The world is moving so fast these days that
the man who says it can't be done is
generally interrupted by someone doing it.
Harry Emerson Fosdick
Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day
 |
| Via LFC |
Facebook Corner
(LFC).Question for ya. How would a full free market controls patent rights? If no regulation steps in would there be a risk of investors not wanting to invent for fear it wouldn't matter because a larger firm would take their idea?
It's more of a question of intellectual property rights. Most forms of minimal government recognize property rights. Exposure of theft could adverse effect a company's reputation in the marketplace; it would be easier for the company to purchase the patent or at least license it.
(LFC). I am not Trolling, I am seeking an honest answer to an honest question. In Laissez Faire Capitalism how are intelectual property rights protected? In the case ,specifically, of Authors, Musicians and artists. (What is to stop the theft of intellectual property without a governing body of some kind?)
This has always been the case--e.g., cassette recorders, VCR's; why purchase the performance if it is available from free radio or TV? In the past, reproductions also tended to be lower-quality. Official channels responded with high quality copies, attractive pricing, and/or value-added bundling. And we've even seen new business models emerge where a band uses free music as a way of driving attendance for concerts, their main revenue source. Most people operate by a sense of right and wrong and will purchase products or services at the right price.
(Tom Woods). Business leaders in Michigan are raising money to defeat Justin Amash to punish him for the government shutdown. How will progressives make sense of this? According to their comic-book worldview, libertarians are apologists for business, and business hates government. Maybe --MAYBE, I say -- the world is a teensy bit more complicated than that?
Gee, and I was hoping that Amash would run for Senate. I understand business hates economic uncertainty, but this federal beast is on an unsustainable course, and the Senate and White House are in a state of denial. Of course, the corrupt money follows the seat of power in Washington; they are politically agnostic.
 |
| Via LFC |
 |
| Via Bastiat Institute |
Any robust democracy necessarily depends on individual liberty. Without liberty, the marketplace is unduly limited in the provision of goods and services. The people's wants and needs are more comprehensively served by a more open, diverse, competitive system of voluntary exchanges.
(LFC). A classic case of domestic industry favoring protectionist laws to shield them from foreign competition. "Maine employers and consumers say that importing prescriptions from foreign mail-order pharmacies saves them a lot of money -- and legislators passed a law legalizing imports. The drug industry and the state's pharmacists say imports can be dangerous -- supporters say the drugs are identical." (Teal)
The issue is more complicated than "protectionism", and the moderator, with any due diligence, should know that. Take a domestic pharmaceutical; it needs to cover fixed costs. It can gain additional revenue in other, more closed markets so long as prices in the segmented market at least covered variable costs of drug manufacture. But notice in a socialized system like Canada, prices aren't set in an open market. In essence, other monopsonistic countries are freeloading off of the American consumer, whom is stuck with huge costs of FDA regulation. (Pilon has a good discussion here.). The real problem is to address the high costs imposed by regulation; a reimportation ban is part of the bargain of allowing companies to recoup their investments in FDA approval. But notice even lifting a ban would likely result in reduced sales in other market segments as aggregate sales and profits are cannibalized.
(LFC published an image of the Congress in session with a description to the effect, "this is the reason why can't afford to buy nice things. I decided to rant after this discussant comment:
but what's underneath THIS? --corporate lobbyist and politicians gaining personal wealth because of ...once again uncontrollable corporate wealth. blame congress all you want, but until citizens united is repealed....the REAL problems stems from unchecked money from corporations
I'm getting a little tired of the constant anti-corporate rants. Corporations are also victimized by populist politicians, a $1.8T regulatory burden, and the highest tax brackets among the developed economies. If you look at the stock market (before the recent Fed-induced buying binge), returns have been abysmal over the 2000's. Strong companies compete despite of, not because of, government. Granted, some companies are vendors to the feds, but I also want to point out most lawmakers have net worth in the 7-figures--which in most cases existed before they entered public office (consider Rockefeller, Romney, Bloomberg,etc. I don't think that politicians are evil: they're mostly clueless....
(Learn Liberty) According to Winston Churchill, "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." So what can be done to reduce the number of people living in poverty?
Get the government out of the way of the economy; eliminate barriers to entry, end counterproductive compensation policies. Rollback morally hazardous policies, including long-term government relief. Stop imposing petty restrictions on private-sector institutions and charities (like imposing birth control mandates for Catholic hospital employees, disallow charities to distribute, say, government cheese, if they have a cross on the wall, health department restrictions on donated food, etc.)
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Gary Varvel and Townhall |
Jimmy Kimmel preparing kids for when government steals their wages...
Musical Interlude: My Ipod Shuffle Series
Charlene, "I've Never Been To Me"
