opticksversi

http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Mental-Testing-Arthur-Jensen/dp/0...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_Zimbabwe

Land reform in Zimbabwe began after the signing of the Lancaster House Agreement in 1979 in an effort to more equitably distribute land between ... blacks and the minority-whites who ruled Zimbabwe from 1923 to 1979.

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_Zimbabwe#Economi...

The results of the post-2000 land reform have been disastrous for the economy of Zimbabwe. Prior to land redistribution, land-owning farmers, mostly white, had large tracts of land and utilized economies of scale to raise capital, borrow money when necessary, and purchase modern mechanised farm equipment to increase productivity on their land. The reforms broke this land into smaller tracts (thereby destroying the economies of scale) and gave it to former black farmworkers and peasants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_IQ#National_IQ_and_QHC...

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=426778

In [Dean, of Segway fame] Kamen's opening statement he noted that some people might call him a "Patent Troll" since he now limits his activities to developing product ideas with the sole purpose of licensing them, but doesn't try to manufacture or market them. He believes that large companies are much better suited to manufacture and market products than to develop new products. He is better suited for developing these new products than manufacturing or marketing them.

He made a very strong point that the larger companies had most of the resources in his business dealings and didn't really need patent protection. On the other hand, his patent for his intellectual property was the only thing that he had on his side of the table. He concluded his opening remarks by saying, “ . . .the patent system was intended to help everybody to be able to participate in innovation."

http://www.irefeurope.org/col_docs/doc_26_fr.pdf [pdf]

...any given nation would be nicer, with no income- (including capital-gains) or consumption- taxes.

.

if the tax rate tends towards zero percent, its influence on the decisions taken by persons affected tends to be negligible.

...

less taxation, and, in addition, less distortionary taxation is desirable. Several studies even demonstrate that, from the point of view of maximizing economic growth, the long-run optimal taxation is zero. Milesi-Ferretti and Roubini (1994), for instance, show that under very general assumptions the optimal tax burden on labour and capital income is zero. Jones, Manuelli and Rossi (1993b) and Bull (1993) add that even consumption taxes ought to be equal to zero

http://robertplattbell.blogspot.com/2007/10/to-nda-or-not-to...

Simply put, when you sign an NDA, you are signing a CONTRACT, and any contract may obligate you to perform certain acts. More importantly, for each contract you sign, you are exposing yourself to potential litigation liability for breach of contract.

Thus, as a large company, if you sign hundreds or thousands of NDA contracts, you are incrementally exposing yourself to more and more liability. In a country where you can get sued for serving hot coffee, the odds of getting sued for signing all those NDA’s is pretty high.

So there is no point in a large corporation agreeing to sign an NDA with a solo inventor, unless the NDA is one of those bogus “disclosure agreements” referred to above.

If you think about it, it makes sense. And if you were to advise a company, you’d advise them NOT to sign an NDA. For example, suppose you represent a carmaker. Most of the ideas submitted will relate to cars. If your client signs all these NDA’s with potential inventors, chances are, one of them will submit an idea similar or identical to an idea already under development in your client’s lab. You’ll end up getting sued, as the inventor will claim you “stole” the idea. Better off to advise your client NOT to sign any NDA’s.

Venture Capitalists (VC’s) historically have refused to sign an NDA, and in fact, to ask them to do so is considered an insult and a sure way to put an end to your “elevator pitch”. Again, since VC’s listen to hundreds, if not thousands of invention pitches over the years, the chance that they will hear the same idea more than once (or a similar idea) is pretty great. If they sign NDA after NDA, they slowly paint themselves into a corner, to the point where they cannot back any new idea without the chance of some previous inventor claiming a breach of an NDA.

Frankly, the proposition of an NDA is a bit absurd. Someone comes to you and says they want to tell you a secret. BUT, before they will, they want you to sign a contract agreeing to draconian consequences if you tell the secret to anyone else. Suppose the secret is not all that great? Suppose everyone already knows about it, or more to the point, someone in your company does? It really is a risk not worth taking.

So, there are various good reasons why people will refuse to sign an NDA. If you think about it, chances are, you’d refuse to sign one, too!