Marco Rubio Ticks Off the HuffPo's on Climate Change
"Marco Rubio Not Convinced Climate Change An Actual Problem"
It's always fun to see the HuffPo's get their panties in a wad. And you have no idea how much it hurt to put this in the "Science" category.
It's always fun to see the HuffPo's get their panties in a wad. And you have no idea how much it hurt to put this in the "Science" category.
So would you endorse patents, copyrights or subsidies as barriers to competition? Do Producers have to produce... or to still be a producer, can they just be inventors, investors and owners. I am 100% in favor and fully respect property rights. The owner has every right to his property. Looters would tax it. Moochers would live in it free. But by definition is the owner a acting as Producer, Looter or Moocher? My statement was just that he was not acting as a Producer.
What precisely are Owners vs Producers vs Looters? Did Ian Rand really address the roles of property owners? Are we talking about roles in certain situations? Is there always sufficient incentive that owners will produce or will they hoard until the incentive is maximized and then produce at a higher price. Clearly they have the right to do as they wish with their property but are they then still Producers or just potentially Producers.
Patents and copyrights with limited time period protections are good and encourage creation, and investment. Subsidies (gov’t) are market distortions with long term detrimental effects. If a venture is economically feasible and has a good probability of reasonable ROI private funding/ investors will in a free market provide the capital. There is no need for gov’t picking winners and losers and the predictable distortions.
Owners who do not produce but horde their resources are irrelevant unless they have government regulation in their favor that inhibits competition. What resources are so scarce and critical to an economy that they could eliminate competition? Monopolies that serve their customers well in spite of competition are good. It means only that they are satisfying the demand and offering fair exchange. I am not in favor of most long term monopolies in general because they are often products of government interference in the free market.
If someone wishes to create competition for themselves there is no better way than to stop supplying a demand. This is what an entrepreneur does best. Find a demand and supply it. It is government regulation that is too burdensome for start-ups and little companies that allow mega-corps to monopolize, excepting for those who really offer fair exchange. If on the other hand a large corporation starts to charge too much, or reduce quality, without cronyism they will find competition springing up to take market share.
When a person already accumulated resources they have already been a producer. What good does it do them to hold onto them (they can’t take it with them)? If they drive the price up by holding them, then it just becomes even more attractive for competition to fill the need. Do you have an example of someone capable of cornering the market long term without government influence?
Regards,
O.A.
Patents and copyrights are property rights not barriers to competition. In fact, the only way in which a society gets wealthier is by increasing their level of technology, which means inventing. History shows that without property rights for invention, the rate at which technology increases is equivalent to the rate at which population increases. that's why Ayn Rand said they were the most important property rights.
Thanks for clarifying that for me.
Also "Ayn" as opposed to Ian.
I wish he would have said opportunity cost rather than cost/benefit . I believe it is more central to the problem of faith based global warmers.
fav line "the United States is a country not a planet."