The concept of a pioneer’s advantage is based on a single, intuitive pillar: it takes time for knowledge to spread throughout society.

When an entrepreneur mixes his existing knowledge and creates a new idea—in other words, innovates—he is the one who knows best about this idea he just invented. When materializing this idea, it is a fact that not everyone in society immediately knows about this innovation nor how it works. This gives the innovating entrepreneur a temporal head start before his competitors (1) learn about the existence of this innovation, (2) decide to reverse engineer it, and (3) learn how to replicate it and operate it as effectively as him.

In this way, we can indeed say that a pioneer advantage is some sort of “knowledge Cantillon effect.” The Cantillon effect states that money is nonneutral, that not all society is affected simultaneously by the injection of new paper currency. Thus, when new currency is minted, it follows a certain path in the economy, benefitting the early receivers more than the late ones. The early receiver benefit because they have a head start—a temporal benefit—of spending their money at a moment when the prices have not been altered by inflation. Thus, the earlier receivers become wealthier compared to late receivers.

Similarly, when new knowledge is created, it does not impact the entirety of society at the same time. Knowledge and information are thus “asymmetric” in the sense that not everyone knows everything. Those who “minted” this new knowledge have a temporal benefit—a head start—of putting it in practice at a time when their competitors have not even heard about it. As this new knowledge spreads throughout society, consumers flock to this innovative entrepreneur, and if his innovation satisfies them more than what his competitors offer, the entrepreneur will make a profit. With this expansion of capital, the entrepreneur is able to expand operations and build more of this innovation.

Losing consumers to this creative entrepreneur, his competitors suffer losses (this is what Schumpeter called “creative destruction”) and thus are forced by the profit and loss mechanism to seek a way to replicate the invention. This, however, takes more time, and by the time they have managed to reverse engineer it and begin building it, the entrepreneur has had considerable time and acquired enough new capital to expand his own operations and build several more replicas of his new innovation.

Assuming away intellectual property (IP) laws, as other entrepreneurs learn more about this innovation—in other words, as the knowledge Cantillon effect is spreading throughout society—they themselves will begin to improve this innovation in an attempt to replicate the breakthrough. When that happens, these entrepreneurs will themselves get a pioneer advantage in their own innovations.

Ultimately, the consumers are the ones who benefit the most in this innovative flying circus. Society is propelled forward entrepreneurs build on top of other innovations, create more and more knowledge, and expand more and more according to how much they satisfy the consumers.

This concept is extremely useful in solving one of the main objections to the repeal of intellectual property laws. When someone proposes ending laws that monopolize ideas, the very first objection raised is usually this one: “Well, big corporations will just instantly copy the entrepreneur!”

In fact, this was one of the first arguments made by Richard Epstein in his debate against IP lawyer Stephan Kinsella.

Without IP laws, the entrepreneur is not able to sit back and collect rent on his innovation, as his competitors are on the move to reverse engineer and improve on it. He’s forced to continually innovate, expand operations, and satisfy the consumers ever more in order to keep his business afloat.

With IP laws, however, there is no competitive pressure for the entrepreneur to continue improving his innovation. As the state blocks his competitors from reverse engineering his innovation, this entrepreneur is effectively granted a monopoly on the sector. As time goes by, the losses become overwhelming and most competitors go out of business, the sector becomes monopolized by a single entity.

A great example of an entrepreneur who innovated, had a pioneer advantage, and due to IP laws managed to create a monopoly is Steve Jobs and Apple, his company. Steve innovated with the iPhone and revolutionized the smartphone industry, causing the absolute downfall of Nokia, at the time the largest smartphone manufacturer. This is a practical demonstration of how pioneer advantages generate creative destruction. However, due to IP laws, other entrepreneurs weren’t able to improve or replicate the iPhone. This unfortunate reality resulted in a creative stagnation as Apple sat back and was relieved of being efficient by state law.

This monopolization of an idea due to state intervention resulted in the cartelization of the smartphone industry and an absurd concentration of wealth in Apple. Without IP laws, Apple would have still grown and profited considerably and Nokia would have still been knocked down. But other entrepreneurs would have been able to improve on the iPhone and replicate it, applying considerable competitive pressure to Apple. This would have birth a new, freer environment and would have never led to such a concentration of wealth in Apple. The company probably would have still been big, but nowhere near as big as it is now nor as creatively stagnant.

In summary, a pioneer’s advantage is the temporal head start an entrepreneur has after innovating, which grants him considerable time to build wealth and market share before this knowledge spreads to other entrepreneurs and they themselves start improving on and replicating the innovation. It goes without saying that this ultimately benefits the consumers, and society at large, the most.



At least 24 planets are likely more suitable for life than our own, researchers said.

These “superhabitable” exoplanets were identified in a Washington State University study which says these planets are likely either slightly warmer, slightly wetter or orbit stars that have a longer lifespan than our own sun.

“With the next space telescopes coming up, we will get more information, so it is important to select some targets,” said researcher Dirk Schulze-Makuch. “We have to focus on certain planets that have the most promising conditions for complex life.”

“However, we have to be careful to not get stuck looking for a second Earth because there could be planets that might be more suitable for life than ours.”

Researchers also suggested that planets that are around 10% larger than Earth would provide more habitable land.

But perhaps their most interesting claim is that an exoplanet warmer than the Earth by about eight degrees Fahrenheit is more suitable for life, which on its face contradicts the alarmism of “global warming.”

It does make since when one considers that much of Earth’s history consisted of Ice Ages in which much of the now-habitable land was covered in glaciers.

“This warmth and moisture preference is seen on Earth with the greater biodiversity in tropical rain forests than in colder, drier areas,” WSU said in a press release.

Although all the identified planets are over 100 light-years from Earth, it does suggest that there are other planets in the galaxy that are suitable for human life.

“It’s sometimes difficult to convey this principle of superhabitable planets because we think we have the best planet,” Schulze-Makuch added. “We have a great number of complex and diverse lifeforms, and many that can survive in extreme environments. It is good to have adaptable life, but that doesn’t mean that we have the best of everything.”



Facebook’s notoriously strict and convoluted hate speech and Community Standards policies will allow users to post hopes, dreams, and wishes that President Donald Trump dies from COVID-19, as long as they don’t make the effort to deliberately search for his Facebook page and manually tag his account.

Section 9 of Facebook’s Community Standards states, “We distinguish between public figures and private individuals because we want to allow discussion, which often includes critical commentary of people who are featured in the news or who have a large public audience. For public figures, we remove attacks that are severe as well as certain attacks where the public figure is directly tagged in the post or comment.”

Facebook’s restrictions on “Calls for death, serious disease, epidemic disease, or disability” only apply to private individuals or public figures who are of minor age, meaning wishing death, serious disease and the other referenced attacks on adult public figures is not considered actionable by Facebook so long as the public figure’s account is not manually tagged in the post or comment.


The implications of Trump’s positive COVID test for the debate & the elections. As the taunting begins, what have we learned from the cases of previous politicians? Will Trump seize the opportunity to end the fear and lockdown?

The political policy direction of Facebook’s Community Standards traditionally skews far to the extreme view of censoring all forms of derogatory speech, causing the company’s stance on allowing those same forms of speech towards adult political figures to stand out somewhat paradoxically.

On the other hand, social media platform Twitter does not allow such hateful speech towards public figures, as it does not draw Facebook’s arbitrary distinctions between adult public figures and “private individuals and involuntary minor public figures.”

Twitter officials told Twitter told left-wing outlet Vice’s Motherboard that calls for Trump to die of COVID are against their policies, while noting that Twitter “won’t take enforcement action on every Tweet” because the platform is “prioritizing the removal of content when it has a clear call to action that could potentially cause real-world harm.”

“Content that wishes, hopes or expresses a desire for death, serious bodily harm or fatal disease against an individual is against our rules,” Twitter told VICE.

President Trump is currently working out of an office at Walter Reed Medical Center after experiencing mild symptoms including a low grade fever after Thursday night’s COVID-19 diagnosis.



A paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine has called for mandating a coronavirus vaccine, and outlined strategies for how Americans could be FORCED to take it.

The paper warns that an immediate mandate for the vaccine would spark too much resistance and backlash, so the writers suggest that at first it should be voluntary.

However, it suggests that if not enough people are willing to get the vaccine within the first few weeks of it’s availability, it should be transformed into an obligation, with penalties put into place for refusal.

The paper outlines “six trigger criteria” that need to be met before the vaccine is made mandatory, and that it should be rolled out to specific demographics of the population first.

“Only recommended groups should be considered for a vaccination mandate,” initially, according to the paper, which cites “high risk groups” as the first set of people.

“[T]he elderly, health professionals working in high-risk situations or working with high-risk patients…persons with certain underlying medical conditions,” as well as those in “high-density settings such as prisons and dormitories” should be mandated to get the jab, the paper says.

It also suggests that active-duty military service members should be among the first that are forced into the vaccination.

The paper proclaims that “noncompliance should incur a penalty” and notes that it should be a “relatively substantial” one.

It suggests that “employment suspension or stay-at-home orders,” should be issued, but that fines should be discouraged because they can be legally challenged, and “may stoke distrust without improving uptake.”

The paper also suggests that government health authorities should avoid making public their close relationship with vaccine manufacturers, to quell public mistrust.

Just coincidentally, the authors of the paper reside at Yale and Stanford, institutions that have received substantial funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for vaccine development.


Jon Rappoport joins The Alex Jones Show to break down the rollout of total medical tyranny in America.

The prospect of denying freedom of movement to those who refuse to vaccinate has been floated recently in the UK, where government health officials have also suggested that the jab should be made mandatory.

In the US, calls have been made to make any vaccination mandatory with the likes of the New York Times expressing concern that half of Americans would refuse to take it.

In Canada, a poll recently revealed that 60 per cent think that when a vaccine for coronavirus becomes available it should be made mandatory.

In addition, Canada’s current Chief Public Health Officer appeared in a recently resurfaced 2010 documentary in which she advocated using mandatory “tracking bracelets” for people who refuse to take a vaccine after a virus outbreak.



Researchers poring over archives from previous missions to Venus claim that NASA may have first detected phosphine signatures (indicating potential microbial life) back in 1978, and they just went unnoticed for the past 42 years.

On September 14, the world was rocked by the announcement that phosphine, a toxic gas that might indicate microbial life, had been detected in the clouds above Venus. There are no known natural processes that might explain the volume of the gas found.

While it’s still too early to definitively state there is life on Venus producing the gas, the bombshell announcement briefly wrested attention away from Mars in the search for life elsewhere in our solar system.

However, Rakesh Mogul, a biochemist at Cal Poly Pomona in California, and his colleagues found phosphine signatures may actually have been detected by the Pioneer 13 probe which reached Venus’ orbit in December 1978.

The discovery is not yet peer-reviewed and doesn’t really add much detail we don’t already know to the ‘life on Venus’ story, but it does somewhat solidify the recently-reported discovery.

The 1978 data was produced by the Large Probe Neutral Mass Spectrometer (LNMS) instrument which descended into Venus’ extremely inhospitable atmosphere via parachute in December 1978. It managed to beam back data before meeting a grim death on the hottest planet in our solar system (surface temperature of 462 degrees Celsius).

Researchers in the 1970s focused on other chemical compounds and seemingly didn’t pay too much heed to the phosphorus-based compounds hinted-at in the data.

Mogul’s team found signals matching phosphine in the data as well as definitive evidence of actual phosphorus atoms in the atmosphere, which would likely have degraded from phosphine compounds in the upper atmosphere.

The researchers note, however, that the LNMS wasn’t built to hunt for phosphine-like compounds and their signatures would be shrouded among dozens of other molecules.

“I believe that evidence in the legacy data were sort of discounted because it was thought that they could not exist in the atmosphere,” Mogul said.

Mogul et al also discovered traces of chlorine, oxygen and hydrogen peroxide in the archives, yet more chemicals which, technically, shouldn’t arise naturally in the clouds above Venus.

“We believe this to be an indication of chemistries not yet discovered,” they wrote, “and/or chemistries potentially favorable for life.”

NASA, the ESA, Roscosmos, and the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) all have plans for future generations of Venus probes which will hopefully unravel the mystery further in coming years.

Some were skeptical of the discovery in the archives, however, suggesting that, without additional detail, the traces discovered may in fact just be noise picked up by the sensors.

Others added that, if the signal was strong and conclusive to begin with, it would likely have raised eyebrows decades ago.



All ads in the US that “call voting fraud widespread, or election results invalid, or impugn any one method of voting” have been banned on Facebook and Instagram effective immediately, the social media company has announced.

The prohibitions apply to advertising regarding the US 2020 census and the November 3 elections, and specifically include ads that “that delegitimize any lawful method or process of voting or voting tabulation (including in-person voting on paper or on machines, absentee voting, vote by mail, and lawful collection of ballots) as illegal, inherently fraudulent or corrupt, or will result in a fraudulent or corrupt election administration or outcome.”

Ads that claim voter fraud is “widespread,” alters the outcome or results in a fraudulent or corrupt election will likewise be banned, alongside any “premature claims of election victory.”

Earlier this month, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the platform would attach “informational labels” to posts that question the legitimacy of the US elections or voting methods, and declarations of victory before the final results are in.


Owen exposes the radical feminist agenda and how a bad relationship with ones father may be the cause.

On Monday, however, the campaign of Democrat nominee Joe Biden sent Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg an angry letter, accusing the platform of being “the nation’s foremost propagator of disinformation about the voting process.”

“Facebook’s continued promise of future action is serving as nothing more than an excuse for inaction,” campaign manager Jen O’Malley Dillon wrote, claiming that President Donald Trump has been using the platform to “spread false information” about mail-in voting and suppress the vote, according to the letter obtained by Axios.

Democrats have pushed for universal mail-in voting, citing the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Lawyers for the DNC have filed dozens of lawsuits across US states, seeking to extend the deadlines for early in-person voting as well as counting ballots postmarked by election day, and loosen the requirements for recognizing mail-in ballots as valid. Trump has criticized these changes to standard electoral practice as opening up opportunities for potential fraud.



A Conservative MP has called for mandatory coronavirus vaccination certificates distributed by the Army that will determine whether people will be allowed to travel internationally.

During a debate in the British Parliament last night, MP Tobias Ellwood urged the Prime Minister to have the British Armed Forces oversee that COVID-19 vaccination roll out process.

Noting that a coronavirus vaccine was potentially six months away, Ellwood said, “Mass vaccine roll out is an enormous responsibility and we need to get it right.”

Ellwood said he had written to Boris Johnson urging him to give the power to a Ministry of Defence task force to ship the vaccines across the country and set up regional distribution hubs as well as developing a “national database to track progress and issue the vaccination certificates.”

The MP said the vaccination certificates “will probably have to be internationally recognized in order to allow travel, international travel.”

Ellwood went on to make it clear that people who take the vaccine will see their lives return to normality while those who don’t will still be “subject to social distancing rules.”

The prospect of denying basic rights of mobility and travel to people who refuse to take a vaccine for personal, religious or medical reasons is shaping up to be a human rights minefield.

A poll conducted by King’s College London (KCL) and Ipsos Mori last month found that only 53% of Brits would be “certain” or “likely” to get vaccinated for COVID-19.

One in six said they would definitely not get a vaccine or that it would be very unlikely. When extrapolated out to the population, this equates to 11 million people who, if Ellwood’s advice is taken, will be denied travel and treated like second class citizens.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

ALERT!

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.

Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

———————————————————————————————————————



Paris investigators have revealed that the Pakistani migrant who attacked and injured two people outside of the former office of magazine Charlie Hebdo is actually 25 and not 18 as he had previously claimed.

Originally identified as 18-year-old “Hassan Ali,” the man’s true name has been revealed as Zaheer Hassan Mehmood and is 25-years-old. French media have also revealed social media posts prior to the attack showing the 25-year-old calling France a “land of disbelievers”.

The video, which a report from French newspaper Le Figaro claims was taken the morning of the attack or a day before it, shows the attacker emotional while singing and speaking in Urdu.


Alex jones interviews David Icke after his speech to thousands in Trafalgar Square on September 26, was attacked by riot police storming the stage.

A source close to the investigation told Le Figaro that the video was meant to express his anger and disgust at the republishing of the Mohammed cartoons by Charlie Hebdo ahead of the trial for the attacks on the magazine’s offices in January 2015 that left twelve people dead.

The 25-year-old, who had originally applied for asylum as a minor three years ago, is said to have come to France by travelling through Iran, Turkey and then either Greece or the Balkan states.

Read more



The project for a top-notch station, Gateway, is a would-be collaboration with the US, and has already driven the Japanese space agency to apply for hefty government funding – around $2.7 billion yearly for the next 15 years.

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has asserted it intends to engage in a lunar exploration mission beginning in the mid-2030s, making use of hydrogen fuel that would be locally produced right on the Moon’s surface from water extracted from its vast ice deposits, The Japan Times reported.

Making use of local water and water-derived fuel is expected to cost significantly less than transporting the needed amount of water from Earth. According to JAXA’s estimates, 37 tonnes of water will be necessary for a trip to and from the Gateway, a lunar orbit space station that is to be built jointly with the US. Overall, five to seven such missions are planned.

While the station itself is expected to be erected in the 2020s, the lunar south pole, researchers hope, will see a fuel factory built there years later, by around 2035. JAXA has projected that the fuel will be used in a reusable spacecraft tasked with carrying four astronauts to and from Gateway, and a transport vehicle that can travel up to 1,000 kilometres along the Moon’s surface, which has low gravity – a feature that will make the transport vehicle be wheel-less, but rather hop across the land.

The science ministry plans to request a record high ¥280 billion ($2.7 billion) for JAXA in its budget inquiry for the next fiscal year. Over the past ten years, the ministry’s annual funds have not exceeded ¥190 billion ($1.8 billion).

Not only the US and Japan have been expressing an intention to dig further for water resources on the Moon. China, which has already landed an unmanned spacecraft on the lunar surface, is planning to send a probe to the Moon later this year to collect soil samples.

Independently, Russian space industry giant Korolev Rocket & Space Corporation Energia has recently created and patented a means to fly cosmonauts to the Moon and back without an expensive new heavy-launch rocket. To land cosmonauts on the Moon and bring them back home, the patented system requires one Soyuz-2.1a rocket and three upgraded Angara A5V rockets.

Russia’s State Corporation for Space Activities (Roscosmos) envisions launching a manned flight to the Moon by 2030, according the agency’s chief, Dmitriy Rogozin, who recently referred to China as the most likely partner for Russia to create a brand new base on Earth’s natural satellite.



Alex Jones drones over Zilker park to warn people about the truth of the Covid lockdowns.



On 22 September a meteor was spotted flying over Germany and the Netherlands, amazingly dipping to an altitude as low as 91 kilometers and offering viewers a stunning view.

Remarkable footage has been shared online of a rare “earthgrazer” meteor skimming close to the surface of our atmosphere, below orbiting weather and TV satellites, only to bounce back into space rather than following the fate of most meteors which is to burn up in the atmosphere in a blaze of “shooting stars”.

The video was shared by Global Meteor Network (GMN), according to the European Space Agency (ESA) announcement on Thursday.

The “earthgrazer” was spotted over northern Germany and the Netherlands on 22 September at an altitude of 91km.

The incident when the meteor made its lucky escape from imminent disintegration was captured by cameras in the Global Meteor Network, which covers our planet with meteor-monitoring devices and informs the public via real-time alerts of impending space rock activity.

“The network is basically a decentralized scientific instrument, made up of amateur astronomers and citizen scientists around the S]ddddddddddd each with their own camera systems,” said GMN founder Denis Vida.

Meteors like the one in the footage, dubbed “earthgrazers”, are rare, occurring only a few times a year. Typically, thousands of meteors burn up when approaching Earth, leaving a few surviving fragments to plunge to the surface of our planet.



Alex Jones breaks down Amazon’s latest home security drone that flies inside your house.