America has problems, but America is NOT THE PROBLEM!~
To many taxes kill Competition
Published on January 2, 2009 By Moderateman In Politics

Here we are in another year 2009 came in with a whimper. We are being told that we are in the worse "recession" ever {read depression} since the 1930's. The President-Elect believes the government can spend our way out of this problem. He wants to have a "second stimulus bill " on his desk on January 20Th, so he can sign it. The purpose of a second stimulus package is to get the country spending again. The first one failed dismally since responsible citizens used the money they got to pay bills instead of going out and spending it for toys and getting into more debt.

There is in our history an American Statesman named Henry Clay who said " I would rather be right than to be President." It was Henry Clay who became known as "the great Pacifier" He much like our President-Elect thinks we can negotiate with our enemies. Because of his compromises of 1850, Clay attacked both Abolitionism and Slavery, Believing that they would expire naturally. Clays compromise alienated the anti-slavery states, and that ended any chance he might have had for the presidency.. Clay learned by sad experience to believe, in his older years, Of all human powers operating on the affairs of mankind, none is greater than competition. {socialism pretty much kill competition} So far unless we let Obama turn this great "land of the free home of the brave" into a socialistic European model country we still have competition. WE cannot let this die off just to please a few people, while the vast majority believe that this country is great because of capitalism, not some watered down form of communism.

If we the people remain silent I believe that a President Obama will turn America into a country we will not recognize anymore.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 05, 2009

Dr Guy

However because of such things there are certain markets where a monopoly is actually the better option, and this is shown by the granting of patents by governments. Patents are in effect providing a company with a monopoly over a product for a set time period
But that has nothing to do with competition, and everything to do with allowing the inventor time to recoup the cost of the invention.  Monopolies, even when state run or managed (utilities) are bad.  Because it does not respond to the consumer, and wastes a lot of resources on non-productive venues.

I guess because of the desire of others to lionize FDR, it is necessary to kill that myth once and for all.  It will be painful, but it is inevitable.  So many other nations have already realized the truth that government does not create wealth, just consumes and destroys it.  America has to learn it as well.

 

The question is.... will we realize it before we destroy ourselves... I am thinking not.

on Jan 05, 2009

watertown1978
You know there is a nice person that would do wonders for the country... or even a party, and its not the Rep or Dem right now.... 

Ron Paul?

Unfortunately he didn't have a chance in hell because the media hated his guts and wouldn't give him coverage for any price, and because he rarely got invited to debates of any kind, and because lazy people like handouts which he said in no uncertain terms that he would not give them.

on Jan 05, 2009

The question is.... will we realize it before we destroy ourselves... I am thinking not.

I would not bet against you.  I sure hope you are wrong, but only time and colossal ignorance of America will tell.

on Jan 05, 2009

watertown1978
maudlin27reply 10What they didnt look at besides all the freebies was what the reprocussions would be Then they get the government they deserve, and will just have to wait until the next election to put their vote to better use. It's a bit late (and slightly hypocritical) to start shouting about those repercussions if they were only just given the chance to have their direct say over the next government. I didnt vote for either of the fools.... write in FTW!

I voted for me>

on Jan 05, 2009

IQofSpam
watertown1978comment 7You know there is a nice person that would do wonders for the country... or even a party, and its not the Rep or Dem right now.... Ron Paul?Unfortunately he didn't have a chance in hell because the media hated his guts and wouldn't give him coverage for any price, and because he rarely got invited to debates of any kind, and because lazy people like handouts which he said in no uncertain terms that he would not give them.

I am afraid we as a nation of greatness are in "end days" all great empires rise and fall.

on Jan 05, 2009

The question is.... will we realize it before we destroy ourselves... I am thinking not.I would not bet against you.  I sure hope you are wrong, but only time and colossal ignorance of America will tell.

Joe Lieberman is a sane voice, but not listened to very much these days.

on Jan 05, 2009

that has nothing to do with competition, and everything to do with allowing the inventor time to recoup the cost of the invention.  Monopolies, even when state run or managed (utilities) are bad.

It has nothing to do with competition?! It is a monopoly! You get sole rights to the production+distribution of x invention, and can sue anyone who attempts to compete against you (/uses the invention in their own products) for damages. To argue against ALL monopolies and to say they are never a good thing means you argue against such monopolies, meaning you end up with a pretty bleak situation.

on Jan 05, 2009

It has nothing to do with competition?! It is a monopoly! You get sole rights to the production+distribution of x invention, and can sue anyone who attempts to compete against you (/uses the invention in their own products) for damages. To argue against ALL monopolies and to say they are never a good thing means you argue against such monopolies, meaning you end up with a pretty bleak situation.

And who is to stop YOU from building a DIFFERENT mouse trap?  No one.  That is competition.  You just cant steal my idea for the mousetrap, but that does not give me a monopoly on ALL mousetraps.

That is the difference.

on Jan 06, 2009

And who is to stop YOU from building a DIFFERENT mouse trap?  No one.  That is competition.  You just cant steal my idea for the mousetrap, but that does not give me a monopoly on ALL mousetraps.

That is the difference

No, because there's a different between copyright law and patents; copyright law is the 'you can copy the idea, you just can't copy the specific thing'. Patents give you rights over all use of the invention. So if I happened to develop a mechanism for a spring that could be used in mousetraps, and somehow managed to get a patent granted for it for such uses, if anyone else tried making a mousetrap with a spring in it I could stop them.

With a patent, you have a monopoly over the thing that has been patented. No-one else can compete with you on the patented item. They can try and compete by coming up with a product that has a similar effect but which is able  to avoid the terms of the patent, but they can't compete on the specific patented item.

To give you an example from distant memory, with asprin/paracetemols(/drugs generally), they used to cost a fortune. Suddenly their price dropped to next to nothing. The reason is that for a long time they enjoyed a patent meaning only the developer could sell them. When that expired, competitors could come in, take the product and sell it on at a fraction of the price. Until that time though, the drug developer had a monopoly over the product. If they hadn't been given such a monopoly, there would have been a massively reduced potential gain to developing it, while the research costs would've remained unchanged, so the chances are it wouldn't have been developed then.

on Jan 06, 2009

To give you an example from distant memory, with asprin/paracetemols(/drugs generally), they used to cost a fortune. Suddenly their price dropped to next to nothing. The reason is that for a long time they enjoyed a patent meaning only the developer could sell them. When that expired, competitors could come in, take the product and sell it on at a fraction of the price. Until that time though, the drug developer had a monopoly over the product. If they hadn't been given such a monopoly, there would have been a massively reduced potential gain to developing it, while the research costs would've remained unchanged, so the chances are it wouldn't have been developed then.

You are missing the subtlety that Doc was using.  Yes while someone holds a patent on a product you can't copy that product but you can develop something else that achieves the same end result without violating the patent.  In the case of drugs the patent is on a particular forumla or drug combination not on treating one medical problem.  So while one company may own a patent for something like Abilify to treat Schizophrenia and/or bi-polar disorder that doesn't prevent some other drug company from coming up with a different drug that treats the same conditions like Geoden (sp?).  Once the patent expires then other drug companies can come in and copy your drug formula which is when generic drugs start coming out.

Going back to the mousetrap example you may own a patent on a spring loaded mousetrap but that won't prevent someone from coming up with a glue trap or some other product that has the same end result ie trapped/killed mouse.  Therefore you don't have a monopoly on mousetraps, but I suppose if you want to get technical you do have a monopoly on spring loaded mousetraps, but that isn't exactly the same thing.

on Jan 06, 2009

No, because there's a different between copyright law and patents

Yes there is, but that does not change the fact that you have a monopoly over Ford Mustangs, not all cars.  It matters not if you use a spring, and I use a tensed rod.  My mousetrap is not your mousetrap.  ANd we both can sell them.

on Jan 12, 2009

No, because there's a different between copyright law and patentsYes there is, but that does not change the fact that you have a monopoly over Ford Mustangs, not all cars.  It matters not if you use a spring, and I use a tensed rod.  My mousetrap is not your mousetrap.  ANd we both can sell them.

This is truth, both are mouse traps but not the same, both are equal in the fact they catch or kill mice, neither "inventor can sue the other because there is no infringement on the primary device.

on Jan 12, 2009

you have a monopoly over Ford Mustangs, not all cars

You have a monopoly over all (traditional) cars if you can patent the design for a car with broad enough parameters (e.g. motorised vehicle with wheels). Yes you could still try and make a sail powered car, or a plane, but it doesn't affect the fact that that person has a monopoly on cars.

You can have as narrow or as broad a patent example as you want, but whatever happens, the person with the patent has a monopoly over what's been patented. Other people can't compete by using the idea but not copying the product it's used in directly (although the specifics will depend on the terms of the patent). The alternatives are also likely to be more expensive, and in some cases significantly more expensive, which can then allow you to have an effective monopoly of an entire market until such time that the alternatives become more cost efficient.

on Jan 12, 2009

You have a monopoly over all (traditional) cars if you can patent the design for a car with broad enough parameters (e.g. motorised vehicle with wheels). Yes you could still try and make a sail powered car, or a plane, but it doesn't affect the fact that that person has a monopoly on cars.

Even Ford did not get one.  You can try, but that does not mean you will suceed.  And even if you do temporarily, there is the rule of "obviousness" that will void any said patent.

on Jan 12, 2009

You can have as narrow or as broad a patent example as you want, but whatever happens, the person with the patent has a monopoly over what's been patented. Other people can't compete by using the idea but not copying the product it's used in directly (although the specifics will depend on the terms of the patent). The alternatives are also likely to be more expensive, and in some cases significantly more expensive, which can then allow you to have an effective monopoly of an entire market until such time that the alternatives become more cost efficient.

This is why they have patent clerks.  You can't necessarily get a patent just because you apply for one.  The patent office would not allow you to get control of an entire industry.

From dictionary.com:

pat-ent: [pat-nt or, for 10, 12–15, peyt-; especially Brit. peyt-nt] - noun

1. the exclusive right granted by a government to an inventor to manufacture, use, or sell an invention for a certain number of years.

2. an invention or process protected by this right.

So you can patent a specific invention (albeit that invention could be fairly generic the patent office would not allow you to patent an entire industry, ie even prior to the day of the automobile you couldn't patent the entire automobile, but you could patent the parts that went into making an automobile.)

Mo-nop-o-ly: [muh-nop-uh-lee] -noun, plural -lies

1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. Compare duopoly, oligopoly.

2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.

And this is the key, being able to control exclusively a commodity or service in a particular market (ie making all mouse traps not just making a specific mouse trap) or control that allows you to manipulate prices.

There is a difference between the two.

2 Pages1 2