I think the heart that I'm driving to get at is that government doesn't need to borrow when it itself can create money, our taxes don't have to be paid to balance the interest on the debt of the government to private banks, but should be correctly balanced to insure a rise in infrastructure, education, healthcare and other public services. If interest can feed a banking industry to disparity of 1%, interest can feed a properly organized government. These civilized services are directly influenced by a congressman that we have a vote for... but without the proper funding, the only real measure of a congressman is furthering legislation from party lines... these days, backed by major lobbyists of major corporations... with congressman usually regurgitated directly from the corporations themselves. Why should I be voting for corporate interests rather than interests of furthering the infrastructure of a civilized society? Not all corporate interests reflect my own, nor the constituents the congressman represent. Selling 100 panels to 100 people would make you rich... selling 1x(infinity) to 100 people would make you extremely rich. So selling a product that is rarely purchased again... not so good, selling a product that needs constant renewal of purchase, cha' ching. So how does this play a factor into a monetary system derived and maintained within compounding debt, interest and inflation? It stalls us into perpetuation. Banks and financial institutions are just as inherently corrupt as governments... yet, I can't vote out the bankers. So... back to "Congress: has the power to coin money"...
No they don't reproduce... I know that... but genetic infringements laws take over when a Monsanto plant is found... http://ecowatch.com/2012/monsantos-seed-police/ "Some plaintiffs have simply stopped growing certain types of crops due to the threat of contamination. Bryce Stephens, a certified organic farmer from northwest Kansas, had to give up on trying to grow organic corn and soy once his neighbors started using Monsantos genetically modified seed because it could easily spread onto his property and contaminate his organic crops, which would put him at risk of being sued for patent infringement by Monsanto."
Still laughing! I expect all sorts of nonsense on this sub-forum. As amateurs we should embrace the entertaining economic errors are made! However, denying how R&D and innovation is related is a biscuit taking experience
Printing money, would do something worse than borrowing. It would devalue the money, which would harm everyone, instead of just those in government, or on government assistance. As bad as borrowing is, printing out cash is a worse option. I assume you understand the concept of hyper-inflation? Moreover, there are a number of problems with these social services. For example, we spend more on students than nearly any other 1st world country, and yet our students are coming out of public education, more stupid than any other students. I had a 11th grade student, ask me how to use a calculator to do a division problem. 11th grade, and can't work a calculator. Spending endless amounts of money on education, has not had a positive effect. In fact, the incentives are to perform badly, because then you qualify for additional funding. As to infrastructure, we just passed the biggest infrastructure bill in US history. Almost $900 Billion dollars worth. Why were these supposed infrastructure problems, not taken care of? It simply doesn't make sense. Either, they were not really the emergencies we think, or our politicians are so corrupt, that stuff isn't getting done. In either case, the last thing we want to do, is to give them more money to blow. Finally, with health care, we have the best health care system in the world. By any reasonable measure, ours is in fact the best. Getting government to run health care, would only make it worse, while costing us tons in taxes. Do you want to pay 50% in taxes, like most of Europe does? No..... then why are supporting a system that causes higher tax rates? Most of Europe has a fraction of our standard of living, and that's due largely to taxes, which is due largely to all these government social services you want. Cause and effect. There's a connection here. While I am generally in favor of getting special interests out of government as much as possible, you really need to stop blaming everything on special interests. This system is the same, in every country, throughout every age, through all human history. If your ideal solution is to remove all governmental influences, you will be a miserable person for your entire life. Even in tribal people, in jungles, the leader of the tribe, has ties and connections with specific people. He gives favors to a hunter, that in turn gives him extra meat he hunted. I'm not suggesting that this excuses everything, but I am suggesting that it shouldn't be the primary focus, and nor can it be a blanket excuse to blame everything on. Lastly, it depends on what you mean by corporate interests. Corporations are filled with people, just like you. Saying they don't represent the interests of the people, when they are made up by the people, is not very accurate. Now if you mean regulation, that hinders everyone but a specific corporation, then yes, I agree. But if you mean reduced taxes, well that benefits everyone, not just corporations. That is most definitely in your best interest, as much as a corporations. You seem to be assuming that Renewable energy means you never have to pay for it again. This is entirely false. Solar panels wear out, and rather quickly. As do Wind Mills. Both are highly profitable to the sellers. They just are not profitable to the buyers, because they simply don't produce much power. Tom Werner or SunPower Corporation, producer of solar panels, earned a mere $4.6 Million dollars in 2012. And you are trying to say solar panels are not profitable? Is that a joke? The energy that the customer receives is not profitable. Again, a 1 KiloWatt solar panel, is $3,000. ONE KiloWatt hour costs an average of 9.8¢ through utilities. Does it make sense to pay $3,000 for something that will produce 9.8¢ of power? No it does not..... UNLESS.... you have government subsidies and grants, and funding. No, they are not. That was opinion, and rather uninformed opinion at that. Banks and Financial institutions are not even a fraction as corrupt as our government. Not by any reasonable measure in existence. The banks have nothing to do with our problems anyway. It's only government.
The printing of fiat currency doesn't "hurt" everyone. It only hurts those that have their labor stored as dollars. Banks benefit from the printing of fiat currency and the resultant inflation as do wealthy individuals that predominately have their investments in corporations and commodities as opposed to being stored in dollars. Their wealth is "measured" in dollars but because it's not held in dollars their "wealth" increases with inflation.
I've worked in aerospace almost my entire career and at the corporations I've worked at (Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop) each had R&D departments that did, in some cases, lead to innovation but most innovation in aerospace manufacturing was accomplished without R&D. Most innovation occurs using "off the shelf solutions to existing problems" and requires nothing more than creative thinking and not actual research and development. We're still using wheels and gears, for example, and to make the claim that the innovative use of wheels and gears today requires R&D today is a rather silly proposition.
Given the importance of military R&D for that sector (and the various spin-off technologies resulting from the expenditures involved), you'll find it difficult to marry your opinion with the overall economic reality Sounds more like learning effects
I have never stated that R&D doesn't lead to innovation but have noted that most innovation is unrelated to R&D programs. As noted it's more likely to be a result of lesson's learned and creative thinking where existing technology is merely applied in a new manner. Henry Ford, for example, did not create the assembly line process but instead refined it for use by the Ford Motor Company. There wasn't an R&D program at Ford to accomplish the innovation in the assembly line process that Ford initiated. He simply applied existing assembly line technology in a new manner that made the assembly line process more productive.
BTW I worked on the F-117, B2, and F-35 all of which incorporated "stealth" technology but there wasn't any real R&D involved in the "stealth" technology as it had existed for decades even before the F-117 was created by Lockheed. There was R&D related to electronic warfare systems but not related to the actual stealth technology. Stealth technology was really taking "off the shelf" knowledge and technology and combining it into the aircraft design and nothing more.
??? ...today debt based monetary system, any printed money is debt... is borrowing. Inflation is happening anyway, which devalues the currency... 1913 a dollar had a value of a dollar...2013 a dollar is 97% less than the original value. I assume you understand that is essentially hyper-inflation. Again... printing money in today's debt based monetary system is borrowing... that's the moto "good for all debts". Then why does Finland and South Korea have better educated kids? The transformation of the Finns education system began some 40 years ago as the key propellant of the countrys economic recovery plan. Educators had little idea it was so successful until 2000, when the first results from standardized test given to 15-year-olds in more than 40 global venues, revealing Finnish youth to be the best young readers in the world. Three years later, they led in math. By 2006, Finland was first out of 57 countries in science. In the 2009 PISA scores released last year, the nation came in second in science, third in reading and sixth in math among nearly half a million students worldwide. In the United States, which has muddled along in the middle for the past decade, government officials have attempted to introduce marketplace competition into public schools. In recent years, a group of Wall Street financiers and philanthropists have put money behind private-sector ideas. But your 11th grader still can't even use a calculator? It's great to have a healthcare system that the average person can't afford. But does that equate to having the healthiest country in the world... no... not at all. 1. Iceland 2. Japan 3. Sweden 4. Okinawa 5. New Zealand 6. Sardinia 7. Finland ...sorry, couldn't find the US. If you where talking, this would be considered "chewing your face". I simply want taxes that are paid to go to a treasury that is using the taxes for the betterment of society by a popular government, not pay taxes on the interest of the borrowing of a enrolled government from private banks for the betterment of banks. As it is being accurate. Corporate policies are not always even for the betterment of their employees, and not every waged or salary corporate employee even approves of many of their own corporate undertakings. Corporate best interests is to profit above all else, and I surely don't would want a "to big to fail" company directly influencing the interests of government. No... when I say "a product that is rarely purchased again", I mean not often, seldom, sparsely, infrequent... You will find that most manufactures of solar guarantee the panels for 20-25 years... you usually replace a vehicle every 5-8 years... "quickly" is a term you are using far to loosely. No, but I see that you've applied a oxymoron in your reasoning... did you read it? What I'm saying is that is more profitable to continually to sell electricity per unit per sec, than it is to sell the means at which to produce the electricity. It comes down to a simple - sell a man a fish every day and you will be rich by him, teach him to fish and you'll enrich him... and make yourself poor. Well then, let's factor in the renewable costs of 20 years (average solar system guarantee) ... paying 10 cents (let's just round it up and call it inflation) every hour for 20 years = $17531.62 ...vs. $3000 solar system?, let's upgrade... $6000 system... eh, we like our pool... $8,000 with the addition... we have to do maintenance brought us up to $10,000. Hmmm... this solar crap is starting to make sense. Solar is selling at around $1 per watt and getting cheaper everyday. We might even save enough to buy a bigger system when we recycle the old system. Sorry, your candy coated world was shining in my eyes... http://www.thenewamerican.com/econo...r-blows-whistle-on-corruption-federal-reserve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_in_60_Seconds_(bank_fraud) http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-143.htm http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...-settlement-synthetic-collateralized-debt-cdo http://www.nbcnews.com/business/ban...-face-fraud-charges-prosecutor-says-1C6693152 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2010-02-04-bank-of-america-charged_N.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/nyregion/abacus-bank-charged-with-mortgage-fraud.html http://blog.seattlepi.com/boomerconsumer/2013/04/04/feds-charge-another-bank-with-mortgage-fraud/ The list is endless really. "Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!" - Andrew Jackson, before he killed the bank and paid off the national debt... the only president who was able to pay of the national debt.
No it is not. "Every year Monsanto investigates more than 500 farmers for patent infringement with their now notorious “seed police.” To date, 144 farmers have had lawsuits brought against them by Monsanto without a binding contract with the multinational corporation, while another 700 farmers have been forced to settle out of court for undisclosed sums." One plant found in a field is a call for patent infringement... if it lives to another year or not.
Patent protections are a limited protection for an "invention" made public and expire over time at which time the "inventions" becomes public domain. Of note "One plant found in a field" can be used as evidence in a patent infringement lawsuit but it has to be established that patent holder suffered a financial loss and financial compensation is awarded based upon whether the patent holder suffered a financial loss because of a patent infringement. Simply finding a dead plant does not imply a patent infringement by itself although it can be used as evidence of the farmer was profiting from an infringement upon the patent protection.
How would that affect a farmer who thought he was selling organic product but found by "seed police" that a patent was contaminating the product he was selling?
It still holds: R&D costs have been high to create the associated spin-off technologies. Indeed, the fixed costs involved led to government 'encouraging' mergers in the 'last supper'
If purposefully planted. These are not 1 plant in acre farmers, these are farmers using Monsanto seed to plant their crops and do not want to pay for the technology involved, but want the benefit of it. They should lose their crop. Theft of the mind is the same as theft of property directly.
And if simply contaminated by the next field over? Then unwittingly sell the product and are investigated by "seed police" with the full knowledge contamination does happen? A lot of these organic farmers have been doing this for generations, rely on their heirloom seeds, and have a tremendous sales. Patent infringements taken under "patent trespassing" while trespassing on non-contractual organic fields in search of patent that have by chance landed in that field. It doesn't make sense... but it's the way it is. This is the travesty of it, organic farmers aren't trying to rip the "Monsanto system", how can they when they have to purchase those seeds from Monsanto to begin with? They don't want to sell non-organic foods... that is not their type of business. They are being sued for patent infringement because a seed of Monsanto's genetic patent has landed in their non contractual field.
So, like I said. The left complains when the seeds can reproduce, and when the problem is fixed they complain about the previous perceived problems. You can't win with this group. New plants are sterile and cannot contaminate your heirloom seed industry. I am waiting on my court case that says a farmer who inadvertently, not deliberately, has a plant land on their field and loses their crop.
An interesting question. I might wonder if the farmer would have a case against the seed company for contamination of the seed he was using.
Then the lawsuit by the farmer would be against the neighbor for contaminating his field through negligence. In any case of the organic "farmer didn't do it" then the farmer isn't liable.
While I don't have a reference I've heard that genetically modified seed can, in some cases, reproduce even though it's not supposed to. It is not a fail-safe guarantee by Monsanto to my knowledge.
??? Then why would Monsanto be suing organic farmers for patent infringements based of contamination? ...if the problem is fixed? I don't think you understand how things grow... a seed can be blown into a field, if it is planting season, that seed will grow with the rest of the field, look just like the other plants, grow like the other plants, and yield product, like the other plants... then harvested with all the other plants, mixing in a GMF into the heirloom product being sold. WHOOPS, it's not organic anymore, well, shucks... Then let's go to harvest season, where the plants are fully mature and producing seeds... like on corn tassels which can blow in the wind, or a bird drops a seed from its clutches, or raccoon carries off some product, which end up to contaminate an organic corn farmers field. It waits dormant for the winter, then in the spring, during planting season, it gets the benefit of being mixed in with the farmers heirloom crop to contaminate his yield again. The organic crop can't be sold as organic crop... all the packaging, the preparation for selling the organic crop is lost. Then in steps Monsanto... patent infringement... ...do your own leg work from now on... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser http://www.pubpat.org/osgatavmonsantocafcdecision.htm ...Monsanto "promises" not to sue anyone else for contamination, but strong arm tactics are still in play.
A lawsuit is an allegation of wrongful conduct and does not establish anything as a fact. The neighboring farmer has an obligation to ensure that this doesn't happen, period.
