Comments for Blog of Dale B. Halling, LLC - Intellectual Property & Patent Innovation, Attorney - Powered by Clvr.Tv

Comment on US Brain Drain by Exodus: How the US is Losing Its Most Talent People | Blog of Dale B. Halling, LLC - Intellectual Property & Patent Innovation, Attorney - Powered by Clvr.Tv

Mon, 14 May 2012 19:36:13 +0000

[...] US Brain Drain [...]

Comment on Food Stamps’ Multiplier Effect: Economic Voodoo by dbhalling

dbhalling — Fri, 11 May 2012 13:50:07 +0000

Rob,

Spending money does not create wealth. If it did a framer could get wealthy by eating his seed corn or Robinson Crusoe could have created wealth by just eating his initial supplies without producing. Wealth is create by production, not consumption. Increases in per capita wealth are the result of increasing our level of technology (inventing or buy products that were invented). So spending money on consumption is theft – taking money from one person for another person’s personal benefit is theft and destroys wealth. Of course diminishing returns applies to theft, otherwise would could steal or consume our selves into infinite wealth.

If you want to get the economy growing you have to lower the cost of production and increase the return for inventing and investing in new technologies. When the government takes/spends 50% of the GDP everything has to be 2x more expensive to pay for government. Now we cannot live without a government, but the evidence is that government share of the economy can be at least as low as 15% and still results in a faster growing economy than higher levels of spending.

Comment on Food Stamps’ Multiplier Effect: Economic Voodoo by Rob

Rob — Thu, 10 May 2012 16:11:40 +0000

Diminishing returns would apply to your stealing example if the person doing the stealing was going to spend 100% of the money, where as the person being stolen from was going to spend 0% of the money.
The multiplier effect may apply to dollars that would have been hoarded but not to dollars that would have been spent.
There is no research to show the percentage breakdown of this so no conclusion could really be drawn.
Not that ALL money won’t eventually be spent- but wealthy people save money in bad economic times that if spent, could help create jobs etc.

Comment on Food Stamps’ Multiplier Effect: Economic Voodoo by Rob

Rob — Thu, 10 May 2012 15:48:51 +0000

The multiplier effect is only valid on a micro economic scale looking at the local economies the money is going into. You make a valid point about the macro implications in that, the only way we can assume a multiplier effect on the macro level is if there was a 100% assurance that if that money had not been taxed, it would have never been spent at all (which is obviously not true).
On the micro scale, the multiplier effect certainly does apply in localities with a low level of wealth in that money is injected into the economy of a township and or county that would not have been there otherwise. When you spread the cost out over the entire US and then look at the benefit to a low-wealth locality- you can claim the multiplier effect only without calculating the net loss from the money being taxed in the first place.
If you can say that the money was going to be taxed anyways- there are certainly worse ways the money could be spent than food assistance and or medicaid as far as economic impact.

One thing is that you can KNOW that the money that goes onto the EBT cards WILL be spent within a short amount of time- but there is no assurance that the money- if never taxed- would have been spent even in our lifetime. From that perspective, you might be able to argue that it does force immediate money into the economy that may not have been there otherwise.

Thoughts?

Comment on JOBS Act a Small Step in Right Direction by dbhalling

dbhalling — Thu, 10 May 2012 13:34:04 +0000

Not to mention that all this financial regulation has just entrenched the largest banks and Wall Street firms. Obama has used all this regulation to demand huge campaign contributions from Wall Street and then used the Fed and the US Treasury to enrich them at the expense of the people.

Comment on JOBS Act a Small Step in Right Direction by dbhalling

dbhalling — Thu, 10 May 2012 13:13:37 +0000

Actually the crash of 1929 was caused by the Federal Reserve. There have always been people who commit fraud and still are despite all the regulations we have passed. Every academic study has shown that all our financial regulations have not helped investors and in fact have hurt their return.

Comment on JOBS Act a Small Step in Right Direction by Sugel

Sugel — Thu, 10 May 2012 05:57:01 +0000

Before the October 29, 1929, stock market crash on Wall Street, a company could issue stock without disclosing its financial status. Many bogus or severely undercapitalized corporations sold stock, eventually leading to the disastrous plunge in the market and an ensuing panic. From the havoc wreaked by the crash came the first major piece of federal securities legislation, the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C.A. § 77a et seq.). The act regulates the primary, or new issue, market. The following year, Congress provided for the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission when it enacted far-reaching securities legislation in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.A. § 78a et seq.). These two laws, along with the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (15a U.S.C.A. §§ 77aaa–77bbbb), the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 80-1–80a-64), the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 80b-1–80b-21), and the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 79a–79z-6) make up the bulk of federal securities laws under the jurisdiction of the SEC.

Comment on Could Congress Abolish Patents and Copyrights? by dbhalling

dbhalling — Thu, 10 May 2012 02:11:56 +0000

Nichotas,

You are ignorant of history and the empirical evidence. The rate of invention increased significantly with the introduction of property rights for inventors. Until England provided some rights for inventors people were stuck in the Malthusian Trap. Until the USA provided a rational system for providing property rights in inventions, the rate of technology growth was slow and so was per capita income growth.

The countries with weak patent systems or nonexistent patent systems do not invent and their people live on the edge of starvation. You position is so absurd that I would assume you never opened your eyes, but more likely you were blinded by an anti-property rights ideology or an ideology that does not understand property rights.

Comment on Could Congress Abolish Patents and Copyrights? by Nicholas Juntilla

Nicholas Juntilla — Wed, 09 May 2012 23:54:30 +0000

Why do people think patents are to protect us from some natural state of imbalance? Without patents there already a natural balance to creating something first. When you invent it first you have the first opportunity to build and sell it. Patents and any government intervention only exists to control that flow. In other words patents impede invention in order to direct it. This is becoming more and more of a general economic burden over time. Let the innovation and more importantly PRODUCTION flow naturally. There is nothing to be afraid of. People will always invent. Having patents did not increase the number of inventions it merely limited who could produce those inventions.

Comment on Foundations of Patent Law by dbhalling

dbhalling — Wed, 09 May 2012 23:02:08 +0000

Stepback, excellent prose – perhaps we should just become writers. Did you ever notice that real genius is in rearranging words or paint, but anything that involves the practical application of science takes no skill or intelligence. Ignoring the plain words of the Constitution requires genius, but coming up with a superhetordyne (etc.) takes no talent. After all these people did not avoid calculus and engineering physics because it was difficult – it was below their skill level.