Depends on that you mean by "derivative." Really, they go back to the invention of writing as record-keeping for debts owed to temples. From that derived futures contracts among merchants, c. 3000 BCE.

I just watch an otherwise boring story about the Medici. On their way to Florence, the party of merchants meets and old man who tells them that since they have been away, Florence has changed for the worse: No more to people concern themselves with the best wines and best olive oil, but with the best works of art; no longer do we trade by barter, but pursue coined money. Coined money was invented c. 600 BCE (and we are not quite sure why). It was also a derivative, since you cannot eat it. Basically, I agree with your larger analysis, only that this is an old story.

Olivia, is now option-locked. so exciting!

I am particularly disappointed by CATO and Von Mises' stance on IP. it is so frustrating

I guess most people don't know the connection to Frank and his nephew. Anti-IP libertarians on the Gulch? Poor Ayn, she must be turning in her grave.

Funny! LOL That sounds like something I say to my wife after she starts talking to me while I'm reading. I have told her many times how important her words are to me and I wish she would get my attention before talking so fast because I can't keep up. :)

wow. thanks for the time and talent on this. I do not know who dinged you, but I gave it a point. there are a few in here who think patents are the bullies

Part I-- Out on this little island, there was Hank Ragnar, a very clever and creative boy. He could work out new knots to tie, new ways of cooking food, and new ways of hunting. Then there was Bull Ramby, who was a bully. Bull would always copy Hank after Hank first showed the way. Soon, Bull had a gang. One day, Bull's gang kidnapped Hank's sister, and told him he would never see her again unless he always turned over his ideas to the gang first. At first, Hank agreed. Then he hatched a plan and got his sister to escape the island. After that, Hank kept his ideas to himself, never told anyone, never wanted to show how clever he was; he couldn't risk his mother and his younger brother and the girl he liked so much.
Bull kept at him but it was of no use. Hank just never had any new ideas after that.
"But, Uncle, didn't he just keep them to himself?' Jimmy asked.
"Yes, Jimmy, he never dare try or show his ideas again, lest Bull's gang made him give it up. The island got poorer and poorer even though Hank's island had the best ideas man of all islands."

You referred me to Pendulum. I looked inside the first page (Amazon feature) and the nonPC review gave the names of the authors K---a & D---e Halling. One of your other reviews has Kha which must be wrong. Good prologue by the way, had a quick read.

it's fine. I have points to spare in here. lol it's really sort of funny. how do you know my name, anyway?

Oh sorry, I didn't know that. BTW, my cursor missed reply and clicked thumbs down just now, I didn't mean that, countered it by pressing the up arrow.

I need a story for Frank's nephew regarding intellectual property

thank you. quit outing me in here (most don't know my name) lol

Yes, I agree Kaila, the caveat should be--in a "truly free" market, which includes the presence of appropriate IP law, human beings at the top end of creativity & cognitive skills will keep on making improvements whilst mankind's knowledge re business should never go backward. Yes, to the 2nd point also, except that the complete recital of the dark side of securities law and competition law would be wider than SOX and IP law after-effects-- this could be a book by itself, not just an essay by itself; a chapter on the strangulation effects of SOX (Ch 1), of anti-collusive securities law (ch2) and so on. This essay was originally written by me targeting undergrad students before they are brainwashed so didn't want to make it too complex.

Snnnnx. Snnnx. Hunh? What? Did you say something?

Uh huh... nodding my head...:)

Very good article. Two clarifications I would like to make.

"Productivity has a natural tendency to get better and will rarely decline-"
Long term, historical evidence does not support this point of view. This has only been true the last 200 or so years and mainly in the West.
Increases in the level of technologies is the ONLY way to increase real productivity. Historically, the rate at which technology increases has been slower than population growth, resulting in stagnant real incomes. Only with the advent of property rights for inventions, did this change.
Secondly, What is missed in your explanation is the complete "why" for the over-investment of housing. Changes in US patent law and the advent of Sarbanes Oxley meant it was much less profitable to invest in technology start ups, which is why the US was suffering stagnation in wages and productivity. This was throughout the rest of the decade. and so investors were excluded from a normally large sector and were driven into housing as one of the few profitable areas left.