Socialism Vs Capitalism

Although, how many of them are true new patents though? Theres been a lot of court cases recently about patent trolls and some of these patents, like with NewEgg etc, and things that shouldnt have been patented that did....

PeterZ wrote:
Well, Michael, nations are free to choose how the fund research. Still, in 2012 the US Patent office received 268,782 utility patent applications from US citizens. Foreign citizens applied for 277,033 utility patents. The USPTO granted 134,194 patents to those US applicants and 142,602 patents to foreign citizens.

It suggests to me that between the US economic system and our peculiar socio-politcal system, we are innovating at a much faster rate that the rest of the world. This is true for medical research as it is on other areas.

Kind of speaks to the value of a system that has strong individual property rights compared to those with weaker individual property rights. After all what is more nebulous than property rights over something as insubstantial as an idea as described in patents and trademarks.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/appl_yr.htm
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/cst_all.htm

pokermind wrote:A quote from the American Revolution, "Why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away? A legislative body can trample ones liberty as well as a king." Why Thomas Jefferson worked to get the Bill of Rights added to our Constitution, unfortunately the tyrants of all political stripes have been chipping at them ever since! Just saying.

Poker

Perhaps, but the US never had an entrenched aristocracy and landed gentry determined to exclude everyone else from power. Add in the Divine Right of Kings (up until Queen Ann) for the monarch and you get a pretty toxic mix.

From the only period Britain's been a Republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putney_Debates

"Cromwell and Ireton's main complaint about the Agreement was that it included terms for near universal male suffrage, which Ireton considered to be anarchy. Instead they suggested suffrage should be limited only to landholders. The Agitators, on the other hand, felt they deserved the rights in payment for their service during the war. Thus Thomas Rainsborough argued:

"For really I think that the poorest hee that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest hee; and therefore truly, Sr, I think itt clear, that every Man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own Consent to put himself under that Government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put Himself under."

And Ireton, for the Grandees:

"no man hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom... that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom.""

That was in 1647.

It took until the 20th century for the UK to complete the process of granting universal suffrage to all regardless of gender, class or religion.

With all of that to put up with, it should be pretty clear why the British Working Class turned to Socialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They were fed up with being frozen out of the political process, amongst many, many other reasons.

Mike.

PeterZ wrote:
----Snip----

Sorry, Peter, I should have made it clear that I was referring to the point about paying for all education.

From my own experience, which admittedly was back in the late '90's, my secondary school made a concerted effort to prepare it's students for university study. This was helped by the secondary curriculum being set up in a similar way to that at university, with "prelim" exams just before Christmas and final exams at the end of the school years.

It's all changed now however. I believe continuous assessment is the current model at secondary level.

Mike.

Michael Riddell wrote:Perhaps, but the US never had an entrenched aristocracy and landed gentry determined to exclude everyone else from power. Add in the Divine Right of Kings (up until Queen Ann) for the monarch and you get a pretty toxic mix.

---Snip---

Mike.

Just to clarify what I wrote, I inferred an indigenous, post-independence entrenched aristocracy and landed gentry determined to exclude everyone else from power!

Not what happened prior to 1776!

Although the US didn't exist at that point....

Mike.

We did have that sort of group but went through a civil war to remove them from power. What remains of that group now is much less obvious.

Michael Riddell wrote:

Michael Riddell wrote:Perhaps, but the US never had an entrenched aristocracy and landed gentry determined to exclude everyone else from power. Add in the Divine Right of Kings (up until Queen Ann) for the monarch and you get a pretty toxic mix.

---Snip---

Mike.

Just to clarify what I wrote, I inferred an indigenous, post-independence entrenched aristocracy and landed gentry determined to exclude everyone else from power!

Not what happened prior to 1776!

Although the US didn't exist at that point....

Mike.

PeterZ wrote:We did have that sort of group but went through a civil war to remove them from power. What remains of that group now is much less obvious.

OK, point taken, though the American Civil War was about much more than that.

In the UK, our lot survived and thrived until they cut their own throats by their actions leading up to and during World War One. After that they gradually lost their primacy - in 1924, after the wartime coalition government granted the vote in national elections to all men and women of requisite age in 1918, the Labour Party formed it's first government. It didn't last long, but it broke the stranglehold that the Conservatives and Liberals had held on the political process in this country. That has lasted until this day, with the Liberals being the biggest losers - they never again formed a government of their own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_MacDonald_ministry

Mike.

MAD-4A wrote:Let’s take a look at Socialism and Capitalism.
With Capitalism businesses are owned by individuals or corporations. Some (perhaps even many, but not all) are owned by greedy selfish individuals or groups who don’t care about anyone but themselves. They exploit their workers and/or cheat their customers. Others are owned by hard working individuals or groups who are just trying to make a living. They provide fair products and treat their employees well. In a Capitalist society, ANYONE who has an idea or product that can make money can be rich or well off. If a company doesn’t treat its employees well, they have every right to quit or just not show up for work. The company has no right to force people to work for them. If anyone continues working for a company that mistreats them then it’s their own fault. If a company produces a bad product or cheats their customer then the customer can go somewhere else to buy from or even start a competitive company to run the cheaters out of business. NO ONE is forced to buy a product from any given company! If you don’t like a company you can go somewhere else.

You have a very unbalanced view on capitalism.
Capitalism, or better a Free-market-economy to use a term that is not idological loaded, only works for the benefit of the majority of people if their is a shortage of workers and an abundance of resources.

If their is surplus of workers, they will be exploited and they have no choice (unless dying is an option) unless their is some kind of welfare system.
Yes, some say their is the possibility to find new work, make you own firm, but that will and cannot work for everybody.

In a market economy their is the power of demand and supply.
If you supply more than is demanded, than you got a problem.
So in a capitalist society with a surplus of workers, the worker has no real choice in his working conditions and payment unless he is able to change, like getting better education to be qualified for a other jobs where there is a demand for.
But this is not an option for a lot of people. There is a reason a mechanic become a mechanic in the first place and not an engineer.

The second problem is, that their is abnormality in the Labor-Market.
In a normal market, if the supply is bigger than the demand, the suppliers would reduce their supply to adjust to the demand. In the labor market, if the supply is higher then the demand, people increase their supply, because they need to survive.
You can see it in the US. People need 3 or 4 Jobs to survive, but by taking three or four Jobs an working 120h/week they destroy their own value. But they have no choice. When they quit their job, they don't have enough money to surive.
It would need an organized effort of all minimum-wage-jobbers to quit their jobs to shorten the supply to raise the price of their labor.

Because there is no fix price for labor. The price is generated by the rules of demand and supply.

And that is one big problem Europe and the USA have, because the price for labor in China and India is much much lower, even so low that in Europa or the US you wouldn't be able to survive with this price for labor.

That is the big problem.
European or US worker can not compete with chinese workers, because they are so cheap (in some chinese factories, the workers actually make no money at all, because they need to rent a bed and buy the food in the factory, from their employer, which cost sometimes more than the income the worker have).

Capitalism only works well for the benefit of all people, when they have a choice to not work. When they can deprive their labor from the market somehow.
For example, the Rise of the West at the end of the 17th Century was only possible, because a lot of people could just went away from Europe. They went in to the colonies, so the owners and producer of factories needed to improve working conditions and needed to improve technology because the supply of labor was so low.
And the US could become so high in living standards in the 19th century and beginning 20, because everybody could just say: fuck it, I go west, buy a farm and live for myself (yeahh, its a little more complicated than that).

Today this is not possible anymore. Any Land is privatized. Every piece of Land is owned, you cant withdraw and live for yourself. We are forced to live together. everywhere you go, their is 'society'. Its impossible to just live from the land.
You have to abide to the rules of society, you have to work for money to live, you have no choice but to do that.

The difference between Europe and the US is, that the US is much bigger and younger, so it just become clear in the last 50-60 years that their is no West anymore, where you can go and say, fuck society, I become a cowboy. You have still this sense of freedom in the US, that you can survive outside of society, but this is impossible today (unless you inherit Land you can withdraw to or have enough money to buy it).
In Europa the impossibility to withdraw from society startet much earlier in the end of the medieavel era.

In Europe it is clear that you can't withdraw, so society at all has to cope with that problem and theirfor Europe is much more social than the USA.

Interesting observations.

I would point out that increased population not only increases the supply of labor but also the demand for products and hence the demand for labor.

I also find your observations about resource constraints reducing the demand for labor interesting. This is why I am so hostile towards environmentalists alarmism. The AGW folk have declared that their goal is to reduce not only CO2 but reduce industrial production and population to achieve that goal. Any sane populist should oppose this.

Natas wrote:

MAD-4A wrote:Let’s take a look at Socialism and Capitalism.
With Capitalism businesses are owned by individuals or corporations. Some (perhaps even many, but not all) are owned by greedy selfish individuals or groups who don’t care about anyone but themselves. They exploit their workers and/or cheat their customers. Others are owned by hard working individuals or groups who are just trying to make a living. They provide fair products and treat their employees well. In a Capitalist society, ANYONE who has an idea or product that can make money can be rich or well off. If a company doesn’t treat its employees well, they have every right to quit or just not show up for work. The company has no right to force people to work for them. If anyone continues working for a company that mistreats them then it’s their own fault. If a company produces a bad product or cheats their customer then the customer can go somewhere else to buy from or even start a competitive company to run the cheaters out of business. NO ONE is forced to buy a product from any given company! If you don’t like a company you can go somewhere else.

You have a very unbalanced view on capitalism.
Capitalism, or better a Free-market-economy to use a term that is not idological loaded, only works for the benefit of the majority of people if their is a shortage of workers and an abundance of resources.

If their is surplus of workers, they will be exploited and they have no choice (unless dying is an option) unless their is some kind of welfare system.
Yes, some say their is the possibility to find new work, make you own firm, but that will and cannot work for everybody.

In a market economy their is the power of demand and supply.
If you supply more than is demanded, than you got a problem.
So in a capitalist society with a surplus of workers, the worker has no real choice in his working conditions and payment unless he is able to change, like getting better education to be qualified for a other jobs where there is a demand for.
But this is not an option for a lot of people. There is a reason a mechanic become a mechanic in the first place and not an engineer.

The second problem is, that their is abnormality in the Labor-Market.
In a normal market, if the supply is bigger than the demand, the suppliers would reduce their supply to adjust to the demand. In the labor market, if the supply is higher then the demand, people increase their supply, because they need to survive.
You can see it in the US. People need 3 or 4 Jobs to survive, but by taking three or four Jobs an working 120h/week they destroy their own value. But they have no choice. When they quit their job, they don't have enough money to surive.
It would need an organized effort of all minimum-wage-jobbers to quit their jobs to shorten the supply to raise the price of their labor.

Because there is no fix price for labor. The price is generated by the rules of demand and supply.

And that is one big problem Europe and the USA have, because the price for labor in China and India is much much lower, even so low that in Europa or the US you wouldn't be able to survive with this price for labor.

That is the big problem.
European or US worker can not compete with chinese workers, because they are so cheap (in some chinese factories, the workers actually make no money at all, because they need to rent a bed and buy the food in the factory, from their employer, which cost sometimes more than the income the worker have).

Capitalism only works well for the benefit of all people, when they have a choice to not work. When they can deprive their labor from the market somehow.
For example, the Rise of the West at the end of the 17th Century was only possible, because a lot of people could just went away from Europe. They went in to the colonies, so the owners and producer of factories needed to improve working conditions and needed to improve technology because the supply of labor was so low.
And the US could become so high in living standards in the 19th century and beginning 20, because everybody could just say: fuck it, I go west, buy a farm and live for myself (yeahh, its a little more complicated than that).

Today this is not possible anymore. Any Land is privatized. Every piece of Land is owned, you cant withdraw and live for yourself. We are forced to live together. everywhere you go, their is 'society'. Its impossible to just live from the land.
You have to abide to the rules of society, you have to work for money to live, you have no choice but to do that.

The difference between Europe and the US is, that the US is much bigger and younger, so it just become clear in the last 50-60 years that their is no West anymore, where you can go and say, fuck society, I become a cowboy. You have still this sense of freedom in the US, that you can survive outside of society, but this is impossible today (unless you inherit Land you can withdraw to or have enough money to buy it).
In Europa the impossibility to withdraw from society startet much earlier in the end of the medieavel era.

In Europe it is clear that you can't withdraw, so society at all has to cope with that problem and theirfor Europe is much more social than the USA.

I will be dipped in shit!

Someone finally offers a cogent argument for universal sufferage. Evenimbeciles should be allowed to vote because by allowing imbeciles to vote, society assumes moral authority over the imbeciles andcanthus expect the imbeciles to abide by societies laws.

This requires thought.

How can you get the imbeciles to not vote like imbeciles?

How can you limit the power of imbeciles. (A very comprehensive Bill of Rights that restricts the taking of property and unequal taxes seems to be promising)

Of course another possibility would be the Manticoran system of restricting the vote to the people who actually pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits?

How about a bicramel legislature with a lower house elected by all citizens and an upper house elected only by tax payers? Of course a third house selected by State legislatures would be useful too.

Michael Riddell wrote:

pokermind wrote:A quote from the American Revolution, "Why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away? A legislative body can trample ones liberty as well as a king." Why Thomas Jefferson worked to get the Bill of Rights added to our Constitution, unfortunately the tyrants of all political stripes have been chipping at them ever since! Just saying.

Poker

Perhaps, but the US never had an entrenched aristocracy and landed gentry determined to exclude everyone else from power. Add in the Divine Right of Kings (up until Queen Ann) for the monarch and you get a pretty toxic mix.

From the only period Britain's been a Republic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putney_Debates

"Cromwell and Ireton's main complaint about the Agreement was that it included terms for near universal male suffrage, which Ireton considered to be anarchy. Instead they suggested suffrage should be limited only to landholders. The Agitators, on the other hand, felt they deserved the rights in payment for their service during the war. Thus Thomas Rainsborough argued:

"For really I think that the poorest hee that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest hee; and therefore truly, Sr, I think itt clear, that every Man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own Consent to put himself under that Government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put Himself under."

And Ireton, for the Grandees:

"no man hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom... that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom.""

That was in 1647.

It took until the 20th century for the UK to complete the process of granting universal suffrage to all regardless of gender, class or religion.

With all of that to put up with, it should be pretty clear why the British Working Class turned to Socialism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They were fed up with being frozen out of the political process, amongst many, many other reasons.

Mike.

Regarding voting rights, I always thought that the best thing to do would be to reduce taxation to a voluntary percentage of the wage, but require someone to pay something like 20% flat-rate tax for a minimum of four years before they gained the right to vote (or have a minimum amount paid for them by a spouse/lover/relative/friend) with the provisio that if they claim any money from the government, they are forbidden from paying tax for that year and thus lose the right to vote until they have paid tax for four more years.

This means that since politicians would be unable to rely on the benefits underclass for votes (the way that Labour does in the UK), politicians would seek to reduce the red tape that keeps many people from working in order to get them into a position where they can vote. This would encourage economic growth and discourage the growth of a parasitic underclass known by the politically incorrect name of Benefit Scroungers.

It would also tell people that voting is important.