Protectionism does not kill innovation
-
As much as the Singapore claims that protectionism will not drive the economy forward. But lack of it though will kill creativity and innovation as people will be hard pressed to be driven to survive rather than to innovate and improve. The exact social situation has happened in Singapore already.If Singapore wants to prosper in the 21st century, it will need to learn the new rules of the innovation game—and how the it can play this game to win. if we put our resources in the right places and don't waste scarce resources trying to recapture a bygone era in Singapore's economic model . Now they are learning the hard way that money and might cannot buy innovation. But ideology does. The ideology to improve the nation and its people. If the PAP takes this approach, there will be a possibility that talent drain can be avoided.
It never fails to amaze me, how can a 17 year old who haven't finish colleage... be able to hack an Iphone.. a product developed by by a team of engineers and programmer triple his age. But if this 17 year old is in Singapore, he would have been charged and put in jail in favor of multi national corporations like APPLE. But again without hackers, would antivirus programs, digital rights protection, electronic security be invented?
The idea is that all things are inter dependent on one another in some form or way that defines natural equilibrium.
This is the exacts stark contrast that exists in free wheeling democracies. There are no rules to stifle creativity or talents on opposing fronts, even if its a bad one,
Protectionism by creating innovation incubation centers to foster creative thinking and provide a support system to local entrepreneurs.
However, just like what some economists said, while emerging countries like China are moving up the value chain when it comes to innovation, the US is still and will remain a leader in this realm for a long time, but the question s Where does Singapore stand?A nation that has depended heavily on world economic landscape and responding to changes with a tweaking of an outdated economic model will be doom to fail.
-
Talking about singapore again, hello, we got only 4 millions peoples with an education system starting to move only in the 1970s, and you are comparing to others with hundreds of million of peoples with an education system in place since hundreds years ago. And americans are also make up of multi national immigrants since 200 years ago, ours only start in 1990s where we allow foreigners to come in, so if you want to have this type of brainy kids, wait.
-
Look at India before 1991 as a case study if you will, and Proton, if you want something closer to home.
-
I'm not too clear on how the TS defines protectionism in this case. Would he care to expand?
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
I'm not too clear on how the TS defines protectionism in this case. Would he care to expand?
if u want him to expand, you have to do some tongue switching on him. I am off. -
Tongue switching? Is that what they call it these days?
-
Originally posted by Gedanken:
Tongue switching? Is that what they call it these days?
"Tongue switching" ?Can you believe the "Taiwan Hum" that pretend to be an angel ?
If this is not another one of her flippant and irrerevent one liners that is meant to drive the flow off-track.
-
Funny, I really just wrote a paper on this topic.
In anycase, I've found that protecting intellectual property rights, had a good correlation to innovation. But Protectionism was something that I really didn't look into... hmmm.
Whatever it is, protecting IP rights allowed people to "innovate" safely, and coupled with lucrative commercialization of patents gave people incentive to. And as the place become pretty much known as a "center of innovation", even foreigners from less IP protected countries would head there to do their research.
So its possible that protectionism may not be very good for innovation. Looking at the US example, practically half their patents are filed by non-residents. HMmm
-
TS, you seem to have jumble up two or three issues into one big mess of an idea that will need you to defend yourself on several positions that you may not want to be in.
Originally posted by ☃®:As much as the Singapore claims that protectionism will not drive the economy forward. But lack of it though will kill creativity and innovation as people will be hard pressed to be driven to survive rather than to innovate and improve. The exact social situation has happened in Singapore already.If Singapore wants to prosper in the 21st century, it will need to learn the new rules of the innovation game—and how the it can play this game to win. if we put our resources in the right places and don't waste scarce resources trying to recapture a bygone era in Singapore's economic model . Now they are learning the hard way that money and might cannot buy innovation. But ideology does. The ideology to improve the nation and its people. If the PAP takes this approach, there will be a possibility that talent drain can be avoided.
In the opening statement of your thread - "As much as the Singapore claims that protectionism will not drive the economy forward" - this refers to the PAP government position in their insistence that protecting the Singapore's Labor from the entry of "Foreign Talent and Cheap Labor" will not drive the economy forward.
Firstly, what do you understand by "protectionism" - when the term refers to protecting of one's market from foreign competition ?
In your first paragraph that lack of protectionism "will kill creativity and innovation" - are you referring to the "protection of intellectual rights" under the Copyright Laws, which is different from the closing of national borders to protect the manufacturers from foreign competition ?
Secondly, if "money and might cannot buy innovation" and "ideology does" - how do you see a nation of citizens to be brain washed by one or more ideologies to suddenly be enlightened and become innovative creators and inventors ?
Can any PAP ideologies help to prevent brain drain ?
It never fails to amaze me, how can a 17 year old who haven't finish colleage... be able to hack an Iphone.. a product developed by by a team of engineers and programmer triple his age. But if this 17 year old is in Singapore, he would have been charged and put in jail in favor of multi national corporations like APPLE.
Surely you do not doubt human ingenuity that is driven by one's interest that can progress into a passion and more ?
Why should you be amazed that without the benefit of formal higher education, a 17 year old can match the skills of a team of engineers and programmers ?
When a person develop a passionate interests in any one subject, you will be surprised the extent that the passion can drive a person to achieve great heights.
It is the environment that nurtures and develop a person to have an enquiring mind, the initiative to probe, and the daring to challenge the status quo, and the humility to accept that there are bigger and more challenging things that require further pursuit.
Why should an inquisitive 17 year old who open up a product that it owns and change the content of the iPhone product that it owns - end up being prosecuted by Apple ?
If the 17 year old had responded to the terms and conditions of the purchase of the iPhone and knows the limits of the product ownership that does not full title to the 17 year old, then the product should be returned if the 17 year old find the terms to be too cumbersome and restrictive to his full enjoyment of ownership.
Once the 17 year old respond to the terms and conditions of ownership, it is a matter of contractural responsibilities and maturity not to infringe the contract.
What has that to do with "protectionism" ?
This is the exacts stark contrast that exists in free wheeling democracies. There are no rules to stifle creativity or talents on opposing fronts, even if its a bad one,
"Free wheeling democracies" has to do with politics and social relationships among the people of the community.
How does it affect negatively or positively the outcome of human innovation and creativity ?
If you believe that "Free Wheeling Democracies" can produce positive outcome in the innovation and creative abilities of humans - how do you reconcile with your statement that "money and might cannot buy innovation" and "ideology does" ?
Are you now suggesting that "Free Wheeling Democracies" will be better than the "PAP ideologies" that help to prevent the Singapore "brain drain" ?
Protectionism by creating innovation incubation centers to foster creative thinking and provide a support system to local entrepreneurs.
However, just like what some economists said, while emerging countries like China are moving up the value chain when it comes to innovation, the US is still and will remain a leader in this realm for a long time, but the question s Where does Singapore stand?What forms do you propose for such "Protectionism" to be implemented so as to help with "creating innovation incubation centers to foster creative thinking and provide a support system to local entrepreneurs" ?
Can Singapore afford to protect these incubation centers of creative thinking, when the products that are produced will need a global market free from protectionism ?
A nation that has depended heavily on world economic landscape and responding to changes with a tweaking of an outdated economic model will be doom to fail.
Since you realise that - "A nation that has depended heavily on world economic landscape" - can your call for "protectionism" still stand ?
Economic models will need constant reviews, and outdated models will surely need to be thrown - as the fact that it is already "outdated" indicate it is no longer relevant or effective.
Is it not obvious that there cannot be any use for further tweaking ?
-
Protectionism does not kill innovation
You may be interested in below books that argue for protectionism as a strategy to develop economies:
Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596913991
Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective
http://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective
How Rich Countries Got Rich . . . and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor
http://www.amazon.com/How-Rich-Countries-Poor-Stay/dp/
See also books by Goh Keng Swee on Singapore economic development policies:
The Economics of Modernization
-
I think he may actually make more sense if he defines what "protectionism" he's talking about. Similarly a definition of innovation.
I'm thinking of protectionism as trade barriers such as taxes and tariffs...
-
so basically u are saying you are right and the leaders of APEC are wrong?
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
I think he may actually make more sense if he defines what "protectionism" he's talking about. Similarly a definition of innovation.
I'm thinking of protectionism as trade barriers such as taxes and tariffs...
I'm with you on this - trade barriers such as taxes, tarriffs, etc.
Incubation units for creativity to bloom such as the model used by Singapore are protected based on intellectual property rights, to be respected and honoured by WTOs around the world.
No harm if the 17 year old can create a programme that will help make the ipod a best seller. This had been the way and how capitalists had prospered and even bought over companies that had helped.
No sense in charging or jailing the growing adult, unless he uses and profits from it without respecting intellectual rights of the owners. That would be criminally wrong regardless of whatever country he hailed from.
If he meant should Protectionism kill innovation, then Protectionsim will in fact stifle creativity, simply because the capitalists will presume they have an infinite market share, and will not bother to improve.
It took research into agriculture yields to make the farmers squeal in pain like pigs when other nations could plant crops with bi-annual harvests back in the 60s. And they had to spend more on their own research to compete against others, when combined with other improved productive processes from the farmer to the consumer with a household budget to adhere to.
Similarly, if hi-tech endeavours go the protectionists way, they will only grow fat and never improve. And it will take another 17 year old bright spark to get them off their arses.
Thus Protectionism is wrong and MUST never be adopted, if we are to progress and evolve, regardless of whatever country one comes from, and the amount of unions they have.
Patents alone will enrich companies on a world wide scale, IF intellectual property rights is respected as China, africa, latin american and some asian states must be brought to heel with.
-
It is entertaining each time an X-rated attempt appear to be serious in its usual characteristic ways of over-reaching itself, it will get hung up with its own grand ideas.
Originally posted by xtreyier:I'm with you on this - trade barriers such as taxes, tarriffs, etc.
Incubation units for creativity to bloom such as the model used by Singapore are protected based on intellectual property rights, to be respected and honoured by WTOs around the world.
How many WTOs exist around the world ?
No harm if the 17 year old can create a programme that will help make the ipod a best seller. This had been the way and how capitalists had prospered and even bought over companies that had helped.
No sense in charging or jailing the growing adult, unless he uses and profits from it without respecting intellectual rights of the owners. That would be criminally wrong regardless of whatever country he hailed from.
Apple has a separate "APPS Market" for anyone to design a program that helps to make the iPod the best seller, and Apple encourages anyone to develop softwares that will make the iPod even more versatile.
However, in the scenario that TS had suggested, the TS was not referring to the 17yo designing any softwares to make the iPod any better.
Instead, TS was raising the subject of a 17yo cracking the protective code of the iPod and enter the "resident memory area" that has iPod operating system and electronic codes embedded - which Apple lay claim to its Intellectual Property Rights.
As mentioned, in my post - anyone who buys a product and send in the Warranty Card with clauses that limit the Buyer's Rights in using the product in some ways - must be clear and satisfied that such limits to the Buyer's Rights will not infringe or place any limits to the full satisfaction in using the product.
Such limits to the Buyer's Rights may require the Buyer to respect the Manufacturer's "Intellectual Property Rights" to the product operating system, even though title of the product may have passed on to the Buyer.
In this scenario, the TS had shown Apple requiring any iPod Buyer not to access the electronic codes that allow the iPod to function, or face prosecution by Apple.
If the Buyer feels that this demand by the Manufacturer prevent the full enjoyment of using the product, the Buyer should then either not buy the product in the first instance, or return the product for a full refund.
If he meant should Protectionism kill innovation, then Protectionsim will in fact stifle creativity, simply because the capitalists will presume they have an infinite market share, and will not bother to improve.
If you are certain of your stand shown in your paragraph quoted - are you then not contradicting your first statement made that - "Incubation units for creativity to bloom such as the model used by Singapore are protected based on intellectual property rights" ?
If you believe that "protectionism kill innovation" - why will Singapore develop "incubation units for creativity" and "protected based on intellectual property rights, to be respected and honoured by WTOs around the world" ?
How did capitalist or capitalism enter your vision to have "protectionism" benefitting the capitalists and not motivating the capitalists to improve their products ?
Can capitalism thrive in a world that is partitioned by protectionism, or is it not a fact that Capitalists and Capitalism will thrive better in a world that allow capital to move freely, and with venture capitalists nurturing "innovation hubs" that are too high risks for Commercial Bankers ?
It took research into agriculture yields to make the farmers squeal in pain like pigs when other nations could plant crops with bi-annual harvests back in the 60s. And they had to spend more on their own research to compete against others, when combined with other improved productive processes from the farmer to the consumer with a household budget to adhere to.
When farmers squeal in pain - how did you managed to link the farmers squeal to be like pigs ?
If so, when it is said that girls squeal with laughter - are they pigs too ?
Do farmers have the capacity to spend any of their own resources on research to improve agricultural yields, or is this not done on their behalf by the government as a national project ?
What kind of agricultural farmer can you possibly be referring to - that can have such a farmer to be knowledgeable to invest in "research that produces high yields", modern techniques in "improved productive processes from the farmer to the consumer with a household budget to adhere to" ?
Can the Southeast Asian traditional farmer - mostly without basic education - know anything beyond the planting to harvesting cycles ?
Or has the efforts of these uneducated farmers not been guided by the respective Southeast Asian Governments - that sees the primary agricultural sector as national projects to increase the yields of the cash crops for exports ?
Similarly, if hi-tech endeavours go the protectionists way, they will only grow fat and never improve. And it will take another 17 year old bright spark to get them off their arses.
What forms of "protectionists way" are you advocating now - when in the first opening statement you seem to have lauded the Singapore way of incubation hubs "protected by intellectual property rights recognised by WTOs around the world" ?
Has it not been a fact that the leading technological centers of Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the USA continue to be creative in producing advanced and improved high tech endeavours every year without fail, and all done despite the "protective ways" to prevent industrial espionage or pirating of intellectual property rights ?
Since Bill Gates produced his "operating system" for the PC and made the PC into a product that started a global socio-technological revolution, there have been others that used the PC platform to harness the global energy of PC users to innovate new approaches that had continuously brought social and technological change.
These include the bright "young kids" that developed Yahoo! and Google, introduced Amazon as an electronic platform for commercial transactinos - even as the "older kids" continue to improve the CPU and chips to further reduce the physical size and weight to make it portable, and encourage its use as a modern lifestyle need.
Has "protectionism" in the various forms of "intellectual property rights" and "market domination by sheer size" prevent innovation ?
Thus Protectionism is wrong and MUST never be adopted, if we are to progress and evolve, regardless of whatever country one comes from, and the amount of unions they have.
If this statement is to be accepted - should Singapore dismantle the incubation unit that are "protected based on intellectual property rights, to be respected and honoured by WTOs around the world" ?
Patents alone will enrich companies on a world wide scale, IF intellectual property rights is respected as China, africa, latin american and some asian states must be brought to heel with.
Do companies get rich from patents alone ?
Surely, a product that is patented and is not marketable, with no demand - cannot be of any use to any companies ?
Patents have a time limit - anywhere from 10 to 15 or 20 years, and without any further improvements that can be seen as substantially upgrading the original patent design - the patent will simply run out.
It is during this tenure of the Patent that a company can "get rich" - and this is subject to the patented product finding useful applications to be accepted or needed by any market place.
Patent in itsel cannot possibly protect a company even during the tenure of the Patent Right - as competitors can study the patented design, reverse engineer to make improvements or the same with a tweak difference to serve the same application.
It will require the Company to continuously invest in Research & Development, and to stay ahead of the pack.
It will require the Company to have success and immediate wide penetration of the product on a global basis, so as to recover costs in the shortest time before the life cycle of the product goes flat.
Patents can hardly be enforced in all corners of the globe, and it is only smart for patent holders to consider lowering its selling price to reach a wider market, or have multi-level pricing for different market place, so as to beat patent infringements.
It is amazing that you never fail with your habit in selling your grand vision of the event as seen in your grand standing statements.
Somehow you have the consistent skill to loose yourself on that big stage that exist in the big hall of your mind.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
Thus Protectionism is wrong and MUST never be adopted
You may be interested in below books that argue for protectionism as a strategy to develop economies:
Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596913991
Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective
http://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective
How Rich Countries Got Rich . . . and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor
http://www.amazon.com/How-Rich-Countries-Poor-Stay/dp/
See also books by Goh Keng Swee on Singapore economic development policies:
The Economics of Modernization
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
You may be interested in below books that argue for protectionism as a strategy to develop economies:
Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596913991
Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective
http://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective
How Rich Countries Got Rich . . . and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor
http://www.amazon.com/How-Rich-Countries-Poor-Stay/dp/
See also books by Goh Keng Swee on Singapore economic development policies:
The Economics of Modernization
Thanks for the recommendations, but I do have a library of my own as well as better and more credible sources for research and comprehension. Utimately, protectionism boils down to one thing - the creation of inefficient monopolies. The writers and those wannabe writers can author long thesis , wall of texts daily, but in the end, what is the critical point?
The TS provided a simple and relevant presumption - Protectionism DOES NOT kill innovation, and had kindly offered his perception and opinions. But does it hold?
Others had offered their counter- opinions, and will be respected except for known self admitted piece of Turd, for she admitted her warped and twisted perceptions are based on dung and anyone who does not agree to dung is wrong.
Let me share an example:-1. Rice from Vietnam costs only S$6 per 5kg pack due to productive efforts and economies of scale. Rice cultivated and processed in Thailand costs $10 per 5kg pack. But in order for Thais to buy the cheaper Viet rice, a tariff is imposed, making it cost $11/kg to buy.
This is protectionism, to protect the thai farmers, but at the expense of the thai consumer, denying him the right to progress and evolution, and be content paying fat cat inefficient practices of the thai farmer and the industry.
If the viets can be efficient, why not the thais? ( This is only an example for simple illustration, for real world situations are far more complex than perceived )
2. Microsoft has intellectual property rights to its OS and IE. It is respected. But when MS attempts to force computer manufacturers and distributors to bundle its software for sale, this is protectionism. ( How MS did it is another 'you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours' story)
It inhibits other software designers to come up with different OS, for other computer makers will not use their OS. We know there is Linux and a whole host of other OS, programmes that does better than MS, but due to protectionism, they never stood a chance, and the consumer deprived of progress and evolution.
In the end, does protectionism enhances innovation or stifles it? I leave it to the readers to ponder, without a wall of text.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
what is the critical point?
Point is that protectionism is a good strategy to develop economies to a certain point.
You must go and read the books.
Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism
http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Samaritans-Secret-History-Capitalism/dp/1596913991
Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective
http://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective
How Rich Countries Got Rich . . . and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor
http://www.amazon.com/How-Rich-Countries-Poor-Stay/dp/
The Myth of the Free Market: The Role of the State in a Capitalist Economy
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Free-Market-Capitalist-Economy/dp/1565492676
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
I'm with you on this - trade barriers such as taxes, tarriffs, etc.
Incubation units for creativity to bloom such as the model used by Singapore are protected based on intellectual property rights, to be respected and honoured by WTOs around the world.
No harm if the 17 year old can create a programme that will help make the ipod a best seller. This had been the way and how capitalists had prospered and even bought over companies that had helped.
No sense in charging or jailing the growing adult, unless he uses and profits from it without respecting intellectual rights of the owners. That would be criminally wrong regardless of whatever country he hailed from.
If he meant should Protectionism kill innovation, then Protectionsim will in fact stifle creativity, simply because the capitalists will presume they have an infinite market share, and will not bother to improve.
It took research into agriculture yields to make the farmers squeal in pain like pigs when other nations could plant crops with bi-annual harvests back in the 60s. And they had to spend more on their own research to compete against others, when combined with other improved productive processes from the farmer to the consumer with a household budget to adhere to.
Similarly, if hi-tech endeavours go the protectionists way, they will only grow fat and never improve. And it will take another 17 year old bright spark to get them off their arses.
Thus Protectionism is wrong and MUST never be adopted, if we are to progress and evolve, regardless of whatever country one comes from, and the amount of unions they have.
Patents alone will enrich companies on a world wide scale, IF intellectual property rights is respected as China, africa, latin american and some asian states must be brought to heel with.
Tell me about how S Korea and Taiwan grew then.You know what free trade does and opening up your financial market at one go does? You get Russia.
Look how "free trade" destroys the lives of other people besides that of the advocates. Subsidies for agriculture in EU and USA....shouldn't these constitute anti-free-trade acts as well?
Why are the advocates of "free trade" protecting their agricultural markets?
Why should protectionism NEVER be adopted? Where do you think LG, Samsung, Acer came from?
-
protectionism is not social security, its protecting the citizens from unwanted social effects from globalisation, free trade, inflation ect...
Social security is handing out $$$ to lazy people. We dont want singapore hand out dollars to lazy but to protect us from unwanted side effects due to the changing economy
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Tell me about how S Korea and Taiwan grew then.You know what free trade does and opening up your financial market at one go does? You get Russia.
Look how "free trade" destroys the lives of other people besides that of the advocates. Subsidies for agriculture in EU and USA....shouldn't these constitute anti-free-trade acts as well?
Why are the advocates of "free trade" protecting their agricultural markets?
Why should protectionism NEVER be adopted? Where do you think LG, Samsung, Acer came from?
In our past, protectionism had been the way, which is why economies grew. But in this modern age when speed of money and information flow is at light speed, will this model be relevant anymore?
I dont have the answers, do you and would you dare logically guarantee protectionism model will not stifle innovation?
By logic, protectionsim is outdated as consumer awareness is greater than before. But will protectionism be still adopted. I suspect they will be the losers in the end. Time will be the judge, and time is something we Singapore do not have, for our investments and manufacturing equipment are already tooled and ready to give battle.
But this is only my opinion, and may not be anyone else, which i must respect in a discussion.
As for ☃®, er...are you talking about trade protectionism or social protectionism? It may have to be taken apart and discussed separately, as they mean differently and covers different aspect of socialogy, economics and political doctrines, just to mention a few, interesting as it may be.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
In our past, protectionism had been the way, which is why economies grew. But in this modern age when speed of money and information flow is at light speed, will this model be relevant anymore?
I dont have the answers, do you and would you dare logically guarantee protectionism model will not stifle innovation?
By logic, protectionsim is outdated as consumer awareness is greater than before. But will protectionism be still adopted. I suspect they will be the losers in the end. Time will be the judge, and time is something we Singapore do not have, for our investments and manufacturing equipment are already tooled and ready to give battle.
But this is only my opinion, and may not be anyone else, which i must respect in a discussion.
As for ☃®, er...are you talking about trade protectionism or social protectionism? It may have to be taken apart and discussed separately, as they mean differently and covers different aspect of socialogy, economics and political doctrines, just to mention a few, interesting as it may be.
How can protectionism still not be of relevance?Predatory pricing, and the monopoly of Microsoft....would you like to see more of that? If you don't protect your industry in the beginning stages, it will simply get steam-rolled, just look at Netscape.
In the same way, protectionism can stifle innovation, the same argument can be said for "free trade". Market power can be maintained by means other than innovation. Predatory pricing that I mentioned is just one aspect.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
In our past, protectionism had been the way, which is why economies grew. But in this modern age when speed of money and information flow is at light speed, will this model be relevant anymore?
I dont have the answers, do you and would you dare logically guarantee protectionism model will not stifle innovation?
By logic, protectionsim is outdated as consumer awareness is greater than before. But will protectionism be still adopted. I suspect they will be the losers in the end. Time will be the judge, and time is something we Singapore do not have, for our investments and manufacturing equipment are already tooled and ready to give battle.
But this is only my opinion, and may not be anyone else, which i must respect in a discussion.
As for ☃®, er...are you talking about trade protectionism or social protectionism? It may have to be taken apart and discussed separately, as they mean differently and covers different aspect of socialogy, economics and political doctrines, just to mention a few, interesting as it may be.
social protectionism
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
How can protectionism still not be of relevance?Predatory pricing, and the monopoly of Microsoft....would you like to see more of that? If you don't protect your industry in the beginning stages, it will simply get steam-rolled, just look at Netscape.
In the same way, protectionism can stifle innovation, the same argument can be said for "free trade". Market power can be maintained by means other than innovation. Predatory pricing that I mentioned is just one aspect.
Ermm...let see if i can bring it back on topic.
Your example of netscape is an example of protectionism at its worst, because of protectionist measures adopted by MS stifled Netscape and others who would want to attempt another browser.
Should anti protectionist measures be widely adopted as pledged during apec, then progress and evolution will occur. The bottomline is, who dont want to prosper.
Free trade could NEVER stifle innovation, because we are talking about competition from EVERY corner of the market place. Only the best and the brightest in the industrial and commercial process will survive parting bucks from the consumer. I am not even talking about one aspect such as the pricing of product alone.
But I am sincerly interested to know more of your views, on how protectionism will NOT stifle innovation, given that without competition, unhealthy regression will only occur. Some may claim additional funds would be created for better research and development, but looking at the financial crisis that happened, such funds were actually lining the pockets of shareholders than bettering the lives of consumers.
It would be the popularity of a product that will ensure there are funds for innovation, and it can only happen in a non-protectionist environment where competition is rife, a necessity for survival that will get capitalists off their butts.
-
Holy shit, protectionism BY MS??
Wait wait....isn't that unfettered market-place in that case?
*chortles*
you've just stabbed yourself in the foot.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
Holy shit, protectionism BY MS??
Wait wait....isn't that unfettered market-place in that case?
*chortles*
you've just stabbed yourself in the foot.
Not so fast, dont choke yourself. Nitpicking will only harm your credibility.
The US govt intellectual property laws do extend monopoly to MS to protect them from competition, but only for a period of time.
Unfettered market place my foot. We can go on and on on the merits of the anti-trust case against MS, on what they had done, but it will only go off topic.
Now, can we go back on topic - on the TS's belief?