Kapitalism
-
This one is appealing in that they refund the fee even if it's from some other bank. So you can go to the ATM at the corner shop that charges $3 to withdraw, and get that refunded at the end of the quarter. Most banks don't have fees at their own ATM, but this is no fees anywhere. For rich people.
Ally Bank whoop! Online only bank. Used to be unlimited free ATM withdrawals, now $10/mo reimbursed. Plenty for most!
-
In modern economics, a massive change came about in the early 1970s. Productivity and profits decoupled from employee wages, and continued to rise while wages stayed flat. Fast forward 50 years, account for inflation and shifts in technology, and it's easy to see that employee wages HAVEN'T RISEN in meaningful amounts for 50 years. Meanwhile, companies are making more money than ever.
So, I'd say it was in the 70's.
-
oh see here that refers specifically to militias
Ohhh, is that that other thing the US doesn't do?
-
Yeah some of what I've said doesn't portray my arguments well. In trying to explain that IP law is a process that protects creatives and without it creative endeavours would be eroded. This is not a point of debate. Virtually every country has an IP law. IP law doesn't make it so people won't share their ideas, it makes it so people who do are rewarded.
IP law is a process that protects creatives and without it creative endeavours would be eroded. This is not a point of debate
How is it not a point of debate? I'm giving you arguments as to why it's a very good point of debate and you don't seem to be able to respond to them.
Virtually every country has an IP law
Virtually every country also has homeless people and I disagree with that, that's just an argument from majority, kinda useless to me.
IP law doesn't make it so people won't share their ideas, it makes it so people who do are rewarded
I already explained how there are already existing mechanisms without IP pushing for the rewarding of intellectual production, such as the "publish-or-perish" system in public research. You may very well have arguments against it, but the fact of the matter is that you don't need IP as a mechanism to reward people who engage innovation/creative/research processes. Public openings at institutions (whether a national orchestra, a research institute or a cinema academy with subsidised production), contests and grants... IP is not the only method for material rewarding of intellectual creation, which is what you're trying to argue.
-
In a classic example you have a village with 2 bakeries, one of the bakers came up with a machine to kneed the bread, so he can make more bread and sell it cheaper. This is sort of the story people tell to show how great capitalism is.
But we have reached a point where that one bakery now owns a chain of bakers, adds ingredients to the bread to make it more addictive, skips on actual ingredients needed for bread and replaces them with sawdust, made donations to the current political party so any competition has to jump through hoops to get a bakery license, etc.
And don't forget how one bakery could pay their employees only the bare minimum, cut corners where they can and use the profit to undercut the 'good' bakery until the 'good' bakery goes bankrupt and the 'bad' bakery can simply be a local monopoly and raise prices as they like.
-
It’s a good lesson to teach that the wealthy would rather rebrand their image than give up wealth
Hence this part, if you’re looking to change the system then you have to counter the rebrand and set up a system that can’t be undone
Sure. The way to counter the rebrand is to question it and call BS on it when you encounter it, expose it for what it actually is. That was the point of my post.
-
IP law is a process that protects creatives and without it creative endeavours would be eroded. This is not a point of debate
How is it not a point of debate? I'm giving you arguments as to why it's a very good point of debate and you don't seem to be able to respond to them.
Virtually every country has an IP law
Virtually every country also has homeless people and I disagree with that, that's just an argument from majority, kinda useless to me.
IP law doesn't make it so people won't share their ideas, it makes it so people who do are rewarded
I already explained how there are already existing mechanisms without IP pushing for the rewarding of intellectual production, such as the "publish-or-perish" system in public research. You may very well have arguments against it, but the fact of the matter is that you don't need IP as a mechanism to reward people who engage innovation/creative/research processes. Public openings at institutions (whether a national orchestra, a research institute or a cinema academy with subsidised production), contests and grants... IP is not the only method for material rewarding of intellectual creation, which is what you're trying to argue.
Because everyone does it for that exact reason
-
When pressed, the anti communist reveals that insults and thought terminating cliches are all they have
Is your user name ironic?
-
The major premise of Capitalism is risk vs reward. We hit a tipping point though, where 99% of people do not have any capital to risk, and the people who do have the capital have enough to nullify any risk.
Tax the rich.
Not just having capital, but got a hostage situation where their failure would collapse the economy therefore they are not allowed to fail and must be bailed out by the government they paid (often for far less) for earlier.
-
Because everyone does it for that exact reason
Everyone does it because every country works through the capitalist mode of production, not because it's a necessity of production.
How about you answer to the rest of my comment?
-
In a form of a piece of lead in their heads, no doubt
What a stupid argument. Literally just asserting you're right based on nothing.
Another fascist.
Another fascist
Only for a brain dead tankie someone criticising Stalin and gulags is always a "fascist"
-
Patents are bad, how to solve-
Step 1. Abolish currency.
Yes i know, from the perspective of others i got sidetracked but its part of a larger thing in my brain where intellectual property is a symptom of the capitalist disease. I mentioned the autism thing, we tend to connect dots on all scales.
I could go on and explain how IP can actually become a form of thought police. (Things being invented just to cencor them/The creator of Disco Elysium being banned to publish things from his own paracosm universe) but to be honest your replies have been lacking substance and i am rather tired of defending this towards someone who is not going to change their right. (Which is your right, i respect your entitlement to your beliefs)
-
They are not Capitalists. In fact capitalism is a great idea, it just we don't have it.
Maybe it's Crony capitalism instead?
-
Another fascist
Only for a brain dead tankie someone criticising Stalin and gulags is always a "fascist"
Criticizing them from a Nazi perspective, no doubt.
Another brain dead fascist
-
Is your user name ironic?
See? You've got nothing but lazy insults.
-
Again, not a problem with IP law, a problem with corporate structure.
It is a problem with the law, corporations should not be allowed to own IP only the creator of the IP
-
This post did not contain any content.
On related note, Luanti (formerly Minetest) is a platform for playing and developing block mining games a la Minecraft and Vintage story.
-
Capitalists say the free market is king then they go and make laws to stifle and restrict it so they can make monopolies and gouge everyone out of their hard-earned income.
Buy everything up so your choice doesnt really latter because the money ends up in theirs either way.
And put hurdles in the way so no one could try to get any funny ideas and make their own thing -
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
Yes, Intellectual Property must go down. People often think positively of copyright, thinking that no one would support artists if they weren't forced to, and that artists couldn't possibly make a living if it weren't for copyright. I think we are rich enough that if we were to share it properly we could give everyone, not just the talented, time and resources to create art. And I think the talented would still gain advantages by being talented, people want to support artists that mean a lot to them. But to be fair, limiting or removing copyright is not only not that popular of an idea, it's also the least of our worries, cause it mostly concerns entertainment purposes.
Patent laws is where we need to act. To give a clear example: patent laws mean that excessive amounts of money goes to pharmaceutical companies, This is always defended by saying that they in turn will invest this money into research. The problem is
-
They spend far more money on marketing than on R&D, which effectively means that you're often not getting the best medicine, it means your getting the best marketed medicine.
-
When money does go to R&D, the research that's being done, is limited to that which benefits the pharmaceutical company. This is an unacceptable limitation. For example it is not in the interest of pharmaceutical companies to to cure disease, it's far more commercially attractive to make it a manageable chronic disease, where you rely on medication for the rest of your life.
-
Companies will not share their knowledge. For a company these are trade-secrets that could benefit their competition and if you have to compete obviously sharing knowledge is not in your best interest. But if you want to help humanity forward, obviously you should.
-
Drug prices are often excessively high, in part because of the previously mentioned marketing costs that you pay for.
Neither of these problems would exist if R&D was funded by governments and charity. And the pharmaceutical is just one industry that's taken as an example. The way that intellectual property is holding humanity back can not be overstated. Basically we need to go free and open source on IP,
-
-
Yes, Intellectual Property must go down. People often think positively of copyright, thinking that no one would support artists if they weren't forced to, and that artists couldn't possibly make a living if it weren't for copyright. I think we are rich enough that if we were to share it properly we could give everyone, not just the talented, time and resources to create art. And I think the talented would still gain advantages by being talented, people want to support artists that mean a lot to them. But to be fair, limiting or removing copyright is not only not that popular of an idea, it's also the least of our worries, cause it mostly concerns entertainment purposes.
Patent laws is where we need to act. To give a clear example: patent laws mean that excessive amounts of money goes to pharmaceutical companies, This is always defended by saying that they in turn will invest this money into research. The problem is
-
They spend far more money on marketing than on R&D, which effectively means that you're often not getting the best medicine, it means your getting the best marketed medicine.
-
When money does go to R&D, the research that's being done, is limited to that which benefits the pharmaceutical company. This is an unacceptable limitation. For example it is not in the interest of pharmaceutical companies to to cure disease, it's far more commercially attractive to make it a manageable chronic disease, where you rely on medication for the rest of your life.
-
Companies will not share their knowledge. For a company these are trade-secrets that could benefit their competition and if you have to compete obviously sharing knowledge is not in your best interest. But if you want to help humanity forward, obviously you should.
-
Drug prices are often excessively high, in part because of the previously mentioned marketing costs that you pay for.
Neither of these problems would exist if R&D was funded by governments and charity. And the pharmaceutical is just one industry that's taken as an example. The way that intellectual property is holding humanity back can not be overstated. Basically we need to go free and open source on IP,
though usually stupid and fucky copyright laws have one advantage - if someone bigger than you steals your idea you can take them to court. without copyright laws we'd have giant corporations just taking shit and using their platform to sell stolen ideas without a single cent going to the original creator.......
which happens anyway, but uh, i guess it'd happen more?
honestly idk, let's do a test run of a year without any copyright laws and see if anything changes like at all
-
