cab21

is protectionism needed to help infant industries grow? some economics say that some countries used protectionism to grow certain industries, then once those industries have grown, have then advocated free trade, since those industries have grown enough to win at free trade. http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm this artical says that advocates for infant industry protectionism included Friedrich List, and Alexander Hamilton. it would be interesting to get a truth about infantile industries economics if there is not already something that covers the subject.

it takes a person's labour to shift digital numbers, does that person get paid or does the person work for free? if someone borrows money to increase production by 15%, hasent that 15% increase happened because of both the labour of the person who lent the money, and the labour of the person who borrowed the money. the person in capitalism asks for a fraction of that amount, say 3%. so the 15% increase in productivity has netted the lender a 3% gain, and the borrower a 12% gain. both win in this situation. if the borrower gets the full 15%, the lender has made nothing from the labour of lending. isn't the borrower then exploiting the the lender by giving no return for the labour of the lender, but keeping 100% of the benefits of the trade? the idea behind a 3% interest loan would be that the borrower is going to make over 3% because of the loan , so the fruits of the labour of both are borrower and lender are divided between the two. both had to labour to make the deal, track the deal, give support for the deal. capital does not get lent by magic, it requires people trade and labour to make such trades. one quote from a mutualist that i did find was this Proudhon opposed the charging of interest and rent, but did not seek to abolish them by law: "I protest that when I criticized... the complex of institutions of which property is the foundation stone, I never meant to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose."

funny how carly talks about double revenue when profit and stock price shrank.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFbQftMe6qY this is the whole debate if you want to watch it in context. here is a announcement from the prganization

Your Political Compass Economic Left/Right: 8.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08

can you link the video https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/32540-property-appropriation-fails-the-two-guys-in-a-room-test/ i found this thread where stefan has some posts now the world is not 100% homesteaded, so people can go out and build their own room. it is fair that if a person built a room, that person could own that room, and that other people can get permission to enter the room. there are other rooms out there, and plenty of space for people to build their own rooms. if someone covets a specific room, that does not entitle the coveter to the room.

there is no society that has no violence at all. this is the real world, not utopia. if a minority produce more value than others, those minority should get more because the produced more. if there is just public ownership, the administrators of the ownership have even more power than any capitalist could ever have. the admin sets prices and controls everything, while a capitalist competes in a market. there is no system where everyone has eaqual bargaining power, and if there was, people would die because the incompetant would overrule the competant and resources would just be wasted rather than having enough resources for people to live on. people work because nature means people need resources to survive, there is no system where noone needs to work or trade. if there are too few workers, it just can't sustain life. the wage a person gets is the full amount of what a person produces. other people also produce, so they get what they produce as well. if someone only does a fraction of what it takes to get a product to the consumer, the person should only get a fraction of the price the consumer pays. if a person works for himself, doing the whole supply chain, from inventing a product, to selling that product to a customer, he cannot accomplish anything close to what we have in the modern world. it would take a lot of time and energy to get not much reward. how does 1% pay for admin? that seems like a low amount for the work done to admin. so if a person can't pay a loan back, the person loses individual property. if the house is individual property, what it goes to a community bank that then gives the house back to make sure everyone has a house? if someone does a bad job at using land, they just get more land, or the same land? if personal property is not something the bank can do anything with, it's not a great value. http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htmi did find this on the spanish revolution. it does not sound successful. a private bank allows people to get rewarded for taking risks. it allows freedom to determine what services to offer and how, and for what, and do who, so it allows free association and for people to make their own determinations and judgements and use their own minds as to whether to invest or not. a bank does a service, so workers and creators of banks should get paid for such a service and profit is the only way to do that. to pay people, more money has to come in than goes out, otherwise all the money just goes towards paying people and there is no money to lend.

violent conflict is not free market, but a lack of free market. if there is violent conflict, at least one party was wrong. a free market allows self defense, but not offense. if the population increases 10 fold, the property increases in value because of increased demand for the property. the man homesteaded the island, so he did something that others saw as valuable for their to be demand to live on the property. he created by homesteading. the labour of workers is profitable to the workers, or they would not agree to do the labour. the labour is paid in full the wages they agree to. any working class person can be a owner by creating something. the labour is not sacrificed, it's bought in exchange for compensation. if people feel the compensation is not enough, don't do it. people can start their own companies where they feel they get fair trade. the owner of the factory hired the workers, so the workers have given the product of their labor to the factory owner in exchange for compensation. again, the owner hires people to run the factory, who give the product of their labor to the factory owner in exchange for compensation. the factory owner owns the result of the labor because the factory owner has paid for it. people get financial reimbursement for their labour. a owner buys the product of labour through financial compensation. the owner has to labour to make such sales and trade, so the full cost of labour is the sum of all this labour. why would a person lend financial assets if at most, the person gets a 0% return, and at worst, the person loses 100% of the financial assets? it sounds like a system that will kill people and have no surplus for emergency.

this does not make sense to me so far. how did Smith come up with this principle? can you give some real world examples of this? now for this company, they provide a service, not a product. what is the proper price of a service where there is no product in this theory? at most the "product" is that clients get paid? does providing this service entitle of company to all or some of the pay that clients get for selling products or services? if so, wouldn't this subtract from those sellers getting the full product of their labor? this company would then get nothing, and labor for nothing? is this calling a basic voluntary contract signed with mutual consent, which free market capitalism is, "legal privilege" and "monopoly"?

free market capitalism by definition cannot exploit or extort. so if we have a government that does not practice free market capitalism, we cannot blame free market capitalism on a government that breaks the principles of free market capitalism through a mixed market. what do you mean by capitalist monopoly? in free market capitalism anyone can start a business, as long as the person does not violate individual rights to do so.

how can a person know the person is being overpaid? if the owner says " everyone that works here can earn 70K or more a year, depending on individual and team performance measurements", is that going to still have a "overpayment" problem? i don't think everyone's performance is exactly measurable. say the salesman makes a 500k sale, but what if it was the secretary that did most of the work to sell and connect, and the salesman was just the person the company had who signed the paperwork and got the credit for the sale, or the reputation of the IT team to solve problems quickly, or the person that built the website? how do we give objective performance measurements to the value that each person on the team brought? it's not like 100% of commission only employees outperform 100% of salaried employees people that don't like the compensation system leave, is there really a coralation between compensation systems and performance where companies with 100% commission put salaried companies out of business? salaries do still exist even for jobs where there are 100% commission spots. people that like the culture and company enough to stay. if the employees are idiots, why are they employees? people can be fired. he did not say rewards with no expectations and 100% job security. it's not like these employees get tenure.

so he lost a few employees and contracts. he has also gained people applying to be part of the company, and gained clients. this case will have to be a long term study it's still a voluntary market transaction for a boss to pay his employees whatever the boss wants to pay, this is not government dictated.

selling the kill for 50K sounds bad if the keeping it alive was bringing in more than 50 k. otherwise , sure you can sell your house for 50K, but a market value is going to be even better.

so i think one thing to look at, is if this was a private game reserve, would this lion have been sold for a trophy hunt at this time? the lion was bringing in money from research and tourism, i think the reports say millions, so 50k would be pennies on the dollar. the lion had cubs that he was protecting, so it's not like the case of the rhino's that are auctioned off when they no longer breed and become a danger to other younger rhinos. i think i read reports of hunting bringing in a fraction of what tourism brings in, but a private game manager would be able to tell what makes more financial sense for the individuals on the game reserve.

i guess the other option for a will is for a person to name as a co-owner any property the owner wants to pass on. the bank account and estate and such could have every name down the line of succession already on it. i'm sure there would be a process to do essentially the same thing as a will does today through saying that multiple people have ownership. then only under some mass event would there no longer be a owner, and things might then be up for grabs. that would get rid of any transfer or time between ownership and a executed will, since the co-owner would still be alive and a owner.

i think with wills, those are done by the living, to be executed once the living are dead. so it's violating the still living, who are the recipients of the property, if the will is not honored by society, and not violating the dead person. the dead don't care, but it's no longer their property, its the property of whoever the person gave the property to while still living. when living, we have contracts that shift ownership at certain events, so the event of death shifts ownership in a will, so the recipient is the new owner, and still living, and it's not to honer a dead person that the contract get fulfilled, but to honer the living person. the new owner has the choice to not accept ownership of the property, and do what the new owner wishes, just like a owner can forfeit any property.

paying a mother for the aborted body, i think there might be two catagories 1 the abortion was done in the first trimester, or before a line drawn where afterwords its considered immoral to abort 2 the abortion was done past the first trimester, or after a line drawn where afterwords it's considered immoral to abort. in category 1, the women would not have committed a violation against the embryo, and would be able to sell in category 2, the women has committed a violation against the life, and it would be immoral for the women to then decide what to do with the body of the life she choose to immorally take. a person could own and choose to sell property morally obtained, but not property immorally obtained.

the recent story about Planed Parenthood getting consent from parents that choose to abort in the second trimester to donate the bodies for medical research had me wonder about how we treat the dead and it's morality. i think humans do things to the dead that we don't do to the living, such as burial, cremation, autopsy and medical research. for those that die of induced abortions, or misscarry, there is no consent known for how they would have wished for their bodies to be handled after death. a thought that i came up with is that it would be ok for a parent to decide for how the dead person's body is treated, as long as that parent did not commit a violation against the body to cause the death, like one might consider a elected second trimester abortion to be such a violation. if this ishue of how we treat the dead was looked at according to UPB, how would that go?

in the transcript, the PP staff member talked about private companies doing research with the parts, as well as public companies. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/17/health/fetal-tissue-explainer/ this article gives some ways that fetal tissue has been used in medical research. i think it says there are ways to make the fetal tissue from abortions irrelevant in the future. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/archive/irb/irb_chapter6.htm this government guidelines has some guideline that PP is breaking now, even if the guidelines were made stricter at a later time. it says the doctor performing the abortion cannot know about the donation before the surgery, and cannot change the surgery because of the factor of a donation, and the PP doctor talks about doing both.

public money wise, i don't think anything planned parenthood does qualifies under even a nightwatchmen state of police, military, and courts. i think the question could be about if courts should shut down planned parenthood, even if it was a private organization. anti abortion people, i think would say the abortions are murder in the first place, and then the organization has no right to dispose of the body the organization murdered, profit or no profit. like it's not ok to run a hitman business and then say it's ok because the business operates at a loss. i think planned parenthood gets parental consent for this, but if it was called murder, then the parents can't consent to murder of children and can't consent for how to dispose of murdered children. i guess if we don't call the abortions murder, then parental consent for the how the children are disposed would be a amoral thing, because really the baby is already dead, and there was not deemed to be a crime that caused the death.

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPFAtranscript072514_final.pdf full footage the center for medical progress posted this interview with a member of planned parenthood. the CFMP also blammed PP for breaking the law for selling body parts for a profit, but it looks like PP does not look to sell to the highest bidder in a free market. PP even seems like they are saying it's wrong to make a profit, if something was moral, making a profit of it would be moral i would think if something was immoral, then profit makes no difference, it's just as immoral do lose money as to make money if one is being criminal. i think if a baby died of natural causes, selling the body parts seems like its amoral and allowable. if the baby is killed, i think that would be the moral issue, and not if the parts are sold after the baby is already dead. after the death, looks like the options are have the baby be medical waste, or used medically for transplants or research. research seems like a better use than mere medical waste.

it looks like government would just discriminate against those that have broken what government is supposed to protect. ie the offender does not get full political standing as the non offender of these rights that exist outside government?

say the governments allows business and private discrimination, as that's not a crime of the initiation of force. but the government would not purchase from business that do commit crimes such as the initiation of force, because to do so the government would be rewarding and participating in the initiation of force? i think objectivism wants the government to be voluntarily funded, so noone would be forced to fund this government if the person did not want to. im not sure about government contracts through, but i guess the government could contract with business that discriminate, but could have rules about contracts with those that have been convicted of committing crimes such as the initiation of force. i was initially thinking, if a business was to discriminate in certain disallowed ways, then government could discriminate against the business, but not making any purchases from the business until the business changed. changing that to the government would only make it so the government would not contract with business that have committed crimes, and discrimination alone would never be a crime.

looking over the case of in oregon where a business was determined to violate the law by discriminating based on sexual orientation, it made me wonder about discrimination. looking at a objectivist answer, the speaker says that government can't discriminate, but citizens can. i am wondering why there is a principle that government can't discriminate? trade by mutual consent is brought up as to why individuals should have the right to discriminate, but why would this not apply to government? i think with private dispute resolution organizations, there is mutual consent amung the people in the organizations, but is government not supposed to have this mutual consent because it's not ok for the government to discriminate, while it's citizens can refuse to trade with each other?

how would one person own everything if that person did not have 100% of the stocks? not having 100% of the stocks literally means that the person does not own everything. if there is not competition, than there is no such thing as "more than necessary". there are not innate prices. it's up to other people to create competition microsoft has less than 100% of the market for anything microsoft does. apple is a competitor, linux is a competitor, and so on consumers certainly have the option to choose linux, but many don't for various reasons. microsoft does not make this choice, the consumer makes it. its fair for a business to try and get customers to buy form that business, just like the competition does. it;s easy to create a computer that does not have any OS installed on it. there are plenty of people giving reviews and feedback over thinking other OS are better than microsofts, so people are open to read that feedback and decide if they want to try a different OS. microsoft can't prevent other OS, microsoft can just try and build a system that is integrated, like Apple does. linux is making it's own choices, it has to find a way to compete. perhaps part of the linux philosophy itself does not make it gain market share. the consumers control the market, microsoft is just one player that gives consumers a choice to buy microsoft products.