13 Responses to “Réalisme 101”

1. wolfzik dit :

   23 octobre 2008 à 23 h 27 min

   [Hors-sujet]

   J’ai voté conservateur lors des deux dernières élections fédérales et ADQ lors des deux dernières élections provinciales. Mais cette déclaration cet pm de Mario Dumont lors de la défection de deux de ces députés vers les libéraux me laisse pantois…

   «Le premier ministre Charest, qui a toujours été très hautain envers l’équipe adéquiste, soudainement en ramasse deux, et pas nécessairement les meilleurs. Et là, ce sont des talents extraordinaires.»

   http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Politique/2008/10/23/002-adq-plq.shtml

   Salutations.
2. Hollenthon dit :

   23 octobre 2008 à 19 h 28 min

   Comment appelle-t-on un politicien avec un plan économique?

   Un socialiste!
3. Philippe David dit :

   24 octobre 2008 à 13 h 15 min

   Comment appelle-t-on un politicien avec un plan économique?

   Un socialiste!

   Les politiciens sont tous pareils à gauche comme à droite. Tout ce qui les intéresse c’est d’accroitre leurs pouvoirs et s’ingérer le plus possible dans nos vies.

   Voici un extrait d’un texte très à propos:

   The Laissez-Faire Myth and the Marxism of the Media

   The myth that laissez faire exists in the present-day United States and is responsible for our current economic crisis is promulgated by people who know practically nothing whatever of sound, rational economic theory or the actual nature of laissez-faire capitalism. They espouse it despite, or rather because of, their education at the leading colleges and universities of the country. When it comes to matters of economics, their education has steeped them entirely in the thoroughly wrong and pernicious doctrines of Marx and Keynes. In claiming to see the existence of laissez faire in the midst of such massive government interference as to constitute the very opposite of laissez faire, they are attempting to rewrite reality in order to make it conform with their Marxist preconceptions and view of the world.
   « Decades of brainwashing by the government, the media, and the educational system … convinced almost everyone that such collapse was no longer possible. »

   They absorb the doctrines of Marx more in history, philosophy, sociology, and literature classes than in economics classes. The economics classes, while usually not Marxist themselves, offer only highly insufficient rebuttal of the Marxist doctrines and devote almost all of their time to espousing Keynesianism and other, less-well-known anticapitalistic doctrines, such as the doctrine of pure and perfect competition.

   Very few of the professors and their students have read so much as a single page of the writings of Ludwig von Mises, who is the preeminent theorist of capitalism and knowledge of whose writings is essential to its understanding. Almost all of them are thus essentially ignorant of sound economics.

   When I refer to the educational system and the media as Marxist, I do not intend to imply that its members favor any kind of forcible overthrow of the United States government or are necessarily even advocates of socialism. What I mean is that they are Marxists insofar as they accept Marx’s views concerning the nature and operation of laissez-faire capitalism.

   They accept the Marxian doctrine that in the absence of government intervention, the self-interest, the profit motive — the « unbridled greed » — of businessmen and capitalists would serve to drive wage rates to minimum subsistence while it extended the hours of work to the maximum humanly endurable, imposed horrifying working conditions, and drove small children to work in factories and mines. They point to the miserably low standard of living and terrible conditions of wage earners in the early years of capitalism, especially in Great Britain, and believe that that proves their case. They go on to argue that only government intervention in the form of pro-union and minimum-wage legislation, maximum-hours laws, the legal prohibition of child labor, and government mandates concerning working conditions, served to improve the wage earner’s lot. They believe that repeal of this legislation would bring about a return to the miserable economic conditions of the early 19th century.

   They view the profits and interest of businessmen and capitalists as unearned, undeserved gains, wrung from wage earners — the alleged true producers — by the equivalent of physical force, and hence regard the wage earners as being in the position of virtual slaves (« wage slaves ») and the capitalist « exploiters » as being in the position of virtual slave owners. Closely connected with this, they regard taxing the businessmen and capitalists and using the proceeds for the benefit of wage earners, in such forms as social security, socialized medicine, public education, and public housing, as a policy that serves merely to return to the wage earners some portion of the loot allegedly stolen from them in the process of « exploitation. »

   In full agreement with Marx and his doctrine that under laissez-faire capitalism the capitalists expropriate all of the wage earner’s production above what is necessary for minimum subsistence, they assume that the government’s intervention harms no one but the immoral businessmen and capitalists, never the wage earners. Thus not only the taxes to pay for social programs but also the higher wages imposed by pro-union and minimum-wage legislation are assumed simply to come out of profits, with no negative effect whatever on wage earners, such as unemployment. Likewise for the effect of government-imposed shorter hours, improved working conditions, and the abolition of child labor: the resulting higher costs are assumed simply to come out of the capitalists’ « surplus value, » never out of the standard of living of wage earners themselves.

   This is the mindset of the whole of the left and in particular of the members of the educational system and media. It is a view of the profit motive and the pursuit of material self-interest as inherently lethal if not forcibly countered and rigidly controlled by government intervention. As stated, it is a view that sees the role of businessmen and capitalists as comparable to that of slave owners, despite the fact that businessmen and capitalists do not and cannot employ guns, whips, or chains to find and keep their workers but only the offer of better wages and conditions than those workers can find elsewhere.

   Not surprisingly, the educational system and media share the view of Marx that laissez-faire capitalism is an « anarchy of production, » in which the businessmen and capitalists run about like chickens without heads. In their view, rationality, order, and planning emanate from the government, not from the participants in the market.

   As I say, this, and more like it, is the intellectual framework of the great majority of today’s professors and of several generations of their predecessors. It is equally the intellectual framework of their students, who have dutifully absorbed their misguided teachings and some of whom have gone on to become the reporters and editors of such publications as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Newsweek, Time, and the overwhelming majority of all other newspapers and news magazines. It is the intellectual framework of their students who are now the commentators and editors of practically all of the major television networks, such as CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN.[9] And it is this intellectual framework within which the media now attempts to understand and report on our financial crisis.

   In their view, laissez-faire capitalism and economic freedom are a formula for injustice and chaos, while government is the voice and agent of justice and rationality in economic affairs. So firmly do they hold this belief, that when they see what they think is evidence of large-scale injustice and chaos in the economic system, such as has existed in the present financial crisis, they automatically presume that it is the result of the pursuit of self-interest and the economic freedom that makes that pursuit possible. Given this fundamental attitude, the principle that guides contemporary journalists so-called is that their job is to find the businessmen and capitalists who are responsible for the evil and the government officials who set them free to commit it, and, finally, to identify and support the policies of government intervention and control that will allegedly eliminate the evil and prevent its recurrence in the future.

   Their fear and hatred of economic freedom and laissez-faire capitalism, and their need to be able to denounce it as the cause of all economic evil, is so great that they pretend to themselves and to their audiences that it exists in today’s world, in which it clearly does not exist even remotely. By making the claim that laissez faire exists and is what is responsible for the problem, they are able to turn the full force of their hatred for actual economic freedom and laissez-faire capitalism against each and every sliver of economic freedom that somehow manages to exist and which they decide to target. That sliver, they project, is part and parcel of the starvation of the workers in the inhuman exploitation of labor that, in their ignorance, they take for granted is imposed by capitalists under laissez faire. Their brainwashed audience — as much the product of the contemporary educational system as they themselves — then quickly follows suit and obliges their efforts to arouse hatred.

   The result is summed up in words such as these, which appeared in one of the same New York Times articles I quoted earlier:

   « We now have a collective anger, disgust, over our whole financial system and it’s obvious we’re going to get a regulatory backlash… » [with] a spillover effect to other industries because voters have the perception that « big companies are animals and they need to be put in their cages. »

   In this way the enemies of capitalism and economic freedom are able to proceed in their campaign of economic destruction and devastation. They use the accusation of « laissez faire » as a kind of ratchet for increasing the government’s power. For example, in the early 1930s they accused President Hoover of following a policy of laissez faire, even as he intervened in the economic system to prevent the fall in wage rates that was essential to stop a reduced demand for labor from resulting in mass unemployment. On the basis of the mass unemployment that then resulted from Hoover’s intervention, which they succeeded in portraying as « laissez faire, » they deceived the country into supporting the further massive interventions of the New Deal.

   Today, they continue to play the same game. Always it is laissez faire that they denounce, and whose alleged failures they claim need to be overcome with yet more government regulations and controls. Today, the massive interventions not only of the New Deal, but also of the Fair Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society, and of all the administrations since, have been added to the very major interventions that existed even in the 1920s and to which Hoover very substantially added. And yet we still allegedly have laissez faire. It seems that so long as anyone manages to move or even breathe without being under the control of the government, laissez faire allegedly continues to exist, which serves to make necessary yet still more government controls.

   The logical stopping point of this process is that one day everyone will end up being shackled to a wall, or at the very least being compelled to do something comparable to living in a zip code that matches his social security number. Then the government will know who everyone is, where he is, and that he can do nothing whatever without its approval and permission. And then the world will be safe from anyone attempting to do anything that benefits him and thereby allegedly harms others. At that point, the world will enjoy all the prosperity that comes from total paralysis.
4. Philippe David dit :

   24 octobre 2008 à 13 h 17 min

   Étrange, mon dernier commentaire n’a pas paru…
5. Gino_Odjick dit :

   24 octobre 2008 à 16 h 32 min

   Vraiment impressionant son exemple avec la patinoire et le lien qu’il fait avec l’interventionnisme. Pour sa prochaine expérience, je lui suggère d’enlever tout les feux de circulation, ou autres signalisations, du centre-ville de Montréal (ou autres grandes villes). J’ai bien hâte de voir le « spontaneous ordering » que ça va donner!

   The economy is big enough to take care of itself…

   Là n’est pas la question. La véritable question est de savoir si les mécanismes régissant l’économie sont parfait ou non et s’ils peuvent être améliorer par des interventions de l’état.
6. David dit :

   24 octobre 2008 à 18 h 16 min

   Pour sa prochaine expérience, je lui suggère d’enlever tout les feux de circulation, ou autres signalisations, du centre-ville de Montréal (ou autres grandes villes). J’ai bien hâte de voir le “spontaneous ordering” que ça va donner!

   Va lire sur le “spontaneous ordering” au lieu d.’avoir recours à un sophisme et à un exemple qui ne s’applique pas à ce concept.

   La véritable question est de savoir si les mécanismes régissant l’économie sont parfait ou non et s’ils peuvent être améliorer par des interventions de l’état.

   Non, l’état n’améliore rien. L’état génère des crises.
7. Gino_Odjick dit :

   24 octobre 2008 à 18 h 26 min

   Va lire sur le “spontaneous ordering” au lieu d.’avoir recours à un sophisme et à un exemple qui ne s’applique pas à ce concept.

   D’accord, je veux bien aller m’informer à ce sujet, mais d’ici là, tu pourrais peut-être m’expliquer pourquoi ce concept s’applique à la circulation sur une patinoire mais pas à la circulation dans une ville.
8. Kraz dit :

   24 octobre 2008 à 21 h 34 min

   C’est la que David à tort.

   Va lire sur le “spontaneous ordering” au lieu d.’avoir recours à un sophisme et à un exemple qui ne s’applique pas à ce concept.

   Il y a des gens qui pensent sérieusement que d’enlever les feux de circulations et certains panneaux de circulation pourrait faire en sorte de réduire le nombre d’accident.

   When you remove all of the guidance, it makes people (and that includes the bikers and pedestrians as well) much more cautious and careful — so they tend to make fewer dangerous moves. On top of that, it actually makes the traffic flow much more smoothly, allowing people to get where they’re going much faster, even if they drive slower.

   Source.
9. derteilzeitberliner dit :

   25 octobre 2008 à 1 h 31 min

   Je doute que tu sois d’accord avec tout le propos, mais au moins j’ai entendu quelqu’un dire qu’il ne fallait pas paniquer: Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

   Fogh: Finanspanikken er hysteri

   Il explique qu’il ne voit pas de raison de paniquer, par contre justifie la volonté du monde politique d’intervenir en voulant éviter que les problèmes à la bourse affectent l’économie réelle.
10. David dit :

    25 octobre 2008 à 5 h 56 min

    C’est la que David à tort.

    C’est là que je comprends et pas toi…

    Spontaneous order is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos; the emergence of various kinds of social order from a combination of self-interested individuals who are not intentionally trying to create order.

    D’où vient le langage tu penses ? D’un bureaucrate ?
11. Philippe David dit :

    25 octobre 2008 à 10 h 09 min

    Il y a des gens qui pensent sérieusement que d’enlever les feux de circulations et certains panneaux de circulation pourrait faire en sorte de réduire le nombre d’accident.

    Hans Monderman était un ingénieur civil qui croyait en cette théorie qui veut que moins de signalisation rende les routes plus sécuritaires. Ça rend les gens plus attentifs.

    On pourrait dire qu’il croyait à l’ordre spontané des routes. Ses expériences en Hollande sont plutôt édifiants.
12. Mathieu Demers dit :

    25 octobre 2008 à 16 h 33 min

    Si on passe des routes à la prévention en santé, je crois que beaucoup pensent à tort que l’État les protège de tous les vices et abus possibles.
    C’est une idée reçue que transmettent les gens qui dépendent du maintien de ce système étatiques pour leurs propres intérêts.

    Pourtant, Santé Canada [Mettez bien le nom de l'organisme ou du ministère que vous voulez : Ministère des Transports, Autorité des Marchés financiers, MAPAQ, etc.] passe régulièrement aux nouvelles pour avoir manqué à son rôle préventif.

    Au Québec, du primaire à l’université, on enseigne que l’État doit avoir un rôle sinon, c’est automatiquement le chaos et l’anarchie la plus totale.
    Les gauchistes vont vous dire qu’il y aura encore plus de chômage, de pauvreté, de problèmes d’intégration des immigrants à la société et d’inéquités.

    Dans les faits, c’est bien trop souvent le contraire. Les États les moins contrôlants, les plus libéraux, sont les plus riches, les plus dynamiques et les immigrants sont intéressés à s’insérer dans une culture populaire dynamique et vivante.
13. Kraz dit :

    26 octobre 2008 à 21 h 12 min

    David, j’ai l’impression que tu n’as pas compris ma remarque…

    Il est en faveur du “spontaneous ordering”. Au lieu de dire qu’il ne s’applique pas à l’exemple de Gino_Odjick, je dis qu’il s’applique.

    Quant à t’es questions, je te dirais que l’anglais à été formé il y a fort longtemps sur l’île de Bretagne, par un mélange de langues germaniques, scandinaves et normandes. Ensuite, non, sûrement pas.