invest millions in advance, patents are a cheap and easy way to ensure they do so.  The alternative is relying on charity or government money. 

[I.Goldstein]

...snip...

Its nonsense.  If you want companies to hire teams of researchers, you have to offer them a way to get their money back on stuff they find.  The days of hoping little Timmy discovers the cure for cancer in his basement are long gone.  

How so? Why can't there be any other way to fund research?

Of course there can.  But the patent system is designed to take the risk away from the public.  If we want private companies to invest millions in advance, patents are a cheap and easy way to ensure they do so.  The alternative is relying on charity or government money.  

How do patents remove risk from the public? From what I'm seeing, it puts more of a burden on the public. They have to suffer any pricing effects that may come from patents especially obvious patents and innovations that would of existed otherwise. It's cheap but at what cost?

[Hawker]

...snip...
How does patents remove risk from the public? From what I'm seeing, it puts more of a burden on the public. They have to suffer any pricing effects that may come from patents especially obvious ones and innovations that would of existed otherwise. It's cheap but at what cost?

For me, the advantage of patents is that only successful research can get rewarded.  The Russians used to pay researchers in advance with government money and ended up with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Serious research requires a lot of money up front for staff and equipment.  I take it that you do want that serious research to take place.  Your argument is that patents are not the best way to pay for it.  Do you have a better system in mind?

[rainingbitcoins]

...snip...
How does patents remove risk from the public? From what I'm seeing, it puts more of a burden on the public. They have to suffer any pricing effects that may come from patents especially obvious ones and innovations that would of existed otherwise. It's cheap but at what cost?

For me, the advantage of patents is that only successful research can get rewarded.  The Russians used to pay researchers in advance with government money and ended up with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Serious research requires a lot of money up front for staff and equipment.  I take it that you do want that serious research to take place.  Your argument is that patents are not the best way to pay for it.  Do you have a better system in mind?

The Russians also beat us into outer space. The problem with pure research is that while it sometimes leads to the biggest breakthroughs in the history of man, it far more often leads to dead ends. A more successful approach commercially is to take an existing product and "add a clock to it" or whatever rather than taking huge risks for what will probably amount to nothing. We can even see this in the pharmaceutical industry with corporations making a minor, imperceptible change to their medicines and applying for a new patent just when the old one is about to run out. 

Once again, the more commercially-viable methods are the worst at gaining real progress for humanity. Look at how much of the groundbreaking research these days actually comes from public universities and then is taken into the marketplace and profitted from by the researchers, rather than the companies doing the risky money-sink research themselves.

[I.Goldstein]

Of course private companies aren't innovating or doing research. There's no savings in our current society. It's all eaten up by taxation and zero interest rate loans from The Federal Reserve. Combine that with all universities being publicly-subsidized and there is no other alternative. This isn't nature. It's the nature of the problem with our society.

[Hawker]

Of course private companies aren't innovating or doing research. There's no savings in our current society. It's all eaten up by taxation and zero interest rate loans from The Federal Reserve. Combine that with all universities being publicly-subsidized and there is no other alternative. This isn't nature. It's the nature of the problem with our society.

Research is one of the big industries in the US and UK. Where do you live?  How do companies get by without any innovation in your country? 

[I.Goldstein]

Of course private companies aren't innovating or doing research. There's no savings in our current society. It's all eaten up by taxation and zero interest rate loans from The Federal Reserve. Combine that with all universities being publicly-subsidized and there is no other alternative. This isn't nature. It's the nature of the problem with our society.

Research is one of the big industries in the US and UK. Where do you live?  How do companies get by without any innovation in your country? 

I was mainly referring to the lack of innovation. It's happening but very gradually. The fact is we are in a depression since there are no savings to act on besides with Apple of course. Shine on, Mr. Jobs.