Quote:
Originally Posted by u-Bob
Ferrari still sells cars even though they are very expensive. Would Ferrari sell more cars if they lowered their prices? Probably. Does that mean Ferrari should lower their prices? No, that's up to Ferrari to decide. They decide what profit margin they are happy with. They decide if they are happy with the volume they are currently selling and if they want to lower their margins to increase their sales.
The law of supply and demand at a certain price.
...Economics 101
|
I guess you didn't learn that in an economics University. The reason Ferrari cost more to buy is, they cost a lot more to make and better than the cheaper alternatives. Status symbol comes into it partly. Equating a Ferrri with porn is stupid. When was the last time you saw someone browsing a Playboy movie in public and thought he was a cool dude?
Quote:
|
So, what you support is the law of the jungle? where the strong are allowed to crush the weak...
|
No I know without laws to protect us it would be the law of the jungle. Your beliefs would result in laws of the jungle. Because in the real world it takes one person to not sign up to make it so.
Quote:
Like I said, It's naive to think that state intervention stops big corporations from doing bad things. State intervention is what enables big corporations to do bad things. state intervention creates and maintains monopolies. State intervention creates cartels.
Let's take a look at patents for example. Many people seem to think that patents protect your ideas and encourage innovation. However, patents don't protect idea's. What a patent does is give you the right to use the State to stop another person or company from using a technique that you patented.
Let's say Paul A owns a small company and has been selling a certain product for many many years. Paul A developed a special technique to produce his products and to keep his competitive edge he kept that special technique a secret. Years later, Paul B invents a technique that is very similar to the one Paul A has been using for many years. Paul B pays the state to patent 'his invention'. Paul B now has the power to stop Paul A from using the technique he has been using for many years, a technique Paul A invented himself.
Now let's say Paul C invented another technique and kept it a secret. Corporation D invents a similar technique and patents it. Corporation D now has the power to put Paul C out of business.
Corporation E comes a long and wants to use the technique Corporation D patented. No problem, Corporation E will just use that technique and if Corporation D sues Corporation E then Corporation E will just sue Corporation D for using some other technique that E patented and D is using. In the end D and E will just crosslicense and continue doing business.
The end result: Big Corporation that spend millions of dollars on large patent arsenals are able to prevent small companies that don't have large patent arsenals from entering the market.
And still patents are being promoted as a way to encourage innovation and to help small companies.
There usually is a big difference between what laws and regulations are really intended for and what politicians claim they are intended for.
|
So your solution is to remove all protection????
Go find your desert island because you're clearly not suited for the real world. You believe because the system doesn't work perfectly to your liking you think it should all be changed. So there is no workable system.
Of course if I invent patent A someone can invent patent B and take it further or change it in some way. That's been the way of science through the ages. Most inventions today come from people taking one mans ideas and developing them into another use.
You see what big corporations will do and think it's wrong. So come up with a workable logical solution. We can all point to the problems. Point is to the solutions that work.