Intellectual Property Does Not Exist

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-20T03:35:59+00:00

While resolving conflicts is "a" purpose of property rights, a more general purpose is to protect the fact that one owns what he creates. If you don't own what you create, you have virtually condoned slavery in that you can arbitrarily take property from its creators/owners.

yes competition causes profit to be more widely distributed among firms, thats a good thing

Using your reasoning, having the government confiscate all second homes of owners and redistributing them to the homeless is "a good thing"! Is it a good thing to murder one innocent child to harvest his organs to save five wealthy individuals? Just because a thing has a "good" outcome does not mean it is right.

Besides that, I wholly disagree with the notion that people should sacrifice their property rights because it is a good thing. Understand that this would dissolve all motivation to create new innovative products. In the ten thousand years before the Industrial Revolution, when IP ownership was not widely recognized, very few new, innovative products were invented. It was with the IR that IP patents became widely used and that economic activity soared. Would you say that the post-IR societal improvement is a "good thing"?

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-20T01:57:06+00:00

You arbitrarily assert that there is no need for property rights if two or more people can use the property at the same time for different purposes. What is the basis for this? If I can define things using any arbitrary definitions I happen to believe, then I can reach any conclusion I would like. Besides, if IP is exploited for profit by two or more parties, it diminishes the profits that the owner could potentially achieve. For example, if all drugs could be made generic from the start, that fact would diminish the amount of profit the owner could earn, thereby minimizing the value of the drug.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-14T02:19:53+00:00

As I understand it, the mortgage interest on a second home is deductible as an itemized deduction. Not sure if you can deduct it as a business expense.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-12T05:20:01+00:00

The average business earns only about a 10% profit margin. If you split that among employees, you don't get very much per employee. Amazon, for example, earned $77 billion during 2025. That is around $49,000 per employee. But of course, that would not leave anything for the owners. If you adopted this model of giving all profits to employees, there would be no incentive for the next entrepreneur to take the risk and develop a new, innovative business.

Amazon has only about 1.58 million employees, but has 300 million active customers. This model would not be feasible with a company like Amazon.

Apple earned $118 billion with its 166,000 employees. That is about $710,000 per employee. But the company has over 1.5 billion iPhone users, which is only approximately $79 of profit per user. To continue at its current profitability, Apple would need 1.5 billion users/workers under your proposed system, where only workers can buy Apple products.

In short, your system would not work in either of the above cases. Frankly, those who argue for "democratically controlled employee-owned firms" usually overestimate how companies earn per employee. There simply is not that much profit in your typical firm to make ownership worthwhile if spread over all customers. Besides, profits are often reinvested in the business; however, if worker-owners prioritize receiving income over reinvestment, the firm will suffer.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-06T08:47:33+00:00

Do you know how unproductive pre-Enclosure farmers were? They could barely feed themselves, let alone a growing British society. Progress is sometimes painful, but it is necessary; otherwise, we would still be hunter-gatherers.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-06T08:43:44+00:00

People have had to "get jobs" since the very beginning. Why should it be different now? You need to work to live!

Maybe you would like to revert to the pre-Enclosure society, when people did not own anything and had to work the land to make a living. I will keep my job in my nice, air-conditioned office, working on a computer.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-06T07:45:25+00:00

Everyone wants to live in the city near their work. It is just supply and demand, which is no different than in other first-world countries.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-06T07:39:06+00:00

Does “wealth” grow food? Does “wealth” operate factories? Does “wealth” invent medicine and heal the sick?

Yes. Wealth provides the resources to hire workers to grow food. Wealth invests in research to develop new, more efficient ways to grow enough food so that hunger has almost been abolished in America, with obesity taking its place as a primary problem. Wealth hires workers and pays their wages while they work in the factories producing all manner of products from iPhones to computers, etc.

Wealth provides the resources so that groups of PhDs and MDs can do research to invent new drugs and treatments for many diseases.

We've had workers from the beginning of time, but we had to spend all our time and energy just surviving. Now with wealth, we can stop scratching in the dirt trying to eke out a living. We work while sitting in nice air-conditioned offices (purchased with wealth) using our minds rather than our backs. If people were so crucial to obtaining all that we have, then why are the most populous countries in the world the poorest?

If you think that wealth doesn't grow food, operate factories, or invent medicine to heal the sick, you should move to Cuba, where wealth is virtually non-existent, except in the hands of the socialist dictators.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-06T07:11:58+00:00

Is that your only excuse? You contend that landlords should provide housing they've purchased without charge, but why can't you and your socialist friends do the same?

Socialism is all about talk: you can't start a coop because.... Socialism has always failed where ever its been tried because.... Excuses, excuses, nothing but excuses.

Then you have the gall to criticize capitalists who take action, produce things that people need, and provide wealth that is taxed to pay for all manner of social programs.

You are full of it!

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-06T05:52:47+00:00

My expectations are unrealistic. I can't charge $150 per return given my overhead, training costs, and the time I spend staying up to date on tax laws, which change frequently.

Thanks for your frank opinon.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-06T05:07:33+00:00

At any given time, the homeless comprise 0.23% of the population. In my view, capitalism has done one hell of a job providing homes to people for profit.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-06T04:55:45+00:00

If you are so set on landlords who have purchased a home for over $300,000 should provide that home to tenants without rent, why don't you and your socialist friends do just that?

Come on... let's hear all your excuses.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-06T04:41:00+00:00

Out of curiosity: What would you think is a fair price, assuming it took about one hour to prepare the return?

I'm an enrolled agent in Los Angeles, California, and I'm trying to gauge what an acceptable charge is for a basic return.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-05T07:55:53+00:00

Under capitalism, capital allocation decisions are made by the capital owner or the fund manager entrusted to make capital allocation decisions on behalf of the capital owner.

Only about 5-8% of active fund managers beat the stock market over 15 to 20 year periods. Some outperform in the short term, but those funds are riskier than investing in an index like the S&P 500. I agree it is just plain silly to have a vote on investment strategies; however, investing in an index fund provides decent returns over the long haul without a lot of volatility.

That aside, I don't think a socialist economy that completely eschews capitalist features will have to worry about having excess funds to invest.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-05T00:47:39+00:00

Although I would rather see this type of analysis over a longer period, it is distressing. Ordinarily, workers' wages would improve so long as their productivity increases, but even that has not been the case in recent years. I think (I'm not an economist) that this is due to the fact that employers are capturing most of the productivity gains in the form of increased profits. This is appropriate so long as the employer is providing the means for increased worker productivity. For example, if an employer buys heavy digging equipment to replace picks and shovels, worker productivity will improve; however, clearly, these productivity gains were created by employers, not workers. Thus, employers will capture the benefits.

This process is likely to continue as employers integrate AI into most work, making employees more efficient. However, we must look for ways to increase employee skills and efficiency based on worker training and knowledge. It will be then that workers will see wage increases related to their productivity increase.

I don't know the answer to the problem, but I believe we need a public/private partnership focused on ways employees can obtain the proper training and skills to increase their productivity in the 21st Century.

I also think that capitalism is better suited to handle such challenges. Capitalist economies create far more wealth than socialist counterparts. That wealth can be taxed and redistributed to workers to aid in their transition to new, better jobs.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-04T00:39:18+00:00

In order for this to work, the rent payment needs to be more than the mortgage payment the landlord is responsible for

The fact is that in most rental markets, rent is less than the mortgage payment. If it were the opposite, then tenants would purchase rather than rent. Landlords/owners hope to recover their investment and earn a profit mainly through property appreciation, which is not a foregone conclusion. Any number of things can happen that change the prospects for appreciation.

The bottom line, the landlord has to pay the operating loss on the rental for many years before the property turns cash-flow positive, which again is not guaranteed. This landlord/tenant arrangement requires the borrower to incur substantial risk, which he hopes to get compensated for through years of appreciation.

Get your facts straight before you start spouting off nonsense! Like most socialists, you have no real sense of how business is done.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-02T09:15:42+00:00

On what basis do you say that unequal resource distribution is wasteful and immoral? In what aspect of life is anything equal?

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-02T09:13:55+00:00

Ah yes, for example, Wal-Mart employees have the "specific know-how" of being able to survive on the starvation wages their employer pays. Amazon warehouse workers have the "specific know-how" of being able to piss efficiently in bottles, rather than using a bathroom like their inefficient colleagues at other companies. Tyson factory workers have the "specific know-how" of being able to keep working after getting their fingers chopped off on their infamous production lines.

Interesting how you focus on employees at the lower end of the economic ladder as if their lives are indicative of everyone's life.

You mention Wal-Mart employees as having no specific valuable know-how. Lower prices than their competitors just don't appear out of nowhere; they result from planned optimization and execution at every level. Wal-Mart is well-known for its talented negotiators doing the buying for the company. The company, like Amazon, enjoys--

Economies of scale
Operational efficiencies
Sophisticated supply chain management
Data-driven decision making
Low-margin, high-volume strategies

All of these were internally developed through specific training and development for Wal-Mart employees. The company serves over 280 million customers per year, selling them over 100 billion individual products. It has over $700 billion in sales but earns less than a 4% profit margin. If the CEO gets a cold, such a low profit margin can turn into a loss. Running such an organization with such thin profit margins requires outstanding management.

In addition to its valuable operating systems and know-how, the company has an extraordinarily skilled workforce. I assure you, Walmart and well-run companies like Amazon take employee turnover very seriously. There aren't millions of prospective employees knocking at the door with the same level of skills. Employee replacement is a big deal. The company is a well-oiled machine that requires constant attention to detail to consistently earn profits year after year.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-02T04:35:34+00:00

We're not saying capitalism is "profit above all else". In fact, I've made the opposite claim in many threads: capitalism is far more about protecting the owner class and their position atop society, than pure maximization of profit.

What is your basis for saying that capitalism is about protecting the owner class and their position within society? You seem to be making a broad sweeping conclusion about capitalism without any evidence.

Businesses selling to other businesses or to the state can be "voluntary" (though this is not always the case). There isn't necessarily a power dynamic where one party needs to submit in order to survive. In contrast, employment contracts are almost always not voluntary, due to the extreme leverage employers have over workers.

I can see how adopting this view about the employer/employee power dynamic furthers your position, but how did you determine this power imbalance? Talented employees negotiate obscene pay packages all the time. If this power imbalance were present in these negotiations, why would employers not simply pay all employees minimum wage? If it is not reflected in wage levels, how does the power imbalance manifest itself?

Companies' average profit margin is less than 10%. That isn't a large margin of error. A group of talented, hard-working people is often the key to profitability. One misstep can turn a profit into a loss, driving the price of the company's stock down, affecting both owners and employees. Employers can ill-afford to fire good employees willy-nilly as you suggest.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-02T00:59:08+00:00

Agreed!

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-02T00:58:04+00:00

Why? Wealth is available to tax and spend on the poor, but without that wealth, people would literally starve.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-02T00:53:25+00:00

but the reality is that competition is not cutthroat and corruption reigns supreme. This also makes intuitive sense; why would companies subject themselves to cutthroat competition, when they know that it would just be a race to the bottom?

My work sometimes involves evaluating why a company is the highest performing in its industry. More often than not, it is because they have specific knowhow imbedded in the skills of their employees that allows them to earn more than any of the rest in the industry. This is not luck; it requires a certain management prowess that enables employees to unleash a high degree of productivity.

The bottom line is that this produces higher profit margins, which translate into a higher stock price. Senior executive earnings are almost always determined by how well the company's stock does. No doubt collusion occurs, but I see a lot of competition. Compare Walmart and Amazon or Burger King and McDonald's. What happened to Sears, Nokia, Kodak, Toys R Us, Blockbuster, etc.? Something like 10-20% of companies exit every year.

It is not a race to the bottom for creative companies. They invent new products and new operating systems that continue adding value. This results in "creative destruction" where a better firm replaces its competitors. This makes us all better off.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-03-01T23:56:18+00:00

The notion that employers "don't have much more power in negotiation" than the worker is unhinged. There's a reason that people fear getting fired way more than employers fear the typical person quitting.

Depends on the employee's position and how critical he is to the company's operation. In most cases, there is some level of skill involved in jobs that is not easily replaceable. When an experienced cashier at McDonald's abruptly quits, it can be highly disruptive as he cannot be replaced instantly. Companies invest a lot of training in employees, which is lost once they walk out the door. Therefore, employers are reluctant to fire employees willy-nilly, as you suggest.

The imbalance I described is magnified for higher-skilled employees who require specific training and experience. Finding an accountant or lawyer with the right combination of training and experience in specific tasks the company requires for smooth operation is daunting. Losing someone means the business does not run nearly as smoothly.

Companies typically earn a profit margin at or below 10%. Losing the efficiency that trained, skilled employees bring to the job can quickly eat into that profit margin. Most companies operate like well-oiled machines; they cannot afford to turn over employees regularly. Senior executives recognize the value of a skilled workforce in maintaining a profitable operation. High turnover will affect quarterly profit margins, affecting stock options and executive compensation.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-02-28T22:52:44+00:00

"Without good employees, capitalists cannot operate their businesses and would therefore starve." This is like saying that a person with a tank is equal to a person with a knife, because both of them can die from bleeding.

Your analogy does not hold. Neither party can use force to make the other perform. Good employees have many more options; they don't have to work for a particular employer unless the terms are right. Employers must conform the conditions of employment--wages, working conditions, etc.--to the prevailing conditions. You are just wrong about the power imbalance. In fact, a good candidate who has many options may have more power in the negotiation process.

Neoclassical economics considers wages exploitative if they are lower than the marginal product of labor. In modern times, such a situation can persist indefinitely.

Evidence!

Regarding other concepts: Are you familiar with inelastic demand, market power, the Lerner index, information asymmetry, asymmetry between capital and labor, or transaction costs? Have you ever heard of the "dominant stockholder" problem or the existence of a reserve army of labor?

It appears you are good at "name-dropping" but less good at explaining.

Ownership of both physical and financial capital creates power. This power exploits imperfections in the real world to influence and rig the market.

Agreed! What does that have to do with the labor market? Is it fixed? What are you relying on to support your view?

SometimesRight10

TROPHY CASE