-
Here is someone's theory of how money is created. Banks need to have 10% in reserves, either notes on the floor, or deposit at the Fed. Let's take two banks. Bank A has $100 in notes, and bank B has $1000 in notes. Bank B makes a loan of $1000 in the form of a bank draft that gets deposited to bank A. Bank B now has 1000 in liabilities on the
-
http://cecd.aers.psu.edu/pubs/PovertyResearchWM.pdf Some guy on facebook gave me a study about Wal-mart showing that Wood's law does not hold true for this particular case. This sociology case somehow concluded that these counties that had wal-mart stores and had increasing wal-mart stores experienced higher rates of poverty in the 90's. What
-
The WHO has given statistics that give the conclusion that america pays more for healthcare, and gets less quality of it when compared to countries like the UK. How does one respond to such statistics?
-
The book by Hazlitt you might be thinking of is "economics in one lesson." Search on google and there is an online version of it. It is an updated version with numbers that can relate more to today, and someone even added an extra chapter(on rent control). He basically follows Bastiat's "what is seen, and what is not seen" logic
-
I remember my business law class(one of my favorite classes so far) was taught by a guy who explained constitutional law quite well. He explained to us that if the state of Alabama decided to ban black people from bars, they had the right because they are soverign. He explained there is NO SUCH THING as federal soverignty. That only state soverignty
-
From what I am getting at, Say's law basically says production creates consumption. But isn't supply/demand two sides of the same coin? I mean, production always precedes consumption(because you can not consume something that hasn't been produced), but doesn't demand of consumers determine what suppliers produce? To me, an economy can't
-
Then I guess if we use it in this case, it is also true that I can not sell the first book of harry potter if I simply re-named the title.
-
"No, it is not. A trademark is simply an identifier of property. It is like marking cattle with a brand. It identifies who produced the property. It does not mean other people cannot produce the same product, with a different brand." Then my question is this...why can people have a monopoly on names...and not products? Why can't I call
-
If it is trademarked, it is a "monopoly" in every sense of the definition. A monopoly by definition is a single supplier of a good. Therefore, Chevy is the ONLY supplier of Cobalts. Toyota is the only supplier of Corolla's. Mcdonald's is the only supplier of Big Mac's. But being a monopoly and "acting" like a monopoly
-
Ok, if you want to go with "microsoft is a monopoly because it has a 100% monopoly on the microsoft operating system" then I can say sun microsystems has a 100% monopoly on Java. I can say Blizzard has a 100% monopoly on World Of Warcraft. I can say Nintendo has a 100% monopoly on the Wii. I can say News corp has a 100% monopoly on Fox. Turner