Thursday, August 12, 2010
STULTIFERA NAVIS PATENTS EDITORIAL AND THE WHIG INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY FOR UGLY PHILOSOPHERS AND THEIR FRIENDS
These editors really have no clue.
Why do print media show good reasons why their freedom of press should, in the public interest (whatever that used to be), be curtailed?
R&D has been a sore spot for lazy fare regimes' 'firms' for a long time now.
Intellectual property has been pirated by 'strategic partners' now for decades, TEAM PLAYERS, even when it was not traded away in co-production arrangements, licensed then distributed, etc.
Markets flooded with cheap knock offs, by the billions.
'Nothing government can do'. 'Private enterprise at work'.
'Anomalies' of a free market.
Re patents, take a look at some of the passages in say, Trading Places re the history of certain US tech companies innovations in the mid 20th Century, and how they were handled by the stultifera navis. There are many other books on the subject. (I especially like the title Manufacturing Matters.)
I like especially his passage re the Crash of '87, and how people tried to explain what might have caused it. Spoonfeeding: p. 3. I had an acquaintance at that time, who had predicted and had bet a small amount against the market, made 12 million or so dollars, that day, Bloody Monday, October 19, 1987. Whether they were tightly related or not, it's illuminating re loss of competitive dominance.
For the economists, historians, or God forbid philosophers, out there, the quote at the beginning of Ch.5, Naohiro Amaya, is especially fun, re The Whig Interpretation of History. There aren't that many Whiggish thinkers, for example Francis Fukuyama, (in Butterfield's sense) in Japan. We have most of them, over here.
These Whigs are also often Maverick Executive types (see previous posts on this topic), and Prestowitz has an entertaining passage on just this aspect of American business mythology, at p. 13, 14.
Naohiro is talking about something (doing metaphysics?)that might actually qualify as a 'basic presupposition' in Collingwood's sense, (for the really squirrely, and perhaps also ugly), philosophers out there.
I can of course explain how things, in one or two better previous possible worlds, should have been done, but those did not become the actual worlds we have since been left with.
Why do print media show good reasons why their freedom of press should, in the public interest (whatever that used to be), be curtailed?
R&D has been a sore spot for lazy fare regimes' 'firms' for a long time now.
Intellectual property has been pirated by 'strategic partners' now for decades, TEAM PLAYERS, even when it was not traded away in co-production arrangements, licensed then distributed, etc.
Markets flooded with cheap knock offs, by the billions.
'Nothing government can do'. 'Private enterprise at work'.
'Anomalies' of a free market.
Re patents, take a look at some of the passages in say, Trading Places re the history of certain US tech companies innovations in the mid 20th Century, and how they were handled by the stultifera navis. There are many other books on the subject. (I especially like the title Manufacturing Matters.)
I like especially his passage re the Crash of '87, and how people tried to explain what might have caused it. Spoonfeeding: p. 3. I had an acquaintance at that time, who had predicted and had bet a small amount against the market, made 12 million or so dollars, that day, Bloody Monday, October 19, 1987. Whether they were tightly related or not, it's illuminating re loss of competitive dominance.
For the economists, historians, or God forbid philosophers, out there, the quote at the beginning of Ch.5, Naohiro Amaya, is especially fun, re The Whig Interpretation of History. There aren't that many Whiggish thinkers, for example Francis Fukuyama, (in Butterfield's sense) in Japan. We have most of them, over here.
These Whigs are also often Maverick Executive types (see previous posts on this topic), and Prestowitz has an entertaining passage on just this aspect of American business mythology, at p. 13, 14.
Naohiro is talking about something (doing metaphysics?)that might actually qualify as a 'basic presupposition' in Collingwood's sense, (for the really squirrely, and perhaps also ugly), philosophers out there.
I can of course explain how things, in one or two better previous possible worlds, should have been done, but those did not become the actual worlds we have since been left with.
No comments:
Post a Comment