My response to that is, until we find that "better way," the way we're doing it is the best way we currently know how to do it. Railing against the current approach to protecting IP is rather pointless until you recommend an alternative that can be evaluated against the status quo.

No, I'm saying that we should try to come up with a method of protecting intellectual property, but at the same time promoting competition. One should always be very reluctant to grant monopoly status to any entity.

The patent protection argument is wrong, IMO. I am quite well aware of the conventional wisdom: Without patent protections on intellectual property then there will be virtually no way for the creators of intellectual property to reap the benefits. Hence grant them a temporary legal monopoly to provide an incentive to produce intellectual property.

The problem is that historically, intellectual property has been created prior to the protections for intellectual property, and two just because I don't like how we do it now, doesn't mean that we have no intellectual property laws. RJN's argument is basically a strawman. He assumed I meant that we need to have no intellectual property laws/rights when in fact this is not true at all.

As for the trade deficit, that could be an issue down the road. The thing is that there doesn't seem to be a consensus view point on this and both sides make good arguments. Personally, I'm not sure which side is right.

Dave,

No problems here mate. I agree to a large extent. Education may very well act as a signal. A high level of education may say:

1. I'm smart.
2. I work hard.
3. I know handy information.
4. All of the above.

Only number 3 really pertains to education (you go to school and learn specialized knowledge). The others are hard for an employer to measure directly, but educational level may act as a proxy.

Steve: What about an $800 billion per year deficit in our balance of payments vs. the rest of the world? This is a heavy burden to carry with no end in sight.

Also, patent protection is a vitally important element, for society, in obtaining new technology. Why should anyone spend, and spend, for research if the use of the research can go to anyone free of charge. Understanding that we need patent protection is so elementary. I am surprised you don't agree.

I think it's incontrovertibly true that people with more education have prospered more economically over the last ten years or so. Unfortunately, that doesn't prove that it's due to the education. Or that they're �knowledge workers�. You see the problem is that, along with the education, there's a ton of protectionism. Certification, barriers to entry, regulation, and a host of other measures aren't intrinsic features of educated workers. The key question: would they have prospered as much without the protection? I don't believe so and I'd like to see some proof.

Yes, physicians, lawyers, teachers, and other professionals have prospered. Physicists, chemists, mathematicians, and engineers haven't (at least not nearly as much) and they're just as much �knowledge workers� as those who have prospered. It's not the education that's determinative: it's the markets, subsidies, barriers, and so on. We shouldn't be treating policies (which we can change) as though they were laws of physics (which we can't).