Source of Economic Growth
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years ago to Books
Source of Economic Growth
Author, Dale B. Halling ISBN 9781511829687 100 pages
The primary thesis of the book is an under-appreciated and often overlooked driver of prosperity and
improvement of the general welfare. That is Intellectual property rights. Without the protection and
capacity to profit from one's innovations there would be little incentive to share labor saving devices with
one's fellow man. These devices, which are the product of one's mind have been protected, thus fostering the
dissemination, manufacturing and widespread implementation.
In order that a society have an improving standard of living and avoid subsistence living, or worse, it is critical
that one profit from not only the labor of one's hands but also of their mind. It is the innovations of man that
have thus far fostered the increased supply of goods and reduction of costs to the consumer. This has improved the
real world wealth and quality of living for all. The capacity to protect one's innovations and profit from them has
been the incentive to invent, improve, manufacture and share.
Imagine a world without modern agricultural equipment or information age technology we all take for granted today.
It would be impossible to sustain the present population and those of us that did live would live hand to mouth; except
of course our feudal lords who would live well at the expense of others. That is the world we would return to.
The book is well written, contains historical data correlating and supporting the premise that the nation with the
highest degree of protection for property of all kinds, with an emphasis on intellectual property has the advantage
over other nations when it comes to the prosperity of its citizens. The arguments of the detractors are addressed with
convincing counter arguments and examples. The author, himself an expert in the field, has gathered together
the data and conclusions of other experts to demonstrate with exacting clarity the importance and value of
a strong patent and copyright system to human advancement.
There is no other path. We must move forward with innovation. We must protect it and foster it, or we as a race
will be reduced to a primitive time caught in the Malthusian trap. It is only our unequaled capacity to be tool makers
and inventors that has allowed us to move beyond it. Despite all the outcry of unequal distribution of wealth
the poor are not as poor as they would be if we did not encourage the entrepreneur and inventor. It is the promise of
profit from one's mental labor that has done this. The man whose work is honorable, but only manual, such as pulling a few
levers of a machine repeatedly on a factory floor owes a greater debt for his job and prosperity to all of those that made the
machine possible. It is not the other way around.
I enjoyed this quick read and consider it a handy and invaluable reference book in my library. I hope you will also.
Happy reading,
O.A.
Author, Dale B. Halling ISBN 9781511829687 100 pages
The primary thesis of the book is an under-appreciated and often overlooked driver of prosperity and
improvement of the general welfare. That is Intellectual property rights. Without the protection and
capacity to profit from one's innovations there would be little incentive to share labor saving devices with
one's fellow man. These devices, which are the product of one's mind have been protected, thus fostering the
dissemination, manufacturing and widespread implementation.
In order that a society have an improving standard of living and avoid subsistence living, or worse, it is critical
that one profit from not only the labor of one's hands but also of their mind. It is the innovations of man that
have thus far fostered the increased supply of goods and reduction of costs to the consumer. This has improved the
real world wealth and quality of living for all. The capacity to protect one's innovations and profit from them has
been the incentive to invent, improve, manufacture and share.
Imagine a world without modern agricultural equipment or information age technology we all take for granted today.
It would be impossible to sustain the present population and those of us that did live would live hand to mouth; except
of course our feudal lords who would live well at the expense of others. That is the world we would return to.
The book is well written, contains historical data correlating and supporting the premise that the nation with the
highest degree of protection for property of all kinds, with an emphasis on intellectual property has the advantage
over other nations when it comes to the prosperity of its citizens. The arguments of the detractors are addressed with
convincing counter arguments and examples. The author, himself an expert in the field, has gathered together
the data and conclusions of other experts to demonstrate with exacting clarity the importance and value of
a strong patent and copyright system to human advancement.
There is no other path. We must move forward with innovation. We must protect it and foster it, or we as a race
will be reduced to a primitive time caught in the Malthusian trap. It is only our unequaled capacity to be tool makers
and inventors that has allowed us to move beyond it. Despite all the outcry of unequal distribution of wealth
the poor are not as poor as they would be if we did not encourage the entrepreneur and inventor. It is the promise of
profit from one's mental labor that has done this. The man whose work is honorable, but only manual, such as pulling a few
levers of a machine repeatedly on a factory floor owes a greater debt for his job and prosperity to all of those that made the
machine possible. It is not the other way around.
I enjoyed this quick read and consider it a handy and invaluable reference book in my library. I hope you will also.
Happy reading,
O.A.
The dystopia of the left, the collectivist, the "we all one with everything" crowd think everything belongs to everyone with no responsibility or accountability. The Pilgrims tried it and they died!
True. Property rights and the incentives that follow turned the failing Jamestown settlement of Captain John Smith around after they abandoned there socialist model.
Some lessons must be re-learned every generation it would seem.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Credit for coming up with that concept apparently goes to an Italian philosopher named George Santayana. So he owns it. Churchill later said something similar.
As for failing to learn from history goes, there are videos of American citizens who do not even know who the first USA president was or who we fought during World War Two.
I am just not so convinced that the patent system helps the process, or inhibits it. I say that today, it inhibits it with the patent trolls out there stifling invention.
Another endorsement! Thank's for contributing.
Regards,
O.A.
Thank's for taking the time and for your support... :)
I am hoping to get a comment from dbhalling.
I suspect he may approve of the author. :D
Regards,
O.A.
A subtle requote of Rand?
"The man whose work is honorable, but only manual, such as pulling a few
levers of a machine repeatedly on a factory floor owes a greater debt for his job and prosperity to all of those that made the
machine possible. It is not the other way around."
Very astute! It was intentional. I hope you appreciate it. I find many commonalities in your work and hers along these lines.
Regards,
O.A.
My pleasure.
Regards,
O.A.
Thank you. It is always good to hear from you.
Regards,
O.A.
I was heavily involved with copyrights. If anyone can republish work that one has labored over to have published without paying a royalty, it is the same as theft. If a creator can have his work stolen without any recompense, then the world will soon see a cessation of creative projects, from invention of new products and approaches, to new ideas and literary creations.
There are several reasons why someone who recreates an invention is not entitled to use the inventor's invention: 1) The definition of inventor is the first person. That is the person that adds the value., 2) Under your rule people would waste time recreating inventions that already exist, which is not economically useful, 3) If your rule existed every infringer would always claim that they recreated the invention, destroying the property right of the inventor who would have to prove each of these incorrect. Recreaters are lazy parasites who do not due their due diligence, and 4) It is almost impossible for show that they were not influenced by the fact that inventor created an invention. Recreators hear vague conversations or the invention's concepts enter into technical discussions or in variety of other ways the recreator almost never truly starts from scratch. The one exception I can think of is the mechanical reaper. One existed in ancient Rome and a practical one was not reinvented until Cyrus McCormick. Even then it is unlikely that McCormick's reaper was highly similar to the Roman reaper.
The devil is always in the details. I suspect most of these cases could be dispelled or amicably decided if the details were known. How is one to know the exact millisecond someone has had that flash of insight? Regardless, there is something to be said for the one with enough initiative to get to the patent office first.
So lets not call them inventions, just creations in ones mind that has useful application to some problem. Why cant I use what I create, but someone who runs faster to get the government monopoly can use his reation. Sounds like statism to me.
I do take exception to the idea that "recreators are lazy parasites...". Due diligence today is very difficult and expensive. Patent trolls have patented almost everything it seems, and they just wait for someone else to actually commercialize it before descending on them with the power of the gun (government).
A good example of the folly of patenting is the Wright brothers ( you might check out netflix "american genius"). They get a patent on twisting the wings to control flight. Curtis simply adds separate surfaces to do the same thing- getting around Wrights patent. The Wright brothers spend years fighting Curtis (who makes major advances in flight during the time by slightly changing what he is doing to keep ahead of the Wright Brothers) and in the end one of the brothers dies apparently from the stress of the patent fights. Then WW2 comes alone, and the precious government monopoly is wiped away by "national security" and anyone can use Wright's patent for the duration of the war. After the way, as it turns out, the patents reached their arbitrary time limit and were worthless. In the end it was Curtis who emerged successful and who developed many of the improvements we still see today.
The Wright brothers - Wright issue has nothing to do with simultaneous. This is just another example of throwing a bunch of crap against the wall as see what sticks.
You are intellectual dishonest and I do not waste my time talking to such people..
With rare exceptions simultaneous invention is almost non-existent and designs are different. Dale has argued this point many times on this board. Despite potential rare conflicts of this nature a system needed to be implemented that would allow the patent holder time to see his invention produced and would reward him for doing so, or the inventions would not be disseminated and they would remain trade secrets, stifle competition and erode incentive for others to make improvements, which are also patent-able. That is my take. I am ill equipped to argue the point compared to the experts. I had hoped Dale would join in here. He could answer more persuasively and give you the best answer.
Respectfully,
O.A.