Cherries left to rot on the ground

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by kazenatsu, Sep 9, 2017.

  1. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    nobody feels that way, even communists. You are way way off in left field. Its an absurd waste your time when even communists will not agree with you. Do you understand?? You want to look for points of view that are consistent with human nature, not those opposed to it. You might as well argue for the medicinal value of hitting yourself in the head with a hammer.
     
  2. TheNightFly

    TheNightFly Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Human nature is flawed. My point of view is always consistent with the truth. If nothing I've said so far has had any impact on your point of view then nothing I say ever will. So I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you. But I know I'm right, and I know that a lot of people agree with me and all of us will continue to share out perspective until IP is abolished.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2017
  3. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    if so why is it that Ph.D's in economics whether capitalist or communist and those in between all disagree with you??
     
  4. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    why then so afraid to tell us who they are??
     
  5. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    and how does that encourage the invention of a drug to cure cancer that may one day save my life?
     
  6. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How does the above relate to cherries?
     
  7. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    imagine trying to raise a $billion dollars to bring a drug to market while telling your investors that anyone can steal the idea and market the new drug the second they can buy it and copy it!!
     
  8. TheNightFly

    TheNightFly Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    18
    By decentralizing the research.

    As long as the pharmaceutical monopolies are the only one's who stand to profit from drug research, they will be the only ones doing it, and we will have to wait however many years or decades it takes for their tiny little teams of MIT post grads to develop a product and bring it to market.

    Without exclusive rights over art and technology, everyone has a profit motive for doing their own research, and whoever succeeds is much less likely to keep it secret. They would also have greater levels of communication and collaboration through websites similar to Github.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2017
  9. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,613
    Likes Received:
    2,040
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why would I spend years and a fortune in finding a cure for cancer if you could come along a week later and make pumpkin flavored versions of my wonder drug for pennies?
     
    Ndividual likes this.
  10. Guess Who

    Guess Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2014
    Messages:
    3,075
    Likes Received:
    1,187
    Trophy Points:
    113

    It is vice versa,pun intended. Pour all the poison you want but don't let farmers sell or give away their products.
     
  11. TheNightFly

    TheNightFly Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    134
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    18
    You wouldn't. You might spend the rest of your life helping to find a cure for cancer but you wouldn't spend a fortune seeking a monopoly, neither would anyone else. And when a cure is discovered, everyone would be free to produce and sell it. Consumers would then decide which of them is doing the best job, not the litigation courts. At which point my pumpkin may not be nearly as popular as your orange mango fiz.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2017
  12. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,613
    Likes Received:
    2,040
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Seems a bit naive.
     
  13. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    100% absurd to assume if we eliminated patents unqualified people would jump into cancer research, spend billions, and invent successful new drugs with no hope of recovering their investment! Absurd is polite for that level of liberal ignorance.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2017
  14. james M

    james M Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2014
    Messages:
    12,916
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you spend a fortune on the best scientists in the world to increase your chances of curing cancer. The promise of monopoly profits for 20 years is what makes possible the investment in the best scientists in the world. Now do you understand?
     
  15. Ndividual

    Ndividual Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,960
    Likes Received:
    638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What happened to the discussion about cherries?
     
  16. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    a charity donation certificate?
     
  17. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    17,766
    Likes Received:
    5,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cherries left to rot on the ground - I believe the title of this thread is a very fitting allegory for what so often happens in economics.
     
  18. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    55,400
    Likes Received:
    12,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have tried to tell the forum, over and over and over. These Democrat laws are for the fools. They harm. They do no good. They disrupt the free market. Cherries won't come down in price so long as Democrats laws are in operation. Get rid of those old laws. Get rid of the new laws.
     
  19. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,136
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I rarely support agricultural policy (which is inherently conservative, given the links between land ownership and right wing politics). However, your comment about the free market looks foolish. There is a need to stabilise agricultural markets. One thing we certainly do not want is the illusion of 'free markets'.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2018
  20. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    55,400
    Likes Received:
    12,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Democrats have pitched in since 1933 to destroy the free market. They have not killed it yet but it seems a bit more and they can get the job done. The past crash was due to things done by Democrats. Dodd Frank is intended to use the axe on the housing market.
     
  21. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,136
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not true. There is no free market. It is neither achievable or desirable. The illusion is used to enforce irrational policy (as we've seen with austerity).

    The problem with agriculture is that it's too focused on profit (e.g. CAP monies going to rich landowners, including royalty). It should be focused on eliminating poor practices (e.g. shifting chemical use and protecting bee populations)
     
  22. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,394
    Likes Received:
    964
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/michigan-farmers-destroy-cherries/
     
  23. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    17,766
    Likes Received:
    5,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The point is, if he's not allowed to sell them, it's basically the same thing as being forced to let them rot on the ground.
    They actually sent inspectors out to make sure the cherries were rotting on the ground, so even if hypothetically he thought up something else to do with his cherry crop, presumably he'd still have to prove it somehow to the inspector.

    With 40,000 pounds of tart cherries - and remember these are mainly cherries for cooking that have to be pitted and frozen if not quickly used - it's doubtful that he could afford to put the cherries to some other use. It's going to cost more to process them than the cherries themselves are worth.

    People who say he wasn't forced to dump them are just being obfuscate.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2018
  24. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    17,766
    Likes Received:
    5,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you notice how that "fact check" article used a straw man to avoid directly answering a major part of the claim it was allegedly seeking to fact check?

    Rather than dealing with the issue, they have reinterpreted this statement to mean that the domestic cherries were destroyed with the intention of making way for cherries imported from outside the U.S., and then come to the conclusion that the statement is not true because that wasn't the intention.

    They've succumbed to the fallacy known as "logic chopping", or in terms most people may be more familiar with, "nit-picking" and "splitting hairs". Coming to the conclusion that a statement is not true because rather less important trivial parts of the statement are not semantically true.

    Nevermind what the intention was, did the destruction of these cherries make way for cherries imported from outside the U.S.?
    That's a question they do not begin to even try to answer.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2018
  25. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    17,766
    Likes Received:
    5,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Next, they give into the semantic argument one side that his was "voluntary".
    No, it wasn't voluntary. That cherry farmer will be punished under the law if he sells those cherries.
    It may have been "voluntary" by cherry farmers as a group consensus.

    But that's sort of like saying paying taxes is voluntary, because we all voted for it together as a group.

    The real issue is, if farmers are trying to suppress an excess supply to keep down prices, and the government is sanctioning this, then it doesn't really make any sense to be importing cherries from another country, now does it?

    There's a logical inconsistency somewhere in there.

    I don't know if the author of that Snopes article was just not bright enough to see this, or if they're being intentionally misleading to avoid coming to any conclusion that could be critical of the concept of free trade (and by extension internationalism).

    Thus the whole assessment in that link, OldManOnFire, is totally worthless.

    I say the claim seems to be essentially true, on the whole of things.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2018

Share This Page