Viviendo en Alemania, y habiendo viajado a lugares mas fríos como Ucrania, me he dado cuenta de la influencia que tiene el frío en muchas cuestiones de la vida cotidiana.
No puedo decir con certeza que ésto sea así, es simplemente una teoría.
Menos vocales: En los idiomas nórdicos tienen muchas menos vocales que los derivados del latín o los idiomas originarios de países más cálidos. A mi parecer, ésto se debe a que para pronunciar las vocales hace falta tener la boca mas abierta que para pronunciar consonantes. Cuando abres la boca, entra el frío. A mayor frío menos quieres abrir la boca.
Puntualidad: Los paises donde la puntualidad es más exacta son los nórdicos. Esto siempre me impresionó. Pero cuando te toca esperar por alguien a -20 grados, cada minuto que pasa se te ocurren tres maneras diferentes de matar a la persona que te hace esperar.
Desarrollo: Cuando tienes estaciones marcadas, especificamente el invierno, toca prepararse durante el resto de las estaciones. La preparación exige que tengas que pensar a largo plazo y no solamente en el día a día.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Monday, December 5, 2011
Why I don't believe in Macroeconomics
Why I don’t believe in Macroeconomics
Macroeconomics is a branch of Economics that deals with the aggregates of all agents in a country. The Idol of macroeconomics is John Maynard Keynes. Actual champion of Keynesianism is Nobel-Prize laureate Paul Krugman.
The foundations of Macroeconomics is this simple formula:
Y= C(Y-T) + I(r) + G → Y = C + I + G
Y = aggregated Income (well-being)
C = Consume.
C(Y-T) = What people consume after their income (Y) is taxed (T)
I = Investments
I ( r) = Investments dependent on interest rates
G = Government spending.
Of course, this formula gets more complicated when for example you use the Mundell-Fleming-Model which also deals with exchange rates, Imports and Exports. But for simplicity matters, we’ll just use the basic one. The flaws of the theory which I point extend to the more complex versions of the same.
Why Don’t I agree with macroeconomics, and (most) policies which are made based upon it?
1. I regard this formula as kind of a thermometer, which is used to analyse the economic health of a nation. The curious thing about this thermometer is that it is triggered by more than a variable. In metaphor: The country is the patient. The thermometer registers the temperature. The factors that influence the thermometer are the patients body temperature and the room temperature. The problem when you use policies aimed at increasing the aggregate income is that you may change other factors just so that the thermometer tells there has been improvement. This means that you may lower the room temperature and the thermometer will say that the patient has improved. In reality he is just as sick as he was before, the only difference is what the thermometer is telling.
Quoting Keynes vs Hayek (Round 2) video: “Real growth means production of what people demand, that’s entrepreneurship, not your central plan.” http://goo.gl/aNhLe
2. Too much aggregation. It combines things that cannot be properly added together.
It does not take into account the diversity of people. "models in which buyers and sellers are supposed identical is not a simplification of the real world, but a complete renunciation of it." (Austrian Economics, A primer)
3. It supposes that economics should behave in the same way as natural sciences (Chemistry, Physics). Whereas economics is much more complex because it deals with unpredictable individuals who have a mind of their own and react differently in different situations. All aspects of economics (currency, trade, etc) arose because of human action, not by human design (Hayek). The economy is not a machine which by pressing some buttons behaves the way you want it to. The economy is organic, it’s molecules are all individuals. In economics you can not make predictions the same way you would in natural science. I think it was Ludwig von Mises the one who said "If you throw a rock in a river, it will sink. If you throw a human into a river, he must decide if to swim or sink."
4. The Problem of Knowledge (The Use of Knowledge in Society, Hayek) http://goo.gl/McnAM
Because knowledge is so dispersed, it would be very hard if not impossible for any individual or group of individuals to gather this knowledge. This hinders the ability for governments and/or central banks to make decisions that deliver the intended consequences.
5. Unintended consequences. Policies based on the macroeconomic foundations may have unintended consequences that may have devastating effects.
Examples:
Fiscal policy (Change on Taxes or Government expenditure):
We are told that when government increases expenditure the total income arises ( G↑→I↓→ →Y↑ (G↑>I↓)
BUT: first of all, let us remember that government doesn’t actually earn any money. The money that government uses must come from taxes or investors that buy public debt. Any $/€/bs that government spends is a $ that is not used in the private sector. It is money that is not consumed by people (Who could have increased their individual utility by spending it) or is not invested in production of what people demand. This does not increase the income of people. This may be best understood with Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy (What Is Seen and not Seen) http://goo.gl/RRy8 Mainstream economists recognize that there is some crowding-out, however, they claim that this is less than the effect of the “multiplier”. Again, let us remember that economic well-being comes when goods are more plentiful, there is more variety, cheaper prices and more accessibility. Even if the aggregate Income actually increased, this would only be artificial, not real growth, because no value was actually created.
BUT: It also depends on what governments spend it in. If they build streets, highways, schools, etc where there was demand for it then it may not be that terrible. This depends if you believe that the public sector does a good job doing this or if you think these would be better taken care of by individuals. I personally believe that individuals could manage it better, but this is only a matter of which could do it best. There is little doubt that by building infrastructure that allows people to exchange easier there will be more trade and therefor more real creation of value. Someone once said that if you build a street between two towns you needed to do little else, because they would find ways to trade between one another in a spontaneous manner. However, most Keynesians don’t really care in what the government spends it in, as long as they spend it. For example Paul Krugman recently claimed that the best that could happen to the U.S was an alien invasion because it would increase government spending. Another famous claim was by Keynes himself who said that in times of crisis government should pay people to dig holes in the day and cover them up by night. If you are not convinced by my argument and even if you were convinced I strongly encourage you to read Bastiat’s essay (It’s not long, I promise.)
Tax Cuts : I have no problem with tax-cuts. As Milton Friedman, I would support them for any reason, at any time, to anyone. They let individuals have more money to spend it or invest it, this in turn, does increase the income of individuals and companies who in turn actually end up paying more taxes (10% of 100 is more than 15% of 50). This also helps lower the level of unemployment because it is now cheaper to pay for labor (Keynesians love to talk about unemployment). But employment is not an end in itself, it is just the means to create value, by letting the private sector do the hiring, people would be employed in the most efficient ways. Job programs are very well described by Milton Friedman in this story:
Milton Friedman was shown the construction on a massive new canal in Asia. When he noted that it was odd that the workers were moving huge amounts of earth and rock with small shovels, rather than earth moving equipment, he was told “You don’t understand; this is a jobs program.” His response: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If you’re seeking to create jobs, why didn’t you issue them spoons, rather than shovels?”
Monetary Policy: Change in the money supply or interest rates.
Money supply: When governments print money there is inflation. Inflation hurts the wallets of all individuals without discrimination who can now buy less with the money they have. This does not increase total income for an obvious reason, money is now worth less.
Interest rates: This is one of the most interesting. According to mainstream economists, when you lower interest rates you increase investments, thus raising the aggregate income. But that does not foresee the unintended consequences. Interest rates represent the time preference of people (von Böhm-Bawerk) and their risks preference. When Central Banks artificially lower interest rates (without a change in the time preference of people) they make some investments (for example Housing) seem more attractive than they actually are. This is because there was a distortion of the price mechanism (Hayek). These are malinvestments that lead to a temporary Boom. When banks curb their lendings the Boom turns to Bust and you find yourself in a (avoidable) recession. The important thing is not how much capital we have, but how it is structured. This is explained by Hayek and von Mises in the Austrian Business cycle.
Trade Policy: An easy example of how misleading macroeconomic simplification is, is trade policy. Under the Mundel-Fleming-Modell with fixed exchange rates. They claim that by reducing trade barriers, the “Aggregate Income” falls.
NEX↓ → IS nach links → Y ↓ → r ↓ Impuls → e (↓), Abwertungstendenz → ZB verkleinert Geldmenge um eF zu halten, LM nach links → Y↓ (Sorry that it’s in german, I took it from my Macro class)
But, it goes beyond that. If there are no trade barriers, and a foreign producer can supply a good cheaper or better, that may hurt the local producers, true, but it helps everyone else (including themselves as consumers) The people can now buy goods cheaper than before. This allows them to use the extra money they have now available to consume in another good or invest it. Anyway, even in these model either C or I would go up, INCREASING the “Aggregate Income”. Another argument against trade barriers is Bastiat’s “Candlemakers petition”.
@CorderRosas
Macroeconomics is a branch of Economics that deals with the aggregates of all agents in a country. The Idol of macroeconomics is John Maynard Keynes. Actual champion of Keynesianism is Nobel-Prize laureate Paul Krugman.
The foundations of Macroeconomics is this simple formula:
Y= C(Y-T) + I(r) + G → Y = C + I + G
Y = aggregated Income (well-being)
C = Consume.
C(Y-T) = What people consume after their income (Y) is taxed (T)
I = Investments
I ( r) = Investments dependent on interest rates
G = Government spending.
Of course, this formula gets more complicated when for example you use the Mundell-Fleming-Model which also deals with exchange rates, Imports and Exports. But for simplicity matters, we’ll just use the basic one. The flaws of the theory which I point extend to the more complex versions of the same.
Why Don’t I agree with macroeconomics, and (most) policies which are made based upon it?
1. I regard this formula as kind of a thermometer, which is used to analyse the economic health of a nation. The curious thing about this thermometer is that it is triggered by more than a variable. In metaphor: The country is the patient. The thermometer registers the temperature. The factors that influence the thermometer are the patients body temperature and the room temperature. The problem when you use policies aimed at increasing the aggregate income is that you may change other factors just so that the thermometer tells there has been improvement. This means that you may lower the room temperature and the thermometer will say that the patient has improved. In reality he is just as sick as he was before, the only difference is what the thermometer is telling.
Quoting Keynes vs Hayek (Round 2) video: “Real growth means production of what people demand, that’s entrepreneurship, not your central plan.” http://goo.gl/aNhLe
2. Too much aggregation. It combines things that cannot be properly added together.
It does not take into account the diversity of people. "models in which buyers and sellers are supposed identical is not a simplification of the real world, but a complete renunciation of it." (Austrian Economics, A primer)
3. It supposes that economics should behave in the same way as natural sciences (Chemistry, Physics). Whereas economics is much more complex because it deals with unpredictable individuals who have a mind of their own and react differently in different situations. All aspects of economics (currency, trade, etc) arose because of human action, not by human design (Hayek). The economy is not a machine which by pressing some buttons behaves the way you want it to. The economy is organic, it’s molecules are all individuals. In economics you can not make predictions the same way you would in natural science. I think it was Ludwig von Mises the one who said "If you throw a rock in a river, it will sink. If you throw a human into a river, he must decide if to swim or sink."
4. The Problem of Knowledge (The Use of Knowledge in Society, Hayek) http://goo.gl/McnAM
Because knowledge is so dispersed, it would be very hard if not impossible for any individual or group of individuals to gather this knowledge. This hinders the ability for governments and/or central banks to make decisions that deliver the intended consequences.
5. Unintended consequences. Policies based on the macroeconomic foundations may have unintended consequences that may have devastating effects.
Examples:
Fiscal policy (Change on Taxes or Government expenditure):
We are told that when government increases expenditure the total income arises ( G↑→I↓→ →Y↑ (G↑>I↓)
BUT: first of all, let us remember that government doesn’t actually earn any money. The money that government uses must come from taxes or investors that buy public debt. Any $/€/bs that government spends is a $ that is not used in the private sector. It is money that is not consumed by people (Who could have increased their individual utility by spending it) or is not invested in production of what people demand. This does not increase the income of people. This may be best understood with Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy (What Is Seen and not Seen) http://goo.gl/RRy8 Mainstream economists recognize that there is some crowding-out, however, they claim that this is less than the effect of the “multiplier”. Again, let us remember that economic well-being comes when goods are more plentiful, there is more variety, cheaper prices and more accessibility. Even if the aggregate Income actually increased, this would only be artificial, not real growth, because no value was actually created.
BUT: It also depends on what governments spend it in. If they build streets, highways, schools, etc where there was demand for it then it may not be that terrible. This depends if you believe that the public sector does a good job doing this or if you think these would be better taken care of by individuals. I personally believe that individuals could manage it better, but this is only a matter of which could do it best. There is little doubt that by building infrastructure that allows people to exchange easier there will be more trade and therefor more real creation of value. Someone once said that if you build a street between two towns you needed to do little else, because they would find ways to trade between one another in a spontaneous manner. However, most Keynesians don’t really care in what the government spends it in, as long as they spend it. For example Paul Krugman recently claimed that the best that could happen to the U.S was an alien invasion because it would increase government spending. Another famous claim was by Keynes himself who said that in times of crisis government should pay people to dig holes in the day and cover them up by night. If you are not convinced by my argument and even if you were convinced I strongly encourage you to read Bastiat’s essay (It’s not long, I promise.)
Tax Cuts : I have no problem with tax-cuts. As Milton Friedman, I would support them for any reason, at any time, to anyone. They let individuals have more money to spend it or invest it, this in turn, does increase the income of individuals and companies who in turn actually end up paying more taxes (10% of 100 is more than 15% of 50). This also helps lower the level of unemployment because it is now cheaper to pay for labor (Keynesians love to talk about unemployment). But employment is not an end in itself, it is just the means to create value, by letting the private sector do the hiring, people would be employed in the most efficient ways. Job programs are very well described by Milton Friedman in this story:
Milton Friedman was shown the construction on a massive new canal in Asia. When he noted that it was odd that the workers were moving huge amounts of earth and rock with small shovels, rather than earth moving equipment, he was told “You don’t understand; this is a jobs program.” His response: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If you’re seeking to create jobs, why didn’t you issue them spoons, rather than shovels?”
Monetary Policy: Change in the money supply or interest rates.
Money supply: When governments print money there is inflation. Inflation hurts the wallets of all individuals without discrimination who can now buy less with the money they have. This does not increase total income for an obvious reason, money is now worth less.
Interest rates: This is one of the most interesting. According to mainstream economists, when you lower interest rates you increase investments, thus raising the aggregate income. But that does not foresee the unintended consequences. Interest rates represent the time preference of people (von Böhm-Bawerk) and their risks preference. When Central Banks artificially lower interest rates (without a change in the time preference of people) they make some investments (for example Housing) seem more attractive than they actually are. This is because there was a distortion of the price mechanism (Hayek). These are malinvestments that lead to a temporary Boom. When banks curb their lendings the Boom turns to Bust and you find yourself in a (avoidable) recession. The important thing is not how much capital we have, but how it is structured. This is explained by Hayek and von Mises in the Austrian Business cycle.
Trade Policy: An easy example of how misleading macroeconomic simplification is, is trade policy. Under the Mundel-Fleming-Modell with fixed exchange rates. They claim that by reducing trade barriers, the “Aggregate Income” falls.
NEX↓ → IS nach links → Y ↓ → r ↓ Impuls → e (↓), Abwertungstendenz → ZB verkleinert Geldmenge um eF zu halten, LM nach links → Y↓ (Sorry that it’s in german, I took it from my Macro class)
But, it goes beyond that. If there are no trade barriers, and a foreign producer can supply a good cheaper or better, that may hurt the local producers, true, but it helps everyone else (including themselves as consumers) The people can now buy goods cheaper than before. This allows them to use the extra money they have now available to consume in another good or invest it. Anyway, even in these model either C or I would go up, INCREASING the “Aggregate Income”. Another argument against trade barriers is Bastiat’s “Candlemakers petition”.
@CorderRosas
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
The Libertarian Argument
I consider myself a libertarian. However, talking to many people I know, I have realized that only a few are aware of Classical Liberalism (Libertarianism) and even less know what it is about. So I'm going to write a few words about what Classical Liberalism is. In no way should Libertarians be considered the same as Liberals (Democrats) or Conservatives (Republicans).
Libertarianism is the ideology that man's life belongs to himself. We take the assumption that he can handle responsibility and think for himself. He is neither slave nor master to other men. Liberals usually support social freedom, while completely ignoring economic freedom. Conservatives on the other hand support laissez-faire capitalism (free trade) while being against social freedom. Libertarians believe in overall Freedom (Both Social and Economic)
It supports social freedom. That means man can do with his body as he sees fit, he has the right to befriend, marry and handle with whoever he chooses. He also has the right to hold the ideas that he so wishes along with the right to express them. It supports economic freedom, that means he may choose to handle and trade with anyone, and as long as all the concerned parties agree, provided they don't harm anyone, they don't have to answer to no one. Property rights are well established, and private property ought to be hold sacred under an impartial rule of law.
Man has the right to these freedoms, but he may not violate the freedom of other individuals.
Most libertarians hold it to be true that government is better left small in comparison to the economy (While some say there ought to be no government at all). "But why?" you may ask, well... big government means less freedom, for governments have the right to impose their decisions on anyone, unlike individuals who have to negotiate until both parties find it profiting, resulting in win-win situations. They may also prohibit things, that means that even though someone is willing to offer something (therefore believing that trading it will increase his overall happiness) and someone is willing to take it (also increasing his happiness) they may not do so.
Prohibition happens with marriage, schooling, products and services.
[This does not apply if one party is cheating (for example lying) saying “The car works perfectly” while it is actually broken, then it is considered a crime and the cheated party deserve a restitution, this is all possible under an impartial rule of law]
From my point of view, there are two sides of the Libertarian Argument.
The first part is philosophical, moral. These are premises on which you rest your ideas, the foundations if you will. It is that no one has a claim on anyone else, e.g your life belongs to you and no one else. All actions ought to be voluntary, and you may do with your life as you see fit (provided you don’t harm anyone else). These premises lead to believe in laissez-faire capitalism, and overall freedom between consensual adults, where the government doesn’t meddle in your affairs, unless a crime is committed, or to secure your freedom (police).
However, not many wish to mix philosophy with politics or economics (Although I think you should not separate them), that’s why most libertarian arguments are discussed outside the realm of premises (metaphorically it would be as if playing in the other player’s court), and what is argued is not the morality of the free trade system, but rather the efficiency of it. How it has lifted millions from poverty, how it has brought advantages no one could have even imagined of. And also how no other system has been successful in comparison to capitalism.
There’s a lot of evidence that support this. Countries with more freedom are more developed. Even if you didn’t like the morality of these ideas, you would have to agree there is at least no other system that has proven to be more effective or humane.
Among libertarians there are also a lot of tendencies that differ on how small governments ought to be, or even if they should exist at all.
Some believe they should do some things that individuals wouldn’t do themselves, such as building roads and bridges (Adam Smith), schools, water, electricity, and so on. This of course, without much interference in the economy, besides small taxes. This means, no tariffs, no price regulation, freedom to hire and fire, and so on.
Some believe in what is called Minarchism that is that government should provide only the police force, courts to settle affairs, and an army to protect the country from outside enemies.
Some believe in Anarcho-Capitalism which is, no government at all. With private police and courtrooms. Most libertarians find themselves in the first group.
The biggest gateway to classical liberalism (Libertarianism) is the Best-Selling author Ayn Rand , although she didn’t consider herself a libertarian (she was an Objectivist), she has had a great influence among libertarians.
If you care to know more about Classical Liberalism, here are some authors (there are a lot missing, but I am no expert after all)
Ayn Rand (Novels: Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, We the living, Anthem)
Friedrich Hayek (Nobel laureate, The Road to Serfdom, The Use of Knowledge in Society, Fatal Conceit)
Ludwig von Mises (Human action)
Menger (Founder of the austrian school of economics)
Federic Bastiat (What is Seen and what is Unseen in Political Economy, The Law)
Rothbard (Anatomy of the State, For a New Liberty)
John Stuart Mill (On Liberty)
Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, Theory of Moral Sentiments)
Milton Friedman (Nobel Laureate, Free to choose, Capitalism and Freedom)
Ron Paul (American politician)
Tom G. Palmer (Morality of Capitalism)
Robert Nozick (Anarchy, State and Utopia)
Randy Barnett (Structure of Liberty)
And there are a lot of organizations who spread the word of liberty, such as:
www.learnliberty.org (Great, short videos)
www.mises.org
www.cato.org
www.capitalisminstitute.org
www.econlib.org/
Economic Freedom (On facebook)
www.studentsforliberty.org
Institute for Humane Studies (On facebook)
www.libertyguide.com
Libertarianism is the ideology that man's life belongs to himself. We take the assumption that he can handle responsibility and think for himself. He is neither slave nor master to other men. Liberals usually support social freedom, while completely ignoring economic freedom. Conservatives on the other hand support laissez-faire capitalism (free trade) while being against social freedom. Libertarians believe in overall Freedom (Both Social and Economic)
It supports social freedom. That means man can do with his body as he sees fit, he has the right to befriend, marry and handle with whoever he chooses. He also has the right to hold the ideas that he so wishes along with the right to express them. It supports economic freedom, that means he may choose to handle and trade with anyone, and as long as all the concerned parties agree, provided they don't harm anyone, they don't have to answer to no one. Property rights are well established, and private property ought to be hold sacred under an impartial rule of law.
Man has the right to these freedoms, but he may not violate the freedom of other individuals.
Most libertarians hold it to be true that government is better left small in comparison to the economy (While some say there ought to be no government at all). "But why?" you may ask, well... big government means less freedom, for governments have the right to impose their decisions on anyone, unlike individuals who have to negotiate until both parties find it profiting, resulting in win-win situations. They may also prohibit things, that means that even though someone is willing to offer something (therefore believing that trading it will increase his overall happiness) and someone is willing to take it (also increasing his happiness) they may not do so.
Prohibition happens with marriage, schooling, products and services.
[This does not apply if one party is cheating (for example lying) saying “The car works perfectly” while it is actually broken, then it is considered a crime and the cheated party deserve a restitution, this is all possible under an impartial rule of law]
From my point of view, there are two sides of the Libertarian Argument.
The first part is philosophical, moral. These are premises on which you rest your ideas, the foundations if you will. It is that no one has a claim on anyone else, e.g your life belongs to you and no one else. All actions ought to be voluntary, and you may do with your life as you see fit (provided you don’t harm anyone else). These premises lead to believe in laissez-faire capitalism, and overall freedom between consensual adults, where the government doesn’t meddle in your affairs, unless a crime is committed, or to secure your freedom (police).
However, not many wish to mix philosophy with politics or economics (Although I think you should not separate them), that’s why most libertarian arguments are discussed outside the realm of premises (metaphorically it would be as if playing in the other player’s court), and what is argued is not the morality of the free trade system, but rather the efficiency of it. How it has lifted millions from poverty, how it has brought advantages no one could have even imagined of. And also how no other system has been successful in comparison to capitalism.
There’s a lot of evidence that support this. Countries with more freedom are more developed. Even if you didn’t like the morality of these ideas, you would have to agree there is at least no other system that has proven to be more effective or humane.
Among libertarians there are also a lot of tendencies that differ on how small governments ought to be, or even if they should exist at all.
Some believe they should do some things that individuals wouldn’t do themselves, such as building roads and bridges (Adam Smith), schools, water, electricity, and so on. This of course, without much interference in the economy, besides small taxes. This means, no tariffs, no price regulation, freedom to hire and fire, and so on.
Some believe in what is called Minarchism that is that government should provide only the police force, courts to settle affairs, and an army to protect the country from outside enemies.
Some believe in Anarcho-Capitalism which is, no government at all. With private police and courtrooms. Most libertarians find themselves in the first group.
The biggest gateway to classical liberalism (Libertarianism) is the Best-Selling author Ayn Rand , although she didn’t consider herself a libertarian (she was an Objectivist), she has had a great influence among libertarians.
If you care to know more about Classical Liberalism, here are some authors (there are a lot missing, but I am no expert after all)
Ayn Rand (Novels: Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, We the living, Anthem)
Friedrich Hayek (Nobel laureate, The Road to Serfdom, The Use of Knowledge in Society, Fatal Conceit)
Ludwig von Mises (Human action)
Menger (Founder of the austrian school of economics)
Federic Bastiat (What is Seen and what is Unseen in Political Economy, The Law)
Rothbard (Anatomy of the State, For a New Liberty)
John Stuart Mill (On Liberty)
Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, Theory of Moral Sentiments)
Milton Friedman (Nobel Laureate, Free to choose, Capitalism and Freedom)
Ron Paul (American politician)
Tom G. Palmer (Morality of Capitalism)
Robert Nozick (Anarchy, State and Utopia)
Randy Barnett (Structure of Liberty)
And there are a lot of organizations who spread the word of liberty, such as:
www.learnliberty.org (Great, short videos)
www.mises.org
www.cato.org
www.capitalisminstitute.org
www.econlib.org/
Economic Freedom (On facebook)
www.studentsforliberty.org
Institute for Humane Studies (On facebook)
www.libertyguide.com
Monday, August 8, 2011
Taxation
Governments need taxes to keep working. It is amoral, it is wrong, but it is a small evil we have to live with.
How much they tax is a question that should be discussed.
I think they should only tax the better-off with no more than 20% (usually 10-15%). That money should go to police and courts, that are the only branches of the government who actually do government duty (Which is to protect the individual citizens). Of course, some believe that education and transportation (among others) should also be government tasks. That doesn't mean we have the right to force people to pay for them.
I think that for those kind of services there should be an Opt-Out tax. That means, unless you explicitly say you wish to give no money to pay for, for example children education (Shame on you) you'd have to pay for it. I think most people would gladly pay for it, but it is important that the choice remains theirs. For without choice, we are no better than savages.
How much they tax is a question that should be discussed.
I think they should only tax the better-off with no more than 20% (usually 10-15%). That money should go to police and courts, that are the only branches of the government who actually do government duty (Which is to protect the individual citizens). Of course, some believe that education and transportation (among others) should also be government tasks. That doesn't mean we have the right to force people to pay for them.
I think that for those kind of services there should be an Opt-Out tax. That means, unless you explicitly say you wish to give no money to pay for, for example children education (Shame on you) you'd have to pay for it. I think most people would gladly pay for it, but it is important that the choice remains theirs. For without choice, we are no better than savages.
My views on government
Throughout life, Humanity has been used to have very powerful governments, be that monarchs, dictators, or whatever name they prefer. It is no coincidence, that the smaller (less powerful) the governments have become, the better off their citizens have been. Governments usually accomplish wars, destruction, theft, corruption, and little else.
I strongly believe governments ought to be as little as possible. Their only duty is to allow people to pursuit happiness and their interests without interfering, and protect them from others, by means of Police and Courts, who may wish to interfere.
No group of individuals may tell somebody else how to live their life. They may beg or implore them, but the choice is up to them.
That means that the government should not be able to prohibit anything to anyone (provided it causes no harm to others).
Governments don't own money. They use money of productive people by means of coercion. As it is not their money, they tend to think of it as unlimited (If they want to pay for X, just take more away from Y.) That means that they make first the plans AND THEN see how to get the money (Let me stress out, money that's not theirs!) That's why they take debt. To pay for it, either they take more money from more people, or just let human beings that have not been born pay for it.
I think governments should make their plans ACCORDING to their budget (Not spend more money than they should). To get the money, they have to tax citizens. These taxes ought to be as small as possible. If they don't mess with the economy, it will grow. It is more to have 10% of 1000 than to have 50% of 100. In other words, By lower taxes, the tax revenues will grow, and the government can afford to pay the police men,teachers, judges, etc.
If by any chance, some natural resources monopoly (For example Oil) is already in hands of the government, they should keep it that way, running it as a for-profit organization with the government as shareholder. And then don't charge taxes at all.
I strongly believe governments ought to be as little as possible. Their only duty is to allow people to pursuit happiness and their interests without interfering, and protect them from others, by means of Police and Courts, who may wish to interfere.
No group of individuals may tell somebody else how to live their life. They may beg or implore them, but the choice is up to them.
That means that the government should not be able to prohibit anything to anyone (provided it causes no harm to others).
Governments don't own money. They use money of productive people by means of coercion. As it is not their money, they tend to think of it as unlimited (If they want to pay for X, just take more away from Y.) That means that they make first the plans AND THEN see how to get the money (Let me stress out, money that's not theirs!) That's why they take debt. To pay for it, either they take more money from more people, or just let human beings that have not been born pay for it.
I think governments should make their plans ACCORDING to their budget (Not spend more money than they should). To get the money, they have to tax citizens. These taxes ought to be as small as possible. If they don't mess with the economy, it will grow. It is more to have 10% of 1000 than to have 50% of 100. In other words, By lower taxes, the tax revenues will grow, and the government can afford to pay the police men,teachers, judges, etc.
If by any chance, some natural resources monopoly (For example Oil) is already in hands of the government, they should keep it that way, running it as a for-profit organization with the government as shareholder. And then don't charge taxes at all.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Liberty and Tolerance
Our only goal in life is the pursuit of happiness (while living in proximity to other human beings).
That means that we ought to do as we wish as long as we don't interfere with others. Simple Logic. Common sense.
But somehow this basic principle keeps being perverted. Majorities often limit the liberty of individuals even if they're just 'minding their own business'. We see these things everyday and think they're ok. Be that excessive taxes, illegality of drugs, or gay relationships being forbidden.
On what grounds, may I ask? According to whom? What standards?
How is It that your work doesn't belong to you?
Who is to tell you that you can't use your body as you will, or use substances you believe, will increase your happiness?
and since when can someone decide who can you love or spend your life with?
Tolerance doesn't imply you have to like something. Just that you have to let it be. The only thing that a society ought to do is protect you right to do whatever you want.
That means that we ought to do as we wish as long as we don't interfere with others. Simple Logic. Common sense.
But somehow this basic principle keeps being perverted. Majorities often limit the liberty of individuals even if they're just 'minding their own business'. We see these things everyday and think they're ok. Be that excessive taxes, illegality of drugs, or gay relationships being forbidden.
On what grounds, may I ask? According to whom? What standards?
How is It that your work doesn't belong to you?
Who is to tell you that you can't use your body as you will, or use substances you believe, will increase your happiness?
and since when can someone decide who can you love or spend your life with?
Tolerance doesn't imply you have to like something. Just that you have to let it be. The only thing that a society ought to do is protect you right to do whatever you want.
Libros que he leido
Estos son los libros que me he leido hasta el momento. los recomiendo todos. No estan en el orden que me los lei.
1 The Fountainhead - Ayn Rand
2 Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand
3 Anthem - Ayn Rand
4 We the Living - Ayn Rand
5 For the New Intellectual - Ayn Rand
6 Philosophy: Who needs It - Ayn Rand
7 Harry Potter II
8 Harry Potter III
9 Harry Potter IV
10 Harry Potter V
11 Harry Potter VI
12 Harry Potter VII
13 Luces Del Norte
14 La Daga
15 El Catalejo Lacado
16 Alexandros I
17 Alexandros II
18 Alexandros III
19 Rey Arturo
20 Rey Arturo II
21 La Momia - Anne Rice
22 Entrevista con El Vampiro
23 El Santuario
24 Armand, el vampiro
25 La Reina de los Condenados
26 Los Reyes Malditos I
27 Los Reyes Malditos II
28 Los Reyes Malditos III
29 Los Reyes Malditos IV
30 Atila, El Azote de Dios
31 La Espada de Atila
32 El tirano (de Siracusa)
33 La Ultima Legion
34 The Catcher In the Rye
35 A Long Way gone
36 Pedro Paramo
37 Llano en Llamas
38 Aura
39 Anibal
40 El Tunel - Sabato
41 100 años de soledad
42 EL Hobbit
43 La Conspiracion
44 Angeles y Demonios
45 El Codigo Da Vinci
46 El Psicoanalista
47 Animal Farm
48 The importance of Being Ernest
49 Wicked
50 EL Zorro
51 La ciudad de Las Bestias
52 El reino del Dragon de Oro
53 El bosque de los Pigmeos
54 Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
55 El Mundo de Sofia
56 Ilicito
57 El Arte de La Guerra
58 What I learned at HBS
59 El pistolero
60 El Regreso del Idiota
61 Marco Polo
62 Marco Polo II
63 Facebook for Business
64 El Principe
65 Freedom
66 El Retrato de Dorian Grey
67 El alquimista
68 El Inquisidor
69 Cleopatra
70 Freakonomics
71 Crazy
72 The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
73 The Girl who played with Fire
74 Girl who kicked the Hornets Nest
75 Game of Thrones
76 Clash of Kings
77 Storm of Words
78 A feast for Crows
79 Morality of Capitalism
80 Dance With Dragons
81 Cuando quiero llorar no lloro
82 Austrian Economics, A primer
83 Anti-Capitalistic Mentality
84 War and Peace
85 Road to Serfdom
86 Catching Fire
87 Mockingjay
88 Undercover Economist
89 Economics in One Lesson
90 Condensed wealth of Nations
91 El Poder del ahora
92 Das Verlorene Symbol
93 El Sueño del Celta
94 Beyond Politics
95 The Lean-Startup
96 Living Economics
97 Relato de un Naufrago
1 The Fountainhead - Ayn Rand
2 Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand
3 Anthem - Ayn Rand
4 We the Living - Ayn Rand
5 For the New Intellectual - Ayn Rand
6 Philosophy: Who needs It - Ayn Rand
7 Harry Potter II
8 Harry Potter III
9 Harry Potter IV
10 Harry Potter V
11 Harry Potter VI
12 Harry Potter VII
13 Luces Del Norte
14 La Daga
15 El Catalejo Lacado
16 Alexandros I
17 Alexandros II
18 Alexandros III
19 Rey Arturo
20 Rey Arturo II
21 La Momia - Anne Rice
22 Entrevista con El Vampiro
23 El Santuario
24 Armand, el vampiro
25 La Reina de los Condenados
26 Los Reyes Malditos I
27 Los Reyes Malditos II
28 Los Reyes Malditos III
29 Los Reyes Malditos IV
30 Atila, El Azote de Dios
31 La Espada de Atila
32 El tirano (de Siracusa)
33 La Ultima Legion
34 The Catcher In the Rye
35 A Long Way gone
36 Pedro Paramo
37 Llano en Llamas
38 Aura
39 Anibal
40 El Tunel - Sabato
41 100 años de soledad
42 EL Hobbit
43 La Conspiracion
44 Angeles y Demonios
45 El Codigo Da Vinci
46 El Psicoanalista
47 Animal Farm
48 The importance of Being Ernest
49 Wicked
50 EL Zorro
51 La ciudad de Las Bestias
52 El reino del Dragon de Oro
53 El bosque de los Pigmeos
54 Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
55 El Mundo de Sofia
56 Ilicito
57 El Arte de La Guerra
58 What I learned at HBS
59 El pistolero
60 El Regreso del Idiota
61 Marco Polo
62 Marco Polo II
63 Facebook for Business
64 El Principe
65 Freedom
66 El Retrato de Dorian Grey
67 El alquimista
68 El Inquisidor
69 Cleopatra
70 Freakonomics
71 Crazy
72 The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
73 The Girl who played with Fire
74 Girl who kicked the Hornets Nest
75 Game of Thrones
76 Clash of Kings
77 Storm of Words
78 A feast for Crows
79 Morality of Capitalism
80 Dance With Dragons
81 Cuando quiero llorar no lloro
82 Austrian Economics, A primer
83 Anti-Capitalistic Mentality
84 War and Peace
85 Road to Serfdom
86 Catching Fire
87 Mockingjay
88 Undercover Economist
89 Economics in One Lesson
90 Condensed wealth of Nations
91 El Poder del ahora
92 Das Verlorene Symbol
93 El Sueño del Celta
94 Beyond Politics
95 The Lean-Startup
96 Living Economics
97 Relato de un Naufrago
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)