EMINESCU SECRETUL POLITIC

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p … ZjlmYTgyYQ

Aceste carti sint publicate cu CopyLIBER (au copierea, traducerea, difuzarea neingradite si gratuite).
Daca aveti html-ul dezactivat: cu PASTE asezati link-ul in browser si, apoi, apasati ENTER.

1.aranjezi 'blatu' cu primaria,politia si alte autoritati ,pe care de altfel le si mituiesti ca sa ai grija ca ies castigatori la alegeri ( daca esti mai smecher,cum sunt baietii destepti de pe Wall Street - dai bani la toti candidatii (mai putin Ron Paul ) ca sa fii sigur - cred ca Patriciu e cel mai celebru exemplu care a aplicat aceasta tactica pe la noi -a cotizat si la PNL si la PSD in 2004).
2. vii si confisti strada cu totul - deschizi complexul comercial/afacerea - parteneriat public-privat in toata regula
3. impui preturi dupa voia muschiului tau - s-a gasit cumva vreun fraier care sa te concureze? pac! - da-i cu controlul in cap din partea prietenilor de la primarie,OPC si alte organe care "protejeaza" consumatorul

=> capitalism romanesc.

http://revistacultura.ro/blog/2009/02/d … n-romania/

Aici se găsește o listă cu câteva filme pe care le-am putea vedea și comenta împreună:

http://mises.org/content/film.asp

Eu aș începe cu Burnt by the Sun, Snow Falling on Cedars, Brazil, Dr. Strangelove, Waco: The Rules of Engagement, pe care le-am văzut si stiu ca merita.

Ar mai fi si Polițist, adjectiv, dar probabil l-ati vazut deja.

Cineva mai sugera si Europa, Europa, iar Claudiu sugera The Soviet Story.

Opinii?

As vrea sa incepem joi, 18 februarie, de la 18.30, in Popa Nan.

Tudor

to bomb out
1.Make somebody homeless by destroying their houses with bombs
Derived forms: bombing out, bombs out, bombed out

S-a practicat și pe Koln, cu bombe incendiare. Democratic....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of … rld_War_II

http://libertarianpapers.org/2009/3-rot … o-be-done/

Cele bune,
T

Uitati-va si la primul coment (Frank July 13, 2009) se identifica cineva cu asta? I know I do.

Pentru a continua discuția de la seminar, vă propun să ascultați prelegerea lui Hoppe de aici:

http://mises.org/media/1010

sau sa o cititi in varianta text:

http://mises.org/story/2021

Pasajele misesiene despre case și class probability, aici:

http://misesromania.org/51/

O rafinare hoppeana a distinctiei misesiene, aici:

http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae10_1_1.pdf

Cele bune,
Tudor

In mare, prezentarea la care pui link e structurata dupa articolul sau original:
http://www.stephankinsella.com/publicat … -property/

Se gaseste ceva similar prezentarii si aici:
http://mises.org/story/3682

Mie mi se par convingatoare argumentele, dar as fi vrut sa faca si o discutie privind moralitatea unor actiuni care sunt acum pedepsite pe nedrept. Anume, intr-o lume libera ar putea fi greu de impus restrictii de copiere, dar, daca autorul nu doreste sa fie copiat poate ca nu e un lucru prea frumos sa ii copiezi lucrarile si, eventual, sa le redistribui...Aici nu ma refer la plagiat ci la copierea in conditiile recunoasterii autorului.

Cred, pe de alta parte, ca ar putea parea caraghios autorul care ar cere semenilor sai sa nu ii copieze cartile, pentru ca daca s-ar aboli legea copyright-ului sigur ar aparea diverse mecanisme de piata care ar face profitabila productia de opere literare, muzicale etc.

Insa si apelul la boicotarea celor care copiaza ar putea fi o solutie, chiar daca marginala.

Uite un studiu ipotetic de caz pe care l-am facut la un moment dat:

A writes a book (k). A offers to sell it for 12 grains of gold (gg), but the exchange is subject  to a contract that has a clause against distribution (the buyer is held accountable to pay a fine of 120 000 gg). The contract expires in 10 years.

Case 1: Nobody buys the book at this monetary_plus_non-monetary price. A has to fiind other ways to finance the effort of writing it.

Case 2:  A manages to sell 10 000 copies  (120 000 gg) in the first year. B, like everybody else, buys the book and is careful that the book is not copied.

Case 3: C, a dishonest friend of B, borrows the book and promises not to copy it. But he likes it so much that he makes a dozen photocopies of it and gives them to other friends. The fact is never discovered. B and C remain good friends. A’s  income is the same: 120 000 gg.

Case 4: Another dishonest friend of B is borrowing the book under promise not to copy it. He immediately makes a thousand  identical copies and sells them on ebay.com for a total sum of 5829 gg. Some buyers from ebay continue distributing the book. The unauthorized distribution is getting bigger and bigger, until A notices and employs “Harry’s”, a law enforcement agency, to seek the culprits. Harry’s soon identifies C as the distributor, but he cannot be prosecuted because it is not him, but B, in breach of contract. Harry’s prosecute B for the sum of 120 000 gg. B pays 120 000 to A, and then employs an agency to prosecute C for 150 000 gg plus expenses. The judge orders that C pays to B 167 000 gg in total. C reaches an agreement to pay B the sum gradually, over 2 years. B and C are not friends anymore. A sells 2 000 copies in the first year. His net  income is  134 000 gg (Harry’s fees are 5 000 gg.). 

Case 5: A decides to increase de price to 15 gg and to lower the clause to a fixed sum of 120 gg in case of demostrated distribution. A succeedes in selling 10 000 copies in one year. He empoys Harry’s, an agency specialized in tracking down unauthorized copies and Harry’s succeedes in catching 73 persons in breach of contract in the same year. A settles for a total of 7 800 from the 73 culprits and pays Harry’s 8 760 for  the inverstigation. A’s yearly income from selling the book amouts to 150 000 gg.

Case 6: A is contracting with Libertas, a publisher that is releasing the book on-line for 3 gg, with no copy clause in the
contracts. The publisher arranges to sell 1 000 autographed deluxe copies for 100 gg a piece and also issues a paperback edition for 10 gg. In the first year A has 30 000 copies downloaded from the publisher’s site, all deluxe copies sold and also 3 000 paperbacks. A’s yearly income amounts to 220 000 gg.

Salutare,

La urmatoarea intalnire vor prezenta Anca (c. 11, 12, 13, 14) și Luminita
(c. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19).

Revin asupra unui amanunt de aseara: se pare ca la capitolul 8 este intr-adevar
o eroare de traducere. Pasajul in original este acesta:

Let us take the first case. We assume that the working week is cut from forty
hours to thirty, with no change in hourly pay. If there is substantial
unemployment when this plan is put into effect, the plan will no doubt provide
additional jobs. We cannot assume that it will provide sufficient additional
jobs, however, to maintain the same payrolls and the same number of man-hours as
before, unless we make the unlikely assumptions that in each industry there has
been exactly the same percentage of unemployment and that the new men and women
employed are no less efficient at their special tasks on the average than those
who had already been employed. But suppose we do make these assumptions. Suppose
we do assume that the right number of additional workers of each skill is
available, and that the new workers do not raise production costs. What will be
the result of reducing the working week from forty hours to thirty (without any
increase in hourly pay)?

http://jim.com/econ/chap08p1.html

In romana, se gaseste la p. 50 a primei editii, p. 51 a celei de-a doua:

„...noii angajati sunt, in medie, mai putin eficienti in indeplinirea sarcinilor
specifice decât cei deja angajați."

daca ar fi mai puțin eficienți, nu s-ar indeplini conditia de
mentinere constanta a salariilor si orelor-om.

Cele bune,
Tudor
P.S. Am pus cateva poze de aseara aici:
http://misesromania.org/607/