A World Without Any Intellectual Property Rights

Prolog

Here is an interesting article along the lines of my blog. Here is an interesting website dealing with this issue.

Here is the link to my earlier blog post on intellectual property.

What Is Wrong With Existing Intellectual Property Rights?

·         It is a government granted exclusive, artificial monopoly for extended periods of time

·         Too many frivolous, trivial patents

·         Terms of protection are way too long in many cases

·         Patent trolls

·         Lawsuits to intimidate competitors or to interfere with competition

·         Impediment to human progress

To use hyperbole, what are Apple and Samsung fighting over in court? Rounded square button icons?

Reverse Engineering

In a competitive world with intelectual property rights one has to suspect that competitors are constantly reverse engineering any new or modified product or service from any other competitor as soon as it hits the market or even earlier, which, I suppose, is a legal activity.

I suppose also that competitors quickly try to replicate new and successful features etc. to the extent as not to infringe on intellectual property rights.

Tabula Rasa

I like thought experiments and to start with a blank slate given a thorny issue like intellectual property rights in the 21^st century. Unfortunately, I am not an expert in the history of such rights and how they came about over the centuries.

Whatever were the reasons that governments became involved in granting and enforcing such exclusive monopoly rights, the question is whether from today’s perspective such rights still make sense and can be justified.

Do intellectual property rights improve human progress and technological innovation more than what would be the case without it? Do we have empirical data to corroborate that?

Benefits Of No Intellectual Property Rights

·         Cheaper products

·         Less government bureaucracy and litigation

·         More intense competition

·         Possibly more and better competitors

·         Possibly more specialization and differentiation among competitors

·         Possibly more dynamic markets

·         Better first mover and inventor advantage

·         Accelerated innovation and technological progress

·         Free market contractual protections instead of government granted one size fits all monopolies

Clearly, the first mover would be ahead of its competitors for some time before they catch up. The first mover would also have a strong incentive to keep improving or differentiate their products and to sell other services etc. related to their original invention. Similar holds true for authors and artists.

A Two Way Street

In a world without intellectual property rights any competitor can imitate anything another competitor has come out with and, very important, vice versa.

Once a competitor adopted a new feature by imitation, the competitor then can try to add new variations or a completely different feature and be the first to market and so on.

Counter Arguments

Capital as well as research & development investments by Companies would be reduced. In my estimation this is a myth or a red herring. Before a first mover can sell a new product on the market before anyone else, the first mover needs to make some kind of investment.

The profit motivation would be eliminated or greatly reduced. In my estimation this is another myth or a red herring. A first mover will in most cases make some profit or he can sell his invention to the highest bidder etc. The inventor or author has expert knowledge that his rivals very likely do not have to the same extent for some time.

Narcissist In Chief Barack Obama

He wrote two books about himself before he became president. President Obama very much likes to speak in first person. He does it frequently.

In late June of 2012, President Obama told his audience “I believe in you. I hope you still believe in me.” in Atlanta, GA.

In early May of 2012, President Obama told his audience “I still believe in you, and I'm asking you to keep believing in me." in Columbus, OH.

Germany: When Government Incites Crime And Becomes A Receiver Of Stolen Goods

Background

I will not go into much of the details of this disturbing story here, but I may amend later.

In their quest to uncover tax evaders, the federal government of Germany as well as at least one German state government bought stolen digital storage media containing bank customer data, which were illegally obtained from banks in Switzerland. These purchases have been going on for some time.

Government Becomes A Promoter Of Crime

It has been reported that German tax authority officials actively pursued these purchases of stolen goods even by traveling to Switzerland. Switzerland has indeed indicted German tax enforcement officers for doing that.

Would a private person become a receiver of such stolen goods (German: Hehler), this person would surely be indicted by prosecutors.

Is Tax Evasion A Crime?

If tax evasion is a crime what kind of crime is it? First and foremost, your legitimately hard earned money is your property. Therefore, it is one of the highest priorities of any government to exercise great restraint in taxing its citizens.

When government resorts to such illegal and desperate measures to go after tax evaders, then this sure is a sign that taxes in this country are too high or even confiscatory, which in fact they are.

Significant and broadly based tax evasion by tax payers is usually a tell tale sign that the tax burden in that country is too high.

Why do people refuse to give away their hard earned money to the government? Perhaps they feel they are disproportionally affected by taxation. Perhaps, they feel that government is wasting their money or accumulating too much debt.

Except for tax evasion, tax evaders are likely law abiding citizens in most other aspects of their life. Probably, they are not professional criminals.

Voting With Your Money

Political elections in Western democracies happen too infrequent and their outcomes often are unsatisfactory.

Thus, if a person strongly feels unsatisfied with the government and if the tax burden is high then voting with your money (a.k.a. tax evasion) is perhaps legitimate as a vote with the ballot.

Tax evaders risk indictment to express their views.

Big Government Sponsored Entities Were Perpetrators In The Housing Market Crash

I recommend following article by Edward J. Pinto titled “Crime scene investigation: The premeditated assault on the prime mortgage” published on 8/15/2012 on the AEA website.

It’s a good, brief summary of how the Clinton Administration, Congress, and specifically the big government sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have contributed to an enormous deterioration in lending standards in pursuit of affordable housing at any price.

“First, with respect to capital, Fannie went from having no home purchase loans with a down payment of three percent or less in 1992, to nearly 40% in 2007.

Second, Fannie loans with subprime credit - as evidenced by a FICO credit score of less than 660 - tripled from about 6% in 1990 to 18% in 2007.

Third, by 2007, over 1/3rd of Fannie and Freddie's fully documented loans exceeded a 45% total debt-to-income (TDI) ratio. This level was well in excess of their prior maximum level of about 42% in 1991, which had been associated with "B" grade or worse subprime loans.

Fourth, Fannie and Freddie, as the de facto standard setters for collateral valuation, effectively eliminated the use of investment and replacement cost approaches to value, and weakened the comparable sales approach.

Finally, Fannie and Freddie's confidence in borrower income statements evaporated as the percentage of acquisitions denominated as Alt-A, low document, or no document went from near zero in 1991 to nearly 40% in 2007.” (emphasis added)

Who allowed this to happen? Why did the President, US Congress, and federal regulators including the Fed fail to prevent this insane deterioration of lending standards?

Genetic Factors For Why Black Males Are The Best Runners In The World

I highly recommend following article by Jon Entine titled “The DNA Olympics -- Jamaicans win sprinting 'genetic lottery' -- and why we should all care” published on 8/12/2012 in Forbes Magazine. Same author has also written a book about this subject.

The Record

“The trends are eye opening: Athletes of African ancestry hold every major male running record, from the 100 meters to the marathon. … Over the last seven Olympic men’s 100-meter races, all 56 finalists have been of West African descent.  Only two non-African runners ... have cracked the top 500 100-meter times.”

The Sprinters

“For decades, …Jamaica, Cuba, Trinidad and Tobago, Saint Kitts, Barbados, Grenada, Netherlands Antilles and the Bahamas in the Caribbean and Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Senegal and Namibia in western Africa, as single countries, have each produced more elite male sprinters than all of white Europe and Asia combined.”

The Long-Distance Runners

“While terrible at the sprints, runners [from east Africa like] Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and Somalia, along with a sprinkling of North and Southern Africans, regularly dominate endurance running.”

Genetics Still In Its Infancy

“Genetically linked, highly heritable characteristics such as skeletal structure, the distribution of muscle fiber types (for example, sprinters have more natural fast twitch fibers, while distance runners are naturally endowed with more of the slow twitch variety), reflex capabilities, metabolic efficiency and lung capacity are not evenly distributed among populations. Do we yet know the specific genes that contribute to on the field success? No, but that’s not an argument against the powerful role of genetics in sports. We do not yet know all the factors that determine skin color, but we know that genetics determines it. Slowly, geneticists will link human performance, including sports skills, to our DNA and more specifically to our ancestral roots—populations.”

Core Western Europe Won The Olympic Games 2012 In London

If you add up the gold medals of the four countries making up the core of Western Europe, i.e. France, Germany, Great Britain, and Italy, then you come up with 57 gold medals as compared to 44 for the USA (As of Saturday evening 8/11/12). Adding up the population of core Western Europe gives you 269 million or fewer than that of US or of China.

Table: Medal Count (As of Sat. evening 8/11/12)

Rank	Country	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total	Population
1	Core Western Europe (DE, FR, IT, UK)	57	52	53	162	269
2	USA	44	29	29	102	312
3	China	38	27	22	87	1,347

Notes: Population in millions.

The Amish People Would Not Exist Under President Obama

There Would Be No Amish, Quakers, Or Mormons

In The US

It is quite clear that had there been more Presidents like Obama and more US Congresses as dominated by an anti-religious Democratic Party in the past, there would not be any Amish, Quakers, Mormons or any other distinct religious people living in the USA. Amish or Quakers or Mormon people are but one proof of American Exceptionalism in this world.

It is also clear that the Obama Administration’s assault on religious liberty is only a culmination of decades of such assaults.

It is absolutely stunning if not horrifying that the current, so brilliant President Obama does not understand this.

Hercules Vs. ObamaCare

This monstrous law is symptomatic for its assault on religious freedom. Like he dumped his longtime racist pastor Jeremiah Whright, President Obama’s disrespect for Christian business owners is breathtaking.

One of the issues is the Obamacare provision that requires companies with more than 50 employees to provide insurance coverage that includes contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization effective 1/8/2012. Non compliance results in a fine of $100 per employee per day.

Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01123-JLK

One Christian family-owned company in Colorado sued the Administration. Two thumbs up for that! Defendants, the Obama  Administration, filed a 76 page motion to dismiss “the case in its entirety” (p. 19). In the following write-up I will add my own emphasis to quotes from this motion unless otherwise noted.

Condoms Are Necessary And Too Expensive

For Women’s Health

The language of this motion is often absurd. The first sentence of the Introduction reads “Plaintiffs ask this Court to preliminarily enjoin regulations that are intended to ensure that women have access to health coverage, without cost-sharing, for certain preventive services that medical experts have deemed necessary for women’s health and well-being.”. Later it states “Those women [working at Hercules] should not be denied the benefits of receiving a health plan that includes coverage of contraceptive services without cost-sharing.” (p. 73) As if the women who chose to work for Hercules needed “certain preventive services”. Since when are contraceptives necessary for a woman’s health that they have to be covered by health insurance? “Medical experts have deemed necessary”. Laughable! “Cost-sharing” is a euphemism for at no cost to the employee.

“Many women do not utilize contraceptive methods or sterilization procedures because they are not covered by their health plan or they require costly copayments, coinsurance, or deductibles. IOM REP. at 19, 109; Adam Sonfield, The Case for Insurance Coverage of Contraceptive Services and Supplies Without Cost-Sharing, 14 GUTTMACHER POL’Y REV. 10 (2011) … As discussed above, see supra pp. 6-9, 22-27, despite the general availability of contraceptive services, many women do not utilize such services because they are not covered by their health plan or require costly copayments, coinsurance, or deductibles. … As a result, in many cases, both women and developing fetuses suffer negative health consequences. See IOM REP. at 20, 102-04; 77 Fed. Reg. at 8728. And women are put at a competitive disadvantage in the workforce due to their lost productivity and the disproportionate financial burden they bear in regard to preventive health services.” (p. 23, 73-74). What are these federal attorneys talking about? How expensive are condoms? If other contraceptives are more expensive, why not lower the costs through more competition, market availability, and less medical prescription? So these clever attorneys found one study to confirm that contraceptives should be available to women at no direct costs and be paid for by the general public? Does the Obama Administration really believe this stuff?

A Religious, For Profit Corporation Cannot Be

“Plaintiffs’ challenge rests largely on the theory that a for-profit, secular corporation established to manufacture heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) products can claim to exercise a religion and thereby avoid the reach of laws designed to regulate commercial activity. This cannot be.” (p. 16).

The phrase “for profit, secular corporation” is repeated all over the document. A company owned by a Christian family is not necessarily secular. A for-profit company can be run under Christian guidelines. The Obama Administration claims some kind of mutual exclusivity here? ObamaCare designed to “regulate commercial activity”? Laughable!

“Nor can the owners of a for-profit, secular company eliminate the legal separation provided by the corporate form to impose their personal religious beliefs on the corporate entity’s employees.” (p. 16). What a nonsense! A corporation is nothing but a convenient, organizational vehicle run by humans. Employees, who hire with Hercules know what to expect, it is most likely not imposed.

“Hercules Industries is a for-profit, secular employer, and a secular entity by definition does not practice religion. It is well established that a corporation and its owners are wholly separate entities, and the Court should not permit the Newlands to eliminate that legal separation to impose their personal religious beliefs on the corporate entity or its employees.” (p. 16/17). Later it reads “Hercules Industries, Inc., is not a religious employer; it is “an HVAC manufacturer. … The company’s pursuits and products are not religious. … Hercules Industries’s overriding purpose is to make money … By definition, a secular employer does not engage in any “exercise of religion”, …” (p. 30-31). This is the kicker! So it is ex definitione? This is a very convenient legalistic argument, but wrong. Behind every business are humans and some do practice religion as in this case. Is the Obama administration imposing something on Hercules or the Christian owners on their employees? So because Hercules produces such mundane, but useful products such as HVAC equipment, it cannot be a religious employer? Laughable! What if Hercules produced Bibles for sale?

Tremendous Harm To The Public

“It would also harm the public, given the large number of employees at Hercules Industries – as well as any covered spouses and other dependents – who could suffer the negative health consequences that the regulations are intended to prevent.” (p. 19). This is pathetic! Hercules has about 265 full-time employees (see p. 28).

Obama Administration Refused To Expand Religious Employer Exemption

“The amendment to the interim final regulations, issued on the same day, authorized HRSA to exempt group health plans established or maintained by certain religious employers (and associated group health insurance coverage) from any requirement to cover contraceptive services under HRSA’s guidelines. 76 Fed. Reg. 46,621 (Aug. 3, 2011); 45 C.F.R.

§ 147.130(a)(1)(iv)(A). To qualify for the exemption, an employer must meet all of the following criteria:

(1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization.

(2) The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.

(3) The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.

(4) The organization is a nonprofit organization as described in section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

The religious employer exemption …” (p. 24-25). Here we have it again the incredible bias against for profit enterprises. I would guess that Hercules probably meets the first three out of the four criteria of the religious employer exemption. By law, Hercules cannot directly meet the first criterion or it would be discrimination. The attorneys for the Obama administration have written a whole chapter about why their religious employer exemption is “neither arbitrary nor capricious” (see p. 64-66).

“In response to comments on the amended interim final regulations, defendants “carefully considered whether to eliminate the religious employer exemption or to adopt an alternative definition of religious employer, including whether the exemption should  be extended to a broader set of religiously-affiliated sponsors of group health plans and group insurance coverage.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 8727. Ultimately, defendants chose not to expand the exemption, as a broader exemption “would lead to more employees having to pay out of pocket for contraceptive services, thus making it less likely that they would use contraceptives, which would undermine the benefits described above. … And defendants [Obama Administration] have begun the amendment process by issuing an ANPRM, which expressly notes that defendants will consider whether “for-profit religious employers with [religious] objections” should be provided an accommodation.” (p. 65-66). So these narrow minded people in the Obama Administration began to realize that for profit is not synonymous with atheism? But look, they only want to provide an “accommodation”, how generous is that? So the Obama Administration could not expand the religious exemption, because they speculate women would have to pay for their contraceptives?

Religious Discrimination Stands In The Way Of A Christian Employer To Hire Or Fire People of Faith

“Nor does it allege that the company employs persons of a particular faith. .Hercules Industries could not, for example, fire an employee for religious reasons, even if its owners claimed that their own religious beliefs required the termination.” (p. 31-32). “The same is not true for Hercules Industries, which cannot discriminate based upon anyone’s religious beliefs when hiring, and therefore almost certainly employs many individuals who do not share the Newlands’ religious beliefs.” (p. 49). Nice contradiction! If they are not allowed to fire, how can Hercules be allowed to hire based on particular faith? So had Hercules claimed in their complaint they do hire persons of Christian belief, then the Feds would have been all over the place. And overall it is a highly speculative argument!

I think, the purpose of preventing religious discrimination in employment situations has been perverted by this Administration.

Obama Administration Dismisses A Non-Profit Charitable Corporation

“Instead, [Plaintiff] defines itself as a ‘non-profit charitable corporation,’ without any reference to its religious character or purpose.”).” The Obama Administration arrogantly dismisses this statement in plaintiffs’ complaint. I would bet we will hear more about it during the trial. Is Hercules perhaps saying that most of their profits are donated to charitable purposes? Unfortunately, the website of Hercules does not appear to express anything about their charitable work or religious affiliation.

Obama Administration Confuses Non-Public Small Corporations And Public Large Corporations

“The Newlands have voluntarily chosen to enter into commerce and elected to do so by establishing a for-profit corporation, which “is treated as a separate legal entity, unique from its officers, directors, and shareholders.” …  Those individuals thereby enjoy limited liability – “an inherent purpose of incorporation” – provided they respect the corporation’s separate existence and adhere to a standard of care.” (p. 35). No family owned small and non-public (I presume) corporation is separate from its owners. Such a business has more resemblance with a proprietorship than what these federal attorneys like to understand. This is a purely legalistic argument.

“In the company’s employment relationships, for example, Hercules Industries – not its officers or shareholders – “is the employing party.”” (p. 35). Humans hire humans. A corporation is only a legal structure to conduct business. Everybody knows that, but not the Obama Administration.

“The owners of Hercules Industries have no right to control the choices of their company’s employees, many of whom may not share the Newlands’ religious beliefs.” (p. 36) Highly speculative argument!

ObamaCare Is Analogous To Social Security And Medicare

“In concluding that the minimum coverage provision does not substantially burden the plaintiffs’ religious practice, the court reasoned, among other things, that “Plaintiffs routinely contribute to other forms of insurance, such as Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment taxes, which present the same conflict with their belief that God will provide for their medical and financial needs.”. Very nice! Here, the Obama Administration attorneys quote from another case in their support. Notice “contribute”. This is a euphemism for mandatory taxes. This argument is specious, because Social Security was established a long time ago (1936?).

A Bogus Claim Of Least Restrictive Means

“Even if there is a substantial burden, the preventive services coverage regulations serve compelling governmental interests and are the least restrictive means to achieve those interests” (p. 37). What a joke! Compelling means government coercion. How about paying yourself for contraceptives? That would be in my view the least restrictive means.

“As an initial matter, “the Government clearly has a compelling interest in safeguarding the public health by regulating the health care and insurance markets.”” (p. 38). I beg to differ. This is a very expansive interpretation as is typical for big governments. What are these paternalist big government busybodies safeguarding?

Obama Administration Denies Abortifacients

“In fact, the federal government has made it clear that these regulations “do not include abortifacient drugs.”” (p.68). So the Obama Administration denies that abortifacient drugs are included with those preventive services. I doubt that this is correct. I suspect that the attorneys are using a peculiar definition of these drugs to make such a claim.

These attorneys who wrote this motion to dismiss should be dismissed for knowingly writing such nonsense at tax payers’ expense.

What Will Christian Employers Do In The Future

If ObamaCare is not repealed or modified, then Christian employer may consider following options:

·         To have fewer than 50 employees

·         May not offer health insurance anymore

·         May go out of business

·         May never establish a business

Common Sense By Thomas Paine – A Modern Reader

Background

What would Thomas Paine say today in light of more than 100 years of US Presidents and US Congresses ever more expanding the power of central government at the expense of individual liberty and free markets?

Where Thomas Paine used British examples, I have replaced with them contemporary US counterparts. I have also added emphasis.

Of the Origin and Design of Government in General, with Concise Remarks on the US Constitution

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

[Comment: Thomas Paine would write exactly the same words today.]

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of our Presidents, Senators, and Representatives in Washington, DC are built upon the ruins of our liberty.

[Comment: The US is only 236 years old, but since about the turn of the 20^th century it has become more intolerable in Paine’s words. Too many Americans have become complacent and have forgotten that government is but a necessary evil.]

For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

[Comment: The US has become a cradle to grave welfare state in willful ignorance of the common sense of the Founders.]

I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted US constitution.

[Comment: I am not entirely sure what Thomas Paine was describing here, but I read it to mean the simpler government is the less complexity, entitlements, vested interests etc. there will be. The simpler, the easier it can be repaired. As we see today how do we fix a massive entitlement program like Social Security when all employees have to pay taxes into it and are expecting to receive their entitlements later in life?]

But the constitution, laws, and regulation of the US are so exceedingly complex, that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover in which part the fault lies; some will say in one and some in another, and every political physician will advise a different medicine.

[Comment: Thomas Paine nailed it down!]

To say that the US constitution is an UNION of three powers, reciprocally CHECKING each other, is farcical; either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.

[Comment: Thomas Paine would write that about the sad state of affairs in the US, which has developed over many decades. Just take the absurd ObamaCare decision of the US Supreme Court.]

First. — That the US President is not to be trusted without being looked after; or in other words, that a thirst for absolute power is the natural disease of the US Presidency.

[Comment: How true!]

Secondly. — That the US Representatives and Senators, by being appointed for that purpose, are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the US President.

[Comment: How much are our elected representatives really worthy of our confidence?]

But as the same US constitution which gives the elected Representatives a power to check the President by withholding the supplies, gives afterwards the US President a power to check the Representatives, by empowering him to reject their other bills; it again supposes that the President is wiser than those whom it has already supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!

[Comment: Right on!]

That the US President has become this overbearing part in the US constitution needs not be mentioned, and that it derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions is self-evident; wherefore, though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute power, we at the same time have been foolish enough to put the US President in possession of the key.

[Comment: Are constitutional term limits on the presidency enough?]

Wherefore, laying aside all national pride and prejudice in favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is that IT IS WHOLLY OWING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE, AND NOT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT that the US government is not as oppressive as in other parts of the world.

And as a man who is attached to a prostitute is unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in favour of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one.

[Comment: The US has an exceptionally good constitution, but powerful forces within the US have derided and undermined it for decades. Just ask US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg about that.]

Olympic Games 2012: Three Women Made History

Wojdan Shaherkani

She is from Saudi Arabia and the first woman ever from this country to compete in an Olympic sports event. Her father was her trainer and he had to accompany her at all times at the games. We should all thank her father who made it happen. The Wall Street Journal wrote a nice article about it. Only two Saudi women were allowed to participate in the 2012 Olympic Games. Progress sometimes comes in very small steps.

Does the International Olympic Committee insist it does not get involved in politics? Well, as far as I know this athlete had never before competed in other international competitions. How did she qualify for the games? Thank you, IOC anyway.

Madhura Nagendra

She is the 27 year old now famous gate crasher from India (she is the lady with the red top and blue pants) who walked in the first row next to the bearer of the Indian flag at the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympic Games. She smiled while she was at it and later said she was a proud woman of India. Who thought that Indian women outside of Bollywood were generally submissive or obedient or not spontaneous? I am sure we will see more surprises by Indian women in the future.

Nadja Drygalla

She is an Olympic athlete from Germany who happens to be in a long-term love relationship with a man who later in their relationship joined the far right German political party NPD (National Democratic Party of Germany. Often referred to in a derogative way as neo Nazis). The NPD is a legitimate political party in Germany participating in elections at all levels (federal, state, and municipal).

Because of her relationship with this man, she had to prematurely leave the Olympic team of Germany, although she has said in public that she is not a member of this party nor does she agree with its politics. She is not being accused of being affiliated with this party. She also stated that her boyfriend is no longer a member of this party.

It is reported that this athlete quit her job as a police officer in Fall of 2011 after she had a meeting with supervisors, because of her relationship.

The self-righteous German minister of domestic affairs, Mr. Hans-Peter Friedrich, declared that there is no room for athletes with right wing ideologies, because athletes are role models as well. Presumption of innocence is unbeknownst to Mr. Friedrich. He also called for a parliamentary inquiry. The Sport Committee of the German Parliament plans to look into her case.

The good news is, she announced to continue as an athlete despite this harassment. It is about time that Germany overcomes its hysterical sensitivity to its Nazi past. Recent killings of immigrants committed by right wing radicals are no excuse for this overreaction that happened here.

Senility Caused By Placebo And Nocebo Effects

A Bit Of Background

I have been familiar with the Placebo effect for decades, but only recently I learnt about the Nocebo effect (in German language) from an article published online on 7/12/2012 by my favorite home town newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The following blog is not really related to the above mentioned article about the Nocebo effect.

Faith Moves Mountains

We read in Matthew 17:20 of the New Testament that faith as small as a mustard seed can make a mountain move from here to there and that nothing will be impossible. Did the Bible anticipate Placebo and Nocebo effects?

Besides faith, there is also individual will power: A will to succeed in life; a will to be healthy etc.

A Conjecture About Senility And Its Causes

I am not trying here to explain exhaustively all causes of senility. But I believe that some people as they grow older are conditioned or resigned to experience the usual frailties etc. that come with age, because this is supposed to happen with old age and we are biologically programmed to deteriorate with age.

We all know from experience that seniors have their moments. It’s considered normal by everyone.

It’s like a Placebo effect: I am old now, thus I am expected to have memory lapses, unsteady gait, etc.

It’s like a Nocebo effect, because I am old I should now be more absent minded, more napping, more prone to fall etc. With age also comes anxiety about age related frailties.

How do the trillions or so of microorganisms in our gut react when we have Placebo or Nocebo effects later in life.

More And Better Customer Service At Retail Chains

Free Market Forces Make It Happen

Thanks to intense competition from Internet retailers and thanks to the Great Recession some retail chains have rediscovered that friendly customer service can make a difference and sets you apart from your competitors.

Who would have thought that big box stores could offer a somewhat similar shopping experience as the proverbial mom and pop store.

Some Personal Experiences

I personally observed whenever I visit a Walgreens store near my work I am friendly greeted as soon as I enter. If I am wandering the aisles in search of something, a friendly store employee is immediately attending to me with help.

Similarly, during a recent visit to the men's clothing department at a Macy's store a friendly store employee helped me extensively to select some new clothing.

Big box store chains like Best Buy or Home Depot are offering more services besides selling products.

Warren Buffet A Rich Buffoon?

A Class Warrior Without Class

Recently Warren Buffet was quoted in a Ben Stein article in the New York Times as saying “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning”. Ben Stein prefaced his article by writing he “had the pleasure of a lengthy meeting with one of the smartest men on the planet, Warren E. Buffett”.

Mr. Buffet’s Secretaries And Clerks Pay Too Much Taxes?

Earlier, Mr. Buffet entertained us with his stunt about his secretary paying relatively more taxes than himself. More details on that are provided in the same article: “Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office. He had each of them make a fraction; the numerator was how much they paid in federal income tax and in payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, and the denominator was their taxable income. The people in his office were mostly secretaries and clerks, though not all. It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office.” And Mr. Buffet wonders “How can this be fair?” … How can this be right?”. How stupid is he pretending to be? Or who is trying to fool?

What was not mentioned in the article that Mr. Buffet’s secretary likely makes between $200,000 and $500,000 per year.

Mr. Buffet Wants To Coerce Other Rich People

To Pay More Taxes

Mr. Buffet wants to coerce other rich or affluent people to pay more taxes. Why?

·         He is at the end of his life and made already billions of dollars.

·         He already donated a large portion of his wealth to a tax exempt foundation run by Bill Gates and his wife

·         Perhaps, he is of the judgmental opinion that other rich people are squandering their money or life in decadence and only he understands that government knows better how to spend your money

·         I am sure he has other unconvincing reasons

Mr. Buffet Why Don’t You Pay More Taxes

If Mr. Buffet is indeed so offended, he alone should pay more taxes. Anyway, if Mr. Buffet truly feels he is not paying his share in taxes he can freely and voluntarily pay as much taxes as he likes. I am sure, the treasury would accept any check by Mr. Buffet.

Conclusion

Is the Sage of Omaha just loosing his wit? Or is he a reelection campaign aid to the current President? Is he just grumpy? Or is this just a show of crony capitalism?

I guess article by someone who interviewed in his own words one of the smartest men on the planet should be taken with the biggest grain of salt on this planet. So much for Ben Stein and the New York Times.