Individual efforts will bring the overall progress. Cesare Cantu
1 .- WHY OBAMA WENT TO ANASTASIA O'GRADY BRASIL.MARY
2 .- THE MYTH OF KEYNES. MANUEL F. Ayau
3 .- LARRY SUMMERS REPRESENT THAT THE JAPANESE DISASTER WILL BOOST ECONOMY. DAVID J. Theroux
4 .- AVATAR AND THE ETHICS OF COPYRIGHT. MARTIN KRAUSE
Hope Force moves. Be strong, go ahead and work. We only have 655 days, countdown inexorable. Article 231. 1999 Constitution. The new president will take office on 10/01 the first year of his constitutional term .- @ raulamiel
WHY OBAMA WENT TO BRASIL.MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
The trip of President Barack Obama to Brazil, Chile and El Salvador this week, as the war intensifies in Libya, has been harshly criticized as evidence a dangerous disregard for a world that needs American leadership.
However, there is less reason to go to Brazil. Possibly, the scales in Santiago and San Salvador could have been postponed. Chile is a stable ally and stop in El Salvador to say platitudes on hemispheric security while Central America burns in the flames of drugs only serves to highlight the sterility of the U.S. war against drugs.
On the other hand, go to Brasilia on Saturday to meet with President Dilma Rousseff of the Workers Party, was important.
Unfortunately, Obama decried his journey even before boarding the plane to present it as a trade mission to create jobs and boost the U.S. economy. If that is what I wanted, it would have been better to stay at home and put pressure on Congress to repeal the tariff of 54 cents per gallon applies to Brazilian ethanol from sugar cane and to put an end to all subsidies U.S. cotton, which were declared illegal by the World Trade Organization after a charge brought by Brazil. There may also be sent free trade agreements trade with Colombia and Panama to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, where they were easily ratified.
Say things like: Obama's reputation precedes him as a protectionist. If he does not think so, then our president, who is an excellent speaker, has a good ear.
For good reasons for doing this trip, consider the geopolitical interests shared between the U.S. and the largest democracy in Latin America. Although former President Lula da Silva, the Workers Party, did not during his eight years in office virtually nothing to liberalize an economy that, for the most part is not free, he managed to comply with the reforms the operation of the central bank of its predecessor, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. As a result, after decades of chaos caused by inflationary central bank financing of government deficits, Brazil has greatly improved the stability of prices for more than a decade. End the cycle of repeated devaluations have allowed the formation of a substantial middle class has shaped a nation that increasingly wants to be part of a modern, globalized economy.
Millions of Brazilians out of poverty is something to celebrate. But what is more troubling is when the leadership of a former sleeping giant announces isolated seeking alliances with tyrants. That was what happened while he was in the Lula government.
Lula had a soft spot for thugs. Given its roots in the leftist labor movement, his penchant for Cuban dictator Fidel Castro was understandable. But his decision to serve as public relations Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the world stage was not.
Fortunately it did not help much. On the other hand, support for Hugo Chavez, who is undemocratic on the home front and support to Colombian terrorists beyond its borders, harmed the multilateral efforts to contain the threat in Venezuela.
Now Rousseff wants to shape a new foreign policy, although far from aligned with the United States would be less likely to actively seek alliances with dictators and authoritarian leaders. U.S. should support such efforts. In the struggle for hemispheric stability, Brazil is a crucial actor.
As president was expected to Rousseff, who was joined a Marxist guerrilla group, to pursue the ideological left more than its predecessor and that was just as dangerously populist. But so far has opted for pragmatism. While the charismatic Lula liked being the center of attention, she kept a low profile. When he speaks, is serious and restrained. Lula complained loudly of the criticism and tried to curtail the freedom of the press. Rousseff rejected the idea.
There is an old tradition of reserving the Brazilian Foreign Ministry on the left more eccentric. That and the old ambition of defeating Brazilian American hegemony in the region is a way to explain support for despots under the Lula government. Brazil also has valuable trade agreements with Venezuela. Rousseff seems to have decided that Lula's strategy was counterproductive, especially for the Brazilian goal of obtaining a permanent seat on the Security Council of the Organization of the United Nations.
Shortly after winning the second round of elections on October 31, Rousseff began to criticize the human rights situation in Iran and Cuba, Lula something that never had the courage to do. Another important sign, though subtle, is the manner in which the president seems to be distancing himself from Chavez and his henchmen.
If Brazil seeks a rapprochement with the United States is a positive development for the entire hemisphere. As an ally on key issues such as opposition to torture in Cuban prisons, Brazil could be part of a regional long-awaited offensive to denounce human rights abuses. It might also be useful next year when Venezuela made its presidential elections. Chavez has said that even if you lose, not abandon office and the commander of the army supported him.
This could create a situation not unlike that crosses Libya today. It would be helpful if the United States and Brazil are sending the same message.
is unfortunate that the commander in chief who was starting a war, has not had the good sense to go home after the meeting in Brasilia.
THE MYTH OF KEYNES. MANUEL F. Ayau
The famous British economist John Maynard Keynes, notorious promoter of the International Monetary Fund and inflationary monetary policies, once gave a lecture at Harvard, which was introduced by John Kenneth Galbraith. In the presentation, Galbraith said proudly being the first American Keynesian. But Keynes said after he himself was "Keynesian", but that his disciples were often exaggerate their extreme theories to not share.
theory commonly known as the essence of Keynesianism is that when the government increases the money supply through deficit government spending, new money and no support, increases the demand for everything and thus stimulating the economy. It seems very simple. Many believed her and thus began the universalization of inflation as a means to progress. But after so many disasters inflation was learned that increasing the money supply without increasing production, not only raises prices and costs but, more serious still, it distorts the allocation of resources. The purchasing power represented by the new money first benefit those who receive it, because they manage to spend before its effect is reflected in prices. For those new money will come later, when they spend not realize that prices rose. The purchasing power that the government is achieved at the expense of savers, pension dependent, and the loss of purchasing power for everyone. This means that it is rather a cruel and dishonest tax.
The Keynesian fallacy was exposed, before Keynes was born, "by economist JB Say, who Keynesians have always been mocked. Many serious economists opposed to Keynesianism, but almost nobody paid attention. Today, again, are coming in Keynesians of the closet to offer solutions to the alleged "crisis of capitalism."
The call Say's Law and common sense is a truism: all buy (demand) what we want with what we produce. The money only makes the exchange is not based on barter. That is, we provide the goods or services produced in exchange for money and with that money bought. Our buying power remains the market value of our contribution to what others want. As this principle so obvious and so easily understood difficult to understand how the error spread. But academic fads often have no basis in logic and those who do not applaud it does not scale in his profession. Keynesianism was christened "demand economy" under the ridiculous belief that money is what creates the demand, not what is produced in order to get what you need. Say's Law was named "supply side economics" and the Keynesians raised the charge that he failed, along with the market.
One thing should be obvious: the only wealth that people can enjoy is the one that produce and exchange. Each person creates demand by spending the money received in exchange for what occurred and, consequently, only by increasing the production was possible to increase effective demand. Keynesian monetary expansion does not increase occurred but increases prices and causes more distortions that reduce the production well.
LARRY SUMMERS REPRESENT THAT THE JAPANESE DISASTER WILL BOOST ECONOMY. DAVID J. Theroux
As expected, a few days of complete disaster and the massive loss of lives (10,000 and counting) in Japan from the record of 8.9 earthquake degrees magnitude and tsunami, a leading Keynesian economist, said in defense of the "broken window fallacy" in the economy by stating that the Japanese disaster actually boost economic growth. The economist is none other than Larry Summers (former President of Harvard University, and currently Professor Charles W. Eliot at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, former director of the National Economic Council Obama, former Chief Economist World Bank, former Clinton Treasury Secretary.) In an interview on CNBC actually Summers argues that the disaster:
. " . . add complexity the challenge of economic recovery in Japan. Ironically, it could lead to some temporary increases in GDP while carrying out a process of reconstruction. Following the previous earthquake in Kobe, Japan in fact gained some economic strength. " (That is proof that the Kobe earthquake killed more than 6,000 people and made homeless 300,000).
Now, in an excellent article in The Daily Caller, "Tsunamis are not stimulus", Ryan Young rejects the Keynesian nonsense Summers:
"Economists call this line of thought the broken window fallacy, if a child hits a window with a baseball, a job is created for those who will repair. . . . But it is clearly a fallacy. . . . Here's why: if the tsunami never happened to begin with people would still have all the buildings and cars I had. Be able to spend additional money on other goods they want. And those new construction jobs created by the tsunami? Until the last of the workers could instead be doing something else. Could be producing computers, televisions, almost anything. For starters, who were construction workers could be building new factories or new homes, plus they already have. Instead, they will be working overtime just to recover what they had. This is not a stimulus, even when reflected in the GDP. It is better to build than to rebuild. "
The fallacy of the "broken window", one of the most harmful to the economy, has long been used to defend a wide variety of government interventions, from urban renewal to "money junk to energy subsidies "Clean" and public works projects for the war. For example, John Maynard Keynes argued in Chapter 10 of his book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, which can make economic sense to build pyramids completely useless in order to stimulate the economy by increasing aggregate demand and encourage full employment. The Keynesian Nobel Prize winner and prominent socialist delNew York Times columnist Paul Krugman has argued similarly that the massive ammunition and other expenses and public works projects of World War II ended the Great Depression (see here and here) a vision that senior associate of The Institute Robert Higgs rejects fully independent in their seminal book, Depression, War, and Cold War.
However, the "broken window fallacy" was first refuted many years ago by the French economist Claude-Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay, "What you see and what not seen ", which can be found in his book, Selected Essays on Political Economy. And one of the best reviews of the fallacy is in the best selling book of the Austrian School economist Henry Hazlitt, Economics in One Lesson.
natural disasters and man-of themselves are tragic enough. Should humanity continue to suffer also governmental action based on wacky Keynesian views that disturbingly consider such calamities as economically beneficial and refuse to learn the simple lesson of the "broken window fallacy?
AVATAR AND THE ETHICS OF COPYRIGHT. MARTIN KRAUSE
The last commercial success of Hollywood features the old formula of the struggle between good and evil and the ultimate triumph of justice but now, instead of being the Yankees good and bad Nazis, the former are a tribe which naturist Cameron, director of the film , just shows what they eat and what derived from nature (it seems that hunt but rather to treat the victims) and the others are a wicked company motivated by profit maximization.
Of course there is an ethical evaluation of each other behind the film does not hide, but it is a rough outline of each other that is not even worth discussing. However, The film raises an ethical dilemma associated with the property right (the natives come out in defense of "our land", or defending that right) which was discussed by economists as an example strikingly similar to the movie.
In an academic debate that swept through several articles, professors Harold Demsetz of the University of California Los Angeles, and Walter Block of Loyola University in New Orleans felt what should be the criterion for assigning property rights where there are two alternative and incompatible uses Si1. Both views reflect two central to contemporary business ethics.
Demsetz is a utilitarian economist who acts for the justification of an action is given by the impact, defined as those that create favorable condition old posed by Jeremy Bentham's "greatest benefit to the greatest number. " That is, it is necessary to make an estimate of costs and benefits and if they exceed the first action is correct.
raises the following case: suppose that an island containing all the known stock of a certain tree and it is inhabited by a religious sect who worship the trees as if they were God. But it is now discovered that these trees contain a substance that is a sure cure for cancer. The religious sect is not ready to deliver for any material compensation. Demsetz allocate the property rights of these trees to those who manufacture the drug against cancer, and in any case, that the sect had to buy their inviolability. Property rights are, to this author, instrumental, and does not believe that they can defend against other so that by the utility that generates a certain assignment.
Block, by contrast, is a follower of natural law libertarian John Locke on this point. For the classic English philosopher property rights originates and finds its ethical justification, in the mix of work with a resource that has no owner. That is, someone got there first, discovered an unclaimed resource, and it has, generating their inherent right which can then be transferred through contracts or bequests. Demsetz ironically criticizes the beginning: how to know if the allocation of trees to cure cancer is more "efficient" than a venerated object?, What if God really exists and so very angry condemning humanity? The rights must be respected without any assessment of efficiency. For him, there is efficiency first and then the allocation of property rights but on the contrary: precisely because these rights are protected reaches market efficiency.
Even own utilitarian terms the violation of the rights of the natives would not be "efficient" and would create legal uncertainty, since all law would be subject to a cost-benefit assessment be made by know who. To Block the operation of free market demand for non-use of violence and respect for voluntary relationships without considering the profits of a particular act. The system will be more efficient with respecting the rights.
Cameron probably motivated by "political correctness" had not objected to be associated with the bad guys to utilitarianism Demsetz and the Chicago school of which he is a prominent representative . But surely not have imagined that the pure free-market liberalism will be providing arguments for the position of the avatars.
http://elrepublicanoliberal.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/raul.amiel
http://webvideocall.oovoo.com/callme/raulamiel/268
@ raulamiel
amiel.movil.skype
raulamiel@gmail.com MAIL SHIPPING TO OUR AUTHORIZED PUBLICATION, TIMELINESS, VENEZUELA, OPINION, NEWS, REPUBLICAN liberalism, democracy, liberal, liberal, Libertarian, POLICY, INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, UNIT ALTERNATIVA DEMOCRÁTICA
0 comments:
Post a Comment