Monarhie sau republica?

pentru cei care spun "noi muncim,nu gindim" si gindesc ca "ce-i in mina,nu-i minciuna ", programele ,planurile de viitor...chestii d'astea, sunt mofturi ! sunt vorbe 'ntelectuale ,ori , se stie : intelectualul e unu' care nu face nimic ;staaa si se gindeste sau scrie sau tot deseneaza neste chestii pe hirtie....neproductiv,clar ! nu vei vota niciodata pe unul pe care nu-l intelegi !

De la: Dorin_Ilie, la data 2009-06-01 15:47:40Maresc miza. N-am primit nici un raspuns concret pana acum. Pentru cei ce sustin monarhia am o intrebare in valoare de ... o lada de bere pentru EI si cumparaturi in valoare de 300 lei (in loc de 200 de lei) pentru ELE: CARE ESTE FILOZOFIA MONARHIEI? Pentru a doua intrebare maresc miza: CARE ESTE FILOZOFIA MAJORITATII ROMANILOR DESPRE MONARHIE? Deci cine se baga? Personal nu dau doi bani pe monarhie, asta ca sa stiti si parerea mea. Mai am o intrebare la care vreau un raspuns sincer: CE FACE MINORITATEA IN FATA MAJORITATII?

Ce fel de bere si cine stabileste daca raspunsul este concret sau nu ?Imi cer scuze pentru ...aaaa...pragmatism, dar cred ca este momentul sa castig si eu ceva nu doar sa pierd timpul pe aici .

vezi@dorinilie ca la vreo 3 postari mai jos de prima ta provocare) pag68), ti-am raspuns special tie -nu ptr. miza aruncata de tine,ci din printzip !

De la: gabigabi, la data 2009-06-01 16:00:54vezi@dorinilie ca la vreo 3 postari mai jos de prima ta provocare) pag68), ti-am raspuns special tie -nu ptr. miza aruncata de tine,ci din printzip !

Ia Gabi si cumparaturile date de Dorin!Este o ocazie excelenta de a imbina utilul cu placutul ...

aaaaa.abia acum imi dau seama : iti scriu numele gresit si poate de aceea nu "m-ai vazut " : Dorin_Ilie nu @dorinilie !

De la: vaneamarin, la data 2009-06-01 15:54:27Ce fel de bere si cine stabileste daca raspunsul este concret sau nu ?Imi cer scuze pentru ...aaaa...pragmatism, dar cred ca este momentul sa castig si eu ceva nu doar sa pierd timpul pe aici .

Da-mi o definitie a monarhiei si incearca sa-ti imaginezi Romania in zilele noastre monarhie.

Religia este o rãmãºiþã a copilãriei inteligenþei noastre, ea se va stinge pe mãsurã ce adoptãm raþiunea ºi ºtiinþa ca principii directoare. Am ceva mai bun de oferit in locul religiei: propria vointa, libera alegere si increderea in propriile puteri.

De la: gabigabi, la data 2009-06-01 16:08:32aaaaa.abia acum imi dau seama : iti scriu numele gresit si poate de aceea nu "m-ai vazut " : Dorin_Ilie nu @dorinilie !

Nu-i nimic, atept la anu' mielul.

Religia este o rãmãºiþã a copilãriei inteligenþei noastre, ea se va stinge pe mãsurã ce adoptãm raþiunea ºi ºtiinþa ca principii directoare. Am ceva mai bun de oferit in locul religiei: propria vointa, libera alegere si increderea in propriile puteri.

nu-mi place sa merg la cumparaturi @vanea,pe cuvint ! si nu mi-a placut niciodata ! cind trebuie s-o fac , imi intocmesc lista de acasa si ,chitita fiind,nu ma uit decit la ce-mi trebuie,le iau si,valeaaaa ! o data mi s-a intimplat sa uit lista acasa si mi-am pierdut o juma'de zi haladuind prin Carrefour si ajungind acasa am constatat ca n-am luat ce-mi trebuia !

ok-Dorine ,suntem chit ! nu ne datoram nimic unul celuilalt !

De la: mytcor, la data 2009-06-01 13:29:02

De la: ticu, la data 2009-06-01 11:55:16

De la: mytcor, la data 2009-06-01 10:00:23Ticulica, cat AMR pana ajunge R.Duda presedinte si-n 5 ani ne transforma-n MONARHIE CONSTITUTIONALA ?.....hai zii repede ca-mi fac bagajul si ma mut in RO.

:






sml-indifferent0014: Domnule mytcor, R. Duda nu e bun nici de monarh pe tronul tarii. nici de republican ca presedinte .!-poate ca actor . !

Stiam eu ca nu te pot convinge sa votezi un candidat la presedentia Ro.

Ai ramas acelas,..... MONARHIST FEROCE !...

Corect domnu 'mytcor, de ce nu vrei sa ma treci ca prieten in album, ca noi ne intelegem bine .!

Ticu

lasa @ticulica ,e o vorba : cine nu ne vrea ,nu ne merita !

De la: Dorin_Ilie, la data 2009-06-01 16:11:23Da-mi o definitie a monarhiei si incearca sa-ti imaginezi Romania in zilele noastre monarhie.

OK Dorine!Merge definitia din DEX a monarhiei constitutionale ?!

"Monarhie constituþionalã = formã de conducere a statului monarhic în care prerogativele monarhului sunt limitate prin constituþie".In general utilizam sensurile din DEX pentru a ne intelege corect unii pe altii.

Daca insa vrei o definitie a monarhiei din punctul meu de vedere atunci monarhia este "cea mai buna si rapida reparatie morala,adevarata condamnare a comunismului (care este INCOMPATIBIL CU MONARHIA -nu spun ca republicanii sunt obligatoriu comunisti,departe de mine acest lucru, ci doar ca nu exista o monarhie ..comunista) si reintoarcerea la drumul firesc si normal al Romaniei,drum de la care am fost deturnati de "afacerile" de la Yalta si de tancurile rusesti".

Bun,acum inchid ochii si imi imaginez Romania monarhie.Pare placut dar admit ca poate sa fie si din cauza ca imi este foarte somn,am dormit cam putin zilele astea ...

De la: Republicanus, la data 2009-06-01 15:33:34
@mytcor: ma bucur ca ma propui principe, din pacate trebuie sa te refuz, pentru ca statutul de principe nu e compatibil cu convingerile mele republicane si cu egalitatea sociala pe care o apar. As fi un fel de Duda vazut in oglinda (in loc sa fiu principe-prezidentiabil as fi republican-princiar sau ceva de genul...) ori asta se cheama I-P-O-C-R-I-Z-I-E. Deci, ma vad nevoit sa refuz propunerea.

TRADATORULE,...cum poti refuza asa onoare !....

Phai mai nenea Iliuta si D. am sa iau ceea ce va place voua mai mult ca referinta al sistemelor de guvernamant de pe mapamond.
1- SUA...republica prezidentiala,
2-Germania..republica parlamentara,
...si pentru ca eu sunt monarhist convins in cardul unui concept radical de schimbare a sistemului de guvernamant, plitic si administrativ in Ro , am lasat pe locul ,
3- UK...o Monarhie Constitutionala clasica.
...acum sa vedem cum stau ei si cum stam noi, sa vedem diferentele si asemanarile dintre cele tri si cum stam noi raportandu-ne la ele.
Asa ca: SUA, se poate considera ca avand un regim clasic prezidential, UK un regim clasic de Monarhie Constitutionala iar Germania, un regim clasic parlamentar.
Asemanarile ce se pot distinge intre cele 3 regimuri este evidenta intre cel al UK si Germania ( apropos Republicanus, dupa Weimarer Republik, Germania pastreaza fosta titulatura a statului;Deutsches Reich.....spune multe chestia nu ? )...o infima asemanare ar avea si cu sistemul SUA, numai ca am sa ignor acest aspect tocmai pentru ca SUA ne va ajuta sa evidentiem diferentele intre UK si Germania.
Asemanari SUA-UK...sistem bipartidist pur, (adicalea trepadusii ideologiilor folcloriste sunt exclusi fara drept de apel) la noi s-ar potrivi formula Taranisti-Librali+minoritati din oficiu , (cate 1 reprezentant pt. fiecare minoritate nationala)
deasemenea o alata asemanare poate fii facuta intre UK si Germania, Monarhia Constitutionala clasica a Uk fiind asimilata cnceptual unei "anexe" a republici parlamentare, monarhul englez avand un rol "decorativ" la fel cum il are cancelarul germaniei,(atat monarhul cat si cancelarul conduc, nu guverneaza ) alta asemanare, in cazul ambelor,primul-ministru cat si cancelarul detin roluri (rolul cancelarului/stat federal) sunt executive , derivand d-aici modul in care se alege executivul., iar executivul este ales intodeauna de catre deputatii cameri reprezentative, reprezentantii sai fiind alesi direct de catre populatie.
D-aici rezulta faptul ca in cazul in care guvernul pierde majoritatea Bundestagului sau a Camerei Comunelor -in cazul UK- executivul(guvernul) este demis.
Intre Germania si SUA, in zona organizarii statale federale in cazul germaniei traditia sa de pe timpul imp.Romano-German in cel de-al 2-lea trcutul colonial isi spune cuvantul. asemanarea conta in faptul ca ambele in camera superioara au senatori NUMITI , nu alesi iar sistemul politic al celor doua state este foarte bine delimitat de catre Constitutie.
La capitolul deosebiri, avem: regim prezidential in cazul 1, parlamentar in cazul 2 si monarhie constitutionala in cazul 3.
Prima deosebire majora apare intre statul de pe continentul american recte SUA si cele 2 stae europene, prezidentialismul Statelor Unite lae Americii este clar delimitat fata de parlamentarismul celor doua state europene, daca-n cele doua state europene puterea este detinuta de catre parlamentarism iar monarhul si cancelarul detin roluri "formale", (folosesc ghilimele pt.ca exista nuante in ceea ce le privesc pe cele doua) in SUA, presedintelui i se subordoneaza guvernul si parlamentul , el detinand o putere executiva absoluta prevazuta-n constitutia SUA neicusorule dac-ma-ntelegi, strajnica Constitutie mai au astia !..( mama ce seamana presedintele american cu Regele Carol II , hai nu va ofticati ! )... phe cand in cazul cocotelor europene puterea este detinuta de catre parlament....
Fratilor, acuma vine boamba boambelor, prin cecredeti ca se deosebeste Cons. USA si Germania de cea a UK, ...primele doua au o Cons. scrisa si strict delimitata-n atributii si responsabilitati pe diferitelei paliere, UK...isi bazeaza regimul politic pe CUTUME si TRADITII ce au rol functional bine stabilit si verificate-ntr-o lunga traditie (adicalea fiabilizate-n timp, optimizate, eficientizate bre daca ma-ntelegeti neicusorilor, pfuaiiii ce-nseamna sa fii " genteleman al engelterrei"...careva-zica, manera, etecheta, caracter carei COROLARUL educatiei invatamantului si culturii fiecarui individ "albionist"..acu nu va zdropsiti, au si ei uscaturile lor,....da's cam putintele !...
In ceea ce priveste parlamentele, avem o alta deosebire, toate statele au parlamente bicamerale, numai ca in cazul UK, camera superioara nu reprezinta ORGANIZATIA STATALA, ci ARISTROCATIA ( asa cum la noi senatul ar avea vr-o 30-50 de indivizi magnati, cu interese monetare-fiscale- economico-comerciale transnationale , eeee, vedeti de ce Uk nu vrea sa intre-n zona € ? ...intresul poarta fesul !...si ce rau o duc englezii, am inceput sa le plang de mila , au un nivel de trai s-un venit pe cap de locuitor de t-apuca sa te tot duci !...)
Incercarea-mi de a compara cele trei state cu ce avem in Ro, imi este imposibila, intre acuratetea si exactitatea prezidentialismului si-a stemului american pe d-o parte si pragmatismul monarhismului constitutional al celor doua europene , ( Deutsches Reich, Repubilanus te rog nu te ambala !)...in ROMANIA avem un talmes-balmes sistems& autoritate ioc, sau ceva de genul ...as hali salam da' n-am !...

acest sistem basit al romanilor nu poate fi eradicat decat asa cum am spus, ilm propun pe Republicanus Rege iar solutia de a rasturna actuala clasa politica din temelii ii revine, stie el cum,....n-asa Republicanus ?....daca ma refiuzi s-acum inseamna ca doresti print strain s-am sa te fac seful Consiliului de Coroana !...

De la: gabigabi, la data 2009-06-01 16:29:31lasa @ticulica ,e o vorba : cine nu ne vrea ,nu ne merita !

Da, asa e !

Ticu

Tu nu intelegi ca eu nu-s duda? Eu am niste principii peste care nu trec, deci poti sa-mi oferi coroana lu peste prajit, ca tot nu vreau, sunt impotriva principilor, regilor, monarhilor, oricaror privilegii ereditare, dinastii, ranguri nobiliare etc.
Prin urmare, faptul ca as refuza asa ceva inseamna ca vreau REPUBLICA, nu principe strain. :-P

In legatura cu ce ai scris mai sus, iti atrag atentia ca in Germania, Cancelarul GUVERNEAZA, pentru ca este SEFUL GUVERNULUI (adica e primul ministru), o comparatie intre cancelar si monarh fiind total nepotrivita.
Despre camera superioara de care spui, Bundesrat si Senatul SUA, iti atrag atentia ca e alta poveste acolo si iarasi, o comparatie cu Camera Lorzilor nu este potrivita, pentru ca membri nu sunt acolo pe baza ereditara si a rangului nobiliar, chiar daca nu sunt alesi direct. Mai mult, ei sunt numiti acolo pentru a spune punctul de vedere oficial al landului/statului din care provin, fapt necesar in republicile FEDERALE. Asa ceva nu se poate face in Romania pentru ca Romania este stat unitar (si sa nu vii cu proiecte de federalizare a Romaniei sau alte d-astea pentru ca iti spun din start ca sunt impotriva! Sunt si impotriva descentralizarii basesciene care ar da primarilor - unii cu 4 clase primare - puterea sa numeasca inclusiv directori de scoli in localitatile pe care le conduc).

A, inca ceva... tu chiar vorbesti serios cand imi dai exemplu lui ADOLF HITLER care a dat numele de "Deutsches Reich" Germaniei Naziste cand vorbesti de Germania post-Weimar? Sper ca aia a fost o gluma, ca altfel o sa rad si cu curu de o asemenea comparatie nastrusnica. Al 3-lea Reich era o creatie a nebunului de Hitler, nimic mai mult, nu insemna decat imaginatia unui dezaxat ajuns la putere si nimic mai mult.

Mai mult, nu poti compara ce avem noi in Romania cu cele 3 state pe care le-ai eunumerat dintr-un motiv extrem de simplu: sunt lucruri total diferite. Cele doua republici sunt FEDERATII, dupa cum am spus mai sus, iar cealalta este monarhie constitutionala... fara constitutie (misto, nu?).
Si eu sunt de acord ca delimitarile nu sunt deloc clare intre Senat si Camera Deputatilor la noi, si trebuiesc luat masuri in acest sens (NU, NU parlament unicameral cum ar vrea "el prezidente", sa-i fie ca un fel de mare adunare nationala a lui ceasca).
Iti spun altceva, decat masuri radicale cum ar fi revolutie sau (mai rau), o monarhie de care sa nu mai putem scapa (si care oricum nu rezolva nimic) eu propun altceva. Propun sa investim in educatie, sa-i invatam pe copiii nostri sa nu plece capul in fata nimanui, sa-i educam ca EI au puterea, si CETATEANUL ala din parlament sau presedintie exercita puterea IN NUMELE POPORULUI, nu dupa bunul plac. O data educat poporul va fi MULT mai greu de prostit de "hahaha, draga stolo, ii trag pe toti in teapa".
Sigur, solutia asta cere timp, dar e mult mai pasnica si are beneficii mult mai mari pe termen lung, pentru ca poporul odata educat, va transmite educatia mai departe, la generatiile urmatoare si tot asa.

Republicanus, n-ai sintetizat nimic din ceea ce ti-am potat.



Ai reusit sa-ti mobilezi tartacuta ( hei, glumesc ! )...cu un cazarmament stangist classa una marca shpitz , lupti pentru egalitatea claselor ?...pfai !...mai ceva decat marxism-leminismul bolsevic !...

Hei !... Republicanus !... asa ceva nici cei mai ai naibii ideologi bolsevici n-au indraznit a articula vr-o data !...



Ai sa fii urmatoarea generatie de sacrificiu si-ai sa te inscrii cu succes in randul intelectualilor onesti si rupti in fund, -dupa cum bine spui ca ai printzipuri- iar daca te pune naiba sa-i zmeeesti p-astia c-o spagadita barbarosa, adicalea zdravana dac# ma pricipisi unde bat, pt. doldorisirea pazanarului vr-unui sef al sistemului posdecembrist, atunci ai sa devii un integralist al sistemului ticalosit numai bun pentru a fi transformat intr-un aplaudac de perspectiva , un pupincurist umil si servil , iar intelectualitatea-ti stralucita hranindu-se cu sperante iluzorii, cu trecerea timpului se va relaxata d-atatea compromisuri, se va eroda pe altarul avantajelor de toate felurile si cu aspiratii catre un fotoliu caldut, thnit, alaturi de celelalte "valori" d-aceeasi teapa, si , va veti apara pohta ce-hoti ravni-o, din ce-in-ce mai abitir in slujba sefului, a voastra si, mai putin in slujba neamului din care va trage-ti si pe care acum veti fii interesati in a-l indobitocii pt. a va fii mai usor repetarea sloganelor din an-in-an, din cincinal-in-cincinal ca doar sunt electorale atunci cand nu te astepti, prezidentialele la termen, si , tot asa pana la adanci batraneti daca intre timp nu veti fii maziliti la moftul vr-unui proaspat politruc de bani gata aparut peste noapte in gasca politica a "baietilor destepti".

Incet ,incet , te vei transforma intr-un aparator al utopiilor,....ai sa incepi a vorbii printre randuri,c-un limbaj al democratiei libertine diplomatic dar absent si pe care-l vei propovaduii fara mustrari de constinta dar platit numai atat cat sa nu-ti sara mustarul de contopist , si-ai sa te metamorfozezi pe zi ce trece st te vei transforma in ceva decrepit si slinos de-ai sa-ti astepti cu sarg pensionarea in a te bucura de-o pensie speciala si de priviilegile-ti acumulate dealungul glorioasei activitati in slujba lor si-a ta dar mai putin in a celor ce te-nconjoara ac natiune.



In caz ca nu-ti convine comentariul, fa-ti geamantanul si HAI !...te-astept !...

Eye, monarhia nu are aceasta abilitate morala pentru ca monarhia prin insusi Regele Mihai a facut compromisuri de nepermis inca din 2001 avand ca miza recuperarea unor averi in schimbul renuntarii la tron si la legitimitate. Dincolo de faptul ca, iata inca un compromis nedemn, in ciuda recuperarii unor bunuri de miliarde, familia regala continua sa primeasca subventii de la stat, si asta in vremuri destul de vitrege pentru tara.

Dincolo de scaderile familiei regale romane, este o naivitate- nu folosesc acest termen in sens jignitor- sa crezi ca vreo institutie, fie ea si monarhia, ar putea sa "moralizeze" in vreun fel conduita unor politicieni cinici si corupti, care de fapt tot ei ar guverna.

Da, nici pe mine nu ma bucura imoralitatea, pe de o parte, si slugarnicia clasei politice romanesti, ca si a unei parti a poporului meu, atat in plan intern, cat si extern. Tocmai de aceea insist ca orice idee mesianica, inclusiv cea monarhica, este o cale gresita si ca noi si numai noi suntem cei care trebuie sa punem piciorul in prag; de la a nu mai arunca hartii si coji de seminte pe strada, pana la a evita pe cat posibil sa mai dam spaga si pana la a inceta sa mai inghitim abuzurile si incepe sa ne opunem cu barbatie cand suntem nedreptatiti, indiferent ca asta se intampla in asociatia de proprietari de la bloc sau la nivelul UE.

Ezie dele mezenai (inscriptie pe un inel tracic, secolul V I.Ch.)

egalitatea sociala nu e tot una cu "lupta de clasa" sau "lupta pentru egalitatea claselor". E vorba de egalitatea civililor, nici unul sa nu fie mai presus de altul din punct de vedere juridic. Nu sustin in nici un caz egalitarismul absurd comunist, in schimb sustin meritocratia.
Da, in spectrul politic ma incadrez in "centru-stanga" daca vrei neaparat o incadrare politica, si exact cum scrie la descrirea din profilul meu sunt social-liberal (adica liberal de stanga, daca n-ai mai auzit pana acum de liberali de stanga, iti recomand sa te documentezi, ai sa vezi cu ce se mananca si ca nu e vreo gogorita).
Cine poate sti ce-o fi in viitor, poate s-or schimba lucrurile si p-aici, poate nu, poate ca o sa ajung suficient de scarbit incat sa nu-mi mai trebuiasca tara asta, poate o sa devin parte a sistemului care o sa ma inghita nemestecat... cine poate sti cum se schimba lucrurile, om vedea... noi sa fim sanatosi vorba reclamei.

Unde ma astepti? Sper ca nu spre monarhia constitutionala.

De la: Republicanus, la data 2009-06-02 01:24:19egalitatea sociala nu e tot una cu "lupta de clasa" sau "lupta pentru egalitatea claselor". E vorba de egalitatea civililor, nici unul sa nu fie mai presus de altul din punct de vedere juridic. Nu sustin in nici un caz egalitarismul absurd comunist, in schimb sustin meritocratia.
Da, in spectrul politic ma incadrez in "centru-stanga" daca vrei neaparat o incadrare politica, si exact cum scrie la descrirea din profilul meu sunt social-liberal (adica liberal de stanga, daca n-ai mai auzit pana acum de liberali de stanga, iti recomand sa te documentezi, ai sa vezi cu ce se mananca si ca nu e vreo gogorita).
Cine poate sti ce-o fi in viitor, poate s-or schimba lucrurile si p-aici, poate nu, poate ca o sa ajung suficient de scarbit incat sa nu-mi mai trebuiasca tara asta, poate o sa devin parte a sistemului care o sa ma inghita nemestecat... cine poate sti cum se schimba lucrurile, om vedea... noi sa fim sanatosi vorba reclamei.

Unde ma astepti? Sper ca nu spre monarhia constitutionala.

mises.org/

The Causes of the Economic Crisis / Ludwig von Mises

www.vonmisesinstitute-europe.org/newsite/

Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973)

by Murray N. Rothbard

"Economics deals with society's fundamental problems; it concerns everyone and belongs to all. It is the main and proper study of every citizen."

Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

One of the most notable economists and social philosophers of the twentieth century, Ludwig von Mises, in the course of a long and highly productive life, developed an integrated, deduct­ive science of economics based on the fundamental axiom that in­dividual human beings act purposively to achieve desired goals. Even though his economic analysis itself was “value-free” — in the sense of being irrelevant to values held by economists — Mises concluded that the only viable economic policy for the human race was a policy of unrestricted laissez-faire, of free markets and the unhampered exercise of the right of private property, with government strictly limited to the defense of person and property within its territorial area.

For Mises was able to demonstrate (a) that the expansion of free markets, the division of labor, and private capital investment is the only possible path to the prosperity and flourishing of the human race; (b) that socialism would be disastrous for a modern economy because the absence of private ownership of land and capital goods prevents any sort of rational pricing, or estimate of costs, and (c) that government intervention, in addition to hampering and crippling the market, would prove counter-productive and cumulative, leading inevitably to socialism unless the entire tissue of interventions was repealed.

Holding these views, and hewing to truth indomitably in the face of a century increasingly devoted to statism and collectivism, Mises became famous for his “intransigence” in insisting on a non-inflationary gold standard and on laissez-faire.

Effectively barred from any paid university post in Austria and later in the United States, Mises pursued his course gallantly. As the chief economic adviser to the Austrian government in the 1920s, Mises was single-handedly able to slow down Austrian inflation; and he developed his own “private seminar” which attracted the out­standing young economists, social scientists, and philosophers throughout Europe. As the founder of the "neo-Austrian School" of economics, Mises’s business cycle theory, which blamed inflation and depressions on inflationary bank credit encouraged by Central Banks, was adopted by most younger economists in England in the early 1930s as the best explanation of the Great Depression.

Having fled the Nazis to the United States, Mises did some of his most important work here. In over two decades of teaching, he inspired an emerging Austrian School in the United States. The year after Mises died in 1973, his most distinguished follower, F.A. Hayek, was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for his work in elaborat­ing Mises’s business cycle theory during the later 1920s and 1930s.

Mises was born on Sept 29, 1881, in the city of Lemberg (now Lvov) in Galicia, where his father, a Viennese construction engineer working for the Austrian railroads, was then stationed. Both Mises’s father and mother came from prominent Viennese families; his mother’s uncle, Dr Joachim Landau, served as deputy from the Liberal Party in the Austrian Parliament.

Entering the University of Vienna at the turn of the century as a leftist interventionist, the young Mises discovered Principles of Economics by Carl Menger, the founding work of the Austrian School of economics, and was quickly converted to the Austrian emphasis on individual action rather than unrealistic mechanistic equations as the unit of economics analysis, and to the importance of a free-market economy.

Mises became a prominent post-doctoral student in the famous University of Vienna seminar of the great Austrian economist Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk (among whose many accomplishments was the devastating refutation of the Marxian labor theory of value).

The Mises Institute's coat of arms is that of the Mises family, awarded in 1881 when Ludwig von Mises's great-grandfather Mayer Rachmiel Mises was ennobled by the Emperor Franz Josef I of Austria. In the upper right-hand quadrant is the staff of Mercury, god of commerce and communication (the Mises family was successful in both; they were merchants and bankers). In the lower left-hand quadrant is a representation of the Ten Commandments. Mayer Rachmiel, as well as his father, presided over various Jewish cultural organizations in Lemberg, the city where Ludwig was born. The red banner displays the Rose of Sharon, which in the litany is one of the names given to the Blessed Mother, as well as the Stars of the Royal House of David, a symbol of the Jewish people. Ludwig's lifelong motto was from Virgil: tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito. Here is a full view.

During this period, in his first great work, The Theory of Money and Credit (1912) Mises performed what had been deemed an impossible task: to integrate the theory of money into the general theory of marginal utility and price (what would now be called integrating “macroeconomics” into “microeconomics.”) Since Bohm-Bawerk and his other Austrian colleagues did not accept Mises’s integration and remained without a monetary theory, he was therefore obliged to strike out on his own and found a “neo­-Austrian” school.

In his monetary theory, Mises revived the long forgotten British Currency School principle, prominent until the 1850s, that society does not at all benefit from any increase in the money supply, that increased money and bank credit only causes inflation and business cycles, and that therefore government policy should maintain the equivalent of a 100 percent gold standard.

Mises added to this insight the elements of his business cycle theory: that credit expansion by the banks, in addition to causing inflation, makes depressions inevitable by causing “malinvestment,” i.e. by inducing businessmen to overinvest in “higher orders” of capital goods (machine tools, construction, etc.) and to underinvest in consumer goods.

The problem is that inflationary bank credit, when loaned to business, masquerades as pseudo-savings, and makes businessmen believe that there are more savings available to invest in capital goods production than consumers are genuinely willing to save. Hence, an inflationary boom requires a recession which becomes a painful but necessary process by which the market liquidates unsound investments and reestablishes the investment and production structure that best satisfies consumer preferences and demands.

* The Mises Quotation Machine
* The Complete Mises Bibliography
* Who was Mises? by Jörg Guido Hülsmann
* Tributes to Mises by Economists, Journalists, and Others
* Books and Essays by Mises (complete text)
* Songs from the Mises-Kreis
* The Story of the Lost Papers
* Downloadable Photographs of Mises

Mises, and his follower Hayek, developed this cycle theory during the 192Os, on the basis of which Mises was able to warn an unheeding world that the widely trumpeted “New Era” of permanent prosperity of the 192Os was a sham, and that its inevitable result would be bank panic and depression. When Hayek was invited to teach at the London School of Economics in 1931 by an influential former student at Mises’s private seminar, Lionel Robbins, Hayek was able to convert most of the younger English economists to this perspective. On a collision course with John Maynard Keynes and his disciples at Cambridge, Hayek demolished Keynes’s Treatise on Money, but lost the battle and most of his followers to the tidal wave of the Keynesian Revolution that swept the economic world after the publication of Keynes’s General Theory in 1936.

The policy prescriptions for business cycles of Mises-Hayek and of Keynes were diametrically opposed. During a boom period, Mises counseled the immediate end of all bank credit and monetary expansion; and, during a recession, he advised strict laissez-faire, allowing the readjustment forces of the recession to work themselves out as rapidly as possible.

Not only that: for Mises the worst form of intervention would be to prop up prices or wage rates, causing unemployment, to increase the money supply, or to boost government spending in order to stimulate consumption. For Mises, the recession was a problem of under-saving, and over-consumption, and it was therefore important to encourage savings and thrift rather than the opposite, to cut government spending rather than increase it. It is clear that, from 1936 on Mises was totally in opposition to the worldwide fashion in macroeconomic policy.

Socialism-communism had triumphed in Russia and in much of Europe during and after World War I, and Mises was moved to publish his famous article, “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth,” (1920) in which he demonstrated that it would be impossible for a socialist planning board to plan a modern economic system; furthermore, no attempt at artificial “markets” would work, since a genuine pricing and costing system requires an exchange of property titles, and therefore private property in the means of production.

Mises developed the article into his book Socialism(1922), a comprehensive philosophical and sociological, as well as economic critique which still stands as the most thorough and devastating demolition of socialism ever written. Mises’s Socialism converted many prominent economists and social philosophers out of socialism, including Hayek, the German Wilhelm Ropke, and the Englishman Lionel Robbins.

In the United States, the publication of the English translation of Socialism in 1936 attracted the admiration of the prominent economic journalist Henry Hazlitt, who reviewed it in the New York Times, and converted one of America’s most prominent and learned Communist fellow-travelers of the period, J.B. Matthews, to a Misesian position and to opposition to all forms of socialism.

Socialists throughout Europe and the United States worried about the problem of economic calculation under socialism for about fifteen years, finally pronouncing the problem solved with the promulgation of the “market socialism” model of the Polish economist Oskar Lange in 1936. Lange returned to Poland after World War II to help plan Polish Communism. The collapse of socialist planning, in Poland and the other Communist countries in 1989, left Establishment economists across the ideological spectrum, all of whom bought the Lange “solution”, mightily embarrassed.

Some prominent socialists, such as Robert Heilbroner, have had the grace to admit publicly that “Mises was right” all along (the phrase “Mises was Right” was the title of a panel at the annual 1990 meeting of the Southern Economic Association at New Orleans).

If socialism was an economic catastrophe, government inter­vention could not work, and would tend to lead inevitably to socialism. Mises elaborated these insights in his Critique of Interventionism (1929), and set forth his political philosophy of laissez-faire liberalism in his Liberalism (1927).

In adition to setting himself against all the political trends of the twentieth century, Mises combated with equal fervor and eloquence what he considered the disastrous dominant philosophical and methodological trends, in economics and other disciplines. These included positivism, relativism, historicism, polylogism” the idea that each race and gender has its own “logic” and there­fore cannot communicate with other groups), and all forms of irrationalism and denial of objective truth. Mises also developed what he considered to be the proper methodology of economic theory--logical deduction from evident axioms, which he labeled “praxeo­logy”, and he leveled trenchant critiques of the growing tendency in economics and other disciplines to replace praxeology and histor­ical understanding by unrealistic mathematical models and statistical manipulations.

Emigrating to the United States in 1940, Mises’s first two books in English were important and influential. His Omnipotent Government (1944) was the first book to challenge the then-standard Marxian view that fascism and Nazism were imposed upon their nations by big business and the “capitalist class.” His Bureaucracy (1944) was a still unsurpassed analysis of why government operation must necessarily be “bureaucratic” and suffer from all the ills of bureaucracy.

Mises’s most monumental achievement was his Human Action (1949), the first comprehensive treatise on economic theory written since the first World War. Here Mises took up the challenge of his own methodology and research program and elaborated an integrated and massive structure of economic theory on his own deductive, “praxeological” principles. Published in an era when economists and governments generally were totally dedicated to statism and Keynesian inflation, Human Action was unread by the economics profession. Finally, in 1957 Mises published his last major work, Theory and History, which, in addition to refutations of Marxism and historicism, set forth the basic differences and functions of theory and of history in economics as well as all the various disciplines of human action.

In the United States as in his native Austria, Mises could not find a paid post in academia. New York University, where he taught from until 1945 until his retirement at the age of 88 in 1969, would only designate him as Visiting Professor, and his salary had to be paid by the conservative-libertarian William Volker Fund until 1962, and after that by a consortium of free-market foundations and businessmen. Despite the unfavorable climate, Mises inspired a growing group of students and admirers, cheer­fully encouraged their scholarship, and himself continued his remarkable productivity.

Mises was also sustained by and worked together with free­-market and libertarian admirers. From its origin in 1946 until his death, Mises was a part-time staff member of the Foundation for Economic Education at Irvington-on-Hudson, New York; and he was in the 1950s an economic advisor to the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) working with their laissez-faire wing which finally lost out to the tide of “enlightened” statism.

As a free trader and a classical liberal in the tradition of Cobden, Bright, and Spencer, Mises was a libertarian who champ­ioned reason and individual liberty in personal as well as eco­nomic matters. As a rationalist and an opponent of statism in all its forms, Mises would never call himself a “conservative,” but rather a liberal in the nineteenth-century sense.

Indeed, Mises was politically a laissez-faire radical, who denounced tariffs, immigration restrictions, or governmental attempts to enforce morality. On the other hand, Mises was a staunch cultural and sociological conservative, who attacked egalitarianism, strongly denounced political feminism as a facet of socialism. In contrast to many conservative critics of capitalism, Mises held that personal morality and the nuclear family were both essential to, and fostered by, a system of free-market capitalism.

Mises’s influence was remarkable, considering the unpopularity of his epistemological and political views. His students of the 1920s, even those who later became Keynesians, were permanently stamped by a visible Misesian influence. These students included, in addition to Hayek and Robbins, Fritz Machlup, Gottfried von Haberler, Oskar Morgenstern, Alfred Schutz, Hugh Gaitskell, Howard S. Ellis, John Van Sickle, and Erich Voegelin.

In France, General DeGaulle’s major economic and monetary adviser, who helped swing France away from socialism, was Jacques Rueff, an old-friend and admirer of Mises. And part of post-World War II Italy’s shift away from socialism was due to its President Luigi Einaudi, a distinguished economist and long-time friend and free-market colleague of Mises. In the United States, Mises was scarcely as influential. Under less promising academic conditions, his students and admirers included Henry Hazlitt, Lawrence Fertig, Percy Greaves, Jr., Bettina Bien Graeves, Hans F. Sennholz, William H. Peterson, Louis M. Spadaro, Israel M. Kirzner, Ralph Raico, George Reisman, and Murray N. Rothbard. But Mises was able to build a remarkably strong and loyal following among businessmen and other non-academics; his massive and complex Human Action has sold extraordinarily well ever since the year of its original publication.

Since Mises’s death in New York City on October 10, 1973 at the age of 92, Misesian doctrine and influence has experienced a ren­aissance. The following year saw not only Hayek’s Nobel Prize for Misesian cycle theory, but also the first of many Austrian School conferences in the United States. Books by Mises have been reprinted and collections of his articles translated and published. Courses and programs in Austrian Economics have been taught and established throughout the country.

Taking the lead in this revival of Mises and in the study and expansion of Misesian doctrine has been the Ludwig von Mises Institute, founded by Lle­wellyn Rockwell, Jr. in 1982 and headquartered in Auburn, Alabama. The Mises Institute publishes scholarly journals and books, and offers courses in elementary, intermediate and advanced Austrian economics, which attract in­creasing numbers of students and professors. Undoubtedly, the collapse of socialism and the increased attractiveness of the free market have greatly contributed to this upsurge of popularity.



vezi c-ai sa gasesti si-n lb. Ro pt. colegi interesati, pt tine mere sin lb. eng.stiu ca tu stii.!

O da, inca ceva, in Marea Britanie nu avem de-a face cu un sistem bipartid, sunt mai multe partide politice (mai multe sunt si in SUA, dar doar 2 sunt suficient de puternice sa intre in congres), dar in Marea Britanie daca te uiti la camera comunelor vei vedea ca sunt mai mult de 2 partide reprezentate acolo(de exemplu mai este si partidul liberal cu o pondere destul se semnificativa, plus altele, de ex partidul national scotian etc.)

cred ca e mai bine monarhie constitutionala cum e in Belgia si Olanda

raspunsul e foarte simplu.cele mai performante forme de convietuire sociala (furnicile, albinele) din regnul animal sunt conduse de regine nu de presedinti. se aplica si tarilor, uitati-va la monarhii, Danemarca, Marea Britanie, Suedia si comparati cu celelalte. greu de tot. in istoria Romaniei singurul care a putut uni cele trei tari romanesti si sa ramana asa a fost un rege. nici macar un rege roman. din pacate sunt atatia prosti care nu inteleg incat nu cred ca va mai fi posibila restaurarea monarhiei in Romania.

De la: 9am15926, la data 2009-06-02 11:39:12raspunsul e foarte simplu.cele mai performante forme de convietuire sociala (furnicile, albinele) din regnul animal sunt conduse de regine nu de presedinti. se aplica si tarilor, uitati-va la monarhii, Danemarca, Marea Britanie, Suedia si comparati cu celelalte. greu de tot. in istoria Romaniei singurul care a putut uni cele trei tari romanesti si sa ramana asa a fost un rege. nici macar un rege roman. din pacate sunt atatia prosti care nu inteleg incat nu cred ca va mai fi posibila restaurarea monarhiei in Romania.

SUUUPERARGUMENT! Nu m-am gandit niciodata la asta, dar chiar asa este: musuroiul sau stupul sunt organizatii care functioneaza perfect fiindca au regina!
Exact asa: leacul contra bramburelii totale in care acum ne complacem, barfind pe la colturi ca...'coruptia', 'altii sunt de vina', 'banul conduce' samd ar putea fi MONARHIA cu toate legile ei verificate de istorie.
Nu cred, in schimb, ca sunt atatia prosti in Romania. Nu, sunt doar multi oameni, manati de aparente, de lideri de mucava, oameni care nu se informeaza fiindca nu au aceasta obisnuinta. Generatii intregi mutilate de comunism si postcomunism, care nu mai au nimic sfant . Cum ar putea intelege monarhia cineva care nu are niciun Dumnezeu, fie el musulman , hindus , mozaic s.a? Doar exersand-o. Numai ca nu-si pot acorda aceasta sansa decat daca s-ar exporta intr-o tara cu monarhie. Si ar sta acolo vreo 2-3 generatii.

"'REMEMBER SOME PEOPLE ARE ALIVE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL TO SHOOT THEM"

De la: mytcor, la data 2009-06-02 01:51:52

De la: Republicanus, la data 2009-06-02 01:24:19egalitatea sociala nu e tot una cu "lupta de clasa" sau "lupta pentru egalitatea claselor". E vorba de egalitatea civililor, nici unul sa nu fie mai presus de altul din punct de vedere juridic. Nu sustin in nici un caz egalitarismul absurd comunist, in schimb sustin meritocratia.
Da, in spectrul politic ma incadrez in "centru-stanga" daca vrei neaparat o incadrare politica, si exact cum scrie la descrirea din profilul meu sunt social-liberal (adica liberal de stanga, daca n-ai mai auzit pana acum de liberali de stanga, iti recomand sa te documentezi, ai sa vezi cu ce se mananca si ca nu e vreo gogorita).
Cine poate sti ce-o fi in viitor, poate s-or schimba lucrurile si p-aici, poate nu, poate ca o sa ajung suficient de scarbit incat sa nu-mi mai trebuiasca tara asta, poate o sa devin parte a sistemului care o sa ma inghita nemestecat... cine poate sti cum se schimba lucrurile, om vedea... noi sa fim sanatosi vorba reclamei.

Unde ma astepti? Sper ca nu spre monarhia constitutionala.

mises.org/

The Causes of the Economic Crisis / Ludwig von Mises

www.vonmisesinstitute-europe.org/newsite/

Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973)

by Murray N. Rothbard

"Economics deals with society's fundamental problems; it concerns everyone and belongs to all. It is the main and proper study of every citizen."

Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

One of the most notable economists and social philosophers of the twentieth century, Ludwig von Mises, in the course of a long and highly productive life, developed an integrated, deduct­ive science of economics based on the fundamental axiom that in­dividual human beings act purposively to achieve desired goals. Even though his economic analysis itself was “value-free” — in the sense of being irrelevant to values held by economists — Mises concluded that the only viable economic policy for the human race was a policy of unrestricted laissez-faire, of free markets and the unhampered exercise of the right of private property, with government strictly limited to the defense of person and property within its territorial area.

For Mises was able to demonstrate (a) that the expansion of free markets, the division of labor, and private capital investment is the only possible path to the prosperity and flourishing of the human race; (b) that socialism would be disastrous for a modern economy because the absence of private ownership of land and capital goods prevents any sort of rational pricing, or estimate of costs, and (c) that government intervention, in addition to hampering and crippling the market, would prove counter-productive and cumulative, leading inevitably to socialism unless the entire tissue of interventions was repealed.

Holding these views, and hewing to truth indomitably in the face of a century increasingly devoted to statism and collectivism, Mises became famous for his “intransigence” in insisting on a non-inflationary gold standard and on laissez-faire.

Effectively barred from any paid university post in Austria and later in the United States, Mises pursued his course gallantly. As the chief economic adviser to the Austrian government in the 1920s, Mises was single-handedly able to slow down Austrian inflation; and he developed his own “private seminar” which attracted the out­standing young economists, social scientists, and philosophers throughout Europe. As the founder of the "neo-Austrian School" of economics, Mises’s business cycle theory, which blamed inflation and depressions on inflationary bank credit encouraged by Central Banks, was adopted by most younger economists in England in the early 1930s as the best explanation of the Great Depression.

Having fled the Nazis to the United States, Mises did some of his most important work here. In over two decades of teaching, he inspired an emerging Austrian School in the United States. The year after Mises died in 1973, his most distinguished follower, F.A. Hayek, was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for his work in elaborat­ing Mises’s business cycle theory during the later 1920s and 1930s.

Mises was born on Sept 29, 1881, in the city of Lemberg (now Lvov) in Galicia, where his father, a Viennese construction engineer working for the Austrian railroads, was then stationed. Both Mises’s father and mother came from prominent Viennese families; his mother’s uncle, Dr Joachim Landau, served as deputy from the Liberal Party in the Austrian Parliament.

Entering the University of Vienna at the turn of the century as a leftist interventionist, the young Mises discovered Principles of Economics by Carl Menger, the founding work of the Austrian School of economics, and was quickly converted to the Austrian emphasis on individual action rather than unrealistic mechanistic equations as the unit of economics analysis, and to the importance of a free-market economy.

Mises became a prominent post-doctoral student in the famous University of Vienna seminar of the great Austrian economist Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk (among whose many accomplishments was the devastating refutation of the Marxian labor theory of value).

The Mises Institute's coat of arms is that of the Mises family, awarded in 1881 when Ludwig von Mises's great-grandfather Mayer Rachmiel Mises was ennobled by the Emperor Franz Josef I of Austria. In the upper right-hand quadrant is the staff of Mercury, god of commerce and communication (the Mises family was successful in both; they were merchants and bankers). In the lower left-hand quadrant is a representation of the Ten Commandments. Mayer Rachmiel, as well as his father, presided over various Jewish cultural organizations in Lemberg, the city where Ludwig was born. The red banner displays the Rose of Sharon, which in the litany is one of the names given to the Blessed Mother, as well as the Stars of the Royal House of David, a symbol of the Jewish people. Ludwig's lifelong motto was from Virgil: tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito. Here is a full view.

During this period, in his first great work, The Theory of Money and Credit (1912) Mises performed what had been deemed an impossible task: to integrate the theory of money into the general theory of marginal utility and price (what would now be called integrating “macroeconomics” into “microeconomics.”) Since Bohm-Bawerk and his other Austrian colleagues did not accept Mises’s integration and remained without a monetary theory, he was therefore obliged to strike out on his own and found a “neo­-Austrian” school.

In his monetary theory, Mises revived the long forgotten British Currency School principle, prominent until the 1850s, that society does not at all benefit from any increase in the money supply, that increased money and bank credit only causes inflation and business cycles, and that therefore government policy should maintain the equivalent of a 100 percent gold standard.

Mises added to this insight the elements of his business cycle theory: that credit expansion by the banks, in addition to causing inflation, makes depressions inevitable by causing “malinvestment,” i.e. by inducing businessmen to overinvest in “higher orders” of capital goods (machine tools, construction, etc.) and to underinvest in consumer goods.

The problem is that inflationary bank credit, when loaned to business, masquerades as pseudo-savings, and makes businessmen believe that there are more savings available to invest in capital goods production than consumers are genuinely willing to save. Hence, an inflationary boom requires a recession which becomes a painful but necessary process by which the market liquidates unsound investments and reestablishes the investment and production structure that best satisfies consumer preferences and demands.

* The Mises Quotation Machine
* The Complete Mises Bibliography
* Who was Mises? by Jörg Guido Hülsmann
* Tributes to Mises by Economists, Journalists, and Others
* Books and Essays by Mises (complete text)
* Songs from the Mises-Kreis
* The Story of the Lost Papers
* Downloadable Photographs of Mises

Mises, and his follower Hayek, developed this cycle theory during the 192Os, on the basis of which Mises was able to warn an unheeding world that the widely trumpeted “New Era” of permanent prosperity of the 192Os was a sham, and that its inevitable result would be bank panic and depression. When Hayek was invited to teach at the London School of Economics in 1931 by an influential former student at Mises’s private seminar, Lionel Robbins, Hayek was able to convert most of the younger English economists to this perspective. On a collision course with John Maynard Keynes and his disciples at Cambridge, Hayek demolished Keynes’s Treatise on Money, but lost the battle and most of his followers to the tidal wave of the Keynesian Revolution that swept the economic world after the publication of Keynes’s General Theory in 1936.

The policy prescriptions for business cycles of Mises-Hayek and of Keynes were diametrically opposed. During a boom period, Mises counseled the immediate end of all bank credit and monetary expansion; and, during a recession, he advised strict laissez-faire, allowing the readjustment forces of the recession to work themselves out as rapidly as possible.

Not only that: for Mises the worst form of intervention would be to prop up prices or wage rates, causing unemployment, to increase the money supply, or to boost government spending in order to stimulate consumption. For Mises, the recession was a problem of under-saving, and over-consumption, and it was therefore important to encourage savings and thrift rather than the opposite, to cut government spending rather than increase it. It is clear that, from 1936 on Mises was totally in opposition to the worldwide fashion in macroeconomic policy.

Socialism-communism had triumphed in Russia and in much of Europe during and after World War I, and Mises was moved to publish his famous article, “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth,” (1920) in which he demonstrated that it would be impossible for a socialist planning board to plan a modern economic system; furthermore, no attempt at artificial “markets” would work, since a genuine pricing and costing system requires an exchange of property titles, and therefore private property in the means of production.

Mises developed the article into his book Socialism(1922), a comprehensive philosophical and sociological, as well as economic critique which still stands as the most thorough and devastating demolition of socialism ever written. Mises’s Socialism converted many prominent economists and social philosophers out of socialism, including Hayek, the German Wilhelm Ropke, and the Englishman Lionel Robbins.

In the United States, the publication of the English translation of Socialism in 1936 attracted the admiration of the prominent economic journalist Henry Hazlitt, who reviewed it in the New York Times, and converted one of America’s most prominent and learned Communist fellow-travelers of the period, J.B. Matthews, to a Misesian position and to opposition to all forms of socialism.

Socialists throughout Europe and the United States worried about the problem of economic calculation under socialism for about fifteen years, finally pronouncing the problem solved with the promulgation of the “market socialism” model of the Polish economist Oskar Lange in 1936. Lange returned to Poland after World War II to help plan Polish Communism. The collapse of socialist planning, in Poland and the other Communist countries in 1989, left Establishment economists across the ideological spectrum, all of whom bought the Lange “solution”, mightily embarrassed.

Some prominent socialists, such as Robert Heilbroner, have had the grace to admit publicly that “Mises was right” all along (the phrase “Mises was Right” was the title of a panel at the annual 1990 meeting of the Southern Economic Association at New Orleans).

If socialism was an economic catastrophe, government inter­vention could not work, and would tend to lead inevitably to socialism. Mises elaborated these insights in his Critique of Interventionism (1929), and set forth his political philosophy of laissez-faire liberalism in his Liberalism (1927).

In adition to setting himself against all the political trends of the twentieth century, Mises combated with equal fervor and eloquence what he considered the disastrous dominant philosophical and methodological trends, in economics and other disciplines. These included positivism, relativism, historicism, polylogism” the idea that each race and gender has its own “logic” and there­fore cannot communicate with other groups), and all forms of irrationalism and denial of objective truth. Mises also developed what he considered to be the proper methodology of economic theory--logical deduction from evident axioms, which he labeled “praxeo­logy”, and he leveled trenchant critiques of the growing tendency in economics and other disciplines to replace praxeology and histor­ical understanding by unrealistic mathematical models and statistical manipulations.

Emigrating to the United States in 1940, Mises’s first two books in English were important and influential. His Omnipotent Government (1944) was the first book to challenge the then-standard Marxian view that fascism and Nazism were imposed upon their nations by big business and the “capitalist class.” His Bureaucracy (1944) was a still unsurpassed analysis of why government operation must necessarily be “bureaucratic” and suffer from all the ills of bureaucracy.

Mises’s most monumental achievement was his Human Action (1949), the first comprehensive treatise on economic theory written since the first World War. Here Mises took up the challenge of his own methodology and research program and elaborated an integrated and massive structure of economic theory on his own deductive, “praxeological” principles. Published in an era when economists and governments generally were totally dedicated to statism and Keynesian inflation, Human Action was unread by the economics profession. Finally, in 1957 Mises published his last major work, Theory and History, which, in addition to refutations of Marxism and historicism, set forth the basic differences and functions of theory and of history in economics as well as all the various disciplines of human action.

In the United States as in his native Austria, Mises could not find a paid post in academia. New York University, where he taught from until 1945 until his retirement at the age of 88 in 1969, would only designate him as Visiting Professor, and his salary had to be paid by the conservative-libertarian William Volker Fund until 1962, and after that by a consortium of free-market foundations and businessmen. Despite the unfavorable climate, Mises inspired a growing group of students and admirers, cheer­fully encouraged their scholarship, and himself continued his remarkable productivity.

Mises was also sustained by and worked together with free­-market and libertarian admirers. From its origin in 1946 until his death, Mises was a part-time staff member of the Foundation for Economic Education at Irvington-on-Hudson, New York; and he was in the 1950s an economic advisor to the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) working with their laissez-faire wing which finally lost out to the tide of “enlightened” statism.

As a free trader and a classical liberal in the tradition of Cobden, Bright, and Spencer, Mises was a libertarian who champ­ioned reason and individual liberty in personal as well as eco­nomic matters. As a rationalist and an opponent of statism in all its forms, Mises would never call himself a “conservative,” but rather a liberal in the nineteenth-century sense.

Indeed, Mises was politically a laissez-faire radical, who denounced tariffs, immigration restrictions, or governmental attempts to enforce morality. On the other hand, Mises was a staunch cultural and sociological conservative, who attacked egalitarianism, strongly denounced political feminism as a facet of socialism. In contrast to many conservative critics of capitalism, Mises held that personal morality and the nuclear family were both essential to, and fostered by, a system of free-market capitalism.

Mises’s influence was remarkable, considering the unpopularity of his epistemological and political views. His students of the 1920s, even those who later became Keynesians, were permanently stamped by a visible Misesian influence. These students included, in addition to Hayek and Robbins, Fritz Machlup, Gottfried von Haberler, Oskar Morgenstern, Alfred Schutz, Hugh Gaitskell, Howard S. Ellis, John Van Sickle, and Erich Voegelin.

In France, General DeGaulle’s major economic and monetary adviser, who helped swing France away from socialism, was Jacques Rueff, an old-friend and admirer of Mises. And part of post-World War II Italy’s shift away from socialism was due to its President Luigi Einaudi, a distinguished economist and long-time friend and free-market colleague of Mises. In the United States, Mises was scarcely as influential. Under less promising academic conditions, his students and admirers included Henry Hazlitt, Lawrence Fertig, Percy Greaves, Jr., Bettina Bien Graeves, Hans F. Sennholz, William H. Peterson, Louis M. Spadaro, Israel M. Kirzner, Ralph Raico, George Reisman, and Murray N. Rothbard. But Mises was able to build a remarkably strong and loyal following among businessmen and other non-academics; his massive and complex Human Action has sold extraordinarily well ever since the year of its original publication.

Since Mises’s death in New York City on October 10, 1973 at the age of 92, Misesian doctrine and influence has experienced a ren­aissance. The following year saw not only Hayek’s Nobel Prize for Misesian cycle theory, but also the first of many Austrian School conferences in the United States. Books by Mises have been reprinted and collections of his articles translated and published. Courses and programs in Austrian Economics have been taught and established throughout the country.

Taking the lead in this revival of Mises and in the study and expansion of Misesian doctrine has been the Ludwig von Mises Institute, founded by Lle­wellyn Rockwell, Jr. in 1982 and headquartered in Auburn, Alabama. The Mises Institute publishes scholarly journals and books, and offers courses in elementary, intermediate and advanced Austrian economics, which attract in­creasing numbers of students and professors. Undoubtedly, the collapse of socialism and the increased attractiveness of the free market have greatly contributed to this upsurge of popularity.



vezi c-ai sa gasesti si-n lb. Ro pt. colegi interesati, pt tine mere sin lb. eng.stiu ca tu stii.!

:












sml-confused0067: If evil doesn't exist,how do we know that good is good ? promis little but do much!

Ticu

....nenea Ticulicaaaa, Good and Evil in all coexist, the choice belongs to you!..

De la: gbispas, la data 2009-06-02 13:05:09

Apoi,unii ,aseamana sistemul furnicilor sau mai stiu eu al cui,cu cel in care traim noi.N-as vrea sa spun ca suntem mai evoluati ca ele,dar ii intreb,oare nu putem numi mai degraba presedinta,pe conducatoarea stupului sau a musuroiului?I se spune regina,pentru ca asa o denumim noi,oamenii,dar sistemul in sine,este mai degraba republicajn.

.Recunosc ca si eu m-am distrat cu chestia asta .Iti dai seama ce ghinion pe voi republicanii ca am apucat, conventional, sa numim sefa stupului REGINA ?!. Daca o numeam presedinta, acum ne inchideati gura ca cel mai performant sistem este in Finlanda unde au aia o femeie presedinta .... .Acum insa ramane Anglia ca simbol al perfectiunii deoarece au regina ca albinele . Oricum,haioase lucruri vedem pe forumuri,nu ?

De la: gbispas, la data 2009-06-02 13:05:09

De la: merce, la data 2009-06-02 12:06:44

De la: 9am15926, la data 2009-06-02 11:39:12raspunsul e foarte simplu.cele mai performante forme de convietuire sociala (furnicile, albinele) din regnul animal sunt conduse de regine nu de presedinti. se aplica si tarilor, uitati-va la monarhii, Danemarca, Marea Britanie, Suedia si comparati cu celelalte. greu de tot. in istoria Romaniei singurul care a putut uni cele trei tari romanesti si sa ramana asa a fost un rege. nici macar un rege roman. din pacate sunt atatia prosti care nu inteleg incat nu cred ca va mai fi posibila restaurarea monarhiei in Romania.

SUUUPERARGUMENT! Nu m-am gandit niciodata la asta, dar chiar asa este: musuroiul sau stupul sunt organizatii care functioneaza perfect fiindca au regina!
Exact asa: leacul contra bramburelii totale in care acum ne complacem, barfind pe la colturi ca...'coruptia', 'altii sunt de vina', 'banul conduce' samd ar putea fi MONARHIA cu toate legile ei verificate de istorie.
Nu cred, in schimb, ca sunt atatia prosti in Romania. Nu, sunt doar multi oameni, manati de aparente, de lideri de mucava, oameni care nu se informeaza fiindca nu au aceasta obisnuinta. Generatii intregi mutilate de comunism si postcomunism, care nu mai au nimic sfant . Cum ar putea intelege monarhia cineva care nu are niciun Dumnezeu, fie el musulman , hindus , mozaic s.a? Doar exersand-o. Numai ca nu-si pot acorda aceasta sansa decat daca s-ar exporta intr-o tara cu monarhie. Si ar sta acolo vreo 2-3 generatii.

Ba,stau si ma minunez.Inainte de toate,pentru ca sunt inca unii pe-aici,carora le spui si LE ARGUMENTEZi,de ce nu aduce sistemul monarhist nici respect,nici demnitate,dar ei turuie,inainte,facandu-se ca nu observa.Revad in personajele astea,pe Iliescu,care mai mereu,una era intrebat si alta raspundea el,de obicei,aceleasi monolage,demagogice.Bravo mai TOVARASI MONARHISTI.
Apoi,unii si mai inapoiati,aseamana sistemul furnicilor sau mai stiu eu al cui,cu cel in care traim noi.N-as vrea sa spun ca suntem mai evoluati ca ele,dar ii intreb,oare nu putem numi mai degraba presedinta,pe conducatoarea stupului sau a musuroiului?I se spune regina,pentru ca asa o denumim noi,oamenii,dar sistemul in sine,este mai degraba republicajn.Adica,e drept ca nu sunt alegeri in stup,o data la patru-cinci ani,insa nici odraslele " regale" nu mostenesc conducerea.Devin simpli lucratoare sau cele ce pazesc musuroiul,nicidecum nu au pretentii la tron.Cand moare presedinta,musuroiul se indreapta spre alta presedinta,pe care o aleg ele,nu ii succede nimeni,din familia defunctei,la tron.Ba mai mult,in unele specii,chiar este detronata de alte " regine".,omorata fiind de aceasta.Si pe urma,cat de orb sa fii sa nu faci diferenta ca in musuroiul de furnici,spre exemplu," regina",are si o constitutie anatomica diferita,fata de celelalte furnici,pe cand regii nostri...........nu difera deloc,anatomic,fata de noi.Apropos,sa nu uitati ca si leul nu e presedintele animalelor,e doar un amarat de REGE:))):))):))Merce,ghinionul tau e ca eu(vorbesc in nume propriu,acum)am trait intr-o tara monarhica si stiu ce inseamna.Mult mai putin decat republica."Exporteaza-te" tu,daca n-ai inteles,inca,ce-i aia.

Lasa domnule gbispas, indiferent ce se spune despre monarhie, sa nu ne facem griji, ca oricum monarhie nu o sa mai avem, nu stiu daca e buna sau rea , dar e considerata ceva vechi, si lumea merge inainte, eu prevad ca si in celelalte tari, cat de curand monarhia o sa ramana amintire . !

Ticu

De la: mytcor, la data 2009-06-02 13:17:33....nenea Ticulicaaaa, Good and Evil in all coexist, the choice belongs to you!..

OK, Don't be sad, don't be blue,The life is too short,to have time for sadness too!

Ticu

si daca tot ne distram atit de bine,iata un banc : cica dupa ce tovarasa explica in clasa ce e comunismul,ii pune pe copii sa explice ce au inteles ! Irinuca zice : comunismul e ca un furnicar ; toti membri lui muncesc pentru binele tuturor ! ....ei,zice toarasa ,cam asa e,dar furnicarul are o regina ! neee,altcineva ? Ionut se scoala si zice si el : tova,e ca un stup ;muncesc voioase si -si cresc copii,care si ei muncesc cu drag ptr.binele stupului !....maiii,Ionele ,si acolo e o Regina...mai sunt si trintori ! altcineva ? Itzicuta se ridica si el si zice : tova ,comunismu-i ca o Nava ! ??????!!???? da,tova, suntem pe ea ?suntem ! merge-nnainte ?merge ! se leagana ? se leagana ! iti vine sa borasti ? iti vine ! poti sa cobori ? nu poti sa cobori !.... P.S tineti cont ca n-am spus cum il cheama pe marinerul care conduce nava !

Catre gbispas : Ce incercam eu sa spun este ca trebuie avut rabdare cu monarhia pentru cateva generatii, nu pentru cativa ani , despre acest tip de 'antrenament' vorbeam.
Ca nu ne putem adapta noi, dupa ce am gustat beneficiile republicii ceva vreme, ma rog, e doar o chestiune personala, dupa cum spuneai. Banuiesc ca si cei care vin din tari cu monarhie in altele republicane, vad avantajele tipului lor de guvernare destul de repede.

Ceea ce ma surprinde insa la majoritatea contestatarilor monarhiei este revolta ce razbate din spusele lor, impotriva ordinei , a disciplinei si a valorilor general recunoscute. E ca si in cazul ateilor, revolta ca ne-am nascut din spirit si nu din material. Cred ca aici este ,in fapt , marea bresa aparuta: intre adeptii lui 'a fi' si cei ai lui 'a avea'.
Este doar o similitudine pe care eu am gasit-o, nu emit o axioma, nu va agitati!

In ceea ce ma priveste am trait intr-o familie care a respectat si iubit monarhia, am apucat simt din frageda pruncie diferenta intre educatia de tip bolsevic si 'cealalta', hulita si varata adanc in inchisorile de maxima siguranta. Si am ales. Doar ca nu ma voi 'exporta' doar fiindca natia mea nu-si gaseste ,deocamdata , drumul.
Am calatorit mult si am avut prilejul sa inteleg ca traiesc intr-o tara binecuvantata, chiar si pentru oamenii care locuiesc in ea , nu numai pentru peisaj. Si mai am de calatorit inca, nu m-am plictisit deloc. Doar ca voi reveni cu dor pe pamantul pe care m-am nascut. Fiindca asta am ales eu. In fond, viata noastra este doar o suma de alegeri.

"'REMEMBER SOME PEOPLE ARE ALIVE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL TO SHOOT THEM"