You probably need to know a bit about logic to point out logical errors, and you'll need to name the fallacies, not just a generic "logical errors", that's meaningless. I'll count it as a win for knowledge that you now know that A-76 exists. Is it effective? Again I've seen a bunch of cases where we self-initiated an A-76 review and no-one even surfaced to do the job. Why? All the low hanging fruit, stuff that's amenable to privatization, has already been picked. What's left is stuff that's just inherently hard and expensive, with most of that expense due to inherent risk. If a private company prices in that risk, it often becomes prohibitively expensive. I'd again caution that you're just assuming "stupid lazy government employees" without knowing the first thing about the processes or innovation that's currently going on. That's a jackass move, not to mention, in your words "illogical". I've worked in soup kitchens, have you? Our clients were largely suffering from mental illness, often untreated and/or significant substance abuse issues. They weren't at the soup kitchen because pollution controls killed their jobs, that's just an idiotic assertion. Again, it's a named logical fallacy you're engaging in, the "either/or" fallacy. You've provided no evidence that the 14% hunger rate in the U.S. is caused by controlling pollution. And no, the fact that autocratic third world countries allow pollution to the detriment of their population is not proof that hunger in America is caused by pollution controls. I've shown that in fact it's the opposite, pollution is a drag on the economy. I'd be happy to hear you address that, you're quite studiously avoiding it.
'we initiated' - so fox guarding the hen house. now you are expert in the cause of the hunger? yesterday you didn't even know it exists.
Let's be logically clear and concise. You posited that the government was rejecting A-76 determinations or making them too hard, i.e. a private company said could do something but the government either said they couldn't or made it so hard to proceed that they couldn't question it. Posited with no support or examples, by the way. I pointed out, from actual experience, that not only didn't that happen but we affirmatively sought to privatize functions, without anyone even asking, and no private company stepped up to the plate to do it. That's the opposite of what you're alleging, again with no examples or support. You again are making assumptions from a position of profound ignorance. Don't do that, it makes you look like a jackass. Not sure what part of "I've work at a soup kitchen" isn't clear to you or what support you have that hunger is caused by pollution control? Again, what's your experience working in soup kitchens, or speaking with poor people in third world countries who you claim choose pollution, in DoD, or in govt contracting, or with A-76, or with starting private companies? I'd love to hear your experience based perspective on those to compare to mine, certainly I may have missed something in my experience and am happy to hear what you've experienced differently?
- already pointed out the A-76 may have too high a barrier for privates to enter... if there is money to be made and nobody wants it... makes no sense. - the original argument was pollution vs. economic development, and you keep shifting it to hunger, something you didn't know exists yesterday... so you worked at a soup kitchen, and you said 'nobody is getting hungry in the US'.... did you work there blind folded?
Well it looks like we've accomplished all we can here today. You're aware of an entire process you didn't know existed before today, so we'll take baby steps if we can get them. Hopefully you'll do some research on your own to determine if the barriers you think exist actually do, seems like common sense rather than making a baseless accusation, but that's just me. Just a couple tips for you going forward. 1. Take a course in logic. 2. When you have zero experience and know very little about a subject, you might consider listening to someone who has significant experience and knowledge in the area with an open mind. Crazy, I know.
2 tips that will serve you well... also, be careful in the market, logical errors usually cost more there.
The US is like the UK and leaking its wealth away to the 3rd world countries who can and do compete more effectively. In the UK some non patriotic financiers have targeted the great names of British industry and have flogged off so many of them to 3rd world countries who have the money. The vultures pocket all the millions they make on this despicable path. They buy the services of a few malleable directors to run the company into debt and then pounce with the new buyer guaranteed to make money asset stripping etc. New Zealand has put a stop to this by declaring NZ owns the controlling interest in its own companies. Patent knowledge could be better protected by allowing companies the right to sell or not disclose their patents.
First, you do realize that companies not only are allowed to sell patents but do it all the time? Second, how does not disclosing a patent work? I'm an entrepreneur. When I start a new project, one I'm about to sink a significant amount of money and time into, I check to see if anything I'm doing is already patented through a patent search. If it is I either try to get a license to use it or stop before I've invested a significant amount of time and money. You're advocating for a system where I spend all my time and money to get a product to market, only then to find out when a patent holder unveils their secret patent that I'm infringing on it? That's completely and utterly unworkable, it would spell the end of all innovation and investment in innovation!
Yes indeed good points. The object was to somehow stop unscrupulous companies and countries from just raiding the new patents for ideas to copy and no intention to pay anything. Intellectual property management. One example was the Russian copy of the Concorde aeroplane nick named Concordski. Apparently the blueprints were doctored by the spooks and as history relates crashed at the Paris airshow. My idea is to allow the patent holder to approve or not the disclosure thus shutting out the cheats.
ha ha ha. I noticed you have dropped the "always" , so a guess we are making progress. Next step: drop the common sense part.