or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › DOJ probes Apple's interest in Nortel patents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DOJ probes Apple's interest in Nortel patents - Page 2

post #41 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTMP View Post

Kodak went after Apple first, Apple countersued.

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQueri...S&pq-path=2709

That has generally been the case. Apple has only rarely started a patent war.

Trade dress and copyrights? Yes. Patents? Not so much.

WWGD (What would google do)? No way to tell. Google doesn't have enough patents to make it worth while to go after any of the big players. If they DO buy the patents and then sue, it will be further sign of their hypocrisy. They are very willing to violate everyone else's intellectual property, so their use of patents to protect their own would be hypocritical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed View Post

Aren't patents support to protect the inventors so that they have an incentive to innovate? Who in their right minds said that patents could be transfered? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

So OK maybe the inventor can benefit by selling his idea, thus giving him an incentive to come up with that idea, but then once it is sold, you're not protecting anyone anymore. Seems to me that once the original inventor is out of the picture, patents shouldn't mean a thing, IF the idea was to give incentive to inventors.

So you don't have any concept of what PROPERTY means?

Patents are property. They can be bought and sold like any other property. The ability to buy and sell patents actually fosters their implementation since many inventors do not have the resources (or the interest) in commercializing their invention. Do you have any idea how many millions of dollars you'd have to invest to commercialize an important automobile invention? Or a petrochemical refining invention? A small inventor can't do that.

The way the system works is that innovative people can get a patent on their invention - and then sell it to the people who CAN implement it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NanoAkron View Post

Doesn't anyone else find it a bit obscene that under the current patent system you're allowed to buy patents from someone else for a hell of a lot of money if you outcompete the next guy. In this case let's imagine both Google and Apple put in bids for $1BN and one of them wins.

Thats 6000 patents at $160k each.

You can then use those purchased patents to sue the loser of the purchasing battle for many billions more dollars. For nothing you've innovated yourself, just purchased. Pieces of paper that last only 20 years.

You're not simply buying pieces of paper. You're buying the right to practice some novel invention. If you're willing to spend that kind of money, there must be some value that justifies it.

Patents serve a useful purpose to society. While I can understand the sentiment that there is not enough research to weed out the stupid patents and even that it should be easier to overturn a patent when it is shown to be overreachingly broad, this sentiment that patents shouldn't exist and shouldn't be treated like other property is inane.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #42 of 79
Apple has likely received DoJ attention with several different actions they've taken over the past year. The larger and more successful they've become, the more aggressive they appear to be getting in protecting their turf. IMO if the WSJ report is true, the DoJ is right to approach Apple and clear some things up in advance if they intend to bid on the Nortel patents.

It's not just Apple suing HTC and Samsung, which is widely viewed as targeting Google itself. It's more the totality of Apple moves in just the past year.

DoJ was already investigating Apple for "bullying record labels" to reject cooperation with Amazon on part of their on-line music sales plans according to several reports from last year.
http://www.fastcompany.com/1652318/j...ls-boxing-out-
http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/conte...6a894f7a55e1bd

And another investigation was started when Apple decided that Adobe's developer software (using Flash) that would compile for both iOS and Android wasn't going to be allowed for Appstore development. Apple wanted exclusive titles and had no intention of making it easy for a developer to do an Android version at the same time.
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/05/03/apple...nvestigation/4

Yet another investigation of Apple practices is rumored with the film industry.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...2kBNijBO2uP1kJ

And Eu, DoJ and FTC preliminary looks at Apple's in-app purchasing plan.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...scriptions.ars

Now add in recent talk that Apple and Microsoft (enemy of my enemy?) may be cooperating to double-team Google, just as Apple may have originally hoped to use Google to blunt MS.
http://mashable.com/2010/01/20/apple...soft-v-google/

If you consider the Apple moves over the past year in total, it leaves the appearance of a pretty aggressive industry giant. The larger they get the more they've been looking like Microsoft, willing to use all the tools at their disposal to push any potential competitors off to the sidelines. I'm not making any claim that Apple is really a danger to the rest of the industry if they had the Nortel patents in hand. But the DoJ is certainly right to ask questions and get assurances in advance.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #43 of 79
Gatorguy, yours is one of the few posts on this thread that makes some sense. Most of the other comments should be embarrassments to the people who made them.

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #44 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed View Post

Aren't patents support to protect the inventors so that they have an incentive to innovate? Who in their right minds said that patents could be transfered? Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

So OK maybe the inventor can benefit by selling his idea, thus giving him an incentive to come up with that idea, but then once it is sold, you're not protecting anyone anymore. Seems to me that once the original inventor is out of the picture, patents shouldn't mean a thing, IF the idea was to give incentive to inventors.

If an inventor can't sell his/her patent, then you are depriving them of the very "incentive" to innovate that the system is intended to foster. Remember licensing is simply the sale of a "right to use". There is no way as the system currently exists to to keep someone from selling something that has value if they own it and choose to sell it.
post #45 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawson100 View Post

Do you mean to say that Google has curried favor with the current administration due to political contributions and that Apple, among others, is at a disadvantage for not having contributed enough to have the rights to these patents? Please say more.

It's called pay-to-play. That's how the DoJ has work in every administration since 1989 and, except for the Eisenhower administration, all of them from 1933 to 1974.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTMP View Post

The fundamental flaw with using the Laffer Curve is that it is over simplified. It assumes that if the tax rate is too high, people will have no incentive to keep working.

No the Laffer Curve does not assume people will have no incentive to keep working. It only assumes that people will have less incentive to keep working if the government steals a bigger share. When you reduce incentives for a group, some stop and some don't stop. Everyone has their own threshold.
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
post #46 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTMP View Post

The fundamental flaw with using the Laffer Curve is that it is over simplified. It assumes that if the tax rate is too high, people will have no incentive to keep working. ...

This is one of those economic myths that has achieved urban legend status. It's one of those things that seem plausible if you completely ignore human nature and pretend that all human activity is driven by economic incentives. It's also one of those things that people start to believe because those who would like us to believe it repeat it constantly.

In fact, it's a bit of pernicious nonsense. People don't act based on such simplistic economic motives. The reasons people work, once their earnings get past what's actually needed to live on, have very little to do with "economic" incentive and much more to do with things like money as power or simply because they are driven to do what they do for non-economic reasons.

One could make just as plausible an argument that, because many people who are actually making lots of money by "working" are driven to do this simply because they want to accumulate as much wealth as possible, raising taxes on them will actually cause them to work even harder to make lots of money. They are like rats pushing a lever to get food. If they get food every time they push the lever, they only push the lever when they are hungry. If you change it so they only get food by pushing the lever multiple times (essentially a tax) they spend a lot more time pushing the lever -- in other words, the tax caused them to work harder.

If we consider that money and wealth are essentially drugs to some people, and we replace the food with a cocaine injection into the brain of the rat, you can get them to spend their entire lives pushing the lever if you reward them infrequently.

Based on this theory, which actually takes human nature into account, raising taxes is not only the fair thing to do, it's the best way to get the wealthy working harder.
post #47 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

So what. Several of those top donors won't be there in 2012 because they won't like the necessity of streamlining the Military, redundant health services, and especially the need to raise taxes on the wealthy to balance the budget.

His Point: Since Google gave Obama more money, they have less of a problem with Goggle acquiring the patents than Apple who gave much less if anything.
post #48 of 79
deleted
post #49 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicj View Post

Do you have any actual studies to back this up, or is it a "Just So" story equating people who work to rats and drug addicts?

Because the "Just So" story I'm familiar with is "If you want less of something, tax it".

Read a psychology textbook, they are classic experiments. Do you have any actual studies to back up your "Just So" fairy tale? No, because there is no supporting evidence.
post #50 of 79
Anyone who has read the recent book on Google ("In the Plex") will realize there are many ex-Googlers now working in the U.S. Government. Many were taken with Obama when he first ran and decided to join "his team".

Considering Google's mantra of "doing no evil" is pure PR BS, it is ridiculous that the DOJ would look at and question Apple yet give Google a free pass and benefit of the doubt. Google has become the new Microsoft (infringe on others' IP, want their fingers in and to control everything, etc)

Something definitely smells fishy and I would hope Apple would challenge this if it sees value in going after the Nortel patents.

Just extract parts of the Google book to raise some questions and cause red faces in the U.S. Government.
post #51 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

This is one of those economic myths that has achieved urban legend status. It's one of those things that seem plausible if you completely ignore human nature and pretend that all human activity is driven by economic incentives. It's also one of those things that people start to believe because those who would like us to believe it repeat it constantly.

In fact, it's a bit of pernicious nonsense. People don't act based on such simplistic economic motives. The reasons people work, once their earnings get past what's actually needed to live on, have very little to do with "economic" incentive and much more to do with things like money as power or simply because they are driven to do what they do for non-economic reasons.

One could make just as plausible an argument that, because many people who are actually making lots of money by "working" are driven to do this simply because they want to accumulate as much wealth as possible, raising taxes on them will actually cause them to work even harder to make lots of money. They are like rats pushing a lever to get food. If they get food every time they push the lever, they only push the lever when they are hungry. If you change it so they only get food by pushing the lever multiple times (essentially a tax) they spend a lot more time pushing the lever -- in other words, the tax caused them to work harder.

If we consider that money and wealth are essentially drugs to some people, and we replace the food with a cocaine injection into the brain of the rat, you can get them to spend their entire lives pushing the lever if you reward them infrequently.

Based on this theory, which actually takes human nature into account, raising taxes is not only the fair thing to do, it's the best way to get the wealthy working harder.

All the evidence points in the other direction. An important aspect that you're overlooking is that the wealthy are not just trading their time for money. They are risking their capital. Risking one's capital may be a good bet if you get to keep your winning. But when the government steals most of your winning, that risk often becomes a very bad bet. That means the rich don't fund so many risky new ventures, we all enjoy less innovation, and there are fewer jobs for the working stiffs.

Socialism has produced poverty and misery everywhere it's been tried.
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
post #52 of 79
Warren Buffet and Bill Gates On Why U.S. Taxes Are Too Low For The Wealthy


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVOwaMWewGY
post #53 of 79
So how the hell did Nortel go bankrupt if they owned something worth 900 million. That's bad management when you go that much in debt.
post #54 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by NanoAkron View Post

Doesn't anyone else find it a bit obscene that ......
Thats 6000 patents at $160k each.

One, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head asking them to sell the patents. Two, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head asking them to sell the patents at that price. Three, the folks getting a billion (assuming that's what it's sold at) are better off with that than getting zero. Fourth, the only obscene thing is people like you getting all judgmental about a perfectly arms-length transaction in a private market between willing adults.
post #55 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicj View Post

An interesting interview. Thank you. I have to admit it didn't sway me though, for two reasons.

1) When Buffet is asked about a "Flat Tax" he says we already have pretty close to a flat tax. But then he goes on giving reason after reason on why our taxes are not even close to flat.

2) No actual studies were referenced in the reasons Buffet and Gates gave. They just thought the current system "unfair". Perhaps it is, perhaps it's not. But I'm more interested in economic arguments rather than arguments about being "fair". This is because I believe giving people the most economic opportunity possible is what's fair and just. Case in point: the multitude of millionaires created by Microsoft.

The same Warren Buffett who takes the bulk of his wealth from investment income which carries a low capital gains tax rate? If he was so concerned with the rich not paying their fair share, he can start with his own tax avoidance policy. The treasury will take his check if he'd like to send them one.
http://www.www.istockanalyst.com/fin...-his-secretary
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #56 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

This is incredible. While it's certainly within the realm of reasonableness for the DoJ to address actual anticompetitive behavior, preempting sensible business strategy by successful companies in the name of thwarting some vaguely-defined, potential behavior because of the caterwauling by self-described 'open source advcates' (whatever-the-heck that means -- how does one become an open source advocate?) is absolutely insane.

This is the kind of nonsense that sometimes results in US companies having to compete in global markets with one hand tied behind their backs.

Just becoz u dont know what open source is does not make u a smart-ash..It s the only reason today ur mac is not worth more than 10k bucks.t

Go get a life kid
post #57 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling View Post

All the evidence points in the other direction. An important aspect that you're overlooking is that the wealthy are not just trading their time for money. They are risking their capital. Risking one's capital may be a good bet if you get to keep your winning. But when the government steals most of your winning, that risk often becomes a very bad bet. That means the rich don't fund so many risky new ventures, we all enjoy less innovation, and there are fewer jobs for the working stiffs.

Socialism has produced poverty and misery everywhere it's been tried.

Making the rich pay a fair share in supporting the society they live in isn't socialism, it's fiscal responsibility, as opposed to the irrational policy of endless tax cuts for them without benefit that this country has engaged in over the past 30 years.

An important aspect that you are overlooking is that most people aren't Daniel Dancer, interested in money for money's sake. Most of them are either doing what they are doing for its own reward, or chasing money for what they can get for it. Raising taxes isn't going to change those motivations, and we'll still have just as much innovation as we have today. Maybe more as the rich can't depend on easy money and have to work even harder to get what they want. nd why shouldn't they, everyone else does.
post #58 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splash-reverse View Post

Sorry, could you be more specific and try to elaborate. If you mean them going to court defending their in-house portfolio, nothing's wrong with that. For bought IP, maybe...

That's exactly was what I was going to comment on.
Quote:
given the iPhone maker's legal track record.

Does Apple have "legal track record" of something that would make this a dubious purchase?
post #59 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicj View Post

Well, I was hoping for an economic reference, not a psychological one. I'd categorize swapping out economics for psychology as "original research" on your part.

Economics as theory applied by politicians has become worthless. The economic policies of this country over the last 30 years, including tax policy, have failed spectacularly, and shown to be utterly wrong in every detail, yet the right and others are unwilling to let go of their cherished beliefs. That's not science. It's superstition.
post #60 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Making the rich pay a fair share in supporting the society they live in isn't socialism, it's fiscal responsibility, as opposed to the irrational policy of endless tax cuts for them without benefit that this country has engaged in over the past 30 years.

An important aspect that you are overlooking is that most people aren't Daniel Dancer, interested in money for money's sake. Most of them are either doing what they are doing for its own reward, or chasing money for what they can get for it. Raising taxes isn't going to change those motivations, and we'll still have just as much innovation as we have today. Maybe more as the rich can't depend on easy money and have to work even harder to get what they want. nd why shouldn't they, everyone else does.

If you took every single penny of income from the rich after they paid taxes for last year, it wouldn't be enough to cover even last year's deficit.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ert-verbruggen

So damn easy to raise taxes on them, and push any need to make a hard choice the problem for some other administration. Isn't that always the answer? How about our politicians having the balls to tell us the truth and give us some solutions? Instead it's more *f*ing important not to the tell seniors, or the military, or the liberals or the conservatives the truth and risk not getting re-elected. Put and end to career politicians and maybe we could actually solve some of our problems instead of covering them up with band-aids. Have some balls and tell the naked truth for a change. Who the hell cares if someone doesn't like the facts? If it's honest it doesn't matter.

So don't tell me you want more of my money and not show me a light at the end of the tunnel. What the heck do you plan to do when there's no more to give but the Social Security recipients still depend on a check to survive? When the US really does find itself in need of defending it's citizens. When hospitals and health care providers expect Medicaid to come up with more or forget treating patients that depend on it.

Pure stupidity to think taking more from those that still have something makes the problems go away. Asinine. . . Yeah, just tell the rich to pay some more this year. Perhaps a bit more a couple years down the line and even more 10 years from now. That'll solve everything and no hard choices ever have to be made, right?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #61 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by raational View Post

Just becoz u dont know what open source is does not make u a smart-ash..It s the only reason today ur mac is not worth more than 10k bucks.t

Go get a life kid

You really should take the trouble to read before you post.

What is it about my saying 'open source advocates' (as opposed to 'open source') that you don't understand?
post #62 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicj View Post

Can you provide examples where your ideas have succeeded financially? Because I'm looking at the places where they've applied liberal economics, California, New York, Detroit, the U.S. Federal Government, most of Europe, and all I see is debt piled on top of debt. I see a left wing in America who hasn't even produced a budget in 2 years.

You are selectively quoting facts and overgeneralizing, perhaps to serve your political point of view. Much of Europe -- Germany, France, Northern Europe -- are less indebted than the US. Moreover, the debt in the US went up as badly, if not worse, during Republican administrations and Congresses as it did during Democratic. Republican states -- e.g., Texas, Florida -- are as badly off as those that you mention.

Aside: I care about neither party and its abilities to run the government well.
post #63 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

I think Apple already own enough patents to guarantee assured mutual destruction in any patent case against them... Google, not so much.

I'm sure Google want them more as a defensive measure. If Apple buy them it's going to be an offensive move, either to go after someone like Google, or prevent Google from defending themselves.

So to me, they seem more valuable to Google than Apple.

Apple is more than likely interested in the 3G and 4G patents, not because of Google, but because of Nokia. Nokia is currently trying to sue Apple for "taking" their IP without licensing it, all of which is related to 3G tech that Nokia holds patents over. Apple is merely trying to build a patent portfolio of 4G tech so they can avoid this type of attack in the future.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #64 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

If you took every single penny of income from the rich after they paid taxes for last year, it wouldn't be enough to cover even last year's deficit.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ert-verbruggen

So damn easy to raise taxes on them, and push any need to make a hard choice the problem for some other administration. Isn't that always the answer? How about our politicians having the balls to tell us the truth and give us some solutions? Instead it's more *f*ing important not to the tell seniors, or the military, or the liberals or the conservatives the truth and risk not getting re-elected. Put and end to career politicians and maybe we could actually solve some of our problems instead of covering them up with band-aids. Have some balls and tell the naked truth for a change. Who the hell cares if someone doesn't like the facts? If it's honest it doesn't matter.

So don't tell me you want more of my money and not show me a light at the end of the tunnel. What the heck do you plan to do when there's no more to give but the Social Security recipients still depend on a check to survive? When the US really does find itself in need of defending it's citizens. When hospitals and health care providers expect Medicaid to come up with more or forget treating patients that depend on it.

Pure stupidity to think taking more from those that still have something makes the problems go away. Asinine. . . Yeah, just tell the rich to pay some more this year. Perhaps a bit more a couple years down the line and even more 10 years from now. That'll solve everything and no hard choices ever have to be made, right?

Sorry, but if you're rich, you have 30 years of back taxes you owe the rest of the American people, plus interest. You've been getting a free ride, and then some, with the Republican redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle-class to the wealthy plan, also known as voodoo economics. So, no, we don't want more of your money, we want our money back, and we want it now, because the tax cuts and breaks and loopholes you got are the whole reason we're in this mess.
post #65 of 79
I see. The government essentially destroys all healthcare competition in the country, forces the largest companies into taking funds against their will...takes over banks and auto manufacturers...

But the DOJ chooses to look at Apple. Let's go after one of the few companies trying to grow and make jobs while ignoring all the job killing policies going out, yes?

Whatever they're putting in the water at the DOJ, I think they've had enough.
post #66 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicj View Post

All well and good, but still original research on your part. ...

Yeah, applying psychology to the understanding of human activity is very original.
post #67 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicj View Post

Well, no. What I was asking for were examples where liberal financial systems succeeded.

...

As to Republicans screwing things up, you're right. George Bush was a terrible President, especially at finance. He .... ran huge deficits thinking it would improve the economy. Instead, it ruined the economy.

And so did Bush senior and so did Reagan, and the biggest part of all those deficits has been from tax cuts to the rich. I know you're a troll, but you seem to be arguing both sides of the issue in a singe post.
post #68 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling View Post

All the evidence points in the other direction. An important aspect that you're overlooking is that the wealthy are not just trading their time for money. They are risking their capital. Risking one's capital may be a good bet if you get to keep your winning. But when the government steals most of your winning, that risk often becomes a very bad bet. That means the rich don't fund so many risky new ventures, we all enjoy less innovation, and there are fewer jobs for the working stiffs.

Socialism has produced poverty and misery everywhere it's been tried.

I think that you're making an overly sweeping generalization.

Take a look at Canada, which has a completely socialized healthcare program. Comparing it to the US, the system in Canada is far superior for about 80% of the population (compared to the US).

As a Canadian with a chronic health problem, and one who currently spends most of his time working in the US (I'm a dual citizen contracted to run a US company), I can tell you that the Canadian system removes a huge burden of fear, stress and uncertainty from me. This allows me to do my job much better.

The Canadian economy is in much better shape than almost any other country in the world right now, due mostly to better regulation of the banking and finance industries (which many believe is a socialist behaviour).

The fact is, the US and most of the world is in trouble due to deregulation and military spending, arguably, forms of corporate socialism.

It seems to me, that like most things, a moderate approach, combining the best of various systems, is the most stable.
post #69 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicj View Post

Using psychology as a replacement for economics is not only original, it's just stupid. ...

Not really, what's stupid is to think that economic theory that ignores human nature is useful.
post #70 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

One, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head asking them to sell the patents. Two, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head asking them to sell the patents at that price. Three, the folks getting a billion (assuming that's what it's sold at) are better off with that than getting zero. Fourth, the only obscene thing is people like you getting all judgmental about a perfectly arms-length transaction in a private market between willing adults.


Actually, former Nortel employees and shareholders ARE holding a gun to their head. Nortel made some horrible decisions that enriched the "C" level executives in the short term and eventually killed the company.

As far as the employees and shareholders are concerned, every penny that Nortel can get for their patents is important.

Given AAPL's history of primarily using patents as a defence, I don't think that the DoJ will find any reason to halt AAPL's bid.
post #71 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicj View Post

anonymouse, there are branches of economics that take human nature into consideration. But they are branches of economics, not branches of psychology. And they do not predict that raising taxes causes production to go up.

Yes, exactly, current economic theory is pretty much worthless, as I said earlier, because cutting taxes hasn't led to any of the outcomes predicted, but has instead been an unmitigated disaster. If your theory is falsified, but you continue to follow it, that's not science, it's just foolishness.
post #72 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTMP View Post

Actually, former Nortel employees and shareholders ARE holding a gun to their head.

How so?

What could the employees and shareholders do if Nortel management decides not to sell the patents?
post #73 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicj View Post

Canada health care system is also going broke.
http://www.budget.finances.gouv.qc.c...eEfficient.pdf

See in particular Section 1.3 "A Strong Pressure On The Goverment's Other Missions" and Section 1.4 "A Status Quo That Is Becoming Impossible To Maintain....."

The report you cite covers only Quebec.
post #74 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTMP View Post

Raising taxes on the wealthy isn't political class warfare, it is just an extension of commonly accepted practices. In most countries, the poorest are taxed at a lower rate (I can't speak for the US)

...

So, if you taxed the richest 1% at 100%, you'd get $1.39 trillion per year. Not really "only a drop in the bucket"

I'm not arguing that it is right to tax the richest at a higher rate, but you should try to be factual when making such a claim.

After working next to some people that make double what I make and have a lower tax rate because they,re able to play the tax game and incorporate themselves as a company, etc, etc, ... I'd guess the amount of tax money would go up substantially if a flat rate of 15% was invoked. 15% of the richest 1% would be a windfall. Do you think this group of people even noticed the recession??? They, like me even benefit as I still have my job and prices on big ticket items have gone down.

How is this related to tech again?...
post #75 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicj View Post

*) Both Ontario and Quebec will pay more than 50% of government revenues to health care by the end of this year.
*) Health care costs are expected to grow to over 50% of government revenue in Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, and New Brunswick by 2017.
*) Health care costs are expected to grow to over 50% of government revenue in 8 of 10 Canadian provinces by 2028.
*) Costs are growing at a rate of 7.5% per year (faster than even RomnyCare).

http://www.troymedia.com/2011/04/19/...ement-problem/

Edit:
To put it another way, if you want to tax your way out of the problem, you have to raise taxes on everyone by more than 7.5% every year (it's more because children don't pay taxes, but get health care).

The article you cite is written by two people from the 'Fraser Institute'. Out of curiosity, I googled them, and here's the first para of the Wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute):

"The Fraser Institute is a conservative and libertarian think tank based in Canada that espouses free market principles. Its stated mandate is to advocate for freedom and competitive markets. It generally opposes public policy solutions based on government spending, taxes, deficits, and regulation. Some of the public policy stands taken by the Institute include: greater free trade throughout the world, privatization of various government services, marijuana decriminalization, competition in primary schooling, and greater private sector involvement in the delivery of healthcare insurance and services. The Fraser Institute opposes Canadian gun control laws, including firearms registry."

I have nothing against their political stance per se -- in fact, I am on the side of their professed adherence to free market principles, competitive markets, and free trade (assuming the issue at hand does not involve externalities whose costs have not been internalized by those professing such principles).

It is important, however, to note that their take on government-run health care is not unbiased. Just as the pov of someone from the Left would be the obverse.

I do not trust biased commentaries, whether from the Left or the Right.
post #76 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicj View Post

Math is math. Do you have anything showing their math is wrong?

Or are you just pulling an annonymouse and holding on to your beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary?

Math is math, but not all data are data. Especially when it comes from ideologues.

I have no clue about their base data -- they don't source it.
post #77 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicj View Post

All well and good, but still original research on your part.

Can you provide examples where your ideas have succeeded financially? Because I'm looking at the places where they've applied liberal economics, California, New York, Detroit, the U.S. Federal Government, most of Europe, and all I see is debt piled on top of debt. I see a left wing in America who hasn't even produced a budget in 2 years.

In a nutshell, the problem with giving a government an extra $10.00 to spend in new taxes is it just means that they'll actually spend an extra $15.00. And all we get for is reduced production or reduced consumption.

Canada.

No housing crash because of a regulated mortgage industry and no mortgage tax write-offs. Many of those regulations put in place by previous Liberal and Conservatives governments.

A decade of budget surpluses (almost all under a Liberal government that too). We've only had deficits in this recession and the government is already on its way to a balanced budget. The deficit came in 5 billion lower than forecast this year (which is a lost over here).

Lower spending on health care as a percentage of GDP with better health outcomes that the US.

And by the way, our combined (federal/provincial) income and capital gains tax rates are lower than most of the USA too.

The problem with the American right is that they think every policy from the left is 'socialist' and 'liberal' and they don't even know what socialism or liberalism is!

For that matter, most Americans don't even know what economic conservatism is. I'm an economic conservative and I would never support any of the policies put forward by Republicans in the USA. They aren't economically conservatives. They are economically and fiscally irresponsible, is what they are.

In any event, keep your rising income disparity. It'll simply lead to another 'French Revolution' type of moment when the plebes get sick of being treated like slaves and a piggybank for the rich. Do you really think the average American is going to buy some economic argument about the 'Laffer curve' when he's struggling to put food on the table? Keep destroying and impoverishing the middle class. Take away their health care and social security.

But remember, as people get older they tend to vote more often. Once the baby boomers are gone, that'll be the end of the right for the US, as the echo boomers aren't likely to forget the shaft they've gotten. And that's if people don't actually rise up before.
post #78 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicj View Post

Canada health care system is also going broke.
http://www.budget.finances.gouv.qc.c...eEfficient.pdf

See in particular Section 1.3 "A Strong Pressure On The Goverment's Other Missions" and Section 1.4 "A Status Quo That Is Becoming Impossible To Maintain In The Present Context".


Deregulation caused much of the current crisis, that is true, but is not a driver of debt. By this I mean that if you fix the problem of deregulation, the debt does not go away. The same is true of military spending. Get rid of military spending entirely and you still have a long term problem of increasing debt.

The drivers of the debt are the social programs. The debt cannot be solved until we figure out a way to make social programs sustainable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

The article you cite is written by two people from the 'Fraser Institute'. Out of curiosity, I googled them, and here's the first para of the Wiki entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute):

"The Fraser Institute is a conservative and libertarian think tank based in Canada that espouses free market principles. Its stated mandate is to advocate for freedom and competitive markets. It generally opposes public policy solutions based on government spending, taxes, deficits, and regulation. Some of the public policy stands taken by the Institute include: greater free trade throughout the world, privatization of various government services, marijuana decriminalization, competition in primary schooling, and greater private sector involvement in the delivery of healthcare insurance and services. The Fraser Institute opposes Canadian gun control laws, including firearms registry."

I have nothing against their political stance per se -- in fact, I am on the side of their professed adherence to free market principles, competitive markets, and free trade (assuming the issue at hand does not involve externalities whose costs have not been internalized by those professing such principles).

It is important, however, to note that their take on government-run health care is not unbiased. Just as the pov of someone from the Left would be the obverse.

I do not trust biased commentaries, whether from the Left or the Right.



The Fraser Institute is a lot like the Cato Institute in the US. They've been crying about health care going broke for decades. Guess what. Hasn't happened yet.

Health care costs are rising to be sure. And there will probably be more private sector involvement in the years to come. But to suggest that the system is 'broke' is ridiculous. It's a PAYGO single payer system. That makes it incredibly efficient. And it's recognized here as a distinct economic advantage. Take a guess why auto jobs are moving back to Canada despite the Canadian dollar going up.

By the way, it's not like private sector participation isn't allowed. It's just double-dipping that's banned in Canada. A doctor cannot bill the public health care system and run a private practice simultaneously. One or the other. All in to the public system or all out. So there are some doctors who cater to the very rich or corporate clients (athletes, military, corporate executives). But the rest of the medical professionals see a better income in building a public practice.

By the way, when it comes to Quebec, keep in mind this is also a province that has $7/day daycare and receives huge federal grants. They're social services might be broke because they provide services other Canadians don't get. They aren't representative of the rest of Canada at all.
post #79 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicj View Post

*) Both Ontario and Quebec will pay more than 50% of government revenues to health care by the end of this year.
*) Health care costs are expected to grow to over 50% of government revenue in Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, and New Brunswick by 2017.
*) Health care costs are expected to grow to over 50% of government revenue in 8 of 10 Canadian provinces by 2028.
*) Costs are growing at a rate of 7.5% per year (faster than even RomnyCare).

http://www.troymedia.com/2011/04/19/...ement-problem/

Edit:
To put it another way, if you want to tax your way out of the problem, you have to raise taxes on everyone by more than 7.5% every year (it's more because children don't pay taxes, but get health care).

Yet remarkably, before this recession we had a decade of surpluses. And governments will be heading there shortly or voters will turf them out.

Here's what you don't get. Governments can do somethings more efficiently. And health care is one of them.

Here's our tax rates:

http://www.ey.com/CA/en/Services/Tax...1-Personal-Tax

Add up your tax rates on your paycheque and add up your co-payments for your company health plan and tell me if it's less than what you pay in Canada.

ps. Our health care system also includes the cost of drugs for seniors and homecare as well.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › DOJ probes Apple's interest in Nortel patents