If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for? (Nov Edition) If

[Packer16]

It is only fiction to those who free ride on others efforts & are catching up technologically but not truly innovating.  The fiction you speak of is why the US has and will be dominate going forward in innovation.  It is no fiction that the most innovative firms are in the US.  If you think China is such a great place why is money flooding out of China to real estate and other assets to the US because China is such an innovative place.  The US has such an environment because of the incentives in the US system.  This would become obvious if we charged foreigners to access our markets.  I am not saying innovation does not occur in other places just that US has an incentive system to maximize it & Obama et al was changing the system to be like the rest of the world were the incentives do not exist.

 

Packer

[LC]

Am I a slave if society prevents me from raping you and burning down your home? 

 

Obviously not, Richard. Does property rights protection mean it's legal to steal? Does making murder a criminal act mean it's legal to murder my neighbor? Does A equal non A?

 

Which brings me to my third observation about this thread. It's a frustrating waste of everyone's time.

 

 

 

It's a bit disingenuous to first chastise members for not wanting to debate underlying philosophical issues, then stomp out the conversation and call it a "waste of time" when someone steps up to the plate.

 

I personally agree with Richard on his shades of grey comment regarding your philosophy.

[onyx1]

Latest New Yorker issue:

 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/28/obama-reckons-with-a-trump-presidency

 

"And Trump understands the new ecosystem, in which facts and truth don’t matter."

 

 

Looks like the MSM are just catching on to the reality that facts don't matter in politics.

[Packer16]

I was reading an editorial by Luigi Zengalos and he has stated that in Italy that the only effective way to defeat a guy like Trump (Burlesconi) was with facts.  Attacking him on an emotional level only made him stronger.

 

Packer

[rukawa]

I think what some folks may not get here is the differences between the US free enterprise system and the more restrained or blended form in other former British/Dutch empires & the Nordics.  In the former B/D colonies & the Nordics, historically the government worked together with free enterprise in many ventures like Crown corporations in Canada and the Dutch and British East India companies to name a few.  The US has historically had a government as a check on corporations in contrast to colluding with corporations.  Both have there pluses and minuses.  The possibility of corruption is higher in the collusion model as referee is also a player on the field.  To prevent this many of these countries have rules enforced by law versus voluntary compliance.  In those countries the rules are accepted for this.  Many of these same rules would not be accepted in the US as a restriction on free choice. 

 

Now the upside for the US is an environment like no else in the world where IP can be exploited for maximum gain.  This leads to high investment in IP-type businesses and more important attracts the people with best ideas to come here to maximize their gains.  Now others can free-ride this R&D but they are also forgo the IP investment environment in the US.  I do think as a a part of this free ride other countries should have to give concessions to the US in trade negotiations which is another area I think Trump can add some value here as we no longer need allies to fight the communists. 

 

Packer

 

My interpretation is a bit different. Here I am thinking of Canada. We are a small market. That means that generally there tends to be few competitors and a lot of oligopolies. So the natural impulse is to regulate to prevent oligopoly abuse. For instance there is a lot of weird, inconsistent policies our federal government has pursued to ensure that there are 4 mobile carriers. And our companies tend to be risk averse...why take chances when you are making oligopoly profits.

 

I think the size of America is incredibly important. America is the largest free trade zone in the world. And I think that not only explains your economic success but in addition many of your economic policies. You don't need government to prevent oligopoly abuse because your competitive market does it for you. You don't need the government to encourage innovation, because your market is so incredibly competitive that your companies will be left in the dust if they don't. There are few countries that have these advantages.

[rb]

Yes, because there are no oligopolies in areas such as telecom in the US.

[rb]

I think what some folks may not get here is the differences between the US free enterprise system and the more restrained or blended form in other former British/Dutch empires & the Nordics.  In the former B/D colonies & the Nordics, historically the government worked together with free enterprise in many ventures like Crown corporations in Canada and the Dutch and British East India companies to name a few.  The US has historically had a government as a check on corporations in contrast to colluding with corporations.  Both have there pluses and minuses.  The possibility of corruption is higher in the collusion model as referee is also a player on the field.  To prevent this many of these countries have rules enforced by law versus voluntary compliance.  In those countries the rules are accepted for this.  Many of these same rules would not be accepted in the US as a restriction on free choice. 

 

Now the upside for the US is an environment like no else in the world where IP can be exploited for maximum gain.  This leads to high investment in IP-type businesses and more important attracts the people with best ideas to come here to maximize their gains.  Now others can free-ride this R&D but they are also forgo the IP investment environment in the US.  I do think as a a part of this free ride other countries should have to give concessions to the US in trade negotiations which is another area I think Trump can add some value here as we no longer need allies to fight the communists. 

 

Packer

Yea, about that Nordic corruption you may wanna check out the link below, fyi US is number 16. And are the US SROs such a bright spot? They worked brilliantly in the financial industry.

 

http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015?gclid=CKDEwoWOudACFUY8GwodQJMJpg

 

On the IP and innovation side you make it sound like the US is some shining city on a hill and every other country is just a dumbass. There is no authoritative ranking of innovation but there are a few of them and the US rarely ranks first. There are tons of really innovative businesses, very IP driven, which are not from the US and have no desire to be. It is true that the US has a lot of innovation but a lot of other countries with different systems are extremely innovative as well.

 

In the tech space: The US has Google and Apple and a host of other tech companies as well. But other countries do too. For example, the current president used a Canadian phone, the president elect uses a Korean one - they must be good for something. All the phones you use are powered by chips who's IP is British.

 

In the pharma space, out of the top 10 companies only 4 are American. The number 1 is Swiss.

 

I could go on. But guess what, innovation and invention is going on at high rates in other places in the world as well. Many other places in the world have high incomes and prosperity under different systems from the US. Your post has the feel of the guy in the crowd yelling USA! USA! USA!

 

On the trade side, you should read more on the subject because the US is not in the business of giving freebies. As a matter of fact they use their security guarantee to get concessions. It'll be interesting to see how it all develops but the US may be in for a surprise if they pull that guarantee. I'm a geek when it comes to that so I'll watch closely.

 

On the military side, it's been a bit pricey but it been pretty good for the US. And let's face it the US loves to have it's big dominant military as opposed to a regional force. Yes it paid some money, but in turn they get world dominance and stability - which is good for business. In a world with long and integrated supply chains you don't want a bunch of wars popping up all over the place. Germany got to save some money. Japan maybe too (not so familiar with that) but they did buy a lot of fancy weaponry that was made in the USA. However, these countries do have the financial resources and man-power to build large and sophisticated armies. Of course, nothing ever went wrong when Britain, France, Germany, and Japan armed themselves to the teeth.

 

I like how your post end with the note that you no longer need allies to fight the communists... (i guess it's ok to discard allies now)... very classy. I should point out that the only time when NATO article 5 was invoked it was by the US and it's allies stepped up. As the saying goes, with friends like these....

[Packer16]

I am trying to illustrate the differences between the systems without making a value judgement.  Each person can make that for him/herself and decide which is best for them.  Assuming that one is better than the other and forcing the characteristics of that system on all is denying choice and is what IMO the election in the US was all about.  In the US you really have both systems co-existing in places like NY and Calif versus Texas so you can choose what you like best.

 

Packer