Mises Daily, 30 de Novembro de 2012

"First of all, is there really austerity in the eurozone? One would think that a person is austere when she saves, i.e., if she spends less than she earns. Well, there exists not one country in the eurozone that is austere. They all spend more than they receive in revenues.

In fact, government deficits are extremely high, at unsustainable levels, as can been seen in the following chart that portrays government deficits in percentage of GDP. Note that the figures for 2012 are what governments wish for."

Mises ESCRACHANDO em uma crítica a livro de Rothbard

In every chapter of his treatise, Dr. Rothbard, adopting the best of the teachings of his

predecessors, and adding to them highly important observations, not only develops

the correct theory but is no less anxious to refute all objections ever raised against

these doctrines. He exposes the fallacies and contradictions of the popular

interpretation of economic affairs. Thus, for instance, in dealing with the problem of

unemployment he points out: in the whole modern and Keynesian discussion of this

subject the missing link is precisely the wage rate. It is meaningless to talk of

unemployment or employment without reference to a wage rate. Whatever supply of

labor service is brought to market can be sold, but only if wages are set at whatever

rate will clear the market. If a man wishes to be employed, he will be, provided the

wage rate is adjusted according to what Rothbard calls his discounted marginal value

product, i.e., the present height of the value which the consumers — at the time of the

final sale of the product — will ascribe to his contribution to its production.

Whenever the job seeker insists on a higher wage, he will remain unemployed. If

people refuse to be employed except at places, in occupations, or at wage rates they

would like, then they are likely to be choosing unemployment for substantial periods.

The full import of this state of affairs becomes manifest if one gives attention to the

fact that, under present conditions, those offering their services on the labor market

themselves represent the immense majority of the consumers whose buying or

abstention from buying ultimately determines the height of wage rates.

Less successful than his investigations in the fields of general praxeology and

economics are the author's occasional observations concerning the philosophy of law

and some problems of the penal code. But disagreement with his opinions concerning

these matters cannot prevent me from qualifying Rothbard's work as an epochal

contribution to the general science of human action, praxeology, and its practically

most important and, up to now, best-elaborated part, economics. Henceforth all

essential studies in these branches of knowledge will have to take full account of the

theories and criticisms expounded by Dr. Rothbard.

The publication of a standard book on economics raises again an important question,

viz., for whom are essays of this consequence written: only for specialists, the

students of economics, or for all of the people?

To answer this question we have to keep in mind that the citizens, in their capacity as

voters, are called upon to determine ultimately all issues of economic policies. The

fact that the masses are ignorant of physics and do not know anything substantial

about electricity does not obstruct the endeavors of experts who utilize the teachings

of science for the satisfaction of the wants of the consumers. From various points of

view, one may deplore the intellectual insufficiency and indolence of the multitude.

But their ignorance regarding the achievements of the natural sciences does not

endanger our spiritual and material welfare.

It is quite different in the field of economics. The fact that the majority of our

contemporaries, the masses of semi-barbarians led by self-styled intellectuals, entirely

ignore everything that economics has brought forward, is the main political problem

of our age. There is no use in deceiving ourselves. American public opinion rejects

the market economy, the capitalistic free-enterprise system that provided the nation

with the highest standard of living ever attained. Full government control of all

activities of the individual is virtually the goal of both national parties. The individual

is to be deprived of his moral, political, and economic responsibility and autonomy,

and to be converted into a pawn in the schemes of a supreme authority aiming at a

"national" purpose. His "affluence" is to be cut down for the benefit of what is called

the "public sector," i.e., the machine operated by the party in power. Hosts of authors,

writers, and professors are busy denouncing alleged shortcomings of capitalism and

exalting the virtues of "planning." Full of a quasi-religious ardor, the immense

majority is advocating measures that step by step lead to the methods of

administration practiced in Moscow and in Peking.

A aterrorizante história da dívida trilionária do governo britânico

Capitalism and the historians

[não achei em .pdf esse parágrafo está na introdução, escrita por Hayek]

"The actual history of the connection between capitalism and the rise of the proletariat is almost the opposite of that which these theories of the expropriation of the masses suggest. The truth is that, for the greater part of history, for most men the possession of the tool for their work was an essential condition for survival or at least for being able to rear a family. The number of those who could maintain themselves by working for others, although they do not possess the necessary equipment, was limited to a small proportion of the population. The amount of arable land and of tools handed down from one generation to the next limited the total number who could survive. To be left without them meant in most instances death by starvation or at least the impossibility of procreation. There was little incentive and little possibility for one generation to accumulate the additional tools which would have made possible the survival of a larger number of the next, so long as the advantage of employing additional hands was limited mainly to the instances where he division of the tasks increased the efficiency of the work of the owner of the tools. It was only when the larger gains form the employment of machinery provided both the means and opportunity for their investment that what in the past had been a recurring surplus of population doomed to early death was in increasing measure given the possibility of survival. Numbers which had been practically stationary for many centuries began to increase rapidly. The proletariat which capitalism can be said to have “created” was thus not a proportion of the population which would have existed without it and which it had degraded to a lower level: it was an additional population which was enabled to grow up by the new opportunities for employment which capitalism provided. In so far as it true that the growth of capital made the appearance of the proletariat possible, it was in the sense that it raised the productivity of labor so that much larger numbers of those who had not been equipped by their parents with the necessary tools were enabled to maintain themselves by their labor alone; but the capital had to be supplied first before those were enabled to survive who afterward claimed as a right a share in its ownership. Although it was certainly not from charitable motives, it still was the first time in history that one group of people found it in their interest to use their earnings on a large scale to provide news instruments of production to be operated by those without them could not have produced their own sustenance."