Thanks for raising this issue Bhairitu. Right now, patent period for patent holders is 20 years, which IMO is too long. This is one of the reasons why new inventions take too long to become cheap.
Take for instance the Compact-Disk developed by Philips and Sony. It took 20 years for CD's to become cheap. A shorter patent term of say, 8 years is quite enough for the patent holder to recover his costs. Secondly patents should be managed by a UN based body. This will bring global uniformity regarding patent rights. --- Bhairitu <noozguru@...> wrote: > > The country needs to be about 90% socialist and 10% capitalist (actually > free enterprise). The latter would take care of the folks who want to > work for themselves and the former the majority who don't want to worry > about running a company. You would need to limit the size of companies > though. Allowing for mega corporations has proven to be a real problem. > > Government needs to be transparent and transcendental or "not in your > face." A lot of laws on US books (including copyright) need to be > thrown out and about the only way that will ever happen is for the US to > collapse as the former Soviet Union did. The problem is there will be a > struggle as those who are so mentally imbalanced that they feel the need > to be "king of the hill" will try to grab up everything they can. > > On 12/08/2013 02:22 AM, Jason wrote: > > > > > > Hey Bhairitu, the first thing that needs to be done is to > > de-link the 'political-system' from the economic-system. > > > > Of course, you can't ban private donations. That would go > > against the very spirit of democracy and freedom. > > > > However, you can create a situation in which there is no > > incentive for political parties to seek private donations. > > Besides, you can add a law that bars corporations from > > donating more that 10% percent of their profits to political > > parties. > > > > Capitalism works very well for the economic system. > > > > Capitalism works very badly for the political system. > > > > Capitalism works very badly for the cultural systems. > > > > Both, political system and cultural systems need to be based > > on Socialism. Consider all the three systems as three > > corners of a triangle. > > > > > > --- Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > > > > The point is Mike that the Santa Clara vs Southern Pacific Railroad > > case > > > was the end of the more restrictive rules on corporations. It was the > > > first step toward corporate personhood. What it seemed to bring were > > > many states limitations on the life span of a corporation which back > > > then was around 40 years. I'm going to provide some good articles here > > > analyzing it's effects for you and others who are interested. > > > > > > History of regulations on corporations: > > > > > http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporation\ s-us/ > > > > > > Long excerpt from Thom Hartmann's book: > > > http://www.thomhartmann.com/unequal-protection/excerpt-theft > > > > > > Surely you don't think that mega-corporations are good for the > > world, do > > > you? I've heard arguments that big corporations make new technologies > > > possible. But that is not true. Big corporations buy up little > > > companies who create new technologies. IBM, Microsoft, Apple and Google > > > have done that for years. Android was developed by a small company that > > > Google bought. > > > > > > Surely you don't think that wealth inequality is a good thing, do you? > > > Shouldn't there be a cap on salaries? It seems to me the planet is > > > being raided by a bunch of mobsters masquerading as corporations. This > > > was more blatant in the former Soviet Union after it fell and oligarchs > > > popped up raiding what they could. > > > > > > Wouldn't you like your dollar to go a lot farther than it does now? > > > This is NOT a partisan issue. > > > > > > > > > On 12/06/2013 10:30 AM, Mike Dixon wrote: > > > > Share I was asking Bharitu what his point was,regarding that court > > > > case he was sighting. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, December 6, 2013 7:18 AM, Share Long > > > > <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Mike, my point was and is: it's all pretty funny so I hope you can > > > > just enjoy the humor of it all (-: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, December 6, 2013 8:52 AM, Mike Dixon > > > > <mdixon.6569@> wrote: > > > > > > > > So , what was your point? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, December 5, 2013 10:05 AM, Share Long > > > > <sharelong60@> wrote: > > > > I think we got a barbell situation right here on FFL! > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, December 5, 2013 12:02 PM, Jason <jedi_spock@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > You don't understand. It's called the barbell strategy. You > > > > create a system which has some positives and drawbacks. You > > > > again create another reverse mirror image system. The two > > > > systems balance each other out. > > > > > > > > A 'socialistic political system' will balance out a > > > > 'capitalistic economic system'. > > > > > > > > Political subsidies for political parties will ease the > > > > pressure off the parties and prevent them from playing to > > > > the gallery. They will stop worrying about funds and start > > > > focussing on real policies for growth. > > > > > > > > It also prevents crony capitalism and promotes real > > > > pro-market capitalism. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- <s3raphita@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Re "At least, 3% of the total budget should be allocated to > > > > political parties as subsidies.": > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WTF! I don't want one cent of my money to go to a political party. > > > > Let them pay for their own propaganda. > > > > > Extremist parties wouldn't arise if mainstream parties actually > > > > pursued policies that were in the interests of the voters. How hard > > > > can it be? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- <s3raphita@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Re "Capitalist governments shouldn't be bailing anybody out > > . . . If > > > > > > > the government takes the risk out of the equation by offering a > > > > bailout, > > > > > > > any fool could run a business and risk everyone's > > investments in > > > > it with > > > > > > > no lessons learned.:" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Precisely my point. You can argue that we should move > > towards a more > > > > > > > Ayn Rand set-up and get governments off our backs. It's states > > > > offering > > > > > > > bailouts that has encouraged the banks to take idiotic risks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You could argue the opposite though - financial institutions > > should > > > > > > > come under more strenuous oversight from financial regulators > > > > with the > > > > > > > state limiting bonuses and having a veto on risky investments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's the current mixed-economy model that isn't fit for purpose. > > > > > > > "Bankers socialism" pisses off everyone. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- "Jason" <jedi_spock@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The 'capitalistic political system' is the greatest dogma of > > > > > > the 20th century. > > > > > > > > > > > > The 'socialistic economic system' is the second greatest > > > > > > dogma of the 20th century. > > > > > > > > > > > > A 'capitalistic political system' is tantamount to > > > > > > 'corporate dictatorship'. > > > > > > > > > > > > Atleast, 3% percent of the total budget money should be > > > > > > allocated to political parties as political subsidies. > > > > > > These political subsidies should be distributed to parties > > > > > > on vote proportion basis. This will force political parties > > > > > > to take a more centrist position and prevent extreme fringe > > > > > > ideologies from arising. > > > > > > > > > >
