Logica economica

Milton Friedman vs. Walter Block: cine e rezonabil, cine e fundamentalist?

Economiștii liberali sunt acuzați de fundamentalism. De obicei de către economiști cu evidente înclinații socialiste. Dar ce ne facem când un economist liberal (acuzat ei însuși de fundamentalism) îi aruncă altuia această acuzație?!

Schimbul de replici dintre Milton Friedman și Walter Block poate servi de manual celor dornici să învețe cum să riposteze la această etichetare. Este fabulous. Merită citit integral. Am trunchiat câteva fragmente mai jos (sublinierile îmi aparțin). Ca introducere, să precizăm că dezbaterea a pornit de la un articol extrem de critic scris de Walter Block despre Friedrich Hayek (Drumul către servitute). Friedman protestează sărind în apărarea lui Hayek, iar discuția se încinge:

December 17, 1997

Dear Walter:
Having just read your piece on Hayek (Block 1996)—a piece written by a fanatic, not by a reasonable man—I have but one question I want to ask you. Please specify for me in not more than two brief paragraphs how you perceive a feasible transition in a nongradual way from the present state of affairs to your ideal, justified state of affairs. Have you ever thought seriously about the problem of transition? It is long past time that you should do so.
…

January 9, 1998

Dear Milton:
Thanks for your letter of December 17, 1997. I’m sorry you think my article on Hayek fanatical, not reasonable. I reread it, and I can’t understand your opposition to it. All I did was show many, many instances where Hayek’s views were incompatible with a defense of free enterprise. Nor can I understand the transition from my criticism of Hayek to my views on transition from our present state of affairs to an ideal one. Nevertheless, since you ask it of me, I will try to answer. If we are ever to move from our present mixed economy to a very much more free one, I don’t think it can be done nongradually. After all, it took us (at least in the U.S.) dozens of decades to go from
relative freedom to the semi-socialism we now have. Why should the way back be more abrupt? I at least think it unlikely.

However, if it were to occur, and this is a big if, the only way I could conceive of it happening is under the aegis of a very powerful spokesman for liberty. He would have to have the eloquence of a Ronald Reagan, and the passion for justice and economic sophistication of a person such as yourself. If I could combine the two of your
best relevant traits, that is, somehow get you to be president for eight years, I think we’d have a pretty nongradual change. I can just see you putting Ward Connolly in charge of Equal Opportunity, Walter Williams as Labor Secretary, myself in charge of HUD, David Henderson in Commerce, Tom Sowell as Education Secretary, etc.
etc., and you telling us you’ll fire us if our departments are not ended within one year. You would then pull out of Nafta and WTO and instead unilaterally declare free trade with all nations. You would end the minimum wage, rent control, the Wagner Act and all those other regulations—not gradually, but abruptly. Taxes would quickly fall from some 50 percent of GDP to, say, 10 percent. This is the stuff of dreams, unfortunately. You talk of “feasible,” and this is hardly feasible. There would be too much opposition. You would never be elected. If you were, and
you started to dismantle government, you would be impeached. The only way this could work is if the mass of citizens, or at least some critical number less than 50 percent (say 35 percent and the two opposition parties were divided—this, in my opinion, is why Canada was able to join Nafta) were appreciative of free enterprise. And how can that happen? Why, in the way all of us folks are working, and dedicating our careers: teaching at a university, publishing articles and books, giving speeches, etc. Your own efforts, for example, in trying to attain drug legalization is a case in point and an example for all of us.
…

March 13, 1998

Dear Walter:
I appreciate the lengthy reply you sent to my earlier letter as well as the e-mail I got about the same subject.
There are two different things you and I have written about. One is about an ideal society. The other, that I and to a far lesser extent you have written about, is how, given the imperfect world as it is, we can adopt changes that will make it better and will move us in the direction of that ideal society…

Your attempt to answer my question referring to a nongradual transition brings out clearly that you recognize that a nongradual transition is hard to conceive, that any transition will certainly be gradual, will consist of a great many small measures. There may be some cases, as was the case with rent control, where it is possible to go all the way in one fell swoop, but there are other cases, as I believe in education, where you cannot at the moment hope to go all the way—not only because of political feasibility but because of commitments made by the community and expectations that have led to irrevocable actions— but you can hope to move in the right direction. I realize that in this case you do not agree with me that vouchers would be a step in the right direction and obviously I can well be wrong about that. But my ultimate goal is to have a situation in which parents are fully responsible for schooling their own children and in which the government is not involved in education. Today the government is involved in administering education as well as financing it. It seems to me that it is a step in the right direction to limit its role to financing and eliminate its role as an administrator. Indeed, it seems to me that that will set up forces which will tend to further reduction in the role of the state. And, most important, I do not regard myself as being in any way a traitor to my basic values when I propose and discuss such changes in existing circumstances, though I may of course in a particular case misjudge how such a change would work.
…

April 10, 1998

Dear Milton:
You raise a fascinating point about whether you are “a traitor to (your) basic values” when you advocate such things as educational vouchers. I think that “traitor” is far too harsh. To me, this word implies a knowing renunciation of your goals, a lying superficial public acceptance of them, while behind the scenes working to undermine them. Utter nonsense, in the present case. However, I do think it can be fairly said that educational vouchers are logically
incompatible with the free society, and, given that your basic values are those of economic liberty, that your advocacy of them is inconsistent with this goal. You say “Today the government is involved in administering
education as well as financing it. It seems to me that it is a step in the right direction to limit its role to financing and eliminate its role as an administrator.” Let us test the logical consistency of this statement by applying it to several other cases:

Right now the U.S. government is involved in administering the Post Office as well as financing it. In Canada this applies to radio and television (the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation), to airlines (Air Canada) and to the oil industry (Petro Canada). Previously, coal mines were financed, owned, and operated by the British government.
In India, this applies to such things as steel mills. In Italy, to autos (Fiat). Suppose I were to argue that the U.S., Canada, England, India, and Italy should continue to finance these myriad industries, but not directly administer them. This sounds to me like nothing but economic fascism, the economic system employed by Nazi Germany,
and Mussolini’s Italy.

Let me make this point in a far more radical way. The Nazis both administered and financed concentration camps for Jews, Gypsies, and other unfortunates. Surely no one whose basic values were centered on liberty could advocate that the Nazis give up administering these camps, but keep on financing them, supporting private efforts
along these lines.

William Hutt wrote a magnificent little book on just this topic called Politically Impossible . . . ? (1971). What I learned from him is that specialization and the division of labor applies, also, to public policy recommendations. That is, as libertarians, we must (logically) stick to advocating the ideal solution. We must leave it to others to determine what is or is not politically feasible. The reason I think you are inconsistent with (not traitorous toward) your basic values is that you are trying to straddle two incompatible horses: libertarianism on the one hand, and political feasibility analysis on the other.
…

June 6, 1998

Dear Walter:
I enclose a copy of a page from a recent Far Eastern Economic Review. I wonder why you believe that Hayek is on that page and not “others writing at this time who also wanted to show the socialists the error of this ways, but did so without making the numerous concessions made by Hayek.” More generally, you are a fanatic who finds it absolutely impossible to understand the thinking of anybody other than himself. It is time to close our discussion.
Cordially,
Milton
…

June 21, 1998

Dear Milton:
Thanks for your letter of June 6, 1998. You once again call me a “fanatic” and say that “It is time to close our discussion.” As for the latter, this seems unfair to me, in that you had the first word in this interchange (your letter to me of December 17, 1997). That being the case, it seems only proper that I should have the last word. Hence,
this letter…

I tried to do Hayek the honor of treating his writings seriously, unlike those who have uncritically accepted whatever he said because, after all, it came from the pen of Hayek. The Chinese scholars who are now discovering him can perhaps be excused for seeing in him a pure vision of free enterprise. They know no better. They have probably never been confronted with any more radical defense of markets than Hayek’s. But what can be said for those of us in the west who are, or could be, or should be familiar with less compromising advocates of capitalism such as Mises, Rothbard, Rand, Hoppe, Spooner, Oppenheimer, and still prefer the likes of Hayek? I suppose the best
that can be said of them is that they are not “fanatics.”

Even though you see me as a fanatic, I persist in thinking of you as my intellectual parent. (Officially, perhaps, you are my intellectual grandparent, because Gary Becker was your student, and my teacher at Columbia.) Paradoxically, because of your career (during which, on numerous occasions, I expect, you have been called a fanatic) my own views are seen by many as less fanatical than would otherwise have been the case.
Best regards as always,
Walter

P.S. I think a more accurate assessment of me than “fanatical,” from your own point of view, would be “extremist.” To that, I gladly plead guilty. In any version of the political economic spectrum, my views place me further to the extreme than do yours place you. But I wonder in this connection how you would evaluate the perspective
of your son David? After all, he and I share an “extremist” vision of free-market anarchism, while you favor government, albeit a limited one. Just out of curiosity, would you place David and I in the same category as far as extremism or fanaticism is concerned?

Despre economişti | Bogdan Glăvan | iulie 29, 2010 9:12 pm

36 comentarii

By Dan, iulie 29, 2010 @ 10:02 pm

Partea nerealista cu libertarianismul e ca nu poate fi realizat niciodata in mod plenar. In primul rand nu ar avea trecere la mase. In al doilea rand, doar prin forta se poate impune plenar (si nici atunci pt. mult timp). De fapt, nici un sistem nu poate exista plenar data fiind diferenta dintre oameni. Nici macar forta nu-l poate mentine, decat pt. scurt timp si in spatii geografice relativ restranse.
Poate o reducere masiva a populatiei planetare, de 85% sa zicem, ar schimba perspectivele, daca ar supravietui socului (sa zicem unui cataclism mondial, o boala mortala raspandita rapid, razboi nuclear etc) macar capitalistii din prezent.
Pana una-alta, evaziunea fiscala, subminarea “suveranitatii” nationale si ignorarea “legilor” sociale seems the only way to go . Adevarul si libertatea sunt cele mai putin pretuite lucruri din lume – plebea proletara vrea paine si circ, si sa fie mintita frumos – deci o schimbare reala nu se va petrece prea curand. Nu cu oamenii de-acum. Sau nu de la ei.
Trebuie sa aiba loc o criza mondiala (nu actualul mizilic) de mare amploare, care sa nu mai permita sa se traiasca precum acum, sa nu mai fie posibila intoarcerea la trecut (socialism), dar pt. asta nu s-a atins masa critica inca. Si cand se va atinge, va fi un masacru in toata regula (ma-ndoiesc ca vor accepta socialistii esecul stupidei lor doctrine si se vor retrage linistiti de la butoane, mai degraba ar arunca in aer tot globul decat sa recunoasca ADEVARUL si BUNUL SIMT).
By Extra3OO, iulie 29, 2010 @ 10:48 pm

Ai uitat sa pui citatul ideal pentru discutia dintre cei doi: “Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change”

Milton Friedman avea dreptate.
By vlasti, iulie 31, 2010 @ 4:27 am

Presupun si ca cei ramasi dupa ce dispar 86% din populatia de acum ar trebui sa stea destul de imprastia asa ca sa nu se incaiere sau sa isi subjuge rudele cu produsele comerciale …

“I tried to do Hayek the honor of treating his writings seriously, unlike those who have uncritically accepted whatever he said because, after all, it came from the pen of Hayek. The Chinese scholars who are now discovering him can perhaps be excused for seeing in him a pure vision of free enterprise. They know no better. They have probably never been confronted with any more radical defense of markets than Hayek’s”

oricum baieti s-au menajat academic acolo poate nu ar fi trebuit dar si-au schimbat niste apelative frumoase cu trimiteri si mia interesante …

de fapt cred ca Milton vroia sa ii vanda idea cu voucher-u … a incercat mai mult timp sa o faca si nu i-a iesit perfect … si o tinea pe stoc de ceva timp ..

)
By vlasti, iulie 31, 2010 @ 11:26 am

oricum … cati smintiti cu studii si cunostinte temeinice de economie … asta da fascinant
By Extra3OO, iulie 31, 2010 @ 2:08 pm

Bogdan, uite continuarea dialogului dintre cei doi:

..

Shock Doctrine – Naomi Klein

One of those who saw opportunity in the floodwaters of New Orleans was the late Milton Friedman, grand guru of unfettered capitalism and credited with writing the rulebook for the contemporary, hyper-mobile global economy. Ninety-three years old and in failing health, “Uncle Miltie”, as he was known to his followers, found the strength to write an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal three months after the levees broke. “Most New Orleans schools are in ruins,” Friedman observed, “as are the homes of the children who have attended them. The children are now scattered all over the country. This is a tragedy. It is also an opportunity.”

Friedman’s radical idea was that instead of spending a portion of the billions of dollars in reconstruction money on rebuilding and improving New Orleans’ existing public school system, the government should provide families with vouchers (ideea lui de prin 80), which they could spend at private institutions.

In sharp contrast to the glacial pace with which the levees were repaired and the electricity grid brought back online, the auctioning-off of New Orleans’ school system took place with military speed and precision (asa se va face si acum – metoda se numeste “FIRE SALE“). Within 19 months, with most of the city’s poor residents still in exile, New Orleans’ public school system had been almost completely replaced by privately run charter schools.

The Friedmanite American Enterprise Institute enthused that “Katrina accomplished in a day … what Louisiana school reformers couldn’t do after years of trying”. Public school teachers, meanwhile, were calling Friedman’s plan “an educational land grab”. I call these orchestrated raids on the public sphere in the wake of catastrophic events, combined with the treatment of disasters as exciting market opportunities, “disaster capitalism” (adica ce traim acum).

Privatising the school system of a mid-size American city may seem a modest preoccupation for the man hailed as the most influential economist of the past half century. Yet his determination to exploit the crisis in New Orleans to advance a fundamentalist version of capitalism was also an oddly fitting farewell. For more than three decades, Friedman and his powerful followers had been perfecting this very strategy: waiting for a major crisis, then selling off pieces of the state to private players while citizens were still reeling from the shock.

In one of his most influential essays, Friedman articulated contemporary capitalism’s core tactical nostrum, what I have come to understand as “the shock doctrine”. He observed that “only a crisis- actual or perceived – produces real change”. When that crisis occurs, the actions taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. Some people stockpile canned goods and water in preparation for major disasters; Friedmanites stockpile free-market ideas. And once a crisis has struck, the University of Chicago professor was convinced that it was crucial to act swiftly, to impose rapid and irreversible change before the crisis-racked society slipped back into the “tyranny of the status quo”. A variation on Machiavelli’s advice that “injuries” should be inflicted “all at once”, this is one of Friedman’s most lasting legacies.

Friedman first learned how to exploit a shock or crisis in the mid-70s, when he advised the dictator General Augusto Pinochet. Not only were Chileans in a state of shock after Pinochet’s violent coup, but the country was also traumatised by hyperinflation. Friedman advised Pinochet to impose a rapid-fire transformation of the economy – tax cuts, free trade, privatised services, cuts to social spending and deregulation.

It was the most extreme capitalist makeover ever attempted anywhere, and it became known as a “Chicago School” revolution, as so many of Pinochet’s economists had studied under Friedman there. Friedman coined a phrase for this painful tactic: economic “shock treatment”. In the decades since, whenever governments have imposed sweeping free-market programs, the all-at-once shock treatment, or “shock therapy”, has been the method of choice… (aici Gheorghe sigur se va trezi cu reflexe dureroase insa ar trebui sa-i explice cineva ca vina nu este de partea lui Friedman ci de partea comunistilor care au aplicat cu jumatati de masura acest concept – justitia era ok? – adica nu trebuie sa dai vina pe “bisturiu” ci pe cel care il manuieste).

In the torrent of words written in eulogy to Milton Friedman, the role of shocks and crises to advance his world view received barely a mention. Instead, the economist’s passing, in November 2006, provided an occasion for a retelling of the official story of how his brand of radical capitalism became government orthodoxy in almost every corner of the globe. It is a fairytale history, scrubbed clean of the violence so intimately entwined with this crusade.

It is time for this to change. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there has been a powerful reckoning with the crimes committed in the name of communism. But what of the crusade to liberate world markets?

I am not arguing that all forms of market systems require large-scale violence. It is eminently possible to have a market-based economy that demands no such brutality or ideological purity (oh da, si inca cum – exact asta vine dupa “marxistii” din Grecia). A free market in consumer products can coexist with free public health care, with public schools, with a large segment of the economy – such as a national oil company – held in state hands (???? – Naomi Klein e o libertariana de stanga, am uitat). It’s equally possible to require corporations to pay decent wages, to respect the right of workers to form unions, and for governments to tax and redistribute wealth so that the sharp inequalities that mark the corporatist state are reduced. Markets need not be fundamentalist (sure – a se vedea cum feminismul nu se poate abtine in a nu bate campii).

John Maynard Keynes proposed just that kind of mixed, regulated economy after the Great Depression. It was that system of compromises (right, strutocamila de stanga), checks and balances that Friedman’s counter-revolution was launched to dismantle in country after country. Seen in that light, Chicago School capitalism has something in common with other fundamentalist ideologies: the signature desire for unattainable purity (pentru socialisti e unattainable, corect).

This desire for godlike powers of creation is precisely why free-market ideologues are so drawn to crises and disasters. Non-apocalyptic reality is simply not hospitable to their ambitions. For 35 years, what has animated Friedman’s counter-revolution is an attraction to a kind of freedom available only in times of cataclysmic change – when people, with their stubborn habits and insistent demands, are blasted out of the way – moments when democracy seems a practical impossibility. Believers in the shock doctrine are convinced that only a great rupture – a flood, a war, a terrorist attack – can generate the kind of vast, clean canvases they crave. It is in these malleable moments, when we are psychologically unmoored and physically uprooted, that these artists of the real plunge in their hands and begin their work of remaking the world…

..

Dar sa inchei cu ce nu a aflat pana acum nici Naomi Klein si nici Gheorghe sau alti pacifistii si leftisti ce bantuie pe aici:

Donal Rumsfeld: “ideas have consequences”.

“Precious few people live long enough to witness the rise and fall of empires. Even fewer can see that their work has had a profound effect on those truly momentous events.”
By vlasti, iulie 31, 2010 @ 2:58 pm

lucrurile se pare ca merg mana in mana …

chicago boys…pe spinarea chilienilor ..

nimeni de fapt nu e prost intentionat …
dar cine judeca pe baza intentiilor …
si ce este o intentie fara a evalua riscul(riscul de gradul unu ,riscul de gradul 2, samd) ?
hazard moral sau nerabdare academica … ego ?
By Extra3OO, iulie 31, 2010 @ 3:11 pm

Corect, tu nu esti intentionat.

Asa esti tu fara sa vrei. Iti vine natural..
By vlasti, iulie 31, 2010 @ 3:12 pm

ce parere aveti de locurile unde nu trebuie sa te duci cu portofelul poti sa o faci dar nu ai avea nevoie de el .. poate psihica ?

undeva unde cineva nu te cantareste asa cam cat ai putea sa valorezi ?

cam cu cat ai putea sa ajuti cash-flow-ul ..si din astea abstracte ..
By vlasti, iulie 31, 2010 @ 3:16 pm

umorul e gratuit si totusi inflatia nu bate la usa ..
By Extra3OO, iulie 31, 2010 @ 3:38 pm

Socola? Balaceanca? Gheorghe, tu esti?

Poluarea in Romania este foarte mare.

Daca nu evaluezi RISCUL pana la nivelul 14 nu iese nimic. SUNT PREA MULTI!!!
By vlasti, iulie 31, 2010 @ 3:46 pm

Obsesi vechi obsesi noi ..
By vlasti, iulie 31, 2010 @ 7:45 pm

civilizatia bazata pe firme care isi doresc profit este un esec din lipsa motivatiei psihice a angajatilor …
lipsa proiectului personal vis a vis de proiectul la care particip este crasa …
faptul ca muncesc pentru o simpla productivitate si pot ramen in aer daca apare o noua politica de marketing sau costuri sau vreun robot face ca omul sa fie neimplicat real ci doar sa invete un formalism …

un exemplu indirect .. o statistica din america … numarul total de deschideri de poziti de angajare sunt facute de firme sub 6 ani …

trag eu concluzia ca sunt firme relativ mici stranse in jurul unor proiecte care sunt viabile ,dinamice si inca in crestere …

omul care munceste pentru niste bani si viseaza cum isi va cheltui bani departe de locul unde munceste este realitate fundamentala a sistemului asta provaduit a sectorului privat axat pe profit …

dar se pare ca teoria asta care c/plaseaza profitabilitatea ca un tabu filozofic,logic,psihologic nu a fost tratat suficient de temeinic ca sa fie si eradicat …

angajati in timp devin defensivi si nu isi doresc nimic mia mult decat sa mimeze munca si isi apara pozitia prin mici politici de uzurpare …

in fine …
By vlasti, iulie 31, 2010 @ 8:30 pm

nu vreau sa se inteleaga ca am ceva cu profitabilitatea sau productivitatea ci doar ca ele sunt folosite ca un tabu filozofic neatacabil a unei civilizatii moderne …in sensul asta …

mi se pare insa ca de fiecare data cand un ins spune ca lucrurile intr-o societate trebuie sa aiba la baza profitabilitatea pt ca doar ea este totul si absolutul mi se pare de un cretinism din asta de primata crescuta la circ ..

si care spune ca vanzarea biletelor este scopul ei in vita ))

omul are o dorinta de asociere ,de munca, de a fi cooptat in proiecte de a observa si a ajuta colectivul si comunitatea din care face parte …

sistemul educational-care ii pune pe tineri prea putin in interactiune pe anumite proiecete pentru a dezvolta talentul asta de asociere in munca ,de conlucrare- creaza mai mult individualitati speriate de munca in echipa,individualist care se uita mai mult la ce fac alti si niste critici vanitosi

Am intalnit oameni veniti din mediuri in care le fusese cultivata aceast amestec de dorinta cu putinta de munca in echipa si care erau extrem de dinamici si prietenosi stiau sa imparta lucrurile …

si am intalnit oameni care veneau dintr-un mediu axat doar pe concurenta directa si nu erau capabili sa faca ceva decat sa debiteze interesant … nu mia zic ca credeau doar in valoare individului …

dar individul raportat la o comunitate sau civilizatie este zero …sau ceva subunitar
By Extra3OO, iulie 31, 2010 @ 9:18 pm

vlasti, nu vrei tu mai bine sa mergi inapoi pe blogul lui Gheorghe, sa vorbesti cu el, cu prietenii care te apreciaza si te inteleg?

Acolo te poti simti “subunitar” in siguranta, nu ca intre “primatele” de aici..

Vrei?
By vlasti, august 1, 2010 @ 12:29 am

mi-ar fi greu sa ma duc inapoi pentru ca nu am fost ..

doi la mana .. tu nu te saturi de stilul asta comisar asa ?

e fumat ,e lipsit de sens,retrograd incerc sa pari carmaci la vite …gen redneck
By Extra3OO, august 1, 2010 @ 12:56 am

Vlasti, tu esti putin cretin, asa-i?

Eu recunosc ca sunt cu vaca pe camp (desi n-am ceafa groasa), insa eu chiar ma gandesc sincer la cum ti-ar fi tie cel mai bine. Vezi, eu macar incerc sa rezonez cu tine, sa te inteleg macar.

Tu insa intri cu picioarele pline de noroi si spui niste chestii care nu au absolut nici o legatura cu subiectul, care nu fac altceva decat sa piarda timpul celor din jur.

E lipsa de respect.

Da, ok, poti sa consideri ca ti-ai atins scopul si ai deturnat o discutie. Bravo.

Insa vrei te rog sa incerci, macar putin, sa nu mai fii idiot?
By vlasti, august 1, 2010 @ 1:06 am

n’ai ghicit ..
By vlasti, august 1, 2010 @ 1:07 am

aparator al capitalismului care esti ))))))))))))))
By vlasti, august 1, 2010 @ 1:07 am

from botosani nu ? )
By Extra3OO, august 1, 2010 @ 1:14 am

Vroiam sa-ti spun ca razi ca proasta la .. dar ma abtin.
By vlasti, august 1, 2010 @ 1:16 am

care trasaturi din ce ziceam eu duceau spre comunism ? … o intrebare simpla la care … si un copil ar putea sa raspunde …
By vlasti, august 1, 2010 @ 1:22 am

parinti sunt dintr-o comuna neelectrificata ?
si familia cam cea mai saraca din sat ?
By vlasti, august 1, 2010 @ 1:33 am

intotdeuna provinciali cu sansa mica de a ajunge la ce nebuni aspira ei devin frustrati si pismasi …
si ce fac ?
citesc mult dar prost … de regula nu ce sunt lucrurile si ce zic oameni cu idei .. ci ce zic altii despre ei ..(tot periferici ai inteligentiei academice)
si ei reusesc intr-un timp record sa isi abroge nemeritat un ton condescendent, neargumentat,trantesc cate o remarca din asta de te doare capul ..
un lucru e sigur … calitatea se vede la oameni care stiu sa asculte si au modestie …

dar na … avand in vedere ca viata o vieti ca un bolovan legata la picior cine poate sa iti scoata ochi ca te porti cu atata frustrare afisata …

da copypaste din ce au zis alti despre ce zisesera alti si poti sa te aplauzi si sa iti freci mainile ..

dar pentru un om normal … echilibrat …
este prea putin

cu respect V

(ce era fara legatura pentru tine este faptul ca Milton a avut una dintre primele viziuni complete asupra unui sistem care functiona pe ceva …boss)
By Extra3OO, august 1, 2010 @ 1:49 am

“si ce fac ? citesc mult dar prost …”

Lasa ca tu scrii putin si bine.

ps: eu nu prea vreau sa fiu echilibrat. Eu vreau sa fiu dezechilibrat. Sa va dezechilibrez. Definitiv! Intelegi?
By vlasti, august 1, 2010 @ 2:05 am

Acum două zile m-a întrebat o doamnă de la ţară în piaţă, că i-am părut
mai informat, dacă e adevărat ce s-a anunţat la televizor, că vine în
curând sfârşitul lumii şi că vor să ne facă nişte injecţii la toţi, să
ne omoare înainte să apucăm să suferim. Pare o idee generoasă, dar mă
întreb dacă, înainte de a ni se curma… chinuleţele, o să fim rugaţi să
introducem şi pinuleţul.
By vlasti, august 1, 2010 @ 2:05 am

usor este sa dezechilibrezi greu este sa echilibrezi ..
By vlasti, august 1, 2010 @ 2:07 am

treaba e clara dc un moldovean a ajuns sa apere capitalismul e cam clar ca e pe spongi …
By Extra3OO, august 1, 2010 @ 9:52 am

Cine, CAPITALISMUL???
By vlasti, august 1, 2010 @ 11:02 pm

youtube.com/watch?…#038;feature=channel

diferenta dintre ce crezi tu ca este capitalismul ,ce este de fapt ,de cine aperi tu capitalismul, ce poate fi daca nu ar fi lumea blocata pe premizele logice subtiri tu nu poti sa o faci …
By Alex Nicolin, august 3, 2010 @ 6:37 pm

@vlasti (sau poate Vlastii?)

Dintre toti care comenteaza pe forum tu iesi in evidenta in primul rand prin incoerenta ideilor, in al doilea rand prin exprimarea greoaie si in al treilea rand prin numarul fenomenal de greseli de ortografie / cm2 de display.

Am incercat din rasputeri sa iti citesc si sa iti inteleg comentariile mai substantiale, dar tot nu am ajuns sa le apreciez

@vlasti+Extra300
Discutia dintre voi a degenerat se pare pana la nivelul de gradinita, indepartandu-se total de spiritul academic al articolului – o discutie intre doi distinsi profesori de economie. Cum at fi decurs oare o discutie intre Friedman si Block punctata pe alocuri de apelative reciproce cu tenta antisemita? – “Bai Jidane!”
By vlasti, august 5, 2010 @ 12:58 pm

eu apreciez nota inalta economica in care se desfasoara cam toate disputele de pe aici ..

cat despre faptul ca ai incercat sa intelegi ceva de bun simt si nu ai reusit pot sa zic ca as intelege …

dar sa nu vi cu un coment dedicat decat formei si nu a fondului …nu prea inteleg

dar se pare ca partea lingvistica iti increteste mintea .. si e bine si asa ..

daca spui ca ideile sunt incoerente poti veni si cu argumente ..mai nou

dar dupa aia sa spui ca nu intelegi nimic .. e o ipocrizie …

cat depsre filmele vazute de tine pe youtube … sunt perfecte pentru ati crea un tablou incomplet si manipulat de prostie

foarte buna metafora cu cm de display … bascalie ieftina …romaneasca
By Alex Nicolin, august 5, 2010 @ 3:13 pm

@vlasti

Nu ma refeream strict la comentariile de la articolul asta, ci si la altele de pe forum. Ideea generala e ca ar trebui sa le faci mai usor de citit, cu fraze mai inchegate, care sa contureze mai bine anumite idei. Daca exprimi o idee in doua-trei cuvinte si apoi sari la alta dintr-o data celorlalti le va fi foarte greu sa iti urmareasca rationamentul.

Probabil “prin filme de pe youtube” te referi la documentarele “Ascent of Money” si “War of the World” ale lui Niall Fergusson, realizate dupa propriile carti (pe care nu am reusit din pacate sa le procur), si de care am pomenit probabil intr-un post anterior. Documentarele din acesta categorie calitativa, care trateaza teme de actualitate, sunt insa extrem de rare. Majoritatea celor “populare” sunt incropeli de slaba calitate cum ar fi ‘Zeitgeist’+'Addendum’ (de la cap la coada), ‘The Money Masters’ (ultima parte) sau chiar celebrul An Inconvenient Truth (lies, damn lies and statistics).

Nu am vrut sa insult pe nimeni, insa de multe ori comentariile ajung sa degenereze in dispute de genul “eu sunt mai destept”…
By vlasti, august 5, 2010 @ 10:46 pm

cred ca mai am eu carte lu Niall dar este in engleza ..
eu nu am putut sa o citesc pe toata .. e scrisa intr-un stil alambicat …
bine ..eu am o problema cu viziunea lui Niall… nu sunt de loc de acord ..cu el ..
eu l-am descoperit pe Nial dupa un editorial cred ca din Financial Times sau ceva legat de Ascent … mi se pareau niste idei generoase regasite din istoria creditari …
dar dupa aia .. am descoperit si manipularea grosolana cu argumente aluzive .. putin sustinute …
nici eu nu am vrut sa fiu deplasat .. dar imi mai iese cateodata …
scriu f repede ca un torent si nu imi corectez postarile … si mai uit cate un cuvant )))

scuze
By vlasti, august 5, 2010 @ 10:58 pm

editoruialul care mi-a atras atentia era despre stergerea la o anumita perioada de timp a datoriilor … in palestina sau zona Canaan ceva de genu asta …
de ce … explica acolo …
datorita acumulari de bani in mana unora si saracirea altora … si la cativa ani(10-20) se stergeau toate datotiile …

sugestiv …e putin exemplul dat de mine cu masa de pocher in care bani ajung dispus asimetric pt viteza lor sa raman la un nivel sustenabil …
By Dan, august 7, 2010 @ 7:06 pm

@Alex Nicolin.
Cartea “The Ascent of Money” de NF o poti gasi pe amazon.com (sunt mai multe variante, de la paperback la hardcover), eu am comandat niste carti de pe amazon.com nu de mult, si am ales cea mai lunga metoda de transport (si cea mai ieftina totodata), ce m-a costat doar 4$ pe carte transportata (am comandat 4 carti in total), ajunse in 20 zile lucratoare. Partea nasoala e ca a mai trebuit sa platesc la vama 9% TVA (nu stiam initial acest lucru, mi s-a parut aberant din moment ce am platit practic TVA-ul din SUA odata, daca au aia asa ceva , unde mai pui ca vamesul voia sa ma fure de 24%, bine ca i-am amintit ca pe carti se percepe doar 9%) .
By vlasti, august 9, 2010 @ 3:05 am

cam americanii nu au TVA ..