Here is a good example of passion and joy in the development of a new business -
The problem with bank loans is usury is precisely the means that the powers that be aggregate the money to literally call the shots, that is start wars. And anything bank loans can do participatory investment can do. So usury is not necessary to an economy.
IPR is state-backed, and states are defined as a monopoly on violence within a territory. Enforcement of IPR indeed gets violent. IPR is neither necessary nor sufficient to foster innovation, or make money, so it is another example of fun-time opportunity to exercise violence of people.
Even billionaires, like the rest of us, never have the whole picture.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
It has made him a billionaire.I don't like the part where he started with a bank loan, for that is not a good idea. And then it gets worse!
To begin with he hired five young people from his home village of Biadene di Montebelluna, none of whom he knew, and none of whom had worked before, let alone had any experience of how to run a business.
Today Geox is a global company with 30,000 employees (including the original five), and 1,300 stores all over the world.
Mr Polegato is such a firm believer in the need for companies to protect their inventions that he is now a member of the European Patent Office, and helps to judge nominations for its European Inventor Award.Quite the nonsequitor. No one knows who invented the wheel either, and in all these cases any IPR rights would be over anyway. The reason those names are known is because Starbuck's and Pizza Hut marketed the idea, and got rich. So have countless others supported themselves on espresso and pizza. And Polegato would deny people the freedom to invest their own resources and provide their own labor to make a living because someone else had an idea for concentrated coffee or leftovers baked on dough? Obviously IPR is not needed for a robust economy.
He also lectures on the subject of intellectual property - it's a topic he feels strongly about.
"Let me tell you a story," he says, "Many years ago someone in Naples created espresso and someone created pizza, but nobody knows who. Now it's the American company Starbucks that everyone knows for coffee, and the American firm Pizza Hut that has thousands of pizzerias."
The problem with bank loans is usury is precisely the means that the powers that be aggregate the money to literally call the shots, that is start wars. And anything bank loans can do participatory investment can do. So usury is not necessary to an economy.
IPR is state-backed, and states are defined as a monopoly on violence within a territory. Enforcement of IPR indeed gets violent. IPR is neither necessary nor sufficient to foster innovation, or make money, so it is another example of fun-time opportunity to exercise violence of people.
Even billionaires, like the rest of us, never have the whole picture.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
4 comments:
A good example of "why don't they just...?" Inspiring.
"While he was there, he went for a walk and found his feet became so hot and uncomfortable that he took out his Swiss army knife and cut holes into his trainers.
Immediately, he felt better, and decided that the way shoes were made needed to be re-invented. And he was the man to do it."
Your definition of a "state" is too cynical I think:
"states are defined as a monopoly on violence within a territory. "
but from wikipedia for "state" definitions:
"a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government."
"of, provided by, or concerned with the civil government of a country."
If we were to have no state (or central government), what's to stop people form rallying in a group to assert a common interest?
We live in an imperfect world, there must be a middle-ground with a state government and individuals. I actually do agree with you in theory (e.g., free or competitive markets are better at serving people/customers), but it can never be attained in the real world. A state government always has some problems, but people can be civil in dealing with each other, but bad-actors will always be present. I prefer not to give up on not having a state or government - it can be a good resource for benefiting society I think.
I agree that IPR is not justified or needed, and actually harmful.
it is not a question of cynicism, it is a question of core curriculum in law school, MPA programs, philosophy and social study schools. they don't teach wikipedia there, they teach Max Weber who taught in politics as a vocation back in the 1920s the definition of the state is a monopoly on violence in a territory. And the last hundred years have shown people create policy in view of their education.
There is no separating the state from the threat of violence, and being essentially (bottom line, essence) violent, the state attracts those as leaders who ascribe to this imperative. hence policies that are anti-human, such as "get big or get out."
It is not a question of cynicism, it is a question of stated purpose, policies in line with purposes, and managing for the results intended.
So far so good, as long as you are not on the losing side of the policies, it looks fine.
I forgot to address this:
If we were to have no state (or central government), what's to stop people form rallying in a group to assert a common interest?
We have that now with the state, where a few hundred people, or even just one, can decide life for 350 million other people. Whether small or large, the abuse you fear can only happen with state violence backing up the activity.
No state, no concentrated power, no gangs with leverage. An + archy = no + king. We are only safe if no state. In anarchy, you are the cop.
Post a Comment