Apple's patent absurdity exposed at last

reply to post by Magnum007

Those countries are going bankrupt because the americans have instituted their systems causing the perfect balance they had before to collapse... Just like the USSR..

We're hopelessly retarded but the masterminds of global economic collapses.

Take your pick.

Of course - it couldn't be that these governments routinely have to print more fiat currency than they collect via taxation. That couldn't possibly be the cause of the inflation they experience that leads to economic strain.

And of course none of this is happening now... DENY DENY DENY!!!!

How about you pay attention to what is going on, currently.

America has little industry left. Legions of lawyers line up just to analyze this year's barrage of several dozen 6,000 page federal legislative bills - any of which can have ear-marks and miscellaneous changes that can run a company thousands of dollars to comply with (a piece). Some even make changes that render said business impossible.

That's one of the huge reasons why companies are leaving the U.S. The legal overhead is too much and the actions of regulations far too arbitrary and uninformed as to render any profitability null.

Raising taxes on them will only get what few weather the storm to jump ship, as well.

"I will not permit the national government to behave this way!"
P.S. Everyone has a right to live...

You have a right to life. It's a right that can only be utilized by the living, however.

Nobody said they have to get what they want, it's about getting what you need...

You used the word want.

Don't make me pull up the quote.

Sure, have you lived in a socialist country? Oh wait, you're from Missouri, you know what being in a Socialist/Communist state is like! US propaganda at its best!

It's called research and statistics.

You're from Canada. What would you know about a free market system?

The same argument applies both ways.

As opposed to a place where completely free capitalism creates no competition (they are wiped out by the "best and biggest"),

This is not possible under a truly free market economy. Your 'model' presumes a fixed number of business entities (in which case - you would be correct - businesses would eventually attrit down to a small number of providers). It is, however, what happens under crony capitalism. Businesses and government manipulate each other to effectively prevent the starting of new businesses - particularly outside of the service industry. The end result is that large businesses can always react to small upstarts before they can upset the balance.

In a free market system, no such advantages can be had. A large business becomes preoccupied keeping its current lines producing cheaply and efficiently while smaller up-starts come up with new designs that later grow in parallel or supplant the market share of larger businesses.

Example: AMD came out of competition with Intel. AMD used to manufacture CPUs for Intel before realizing they could create their own x-86 compliant chip that operated more efficiently. They did - and sold it at competitive pricing.

Now, AMD is really the only competitor to Intel and acquired ATI (to compete against Nvidia).

Amazon started from the basement of a few college students.

Google was a graduate project for college students.

When you stifle small business startup and growth - you sow the seeds of your own economic destruction.

creates sky high prices,

This is simply not true. Only under crony capitalism can this occur - and even then, since no country exists in a vacuum - outside suppliers are always in competition with internal ones.

creates artificial inflation

That is not a product of the free market. That is a product of fiat currency and of federal backing of banking systems. Businesses, outside of banks, have no mechanism for creating inflation (they should have a negative inflation rate, if anything). Banks can only create inflation through fractional reserve banking - which can only be carried out in the extremes when fiat currency is in effect and the banks are all effectively owned by a centralized government agency (Federal Reserve).

In a free market - banks that issued notes beyond their vaults would not be accepted by businesses and other banks.

and creates a system where politics are dictated by corporations who pay the government to do as they like

If government didn't attempt to regulate business to such a degree - business would have no incentive to get involved in government.

This isn't complicated.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by The X

 

Umm sorry but youre wrong..........

If it wasnt money then it would just be something else......resources....minerals......food

Its a nice dream you have there buddy, full of unicorns im sure......

But I assure you, eliminating money will do nothing but force powerful people to find something else they can use to exert said power..........

You saying "I'm wrong" does not make it so, your opinion does not make me "Wrong".
At some point we will realise we are capable of maintaining life without needing to f*** each other over.
The sooner the better, you think a world full of people that has tasted true freedom, that has everything they need, will let a bunch of people spend another 6000 years making it all their own again?.
Even if it only took them a 1000years the second time round to achieve the position they have now, by then technology, science, and our understanding of our metaphysical selves would make something like that not only impossible, but, un-neccesary.
But in the meantime peoples unwillingness to even consider fundamental change for everyone, will ensure millions of more people will starve to death in abject poverty the world over, The really disturbing thing is, THIS should be a paradise on earth for everyone, and not just for those that can "afford" to have every little want gratified.

Think Bigger buddy, oh, and my unicorn has had puppies, anyone want one?.

reply to post by TrueBrit


There is no need for more Apple products on my end.

I'm all appled out with an ipod and iphone4s. Their computers are still too expensive for me so I'll pass.

reply to post by The X

You saying "I'm wrong" does not make it so, your opinion does not make me "Wrong".

Except it's not exactly an opinion.

You forget that human beings are still evolved to be tribal creatures. Females seek lasting bonds with good "father material" while their instincts drive them to cuckoldry with politically favorable males. Males seek social power and status (money, popularity, position, etc) to draw the attention of females (whether or not they realize it).

This is how we are genetically programmed to behave. Sure - conscious thought can do a lot of things and allow us to over-ride instincts; but the type of things you are talking about are just too far outside the envelope of our species.

Evolution demands the individual be competitive against other members of its species. We will never be exempt from this process.

At some point we will realise we are capable of maintaining life without needing to f*** each other over.

We already do. That is how human society began to develop. Men and women who work together can share resources - individuals who work together may not necessarily be "top dogs" of competitiveness - but cooperation can ensure the survival of their offspring (who can later seize opportunities to gain a competitive edge).

The thing is that we are still driven to be competitive. I want my children to be better than yours - for me to give them access to the tools, environment, and genetics to spread my legacy far and wide.

Ultimately, that will cause conflict at some point in time (considering each of my children will be genetically programmed to do the same - just as we all are). Knowing that this conflict is inevitable allows us to use our conscious minds to over-ride our instincts and perform in ways that are more logically consistent.

That doesn't automatically exclude things like war and deceit - but makes them far more calculated endeavors as compared to impulsive responses.

But in the meantime peoples unwillingness to even consider fundamental change for everyone,

You're not the first, not the only, and certainly won't be the last person saying things like this. There's a reason the "politically correct" answer always involves allusions to "world peace" and "ending world hunger."

Here's the thing - I'm more than willing to charge into Africa and start setting things straight there. For an effective relief effort - you have to disrupt the warlords, cartels, and other groups that wreak havoc on aid efforts. Essentially - you have to go to war with them; snuff them out, and replace the incomes they offer (people work for them because they often are the only ones offering comparably lucrative positions) with 'real jobs.'

To do that, you need boots-on-ground and a full scale military endeavor lasting at least 15 years (probably closer to 25 or even 30).

I'll be more than happy to be part of it. However, I'm not going to go do it for free. I have goals - a house I'd like to build (my modest starter home - not my crazy dream home), a family I'd like to one day have and support, hobbies I would like to pursue (that would cost money).

"Well, under my system, you could have these things for free if you do your part for society."

Except it doesn't really work like that. It requires everyone to drop their individual goals and work for some arbitrary greater good that may ultimately require great sacrifices of their individuality.

In the military, one is often trained to "follow orders" (this is far more applicable to dynamic combat situations; "because I said so and am higher ranking" is a piss-poor reason to back up static decisions... a concept the military can have difficulty grasping). This is because you don't have time to debate when bullets are flying. You may, very well, be ordered on an effective suicide mission to allow other individuals to ultimately 'win' the engagement. That is a sacrifice for the greater good. You put your trust in the hands of those above you that whatever sacrifices may lay ahead - it will ultimately be a good and necessary decision.

The system you talk of requires that and more. It's not your death being gambled - it's your life. Your dreams, passions - the very things that make you who you are.

It's one thing to talk - it's another to do. And that's why you see what you describe. Even you - you're more than willing to talk about it - perhaps even donate a token amount to charities or aid efforts. But would you give up your career for what you describe? Would you accept being told that you have met your quota for a favorite brand of ice cream, and that you have to put it back (eating too much of it is depriving others and abusive).

It all goes against the grain of human nature.