Milton Friedman - No Possible Employer (minimum wage)
quarta-feira, maio 14, 2014
Milton Friedman - No Possible Employer (minimum wage)
O mito do "socialismo sueco":
O socialismo, aliás, tem sido um fracasso em larga escala por todo o lado onde se tentou implantar até hoje. Não é por isso exagero dizer-se que se trata de uma doutrina incompetente tanto do ponto de vista social, como do ponto de vista económico.
Para aqueles socialistas e restantes esquerdistas que argumentam que Portugal necessita de um "socialismo à moda sueca" para resolver os seus atuais problemas económico-financeiros, o melhor seria esses senhores atentarem nos dados do Index of Economic Freedom compilados pela Heritage Foundation onde a Suécia ocupa o 20º lugar, Portugal ocupa o 69º lugar e o Brasil ocupa o vergonhoso 114º lugar.
O que estes dados permitem concluir é que a Suécia não é um país socialista de forma alguma, mas sim um país capitalista (e muito bem sucedido na sua prática) e a léguas de Portugal e do Brasil em termos de política económica e competência da classe política.
A propósito deste vómito económico, e moral - Pope Francis Calls For 'Legitimate Redistribution' Of Wealth To The Poor
Sorry, Pope Francis: Poverty, Not Inequality, Is the Source of Social Evil:
Sorry, Pope Francis: Poverty, Not Inequality, Is the Source of Social Evil:
.. the scarcity of wealth elevates its social importance, making it a far more important metric for judging people. Since abject poverty has been more or less eliminated in America, wealth itself has become more of a lifestyle choice. Americans often opt to not realize their full earning potential—becoming journalists instead of doctors; professors instead of lawyers; writers instead of accountants—living more modest lifestyles as a result. They do so not because they are losers, but because they cherish some other value—their calling, leisure or family time, intellectual/artistic/spiritual pursuits—over extra income.
All of this generates an ethos that recognizes that there are metrics of success other than money, tempering the pathologies of wealth in wealthy countries. This is one reason why America's rich are far more apologetic—and less flamboyant—than their more in-your-face Indian counterparts.
The Pope needs to bear in mind that not all inequalities are equal: Inequality that stems from prosperity isn't nearly as big a problem as that resulting from poverty. Wealth, paradoxically, can be its own antidote.
Constituição inadaptada por Pedro Braz Teixeira:
Tudo isto não é obviamente errado? Pagar impostos para que o Estado reprima as hipóteses do nosso sucesso não é o mais disparatado dos erros? Nós, cidadãos, podemos continuar a tolerar isto? Queremos mesmo pagar impostos para subsidiar o absurdo? Queremos pagar impostos para criar miséria?
When Liberals Misread Bastiat por Sheldon Richman:
.. when a fan of Bastiat’s sees the broken-window fallacy in government “stimulus” spending, she is on the firmest of ground. Every dime the government spends—whether acquired through taxation or borrowing—is a dime that someone in the private economy won’t be spending. If people are not spending already—which is not the case these days—we must look to the earlier government interventions that brought about that condition—and then repeal those anti-market corporatist policies, regulations, and taxes.
Há democratas tão democratas que adoram a democracia até que as pessoas decidem escolher alguma coisa que desagrada aos democratas; e há liberais tão liberais que adoram a liberdade até que as pessoas decidem escolher alguma coisa que desagrada aos liberais; e há "democratas liberais" tão humanistas tão humanistas que conceitos como "integridade territorial" justifica na prática uma forma pré-escolhida de tirania estatista, e gente a morrer porque fez más escolhas.
quarta-feira, maio 07, 2014
The Minimum Wage Is Cruelest To Those Who Can't Find A Job:
The minimum wage is unfair to low-skilled workers with little experience because it prices them out of the labor market and prevents them from achieving the upward mobility that is the hallmark of a dynamic free-market economy.
The minimum wage violates the principle of freedom because workers are not permitted to work at less than the politically determined wage rate, even if they are willing to do so to get or retain a job—and employers are prohibited from hiring them. The minimum wage does nothing to increase the productivity of low-skilled workers. Indeed, it prevents them from acquiring the skills and experience they need to move up the income ladder. Discouraged workers may then drop out of the workforce and end up on welfare or drugs.
The self-esteem that comes from work and responsibility is an important aspect of growing up and taking part in the American dream. When government prevents workers from competing for jobs and prevents employers from hiring them at mutually agreed upon wage rates, politics trumps freedom—coercion trumps consent. Wealth creation is reduced and entrepreneurship stifled.
Rich countries were first poor. It was because of economic freedom and better institutions that they became rich—not because of minimum wage laws. The number of jobs depends on relative wage rates, other things constant. If changes in technology, institutions, and capital per worker increase productivity, then over time both employment and output will increase along with real incomes. If those other factors don’t change and the government simply dictates higher wage rates, then jobs will be lost or not created for lower-skilled workers.
A “fair wage” is a “free wage”—that is, one that results from voluntary exchanges among workers and employers. Government should prevent fraud and violence and allow individuals to enter into mutually beneficial exchanges under a just rule of law that protects persons and property. The minimum wage violates freedom of contract and hence private property rights; it is neither moral nor effective. It is unfair to workers who can’t find a job, especially young workers in search of a better future.
terça-feira, maio 06, 2014
I Am a Libertarian por Laurence M. Vance:
I am a libertarian. I am not Democrat or Republican. I am not liberal or conservative. I am not left or right. I am not moderate or progressive. I am not a Libertarian. I am not a fusionist. I am not a constitutionalist.
I am a libertarian. I am not thin or thick. I am not brutalist or humanitarian. I am not holist or solipsist. I am not moralist or consequentialist. I am not open or closed. I am not a modal, cosmopolitan, cultural, regime, sophisticated, or Beltway libertarian. I do not have a bleeding heart. I am not a neo, second wave, or millennial libertarian. I am a plain old libertarian, one who needs no labels, issues no caveats, and makes no apologies.
I am a libertarian. Libertarianism is a political philosophy concerned with the permissible use of force or violence. It is not a political philosophy that says limited government is the best kind of government. It is not a political philosophy that is socially liberal and economically conservative. It is not a political philosophy that says government is less efficient than the private sector. It is not a political philosophy that says freedom can be achieved by promoting some government policies over others. It is not a political philosophy that is low-tax liberalism. Libertarianism is not the absence of racism, sexism, homophobism, xenophobism, nationalism, nativism, classism, authoritarianism, patriarchy, inequality, or hierarchy. Libertarianism is not diversity or activism. Libertarianism is not egalitarianism. Libertarianism is not toleration or respect. Libertarianism is not a social attitude, lifestyle, or aesthetic sensibility.
I am a libertarian. I subscribe to the non-aggression principle that says, in the words of Murray Rothbard: “The only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another.” I am concerned with actions; I am not concerned with thoughts: I am concerned only with the negative consequences of thoughts. I believe that the non-aggression principle extends to government. Libertarians should therefore oppose or otherwise seek to limit the domestic and foreign meddling and intervention of governments, which are the greatest violators of the non-aggression principle.
I am a libertarian. I believe in the golden rule. I believe in live and let live. I believe that a person should be free to do anything he wants, as long as his conduct is peaceful. I believe that vices are not crimes.
I am a libertarian. Our enemy is the state. Our enemy is not religion, corporations, institutions, foundations, or organizations. These only have power to do us harm because of their connection with the state. And since war is the health of the state, the state’s military, wars, and foreign interventions must be opposed root and branch.
I am a libertarian. I believe in laissez faire. Anyone should be free to engage in any economic activity without license, permission, prohibition, or interference from the state. The government should not intervene in the economy in any way. Free trade agreements, educational vouchers, privatizing Social Security, etc., are not the least bit libertarian ideas.
I am a libertarian. The best government is no government. That government that governs least is the next best government. Government, as Voltaire said, at its best state is a necessary evil and at its worst state is an intolerable one. The best thing any government could do would be to simply leave us alone.
I am a libertarian. Taxation is government theft. The government doesn’t have a claim to a certain percentage of one’s income. The tax code doesn’t need to be simplified, shortened, fairer, or less intrusive. The tax rates don’t need to be made lower, flatter, fairer, equal, or less progressive. The income tax doesn’t need more or larger deductions, loopholes, shelters, credits, or exemptions. The whole rotten system needs to be abolished. People have the right to keep what they earn and decide for themselves what to do with their money: spend it, waste it, squander it, donate it, bequeath it, hoard it, invest it, burn it, gamble it.
I am a libertarian. I am not a libertine. I am not a hedonist. I am not a moral relativist. I am not a devotee of some alternative lifestyle. I am not a revolutionary. I am not a nihilist. I neither wish to associate nor aggress against those who are. I believe in the absolute freedom of association and discrimination.
I am a libertarian.
The Compulsion To Rule:
Whether they are channeling the gods, translating nature’s secrets into scientific truths, envisioning the inexorable march of historic forces, or identifying causal connections so as to be able to plan for economic well-being, clever minds have conceived increasingly sophisticated ways of playing upon the fears and uncertainties of their neighbors in order to gain power over them. Such schemes depend upon keeping the subservient in a constant state of fear of the adverse consequences that will likely follow from their disobedience: there may be food shortages as the supply of game animals dwindles; the “Nine Bows” may sneak into our village at night and destroy our buildings; or deadly earthquakes, drouths, or great storms may occur if we do not live in accordance with the dictates of the gods.
While the details of the political power-game change, the underlying logic of the system remains basically intact. The tribal shaman with his collection of trinkets and magic smoke would fully understand the modern government bureaucrat’s use of licenses, rules, and other gimmicks to accomplish his ends. The more primitive shake-down shaman, with his alleged pipeline to the gods, has been replaced by the academically-trained PhD-“expert” with his computer projections, each psychic racketeer claiming the capacity to predict outcomes in a world that is forever chaotic and uncertain.
The concoction of fears of an intensity sufficient to sustain the obedience of the many ultimately depends upon the use of lies. For a primitive society, the lies have a simplicity and narrowness of reach that they may be accepted by tribesmen. But for a more complex society – wherein millions of people interact through a myriad of networks – the lies become an avalanche of conflicts and contradictions that insinuate themselves into every facet of human action. By virtue of this ubiquitousness, social discord, economic dislocations, wars, genocides, and other dehumanizing and dispiriting practices have become the norm of mankind’s present existence on earth.
segunda-feira, maio 05, 2014
What Separatism Means por Michael S. Rozeff:
As people at large become disillusioned with the deterioration going on, with the immense debts being generated, with the static or declining living standards, with the injustice and corruption when government diverts from its basic announced duties, in other words as the abuses grow into a long train of abuses, the idea of separatism grows. This is when secession movements, breakaway movements and separatist movements arise. It is because of the thwarting of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which is the by-product and sometimes even the aim of the ruling class bureaucracies and nomenklaturae. Cruelty, wickedness, folly, waste, stupidity, injustice, extravagance, inefficiency, idiocy – all stemming from government by an insulated ruling class or a nomenklatura that controls the levers of power, give rise to separatism, rebellions, riots, and revolutions.
Separatism means that a group of people are frustrated and unhappy with the existing political arrangements.
I see no option except to live and let live, to mind one’s own business, to respect the rights of others to live as they see fit, and to allow for a friendly competition of many different social groups and arrangements; and if this view is mistaken and leads to worse outcomes, to seek how to correct it. Let each man freely choose his own society and government.
The Unbroken-Leg Fallacy por Robert Higgs:
In recent years, many people, at least in certain circles, have become familiar with Bastiat’s broken-window fallacy and have come to recognize that Keynesian macroeconomic policy amounts to little more than this fallacy writ large.
Perhaps even more important is what we might call the unbroken-leg fallacy. This is the presumption, which underlies all sorts of state intervention, both macroeconomic and microeconomic, in the market system, that the participants in markets are perfectly capable of acting more productively but, owing to various “market failures,” are not doing so on their own and require state action to repair the situation. The fallacy is that this reasoning completely ignores the countless ways in which the state’s own intrusions and engagements in the economic system in effect “break the legs” of private-sector actors by distorting prices (including interest rates), penalizing productive actions, and subsidizing destructive actions. Having invaded the economic order like the proverbial bull in a China shop, the state’s kingpins, functionaries, and intellectual bootlickers then have the chutzpah to blame “market failures” for the wreckage they themselves have created — an ever-changing hodgepodge of bad incentives, misdirected state efforts, and ominous fears about further unsettling state actions to come.
Owing to the built-in feedback that occurs in a genuinely free, profit-and-loss-based market system, people do not systematically err and fail in their multifaceted efforts to coordinate their own economic activities — unless, that is, the state runs amok, breaking their legs willy-nilly and crippling the operation of the price system. Economic analysis and policy-making that disregard this reality rest on a fallacious foundation.
Markets Are About Much More Than Material Goods:
Freedom’s massive expansion of productivity allows people to release far more time and effort for pursuing ultimate goods, making freedom a complement to, rather than a substitute for, attaining ultimate ends. Freedom further requires that the pursuit of one’s ends must at the same time expand others’ freedom to pursue their ends, while coercive alternatives contract that ability for others.
Freedom allows people to learn from others’ examples to discover what will work better in advancing their ultimate ends and offers individuals the maximum potential for moral growth. It rewards responsibility and is the only system consistent with the imperative that “you shall not steal.”
Freedom-enabled bursts of productivity and wealth creation have led to consequent outbursts of creativity and learning, improved health and humanitarian advances. It is also more likely that the persistent denial of the fruits of one’s labor to individuals in unfree systems, and not the greater output potential that freedom provides, that makes people, of necessity, far more materialistic.
How Would an Anarcho-Capitalist Society Repel Invasion?:
.. convince a mere 5% of a population that it is moral and just and practical to use violence to defend against the domestic government .. the basic premise being that if the average cop writes 10 tickets a day, then when 5% of the population feels this way, a cop will run into one of these people at least every other day. This would make the price of being a police officer certain death. They literally would not survive one week at work, and everyone would know it. Once that was the case, the police would stop showing up for work ..
Without police, the edicts of politicians become meaningless ..
We can expect a fair amount of looting from police stations, military bases, and munitions depots to have been done during the transition. Naturally, the protection agencies will seek out these tools to provide a sense of security to their clients, and within a matter of days we could expect security forces to be in possession of real military hardware.
Among other things, what separates the protection agencies from government is competition .. Statists instead envision warfare between the agencies, chaos, disorder, and mayhem.
Engaging needlessly in warfare is not a sustainable business model. Those weapons are expensive .. Those bombs are assets. If he drops them on his competitor, the asset is destroyed and is costly to replace. It also provokes the competitor to fight back, which will cause more assets to be destroyed, more men to be lost, and while those two competitors are out killing each other, the next competitor who remained peaceful, can come in and offer both their clients cheaper services ..
The State by comparison is incentivized to warfare. Warfare unites a nation behind its leaders. War propaganda becomes a political tool that helps keep incumbents in office. Warfare is an excuse to raise taxes, inflate currency, and run deficits, none of which are things a market entity seeks to engage in.
The Future of Libertarianism:
To claim that it is not enough for the libertarian to oppose aggression is to fall into the trap that destroyed classical liberalism the first time, and transformed it into modern liberalism. How, after all, did the classical liberalism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries become the state-obsessed liberalism of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries? How did the once-venerable word liberalism become perverted in the first place? Precisely because of thickism. Sure, twentieth-century liberals said, we favor liberty, but since mere negative liberty — that is, restrictions on the state — doesn’t appear to yield a sufficiently egalitarian result, we need more than that. In addition to restrictions on some state activity, we need the expansion of other forms of state activity.
All of these additional claims are a distraction from the central principle: if you oppose the initiation of physical force, you are a libertarian. Period. Now how hard was that?
Austrians and the Private-Property Society
An Interview with Hans-Hermann Hoppe:
An Interview with Hans-Hermann Hoppe:
AEN: So the classical liberals were too tolerant of the state?
HOPPE: Far too much. Once you admit the basic principle that the state is an essential provider of security, you give up all counterarguments. Take the example of the case of the social safety net that most free-market advocates say we must have. If you ask them how high the provision of a guaranteed income should be, they can’t tell you. They know that if it is too high, people will work less; but if it is too low, they say people will be too poor to recover. But the dividing line between the two is completely arbitrary.
Yet through it all, they take the position that there must be such a thing as a social safety net. If there is no question that the must be such a thing, then you have already admitted that private property rights, the rights of contract, free association, and voluntary trade are not the essential source of security and no longer supreme. There are some considerations that override all these institutions.
If you make these sorts of exceptions, it is very difficult to argue that the exceptions should not apply more broadly. What argument do you have? You have already admitted that some people can be legally expropriated for socially important reasons. The only task for statists is to make the purposes seem important enough to allow for expropriation. Everything then becomes possible.
HOPPE: Indeed, today’s ideological landscape is filled with people who claim to want selective cuts in government or to bring about what they call limited government. Then, to ward off the charge that they are too radical, they assure the public that they do not oppose government as such–indeed it is a necessary thing; they just oppose its present size and present policies.
And to prove that they are respectable, then, they lend support to some aspects of the regime, usually its war-making power, its educational apparatus, its regulatory regime, or its social-safety net. By their own logic, they end up trying to improve government rather than dismantle it. This is why they are ultimately no threat to anyone in power. Those who advocate merely “limiting” intervention rather than eliminating it are always ripe for co-option by the state. Mises once observed that anyone who has ever had something new to offer humanity had nothing good to say of the state or its laws.
Libertarians of the present day are accustomed to think of socialism as the polar opposite of the libertarian creed. But this is a grave mistake, responsible for a severe ideological disorientation of libertarians in the present world.... Conservatism was the polar opposite of liberty; and socialism, while to the 'left' of conservatism, was essentially a confused, middle-of-the road movement. It was, and still is, middle-of-the road because it tries to achieve Liberal ends by the use of Conservative means.
Murray Newton Rothbard