[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 14 KB, 310x233, Screen-shot-2011-08-16-at-9.39.48-AM.png.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3582005 [Reply] [Original]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/silicon-valley-billionaire-funding-creation-artificial-libertari
an-islands-140840896.html

My name is Andrew Ryan. And I'm here to ask you a question...

>> No.3582040

Hi Andy


A man's entitled to the sweat of his brow, yes, but he also owes some of it to society.

>> No.3582065

>>3582040

And by society I mean poor people.

>> No.3582071

>>3582065
And by poor people, I mean minorities.

>> No.3582082

>>3582071
Oh I get it, you're pretending to be me and "correcting" what I said. Clever.

Don't you guys usually stick with the "disregard that I suck cocks?" stuff?

>> No.3582090

>>3582082
Never mind, Googled it.

>> No.3582096
File: 115 KB, 358x400, 1307102516679.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>> No.3582134

it requires around $1000 a month in medical costs to keep me alive.

i know that there is a safety net of social wellfare to cover this if i were to lose my insurance until i can get good insurance again.

if i were 'between jobs' in one of these libertarian societies what would happen to me? would i just die?

>> No.3582152

>>3582134
Yep.

>> No.3582179

>>3582134
And you deserve it, poorfag.

>> No.3582194

>>3582152
Also, isn't it funny that conservatives are the ones who condemn the teaching of evolution for promoting social Darwinism when their policies would lead to just that?

I think it's hilarious.

>> No.3582201

>>3582134
Insurance isn't necessarily linked to jobs. A private insurance wouldn't take you in with your condition regardless of your employment anyway.

>> No.3582247

how much of their taxes do you think libertarians actually believe goes to welfare? and how many people do they actually believe just live entirely off the state?

because reading the replies to many of the comments under that story
apparently it is a lot

>> No.3582291

>>3582247
Probably more than you think. Looking into what i would need to do if i ever lost my insurance it became apparent to me that if you want anything from the government its best to just become entierly dependent on them.

I would literally be better off not working at all than just trying to get help with medical.

>> No.3582299

Extreme ideology will never work. You must find a balance.

>> No.3582313

>>3582291
>>3582134
At least you're lucky to have something be on welfare for. My therapist thinks I might have to go on disability welfare because of various disorders make me too incapable and slow to react or work in an employment environment, at least adequately. Last time I did, my panic rose to the point I would pass out, sometimes going through slight seizures while blacked out, or so I've been told. Shit sucks man.

>> No.3582315

>>3582071
And by minorities, I mean large multinational corporations

>> No.3582325

>Andrew Ryan
>Ayn Rand

>> No.3582333

>>3582299
Very, very true. Personally I think communism would work so much better (or at least better than it has in the past) if it weren't a single-party system. Sure, you can have a country where it's the dominant government ideology in power, but allow other ideologies and parties to have some power in government.

>> No.3582359

>>3582299
It's a falllacy. Balance isn't more justified in politics than it is in science.
Only trough the examination of society can we destroy ideologies and find what is best for us to do.

>> No.3582366

>>3582299
Any system of government can work on a small scale, and every system of government inevitably falls apart on the large scale.

These little islands could work, a little communist island would also work, and a little theocratic island.

Its a small community in each case that wants to prove itself and prove that its ideal can work, so it will work.

>> No.3582377

>>3582359
If you think that libertarianism verging on anarchy is legitimate, then you have problems with that absolute thinking of yours.

Libertarianism in moderation is nice. Going to extremes such as loose building code is poppycock.

>> No.3582383

>>3582377
I like libertarians approach to social issues (aside from gun control), but their economic ideologies are far too idealistic to be considered a viable option.

>> No.3582498

>>3582313

I know someone who acts like that, when under stress or other certain circumstances, but they've been unable to get a diagnosis of the actual problem, other than 'it probably isn't epilepsy'. Could you explain your situation somewhat?

>> No.3582512

>>3582377
He wouldn't say that since apparently he's made of straw, either go by his posts or ask him to clarify, you do not get to invent a ridiculous ideology for your opponent.

>> No.3582522

>>3582377
I don't think it is legitimate. I don't think right-wing libertarianism can be verging on anarchy either, or that there is anything good about it.

But if I don't think that, it's not because it's extreme, it's because it's stupid.

And the two aren't necessarily associated.

>> No.3582531

>Why not just use Washington, DC? They aready are "free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place".
dohohohoho.jpg

>> No.3582585

>>3582498
A combination of paranoia disorders (schizophrenia runs in the family), anxiety, and depression that started in early childhood and still lingers. Plus, the environment was a bit abusive and made me too nervous to leave my room except for school, so I spent most of my time alone and never learning how to socialize or manage myself, and apparently there's a certain in life (like past your early twenties or something) where if you don't learn how to do such by then, you never will, and apparently I'm already past that. :(

Also, I think you can get disability for epilepsy in general.

>> No.3582604

did they actually start building, or is this all in the planning stages still?

>> No.3582608

>>3582134
Nope, not unless doctors forsake their oaths. If they adhere to their oath, somebody will have to pay, the doctor, the hospital, ultimately the cost is absorbed by the other patients...

And if they dont follow their oaths, well then I suppose it might be a crapshoot no matter how much money you had.

>> No.3582627

In theory I believe this could work.
However, someone would probably mess it up by using the loose laws on weapons and going batshit insane on the isolated island.

>> No.3582641

>>3582608
You clearly have no idea how many people become doctors for the money.

>> No.3582667

I have no problems with people who are legitimately infirm recieving disability...but it pisses me off when people collect it for mental disabilities...I have a brother with cerebral palsy who cant walk, has very limited dexterity and can not conceptualize the way you and I can...he has been employed for over a decade. Radio dj, chip runner in casinos, greeter, theatre, the guy is never without work, he finds things he can do and he does it. I know alot of severely handicapped people through various foundations and most of them all work. I have never met an adult with down syndrome who is not employed for instance.

"social anxiety" is a fucking stupid excuse for not working...do data entry or something. Hell deliver flyers if thats what you have to do. Staying curled up inside your home seems like a shitty way to live. And there are plenty of things you can do from home anyways, IT by voip for instance. I did that for a few months when I broke my legs. All you need is an internet connection. They actually PREFER if you live alone as that means no chance of interuptions or background chatter.

I am fairly biased on this subject as I sold drugs when I was a teen and one of my biggest customer bases was a complex full of mostly schitzophrenics who all recieved disability and were all capable of working, and in fact most did, under the table so they would recieve disability. The start of every month was candyland to those people, free money. Drank like fishes too.

I'd rather see that money go towards work programs then just handing them cash because they got commited 20 years ago for a month ect.

>> No.3582694

>>3582194

and isn't it hilarious how leftists believe in evolution but practice economic creationism for the same reason the right attacks atheists, everyone will be immoral and kill each other.

>> No.3582703

>>3582641
Sure I do. And if they can get away with less for more, some probably would.

>> No.3582738

>>3582694
this post gave me the stupid

>> No.3582753

>>3582641
>>3582641
and there is nothing wrong with that, the profit motive is a great way to reward these people, however our system is skewed by the government, through AMA, the FDA, Medicare and Medicaid. Medical costs have exploded since medicaid and medicare. Also governments giving tax breaks to businesses for giving employees insurance instead they should just pay out benefits in money to the individuals who can then pick their own insurance. Government is also hell bent on making insurance into something that pays for everything which is not how insurance works, car insurance doesn't pay for car maintenance, and all of this will raise the price of insurance which will then be blamed for greed and the government will come down on it with more regulations. Also insurance companies are given monopolies within a state by the government.

>> No.3582763

>but he also owes some of it to society.

He already payed into society when he bought the bread that was made by the baker who bought his flour from the mill that bought it from the wheat farmer.

>> No.3582767

>>3582738
it just made you more aware of it; you had it plenty before

you're dumb, is what i guess i'm trying to say here

>> No.3582772

>>3582738
>my opinions are based on feelings and not empirical fact about economics.

>> No.3582786

If my medical cost cost one billion dollars should other people be obligated to pay them? Who is at fault for me getting sick?

>> No.3582862

I always thought this was silly yes a man in entitled to the sweat of his brow but a business owner should not be entitled to take the greater portion of sweat from his employee's brows.

Everyone who works in a company should receive a share proportional to their contribution not the owner doing nothing and sweeping up 90% of the profits.

>> No.3582878

>>3582862
CAPITALISM

>> No.3582881

>>3582862
>proportional to their contribution
As decided by who, you?

If you knew economics you would understand that there are pressures that keep wages near their marginal revenue product (compensation proportional to their contribution), and you would also know that high profits entice new entrants, creating an arbitrage where the owner and entrepreneur is also compensated fairly for their effort and risk.

>> No.3582896

>>3582862
agreed. I would love to see free markets but without the ability to own corporations/employees or the workforce of others.
Managers should be voted for by the workers and not made by owning more money than others. Everyone should receive a fair share of the profit(and sometimes the loss) according to their contribution as you say. It would provide motivation and competition without the ability to exploit the workforce of others.

>> No.3582907

>>3582862

> should
> morals

>> No.3582918

>3582862

Did the worker organize the business, does he take the risk of running, does he pay for the infrastructure to maintain it, does he buy the raw material?

>> No.3582937

>>3582918
no
partially
yes
yes

>> No.3582939

>>3582907
>somebody mentioned capitalism
>Liberty joins thread right after

no surprise there

>> No.3582949

>>3582896
Workers aren't exploited, they choose to work for a wage of their own free will, there are plenty of cooperatives that are in business and people can work for them instead.

Not to mention workers don't provide any initial investment in the company. People can come together to make a business but that is exactly what a corporation is.

Heres an example of paying for labor, you hire a bunch of guys to put in a floor in your house under the current system the get payed whatever you have negotiated with them, in your system they would own a piece of your house now that they've done some labor in it.

>> No.3582994

>>3582949
>they choose to work for a wage of their own free will, there
nope they didnt choose to work in a capitalist system.
>Heres an example of paying for labor, you hire a bunch of guys to put in a floor in your house under the current system the get payed whatever you have negotiated with them, in your system they would own a piece of your house now that they've done some labor in it.
They do own a part of the house...thats the fucking reason you pay them in the first place.
However the only way to make profit for a businessman is to buy the part of the house from the workers for less than its worth...and/or(mostly and) to sell it to me for more than its worth. Thats the inherent fault in capitalism

>> No.3583018

Its kinda funny how these threads erupt with political debate.

Politics is besides the point. Seasteading enables greater political experimentation.

NO MATTER WHAT YOUR POLITICAL BELIEFS ARE, YOU SHOULD SUPPORT SEASTEADING. If you think communism is great, seasteading can help you get a realistic, developed and modern communist society up and running. If you think political system X is best, seasteading can help you get a society with political system X up and running.

>> No.3583026

>>3582694
>economic creationism
False equivalences everywhere.

>> No.3583037 [DELETED] 

>>3583018
>If you think communism is great, seasteading can help you get a realistic, developed and modern communist society up and running.
Yeah no.
The people usually interested in capitalism are workers, and the people who are able to afford seasteading arent.

>> No.3583045

>>3583037
>>3583018
>If you think communism is great, seasteading can help you get a realistic, developed and modern communist society up and running.
Yeah no.
The people usually interested in communism are workers, and the people who are able to afford seasteading arent.

>> No.3583042 [DELETED] 
File: 67 KB, 768x480, 1313626837184.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3582094
>>3582112

It's dangerous and risky, but adventurous and free!

>> No.3583058

>>3583045
You don't even know what it would cost.

Noone knows, because the technology isn't adequately developed yet.

>> No.3583091

>>3582918
>Did the worker organize the business
No. This is the owners contribution and he certainly deserves compensation for this but not the vast majority of the profit.
>does he take the risk of running
What risk? Owners of corporations and llc aren't really held liable for much of anything. If you mean the risk that the company fails and they are left with nothing then yes because the workers lose their jobs just as the owner lose the business.
>does he pay for the infrastructure
Yes. Without the workers production there would be no money to pay for the infrastructure. So while the owner may pay the bill he gets that money from the worker.
>does he buy the raw material
Yes see above.

>> No.3583100

>>3583058
Doesnt matter how much it costs. Communist systems will be disadvantaged from the beginning and propably boycotted, so everyone can scream:"See Communism isnt working...I told you..." Also without any resources they will be 100% dependent on other propably capitalist countrys. There is no way to realize something that is even remotely communist with that. Maybe a collectivist dictatorship that acts as international company or a anarchoprimitivist hippie commune, but nothing communist will work.

>> No.3583158

>>3582994
>They do own a part of the house...thats the fucking reason you pay them in the first place.
nope you pay them for the labor.

>> No.3583196

>However the only way to make profit for a businessman is to buy the part of the house from the workers for less than its worth...and/or(mostly and) to sell it to me for more than its worth. Thats the inherent fault in capitalism

>he believes in the labor theory of value

nonsense people pay what they believe it is worth, both profit from the exchange because the seller would rather have money and you would rather have that product than the money.

>> No.3583218

>>3583091

>No. This is the owners contribution and he certainly deserves compensation for this but not the vast majority of the profit.

The owner gets the majority of the profits not because he or she organizes it, but rather because he or she made the risk to start the business.

>What risk? Owners of corporations and llc aren't really held liable for much of anything. If you mean the risk that the company fails and they are left with nothing then yes because the workers lose their jobs just as the owner lose the business.

Before there is a corporation, there is the entrprenuar. He takes the risk, knowing he could lose all the money he has invested into it. That's money that could have gone into better food, towards retirement, etc. Instead, he is starting a business.

>Yes. Without the workers production there would be no money to pay for the infrastructure. So while the owner may pay the bill he gets that money from the worker.

He might not get that money. The business could go bust. In that case, the owner pays the bill and gets nothing. It's precisely because of that risk that he is paid so well. Also, the workers get their money first, which means that there would be money to pay for the infrastructure now not later contrary to
>"Without the workers production there would be no money to pay for the infrastructure".

Whether or not the business fails, the infrastructure has already been bought. The owner holds the sole cost of the infrastructure, he pays it with a loan. The question is whether he pays the bank with profits from the company or whether the owner fails and has to take another job and pay for the loan that way. The second option will result in a much smaller standard of living for a long period of time. It's because of the consequences of this risk (along with the high probability of failure) that the owner gets paid a lot.

>> No.3583224

>>3583091
The owner's lose their property the employee doesn't. There is far more risk for the owner than the worker, the worker isn't shackled to the business in the same way the owner is.

They don't pay for the resources out of pocket which they would have to according to your system, so they take no responsibility for buying resources, all they are responsible is labor.

once again the workers work for however much they negotiate to make.

>> No.3583235
File: 11 KB, 486x555, ex.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3582949
That is a completely different example. I'm talking about businesses not contracting or anything like that. In your example you are the customer not the owner.

>> No.3583258

>>3583224
>The owner's lose their property
How did the owner get the money to purchase this property?

>> No.3583381

>>3583258
A loan, usually. If they are rich from wages, inheirtance, or a nother business they started, it comes from out of pocket, but this doesn't happen that often.

>> No.3583405

>>3583381
Pretty sure over half of start up income is not borrowed

>> No.3583419

>>3583405
That's debatable. Even so, the point is that the owners have already acquired the capital, which goes to the workers and infrastructure and whatever is left over of the profit goes to the owner.

>> No.3583462

>>3583381
>A loan
Exactly so they borrow money to start the business. How is this money and the interest payed back? The workers produce and give money to the owner to pay it off. So Like I said the workers pay for the infrastructure even if the owner is the one that sends in the payments.

>They don't pay for the resources out of pocket
But they do. They do all the work and thus make all the money. The owner who "pays out of pocket" as you say is paying from the workers pockets not his own.

There are very very few people who have loads of money based solely on their own work. Most rich people are rich because they are near the top of a pyramid supported by the work of many others.

>> No.3583465

You're discussing ethics from anything other than a consequentialist perspective, shame on you!

The current system works , but produces a disproportionate amount of disadvantaged people without any hope of contributing or gaining status through no fault of their own while simultaneously allowing for those who've lucked out to distance themselves from society and still benefit from it.
If risk can be said to fall to anyone its an accountant.

Still unless you can think of a better system of incentives
you best be shutting up now.
Personally heavy taxation to facilitate educational and research funding seems a fair bit of compromise.

>> No.3583523

>>3583462
No, wages get paid first, then profit. The owner and the workers come up with a proper wage. Every week, they are guaranteed that wage. Everything else belongs to the owner who risked his capital to start the busniess. As I said, if the business fails, the owner is out of a lot of money. The workers have only lost time because they are guaranteed wages. That's why the owner gets any profit left over if the venture succeeds.

Also you have connected to different posts.

I'm>>358338
>>3583419
>>3583218

Not >>3583224

>>3583465
Is this addressed to the OP?

>> No.3583551

>>3583523
why does it follow from that that all leftover profit belongs to the entrepreneur?

>> No.3583580

>>3583551

Because of risk. The first couple of years are the most important. Why? Because it's only after have they seen the ultimate return on investment. If they fail, they've lost money. Wage-takers on the otherhand, have already made profit. If the company goes under before the return on investment, the wage-takers don't lose money. The owner does. That's why if the business is successful, the owner gets in whatever is left over. It's like in >>3583235 picture.

>> No.3583649

>>3583580
Yes I get that, but you're confusing two statements
The owner takes the risk therefore deserving compensation
->
The compensation is the entire remainder of the companies profits

if the service provided by the entrepreneur is risk taking shouldn't he just be compensated in proportion to the riskiness of the enterprise?

>> No.3583707

>>3583649
If the company is doing well and the success is generally sustainable (like it is not a run on the market), then much of that profit goes into expansion, investment (could be machines or stocks) and raising the wages of deserving employees (they've stood with the business a while, increased their productivity, handled a crisis really well, etc.). That slice of the pie gets smaller than you think it does. Plus, the owner usually serves as a CEO in the first couple of years, if not longer, so he does get paid for that as well. It's just most of that profit is for risk, not management. There may be Warren Buffets and Mark Zuckerbergs but most companies aren't that successful.

Plus, how would we calculate risk? Initial investment?

>> No.3583722

Shutup libertarians.

Let's talk about their plans. I say they'd be better off building boats. Mass produce a small community using converted tanker technology, in cheap foreign shipyards. And then have a community based off of shitloads of boats, with other specialized boats servicing the boat community.

A city of boats.

>> No.3583732
File: 296 KB, 600x320, Migrant_Fleet_Tali_Trailer.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3583722
>>3583722

>> No.3583743

>>3583465
Thats wrong capitalism creates the most wealth for the most people even if wealth is distributed disproportionately. Equality is not moral within itself when it requires theft, nothing in the current system stops people from creating worker owned cooperatives.

>>3583235
No difference simply because the workers created something therefore they own it. You are employing people to make something for you.

>> No.3583746

I was excited until the libs that like money more than true freedom started talking.

>> No.3583752

>>3583649
The owner gets all that is left because it wasn't allocated to anyone. A business is different from a corp, in that the owners influence and power isn't spread thin due to investors and a board of directors. After wages, bills and resources are paid off, everything left over is presided over by the owner and is up to his whim to use.

What you're proposing, or at least what it sounds like, is communism. It simply won't work unless the owner decides what he wants to do is share the profit with his employee's, which has happened before and it's called company bonuses.

>> No.3583764

>>3583743
Capitalism doesn't create wealth. It doesn't create anything. It simply reforms and transfers materials from one party to another.

>> No.3583773

>>3583746
Aye, tis the reason libtards are considered tards. Myopia-ridden pestilence, the lot of them.

>> No.3583779

Nothing bars anyone from starting a business therefore anyone has the opportunity to "unfairly" profit from others, if the workers want to negotiate for more they can its very simple. If people want to come together to make a worker owned business they can and they exist. You can get capital from investors and banks yet those bankers don't own the business in any part. If you want to own a part of a business you work in buy its stock.

>> No.3583793

>>3583764
capitalism sets up a system within which the most wealth is created this is empirically proven true if any other system worked as well as it did we would be using that. Capitalism is a direct democracy between consumer and producer without the problem of tyranny of the majority.

>> No.3583810

>>3583764
Then why invent technology? Why write books? If it is merely a transfer of resources, then riddle me this. Would you rather have a large tree where thousands of sheets of paper come from or would you rather have a new book written by your favorite author/scientist/artist that is only about 800 pages?

>> No.3583823
File: 57 KB, 474x604, 1293599811708.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3583743
he thinks capitalism creates wealth

>> No.3583824

>>3583779
Wow, I can just buy my company's stock? Do I like, just ask the owner really nice like? Or are you just hopelessly retarded about the way the world works?

>> No.3583841

>>3583824
You actually have to go through a broker, unless you get in on the IPO

>> No.3583843

>>3583841
Or, you know, the stock may never be for sale. It does happen. Welcome to reality.

>> No.3583844
File: 78 KB, 514x789, 1309487398975.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3583823

>> No.3583850

>>3583843
Obviously I wasn't referring to stock that wasn't for sale.... Have you no sense?

>> No.3583852

>>3583752
>>3583707
I am purposefully remaining from proposing anything ,

I'm simply following your argument for why an entrepreneur is entitled to his compensation, do you disagree that in theory it is correct to assume apart from any mischief or self-appointed management positions the risk taking should be rewarded only in so far as risk was actually taken?

>> No.3583863

>>3583779
Poverty

>> No.3583865 [DELETED] 
File: 22 KB, 550x343, economicfreedom.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>mfw marx wanted communism to come after capitalism because he knew it created a mountain of wealth.

>> No.3583874

They don't need island to prove liberterianism, we already have hongkong. Singapore is the same except the aren't socially liberterian.

>> No.3583881

>>3583863
loans and capital investors. Have you ever heard of a thing called saving? We don't like those today's because we have strict top down Keynesian policies that make putting money in the bank pointless because of tiny interest rates.

>> No.3583889

>>3583852
Yes. But if there is more profit it is up to the owner of what to do with it. If it's unfair the workers can protest until they get a more decent wage.

>> No.3583890

>>3583722
One of their ideas is modualism, meaning things can detach and reattach to new systems. You could possibly build a big building, but move off to a new seastead if you ever wanted to.

>> No.3583894

>>3583852
>risk was actually taken?
Its not just risk that's important, but timing. If someone gets something to the market at an important time where nobody else could, they should be rewarded.

>> No.3583895

>>3583850
> just buy stock in the company you work for
as if

>> No.3583899

>>3583649
>>3583752

Wouldn't it be possible, with the proper legal agreements, to make an organization owned by it's workers that shares things equally among them within the current system? The workers would have to collectively share the start-up risk as well, but even then having more people take responsibility for the same loan means that each person has less to pay off if the business fails.

>> No.3583904

>>3583899
Sure. Go ahead.

>> No.3583905

>>3583899
How do you suppose small businesses actually start, if you ask this question?

>> No.3583921

>>3583905

I was very certain it was possible, it's just that the way the conversation is going it sounded like everyone else was working off the assumption it wasn't.

>> No.3583922

>>3583899
It's called a worker's Co-Op, and they exist.

Why people bitch about "the current system" and how "everyone is exploited" instead of getting off of their ass and working as they want to work is beyond me.

When you get hired by an employer, that's an agreement you're making with them to work for them. If you feel your services are worth more than you are paid, you are welcome to negotiate or seek employment elsewhere. What's so hard about that?

>> No.3583931

>>3583779
>Nothing bars anyone from starting a business
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry

>> No.3583930 [DELETED] 
File: 9 KB, 259x194, wut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

> everyone in this thread
> i support people working for themselves
> unless they work for themselves now, then i say kill them all

> mfw

>> No.3583937

>>3583931

Barriers of entry are more commonly known as the state.

>> No.3583942

>>3583895
I didn't say to buy stock in the company you worked for, I merely told you how you would go about doing it.

>> No.3583943

>>3583931
So the only barriers to entry are due to the state or the fact you can't compete in which case maybe the economy is better off not wasting resources on your shitty inferior over-priced product.

>> No.3583946

>>3583810
>Then why invent technology? Why write books?

Because some people actually enjoy improving the world around them. You wouldn't know this because you're incapable of it.

>> No.3583960

>>3583937
I'm a libertarian too, but not all barriers to entry are the state. For example, Platinum group metals are found only a few place on earth. It's natural that once all the sites are claimed, there is a barrier to entry

>> No.3583968

>>3583865
>a trend line which shows that people with more money can buy more stuff

Tonight at 11, hot burns.

>> No.3583975

>>3583960

I support ownership.

>> No.3583982

>>3583946
>2011
>insults and not addressing the more important part of the post

Please tell me there is hope for the human race

>> No.3583987

>>3583943
There are about 3 things on their that are the result of the state, the result are market dynamics which inherently favor rich people who are already in business.

>> No.3583991

>>3583968

And the people in capitalist countries have more than the people in communist/socialist/fascist countries.

>> No.3583997

>>3583960
If the owner can only extract the platinum at great expense and has little interest in it as a long term investment they will sell it for a lower price than another mining company will be willing to pay.

This is just another example of where the barrier to entry is the fact you can't compete.

>> No.3584006
File: 7 KB, 260x194, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3583982
You asked why, I told you why, and postulated the reason you didn't know something so fucking simple that /a/ could have answered the question

>> No.3584018

>>3583987

If the people in business are making a lot of profit (and it is not a natural monopoly) then the barriers are low, relatively speaking.

>> No.3584035

>>3583997
But that's not what he said, he said that if all the platinum deposits are claimed it's about fucking impossible for someone new to start selling it because there fucking isn't any.

>> No.3584090

>Thread about starting new countries on cool ass artificial islands in international waters.
>Turns into capitalism vs socialism thread.

Fuck you, /sci/

>> No.3584106

>>3584090
> Thread about something you wanted to talk about
> Turns into something you don't want to talk about
> Whine

>> No.3584154

>>3584006
Ok my apologies. I should have asked why not sell books for the price of paper and ink. Instead, I got rhetorical. Which is funny, because they were rhetorical and you answered them.

>> No.3584215 [DELETED] 

>>3584035
A newcomer can buy the platinum mine off whoever owns it if he can prove to investors he can do a better job.

Let's say some land is owned by nigercorp and valued at $100 million while they are working it. Then the dictator is assassinated, trade laws change allowing foreigners to invest in the country and aryancorp which is a newcomer but with superior technology, expertise, equipment and training comes onto the scene and proves it can do a better job potentially raising the value to $150 million in a conservative estimate. Investors will gladly fork out $110 million to buy the land and achieve a p/e of at least 2.75 after the new operation is up and running in a year.

>> No.3584221

>>3584215
>A newcomer can buy the platinum mine

I love capitalism, no thought required just suggest practically impossible scenarios.

>> No.3584223

>>3584035
A newcomer can buy the platinum mine off whoever owns it if he can prove to investors he can do a better job.

Let's say some land is owned by nigercorp (niger is a nice country in africa) and valued at $100 million while they are working it. Then the dictator is assassinated, trade laws change allowing foreigners to invest in the country and aryancorp (named after the ancient aryans of india, they love cultural diversity) which is a newcomer but with superior technology, expertise, equipment and training comes onto the scene and proves it can do a better job potentially raising the value to $150 million in a conservative estimate. Investors will gladly fork out $110 million to buy the land and achieve a p/e of at most 2.75 after the new operation is up and running in a year.

>> No.3584237
File: 86 KB, 407x405, garouselfjustification.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3584221
>no thought required
Ironically you think no thought is required because you didn't do any thinking yourself and don't understand the argument.

>> No.3584246

>>3584221
The firm that can operate the mine most efficiently (that is, with the greatest profit) will be able to offer the mine owners an offer they can't refuse.