[citation][nom]maxsp33d[/nom]offtopic:I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but society is no longer based on capitalism. Now it's what some people call Corporatism and Monetarism, where corporations and banks hold all the power. Also, another thing relating to the patent system is that when someone gets hired by a company most of the times they make you sign a contract stating that if the employee invents something while working for that company, then the company will hold the patent and not the individual. If an individual or a group of individuals would hold the patent, then the whole system would be much better. And that's why you never hear about an individual suing another individual or a company.[/citation]
But that is what capitalism , monopolizing capital, it's in fact the curse of capatalism, like any economic system we've come up to date it is falwed, because it's one damning flaw greed, ultimately, consumes it's pension for innovation. Economic "socialism" is marred by stagnation, and Capitalism is marred by greed.
Individuals don't sue other individuals because an enterprising individual with enough capital, decided to create the "corporate system" to raise more capital and insulate themselves from losing assets when the corporation failed, it's genious. The corporate "I". While we think of corporations as these living entities they are not, they are insulation of wealth for very powerful individuals. Banks are powerful, because, they control capital, and that is the name of the game in capitalism. It's like MOnopology ultimately you have so much capital and assets that well other individuals, can not compete, and the game grows stagnant.
For any economic system to be viable, the flow of capital must continue, in a capitalistic system it ultimately ends because too few people have access to capital, and in economic socialism it ends, because, no one can effectively predict market trends or distribution models, and there by produce enough goods that people will actually want or be innovative enough for indivuals to consider buying eventually leading to a stagnant economy and the lull in the flow of capital. The irony is that the basic tenent of socialism was theose "who work the fields should own the fields" there by ending feudal egragianism in Russia. It's intent is to actually counter act the idea of say an inventor not owning the rights to the invention. Although, people think that socialism is about redistribution, that was not seen as the end state but passage state to take control of lands out of feudal lord hands into the hands of peasants. The same idea could be applied to the patents you speak of taking the patents out of the hands of the corporations but the people who invented it. But, then there is a catch-22 to every idea isn't.
But that is what capitalism , monopolizing capital, it's in fact the curse of capatalism, like any economic system we've come up to date it is falwed, because it's one damning flaw greed, ultimately, consumes it's pension for innovation. Economic "socialism" is marred by stagnation, and Capitalism is marred by greed.
Individuals don't sue other individuals because an enterprising individual with enough capital, decided to create the "corporate system" to raise more capital and insulate themselves from losing assets when the corporation failed, it's genious. The corporate "I". While we think of corporations as these living entities they are not, they are insulation of wealth for very powerful individuals. Banks are powerful, because, they control capital, and that is the name of the game in capitalism. It's like MOnopology ultimately you have so much capital and assets that well other individuals, can not compete, and the game grows stagnant.
For any economic system to be viable, the flow of capital must continue, in a capitalistic system it ultimately ends because too few people have access to capital, and in economic socialism it ends, because, no one can effectively predict market trends or distribution models, and there by produce enough goods that people will actually want or be innovative enough for indivuals to consider buying eventually leading to a stagnant economy and the lull in the flow of capital. The irony is that the basic tenent of socialism was theose "who work the fields should own the fields" there by ending feudal egragianism in Russia. It's intent is to actually counter act the idea of say an inventor not owning the rights to the invention. Although, people think that socialism is about redistribution, that was not seen as the end state but passage state to take control of lands out of feudal lord hands into the hands of peasants. The same idea could be applied to the patents you speak of taking the patents out of the hands of the corporations but the people who invented it. But, then there is a catch-22 to every idea isn't.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram