> IP protection is not cartelization / price fixing. Dear god, which rock have you been living under if you're somehow not even able to conceive of the similar

> IP protection is not cartelization / price fixing. Dear god, which rock have you been living under if you're somehow not even able to conceive of the similarities with the other industries where monopolies are good, actually. Coase did good work but clearly he was a disaster to public education, if you're not even able to at least recapitulate his arguments. Wait, wait, you do at least know what a marginal cost is, right? > You responded to me by inventing a strawman argument Ah yes, the strawman of microfoundations. I really wonder how some heterodox economists manage to even take themselves seriously sometimes. I assure you that having microfoundations for your model is much stronger than not having any foundations whatsoever. > Your particiaption should be self-evidently valuable if you want to be considered a participant in a debate. See, pigeon chess. There's no point in debating you lot, I mean Adam fucking Smith, the commie bastard he is, wrote a book about that mercantilist BS, so if three centuries hasn't been long enough for it to sink in nothing I say or do will. > Incresing internal wealth is always predicated on importation of foreign currency. This is why sanctions work to impoverish nations, in spite of possession of valuable items like oil. Like, wow, this is some breathtakingly novel take on the paradox of plenty right here, we should get this published so you can win the next Sveriges Riksbank Prize.