Comments on: A New Era in Scientific Innovation

By: home made wind generators

home made wind generators — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 06:25:07 +0000

Nice article:) Will come back again:

By: home made wind generators

home made wind generators — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:52:43 +0000

Well put writing/ will come back again soon.

By: Artfldgr

Artfldgr — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:18:01 +0000

the minute you remove reward, people go do something else…

yiou want the help of the smartest people? then dont chintz them…

the industrial revolution allowed unknowns to earn alot and the people to have personal power, something they completely lose under socialism… (but hey, your going to have to live in that hell to know what its like because everyone is too stupid to understand why they want a DICTATORSHIP, which is what marx promised… duh).

I have a meeting tomorrow with the IP office of the hospital i work for… its taken me 25 years to get this far because the socalists have iproved the system for their large corporate buddies

since that helps centralized planning. you guys talk as if socialism is capitalism. you have to LOVE huge singular coporations that do everything if your a socialist!!! thats what central planning does… how else control all production? by making millions of tiny companies you cant control? again… the socialsits here ahve little ability to think. and thiniing is what inventors do…

why not give up on improving the system? why not return it to what worked even better before?

oh yeah… cause arbitrary change is progress..

t what we are listening to here are people who dont understand the system, who believe in infinite improvement, who believe large companies are a sign of capitalism (When they are a sign of facisms marraige of state and business), who they themselves dont invent at all..

cant wait till they turn their attention to improving brain surgery… as none of them have the humility to say… hey! i dont really understand this… maybe i should learn, and perhaps undertand the system empirically to be able to make effective changes? nope… just change it.. that will improve it.

meanwhile, most of their suggestions take all the energy out of things.

like socialists calling for an X prize? why? so that the winner can have it all taken away from the state?
so biblical of the athiests, what god giveth with one hand, he taketh witn another?

for every invention that the world knows from the soviet union, i will give you 10 earth shattering ones from the US…

and yet you want to improve this system, and havent realizet hat the improvements of the past 30 years haev created the situation of needing improvments?

that your improvments deflate impetus and motivation, while denying the individual rewards, and yet expect them to work.

take the last post right above this one… the person thinks that an idea with no principals is a patentable thing… like the commercial that seeks to rip inventors off…

ther is no such thing as an inventor that invents and doesnt know the principals of operaqtions…

such a person is not an inventor, such is a person who fantasizes and believes that the fantasy is the important part… (while totally ignoring principals).

so how can such a person make a meaningful suggestion of improvement when they cant even get teh basics of whats being patented?

the idea of a xerox machine is not what is patented, the realized methods that make a xerox machine work are whats patentable…

and his suggestion?

give those who say… “i imiagine a machine that can monitor blood sugar” all the rights to all the work that realizes the concept of a machine that monitors blood sugar.

which would totally destroy all innovation as people can come up with imaginary ideas and squat on them since the idea is all ther is.

its sad that we no longer have a population that can say.. hey, i admit i dont know… so i would have to learn more before i suggest improfments..

nope.. now everyone is an expert at everything and they will just roll up their sleeves and improve things… why? because improvement is change, and they can make change as much as anyone else..

and since truth is relative, who cares if the suggestions born out of ideology can work! we only care that they caome from ideollgy and they sound good..

like the person who claimed we have to change the valuation of money..

what a moron… why? because he doestn get that the value of something is dependent on the needs of someone else. a person who is dehydrated will pay more for water, than a person who lives on a fresh water lake.

all circumstances are not equivalent, so all values are not equivalent…

anyone who can state this is a moron who hasnt learned why millions starved in socialist states.

because peoplel like the jokers above were in control.

By: Bret Cahill

Bret Cahill — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:01:09 +0000

If an underfunded “inventor” of a product that requires a lot of R & D could be encouraged to go on record — publicly or in a confidentiality agreement — stating that he didn’t know enough about the actual solution to file a patent it would provide rights to those who do have the resources to develop the product.

Providing some kind of rights for this kind of work would greatly accellerate innovation.

Bret Cahill

By: Artfldgr

Artfldgr — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:09:11 +0000

and lastly (so as hopefully you can see your mistakes)

While working in the Shanghai railway station as a porter, Lai was given his first chocolate bar by a traveler. Hungry, Lai immediately ate it. Running after the man, he asked where this wonderful food came from and the answer was “Hong Kong.” Determined to get to the place where such wonders were available, Lai eventually persuaded his mother to allow him to escape and was smuggled out of China in the bottom of a fishing boat. On his arrival in Hong Kong, he went to work the same night in a garment factory. Today, Lai is a billionaire, owner of one of the most successful media companies in Asia. His drive and entrepreneurial skills played a major role in his success, of course. (Lai movingly tells his story in the Acton Institute’s documentary The Call of the Entrepreneur.) But it was the freedom available in Hong Kong that allowed him to put his talents to work. That freedom took many forms, including an absence of the currency restrictions in force at the time in the United Kingdom and much of Europe, and few laws regulating businesses. As a result, Hong Kong began to flourish.

Why? As Hong Kong’s last British governor, Christopher Patten, wrote in his memoir, East and West, the refugees from communism who flooded into Hong Kong arrived in China’s only free city; it was indeed (in the words of Chinese journalist Tsang Ki-fan) “the only Chinese society that, for a brief span of 100 years, lived through an ideal never realized at any time in the history of Chinese society—a time when no man had to live in fear of the midnight knock on the door.” Hong Kong had a competent government, pursuing market economics under the rule of law. It was a government that fully met the Confucian goal—“Make the local people happy and attract migrants from afar.”

The laissez-faire attitude of the Hong Kong government on economic matters was cemented by Sir John Cowperthwaite, the colony’s financial secretary from 1961 to 1971, whom Welsh called a “political economist in the tradition of Gladstone or John Stuart Mill” and the personification of “unreconstructed Manchester-school free traders.” Cowperthwaite had almost complete control of Hong Kong government finances and used it to implement his policy of “positive nonintervention.” Friedman gave Cowperthwaite a great deal of the credit for Hong Kong’s success, citing approvingly Cowperthwaite’s refusal to collect most economic statistics on the grounds that “[i]f I let them compute those statistics, they’ll want to use them for planning.” Jimmy Lai has a bronze bust of Cowperthwaite at his company’s entrance (as well as ones of Friedman and F. A. Hayek).

Cowperthwaite deserves the accolades he has received. During his decade as financial secretary, real wages rose by 50 percent and the portion of the population in acute poverty fell from 50 to 15 percent. What is remarkable is that Hong Kong accomplished this with no resource other than its people. The colony had no real agricultural land, no natural resources, and even the one resource it did have—people—lacked much education. Indeed, few at the time thought that the masses of refugees who reached Hong Kong during the 1950s would amount to anything other than a burden for the state.

Most remarkably, Hong Kong’s transformation occurred when social democrats ruled Europe and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society dominated American politics, both reflecting the consensus among the political elites in Europe and North America that the welfare state and interventionist economic policies were the only sensible direction for advanced societies. Even in the developing world, interventionist economic policies like industrialization through import substitution, which relied on high tariff walls to protect domestic industries, were widely accepted. Tiny Hong Kong thus managed to adopt and hold to free-market and free-trade policies that ran counter to the policies of the British government and the consensus of policy analysts and development economists everywhere, and did it while perched precariously on the edge of a massive communist dictatorship in the midst of self-destructive policies like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

so while the rest of the world bowed to people trying to control capitalism to get more out of it

like most here.

a person like lai, a very poor man in shanghai… with the taste of a chocolate bar, makes a billion dollars and becomes one of the richest men in the world.

other than the head guy of a socialist regime, no one gets that in a state that redistributes.

hong kong became a larger producer than the total population of england.

imagine if we never let that productivity be crippled as we have (And then blame it for it as an excuse to add more crippling).

we would be mining garbage dumps for raw materials instead of the ground… (duh)

nuclear materia would never be stored in the ground… proliveration of nuclear energy and cheap electricity would have made production move miles ahead forward, and we could be sending the material to the SUN… never storing it here… (and any other massively bad stuff too).

in case you fruitbats didnt notice, we are only green today because green is a luxury!!!!

got that?

so if the population doesnt have a rich component, there is no one that can afford to spend 7 dolalrs on a dozen eggs instead of 2.50. and so there is no way for that to become the norm and compete and build, and so free range and such is out…

in case you hacent noticed in these economic doldrums green things are going out the window…

in bad times luxuries go away first… green is a luxury…

we could have been warming ourselves with clean nuclear electrical…
instead we are using oil and coal.

and now because of green games, who think high oil prices will slow carbon usage (which doestn effect the planet the way they think), people are cutting down trees to put in their fireplaces to heat their houses instead of oil… at 1/16th the efficiency… not to mention that they not only spit out more polutuion and carbon, but they are also taking a carbon scrubber out of commission.

its this kind of abysmal thinking that makes the socialis statist solution worse every time.
and for good principaled reasons…

something that the posers who pretend to be intelligent dont get…