The problem is that the first, last and only point at which goods becomes valuable for the market is at their consumption. Only when something is consumed, i.e. eliminated from the economy, it generates the need for more. Someone has to go and make a new one that can be consumed again. No other economic action adds value to it.

When I produce something, that product (be it good or service, doesn't matter too much) does of course have a cost of its production. It has no value yet, though. Only when I can sell it, it gets a value and I get revenue. If this good is now in turn used to create more goods or services (i.e. if it's an investment rather than consumption), this only adds to the cost burden of whatever it generates, because whoever bought the good/service from me will have to reimburse that investment by means of selling himself. Either that or he will go bankrupt. But I hope we can agree that it's not really a viable business model on a global scale if we drive a good portion of the players in our economy into bankruptcy to keep some other businesses afloat.

Only when someone finally takes a product and removes it from the pool entirely by using it, the value of that good is returned to the market. Note that "use" doesn't necessarily mean "use up". I can consume a house by living in it. You can't live in a house I live in, so if you want a house too, you have to build one. If I use a car, it's mine and not yours, so another one has to be built to sell it to you.

Everything you say contributes to this basic problem, but the underlying issue is simply that goods have to be removed from the market to add value and to drive the economy. As long as they stay in circulation, producing more only devalues them.

The core problem is that they can choose to sit on it. That's the whole point. If the cost of living is 100 and both you and me have 100, we will both spend 100. Why? Because we want to live. Duh. If I have 150 and you have 50, you will have to cut back on expenses while I have 50 that I can CHOOSE not to spend.

The point is, with more equality, it doesn't matter whether people have "confidence" in anything. They have to participate in the market. And yes, I consider that a good thing. Human is generally a greedy, selfish bastard. To the point where he will usually even work against his own best interest, because he is an irrational idiot.

Restore people's ability to live their life and your economy will thrive, whether people have faith in it or not.

No, I want to move away from our planned economy. It doesn't matter how you choose the nomenclatura, whether they're the ones who sing the right hymns, the ones who follow the right doctrine or the ones who went to the right school, neither results in a rule of the best and brightest, either is simply and plainly nepotism.

I can't honestly think of any existing system ever that didn't end up with a small lining of aristocracy (however that was called, whether it's the aristocracy of the good ol' times of nobility, whether it's the aristocracy of the communist politburo or whether it's our aristocracy of money).

By the way: The system you might describe as "communist" (which I refuse to accept, it was much but certainly not communist) failed for the same reasons, oddly, that the system we live in today will fail (which I refuse to consider even remotely capitalist). I'm fairly sure true communism can work. I'd still prefer true capitalism. Not because it's better, but it's far easier to implement.

Chauvinistic "holier-than-thou" idiots exist in every group. Be it nations, be it continents, hell, be it corporation branches. You also have the Americans who claim that Europeans could only have their high standard of living because of alleged gifts from the US.

Whoopsie, hope I didn't hurt your feelings...

cost*X in revenue, of course. Just to appease the nitpickers. :)

I agree, and I agree that patent laws are WAY out of whack, but simply kicking them out the window is not going to be a good idea either.

I'd say that a company has to publish their (verifiable!) research cost and once cost*X is reached, the patent is off. X is to be determined, but I'd suggest choosing a number bigger than 1...

I know that there are three main motivators for human: greed, fear and greed. So unless you can make some billionaires scared of some disease you want researched (and then convince them somehow to give it away once it's done), what's left is simply money.

I don't like that system and I'd be cheerleader for anyone who can change it, but human simply is a greedy old bastard who can't be assed to move his ass unless he gets money for it or something rammed up said orifice if he doesn't move.

If you have a solution for it, I'm very eager to hear it.

You can have their rocks, I'd be content with smashing their head in.

Neither back then nor today the 1% is also also the part of the population that holds the guns. If history tells us one thing then that revolutions only become successful once the executive force at least doesn't feel like defending the 1% anymore. More often than not, they know surprisingly well when to switch sides to avoid being caught on the wrong one.

Where should these tests be held? I hope the good people of Guinea get lucky, then at least in name it would be fitting.

I don't really feel like siding with pharma corps, but considering the development cost, the alternative to people not able to afford medication is medication not existing because there is no ROI on developing it.

You could of course go the European way and have general health care coverage so you can by definition afford the medication, but if I got the general sentiment towards that right something like an affordable healthcare plan is considered evil in the US.

You know what is meant. Can we sed "can sue" to "can sue AND WIN" and repeat the whole spiel?

Actually Europeans have looked up at Americans most of the 20th century. I even distinctly remember a folk song about what kind of celebrations are to be held "now that rich uncle from America is coming".

The change is not as long ago as you might think. It hasn't been more than maybe two decades that people form the US are seen as religious nutjob simpletons who sue everyone and everything if it doesn't go their way. Before that, US people were more seen as rich and self-confident with a "if anyone can accomplish that, I can" attitude that we actually aspired to.

Then it's about time we substitute away the hydrocephalus on top of our corporations.

When you stuff 72 trillions in pork barrels instead of trying to solve the problem, I guess you should not wonder why it doesn't work out.