ROBIN HOOD OR THE PEOPLE'S MARKET, by Mario Rapoport (for "Page 12" 04/11/1924)
Above: Robin Hood is Robin Hood in reverse: robbing the poor to give to the rich. Monday, April 25, 2011
Thick White Lotiony Cervical Mucus
If Moses came down from Mount Sinai bringing tables law, at least not believed their author, they were attributed to a divine authority. In contrast, the Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek followed an opposite path since 1947 when he organized annual meetings of economists and businessmen at the foot of Mont Pelerin, Switzerland.
was a new creed that did not come from a god but a man, though many saw him as the god of the market and individualism. One who proclaims the triumph of right of ownership over the food and have a decent life, or which states that to maintain a free society only necessary to establish rules of "fair conduct" imposed on all citizens equally, although inequalities prevail . 
to Von Hayek, State should have no interference in economic activity and individual freedom (property) is not dependent on political democracy. On the contrary, it is necessary to prevail on it if it is damaged by the vote of the people (hence the warm relations between the enlightened economist with dictatorships like Pinochet).
A liberal economist said years ago that Hayek and the Mont Pelerin Society was the twentieth century as Karl Marx and the First International was the nineteenth century. And part was right: the ghost who traveled the world in recent times causing economic devastation similar to the tsunami was not communism but neoliberalism, the doctrine which derives on the ideas of von Hayek. All this came about Vargas Llosa, and the coincidence of their dual presence in Buenos Aires, where the obelisk raised its stature and became a new Mont Pelerin, besides allowing the writer to speak of liberalism, populism and other plants for style in the Book Fair. Would have caught a much larger audience that members of the decadent society and kill two birds with one stone. Most people would see him as a Nobel Prize and a few friends as Buddy. to Von Hayek, State should have no interference in economic activity and individual freedom (property) is not dependent on political democracy. On the contrary, it is necessary to prevail on it if it is damaged by the vote of the people (hence the warm relations between the enlightened economist with dictatorships like Pinochet). 
A I would have wanted to dedicate this, to speak only of Vargas Llosa and Von Hayek and try to explain why the promised by neoliberalism failures as well as that of "real socialism." I already had an argument, Von Hayek was the Marx of our time, only Robin Hood style. But when he went on to write, some readings and films recently seen embroiled me ideas. A former leftist economist, now converted, says from a diary of the traditional right that populism fails to redistribute income because you first have to accumulate. Populism would be for it, distribute it without accumulating. Of course, the problem arises when we ask what kind of distribution we mean. And then I see a Russian-French film called Concert and I am delighted to know that in the world where totalitarianism reigned now all are free. Yes, many are starving and can not even practice their profession and must clean latrines, while others organize weddings giant for hundreds of people. These are the old technocrats who kept the wedding cake thanks to people like Von Hayek: The property is sacred if you manage to steal time. Every time we find it clear, the question is the dichotomy accumulation-distribution, but to have a better idea of \u200b\u200baccumulating and distributing what to whom. One thing is accumulating in favor of staying with the dividends or the high salaries of big business. Or so that the fruits of technical progress be poured down the drain of money laundering and crime, deterioration in the wild the spacecraft in which we live, or permit to assemble a few wars to profit from the lives of others. That is not populism. Is it because it is a word associated with many and those who enjoy this sort of populism are few.
But our wise economists forget that the illustrious founders of their science, which is the political economy at the time were damned populist. In their struggle against colonial monopoly and absolute monarchies, the laissez-faire of Adam Smith represented the middle class populism: industrialists, merchants, professionals, etc. What better than to unleash the forces market to bring down tyrants and favorites that carried most of the cake. Worse happened to the dangerous ideas of his colleague David Ricardo, who realized that the aristocrats of the country had an income differential on which they built their luxurious castles and decided to clarify the issue in his Principles of Economics, an intellectual 125 his time. Still, it took almost thirty years to achieve that abolished the Corn Laws that protected. Thus introduced the theory of distribution, showing that the landowners accumulated at the expense of others.
Then came Marx claiming that the populism of Smith and Ricardo was not enough to better distribute the wealth and accumulation again be in the hands of a few. They were not commercial monopolies or large landowners, now called capitalists and a whole world of poor overcrowded.
But still, to make matters worse, came after Keynes, who showed that fat bellies of the rich came not to eat anything produced. They could continue to sell and broke the crisis was the state should intervene to create the demand needed to re-accumulate. Another more populist and very dangerous.
All these ideas had to send them to the trash can if they wanted to maintain a fair distribution for that accumulated. And rode along the trail Von Hayek from Switzerland to Chicago, watered by money from generous foundations. Moreover, the greater evil was now in Adam Smith. Free market too, which did not serve the multinationals, not to be that this freedom to mess within their companies. No sir, there are armies of economists and accountants earnings well planned, the plan should not the state, a monstrous scaffolding that serves only to appropriate the benefits of others and deliver them to those who can not plan their future.
Poor movie music concert, former cast members of the Bolshoi to defend freedom of expression before the fall of "real socialism" and not reinstated Of course, they deceive the bureaucrats who run the new Bolshoi, creating his own orchestra to play and win in Paris. But in the end we see that if you get to make a sequel of the film will again be poor and the conductor will return to clean the latrines of the theater. The freedom of the Mont Pelerin is true for the mafia tycoons who celebrate lavish weddings. The "real capitalism" and "real socialism" ended up being two sides of same coin. So to make things continue like this, do not let more through the door of the academy that degrade populist economists, if the situation of her time not as dogmas, are called Smith, Ricardo, Marx and Keynes. Published in:
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/economia/2-166902-2011-04-24.html
/ /
Poor movie music concert, former cast members of the Bolshoi to defend freedom of expression before the fall of "real socialism" and not reinstated Of course, they deceive the bureaucrats who run the new Bolshoi, creating his own orchestra to play and win in Paris. But in the end we see that if you get to make a sequel of the film will again be poor and the conductor will return to clean the latrines of the theater. The freedom of the Mont Pelerin is true for the mafia tycoons who celebrate lavish weddings. The "real capitalism" and "real socialism" ended up being two sides of same coin. So to make things continue like this, do not let more through the door of the academy that degrade populist economists, if the situation of her time not as dogmas, are called Smith, Ricardo, Marx and Keynes.
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/economia/2-166902-2011-04-24.html
/ /
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment