Hans-Hermann Hoppe [Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis]2

"The establishment of a ruling class over an exploited one many times its size by coercion and the manipulation of public opinion, i.e., a low degree of class consciousness among the exploited, finds its most basic institutional expression in the creation of a system of public law superimposed on private law. The ruling class sets itself apart and protects its position as a ruling class by adopting a constitution for their firm's operations. On the one hand, by formalizing the internal operations within the state apparatus as well as its relations with the exploited population, a constitution creates some degree of legal stability. The more familiar and popular private law notions are incorporated into constitutional and public law, the more favorably disposed will be the public to the existence of the state. On the other hand, any constitution and public law also formalizes the immune status of the ruling class as regards the homesteading principle. It formalizes the right of the state's representatives to engage in non-productive and non-contractual property acquisitions and the ultimate subordination of private to public law. Class justice, i.e., one set of laws for the rulers and another for the ruled, comes to bear in this dualism of public and private law and in the domination and infiltra tion of public law over and into private law. It is not because private property rights are recognized by law, as Marxists think, that class justice is established. Rather, class justice comes into being precisely whenever a legal distinction exists between a class of persons acting under and being protected by public law and another class acting under and being protected instead by some subordinate private law. More specifically then, the basic proposition of the Marxist theory of the state in particular is false. The state is not exploitative because it protects the capitalists' property rights, but because it itself is exempt from the restriction of having to acquire property productively and contractually. In spite of this fundamental misconception, however, Marxism, because it correctly interprets the state as exploitative (unlike, for example, the public choice school, which sees it as normal firm among others)," is on to some important insights regarding the logic of state operations. For one thing, it recognizes the strategic function of redistributionist state policies. As an exploitative firm, the state must at all times be interested in a low degree of class consciousness among the ruled. The redistribution of property and income is the state's means by which it can create divisiveness among the public and destroy the formation of a unifying class consciousness among the exploited. Furthermore, the redistribution of state power itself through democratizing the state constitution and opening up every ruling position to everyone and granting everyone the right to participate in the determination of state personnel and policy is actually a means for reducing the resistance against exploitation as such. Secondly, the state is indeed, as Marxists see it, the great center of ideological propaganda and mystification: Exploitation is really freedom; taxes are really voluntary contributions; non-contractual relations are really "conceptually" contractual ones; no one is ruled by anyone but we all rule ourselves; without the state neither law nor security would exist; and the poor would perish, etc. All of this is part of the ideological superstructure designed to legitimize an underlying basis of economic exploitation. And finally, Marxists are also correct in noticing the close association between the state and business, especially the banking elite-even though their explanation for it is faulty. The reason is not that the bourgeois establishment sees and supports the state as the guarantor of private property rights and contractualism. On the contrary, the establishment correctly perceives the state as the very antithesis to private property that it is and takes a close interest in itfor this reason. The more successful a business, the larger the potential danger of governmental exploitation, but the larger also the potential gains that can be achieved if it can come under government's special protection and is exempt from the full weight of capitalist competition. This is why the business establishment is interested in the state and its infiltration. The ruling elite in turn is interested in close cooperation with the business establishment because of its fmancial powers. In particular, the banking elite is of interest because as an exploitative firm the state naturally wishes to possess complete autonomy for counterfeiting. By offering to cut the banking elite in on its own counterfeiting machinations and allowing them to counterfeit in addition to its own counterfeited notes under a regime of fractional reserve banking, the state can easily reach this goal and establish a system of state monopolized money and cartelied banking controlled by the central

bank. And through this direct counterfeiting connection with the banking system and by extension the banks' major clients, the ruling class in fact extends far beyond the state apparatus to the very nerve centers of civil society -not that much different, at least in appearance, from the picture that Marxists like to paint of the cooperation between banking, business elites, and the state. 

Competition within the ruling class and among different ruling classes brings about a tendency toward increasing concentration. Marxism is right in this. However, its faulty theory of exploitation again leads it to locate the cause for this tendency in the wrong place. Marxism sees such a tendency as inherent in capitalist competition. Yet it is precisely so long as people are engaged in a clean capitalism that competition is not a form of zero-sum interaction. The homesteader, the producer, saver, and contractor do not gain at another's expense. Their gains either leave another's physical possessions completely unaffected or they actually imply mutual gains (as in the case of all contractual exchanges). Capitalism thus can account for increases in absolute wealth. But under its regime no systematic tendency toward relative concentration can be said to exist.18 Instead, zero-sum interactions characterize not only the relationship between the ruler and the ruled, but also between competing rulers. Exploitation defined as non-productive and non-contractual property acquisitions is only possible as long as there is anything that can be appropriated. Yet if there were free competition in the business of exploitation, there would obviously be nothing left to expropriate. Thus exploitation requires monopoly over some given territory and population; and the competition between exploiters is by its very nature eliminative and must bring about a tendency toward relative concentration of exploitative firms as well as a tendency toward centralization within each exploitative firm. The development of states rather than capitalist firms provides the foremost illustration of this tendency: There are now a significantly smaller number of states with exploitative control over much larger territories than in previous centuries. And within each state apparatus there has in fact been a constant tendency toward increasing the powers of the central government at the expense of its regional and local subdivisions. Yet outside the state appartus a tendency toward relative concentration has also become apparent for the same reason-not, as should he clear by now, because of any trait inherent in capitalism, but because the ruling class has expanded its rule into civil society through the creation of a state-banking-business alliance and, in particular, the establishment of a system of central banking. If a concentration and centralization of state power then takes place, it is only natural that this be accompanied by a parallel process of relative concentration and cartelization of banking and industry. Along with increased state powers, the associated banking and business establishment's powers of eliminating or putting economic competitors at a disadvantage by means of non-productive andlor non-contractual expropriations increase. Business concentration is the reflection of a "stateization" of economic life.

The primary means for the expansion of state power and the elimination of rival exploitation centers is war and military domination. Interstate competition implies a tendency toward war and imperialism. As centers of exploitation, their interests are by nature antagonistic. Moreover, with each of them-internally - in command of the instrument of taxation and absolute counterfeiting powers, it is possible for the ruling classes to let others pay for their wars. Naturally, if one does not have to pay for one's risky ventures oneself, but can force others to do so, one tends to be a greater risk taker and more trigger-happy than one might otherwise be Marxism, contrary to much of the so-called bourgeois social

sciences, gets the facts right: There is indeed a tendency toward imperialism operative in history; and the foremost imperialist powers are indeed the most advanced capitalist nations. Yet the explanation is once again faulty. It is the state as an institution exempt from the capitalist rules of property acquisitions that is by nature aggressive. And the historical evidence of a close correlation between capitalism and imperialism only seemingly contradicts this. It finds its explanation, easily enough, in the fact that in order to wme out successfully from interstate wars, a state must be in command of sufficient (in relative terms) economic resources. Other things being equal, the state with more ample resources will win. As an exploitative firm, a state is by nature destructive of wealth and capital accumulation. Wealth is produced exclusively by civil society; and the weaker the state's exploitative powers, the more wealth and capital society accumulates. Thus, paradoxical as it may sound at first, the weaker or the more liberal a state is internally, the further developed capitalism is; a developed capitalist economy to extract from makes the state richer; and a richer state then makes for more and more successful expansionist wars."

Hans-Hermann Hoppe [Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis]

[sobre "the recognition or non-recognition of the homesteading principle"]

"The peasant under feudalism is exploited because he does not have exclusive control over land that he homesteaded, and the slave because he has no exclusive control over his own homesteaded body. If, on the other hand, everyone has exclusive control over his own body (is a free laborer, that is) and acts in accordance with the homesteading principle, there can be no exploitation. It is logically absurd to claim that a person who homesteads goods not previously homesteaded by anybody else, or who employs such goods in the production of future goods, or who saves presently homesteaded or produced goods in order to increase the future supply of goods, could thereby exploit anybody. Nothing has been taken away from anybody in this process, and additional goods have actually been created. And it would be equally absurd to claim that an agreement between different homesteaders, savers, and producers regarding their non-exploitatively appro priated goods or services could possibly contain any foul play. Instead, exploitation takes place whenever any deviation from the homesteading principle occurs. Exploitation occurs whenever a person successfully claims partial or full control over scarce resources he has not homesteaded, saved, or produced, and which he has not acquired contractually from a previous producer-owner. Exploitation is the expropriation of homesteaders, producers, and savers by late-coming non- homesteaders, non-producers, non-savers, and non-contractors; it is the expropriation of people whose property claims are grounded in work and contract by people whose claims are derived from thin air and who disregard others' work and contracts 

Needless to say, exploitation thus defined is in fact an integral pan of human history. One can acquire and increase wealth either through homesteading, producing, saving, or contracting, or by expropriating homesteaders, producers, savers, or contractors. There are no other ways. "

Política de Incentivos Industriais

"Os dois maiores desafios para os empreendedores brasileiros estejam ligados diretamente ao Estado: a) alta burocracia; e b) política industrial. A gigante, e complexa, burocracia brasileira tanto para a abertura como para a manutenção (ou fechamento) de empresas é caso de livro texto. Acredito que uma reforma tributária, que reduza e simplifique os impostos, aliada a uma reforma nas leis sobre empresas, que reduzam drasticamente a burocracia, poderia gerar um significativo crescimento na economia brasileira. Outro vilão da falta de inovação é a política industrial brasileira. Quando o Estado transfere recursos dos setores mais produtivos da sociedade para os setores menos produtivos, evento esse chamado de política industrial, ele simplesmente pune os mais eficientes, premiando os menos competentes. Os incentivos gerados pela política industrial, além de retirar capital, também retira trabalhadores das empresas onde eles seriam mais produtivos (transferindo-os para empresas que o Estado acredita serem promissoras). Sendo assim, o Estado acaba dizendo ao empreendedor em qual setor investir. Com a política industrial, não é mais o mercado que determina onde investir mas sim o Estado. O exemplo maior desse absurdo é a indústria automobilística brasileira, que após 50 anos de estímulos governamentais só é capaz de gerar carros ruins e caros."


E a tal da "regulatory capture"?

@LitaRee_Real

[o fato foi esse]

A rrroqueira Rita Lee envolveu-se em um incidente no que seria seu [assim foi declarado] último show. Ao ver policiais na platéia os xingou, disse que não deveriam estar ali oprimindo a rapeize, que deveriam era fumar unzinho para relaxar... os policiais, em acordo com as leis nacionais, movimentaram-se para repreendê-la. Ao se aproximarem do palco, Rita Lee os xingou mais ainda, os instigou a agir etc. Os oficiais eperaram o show acabar e conduziram-na à Delegacia para assinar um Termo Circunstanciado de Ocorrência - e só.

Em um primeiro momento, fui um dos que criticaram a Sra. Lee, afinal, que imprudência xingar logo policiais, né?, ainda mais assim, do nada. Sorte a dela que é famosa, qualquer outro que fizesse isso ali, dentre os presentes [tirando otoridades como o próprio Governador, por exemplo. No caso do Governador, inclusive, se ele xingasse policiais militares os policiais iriam presos], iria para o cacetete, seria algemado e passaria umas horinhas na Cela da Delegacia "esperando" a vez de ser ouvido. E ninguém daria a mínima, quem manda ser idiota, ô rapá?

Pensei um pouco mais e surgiu uma dúvida: de acordo com o jusnaturalismo [especialmente o defendido por Rothbard em seu "Ética"] qual foi o crime da  cantora? Ela Cometeu algum?


Daí, ao final da página 77, encontramos:

Defensive violence, therefore, must be confined to resisting invasive acts against person or property. But such invasion may include two corollaries to actual physical aggression: intimidation, or a direct threat of physical violence; and fraud, which involves the appropriation of someone else's property without his consent, and is therefore "implicit theft."

Ou simplesmente há de ser proibido xingar/ desacatar policiais para que não "vire bagunça", ou seja, como uma decisão político-social?

Um ponto a se destacar é o se os xingamentos constituiram um[a?] "direct threat of physical violence", afinal havia milhares de fãs da cantora no recinto. O problema de trabalhar com  achismos no direito penal é o de estarmos diante do fato em si, mas nos perdemos entre conjecturas ao evitarmos olhar para o que REALMENTE aconteceu de errado, de criminoso.

Ninguém da platéia agrediu a Polícia, rolou no máximo [e deve ter acontecido], uma vaia. Se a turba agride os policiais, acho que a cantora teria sua [grave] culpa. Mas não foi o caso, ela ~somente~ os mandou "fumar um" e os desafiou a invadir o palco [que, suponho, era privado]. Não foi gentil - tampouco esperto, afinal se policiais são [ou deveriam ser] pessoas dispostas a comprar a briga de quem está certo em uma disputa que envolva lesão d'alguma propriedade, logo, seriam benéficos ao próprio bom andamento do show. Fora a conhecida truculência Militar [necessária se para combater bandidos, excessiva se para coagir inocentes].

Cabe a ressalva de que, de fato - também, né?, logo no país do "a vítima é o bandido" -, o delito em si não é  apenado com rigor, Rita não vai sofrer consequências ALÉM da ida à Delegacia [provavelmente nem algemada, nem na parte de trás do camburão] e talvez até desista de se aposentar e apareçam mais convites para shows. Mas, se alguém foi coagido, foi a roqueira, oras, nada do que ela fez é errado, apesar de ser desaconselhável passar por tal infortúnio para "provar um argumento", admito que uma lei errada como essa é um malum proibitum.

É como se, guardadas as devidas proporções, algum islamita se converte ao cristianismo e sai a fazer tebowing pelas ruas duma região radical sob teojurisdição maometana: será, imediatamente, condenado à morte. Algum de nós, claro, poderá dizer que, apesar de o cara não estar errado per se, foi imprudente, e, sim, cometeu um "erro" em um sentido mais estrito e que, praticamente, condenou-se à morte. Mas, não: este Homem estaria certo. Não podemos deixar o Mal convencer-nos de que não é O condenável, ainda que seja esse o sentido inserido na Legislação. Afinal, a noção do que é certo ou errado deve vir antes da própria formalização da lei, deve ser, inclusive, o parâmetro para tal formalização, não?

liberdade acima de tudo, sim ou claro?

"Economist Jeffrey Sachs has joined the critics who, over the last year or so, are dismissing libertarianism as a simple-minded philosophy. In "Libertarian Illusions," Sachs takes libertarians to task for "championing liberty to the exclusion of all other values." "Libertarians," Sachs writes, "hold that individual liberty should never be sacrificed in the pursuit of other values or causes. Compassion, justice, civic responsibility, honesty, decency, humility, respect and even survival of the poor, weak and vulnerable -- are to take a back seat."

In fact, most libertarians believe that the "other values or causes" listed by Professor Sachs are best promoted by promoting liberty. We believe so strongly in liberty because we believe that all those values are vital to humanity. At bottom, what ties libertarians together is the notion of a "presumption of liberty" -- that state action needs justification, not human freedom. This idea is far from controversial and, in fact, it is the founding principle of the modern liberal state."

MISES DAILY, 20 de Janeiro de 2012

"The wage earners have votes, many votes, and in order not to alienate these votes, it was necessary to devise some means for making the taxation of their incomes palatable. They had to be lulled into acceptance of "soak the poor."

The drug that was concocted for this purpose was "social security." The worker was told that he was not paying an income tax when his pay envelope was opened and robbed; he was simply making a "contribution" to "insurance" against the inevitable disabilities of old age. He would get it all back, when he could no longer work, and with a profit.

This is sheer fraud, as can be readily seen when comparison between social security and legitimate insurance is made. When you pay a premium on an insurance policy, the company keeps part of it in reserve. The amount thus set aside is based on actuarial experience; the company knows from long study how much money it must keep on hand to meet probable claims. Most of your premium is invested in productive business, and out of the earnings from such investment the company pays its running expenses and builds up a surplus to meet unexpected strains; or it pays the policy holders a share of this extra income, in dividends. Without going into the intricate details of the insurance business, the guiding principle is that benefits are paid out of the reserve or the company's earnings from investments.

Is that what happens to your "contribution" to social security? Not a bit of it.

Every cent taken from wages is thrown into the till of the United States Treasury, and is spent for anything the government decides upon. So, too, are the "contributions"from the employer. That is to say, social-security taxes are taxes, pure and simple; they are "forced dues and charges" levied by the sovereign on his subjects for the expenses of state. None of the money is held in reserve, none of it is invested in business. All is spent, and it is spent long before the "insured" is entitled to benefits.

To give some plausibility to the "insurance" advertisement, the government sets up a so-called reserve fund. In place of the money it collects, it piles up its own bonds, or IOUs, in an amount equal to the collections. The interest on these bonds, it says, will be adequate to meet the old-age obligations when due. But the interest on these bonds is paid out of what it collects in taxes; where else can the government get money? Since the so-called premiums are only taxes, and since the benefit payments are also taxes, the operation is the same as if an insurance company used up its premium collections in salaries and cocktail parties and then paid out benefits from new premiums. For doing that, the directors of the company can be sent to jail. However, the laws made for ordinary citizens are somewhat different from the laws made for public officials.

One of the arguments which helped to sell social security is that the "contributor" will not be dependent on his children for a livelihood when he can no longer work. Let's see if that is true. We must keep in mind that taxes are part of production; they are levied on what is being produced currently, not in the past. The payments to the nonproductive aged therefore come from what the government collects from those who are producing, their children. The government cannot get the money from anybody else. So that, in effect, the children are supporting their parents, collectively and without love."

[isso nos EUA, avaliem como é com o INSS]

MANUAL DO PERFEITO IDIOTA LATINO-AMERICANO [aí vem o lobo feroz!]

"Não o Estado, mas sim os indivíduos que criam a riqueza; a riqueza de um país se fez ou se pode fazer por meio da poupança, do esforço, dos investimentos nacionais e estrangeiros, criando, desenvolvendo e multiplicando empresas sob a égide de uma economia de mercado; os monopólios públicos e privados são fonte de abusos e A LIVRE CONCORRÊNCIA É O MELHOR INSTRUMENTO DE REGULAÇÃO E DE PROTEÇÃO DO CONSUMIDOR; as regulações excessivas, os controles de câmbio, da importação e da exportação, as barreiras fiscais e os subsídios são geradores de privilégios indevidos e de corrupção. Todas essas coisas, e outras mais que concorrem com a proposta liberal no continente latino-americano, derivam de nossa própria experiência continental e não exclusivamente dos textos do sr. Adam Smith. Em outras palavras, estão referendadas pela REALIDADE e tendem a se propagar em vista do fracasso do sistema patrimonialista que tivemos até agora e dos desastres provocados pelas aventuras populistas e revolucionárias.

Se se tratasse de um problema rigorosamente técnico, SEM INTERFERÊNCIAS IDEOLÓGICAS, até o perfeito idiota acabaria aceitando como indício de o modelo liberal render melhores resultados. Mas a ideologia [...] é uma dispensa intelectual, umamaneira de explicar o mundo e a sociedade a partir de confortáveis pressupostos teóricos sem recorrer à comprovação. Quando alguma coisa vem pôr em dúvida o dogma a servir de base a todo um código de interpretações até então inamovível e, mais ainda, a tudo aquilo que esse código projetou num destino individual ou na vida de um grupo ou partido, a reação é virulenta".

Previsões de Ron Paul em 2002

Ron Paul EXPOSED Flying First Class on Congressional Trips! – Jan 17 2012

Tentaram mas não conseguiram incriminar o Ron Paul com falsas acusações, e continua sendo o único político que conheço que é/foi consistente com o que defendia sua carreira toda.

Edgar: O explorador

o que nos remete, via de Soto, a Böhm-Bawerk

"To illustrate this important concept, we will use the
example given by Böhm-Bawerk to explain the process of saving
and investment in capital goods carried out by an individual
actor in an isolated situation, such as Robinson Crusoe
on his island.*

Let us suppose that Robinson Crusoe has just arrived on
his island and spends his time picking berries by hand, his
only means of subsistence. Each day he devotes all of his
efforts to gathering berries, and he picks enough to survive
and can even eat a few extra daily. After several weeks on this
diet, Robinson Crusoe makes the entrepreneurial discovery
that with a wooden stick several meters long, he could reach
higher and further, strike the bushes with force and gather the
necessary berries much quicker. The only problem is that he
estimates it could take him five whole days to find a suitable
tree from which to take the stick and then to prepare it by
pulling off its branches, leaves, and imperfections. During this
time he will be compelled to interrupt his berry picking. If he
wants to produce the stick, he will have to reduce his consumption
of berries for a time and store the remainder in a
basket until he has enough to survive for five days, the predicted
duration of the production process of the wooden
stick. After planning his action, Robinson Crusoe decides to
undertake it, and therefore he must first save a portion of the
berries he picks by hand each day, reducing his consumption
by that amount. This clearly means he must make an
inevitable sacrifice, which he nevertheless deems well worth
his effort in relation to the goal he longs to achieve. So he

decides to reduce his consumption (in other words, to save)
for several weeks while storing his leftover berries in a basket
until he has accumulated an amount he believes will be sufficient
to sustain him while he produces the stick.

This example shows that each process of investment in
capital goods requires prior saving; that is, a decrease in consumption,
which must fall below its potential level.** Once
Robinson Crusoe has saved enough berries, he spends five
days searching for a branch from which to make his wooden
stick, separating it from the tree and perfecting it. What does
he eat during the five days it takes him to prepare the stick, a
production process which forces him to interrupt his daily
harvest of berries? He simply consumes the berries he accumulated
in the basket over the preceding several-week period
during which he saved the necessary portion from his handpicked
berries and experienced some hunger. In this way, if
Robinson Crusoe’s calculations were correct, at the end of five
days he will have the stick (a capital good), which represents
an intermediate stage removed in time (by five days of saving)
from the immediate processes of the berry production (by
hand) which up to that point had occupied him. With the finished
stick Robinson Crusoe can reach places inaccessible to
him by hand and strike the bushes with force, multiplying his
production of berries by ten. As a result, from that point on his
stick enables him to gather in one-tenth of a day the berries he

needs to survive, and he can spend the rest of his time resting
or pursuing subsequent goals that are much more important
to him (like building a hut or hunting animals to vary his diet
and make clothes).

Robinson Crusoe’s production process, like any other,
clearly arises from an act of entrepreneurial creativity, the
actor’s realization that he stands to benefit, i.e., he can accomplish
ends more valuable to him, by employing action
processes which require a longer period of time (because they
include more stages). Thus action or production processes
yield capital goods, which are simply intermediate economic
goods in an action process whose aim has not yet been
reached. The actor is only willing to sacrifice his immediate
consumption (i.e., to save) if he thinks that by doing so he will
achieve goals he values more (in this case, the production of
ten times more berries than he could gather by hand). Furthermore
Robinson Crusoe must attempt to coordinate as well as
possible his present behavior with his foreseeable future behavior.
More specifically, he must avoid initiating action processes
that are excessively long in relation to his savings: it would be
tragic for him to run out of berries (that is, to consume all he
has saved) halfway through the process of producing a capital
good and without reaching his goal. He must also refrain
from saving too much with respect to his future investment
needs, since by doing so he would only unnecessarily sacrifice
his immediate consumption. Robinson Crusoe’s subjective
assessment of his time preference is precisely what
enables him to adequately coordinate or adjust his present
behavior in relation to his future needs and behavior. On the
one hand, the fact that his time preference is not absolute
makes it possible for him to forfeit some of his present consumption
over a period of several weeks with the hope of
thus being able to produce the stick. On the other hand, the
fact that he does have a time preference explains why he only
devotes his efforts to creating a capital good he can produce
in a limited period of time and which requires sacrificing and
saving for a limited number of days. If Robinson Crusoe had
no time preference, nothing would stop him from dedicating
all of his efforts to building a hut right away (which, forexample, might take him a month minimum), a plan he
would not be able to carry out without first having saved a
large quantity of berries. Therefore he would either starve to
death or the project, out of all proportion to his potential saving,
would soon be interrupted and abandoned. At any rate, it
is important to understand that the real saved resources (the
berries in the basket) are precisely the ones which enable
Robinson Crusoe to survive during the time period he spends
producing the capital good and during which he ceases to
gather berries directly. Even though Robinson Crusoe is
undoubtedly much more productive harvesting berries with
his wooden stick than he is with his bare hands, there is also
no doubt that the process of berry production using the stick
is a more lengthy one in terms of time (it includes more stages)
than the production process of berry picking by hand. Production
processes tend to increase in length and duration (i.e.,
to become more complex and include more stages) as a result
of the saving and entrepreneurial activity of humans; and the
longer and more time-consuming these processes become, the
more productive they tend to be."


*This is the classic example given by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Kapital

und Kapitalzins: Positive Theorie des Kapitales (Innsbruck: Verlag der Wagner’schen
Universitäts-Buchhandlung, 1889), pp. 107–35. This work has
been translated into English by Hans F. Sennholz, Capital and Interest,
vol. 2: Positive Theory of Capital (South Holland, Ill.: Libertarian Press,
1959), pp. 102–18.



**Saving always results in capital goods, even when initially these
merely consist of the consumer goods (in our example the “berries”)
which remain unsold (or are not consumed). Then gradually some capital
goods (the berries) are replaced by others (the wooden stick), as the
workers (Robinson Crusoe) combine their labor with natural resources
through a process which takes time and which humans are able to go
through due to their reliance on the unsold consumer goods (the saved
berries). Hence saving produces capital goods first (the unsold consumer
goods that remain in stock) which are gradually used up and
replaced by another capital good (the wooden stick). On this important
point, see Richard von Strigl, Capital and Production, edited with an
introduction by Jörg Guido Hülsmann (Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute,
2000), pp. 27 and 62."

[footnotes do livro, mas é claro; página 325 e seguintes]

outra pérola de de Soto

[relacionada ao anterior postado]


"This situation is very similar
to the one in which our Robinson Crusoe from section 1
would find himself if, having saved a basket of berries large
enough to permit him to spend a maximum of five days producing
a capital good without having to devote himself to the
collection of more berries, through an error in calculation he
were to believe that this amount of savings would allow him
to undertake the construction of his cabin. After five days
spent just digging the foundations and gathering materials, he
would have consumed all of his berries and would therefore
be unable to complete his illusory investment project"

THE SELF-DESTRUCTIVE NATURE OF THE ARTIFICIAL BOOMS CAUSED BY CREDIT EXPANSION: THE THEORY OF “FORCED SAVING”

[Quarta parte do sexto capítulo do livro Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, de Jesús Huerta de Soto]

In the broad sense of the term, “forced saving” arises whenever there is an increase in the quantity of money in circulation or an expansion of bank credit (unbacked by voluntary saving) which is injected into the economic system at a specific point. If the money or credit were evenly distributed among all economic agents, no “expansionary” effect would appear, except the decrease in the purchasing power of the monetary unit in proportion to the rise in the quantity of money. However if the new money enters the market at certain specific points, as always occurs, then in reality a relatively small number of economic agents initially receive the new loans. Thus these economic agents temporarily enjoy greater purchasing power, given that they possess a larger number of monetary units with which to buy goods and services at market prices that still have not felt the full impact of the inflation and therefore have not yet risen. Hence the process gives rise to a redistribution of income in favor of those who first receive the new injections or doses of monetary units, to the detriment of the rest of society, who find that with the same monetary income, the prices of goods and services begin to go up. “Forced saving” affects this second group of economic agents (the majority), since their monetary income grows at a slower rate than prices, and they are thereforeobliged to reduce their consumption, other things being equal.*

Whether this phenomenon of forced saving, which is provoked by an injection of new money at certain points in the market, leads to a net increase or decrease in society’s overall, voluntary saving will depend on the circumstances specific to each historical case. In fact if those whose income rises (those who first receive the new money created) consume a proportion of it greater than that previously consumed by those whose real income falls, then overall saving will drop. It is also conceivable that those who benefit may have a strong inclination to save, in which case the final amount of saving might be positive. At any rate the inflationary process unleashes other forces which impede saving: inflation falsifies economic calculation by generating fictitious accounting profits
which, to a greater or lesser extent, will be consumed. Therefore it is impossible to theoretically establish in advance whether the injection of new money into circulation at specific points in the economic system will result in a rise or a decline in society’s overall saving.**

In a strict sense, “forced saving” denotes the lengthening (longitudinal) and widening (lateral) of the capital goodsstages in the productive structure, changes which stem from credit expansion the banking system launches without the support of voluntary saving. As we know, this process initially generates an increase in the monetary income of the original means of production, and later, a more-than-proportional rise in the price of consumer goods (or in the gross income of consumer goods industries, if productivity increases). In fact, the circulation credit theory of the business cycle explains the theoretical microeconomic factors which determine that the attempt to force a more capital-intensive productive structure, without the corresponding backing of voluntary saving, is condemned to failure and will invariably reverse, provoking economic crises and recessions. This process is almost certain to entail an eventual redistribution of resources which in some way modifies the overall voluntary saving ratio that existed prior to the beginning of credit expansion. However unless the entire process is accompanied by a simultaneous, independent, and spontaneous increase in voluntary saving of an amount at least equal to the newly-created credit banks extend ex nihilo, it will be impossible to sustain and complete the new, more capital-intensive stages undertaken, and the typical reversion effects we have examined in detail will appear, along with a crisis and economic recession. Moreover the process involves the squandering of numerous capital goods and society’s scarce resources, making society poorer. As a result, by and large, society’s voluntary saving ultimately tends to shrink rather than grow. At any rate, barring dramatic, spontaneous, unforeseen increases in voluntary saving, which for argument’s sake we exclude at this point from the theoretical analysis (which furthermore always involves the assumption that other things remain equal), credit expansion will provoke a self-destructive boom, which sooner or later will revert in the form of an economic crisis and recession. This demonstrates the impossibility of forcing the economic development of society by artificially encouraging investment and initially financing it with credit expansion, if economic agents are unwilling to voluntarily back such a policy by saving more. Therefore society’s investment cannot possibly exceed its voluntary saving for long periods (this would constitute an alternative definition of “forced saving,” one more in line with the Keynesian analysis, as F.A. Hayekcorrectly indicates).*** Instead, regardless of the final amount of saving and investment in society (always identical ex post), all that is achieved by an attempt to force a level of investment which exceeds that of saving is the general malinvestment of the country’s saved resources and an economic crisis always destined to make it poorer.****

*Consequently in its broadest sense, “forced saving” refers to the forced expropriation to which banks and monetary authorities subject most of society, producing a diffuse effect, when they decide to expand
credit and money, diminishing the purchasing power of the monetary units individuals possess, in relation to the value these units would have in the absence of such credit and monetary expansion. The funds derived from this social plunder can either be completely squandered (if their recipients spend them on consumer goods and services or sink them into utterly mistaken investments), or they can become business or other assets, which either directly or indirectly come, de facto, under the control of banks or the state. The first Spaniard to correctly analyze this inflationary process of expropriation was the scholastic Father Juan de Mariana, in his work, De monetae mutatione, published in 1609. In it he
writes:

If the prince is not a lord, but an administrator of the goods of individuals, neither in that capacity nor in any other will he be able to seize a part of their property, as occurs each time the currency is devalued, since they are given less in place of what is worth more; and if the prince cannot impose taxes against the will of his vassals nor create monopolies, he will not be able to do so in this capacity either, because it is all the same, and it is all depriving the people of their goods, no matter how well disguised by giving the coins a legal value greater than their actual worth, which are all deceptive, dazzling fabrications, and all lead to the same outcome. (Juan de Mariana, Tratado y discurso sobre la moneda de vellón que al presente se labra en Castilla y de algunos desórdenes y abusos [Treatise and Discourse on the Copper Currency which is now Minted in Castile and on Several Excesses and Abuses], with a preliminary study by Lucas Beltrán [Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Fiscales, Ministerio de Economía y Hacienda, 1987], p. 40; italics added)

Asomewhat different translation from the original text in Latin has been more recently published in English. Juan de Mariana, S.J., A Treatise on the Alteration of Money, translation by Patrick T. Brannan, S.J. Introduction by Alejandro A. Chafuen, Journal of Markets and Morality 5, no. 2 (Fall, 2002): 523–93. The quotation is on page 544 (12 of the translation).

**Joseph A. Schumpeter attributes the appropriate expression “forced saving” (in German, Erzwungenes Sparen or Zwangssparen) to Ludwig von Mises in his book, The Theory of Economic Development, first published in German in 1911 (The Theory of Economic Development [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968], p. 109). Mises acknowledges having described the phenomenon in 1912 in the first German edition of his book, The Theory of Money and Credit, though he indicates he does not believe he used the particular expression Schumpeter attributes to him. In any case Mises carefully analyzed the phenomenon of forced saving and theoretically demonstrated that it is impossible to predetermine whether or not net growth in voluntary saving will follow from an increase in the amount of money in circulation. On this topic see On the Manipulation of Money and Credit, pp. 120, 122 and 126–27. Also Human Action, pp. 148–50. Mises first dealt with the subject in The Theory of Money and Credit, p. 386. Though we will continue to attribute the term “forced saving” to Mises, a very similar expression, “forced frugality,” was used by Jeremy Bentham in 1804 (see Hayek’s article, “A Note on the Development of the Doctrine of ‘Forced Saving,’” published as chapter 7 of Profits, Interest and Investment, pp. 183–97). As Roger Garrison has aptly revealed, a certain disparity exists between Mises’s concept of forced saving (what we refer to as “the broad sense” of the term) and Hayek’s concept of it (which we will call “the strict sense”), and thus “what Mises termed malinvestment is what Hayek called forced savings.” See Garrison, “Austrian Microeconomics: A Diagrammatical Exposition,” p. 196.

***See Hayek, “A Note on the Development of the Doctrine of ‘Forced Saving,’” p. 197. See also the comments on Cantillon and Hume’s contributions in chapter 8, pp. 615–20.

****Fritz Machlup has compiled up to 34 different concepts of “forced saving” in his article, “Forced or Induced Saving: An Exploration into its Synonyms and Homonyms,” The Review of Economics and Statistics 25, no. 1 (February 1943); reprinted in Fritz Machlup, Economic Semantics (London: Transaction Publishers, 1991), pp. 213–40.

Três mitos comuns do capitalismo

Classical Economics, de Rothbard, capítulo 14, seção 5, parte final.

The first book of [Vilfredo Federico Damaso] Pareto's (1848-1923) in which the new pessimistic stance becomes dominant is his Les Systemes Socialistes (2 vols, 1901-2). But his newly detached stance did not at all mean that he had abandoned his libertarian ideals or his method of social analysis. Indeed, Finer writes of Pareto that Molinari was 'a man whom [he] admired till his dying day'. Thus Pareto writes bitterly of how in society, robbery through government is far easier, and hence more attractive, than hard work for the acquisition of wealth. As Pareto mordantly wrote, in a passage that anticipated such twentieth century libertarian theorists as Franz Oppenheimer and Albert Jay Nock:

Social movements usually follow the line of least resistance. While the direct production of economic goods is often very hard, taking possession of those goods produced by others is very easy. This facility has greatly increased from the moment when deprivation became possible through the law and not contrary to it. [Italics Pareto's.] To save, a man must have certain control over himself. Tilling a field to produce grain is hard work. Waiting in the corner of a wood to rob a passer-by is dangerous. On the other hand, going to vote is much easier and if it means that all those who are unadaptable, incapable and idle will be able to obtain board and lodging by it, they will hurry to do so.

Pareto unfortunately championed a positivist methodology in keeping with his reliance on the model of physics and mechanics. But this was more than offset by his supplying us a deathless anecdote in a brilliant defence of natural economic law as against the 'anti-economists' of the German historical school. It is an anecdote that Ludwig von Mises liked to relate in his seminar:

Once, during a speech which he was making at a statistical congress in Bern, Pareto spoke of 'natural economic laws,' whereupon [Gustav] Schmoller, who was present, said that there was no such thing. Pareto said nothing, but smiled and bowed. Afterward he asked Schmoller, through one of his neighbors, whether he was well acquainted with Bern. When Schmoller said yes, Pareto asked him again whether he knew of an inn where one could eat for nothing. The elegant Schmoller is supposed to have looked half pityingly and half disdainfully at the modestly dressed Pareto - although he was known to be well off - and to have answered that there were plenty of cheap restaurants, but that one had to pay something everywhere. At which Pareto said: 'So there are natural laws of political economy!'

HÚNGARO MANDANDO A REAL

não emprega mulheres. não emprega idosos. e o FDP não é ele...