OBloodyHell

My feedback

  1. 71 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    OBloodyHell commented  · 

    I have no idea what the Economists here would say. I've personally seen very few economists who have grasped that "Intellectual Property" and "Real Property" are both, indeed, "Property" -- like water... But are very different forms of property, with very different proper rules for handling them. Both steam and ice are water, but if you attempted to use the same rules for handling steam that you used to handle ice, then you'd get scalded. And vice versa -- you'd get frostbitten. All too many people who talk about IP think that it can be treated exactly the same -- economically and legally -- as Real Property. They're wrong.

    Here's a starting point for consideration -- John Perry Barlow, former member of the band, The Grateful Dead, who got rich doing exactly as he described in this piece, more than 20 years ago:

    http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/2.03/economy.ideas_pr.html

    The Economy of Ideas

    A framework for patents and copyrights in the Digital Age. (Everything you know about intellectual property is wrong.)

    It's moderately long, but well worth the read. And, as someone who has dealt with IP his entire life, I knew it to be spot-on when I first read it 20 years ago, and I maintain it's just as correct today.

  2. 321 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    OBloodyHell commented  · 

    A common refrain is "How is today's immigration any different from others of the past?"

    Well, I'd like to show you a very visible example of that:

    =========================================================================
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/10/us/20090310-immigration-explorer.html?_r=0
    =========================================================================
    Click on the link.
    Run the Slider back to 1880
    In the pulldown at left, select a country -- say, "Italy"
    Now advance the slider decade by decade, noting the manner of the bubbles that appear -- which are <b>proportional to the local, intrinsic population vs the size of the immigration</b>.

    Run the Slider back to 1880 again
    In the pulldown at left, select a country -- say, "Poland"
    Now, again, advance the slider decade by decade, noting the manner of the bubbles that appear

    Run the Slider back to 1880 again
    In the pulldown at left, select a country -- say, "Sweden" (I've picked demos with a large, over-time influx of people to this nation)
    Now, again, advance the slider decade by decade, noting the manner of the bubbles that appear

    Note the overall size of the bubbles, and see how they compare to the local population, showing the comparative influx of people to the areas into which they have gone over time.

    Run the Slider back to 1880 again
    In the pulldown at left, THIS time, let's select "Mexico"
    Now, again, advance the slider decade by decade, noting the manner of the bubbles that appear -- through 1960, it's pretty much identical to the previous "invasions" by other countries' peoples.

    Since then, it's a whole different ball of wax.

    I do ack that the article in question is from 2009, and does not include info from the 2010 Census... do you really believe it would be any different from other recent previous decades?

    <B>THIS is the problem with illegal immigration.</b> It's not that it's immigration, it's that it's an uncontrolled amount with very little "quality control" in terms of limiting blatantly unsupported elements. Prior immigrations, there was no "social safety net", you either came with a sponsor or, at the least, came and survived on your own merits. NOW you come, and if you have no merits, then you survive on the public dole, leeching off everyone else.

Feedback and Knowledge Base