DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
WebWar
HTML https://webwar.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Ιστορία κ&#...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 20473--------------------------------------------------
Για αυτό είν&#
945;ι ο Καπιταλ_
3;σμός Ανώτερ&
#959;ς!
By: Pinochet88 Date: January 26, 2016, 1:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ο Νταν
Σάντσεζ
σταχυολογε^
3;
τα βασικά
σημεία της
ομιλίας του
Φιλελεύθερ_
9;υ
Φιλοσόφου
και
Οικονομολό^
7;ου
Λούντβιζ
Φον Μίζες
που δόθηκε
το 1959 στην
Αργεντινή,
δίνοντας
στον καθένα
να
καταλάβει
το πως
λειτουργεί
ο
Καπιταλισμa
2;ς
και γιατί
είναι
ανώτερος
από τα
υπόλοιπα
συστήματα
παραγωγής.
Ο
Καπιταλισμa
2;ς
είναι το
σύστημα το
οποίο
εδράζεται
στην
ελευθερία
που
αποκτούν
όλοι να
διαχειρίζο_
7;ται
την ατομική
τους
ιδιοκτησία
όπως οι
ίδιοι
επιθυμούν.
Αυτό
σημαίνει
πραγματική
ελευθερία
και, όσο αυτή
η ελευθερία
δεν
παραβιάζετ^
5;ι
από τις
ασύδοτες
πράξεις
βίας του
Κράτους, η
θέση του
απλού
πολίτη, ως
καταναλωτή,
μέσα σε μια
κοινωνία
αποκτά
ανυπέρβλητ_
1;
ισχύ, τέτοια
που
καθορίζει
ουσιαστικά
κάθε
κομμάτι της
παραγωγής
και
μετατρέπει
την
οικονομία
ολόκληρη σε
μηχανισμό
ικανοποίησ_
1;ς
των αναγκών
και
επιθυμιών
του απλού
καθημερινοa
3;
ανθρώπου. Ο
καταναλωτή`
2;
γίνεται
κυρίαρχος
και, μέσα από
τον
αξιοκρατικa
2;
μηχανισμό
της αγοράς
που
αυτόματα
ανταμοίβει
κάθετι
χρήσιμο,
καλείται
και
κινητροδοτ^
9;ίται
να εργαστεί
παραγωγικά
για την
ευημερία
των
συνανθρώπω_
7;
του, δηλαδή
της
κοινωνίας
εν γένει.
Στον
Καπιταλισμa
2;,
η
δημιουργικa
2;τητα
του ατόμου, η
φαντασία
του, η
ενέργειά
του δεν
παροχετεύε`
4;αι
στη βία και
την
καταπίεση,
αλλά σε
παραγωγικοa
3;ς
σκοπούς που
αναβιβάζου_
7;
την
κοινωνία
και οδηγούν
σε ένα
καλύτερο
αύριο.
[center]Mises in Four Easy Pieces
Dan Sanchez
[/center]
[font=times new roman]One day in 1959, hundreds of students,
educators, and grandees filled the enormous lecture hall of the
University of Buenos Aires to capacity, overflowing into two
neighboring rooms. Argentina was still reeling from the reign of
populist president, Juan Perón, who had been ousted four years
before. Perón’s economic policies were supposed to empower and
uplift the people, but only created poverty and chaos. Perhaps
the men and women in that auditorium were ready for a different
message. They certainly got one.
A dignified old man stepped before them, and delivered a bold,
bracing message: what truly empowers and uplifts the people is
capitalism, the much-maligned economic system that emerges from
private ownership of the means of production.
This man, Ludwig von Mises, had been the world’s leading
champion of capitalism for half a century, so his message was
finely honed. Not only a creative genius, but a superb educator,
he boiled down capitalism to the essential features that he
believed every citizen needed to know. As his wife Margit
recollected, the effect on the crowd was invigorating. Having
spent years in an intellectual atmosphere of stale, stagnant
ideas: “The audience reacted as if a window had been opened and
fresh air allowed to breeze through the rooms.”
This lecture was the first in a series, the transcriptions of
which are collected in the book Economic Policy: Thoughts for
Today and Tomorrow, edited by Margit.
Life (and Death) Before Capitalism
To demonstrate in his lecture how revolutionary the advent of
capitalism was in world history, Mises contrasted it with what
he called the feudalistic principles of production during
Europe’s earlier ages.
The feudal system was characterized by productive rigidity.
Power, law, and custom prohibited individuals from leaving their
station in the economic system and from entering another.
Peasant serfs were irrevocably tied to the land they tilled,
which in turn was inalienably tied to their noble lords. Princes
and urban guilds strictly limited entry into whole industries,
and precluded the emergence of new ones. Almost every productive
role in society was a caste. This productive rigidity translated
into socio-economic rigidity, or “social immobility.” As Mises
reminded his Argentine audience:
a man’s social status was fixed from the beginning to the
end of his life; he inherited it from his ancestors, and it
never changed. If he was born poor, he always remained poor, and
if he was born rich  —  a lord or a duke  —
 he kept his dukedom and the property that went with it
for the rest of his life.
Over 90 percent of the population was consigned to food
production, so as to precariously eke out sustenance for their
own families and contribute to the banquets of their
domineering, parasitic suzerains. They also had to make their
own clothing and other consumers’ goods at home. So, production
was largely autarkic and nonspecialized. As Mises highlighted,
the small amount of specialized manufacturing that existed in
the towns was devoted largely to the production of luxury goods
for the elite.
From the High Middle Ages onward, production in Western Europe
was higher, and the average person much less likely to be a
chattel slave, than during antiquity and the Dark Ages. But the
economic system was still fixed and moribund; the common man had
no hope of progressing beyond a life teetering between bare
subsistence and starvation.
And in the eighteenth century, in the Netherlands and England,
said Mises, multitudes were about to go over the ledge, because
the population had grown beyond the land then available to
employ and sustain them.
It was then and there that capitalism entered the scene, saving
the lives of millions, and vastly improving the lives of
millions more.
Four key distinguishing features of capitalism can be gleaned
from Mises’s lecture. What follows is an exposition of those
features, which can be thought of as, to paraphrase Richard
Feynman, “Mises in four easy pieces.”
It is important to note that, as Mises fully noted elsewhere,
what emerged in the eighteenth century and developed
subsequently was never a purely free market. So, the following
characteristics have never been universal. But these features
did come into play far more extensively in this period than ever
before.
One: Dynamic Production
Under what Mises called “capitalistic principles of production,”
feudal productive rigidity is replaced by productive flexibility
and free entry. There are no legal privileges protecting
anyone’s place in the system of production. Lords and guilds
cannot exclude new entrants and innovations. And an upstart
enterpriser’s capital, products, and proceeds are secure from
the cupidity of princes and the jealousy of incumbents.
Of course free entry amounts to very little without the
corresponding right of free exit. With capitalism, peasants are
free to leave their fields and former masters for opportunities
in the towns. And proprietors are free to sell or hire out their
plots of land and other resources to the highest bidder.
(Although, during the transition between feudal and capitalist
production, it really should have been the peasants doing the
selling and hiring out, as they were owed restitution never
delivered for their past serfdom and expropriation.)
Free entry/exit is the logical corollary of liberty: inviolate
self-ownership and private property. It is the freedom of an
individual to put his labor and earnings to whatever productive
use he finds advantageous, irrespective of the pretenses to
privilege of vested interests.
Under capitalism, no longer can nobles rely on a captive labor
force and “customer” base, or enjoy the impossibility of having
resources bid away by more efficient producers. No longer can
these robber barons turned landed barons rest on such laurels of
past armed conquest.
Mises identified resentment of this fact as a prime source of
anti-capitalism, which thus originated, not with the
proletariat, but with the landed aristocracy. He cited the
consternation of the Prussian Junkers of Germany over the
Landflucht or ”flight from the countryside” of their peasant
underlings. And he related a colorful story of how Otto von
Bismarck, that prince of Junkers who founded the welfare state
(with the express purpose of co-opting the masses), grumbled
about a worker who left Bismarck’s estate for the higher wages
and pleasant Biergartens of Berlin.
Under capitalism, no longer can tradesmen idle in old methods
and old markets. To do so is impossible in a world in which any
man with savings and gumption is a potential underseller and
overbidder. Industry incumbents also loathe the competition, so
their special pleading is another major source of
anti-capitalist rhetoric.
Free entry/exit imposes the stimulus and discipline of
competition on producers, impelling them to strive to outdo each
other in satisfying potential customers. As Mises announced in
Buenos Aires: “The development of capitalism consists in
everyone’s having the right to serve the customer better and/or
more cheaply.”
Production, formerly adrift in the standing water of feudalistic
stagnation, sets sail under capitalistic dynamism, driven by the
bracing winds of competition.
Two: Consumer Sovereignty
When producers vie with each other to better serve customers,
they unavoidably act more and more like devoted servants of
those customers. This is true of even the biggest and wealthiest
producers. As Mises brilliantly expressed it:
In talking about modern captains of industry and leaders of
big business … they call a man a “chocolate king” or a “cotton
king” or an “automobile king.” Their use of such terminology
implies that they see practically no difference between the
modern heads of industry and those feudal kings, dukes or lords
of earlier days. But the difference is in fact very great, for a
chocolate king does not rule at all, he serves. He does not
reign over conquered territory, independent of the market,
independent of his customers. The chocolate king  —
 or the steel king or the automobile king or any other
king of modern industry  —  depends on the industry
he operates and on the customers he serves. This “king” must
stay in the good graces of his subjects, the consumers; he loses
his “kingdom” as soon as he is no longer in a position to give
his customers better service and provide it at lower cost than
others with whom he must compete.
With capitalism, just as producers play the role of servant,
customers play the role of master or sovereign: in a figurative
sense, of course. It is their wishes that hold sway, as
producers strive to grant them. And strive they must, if they
want to succeed in business. For, just as a sovereign of the
ancien régime was free to withhold favor from one courtier and
bestow it upon another, the “sovereign” customer is free to take
his business elsewhere.
This relation is even expressed in the language we use to
describe commerce. Customers are patrons who patronize shops and
other sellers. These sellers say, “thank you for your business”
or patronage, and insist that, “the customer is always right.”
The polite, respectful deference formerly given by the ancient
Roman cliens (client) to his patronus (patron) is now instead
given by the producer to his customer/patron, except generally
in a much more self-respecting and less groveling manner.
If the customer is himself also a producer on the market, he
must pay forward that same solicitousness and deference to his
own customers, lest he lose their business to competitors. Thus,
his desires for goods from his eagerly attentive suppliers are
shaped by his own eagerness to fulfill the desires of his own
customers. Therefore, the higher order producer, by striving to
make his customer happy, indirectly strives to make his
customer’s customers happy as well.
This series terminates with the customers who have no customers:
namely, the consumers, who are therefore the “engine” of this
“train” of final causation. Thus, with capitalism, it is the
consumers who hold ultimate sway over all production. Mises
referred to this fundamental characteristic of capitalism as,
speaking figuratively, consumer sovereignty.
Again, this is constrained to the extent that state intervention
hampers capitalism. “Leaders of big business” can and often do
use the state to acquire powers and privileges that enable them
to flout the wishes of consumers and acquire wealth through
domination instead of service. In fact, one of the most clear
recent instances of this involved a real life person actually
nicknamed, as in Mises’s example, the “chocolate king”: a
confectionary tycoon named Petro Poroshenko who parlayed his
business success into a political career which recently
culminated in his election as president of the US-sponsored
junta now ruling Ukraine.
Three: Mass Production for the Masses
In the first lecture of his online course “Why Capitalism,”
David Gordon drew from his limitless reservoir of scholarly
anecdotes to relate that Maurice Dobb, a British economist and
communist, replied to Mises’s point about consumer sovereignty
by averring that this feature of capitalism hardly does the
common man any good, since the most significant consumers are
the wealthiest. Dobb’s mistake, of course, is to neglect the
fact that the relative importance of single consumers is not the
issue here. The combined purchasing power of the preponderance
of typically wealthy consumers vastly outstrips that of the
atypically wealthy.
Therefore, as Mises pointed out, the capitalist’s main route to
becoming one of those few wealthy consumers of extraordinary
means is through mass producing wares that cater to the masses
of consumers of ordinary means. Even a small per-unit profit
margin, if multiplied millions or billions of times, adds up to
some serious dough. Boutique enterprises catering only to the
elite, as feudal era manufacturers did, simply cannot compare.
And that is why, as Mises informed the stunned Perónistas:
Big business, the target of the most fanatic attacks by the
so-called leftists, produces almost exclusively to satisfy the
wants of the masses. Enterprises producing luxury goods solely
for the well-to-do can never attain the magnitude of big
businesses.
That is why, as Mises never tired of saying, capitalism is a
system of mass production for the masses. It is overwhelmingly
the masses of “regular folk” who are the sovereign consumers
whose wishes are the guiding stars of capitalist production.
Capitalism flipped feudalism on its head. With feudalism, it was
the elite (the landed aristocracy) whose will dominated the
masses (the enserfed peasants). With capitalism, it is the
wishes of the masses (ordinary consumers) that hold sway over
the productive activity of the entrepreneurial elite, from
retail giants to dot-com millionaires.
As Mises’s address implied, the yearned-for “people power”
always promised by demagogues like Perón, but which invariably
turns to ashes in the mouths of the masses, as it did with the
Argentines, is the natural result of capitalism, a system so
often derided as “economic royalism.”
Imagine his audience’s surprise!
But the full truth that Mises was imparting was even more
surprising than that. Not only does capitalism fulfill the
broken promises of economic populism, but, as Gordon brilliantly
remarked in his lecture, it also follows through on the more
specific promise offered by syndicalists and Marxian socialists:
worker control over the means of production. That is because, as
Mises stressed in his lecture, the vast majority of the masses
of ordinary “sovereign” consumers are also workers.
With capitalism, the working people really do hold ultimate sway
over the means of production. They just don’t do it in their
role as workers, but in their role as consumers. They exert
their sway in checkout aisles and website shopping carts, and
not in the halls of labor unions, syndicates, soviets
(revolutionary councils of workers), or a “dictatorship of the
proletariat” that reigns in their name while it rides on their
backs.
Capitalism has the charming arrangement of empowering the
working person, while still preserving economic sanity by
placing means (factors of production, like labor) at the service
of ends (consumer demand), instead of the insanity of doing the
opposite, as the labor fetish of syndicalism does.
Four: Prosperity for the People
Capitalism not only empowers the working person, but uplifts
him.
Capitalism, as its name implies, is characterized by capital
investment, which was the solution to the crisis of how the
marginal millions of eighteenth-century England and the
Netherlands were to integrate into the economy and survive.
Labor alone cannot produce; it needs to be applied to
complementary material resources. If, with given production
techniques, there is not enough land in the economy to employ
all hands, then those hands must be placed upon capital goods,
if the connected mouths are to eat. During the Industrial
Revolution, such capital goods were lifelines that the owners of
new factories threw to countless economic castaways and that
pulled them from the abyss and back into the division of labor
that kept their lives afloat.
Knowing this truth of the matter, Mises was rightly appalled at
the anti-capitalist agitators who “falsified history” (Gordon
identified Thomas Carlyle and Friedrich Engels as among the
worst offenders) to spread the now dominant myth that capitalism
was a bane to the working poor. He set the issue right with
passion:
Of course, from our viewpoint, the workers’ standard of
living was extremely low; conditions under early capitalism were
absolutely shocking, but not because the newly developed
capitalistic industries had harmed the workers. The people hired
to work in factories had already been existing at a virtually
subhuman level.
The famous old story, repeated hundreds of times, that the
factories employed women and children and that these women and
children, before they were working in factories, had lived under
satisfactory conditions, is one of the greatest falsehoods of
history. The mothers who worked in the factories had nothing to
cook with; they did not leave their homes and their kitchens to
go into the factories, they went into factories because they had
no kitchens, and if they had a kitchen they had no food to cook
in those kitchens. And the children did not come from
comfortable nurseries. They were starving and dying. And all the
talk about the so-called unspeakable horror of early capitalism
can be refuted by a single statistic: precisely in these years
in which British capitalism developed, precisely in the age
called the Industrial Revolution in England, in the years from
1760 to 1830, precisely in those years the population of England
doubled, which means that hundreds or thousands of children
 —  who would have died in preceding times 
—  survived and grew to become men and women.
And as Mises further explained, capitalism not only saves lives,
but it vastly improves them. That is because capitalism is also
characterized by capital accumulation (which is why Mises
embraced the term, in spite of it originating from its enemies
as an epithet), which is the result of cumulative saving and
perpetual reinvestment being unleashed by greater security of
property from meddlesome laws as well as grasping princes and
parliaments. Capital accumulation means ever growing labor
productivity, which in turn means ever rising real wages for the
worker.
These higher wages are the conduits through which workers
acquire the purchasing power that crowns them with consumer
sovereignty. And they are no petty sovereigns either. Thanks to
his capital-enhanced high productivity, a modern worker’s
wage-powered consumer demand guides the deployment of a
globe-spanning, dizzying plethora of sophisticated machines,
factories, vehicles, raw materials, and other resources, as well
as the voluntary labor of the other workers who use them, all of
which conspire to churn out a cornucopia of quality household
staples, marvelous devices, amazing experiences, and other
consumers’ goods and services for the worker to choose from for
his delectation. Purchasing such goods with his higher wages is
how the worker claims his portion of the greater abundance,
which approximates to his own capital-enhanced contribution to
it.
And higher wages are not the only way that the average working
person can enrich himself through capitalism. Especially since
the advent of investment funds, he can supplement, and upon
retirement, even replace his wage income with interest and
profit by putting his high-wage-fed savings to work and
partaking in capital investment himself.
Because of these characteristics, as Mises proclaimed to those
assembled: “[Capitalism] has, within a comparatively short time,
transformed the whole world. It has made possible an
unprecedented increase in world population.”
He returned to the subject of England for one of the more
paradigmatic examples of this:
In 18th-century England, the land could support only 6
million people at a very low standard of living. Today more than
50 million people enjoy a much higher standard of living than
even the rich enjoyed during the 18th-century. And today’s
standard of living in England would probably be still higher,
had not a great deal of the energy of the British been wasted in
what were, from various points of view, avoidable political and
military “adventures.”
In one of those wonderful flashes of dry wit that would
illuminate his discourse from time to time, Mises urged his
auditors that, should they ever meet an anti-capitalist hailing
from England, they should ask him: “… how do you know that you
are the one out of ten who would have lived in the absence of
capitalism? The mere fact that you are living today is proof
that capitalism has succeeded, whether or not you consider your
own life very valuable.”
Mises furthermore cited the more general and clearly evident
fact that: “There is no Western, capitalistic country in which
the conditions of the masses have not improved in an
unprecedented way.”
And in the decades following his speech, the conditions of the
masses improved incredibly in non-Western countries (like China)
who partially opened up to capitalism as well.
Mises concluded his talk by urging his Argentine fellows to
seize the day and strive for the economic liberation that would
unleash the wonderworks of capitalism, and not to sit and wait
for an economic miracle:
But you have to remember that, in economic policies, there
are no miracles. You have read in many newspapers and speeches,
about the so-called German economic miracle  —  the
recovery of Germany after its defeat and destruction in the
Second World War. But this was no miracle. It was the
application of the principles of the free market economy, of the
methods of capitalism, even though they were not applied
completely in all respects. Every country can experience the
same “miracle” of economic recovery, although I must insist that
economic recovery does not come from a miracle; it comes from
the adoption of  —  and is the result of
 —  sound economic policies.
Conclusion
If the subsequent policies adopted in Argentina, South America,
and the world are any indication, Mises’s message, as lucid and
affecting as it was, did not propagate far beyond the auditorium
walls that day. Perhaps in the age of camera phones, YouTube,
and social media, it would have. But his brilliant encapsulation
of the beneficence and beauty of capitalism did not dissipate
vainly into the Argentine air. Thanks to his Margit and to his
institutional namesake, his message was preserved for the ages,
and is now only a mouse click away for billions.
Ludwig von Mises can still save the world by posthumously
teaching its people the unknown truth about the inherently
populist nature of capitalism in a way which speaks to their
hopes and longings: that private property means dynamic
production, which means a competitive, consumer-steered economy,
which means a production system geared toward improving the
lives of the masses, which first means widespread succor and
ultimately ever-rising prosperity for the people of the world.
sauce
HTML http://bc.vc/Iv2Nrm[/font]
#Post#: 20474--------------------------------------------------
Re: Για αυτό εί_
7;αι ο Καπιταλ
ισμός Ανώτε	
61;ος!
By: I see Jew people Date: January 26, 2016, 10:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Pinochet88 link=topic=2269.msg20446#msg20446
date=1453621433]
Επίσης
είναι και
εβραϊκή και
υποστηρίζε_
3;
τον
σιωνισμό.
[/quote]
[quote]Ayn Rand was born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum (Russian:
Али́са
Зиновьевн&
#1072;
Розенбаум)
on February 2, 1905, to a Russian Jewish bourgeois family living
in Saint Petersburg. [/quote]
[quote]Ludwig von Mises was born to Jewish parents in the city
of Lemberg, in Galicia, Austria-Hungary (now L'viv, Ukraine).
The family of his father Arthur Edler von Mises had been
elevated to the Austrian nobility in the 19th century, and was
involved in building and financing railroads. [/quote]
HTML http://www.standfirminfaith.com/images/KneelBeforeZodCartoon_thumb.jpg
#Post#: 20475--------------------------------------------------
Re: Για αυτό εί_
7;αι ο Καπιταλ
ισμός Ανώτε	
61;ος!
By: Pinochet88 Date: January 27, 2016, 3:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Η μειοψηφία
των εβραίων
που είναι
φιλελεύθερ_
9;ι
απεχθάνοντ^
5;ι
τον
σιωνισμό. Kαι
σιωνιστές
να είναι
όμως, εγώ δεν
έχω κανένα
πρόβλημα.
Εγώ είμαι
Έλληνας
Εθνικιστής
και
Φιλελεύθερ_
9;ς
ταυτοχρόνω`
2;
και είμαι σε
θέση να
κατανοήσω
πως η αιτία
της
φτώχειας
του Έθνους
μου δεν
είναι οι
εβραίοι
αλλά το
γεγονός ότι
ο Έλληνας
έχει
στερηθεί
την
ελευθερία
του
επιχειρείν
και του
εργάζεσθαι,
με
αποτέλεσμα,
υποδεέστερ^
9;ς
φυλές να
αποκτήσουν
περισσότερ_
9;
πλούτο, απλά
και μόνο
επειδή
είχαν
ελευθερία,
και να
εξευτελίσο`
5;ν
τον Έλληνα. Ο
σοσιαλισμό`
2;
βρίσκεται
πίσω από την
οικονοική,
τεχνολογικ^
2;
και
πολιτισμικ^
2;
καθυστέρησ_
1;
του
Ελληνικού
Έθνους και
το ορθό θα
ήταν να
μαζέψουμε
όλους τους
ελληνόφωνο`
5;ς
σοσιαλιστέ`
2;
που ακόμα
αναπνέουν
στην Ελλάδα
και να τους
χώναμε
στους
θαλάμους
και να τους
ψεκάζαμε με
zyklon b!
#Post#: 20479--------------------------------------------------
Re: Για αυτό εί_
7;αι ο Καπιταλ
ισμός Ανώτε	
61;ος!
By: Jewhad Gold Scholar Date: January 27, 2016, 5:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Pinochet88 link=topic=2268.msg20451#msg20451
date=1453625535]
Ορίστε η
βρώμικη
μπίζνα
λοιπόν
εκείνων που
μέμφονται
το BCVC
HTML http://tinyurl.com/leftaonline.
Τόσο
αποτυχημέν_
9;ι
που το adblock τους
εξανεμίζει
κάθε κέρδος
και
αναγκάζοντ^
5;ι
να είναι
πλέον
πλήρως
κρατικοδία_
3;τοι
νεοπασόκοι!
[/quote]
[quote author=Pinochet88 link=topic=2275.msg20473#msg20473
date=1453794424]
sauce
HTML http://bc.vc/Iv2Nrm[/font][/size]
[/quote]
::)
*****************************************************