Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Economist Jean-Baptiste Say, by George Gunton 1899



On Economist Jean-Baptiste Say by George Gunton 1899

Join my Facebook Group

See also The History & Mystery of Money & Economics-250 Books on DVDrom

'Jean Baptiste Say (1767-1832) really stands on the threshold of modern political economy in Europe. He is the conspicuous landmark between the physiocrats and the commodity school represented by the English economists from Adam Smith to Jevons. He was really a convert and disciple of Adam Smith, and published his first great work, "Treatise on Political Economy" twenty-seven years (1803) after the appearance of "The Wealth of Nations."

Say, however, was quite a different type of man from Adam Smith. The great Scotchman was a monument of good sense. He was an extraordinary observer but he was not a systematic, orderly thinker. He was philosophical, equal to large generalizations, but capable of disorderly presentation. This was characteristic of his great work "The Wealth of Nations," by which he will forever be known to the human race.

Say's work shows much less of the observer, but more of the logician and scientist. He struggled to separate economics from political action, and make it an abstract science. He divided his work into three parts, — production, distribution and consumption. While he did much to give order and precision to the subject, he made it more of a physical than a social science. He treated production, distribution and consumption practically as three physical bodies operating upon each other, regarding production of one class of things as necessarily demand for another class.

This error to some extent flavored English literature. It was repeated with considerable elaboration by Professor Cairnes as late as 1874. All production is really induced, not by other production, but by the social wants and desires of the people; and hence the real vitalizing force behind production, exchange and distribution of wealth is what has now come to be designated as the standard of living.

In the absence of this, and with his absolute acceptance of the Malthusian theory of population and utter repugnance to the paternal methods of mercantilism, especially as applied in France before the Revolution, Say was a bloodless advocate of laissez faire; not merely as a free trader, but as believing that government was good in proportion as it was negative and weak. To him, laborers were so much force in production, and could be considered in no other way. When there were too many, economic law did its proper work by starving a number of them out of the way. His countryman and great admirer, Blanqui, says that he even favored slavery on the ground that it was more economical to use slaves than free men; but, in a later work, "Complete Course in Political Economy," he modifies this.

However, Say's contribution to economic science was really to systematize it, separate it from politics and paternalism, and reduce it to a study of economic phenomena. In his hands, however, the science was reduced to an emaciated skeleton without flesh and blood and human sympathy and social psychology, a degree of nakedness in which it never appeared in England. But, with Adam Smith in England in 1776, and Say in France in 1803, mercantilism and the narrow agricultural physiocratic theories were essentially overthrown, never again to rise into prominence. In many senses it may be said that Say systematized Adam Smith, and, through the extensive use of the French language, popularized English economics in Europe.

Buy: Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, Scholar's Edition by Murray N. Rothbard

From The Encyclopaedia Britannica 1890:

Of Jean Baptiste Say (1767–1832) Ricardo says—“He Say was the first, or among the first, of Continental writers who justly appreciated and applied the principles of Smith, and has done more than all other Continental writers taken together to recommend that enlightened and beneficial system to the nations of Europe.” The Wealth of Nations in the original language was placed in Say's hands by Clavière, afterwards minister, then director of the assurance society of which Say was a clerk; and the book made a powerful impression on him. Long after, when Dupont de Nemours complained of his injustice to the physiocrats, and claimed him as, through Smith, a spiritual grandson of Quesnay and nephew of Turgot, he replied that he had learned to read in the writings of the mercantile school, had learned to think in those of Quesnay and his followers, but that it was in Smith that he had learned to seek the causes and the effects of social phenomena in the nature of things, and to arrive at this last by a scrupulous analysis. His Traité d'Economie Politique (1803) was essentially founded on Smith's work, but he aimed at arranging the materials in a more logical and instructive order. He has the French art of easy and lucid exposition, though his facility sometimes degenerates into superficiality; and hence his book became popular, both directly and through translations obtained a wide circulation, and diffused rapidly through the civilized world the doctrines of the master. Say's knowledge of common life, says Roscher, was equal to Smith's; but he falls far below him in living insight into larger political phenomena, and he carefully eschews historical and philosophical explanations. He is sometimes strangely shallow, as when he says that “the best tax is that smallest in amount.” [Ed. "Shallow"...really??] He appears not to have much claim to the position of an original thinker in political economy. Ricardo, indeed, speaks of him as having “enriched the science by several discussions, original, accurate, and profound.” What he had specially in view in using these words was what is, perhaps rather pretentiously, called Say's théorie des débouchés, with his connected disproof of the possibility of a universal glut.

The theory amounts simply to this, that buying is also selling, and that it is by producing that we are enabled to purchase the products of others. Several distinguished economists, especially Malthus and Sismondi, in consequence chiefly of a misinterpretation of the phenomena of commercial crises, maintained that there might be general over-supply or excess of all commodities above the demand. This Say rightly denied. A particular branch of production may, it must indeed be admitted, exceed the existing capabilities of the market; but, if we remember that supply is demand, that commodities are purchasing power, we cannot accept the doctrine of the possibility of a universal glut without holding that we can have too much of everything—that “all men can be so fully provided with the precise articles they desire as to afford no market for each other's superfluities.” But, whatever services he may have rendered by original ideas on those or other subjects, his great merit is certainly that of a propagandist and popularizer.

The imperial police would not permit a second edition of his work to be issued without the introduction of changes which, with noble independence, he refused to make; and that edition did not therefore appear till 1814. Three other editions were published during the life of the author—in 1817, 1819, and 1826. In 1828 Say published a second treatise, Cours complet d’Economie Politique Pratique, which contained the substance of his lectures at the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers and at the Collège de France. Whilst in his earlier treatise he had kept within the narrow limits of strict economics, in his later work he enlarged the sphere of discussion, introducing in particular many considerations respecting the economic influence of social institutions.

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Ayn Rand, Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan Walk Into A Bar...

Joke: Ayn Rand, Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan Walk Into A Bar. The bartender serves them tainted alcohol because there are no regulations. They die.


"Nothing gets me going more than economic ignorance....Economic ignorance comes in different forms, and some types of economic ignorance are less excusable than others. But the most important implication of Rothbard’s point is that the worst sort of economic ignorance is ignorance about your economic ignorance. There are varying degrees of blameworthiness for not knowing certain things about economics, but what is always unacceptable is not to recognize that you may not know enough to be speaking with authority, nor to understand the limits of economic knowledge."
~Steven Horwitz

There is no such thing as an unregulated restaurant. When I go to a new town I don't check with the local government to see which restaurants I should go to, I check with Yelp, TripAdvisor and even Google, which provides reviews from thousands, if not millions of reviewers. I regulate the market constantly. I have certain places I frequent regularly, and others I avoid. If many people stop going to a certain establishment then this sends a signal to that establishment to change or stop doing business altogether.

Free, private market regulation is ongoing, it never stops. We are all regulatory officers. I trust reviews of millions of private market officers more than I trust a review from one government regulator than can be easily bought off.

But what if a new restaurant starts up and kills people before it can be reviewed? A new restaurant can have a private regulating agency, such as Underwriters Laboratories, Orthodox Union or even an insurance company come in and test and rate foods, and those new restaurants can then proudly post certification from these respected private agencies so that their new customers can see them.

Additionally, government regulation does not guarantee safe food anyways. We saw how Chipotle restaurants were plagued with closings in 2015 despite being regulated by the government, and anyone needing water for food or drinks in Flint Michigan or from the Animas River in Colorado were sorely disappointed in the Government's management of our water resources.

Interestingly, when I think of poison in alcohol, I am reminded that the United States government intentionally poisoned alcohol during prohibition in order to scare people away from drinking. This heinous step led to, by some estimates, up to 10,000 deaths. It should also lead to a healthy distrust of our political overlords.


Saturday, May 21, 2016

My Favorite Libertarian Movies



My Favorite Libertarian Movies

I plan to be adding to this list as time goes on so keep checking back.

Animal Farm
Watch online (until someone takes it down) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wss6vvFOoeY

Harrison Bergeron (A Kurt Vonnegut classic. If you've heard of the title "Handicapper General" then you have an idea of where this movie will take you.)
Watch online (until someone takes it down) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBcpuBRUdNs

Atlas Shrugged (I appreciate the criticisms of these movies, but you really need to read this book)
Watch online (until someone takes it down) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfZXF73QY3o and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJF6QCvGtf0

A Bugs Life (The ants have been taught that their purpose in life is to pick food for the grasshoppers, and in return the grasshoppers provide protection from larger bugs. There is no voluntary relationship.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvY9NUZc6sw for a brilliant lesson from this movie.

1984 (like most movies, the book was better)
Watch online (until someone takes it down) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJL3pSiC1uc

Serenity
Watch online (until someone takes it down) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkifnmiuuxc

Look Who's Back
See trailer at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtW1Lq5c04E

End of the Road: How Money Became Worthless
See trailer at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1sYLh4NG14

The Story of Your Enslavement
Watch online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

V For Vendetta
See trailer at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSA7mAHolAw

The Outlaw Josie Wales ("Governments don't live together. People live together. Governments don't give you a fair word or a fair fight. I've come here to give you either one. Or get either one from you… I'm saying that men can live together without butchering one another…")
See trailer at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en9rfsUGDkc

Copperhead
Watch online (until someone takes it down) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQVHW90jPi0

Agora
See trailer at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbuEhwselE0

Dreams of My Real Father
See trailer at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izwUCdzbIao

Brexit - The Movie
Watch online at http://fredericbastiat1850.blogspot.com/2016/05/brexit-movie-full-film.html

America: Imagine the World Without Her
Watch online (until someone takes it down) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcyNXxrfJIQ

AMERICA — From Freedom To Fascism
Watch online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE8RtL3azDg

Robin Hood
Watch online (until someone takes it down) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwyoC83OpsM

Pacific Heights (the horrors of landlord-tenant law)
See trailer at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdg-XGFBS9E

JFK 1991
See clip at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSw9sjqYK_I

The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz
Watch online (until someone takes it down) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCwjDuoJK0E

The Soviet Story
Watch online (until someone takes it down) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZTA8xc4_8w

The Great Global Warming Swindle
Watch online (until someone takes it down) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism (2005)
Watch online (until someone takes it down) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfWOF__ADqw

The Way Back (escaping the horrors of a Socialist labor camp)
Watch trailer at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87kezJTpyMI

I, Pencil: The Movie
Watch online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYO3tOqDISE

Citizen X (1995) (A true story of a murder mystery in the Soviet Union showing the limitations of getting anything accomplished in a Socialist country)
www.imdb.com/title/tt0112681


Friday, May 20, 2016

Jodie Foster and the Wealth Hoarding Fallacy




Jodie Foster has a net worth of $100 million dollars, and since she doesn't make $100 million dollars a film isn't she then hoarding that money, which, according to her argument means SHE is the cause of poverty.

Much of this argument stems from the mistaken belief that there is a fixed, static amount of money.

“Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another.” ~Milton Friedman

There is about 80 trillion dollars of GDP wealth in the world today, while in 1960 it was only 1.37 Trillion. How is this possible if the pie is fixed? There was never a small static pie, the free exchange of capitalism generates wealth for all who participate and thus makes the pie bigger.

Also Donald Trump's wealth has no impact on what you or I make in a year. There is not a fixed money supply jar that is going to run out when rich people take it all. As long as someone wants something and another has a means to provide it, money will be the medium of exchange between them.

But what about Hoarding Money? If by hoarding you mean storing money under your mattress or burying it in your backyard, then this is silly. If this was so then they would be getting poorer every day due to inflation and our government printing more money. There is a reason a can of cola used to cost me 10 cents when I was a kid. Hoarding that 10 cents in my closet for decades made it worth much less over time. Rich people aren't rich because they're stupid.

If by hoarding money you mean keeping it in the bank, then you need to know what a bank does.  A bank does not sit on your money.  Banks invest that money in others so that they can create more wealth. The business or individual that borrows money from the bank, either to buy a house or a car, let's say, then pays the money back, plus interest. So hoarding in this fashion is good for the community at large.

Let's say a hoarder burns all of his money, then the existing money in the poor man's pocket is now worth more because the amount of money in circulation is reduced and less money means lower prices which is good for the 99 percent of us.

What then about off-shore accounts? Today the biggest threat to your savings is your own government. Governments are going deeper into insolvency and as a result we are now seeing bail-ins (like they have done in Cyprus), bank deposit taxes (Spain), the  nationalization of retirement savings (Poland, Hungary, Portugal, Argentina), and capital controls.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano says: "The people who have more than $100,000 in the bank are targets for any government that’s looking for money to shore up its own inability to manage its finances." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGDlgVK73Q4

With that threat in place it makes it prudent for people to protect their families' wealth by moving their money around. Also, offshore accounts offer much higher interest rates than what you’d find at home, where rates are kept historically low by the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve.

Finally, throwing money at poverty does not seem to work anyways. The American government spent 22 Trillion dollars (yes, 22,000,000,000,000) in the past 50 years and the poverty rate has remained unchanged and by doing so they have created a permanent underclass. Perhaps we should spend more time educating people to learn useful trades and skills and we should also clamor for less barriers to entry into business, like intrusive minimum wage laws, regulations and licensing.

As Bono once said at Georgetown: “Aid is just a stop-gap. Commerce [and] entrepreneurial capitalism takes more people out of poverty than aid. In dealing with poverty here and around the world, welfare and foreign aid are a Band-Aid. Free enterprise is a cure. Entrepreneurship is the most sure way of development.”

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

BREXIT THE MOVIE FULL FILM

Woodrow Wilson: Communist, article in Sociological Essays 1922



Woodrow Wilson the Communist, article in Sociological Essays By Andrew Edward Breen 1922

See also American History & Mysteries, Over 200 PDF Books on DVDrom

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here

That Socialism in its practical working leads to despotism is proven by many examples. Robespierre, Danton, and Marat were the tyrants of the French Revolution; Lenin and Trotzky are the tyrants of Russia; Bela Kun was the tyrant of Hungary; Woodrow Wilson, who was elected by socialists, became the most absolute of all our rulers.

In the Socialist Convention at New York (1920), Morris Hillquit declared:

"Be it remembered, that in 1916, Woodrow Wilson ran as a radical.

"He promised Socialism through the short cut of the Democratic party, and thousands of radicals throughout the country voted for him rather than to throw away their votes on the hopeless candidates of the Socialist party.

"Woodrow Wilson was elected over Hughes by the vote of Socialists. In California alone the defection in the normal Socialist vote determined his victory.

"Wilson, the pacifist, drew us into the world's most frightful war.

Wilson, the anti-militarist, imposed conscription upon the country in war and urged universal military training, a large standing army and a huge navy in peace.

Wilson, the Liberal, revived the mediaeval institutions of speech, thought and conscience.

Wilson the Democrat, arrogated to himself autocratic power grossly inconsistent with a republican form of government. His administration suppressed radical publications, raided homes and meeting places of its political opponents, destroyed their property and assaulted their persons."

Wilson, the apostle of the 'new freedom,' infested the country with stool pigeons, spies, and agents provocateurs, and filled the jails with political prisoners.

On April 23, 1920, in Boston, Mass., at a hearing of the Federal District Court, Mrs. Martha Moore Avery, who was formerly state secretary of the Socialist party, but who has renounced its principles, was under cross-examination by Morris Katzeff, counsel for the petitioners. Counsel read to the witness the sentences, "the trusts are our masters now," and, "I do not care how benevolent the master is going to be, I refuse to live under a master," and asked if she regarded them as good Communist doctrines. "Very good Communist doctrines," she replied. Counsel then asked Mrs. Avery if she would be surprised to know that he was reading from "The New Freedom" written by Woodrow Wilson.

"I regard Woodrow Wilson as the author of the most idealistic literature from the socialistic point of view within my time," she said.

At this point, Judge George W. Anderson addressed the witness from the bench. "Then you mean that since you left the Socialist party, he is the best exponent of the Socialist doctrine that you know?"

"Yes, he uses fine language and writes from an international point of view the ideas I advocated years ago."

"You mean then that the ideas behind 'New Freedom,' 'Marxian Socialism' and 'Communism' are one and the same thing?"

Mrs. Avery answered in the affirmative.


Buy - Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty by Ivan Eland (where Wilson is ranked LAST)

Friday, May 13, 2016

Economics as the Queen of all Sciences by Henry D Macleod 1896



Economics is the Queen of all Sciences By Henry Dunning Macleod 1896

Join my Facebook Group

See also The History & Mystery of Money & Economics-250 Books on DVDrom

Economics as a Liberal Science.

Some idiot nick-named Economics the "dismal science." It would be impossible to conceive a more complete misnomer. Economics is the Queen of all sciences, it is in itself a complete liberal education.

To comprehend Economics it is indispensable to have:

1. An adequate knowledge of Latin and Greek, so as to read the classical writers in the original: because they abound in notices of Economical questions, and they contain most of the fundamental concepts of Economics.

2. But a mere knowledge of classical Latin and Greek is not sufficient, it is necessary to have a knowledge of Juridical Latin and Greek, because in the Pandects of Justinian and the Basilica, which are the sources of our Mercantile Law, there is a class of words which, in classical Latin and Greek, mean material commodities, but in Juridical Latin and Greek, and in modern Mercantile Law, mean only abstract Rights and Duties.

3. A general knowledge of the Law of Property, because Economics deals with property of every description.

4. But modern Commerce is carried on almost exclusively by Credit, consequently it is necessary to have a thorough knowledge of the Juridical principles of Credit, the most abstruse and profound branch of Mercantile Law.

5. A thorough knowledge of the principles and mechanism of Commerce, both agricultural and mercantile.

6. A thorough knowledge of the principles of Natural Philosophy and modern Algebra, and the capacity of seeing how they are to be applied to the phenomena of Economics.

7. A knowledge of the history of all nations, because it supplies the materials for Economics.

Buy - Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One by Thomas Sowell

There are numberless Mercantile Lawyers who are perfectly well versed in special points of Mercantile Law, but very few have any knowledge of the actual mechanism of Commerce.

There are multitudes of Bankers who have a perfect knowledge of practical business, but who were never trained in the abstruse principles of Mercantile Law on which their business is based.

Some Mathematicians have attempted to apply mathematics to Economics; but as they never had the slightest knowledge of Mercantile Law nor of practical business, their attempts are mere midsummer madness.

And those who have undertaken to write general treatises on Economics never had the slightest knowledge of Mercantile Law, nor of practical business, nor had the faintest knowledge of the fundamental principles of Natural Philosophy, nor how to apply them to the phenomena of Economics.

Every science is greater than any of its cultivators. Astronomy is greater than Hipparchus, than Ptolemy, than Copernicus, than Kepler, greater even than Newton himself. So Economics is greater than Turgot, than Quesnay, than Smith, than Ricardo, than Say, than Mill.

To every one who has done good service let us pay rational respect, but not abject idolatry. He who studies Philosophy must be a freeman in mind. No one, however eminent, is now permitted to be a despot in science, and chain up the human intellect, or arrest the progress of thought.

Economics is the noblest and grandest creation of the human intellect. It is the crown and the glory of the Baconian Philosophy. No one can thoroughly realise the awful sublimity of the genius of Bacon until he studies Economics, because it is the literal realisation of his matchless discovery that the same principles of Mathematical and Physical Science which govern the phenomena of nature equally govern the practical business of life.

Time's noblest offspring is its last.

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

My Response to the Climate Change Bingo Meme


"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and hence clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."-- H.L. Mencken

As I get older and reflect back on the many decades past I am constantly reminded that much of that history was mired in fear-mongering, fear-mongering by government, by special interest groups and religion, all three often preaching the same apocalyptic dystopian message. This then created a nihilistic outlook for many, a culture that placed less emphasis on developing a secure and properous future and placed more stress on partying tonight for tomorrow we shall die. None of the predictions ever came true, but before we could even stop and reflect on the lie, a new fear du jour was created to replace that one that died. A dizzying array of fears: global cooling, air pollution, DDT, SARS, West Nile Virus, Bird Flu, Y2K, anthrax, Cuban missile crisis, peak oil, swine flu, ebola, e coli, vaccines, the BP oil spill, zika virus etc. In politics never let a crisis go to waste, and in the media, fear sells.

Call me jaded...but I have been thru all of this since the 60's, and I know things are not getting worse, and smarter minds than mine have concluded the same:

"False bad news about population growth, natural resources, and the environment is published widely in the face of contradictory evidence. For example, the world supply of arable land has actually been increasing, the scarcity of natural resources including food and energy has been decreasing, and basic measures of U.S. environmental quality show positive trends. The aggregate data show no long-run negative effect of population growth upon the standard of living. Models that embody forces omitted in the past, especially the influence of population size upon productivity increase, suggest a long-run positive effect of additional people.” – Julian Simon

"Has it ever occurred to you how astonishing the culture of Western society really is? Industrialized nations provide their citizens with unprecedented safety, health, and comfort. Average life spans increased fifty percent in the last century. Yet modern people live in abject fear. They are afraid of strangers, disease, of crime, of the environment. They are afraid of the homes they live in, the food they eat, the technology that surrounds them. They are in a particular panic over things they can't even see--germs, chemicals, additives, pollutants. They are timid, nervous, fretful, and depressed. And even more amazingly, they are convinced that the environment of the entire planet is being destroyed around them. Remarkable! Like the belief in witchcraft, it's an extraordinary delusion--a global fantasy worthy of the Middle Ages. Everything is going to hell, and we must all live in fear. Amazing." – Michael Crichton (State of Fear)


"Man's average life span in the Palaeolithic period was about twenty years, in the Neolithic period about 28 years, and in the Middle Ages 32 years. At the turn of the 20th century, AD 1900, the average life span of European women was 44 years, and ninety seven years later 82 years. During the past thousand centuries, man's average life span grew by a factor of four, one-half of this extension occurring over the last century. The length of life is probably one of the best descriptors of the conditions in which we live. If so, the natural paradise of the past is a myth. The Golden Age never existed. In fact, innumerable past generations led short and miserable lives, were tormented by hunger and fear, decimated by tuberculosis, smallpox, pestilence and a host of other diseases which are now curable, and fought perpetual wars, just like a few ancient tribes hiding in the jungles of New Guinea still do. The true Golden Age, the dream of our ancestors, has dawned. Mankind never had it better. At the turn of the new century, personal safety is at its highest." -Global Warming in a Politically Correct Climate by M.Mihkel Mathiesen

"The increase in the world's population represents our victory over death. In the 19th Century the earth could sustain only one billion people. Ten thousand years ago, only 1 million could keep themselves alive. Now, 5 billion people are living longer and more healthily than ever before, on average. The current gloom-and-doom about a "crisis" of our environment is all wrong on the scientific facts. Even the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency acknowledges that U.S. air and our water have been getting cleaner rather than dirtier in the past few decades. Every agricultural economist knows that the world's population has been eating ever-better since World War II, defying simplistic Malthusian reasoning. Every resource economist knows that all natural resources have been getting more available rather than more scarce, as shown by their falling prices over the decades and centuries. And every demographer knows that the death rate has been falling all over the world -life expectancy almost tripling in the rich countries in the past two centuries, and almost doubling in the poor countries in just the past four decades. This is the most important and amazing demographic fact -- the greatest human achievement in history. It took thousands of years to increase life expectancy at birth from just over 20 years to the high '20's about 1750. Then about 1750 life expectancy in the richest countries suddenly rose so that the length of life you could expect for your baby or yourself in the advanced countries jumped from less than 30 years to perhaps 75 years. Then starting well after World War II, the length of life you could expect in the poor countries has leaped upwards by perhaps fifteen or even twenty years since the l950s, caused by advances in agriculture, sanitation, and medicine. It is this decrease in the death rate that is the cause of there being a larger world population nowadays than in former times. The picture also is now clear that population growth does not hinder economic development. All the statistical studies show that faster population growth does not cause slower economic growth. In the 1980s there was a complete reversal in the consensus of thinking of population economists about the effects of more people. In 1986, the National Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences completely overturned its "official" view away from the earlier worried view expressed in 1971. It noted the absence of any statistical evidence of a negative connection between population increase and economic growth. And it said that "The scarcity of exhaustible resources is at most a minor restraint on economic growth"." -The Hoodwinking of a Nation by Julian Simon



Hoodwinking the Nation by Julian Simon

And yet, a newer generation is under a constant state of fear, as indicated by this climate change bingo meme that has been making the rounds lately and much of it has my head scratching. For instance the Climate Change Refugees square can have some believing that there are people leaving Miami to move to Bangor Maine. I know that many mean here the Syrian refugees, but these people are leaving for political reasons. Those in power in Syria are staying and the neighboring Isrealis aren't going anywhere.

I don't even know what to make of the Seasonal Changes square. Seasons have always changed. Many places tend have 4 of them every year. If the square means to imply that summers are becoming winters and vice versa, then this has not been my experience. Winters still tend to stay cold and summers are still warm. People have always feared fluctuations in temperature from year to year. Take for example this blurb written in the year 1855 by the Reverend Casper Schaeffer, M.D in his, "Memoirs and Reminiscences:"

"Formerly the snows fell much deeper and the winters were more severe in this country than in late years. I have heard my father say that in the winter of 1780-81 that the depth of snow was such that in traveling they did not confine themselves to the road, but drove over fences and across fields, the snow being sufficiently hard to bear them, since which period the weather at that season has been gradually growing milder; so much so that some winders will pass with scarcely snow enough for any sleighing. Is is now a very rare thing for the Delaware to be frozen over, whereas formerly this was an ordinary occurrence. Evidently our climate is ameliorating and becoming similar in temperature to the same degree of latitude on the European continent. Now as to the cause of this change various opinions are entertained, some assigning one cause and some another. My own long-cherished opinion is that it is owing principally to two things: first, to the clearing away the forests and opening up the swamps, whereby the surface of the ground being exposed to the action of the sun and the accumulated moisture being evaporated, the ground becomes dryer and consequently warmer. A second cause contributing, I think, in no small degree to the same effect, is the cultivation of the soil; the action of the plow, in turning up the sub-soil, thus loosening the ground and exposing a greater surface to the action of the sun, consequently also producing increased dryness and warmth. With the increased heat of the ground, the temperature of the atmosphere is likewise increased, consequently less snow falls and is sooner melted. These several causes continuing to act, the probability is that in the course of time, our climate will assimilate to the mildness of the same latitudes in wester Europe. The gulf stream, however, exercises a benign influence upon that country which is experienced in a much less degree in our own country."

Moving on to Deadly Heatwaves. Deadly heatwaves have always happened. There is nothing new here. There is the 1896 Eastern North America heat wave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1896_Eastern_North_America_heat_wave) and the 1901 eastern United States heat wave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1901_eastern_United_States_heat_wave) and the 1936 North American heat wave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_North_American_heat_wave). Now you may see a lot of high temperatures being recorded constantly, but that's only because no one was doing any similar recording during the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age that followed. People back then led short brutish lives and they were more concerned with survival than climate propaganda. As much as people complain presently about temperatures, we are living in the best time to be alive in human history. People in the past could never dream of our air conditioning units or the central heating units that add to the quality of our lives.

Heat-Related Violence. This is a new one on me. Violent crime has famously dropped, and dramatically so, since the early 1990's. This has led to many speculations as to why this is so, dealt with popularly in the best-selling book, Freakonomics.

Oceans Acidifying: A conclusion, apparently, that can only be arrived at by omitting data. See http://bit.ly/1WW9E4C

Strongest Storms Ever Seen: This is starting to sound like some religious cults that will point me to Matthew 24 and 2 Timothy 3 which contain bullet lists of signs pointing to the Last Days. Many besides myself have often seen too many parallels between these groups and the Apocalyptic Left. I will come back to this religious point from time to time. As for storms though, hurricane activity has been relatively quiet since 2005. How many of us were alive in 1900 when a deadly storm ripped through Galveston, in what Wikipedia calls, "the deadliest hurricane in US history." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane] Just because the present generation has seen deadly storms, this feeling does not dwarf the strongest storms previous generations have seen. It is a very human trait to see their own time as unique, which is what has made the apocalyptic vision of the world ever-present throughout history.
The late 1800 have had some of the strongest storm activity in recent history. See http://www3.scienceblog.com/community/older/archives/J/noaa257.html




Massive flooding: Nothing Biblical to see here folks, (I say sarcastically). Massive floods have been a constant occurrence since Noah and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Flood lore in the ancient world is quite common, because floods have been so common-place. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods

Severe droughts and crop failures: Severe drought and crop failures are not unique to this time, or any other time in history. What is unique to this time is that we now produce more food than we need. The only reason there is famine at all is that governments in famine-ridden countries, (and leftist Governments at that), prevent their people from accessing this food.

As a whole, the death-rates from storms, floods and droughts have decreased 98% since the 1920's.

Dramatic increase in wildfires: And yet, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago. See http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true . Also, the same climate models which predict global warming also predict it will make many areas a lot more moist. Global warming should also make forests grow faster and more healthy, making them less vulnerable to fire.

Shrinking Polar Ice: It is a well known fact that Antarctic ice is actually expanding. See https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=antarctic+ice+expanding

Vanishing glaciers: Even this is not true. See http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/nasa-satellite-debunks-melting-glacier-myth and http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

Species changing migration patterns: Animals and humans have always done this. See http://www.livescience.com/10235-animals-migrate.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_migration

Species extinctions: Again...quite normal. 98 percent of all animal species went extinct thousands and millions of years ago...long before humans arrived on the scene, This is normal. Much of that was due to climate change...which is also normal.

Spreading tropical diseases: This one is on the Green Movement who banned the use of DDT, the most effective repellent against malaria.

Severe economic impacts: I know, it's called Cap and Trade legislation, which will punish business and retard economic growth. Taxing the coal industry out of business isn't helping either.

Predictions of science coming true: I laughed out loud when I read that. The failed predictions of environmental science are so numerous, there are many websites devoted to this:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/earth-day-13-failed-predictions-environmental-catastrophe

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/climate-change-predictions-incorrect.html

http://anodtothegods.com/?p=9061

Heck, failed predictions are Paul Ehrlich's entire resume.

Scientists attacked, denial well-funded: The reverse is actually truer. Catastrophic AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is the prevailing theology, and anyone that denies this theology is labelled a heretic. This makes environmental science no different from religion. The Climate Change Industrial Complex is now a 1.5 TRILLION dollar industry, and that makes holding fast to this theology a necessity. Al Gore is actually poised to be the world's first Climate Billionaire, and with that money he bought an ocean front mansion. Since he preaches massive sea-level rise, this is proof that even he doesn't believe what he promotes.

Academies of science all agree: Isn't this an Argument from Authority, which is a logical fallacy? Also, do ALL scientists really agree? No! No one has ever said that. The popular argument is that 97 percent of all scientists agree, but even when we look closer at that, this also falls apart. The 97 percent argument comes from a study by John Cook in Australia that examined 12,000 or 13,000 papers that simply mentioned global warming/climate change. Of those 12 to 13,000 papers, in reality only 41 actually claimed that humans were the cause of global warming....so 0.3 percent.
See also http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-percent-consensus.html

Insurance industries all agree: Insurance companies are there to make money, and if they can charge extra and attribute that extra cost to GW/CC they probably will.

The world's militaries all agree: What is government but a monopoly of force within a certain geographic area. How they enact that force is through the military. The government is also very interested in GW/CC (Global Warming/Climate Change) because they see this is as major revenue enhancement, so it is important that the military fall in line.

Rising public concern: "What makes you think human beings are sentient and aware? There's no evidence for it. Human beings never think for themselves, they find it too uncomfortable. For the most part, members of our species simply repeat what they are told-and become upset if they are exposed to any different view. The characteristic human trait is not awareness but conformity..." ~Michael Chrichton

Woefully inadequate political action: THANK GOD!

...............................................................................................

Who says the climate we have right now is the optimal one for humans anyways? Perhaps we might even benefit from a warmer world. A warming may lead to lower energy costs, greater crop yields...(CO2 is a plant food, so it is actually a good thing), fewer winter deaths (presently more people die from cold weather than they do warm weather.) Both Britain and Greece see mortality rates rise by 18 per cent each winter. Especially cold winters cause a rise in heart failures far greater than the rise in deaths during heatwaves. Cold, not the heat, is the bigger killer of humankind.
-Heinz Schmitz

"...it is advisable to sift the merits of knowledge, and clear it of the disgrace brought upon it by ignorance, whether disguised (1) in the zeal of divines, (2) the arrogance of politicians, or (3) the errors of men of letters." Francis Bacon


Saturday, May 7, 2016

The Moral Case for Fort McMurray's Fossil Fuel Industry by Heinz Schmitz


To all of you Enviro-Fascists out there hating on the victims of the Fort McMurray fire, let me educate you a little on Fossil Fuel energy. Without it, half you would be dead right now. Oil does much more than fuel your sissy little Vespas. It is the motive power of the lives you live, your homes, your smartphones that you hypocritically use, your clothes...practically everything you engage in was made possible by oil and oil workers, and without it your lives would plummet into a pre-industrial hell-hole when the average life-expectancy was 30. When you see your baby in an incubator or a loved one on life-support, remember those aren't hooked up to solar panels or windmills, nor would you want them to. The US Department of Energy estimates that hospitals use 836 trillion BTUs of energy annually and have more than 2.5 times the energy intensity of commercial office buildings, Also, modern medicine is dependent on oil, such as gloves, syringes, medications, sterile packaging, CT and MRI scanners, ASA pain relievers, Soft Contact lenses, Toothpaste, Petroleum Jelly, Antiseptics, Vitamin Capsules, Antihistamines, Rubbing Alcohol, Denture Adhesive, Electric Blankets, Hand Lotion, Shampoo, Aspirin, Heart Valves...literally tons of medicines and plastic disposables made from petroleum are the cornerstone of our healthcare model.

Other uses of oil include: Solvents, Insecticides, Bicycle Tires. Fishing lures, Dresses, Tool Boxes, Shoe Polish, Motorcycle Helmet, Caulking, Food Preservatives, Soap, Shoes, Cortisone, Deodorant, Dyes, Panty Hose, Refrigerant, Percolators, Life Jackets, Linings, Shag Rugs, Electrician's Tape, Tool Racks, Car Battery Cases, Epoxy, Paint, Mops, Slacks, Insect Repellent, Oil Filters, Umbrellas, Yarn, Fertilizers, Hair Coloring, Roofing, Toilet Seats, Fishing Rods, Lipstick, Linoleum, Ice Cube Trays, Synthetic Rubber, Speakers, Plastic Wood, Glycerin, Tennis Rackets, Rubber Cement, Fishing Boots, Dice, Nylon Rope, Candles, Trash Bags, House Paint, Water Pipes, Roller Skates, Surf Boards,  Wheels, Paint Rollers, Shower Curtains, Guitar Strings, Luggage, Safety Glasses, Antifreeze, Football Helmets, Awnings, Eyeglasses, Clothes, Toothbrushes, Ice Chests, Footballs, Combs, CD's & DVD's, Paint Brushes, Detergents, Vaporizers, Balloons, Sun Glasses, Tents, Crayons, Parachutes, Telephones, Enamel, Pillows, Dishes, Cameras, Anesthetics, Artificial Turf, Artificial limbs, Bandages, Dentures, Folding Doors, Hair Curlers, Cold cream, Movie film, Drinking Cups, Fan Belts, Car Enamel, Shaving Cream, Ammonia, Refrigerators, Golf Balls and much more.

Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil and more than 250 cubic feet of natural gas per day each!


Dramatic improvements in human health during the last 150 years have coincided with unprecedented economic growth and prosperity (Capitalism). This progress has depended on heavy energy usage, much of it from fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas. Petroleum is thoroughly integrated into the modern economy,  The more energy we can produce, the greater our ability to use machines to improve our lives, the more time we buy ourselves to spend our time learning and inventing and creating, the faster we can get to the next cure.

As you can see, the oil industry is the difference between life and death. Instead of wishing the worst, you should instead hug an oil-worker and John D Rockefeller, an early oil pioneer, should be seen as a god that deserves to be on the $20 bill.

Interesting Fact: Before the oil industry, people used Whale Oil for light and fuel. The carnage was incredible. The oil industry literally Saved The Whales. When horses were used as a primary source of transportation, horse manure was a major source of pollution on city streets. Some cities had vacant lots with manure piled up to 60 feet. The advent of the automobile literally Saved The Environment.



Moving on to wildfires: Large wildfires are hardly a recent occurence. Old fires were large and devastating as well, such as the 1825 Miramichi Fire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1825_Miramichi_Fire). This book below written in 1847 catalogued many devastating fires about 170 years ago. Peddling fears are important motivational tools used to promote cults and political movements.

I will end with these words by Alex Epstein: “In one sense, the answer to “Why do we believe the wrong thing about fossil fuels?” is simple. Lack of education. We haven’t been taught all the right facts. We aren’t taught in school how energy makes our climate safer, only how CO2 emissions supposedly make it more dangerous. We aren’t taught in school how energy makes our environment better, only ways (usually exaggerated) in which fossil fuels make it dirtier. We aren’t taught in school how the fossil fuel industry is a resource-creating industry; we are taught that it is shamelessly exploiting dwindling natural resources. If only the truth were taught, the world would be a different place, right?”  ― Alex J. Epstein, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

-Blog by Heinz Schmitz


Wednesday, May 4, 2016

The Economics of Communism, 1921 Weekly Review Article



The Economics of Communism, article in The Weekly Review 1921

Join my Facebook Group

See also Over 300 PDF/Acrobat Books on Socialism, Communism and Economics and 300 Books on DVDrom for Libertarians, Objectivists and Voluntaryists and The History & Mystery of Money & Economics-250 Books on DVDrom

WITH all the increase in population and wealth, the wants of man seem to have increased more rapidly than his means of satisfying them. This largely accounts for the social unrest and increasing discontent, especially in the more prosperous countries. Socialism, as the expression of this discontent, is a protest against inequality in material conditions and a plan or scheme for a totally different system of production and distribution, coupled with a belief that capitalism is bringing about its own destruction. According to this sanguine pessimism, when capitalism collapses the working class will build the new social order upon the ruins of the old.

Socialists of the Marxian, or “scientific,” School have usually refrained from depicting with any detail their vision of the New Jerusalem, but it may be inferred from their most authoritative writings that most of them have in mind a fully democratic organization of workers in all countries, owning and operating the means of production and distributing the product in some equitable way—following, as closely as possible, the classical formula: “From everyone according to his ability, to everyone according to his needs.”

Realizing the impossibility of inaugurating the ideal order immediately after the disorder of the social revolution, socialists in recent years have made much of the transition period or internmediate stage foreshadowed by Marx and Engels, during which a “determined minority” should control the emancipated wage-slaves and guide them toward the promised land. In this time of trial and probation the leaders, standing in the place of the old bourgeois state and acting in the interests of the proletariat, should have large control; there should be perfect discipline and subordination until, after a time, the state should “die out” or “wither away,” and the proletarian democracy, come to man’s estate, should manage its own affairs. This, of course, is the dictatorship of the proletariat or, as in Russia to-day, the dictatorship of the small band of prophets and evangelists who control the Communist party.

Buy - How the West Grew Rich: The Economic Transformation Of The Industrial World by Nathan Rosenberg 

In view of such ideals and prophecies and in the light of what has happened in Russia, it is interesting to read the criticism and counter-forecast of the German economist Schäffle, written in 1884 and later published in English as “The Impossibility of Social Democracy” (1892). Trying to visualize in some detail the vague outlines of social democracy, Schäffle saw that it would fail grievously on the side of production because of its impracticable ideals of distribution, and that there would be no guarantee against paralysis of trade, exploitation, the suppression of personal freedom, or other acts of tyranny by the controlling powers. On the question of production in general he said:

Collective production on a democratic basis is impossible. On a basis of authority it is possible, and even in part actually existing, but as such it is non-democratic, and has no charms for the proletariat.

Schäffle's forecast as to the relation of the peasant to socialism has been strikingly fulfilled in Russia. He said:

Collective production in agriculture, however unproductive, and therefore unadvisable, would be in the presence of any authoritative organization not inconceivable. But under a democratic system of organization, it would be quite inconceivable. . . . But the peasant will hold his own, and in face of the anti-collectivist proclivities of his sturdy brain, and the force of his red-coat sons, social democracy will inevitably fall to pieces at last, even though it start with the most successful revolution ever achieved.

Equal distribution, or distribution according to needs, Schäffle held, would be quite impracticable, without compulsion and, if enforced, would cause endless strife and hopeless confusion, by destroying the incentives to individual effort and by thus breaking the mainspring of productive activity. To be in any measure successful the social democracy must encourage creative ideas and adequately recognize and reward aristocracy of merit—but this it will not do. Yet without such reward and retribution, not only will the Socialist promises of fabulous production and universal prosperity remain unfilled, but the social democracy will not even distantly approach in efficiency the capitalistic system of today.

On the subject of exploitation, which to the Socialist is the most damning feature of capitalism, Schäffle’s criticism is still more pertinent and prophetic:

Collectivism would open a far wider field for exploitation than any hitherto known system of production, for communism is a thorough-going and gigantic system of appropriation of the increment. . . . The private capitalist, of course, could no longer exploit the wage-laborer, since all private capital would be over and done with. But laborer could very readily exploit laborer, the administrators could exploit those under them, the lazy could exploit the industrious, the impudent their more modest fellow-workers, and the demagogue those who opposed him. Under such a system above all others it would be impossible to set any limits to this. . . Things might reach such a pitch that Marx's vampire, “the Capitalist,” would show up as a highly respectable figure compared with the Social Democratic parasites, hoodwinkers of the people, a majority of idlers and sluggards. The state would be the arch-vampire.

But Socialists have always turned a deaf ear to these and similar criticisms and warnings - offered as they say, by parasitic economists, unbelieving professors of the "dismal science" - and they have gone their own way, hoping for the breakdown of capitalism and working toward that end. Desiring and ideal distribution, they have been willing to destroy the present system of production, by which hundreds of millions of people are fed, clothed and sheltered at a standard of comfort unknown to any previous age or to non-capitalist countries of the present day. They have no realized, perhaps, that before the chaos of revolution could pass and the new order could be established, millions of people would die of starvation; and that, if the new experiment proved a failure, as Bertrand Russell puts it, "civilization might go under for a thousand years."

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here

Sunday, May 1, 2016

The Physiocrats by Frank O'Hara 1913



The Physiocrats by Frank O'Hara 1913

Join my Facebook Group

See also The History & Mystery of Money & Economics-250 Books on DVDrom

The Physiocrats (Physis, nature, Kratein, rule) was a school of writers on political and economic subjects that flourished in France in the second half of the eighteenth century, and attacked the monopolies, exclusive corporations, vexatious taxes, and various other abuses which had grown up under the mercantile system. Statesmen of the mercantile school in France and elsewhere had adopted a system of tutelage which often gave an artificial growth to industry but which pressed hardly upon agriculture. The physiocrats proposed to advance the interests of agriculture by adopting a system of economic freedom. Laissez faire el laissez passer was their watchword. Francois Quesnay (1694-1774), physician to Mme de Pompadour and Louis XV, founded the school (1758). The term "physiocracy" was probably used by Quesnay to convey the idea that the new system provides for the reign of the natural law. Quesnay and hia disciples were called economistes by their contemporaries; the term physiocrates was not used until the beginning of the nineteenth century.

In metaphysics Quesnay was a follower of Descartes and borrowed from him the mathematical method used in his "Tableau Economique". He accepted a modified form of the natural rights theory which pervades eighteenth-century literature and gave it an optimistic interpretation. He emphasizes the distinction between the natural order and the positive order. The first is founded upon the laws of nature which are the creation of God and which can be discovered by reason. The second is man-made; when its laws coincide with those of the natural order the world will be at its best. He objected to the natural rights philosophers of his day that they concerned themselves only with the positive order to the neglect of the natural. He held that primitive man upon entering society does not give up any of his natural rights, thus taking issue with Rousseau's theory of the social contract. From his optimistic doctrines concerning the laws of the natural order he deduces his doctrine of laissez faire. Economic evils arise from the monopolies and restrictions of the positive order; statesmen should aim to harmonize the positive order with the natural by abolishing these excrescences. The state should withdraw its support from the attempts of special interests to bolster up industry artificially. In the language of the physiocrats, "He governs best who governs least". Although ultimately their principles proved favourable to the Revolution, Quesnay and his disciples were in favour of an absolute monarchy subject only to the laws of the "natural order". They considered that it would be easier to persuade a prince than a nation and that the triumph of their principles would be sooner secured by the sovereign power of a single man.

BUY - Economic Thought Before Adam Smith: An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought by Murray N. Rothbard

Quesnay divides the citizens of a nation into three classes: the productive, which cultivates the soil and pays a rent to the landed proprietors, the proprietors, who receive the rent or net product of agriculture, and the barren, which comprises those engaged in other occupations than that of agriculture, and produces no surplus. For example, in a country producing five billions of agricultural wealth annually, two billions will go to the proprietors as rent. With this the proprietors will buy one billion's worth of agricultural products and one billion's worth of the manufactured products of the barren class. The productive class also will buy one billion's worth of the products of the barren class. The barren class will spend the two billions which it receives in buying one billion's worth of agricultural products upon which to subsist and one billion's worth of raw material to work up into its finished product. Thus the barren class receive two billions and spend two billions. The value of their product equals the cost of their subsistence plus the cost of the raw material. Thus industry and commerce are barren. Agriculture is productive, since it supports those who are engaged in it and produces in addition a surplus. The national welfare depends upon having this surplus production as large as possible. In other words, a nation will prosper not in proportion as it succeeds in getting foreign money in return for its manufactures, but in proportion to the amount of its net product. The mercantilists, therefore, made a mistake in encouraging manufactures and commerce at the expense of agriculture. The true policy is to encourage agriculture. Statesmen of the mercantile school thought it desirable to have cheap food so that the home industries could compete with the foreign and thus the nation might secure a favourable balance of trade which would bring money into the country. The physiocrats rejected the balance of trade argument and held that dear food was desirable because this meant the prosperity of agriculture and the swelling of the net product. Quesnay even held that under some circumstances it might be desirable to levy a duty on imported agricultural products or to grant an export bounty in order to keep up prices. Holding that the incomes received by the productive and sterile classes were just sufficient for their support, the physiocrats believed that any tax levied upon the members of either of these classes must be shifted until it finally fell upon the net product belonging to the proprietors. In the interest of economy of administration, therefore, they urged that a single tax be levied upon rent. This was their celebrated impôt unique. The proposal was somewhat similar to the more recent demands of Henry George for a single tax. The physiocrats sought to protect the landed proprietors, while George wished to expropriate them.

Most of the ideas of the physiocratic school are found in earlier writings. The expression laissez faire is said to have been used by a French merchant, Legendre, in answering a question addressed by Colbert to a gathering of merchants concerning the needs of industry. The idea is developed in the writings of Bois-Guillebert (1712) and the policy was advocated by the Marquis d'Argenson in 1735. Gournay, a contemporary of Quesnay, seems to have originated the extended expression laissez faire et laissez passer. This formula called for freedom of internal commerce and manufacture. Some critics hold that Gournay is equally entitled with Quesnay to be called the founder of the physiocratic school on account of the currency which he gave to the doctrine of freedom of trade. Other sources are Hume's criticism of the balance of trade theory, and Cantillon, "Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en Général", in which the importance of agriculture is recognized and the doctrine of produit net developed. The elder Mirabeau was Quesnay's first disciple. Hie "Philosophie rurale" (1763) gained disciples. Dupont de Nemours, who later exerted considerable influence in the Constituent Assembly in the discussions on taxation, wrote several works in defence of the system. Other important writers were Bandeau, Mercier de la Rivière, and Letrosne. The most eminent of Quesnay's disciples was Turgot, who, as Intendant of Limoges and afterwards as minister of finance under Louis XVI, attempted to apply some of the physiocratic principles practically (Réflexions sur la formation et la distribution des richesses, 1766). Outside of France the school had not many disciples. The best known are the Swiss Iselin and the German Schlettwein. The latter was engaged by the Margrave Karl Friedrich of Baden, a friend of Mirabeau, to introduce the single tax in three villages of Baden. The experiment, made under unfavourable conditions, was soon abandoned. In Italy the physiocratic school had few followers. In England, on account of the advanced position of trade and industry, it had none.

For a list of all of my disks, with links click here