-
[quote user="Wheylous"] You're ignoring network effects. [/quote] Probably because it's irrelevant, though I have no clue what kind of "network effect" you're talking about. Prices will be higher for a product when the supply is lower than the demand. It will remain this way as long as supply is low, once equilibrium
-
It is percieved as being more valuable because it is more scarce upon first introduction into the marketplace. Until the market has reached saturation, the product will be sold at a higher price. The higher price will allow expansion of capital. Since the entrepreneurs are omniscient, they would know when to restrict expansion and reduce price. Though
-
I just saw the movie and it wasn't pro-capitalist by any stretch of the imagination. The villain tried to impose anarchy on the city (bad), ultimately just wanting to kill everyone (cliche bad). The villains weren't portrayed as bad because they wanted to enforce their will on others, but because anarchy doesn't work and only evil mean stupid
-
On the introductions of a new product, the product will regardless start out more valuable than it would when the product has reached full capacity in the market. That is, all demand for the product has been met. Therefore, while it's true there wouldn't be any profit once all demand has been met, it is not true that there would be a difficulty
-
Under the same conditions that a person could build a nuclear reactor in your neighborhood are the same conditions that would be required for someone to have a nuclear weapon in their possession. Anyone can own anything on their own property as long as those who are put at risk of damage are compensated to their satisfaction. [quote user="Ancap66"
-
I don't know much about the case, but it seems obvious that he's Schizophrenic. But maybe a more interesting story will develop. (Don't get me wrong, the whole thing is tragic.) Also, 911 was an inside job. I had a really fun conversation about the subject here , if anyone's interested. Though I've pretty much given up hope on ever
-
If one must always pay dues on "personal property", then it is not personal property. So he must be arguing that all men own everything. If everyone owns everything then everyone should have equal say in what happens with any property anywhere. Or else "ownership" doesn't really mean anything. So everyone everywhere should pay
-
[quote user="Consumariat"] You seem to be proposing your own version of a healthcare system and then criticising it without me even having to enter the conversation. [/quote] Well no, what I did was propose a decentralised system for the distribution of care, which you seemed to agree with without reservation. You then insisted that the money
-
[quote user="Consumariat"] You make some very good points, and I agree with you about decentralized systems being fairer, less bureaucratic, and more efficient. However, all of these can be implemented within a system funded by tax. I like your idea of hospitals acquiring their funding according to how many people choose to walk through their
-
[quote user="Anenome"]If you're talking about his point on contractually making a kid into an indentured servant[/quote] Nope, talking about adults. [quote user="Anenome"] If an (adult) indentured servant wanted to break their service contract, I think they should be able to and the remedy should be a monetary judgment, rather