Please explain how I am a communist?
market cap: 44.61 billion
market cap: 123.53 billion
The invested capital is not clearly greater for Boeing. I would think that invested capital would rationally mirror the actual amount of capital and future capital the company has.
Doesnt that just prove that one company is larger than another? Its capital investment is larger because it moves a higher volume of product and a higher volume of consumers are addressed.
Look I’m no economist but I can tell you that if I had had to choose between the following of the two industries.
A) Make airplanes
B) Make software
I could go home and start on B today, where as A is a whole other story. You folks really going to dispute that?
Look we can’t compare business to business aposteriori and get an acurate idea of what capital is needed to perform said task. Such comparisons don’t take into consideration the strucuture of the market in both different industries. It must be done apriori.
We know in general what capital is needed for software development. Now by comparison what capital is needed to make airplanes? Are you going to argue that it takes less capital to make airplanes then software development?
Look is it really worth scrutinizing this point? Do you want to drag on another 10 pages of humiliation of a detail? Bring common sense back into this so we can move on.
Yes. All sorts of hobbyists make airplanes out of spare parts for fun. How is that commercially viable?
Its great when you make my argument for me. Hence it’s much easier to get started in software development.Which is w hat this minor detailed point was about.
Right - without IP rights, this becomes an awkward process if you try to follow the traditional model. Ideas for films could come from anywhere, even a concept done just months before. Entrepreneurs that drive what gets produced would be more concerned about selling a general idea to “investors” - he doesn’t take the traditional market risk. He takes a cut of what he can get others to invest. If he inaccurately gages how many investors he can draw in and exhausts his funds mid-production and fails to deliver a workable end product, he still gets paid - he will simply be unable to find future investors for future projects. On the other hand, if he can deliver a satisfactory project without spending all the investors’ money, he can pocket it.
The “investors” who provide the capital to sustain the workers and expenses incurred during the production period would actually be the end consumers, who receive no marketable product, only the end information. Just like the “prosumer” has come to software, the investor/consumer would have to come to film.
The consumer here bears the most risk for the lifecycle of any project. This is awkward for the market, which usually attempts to push risk onto entrepreneurs operating on a commercial basis. Perhaps this risk would be passed back onto the entrepreneur in the above model. For example, maybe consumers get a vote for every dollar invested on whether the end product is satisfactory, with the level of satisfaction determining the entrepreneur’s pay - of course, that is open to corruption to occur in both directions.
Just because there is “hobbyist” software development that costs nothing to make and that you can sell on the iPhone store for a dollar, does not mean that the entire capitalist structure of the industry is redundant. Just like people aren’t going to fly on airplanes that were built for a dollar, they aren’t going to use an operating system that had nothing invested in it (which is why Linux, more than a decade after claiming to be able to do so, has still not been adopted by the mass market).
- Fallacy of composition
- Non Sequitur
Not even worth responding to. :[p]
Hurts to be wrong don’t it Stranger? Humble up a bit.
I think what stranger is saying is that there is different types of software just like there are airplanes. Its not so simple to just say that industry a takes more capital than industry b. There is a software project that rivals the capital cost of an airplane, its cost is born into wages and previous efforts at making software. Also there is a whole area of software that supports the creation of software itself, such as CVS. These software projects are analagous to the different services available at a production plant. Any interesting piece of software takes around 1 million lines of code minimum. Think about that. Your mind can generally handle around 7 things, and the scale of the project is greater than a million. Its a gigantic effort to make a piece of software.
I understand your argument Twisted. Just an FYI I’m also in the industry. [:)]
I live in Seattle so all I have around me are software development firms. I do business with 5 of them locally. Some big some small.
Its a fantastic job if you work at the right place.
By your taking from me, information that is in my possession, without my permission, I have lost the right of free association as I no longer am free to decide with whom I would like to share the information that I have. By allowing me no means of redress to secure rights you have effectively eliminated this right. In short, if you are able to violate my security systems or contracts I have protecting these rights then there is no punishment for you. This is contrary to liberty and the basic ideas of property.
Just keeping hitting LS’s softball arguments right out of the park Z. I love it.
How is the view in your ivory tower?
You still have it in your possession.
Sure you can. You can share the information YOU have with anyone you want. You never lost your information. You still have it. You still control it.
You do not have positive rights.
Trespass is not the same as observation.
Neither you or Stranger have offered a coherent definition of intellectual property qua property.
DM, I fixed your post. You regularly copy paste, instead of using the quoting function and it trashes the thread display. Do not copy paste please.
I almost always hit the “quote” button. But on that one post, I think I did copy and paste some of it.
Right, which is semantics, and you have been refuted by so-called intellectual capitalists. Which shouldn’t be necessary anyways, when you make an obviously fallacious and collectivistic (or do I repeat myself) argument. It is provable. Proven to be fallacious.
You’re asserting again.
And yet what portion of anything you do is entirely and completely unique? Or do you exist and function in this world with absolutely no intellectual capital of your own?
I agree with this. However, the positivists are asserting that Intellectual monopoly is really intellectual property. If the market accepts monopoly, so be it. But that doesn’t change that it is a monopoly.
Which free market is that?
Ah yes, the infamous and inevitable “appeal to reality”. The world is flat, everyone knows that. Argument over.
Or perhaps it’s the opposite. People in the production of IP don’t realize how much capital investment is involved in other industries, as refuted above. Such an argument is made from ignorance, and I don’t mean that in a negative way. I’m simply stating it as a matter of fact, consider Hazlitt’s position. Consider that what is not considered, that what is not seen. The argument here is that capital investments in software development is very high. This is simply not true, as refuted above. You cannot make this argument without first knowing whats in involved in all other industries.
But ultimately the point is mute. The amount of capital involved in an industry does not prove or disprove need for government regulation. This is one of the strawmen people are talking about and it’s sad that we keep moving away from the actual point of the discussion. We must disabuse ourselves from subscribing to these ultimately insiginfigtant details if we desire to progress.
At least in this case it seems that anyone who thinks that software development requires an extensive amount of invested capital above, and as opposed to, other industries must not be aware of whats involved in manufacturing of tangible goods. Again as refuted above.