Repeal minimum wage says the Grouch

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

And what do we do about the patents? Those are a great deal of why small businesses can't make certain things. I bet I could build an iphone or ipad from scratch but if anybody tries to do that you're looking at a major big lawsuit...by a corporation who has the money and time to go to court, I am not pro corportism, I am simply stating the facts as they are. I think you would have to end the patent office BS and let people use designs (and improve upon them) to have fair competition in a market where there is no min wage.

edit on 2-8-2011 by ldyserenity because: spelling

edit on 2-8-2011 by ldyserenity because: spelling

If you built an iphone or ipad from scratch, you would still be building an iphone, or ipad, not building a device similar but different. Let's not pretend that only corporations rely upon patents to protect their designs and inventions. Consider this:

Erno Rubik became the first self-made millionaire from the communist block. The eighties and Rubik's Cube went well together.

Of course, Erno Rubik being the first self-made millionaire from the communist block suggests that outside of that communist block there were other self made millionaires, and indeed there are and have been. Consider Gordon Gould:

American physicist who coined the word "laser" from the initial letters of "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation." Gould was inspired from his youth to be an inventor, wishing to emulate Marconi, Bell, and Edison. He contributed to the WWII Manhattan Project, working on the separation of uranium isotopes. On 9 Nov 1957, during a sleepless Saturday night, he had the inventor's inspiration and began to write down the principles of what he called a laser in his notebook. Although Charles Townes and Arthur Schawlow, also successfully developed the laser, eventually Gould gained his long-denied patent rights.

I post his story because it references Bell, and Edison, both of whom made their fortunes off patents even before they incorporated. Further, if you read the link to the Bell article, you will discover there was a patent dispute between he and two other individuals.

Corporations do not hold the patent on patenting designs and inventions, and you can patent your own designs and inventions, and if you did invent something that supplied a demand, why shouldn't you have the right to protect your intellectual property?

It is not patents that is destroying the U.S. economy, it is corporatism. One of the problems with corporatism is that corporations do buy up patents to inventions that would be competition for them, or render their product obsolete, and they buy up these patents only to suppress the technology. That is not a problem with patents, that is a problem with corporatism.

I think there is some kind of better solution. The minimum wage does a lot of damage. It puts everyone on the same level when in fact we aren't. Someone who is much smarter and better inclined for a job is paid the same it eliminates competition and desire for people to be/become better workers and also relieves any pressure from employers to pay more since the government says this is ok and people expect it.

Not that it should be gone, but something should change.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Except I could build it without all the problems they are currently having and it would not be identical but similar to the iphone or ipad, and much better software. But still I would probably get sued. Because there are certain parts and features that are patented.

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Except I could build it without all the problems they are currently having and it would not be identical but similar to the iphone or ipad, and much better software. But still I would probably get sued. Because there are certain parts and features that are patented.

No you wouldn't. Look, you cannot have it both ways. You ignore the fact that Hewlitt Packard makes computers, and so does Apple, and IBM, and several other companies. They are not all using the same patent design. You are necessarily ignoring this in order to create this false reality of yours, and to what end?

Either you have invented a product similar yet altogether different from an ipad, or iphone, or you haven't. If you have, then you are not guilty of patent infringement, if you haven't and are attempting to use some other persons invention and pass it off as yours, then you are guilty of patent infringement.

What you and others keep doing is walking up to pristine ponds, grabbing a stick and stirring violently and declaring: See! The pond isn't so pristine! It is all muddied!!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Nor am I arguing that corporations have to go. What I am arguing is that they need to be reigned in by We the People, and that corporatism as an economic model is bad news.

I see, and how to "reign them in" by removing all laws? You say you arent against corporations, after you complained no one read your thread about "Korporate Killing". You just keep jumping back and forth. You are obviously nothing more than a bull# artist.

Originally posted by openminded2011
All lowering wages does if focus money into fewer and fewer hands. That's the problem we have now, does it need any more of a boost?

Stop, youre going to give the Randians strokes. Having most of the toys is not enough, they need em all.

So Jean Paul, in your utopian fantasy world, lets say all corporations are removed from existence, and a completely free market with NO laws whatsoever.

You will have mega rich captains of industry. What is to stop them from colluding to artificially inflate prices? To stop them from paying employees in gift certificates to their stores only? These are real world examples, and legislation was needed to "reign in" these rogues.

What makes you think this will not happen again? Corporations dont think...they need people making the decisions, and these people decide to pollute, poison our food, steal our labor. It isnt just some faceless entity that you can blame "the corporation", that does this. At the end of the day it is people pulling the trigger on these decisions. What makes you believe that suddenly these people would become altruistic?

As far as david grouchy, I cant believe anyone is so gullible...as soon as the tower climbers hit $20, they just started doing drugs and stopped coming to work...uh yeh right. And your solution? Pay them less! That is just so stupid my mind almost refuses to comprehend it, I can barely believe you said it. Yes, the ranks of those making $20 an hour and above are where the drug addicts are, thats why all those crack houses are in the nice parts of town! Give me a break...

ETA: Hey Jean Paul, my signature comes from an essay written by Einstein entitled "Why Socialism?". I have seen nothing in your writings that refuted anything in that essay. The essay written by the smartest human that ever lived. You telling me you think youre smarter than Einstein?

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

As far as david grouchy, I cant believe anyone is so gullible...

Of course I'm gullible!

And I love Trash !


David Grouchy

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I think there is some kind of better solution. The minimum wage does a lot of damage. It puts everyone on the same level when in fact we aren't. Someone who is much smarter and better inclined for a job is paid the same it eliminates competition and desire for people to be/become better workers and also relieves any pressure from employers to pay more since the government says this is ok and people expect it.

No, your employer is the one putting everyone on the same level by not paying fairly. Ive watched people work their ass off and give their lives away to make others rich, and get turned down when asked for a raise, even though we were turning a profit.

Right now, you can work 40 hours a week at minimum wage, then you have to find a second job at minwage, and work more hours. you dont get paid overtime since it is two different jobs. You can work 80 hours at minwage a week and not clear $500. How the hell can anyone live on $2000 a month?

How the **** is it fair that people are literally slaving their lives away and barely making it day to day? Yet CEO pay has skyrocketed since the 70s? Instead of removing the min wage, how about an income cap?

Let's rip out all the social safety nets so that people can have literally no alternative except crime to survive. You think those people on foodstamps and stuff cost a lot now...wait until we've got 20 million people in prison.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


And yet, you still never answered the question, even after forcing me to extrapolate back in time, other than to tell me "not everyone worked in factories back then". Great answer, jean. You just keep denying reality, denying history, and whipping up an obfuscating dust storm of self indignant words.

Legislation is not law? You want to play silly word games now? The definiton of law, as per dictionary.com

1.
the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

Well, I guess, in the English language, law IS legislation. Sorry you are in your own reality.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Well, I guess, in the English language, law IS legislation. Sorry you are in your own reality.

Actually Zodeaux is right.

Law, and legislation are two seperate things.

Just put this string into the ATS search and see the countless times
he has had to explain this distinction again and again. He is absolutely correct.

Zodeaux, "legislation is not law"


David Grouchy

An example...

reply to post by aching_knuckles

So Jean Paul, in your utopian fantasy world, lets say all corporations are removed from existence, and a completely free market with NO laws whatsoever.

In your last post, you accused me of being a b.s. artist, but look at you now, once again relying on a strawman argument, and necessarily ignoring that I said this:

Nor am I arguing that corporations have to go. What I am arguing is that they need to be reigned in by We the People, and that corporatism as an economic model is bad news.

You play this game apparently under the mistaken belief that people will not see through your lies, and know full well that I am not advocating what you claim I am.

What makes you think this will not happen again? Corporations dont think...they need people making the decisions, and these people decide to pollute, poison our food, steal our labor. It isnt just some faceless entity that you can blame "the corporation", that does this. At the end of the day it is people pulling the trigger on these decisions. What makes you believe that suddenly these people would become altruistic?

You in a recent post used the term "Randian" as if you knew what that term meant. While I do not count myself as a "Randian", I am a fan of Rand and think highly of her philosophy, and suspect you would label me a "Randian". Now here you are pretending I am advocating altruism. If you knew anything about "Randians" you would know they don't even believe altruism exists.

Further, you grossly misunderstand the whole point of incorporating, which is so that people can distance themselves from liability, so when you keep yammering on and on about how "people" commit these crimes, you are missing an important point, and that is not the only point you are missing. The next important point is that Congress - you know that legislative branch you think should be so empowered as to regulate the crap out of people - has defined a corporation as a "person"! Your ignorance of law is inexcusable.

ETA: Hey Jean Paul, my signature comes from an essay written by Einstein entitled "Why Socialism?". I have seen nothing in your writings that refuted anything in that essay. The essay written by the smartest human that ever lived. You telling me you think youre smarter than Einstein?

You extrapolated all of that based upon my silence about your signature? Wow! I don't know if I am smarter than Einstein, but I am willing to guess I am a might bit smarter than you.

When legislation occurs that moves beyond the protection of rights and into the field of crime prevention or even worse prohibition of rights, then this is not law, merely legislation enacted that is masquerading under the color of law. In fact, the phrase; "under color of law" should be a law that all people know and understand.

-Jean Paul Zodeaux
January 24th, 2010
ATS: Ignorance of the Law excuses No One

And ever since that thread,
he has tirelessly tried to educate people on the real distinction.
Hundreds of times that I have seen here on ATS. Maybe a thousand times or more.

The thread linked above is very informative.

Zeodeaux is a heavy weight scholar.
/respect


David Grouchy

I can also put in "humans came from mars" into the search engine and find an opinion on that, it doesnt make it so. According to the dictionary, it is what it is in our language. Im sorry if some people dont want to accept this. I am familiar with what he considers true law, but that is just not how the world is run. Sorry. Its like bitching because you think the sky is purple and everyone else thinks its blue.

I understand, youre so intelligent, you are on to next level thinking, man. You have broken the surly bonds of our monkey minds and evolved into the next dimension, man. You are just a step ahead, and have to spread your philosophy so we all GET IT, right, man? Well, I got news for you, the world just dont work that way. There is a thing called reality, and you are not interfacing with it. Hit the bricks, stupid.

reply to post by aching_knuckles

Well, I guess, in the English language, law IS legislation. Sorry you are in your own reality.

Here is Webster's definition of selfishness, which is generally echoed by all other lexicographers:

: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

But let's take some critical thought to this definition. How is having no regard for others to any ones advantage? It is demonstrably not true that disregard for others is in anyone's best interest, not even hermits. The lexicographers define the word this way because this is the way people use the word in their everyday usage.

Martin Heidegger once said that we do not speak language, language speaks us.

Am I smarter than Heidegger? I don't know, but I know this, while Heidegger has hit upon a truism, and you serve as a perfect example as one where language speaks you and you do not speak language, what Heidegger has asserted is not the truth.

Why, in God's name, would people invent language only to have language turn around and control the inventors? No, weak minds do not speak language, language speaks them, and even critical thinkers will fall prey to this. I certainly have, and probably will continue to do so. The difference between you and I is that I will continue to endeavor to speak language, while you will continue to blindly allow language speaking you.

It is tragic, really.

reply to post by aching_knuckles

I understand, youre so intelligent, you are on to next level thinking, man. You have broken the surly bonds of our monkey minds and evolved into the next dimension, man. You are just a step ahead, and have to spread your philosophy so we all GET IT, right, man? Well, I got news for you, the world just dont work that way. There is a thing called reality, and you are not interfacing with it. Hit the bricks, stupid.

I got to say that this statement above makes perfect sense coming form the man who chose the username "aching knuckles". Tragic, really.

Originally posted by davidgrouchy

Zeodeaux is a heavy weight scholar.
/respect

Is that why he continuously is attacking me instead of answering my questions?

1) If corporations are removed from the picture, what would stop groups of businessmen from banding together to influence events, as happened in the past, and was in fact the reason for legislation in the first place?

2) If minimum wage is a causation of the problems we are seeing today, then why, adjusted for inflation, has the min wage decreased since the 70s, whereas CEO pay has skyrocketed? One would think if the min wage was to blame, it would be the other way around.


He has contradicted himself so many times in this thread, and then just whips up words basically saying "nuh uh" when called on it. He called for a completely free market, free of regulation, then chastises me for saying that he wants no laws. Huh? He repeatedly calls me a "corporatist", even as he discusses ways to help # the common man further.

Im done with this game of self aggrandizing mental masturbation. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but I will always remember you as someone who ran from questions, even as you insulted others.

case in point:

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I got to say that this statement above makes perfect sense coming form the man who chose the username "aching knuckles". Tragic, really.

OOooooh! he got me good! Burn! But wait, didnt he chastise me for assumptions not even a page ago? But I guess you dont have to live by your own morality if you are Jean Paul...after all, what genius confines themselves?

Believe what you want man.
I'm all for free expression.

It is not a contradiction to me
if I support his record while
valuing your input simultaneously.

I only spoke up because I thought the back and forth was going off the rails a little bit,
and I felt that if someone seconded his statements as nothing personal,
just a consistent and justifyable position it would remove a little bit of the acrimony from the debate.

I was a little disappointed when it was suggested that he "hit the bricks; stupid"
but I respect the choice as personal expression. One that isn't really a personal attack.

Fair play, I say.


David Grouchy

p.s. I am sorry that it feels like a personal attack to you. As far as my limited human mind can tell, he is focused on the ideas themselves.