Tuesday, September 20, 2011
When the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous
.. almost always. So said Frédéric Bastiat. Of course, Mr Rot thinks all Frenchies are effete pinko pussies. Nevertheless, because of his stress on the role of consumer demand in initiating economic progress, Bastiat has been described .. as a forerunner of the Austrian School. Next time you're in Rome, go to this church (next to Piazza Navona, if you can find it), and you'll see his tomb there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Full quote: In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause - it is seen. The others unfold in succession - they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference: the one takes account only of the visible effect; the other takes account of both the effects which are seen and those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.
Also:
If socialists mean that under extraordinary circumstances, for urgent cases, the State should set aside some resources to assist certain unfortunate people, to help them adjust to changing conditions, we will, of course, agree. This is done now; we desire that it be done better. There is however, a point on this road that must not be passed; it is the point where governmental foresight would step in to replace individual foresight and thus destroy it.
[The socialists declare] that the State owes subsistence, well-being, and education to all its citizens; that it should be generous, charitable, involved in everything, devoted to everybody; ...that it should intervene directly to relieve all suffering, satisfy and anticipate all wants, furnish capital to all enterprises, enlightenment to all minds, balm for all wounds, asylums for all the unfortunate, and even aid to the point of shedding French blood, for all oppressed people on the face of the earth.
Who would not like to see all these benefits flow forth upon the world from the law, as from an inexhaustible source? ... But is it possible? ... Whence does [the State] draw those resources that it is urged to dispense by way of benefits to individuals? Is it not from the individuals themselves? How, then, can these resources be increased by passing through the hands of a parasitic and voracious intermediary?
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
pinko pussies
We need to bomb Tahiti to placate roT. Next Hawaiian that runs a red light, we got the excuse that'll make NeoCons proud.
They have highways in Tahiti?
I think the French built them so they could flee something.
Back to the topic of the post: Solyndra crooks take the Fifth. Pepe says: so what?
Shyster hog heaven: former Massachusetts Gov. William F. Weld and his associates stand to earn a windfall in fees representing the bankrupt company in coming months. Two weeks after the company was raided by the FBI, Solyndra filed papers asking a bankruptcy judge to allow it to pay $825 per hour to Mr. Weld.
Post a Comment