Economía

Joeperry:

¿Qué consecuencias desastrosas ha producido el capitalismo liberal?

¿Puede decirme qué personas identifica usted con el \'capitalismo liberal\'?

¿Qué reformas propone usted?

Por falar em outra coisa, como é que fazes para escrever o til?
Eu nao posso, neste raio de teclado...

"Eliminacion de los paraisos fiscales"

JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA falta que diga eliminacion de la propiedad privada.

"Anyone who wishes to make calculations in regard to a complicated process of production
will immediately notice whether he has worked more economically than others or not; if he finds, from reference to the exchange values obtaining in the market, that he will not
be able to produce profitably, this shows that others understand how to make a better use
of the higher-order goods in question (Mises, 1935: 97–8).
The person Mises refers to may ‘immediately notice’ whether he has worked more
profitably than others or not, but the implicit assertion of identity between what is most
profitable and what is most ‘economical,’ or simply ‘better,’ is unjustified.11 Certainly,
capitalists cannot make profits by producing something nobody wants, or producing
with gratuitous technical inefficiency, but that is not enough to sustain Mises’ claim. Is
it not possible to reduce monetary cost of production by recklessly exploiting natural
resources, cheap for the time being, yet ultimately exhaustible? If the production of
luxury cars proves more profitable than simple housing, does that show that the cars
represent a better use of resources? The list of questions could go on . . .
One point that socialists have typically urged, as undercutting the alleged identity
of the pursuit of profit and the satisfaction of needs, concerns the inequality of incomes
under capitalism. Mises’ response to this argument is interesting; he claims that the
very notion of a ‘distribution of income’ under capitalism is misleading, on the grounds
that “incomes emerge as a result of market transactions which are indissolubly linked
up with production” (1951: 151).12 There is no question of ‘first’ producing output
and then ‘distributing’ it. Only under socialism could we speak of a ‘distribution of
incomes’, decided politically as a separate matter from the production plan. But to
adopt Mises’ position—that the allocation of purchasing-power under capitalism is
an endogenous element in the productive system—is to admit that the production of
commodities for profit is not governed by the ‘maximal satisfaction of human wants’,
unless one tries to argue that human wants themselves are generated in miraculous
correlation with money incomes.