Cuch: Popped that article up because it is a companion to the first and we have had NN conversations with somedevil and others.IMO, the greatest disappointment in AI was the 8-lane superhighway that was constructed in the service of Business Intelligence.Agree with your comments elsewhere on ll ism.

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaYour proposal is as if the community had granted to itself a perpetual patent on all natural laws -- "if you use F=ma, then you must pay a non-negotiable royalty to the government for the privilege."Almost right. To whom else, other than the community of all, should the rights of natural laws belong? But the "royalty" is not "non-negotiable". The whole point of market valuation is that the "royalty" is indeed negotiable, except when the community imposes a veto -- which is reasonable in some cases (e.g. if someone wants to trade second-hand WMDs).Likewise natural resources and all the benefits that come from merely living on the planet also belong to the community.The inventor enjoys the extra benefit that arises purely from his/her creativity. The consumer enjoys the extra benefit that comes from puchasing the goods that result. It is capitalism that enables some privileged individuals to impose those non-negotiable fees for their private benefit. To expand further, Marx called this "royalty" surplus value. He claimed it belonged to workers as unpaid labour because it would not exist without labour. Capitalists claim it as theirs because it would not exist without them financing production. I claim it as belonging to the community for all the reasons I have explained multiple times.

QuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaYour proposal is as if the community had granted to itself a perpetual patent on all natural laws -- "if you use F=ma, then you must pay a non-negotiable royalty to the government for the privilege."Almost right. To whom else, other than the community of all, should the rights of natural laws belong? But the "royalty" is not "non-negotiable". The whole point of market valuation is that the "royalty" is indeed negotiable, except when the community imposes a veto -- which is reasonable in some cases (e.g. if someone wants to trade second-hand WMDs).I'd say that no one "owns" the laws of physics accept by fiat (e.g., the government unilaterally creates a patent system with, presumably, the democratic support of the citizenry). I suppose if any society could be said to own "f=ma" in the sense of contributing to its creation, then it would be the society that created Newton. Thus we should be paying a physics tax to the UK (but not the US, China, or local governments, etc.). (And if some societies are to be rewarded for their support in discovering important natural laws, then should other societies by penalized if they stifled the discovery of said laws?) On the other hand, I'd say that the societal contribution that enabled "f=ma" is now fully amortized after more than 300 years and I certainly don't think the UK deserves royalties for "f=ma" given that they do nothing to protect or maintain "f=ma." But I think that you know that, Fermion, and are merely trying to push my buttons!QuoteOriginally posted by: FermionIt is capitalism that enables some privileged individuals to impose those non-negotiable fees for their private benefit. All societies contain privileged individuals that impose non-negotiable fees for their private benefit. You and I merely differ on who that privileged class should be. Personally, I'd rather grant the privilege of that privilege to people that make inventions, rather than people that make laws. It seems to me that the world benefits more from more inventions than it does from more laws (especially laws that stifle production and consumption of new inventions).

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaYour proposal is as if the community had granted to itself a perpetual patent on all natural laws -- "if you use F=ma, then you must pay a non-negotiable royalty to the government for the privilege."Almost right. To whom else, other than the community of all, should the rights of natural laws belong? But the "royalty" is not "non-negotiable". The whole point of market valuation is that the "royalty" is indeed negotiable, except when the community imposes a veto -- which is reasonable in some cases (e.g. if someone wants to trade second-hand WMDs).I'd say that no one "owns" the laws of physics accept by fiat (e.g., the government unilaterally creates a patent system with, presumably, the democratic support of the citizenry). I suppose if any society could be said to own "f=ma" in the sense of contributing to its creation, then it would be the society that created Newton. Thus we should be paying a physics tax to the UK (but not the US, China, or local governments, etc.). (And if some societies are to be rewarded for their support in discovering important natural laws, then should other societies by penalized if they stifled the discovery of said laws?) On the other hand, I'd say that the societal contribution that enabled "f=ma" is now fully amortized after more than 300 years and I certainly don't think the UK deserves royalties for "f=ma" given that they do nothing to protect or maintain "f=ma." Every inventor who uses "f = ma" extracts value from doing so. So the value continues to exist, even after more than 300 years. In fact it existed even before Newton and will continue to exist as long as someone uses it creatively. Newton added value only by making it visible in an explicit form.QuoteBut I think that you know that, Fermion, and are merely trying to push my buttons!I think you know that T4A, but have forgotten it, rather than trying to push my buttons QuoteQuoteOriginally posted by: FermionIt is capitalism that enables some privileged individuals to impose those non-negotiable fees for their private benefit. All societies contain privileged individuals that impose non-negotiable fees for their private benefit. You and I merely differ on who that privileged class should be. My choice is inclusive of all and has no privilege for anyone. Yours is exclusive of the vast majority of humanity.QuotePersonally, I'd rather grant the privilege of that privilege to people that make inventions, rather than people that make laws. It seems to me that the world benefits more from more inventions than it does from more laws (especially laws that stifle production and consumption of new inventions).But you are forgetting that the inventor gets all the value that comes from their creativity. You are saying that they should get nature's bounty (the value of which belongs to all) too. And you falsely allege that I am saying it belongs to law-makers and that the community interest stifles production and new inventions whereas, in reality, it is capitalism that does the latter.

QuoteQuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuotePersonally, I'd rather grant the privilege of that privilege to people that make inventions, rather than people that make laws. It seems to me that the world benefits more from more inventions than it does from more laws (especially laws that stifle production and consumption of new inventions).But you are forgetting that the inventor gets all the value that comes from their creativity. You are saying that they should get nature's bounty (the value of which belongs to all) too. And you falsely allege that I am saying it belongs to law-makers and that the community interest stifles production and new inventions whereas, in reality, it is capitalism that does the latter.Actually, the inventor shares the value of the invention with the customer, otherwise the customer wouldn't buy the invention. Thats the beauty of a true market in which multiple inventors compete for the demands of multiple customers and multiple customers compete for the supply of multiple producers. In a true market, the value of a invention is most definitely shared and is hardly monopolized by the inventors. In fact, some customers -- those will extreme market power -- may reap the majority of the value of an invention and leave little for the inventor. Wal-Mart has been accused of this and they only have about 30% market share for most of the products that they carry. Your proposal makes government the Wal-Mart of 100% of all transactions. You deplore monopoly and propose a convoluted combination of monopsony and 3-way transactions as the solution. If companies think that negotiating with Wal-Mart for 30% of their sales is tough, what will negotiating with governments for 100% of sales be like? "It's my way or the highway!"

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: FermionQuotePersonally, I'd rather grant the privilege of that privilege to people that make inventions, rather than people that make laws. It seems to me that the world benefits more from more inventions than it does from more laws (especially laws that stifle production and consumption of new inventions).But you are forgetting that the inventor gets all the value that comes from their creativity. You are saying that they should get nature's bounty (the value of which belongs to all) too. And you falsely allege that I am saying it belongs to law-makers and that the community interest stifles production and new inventions whereas, in reality, it is capitalism that does the latter.Actually, the inventor shares the value of the invention with the customer, otherwise the customer wouldn't buy the invention.Not true. In a fair transaction, the customer gets the value of each individual product they buy -- and they pay that value, so they are neutral in terms of reward. In so far as they later add value by their own creativity (e.g. by how they use it), then they merit the reward for that creativity. There is a real distinction here that is worth making.QuoteThats the beauty of a true market in which multiple inventors compete for the demands of multiple customers and multiple customers compete for the supply of multiple producers. In a true market, the value of a invention is most definitely shared and is hardly monopolized by the inventors. In fact, some customers -- those will extreme market power -- may reap the majority of the value of an invention and leave little for the inventor. Wal-Mart has been accused of this and they only have about 30% market share for most of the products that they carry.Any time any participant, whether consumer or producer, has disproprtionate market power, then they can steal value. That's capitalism you are describing. It would be true of a socialist planned economy too. Market democracy is designed to prevent that.QuoteYour proposal makes government the Wal-Mart of 100% of all transactions. You deplore monopoly and propose a convoluted combination of monopsony and 3-way transactions as the solution. If companies think that negotiating with Wal-Mart for 30% of their sales is tough, what will negotiating with governments for 100% of sales be like? "It's my way or the highway!"That comparison is absurd scare-mongering that totally defies common sense. Why on earth would any community that had any real choice in the matter tolerate a government that did anything other than try to optimise wealth production as measured by the well-being of the community as a whole? If you are claiming that there are no democracies in the world, then I would agree with you -- but that is an issue of politics not market economics.