#adolf berle

[nicklloydnow]

“In 1932, Adolf A. Berle Jr. and Gardner C. Means wrote a book entitled The Modern Corporation and Private Property. A critique of corporate management for being aloof and complacent, out of touch with the consumer and irresponsible to the stockholder, this volume became the bible of Marxists, left wing intellectuals and interventionist politicians. Under the banner of separation of ownership and control, the Berle-Means thesis led to an attack on the corporate structure from which today's top executives are still reeling.

With this background, one would have thought that the people urging a greater role for the public sector would have welcomed the advent of the corporate raider. For this new breed of capitalist has sent shivers down the spines of the denizens of the boardroom. Swooping down, launching "unfriendly" or "hostile" takeover bids, these corporate raiders have succeeded in replacing management from coast to coast in dozens of industries, and in frightening thousands of other out-of-touch chief executive officers into greater responsibility.

At least under the theory of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," it might have been expected that critics of the marketplace, noticeably the followers of Berle and Means, would have rallied `round the cause of the corporate raider.

In the event, however, this expectation has remained unfulfilled. Not only has the activity of the corporate raider been deprecated by the champions of government interference in the marketplace, but it has been roundly condemned by practically all pundits and commentators on public policy. In 1987, the left-leaning film director Oliver Stone distilled the common image of the corporate raider into the supposedly loathsome Gordon Gekko, brilliantly portrayed in an Oscar-winning performance by Michael Douglas. And this is the image of Gekko under which the corporate raider must labor in the present day.

Yet, despite this all-but-universal criticism, the unfriendly takeover bid has benefited consumers and stockholders, and served notice on complacent management across the board. In one celebrated case that unfolded shortly before Stone's film Wall Street was released, corporate guerrilla Carl Icahn put in a bid for a block of shares of Phillips Petroleum. Stung by Icahn's bid, Phillips' executives offered to improve a recapitalization plan they had been forced to put forth in response to an earlier planned takeover, this one by T. Boone Pickens. As a result, Icahn walked away with a cool $50 million, Pickens registered a profit of $89 million on a resale of his holdings to the company, all Phillips' shareholders gained from the better offer, and the oil firm itself was left far leaner and meaner than before.

Needless to say, neither Icahn nor Pickens nor any of the other masterminds of "the 1980s takeover boom," were publicly thanked for the good they had done. On the contrary: both men were not only mocked by Oliver Stone, they were also robbed of the opportunity to do any more such good by a rash of anti-takeover statutes adopted late in the decade. Henry Manne reported that hostile takeovers had "declined to four percent from fourteen percent of all mergers."

The conventional wisdom holds that this outcome is a good one for investors, but the facts show otherwise. No story of the corporate raider can ignore the role of the heroic Michael Milken. Assume there was a hotel worth $20 million as a present discounted capital value. Given an interest rate of 5%, this concern should throw off roughly $1 million to its owners. But stipulate that due to inefficiency, or general avarice, or to the fact that the CEO salary was far higher than justified, or a combination of all such phenomena, the owners were earning far less than that in dividends. And, guess what? The stock was trading at a lower value than might have prevailed, had these tape worm factors not been in operation.

Enter the "evil" Michael Milken. He swoops in, purchases enough of the stock in this corporation to kick out the old board and replace it with his own nominees. This is considered a "hostile" takeover by a corporate "raider." From whence springs the hostility? All Milken did was buy up a mess of stocks. Did he threaten any of these stock owners that they would walk the plank if they did not sell to him? No, of course not; we are talking arm's-length stock market deals here. We can logically infer that the owners of these stocks preferred the price offered them by the "raider," otherwise they would not have sold out. No, the "hostility," instead, stems from the CEO and his cronies who were mismanaging this hotel into the ground.

The Milkins of the world are akin to the canary in the mine; they are the Distant Early Warning Line for the economy.

When they get active, it is in response to something rotten that is going on. And what was the public reaction to this corporate raider? Instead of hoisting him up on their shoulders and holding ticker tape parades in his honor, he was given the back of the public's hand to his face. To wit, he was prosecuted by the Securities and Exchange Commission for insider trading, violations of U.S. Securities Laws and other financial felonies. He pled guilty only after the authorities threatened to go after his ailing brother. For shame.” - Walter Block, ‘Defending the Undefendable II’ (2013) [p. 41 - 44]

[a-god-in-ruins-rises]

Any good economists you'd suggest? Hamilton, List, anyone else in that general category?

i can list a number of economists that are approximate to hamilton and list but keep in mind that the degree of proximity will vary and they may or may not disagree on certain specifics but they are all in relatively the same vein (heterodox, protectionist, historical, institutionalist, industrial, statist, etc).

henry carey, henry clay, john roger commons, max weber, georg friedrich knapp, thorstein veblen, alexander hill everett, john kenneth galbraith, simon patten, e. peshine smith, jean-baptiste colbert, daniel raymond, clarence edwin ayres, adolf berle, ha-joon chang, lyndon larouche, and michael hudson.

also, he's not really an economist, but i do recommend fichte's "closed commercial state".

[racefortheironthrone]

Hello Maester. Steven. Have you read the People's Republic of Walmart and if so what are your thoughts? I thought it was interesting but I'm not really informed enough on the topic to understand the book completely. The basic premise is that multi-national mega-corporations like Walmart are proof of the feasibility of central planning.

I haven't read the book, but I just took a look at the description of the book over at Verso and it's given me enough to go on.

The idea that large corporations are not just passive price-takers but actively engage in (private-sector) economic planning is not a new one. It was a major insight of institutionalist economics from the time of Thorstein Veblen and the whole technocratic movement through Gardiner Means and Adolf Berle's work on administered prices, and it inspired a lot of John Kenneth Galbraith's work, most notably his book The New Industrial State.

How well this line of thought applies to Walmart is a matter of debate. My former advisor Nelson Lichtenstein did a bunch of work on Walmart, and he was quite taken with the way that Walmart used the central collation of consumer data to force price cuts out of manufacturers, which would be an argument for a particular kind of private-sector economic planning going on. On the other hand, Walmart has also suffered tremendously from the same supply chain crisis that everyone else has been dealing with during COVID, so its planning capacity is obviously less than ideal.

[ariel-seagull-wings]

OLGA BENÁRIO PRESTES

Olga Benário Prestes (February 12, 1908 - April 23, 1942) was a German-Brazilian communist militant executed by Nazi Germany.

Olga was born in Munich as Olga Gutmann Benário, to a Jewish family. Her father, Leo Benário, was a Social Democrat lawyer, and her mother, Eugenie (Gutmann), was a member of Bavarian high-society. In 1923, aged fifteen, she joined the Communist Youth International and in 1928 helped organize her lover and comrade Otto Braun's escape from Moabit prison. She went to Czechoslovacia and from there, reunited with Braun, to Moscow, where Benário attended the Lenin-School of the Comintern and then worked as an instructor of the Communist Youth International, in the Soviet Union and in France and Great Britab, where she participated in coordinating anti-fascist activities. She parted from Otto Braun in 1931.

After her stay in Britain, where she was briefly arrested, Olga attended a course in the Zhukovsky Military Academy, leading some historians to view her as an agent of Soviet military intelligence. Due to her military training, in 1934 she was given the task of helping the return to Brazil of Luís Carlos Prestes, to whom she was assigned as a bodyguard.  In order to accomplish this mission, false papers were created stating that they were a portuguese married couple. By the time they arrived at Rio de Janeiro in 1935, this cover had become a reality, as the couple had fallen in love. After a failed inssurection in November 1935, Benário and her husband went into hiding, and after barely escaping a police raid at Ipanema,  they were both eventually arrested in January 1936, during the harsh anti-communist campaign declared after Getúlio Vargas had proclaimed martial law and was already plotting the 1937 coup that eventually led to the institution of the fascist inspired Estado Novo (New State) régime.

Pregnant and separated from Prestes, Benário clung to her aliad, only to have her real identity disclosed by Brazilian diplomats, working hand-in-hand with the Gestapo.  Her lawyers attempted to avoid extraditiom by means of a habeas corpus at the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court based on her pregnancy, because extradition would have left a newborn Brazilian national in the power of a foreign government. As Brazilian law forbids the extradition of nationals,  Olga's lawyers expected to win time until Olga gave birth on Brazilian soil to an ipso facto Brazilian citizen - irrespective of the child's paternity, which remained legally doubtful in the absence of evidence for Olga's and Prestes' marriage  - something that would have rendered extradition quite unlikely.  The plea, however, was speedily quashed, the rapporteur-justice alleging that habeas corpus was superseded by martial law and that Olga's deportation was justified as "an alien noxious to public order".

After the Brazilian supreme court's decision, and despite an international campaign, Olga was forcibly returned to Germany in September 1936. The captain of the German liner that took her cancelled scheduled stops in non-German European ports, foiling communist attempts at rescuing her. On arrival, she was put in prison in Berlin, where on November 27 she gave birth to a daughter, Anita Leocádia. At the age of fourteen months, the child was released into the care of her paternal grandmother, Leocádia Prestes, who was one of the leaders of the international campaign trying to free Olga and her daughter.

After the birth of her child, Olga was sent to Lichtenburg concentration camp in 1938, transferred to Ravensbrück concentration camp in 1939, and finally to Bernburg Euthanasia Centre in 1942, where she was gassed alongside hundreds of other female political prisoners.

As Vargas joined the United Nations and Brazil entered World War II against the Axis, Luís Carlos Prestes, the father of Anita Leocádia and former partner of Olga Benário, eventually struck a political partnership with him in order to avoid Vargas' immediate ousting in 1945, which was demanded both by his more rightist domestic opponents and by Adolf Berle as US ambassador.  This move was in line with Popular Front Communist policies of the time: Prestes argued that, by declaring himself against Vargas' immediate resignation, he wanted to avoid a "redemptory coup" as well as to take a stand against "the decrepit remains of reaction".

In 2006, composer Jorge Antunes premiered an opera about her life, called Olga:

@lieutenant-hel-odinsdottir @gravedangerahead @princesssarisa @sunlit-music @amalthea9 @mademoiselle-princesse @johnnyclash87

[antoine-roquentin]

Davis argues that he doesn’t let political considerations dissuade him from performing his work disinterestedly—just as a surgeon or a priest would say that politics never gets in the way of their work or who they choose to help. What Davis conveniently elides is that he was himself expressing his political opinions through his legal practice. Davis would become an ardent anti–New Dealer, and he used his firm, over the course of his long and distinguished career, to fight government regulation on behalf of his corporate clients. (He’d end his career defending school segregation before the Supreme Court.) His legal practice reflected his politics; it was never independent of them.

In that era, lawyers were regularly worrying and arguing about independence from corporate clients. Ariens quotes Adolf A. Berle, a longtime corporate attorney and member of Franklin Roosevelt’s Brains Trust, bemoaning, in 1933,  how the transformation of the American economy had transformed the legal profession: Berle believed that it had turned the lawyer from an advocate for individual rights into “a virtual annex to some group of financial promoters, manipulators or industrialists.” Berle accused corporate attorneys not of disinterestedly practicing advocacy for clients but instead actively participating in “the creation of a legal framework for the economic system, built largely around the modern corporation.” He considered this development both bad and a conscious decision.

Instead of continuing to argue about these ideas in public, the American legal community largely decided to close ranks around a highly ideological understanding of professionalism and independence that happens to support the right of an elite attorney to make a fortune. Now any time someone—take, for example, Richard Kahlenberg, who went to Harvard Law and wrote a book about how that institution turns would-be idealists into corporate stooges in training—broaches concerns like Berle’s, they are met immediately with derisive sneers from law professors about not understanding the majesty of the legal profession.

People like those law professors and Neal Katyal illustrate something I wish more professional Democrats understood: The professional norms of the political class are not only not a substitute for actual values, they are, frequently, actively harmful to the project of liberalism these people claim to be advancing.

This belief that “everyone deserves competent representation” has spilled over into industries like public relations and lobbying, where it has even less of a basis in tradition or law. It is the official mantra of people who actually believe that they, themselves, deserve to receive money from ethically dubious entities in exchange for providing ethically dubious services—all without having to feel bad about it at any point or consider it in conflict with their ostensibly liberal worldviews.

Neal Katyal’s professional project—one that I believe to be sincerely ideological and not simply mercenary—has been to protect corporations from the consequences of harming consumers and workers. Liberals should find that horrifying. If you want to make a fairer society or more equitable economy, Katyal is not your ally, no matter how many good deeds he has done. The professional norms that allow people like Katyal to get a pass on their lucrative private sector work are not actually essential components of our political system; they exist because no one in revolving-door Washington wants to feel bad about how they pay the bills.

[calamity-bean]

OnlyRedNow: Saw an article saying Samuel Goldwyn has bought the US rights to The Good Traitor. It's a about the Danish Ambassador to the US during WWII, based on a true story. Burn plays "Berle." There was an Adolf A. Berle on FDR's staff, who was a lawyer & the economist who came up with the "New Deal." So if that is the same Berle that Burn is playing, hopefully he will join the ranks of Edmund, Hermann & Guppy as a Good Guy Role. Tho personally I don't think Owen is a jerk: he's hurting.

Oh my gosh, I just realized that I never answered this -- I checked my inbox, but then, with the notification gone, I forgot. Re: Owen, I think I’d have to say that he kinda is a jerk ahaha, but a jerk that I love and sympathize with. Would definitely be nice to see Burn in another one of his rare good guy roles!

[leanpick]

Opinion | The Road Ahead for the Democrats: Here Are Some Directions

Opinion | The Road Ahead for the Democrats: Here Are Some Directions

Near the end of that year, it was much sadder: “Dec. 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy.” F.D.R.’s outstanding speech-writing team included Harry L. Hopkins, Samuel I. Rosenman, Adolf A. Berle Jr., Benjamin V. Cohen and the Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Robert Sherwood, all masters of the power and emotional resonances of words. My advice to President Biden: Ask playwrights and writers…

[jaguarmen99]

After the war, Currie was one of those blamed for losing China to the control of Communists. As far back as 1939, Currie had been identified by Communist defector Whittaker Chambers in a meeting with Roosevelt security chief Adolf Berle, as a Soviet agent.[15] Spring of 1944, Currie informed Soviet contacts that the United States VENONA program was about to break the Soviet signals code.[16] Elizabeth Bentley, like Chambers, a former Soviet espionage agent, later claimed in Congressional testimony in 1948 that Currie and Harry Dexter White had been part of the Silvermaster ring.[17] Though she had never met Currie and White personally, Bentley testified to receiving information through cutouts (couriers) who were other Washington economists (later determined to be Soviet agents).[17][18] White and Currie appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in August 1948 to rebut her charges. White, who was also implicated as a source of Soviet intelligence (later confirmed in Venona intercepts and review of Soviet KGB notes of NKVD official Gaik Ovakimian) had a serious heart problem, and died three days after his appearance at the hearings. Currie was not prosecuted and in 1949 he was appointed to head the first of the World Bank's comprehensive country surveys in Colombia. After his report was published in Washington in September 1950, he was invited by the Colombian government to return to Bogotá as adviser to a commission established to implement the report's recommendations. In December 1952, Currie gave evidence in New York to a grand jury investigating Owen Lattimore's role in the publication of secret State Department documents in Amerasia magazine. However, when Currie, as a U.S. citizen, tried to renew his passport in 1954, he was refused, ostensibly on the grounds that he was now residing abroad and married to a Colombian. However, he may have in fact been identified with the then-secret Venona project, which had decrypted wartime Soviet cables where Currie was identified as a source of Soviet intelligence. He appears in the Venona cables under the cover name 'PAGE', and in Soviet intelligence archives as 'VIM' and as a source for the Golos and Bentley spy networks.[19][20] According to John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, evidence that Currie cooperated with Soviet espionage is convincing and substantial.[21][22] Historians Allen Weinstein[23] and Christopher Andrew[24] also conclude Currie was a Soviet asset.

Lauchlin Currie - Wikipedia

[librariansofshield]

In September 1939, Whittaker Chambers, a defected communist spy, met with Adolf A. Berle, Assistant Secretary of State and disclosed a list of 18 government officials who were involved in the communist underground. One of the people listed was Alger Hiss, a State Department employee. Berle showed this list of people to the President but the accusations were not taken seriously and were dismissed. Berle also notified the FBI in 1940 and they interviewed Chambers in 1942 and 1945.

Chambers was called to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) on August 3, 1948 and again named Hiss as a member of the Communist Party. Two days later Alger Hiss testified in front of the HUAC denying that he was a communist. Further investigation and evidence that came to be known as the Pumpkin Papers led to a charge on December 15, 1948 of two counts of perjury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY).

[waqasamjadme]

Original and Famous Quotes about Mother’s Love

 77 Original and Famous Quotes about Mother’s Love

She is the one one we’ve received, and we wouldn’t change her for the world. Moms are irreplaceable and all the time there to assist us, so it’s no surprise what number of well-known individuals had one thing to say about mothers.

 Additionally few of us perceive simply how distinctive a mom’s love for her kids really is. On this put up now we have offered a couple of fascinating and authentic quotes that we hope will enlighten you on one of many most-unique bonds nature has ever conjured up!

Well-known Mom’s Love Quotes

You sacrificed for us. You’re the true MVP. Kevin Durant

To explain my mom could be to put in writing a few hurricane in its excellent energy. Or the climbing, falling colours of a rainbow. Maya Angelou

There’s no solution to be an ideal mom and one million methods to be one. Jill Churchill

 The phrase ‘working mom’ is redundant. Jane Sellman

The very best place to cry is on a mom’s arms. Jodi Picoult

My mom was probably the most lovely lady I ever noticed. All I'm I owe to my mom. I attribute my success in life to the ethical, mental and bodily training I obtained from her. George Washington

My mom is a strolling miracle. Leonardo DiCaprio

My mom has all the time been my emotional barometer and my steering. I used to be fortunate sufficient to get to have one lady who actually helped me by means of all the things. Emma Stone

Motherhood: All love begins and ends there. Robert Browning

Mom’s love is bliss, is peace, it needn't be acquired, it needn't be deserved. Whether it is there, it is sort of a blessing; if it's not there it's as if all the sweetness had gone out of life. Erich Fromm

Most moms are instinctive philosophers. Harriet Beecher Stowe

Love as highly effective as your mom’s for you leaves its personal mark … to have been beloved so deeply .. will give us some safety eternally. J.Okay. Rowling

Life started with waking up and loving my mom’s face. George Eliot

It’s a humorous factor about moms and dads. Even when their very own baby is probably the most disgusting little blister you would ever think about, they nonetheless suppose that she or he is fantastic. Roald Dahl

 If I've performed something in life price consideration, I really feel certain that I inherited the disposition from my mom. Booker T. Washington

If evolution actually works, how come moms solely have two fingers? Milton Berle

I’m nonetheless amazed at how my mom emerged from her lonely adolescence as such an affectionate and levelheaded lady. Hillary Clinton

I unapologetically and unabashedly am deeply biased towards my mom. Chelsea Clinton

I bear in mind my mom’s prayers they usually have all the time adopted me. They've clung to me all my life. Abraham Lincoln

I noticed once you have a look at your mom, you're looking on the purest love you'll ever know. Mitch Albom

I imagine within the power and intelligence and sensitivity of girls. My mom, my sisters [they] are sturdy. My mum is a powerful lady and I like her for it. Tom Hiddleston

Everyone desires to save lots of the Earth; no one desires to assist Mother do the dishes. P.J. O’Rourke

Being a mom is an angle, not a organic relation. Robert A. Heinlein

 A mom is the truest good friend now we have, when trials heavy and sudden fall upon us; when adversity takes the place of prosperity; when pals desert us; when bother thickens round us, nonetheless will she cling to us, and endeavor by her form precepts and counsels to dissipate the clouds of darkness, and trigger peace to return to our hearts. Washington Irving

My mom was probably the most lovely lady I ever noticed. All I'm I owe to my mom. I attribute my success in life to the ethical, mental and bodily training I obtained from her. George Washington

My mother is my hero. [She] impressed me to dream once I was a child, so anytime anybody conjures up you to dream, that’s gotta be your hero. Tim McGraw

My mother smiled at me. Her smile type of hugged me. R.J. Palacio

In a baby’s eyes, a mom is a goddess. She will be wonderful or horrible, benevolent or full of wrath, however she instructions love both manner. I'm satisfied that that is the best energy within the universe. N.Okay. Jemisin

No man is poor who has a Godly mom. Abraham Lincoln

The one love that I actually imagine in is a mom’s love for her kids. Karl Lagerfeld

All that I'm or ever hope to be, I owe to my angel mom. Abraham Lincoln

A mom’s arms are extra comforting than anybody else’s. Princess Diana

[A] mom is one to whom you hurry if you find yourself troubled. Emily Dickinson

Mama was my best instructor, a instructor of compassion, love and fearlessness. If love is nice as a flower, then my mom is that candy flower of affection. Stevie Marvel

Motherhood has a really humanizing impact. All the pieces will get decreased to necessities. Meryl Streep

My mom is my root, my basis. She planted the seed that I base my life on, and that's the perception that the power to realize begins in your thoughts. Michael Jordan

My mom was the one fixed in my life. After I take into consideration my mother elevating me alone when she was 20, and dealing and paying the payments, and, you understand, attempting to pursue your personal goals, I feel is a feat that's unmatched. Barack Obama

A mom’s arms are manufactured from tenderness and kids sleep soundly in them. Victor Hugo

No matter else is not sure on this stinking dunghill of a world a mom’s love is just not. James Joyce

When you find yourself a mom, you might be by no means actually alone in your ideas. A mom all the time has to suppose twice, as soon as for herself and as soon as for her baby. Sophia Loren

A mom is just not an individual to lean on, however an individual to make leaning pointless. Dorothy Canfield Fisher

Youth fades; love droops; the leaves of friendship fall; A mom’s secret hope outlives all of them. Oliver Wendell Holmes

Quotes about Mom’s Love for Her Son

Though I do know your dependency on me will change over time, my love for you'll all the time stay as continually sturdy as it's at this time.

A mom’s love for her child boy predicates how he in flip will sooner or later deal with his spouse.

A single mother holds the nigh-impossible duty of serving two parental roles for her son as an alternative of 1 but you hardly ever see them shrink away in concern from doing so. What a unprecedented love that's!

A boy who has a mom that can actually love, assist and hearken to him regardless of the entire hardships life throws his manner actually has obtained the best fortune on this planet.

A mom would give her life for any of her kids however maybe much more passionately for her son.

Having a constructive father determine is in fact necessary to a boy’s constructive improvement, however having a loving mom is much more crucial.

A person could finally spend extra years within the embrace of his spouse than his mom, however the spouse won't ever know or nurture him in the best way that the mom does.

Jesus denied his mom all through his ministry but she by no means left his facet throughout his persecution. This simply goes to indicate us the outstanding love mom’s have for his or her sons.

A son who doesn't perceive the worth of the love of his mom in all probability is not going to admire a lot all through his life.

The phrase “a mama’s boy” is only a humorous manner of labeling a person who loves his mom simply as a lot as she loves him.

A mom treating a grown man as somewhat boy is simply her manner of exhibiting that the identical safety he was afforded as a baby will all the time be out there through her love.

Just a few boys are blessed with fathers who're genuinely desirous about them, however nearly all of us take pleasure in a mom who really cares.

The love of a mom for her son is one thing he could by no means actually admire in its magnitude but will nonetheless benefit from the immeasurable advantages thereof.

A boy struggling abuse by the hands of his mom is not going to mar the truth that she nonetheless loves him sincerely.

It doesn't matter what burden a person could face in affiliation along with his mom, he can by no means go as far to boast he carried her in his physique and nurtured her for a complete childhood.

The power of the love a mom has for her son is obvious in the truth that now extra boys would moderately develop as much as be like their moms than their fathers.

A mom’s love may very well spoil a son in convincing him that each one ladies will likely be as tolerable along with his shortcomings.

The devotion of a mom to her son might be the one unconditional love he'll ever expertise in his life.

If a son is damage sufficient by his mom, he can in all probability cease loving her, however the reverse can by no means be true.

The love a boy receives from his mom, a feminine, is simply as necessary to his masculine improvement as sports activities, male bonding or the rest that could be considered as crucial to manhood.

When a person goes out into the world and fails in any respect else, he can all the time return house to his mom.

Even when a lady by no means receives what she deems satisfactory love from a partner, she will likely be greater than content material in life if she receives such appreciation from her son.

Regardless of how horrible a person could also be, a mom will be capable to see previous his flaws. Even Adolf Hitler’s mom in all probability thought he was the sweetest factor on this planet.

The wonderful love a loving mom has for her son has the redemptive energy of serving to her overcome previous pains felt by the hands of males.

It might be going too far to say {that a} mom loves her sons greater than her daughters, however it's correct to say that the mom’s affection for her son is a love felt on a unique airplane.

The best way a mom could seem to favor her son is nature’s manner of mitigating the truth that fathers additionally look like extra compassionate in direction of their daughters.

For a person to be overly-emotionally depending on his mother is in fact a trigger for concern, however for him to be devoid of the pure affection of his mom altogether is an excellent more-harrowing thought.

A person’s vanity will be constructed or damaged by the corresponding affection he receives from his mom throughout his most-formative years.

A mom would bounce in entrance of a bullet earlier than letting it strike her son, and whereas a son can maybe declare the identical, nobody would imagine the latter as a lot as the previous with out precise proof.

A boy can develop, fall in love, grow to be blissfully married after which divorce, however the love his mom has for him is one thing that he won't ever be separated from.

It might be pure {that a} mom should finally come to odds together with her daughter, however no such actuality exists between her and her son.

A son is his mom’s hero even earlier than he's sufficiently old to know what the phrase “hero” means.

I do know my mom deeply loves each my sister and me, however that doesn’t change the actual fact I really feel extra lucky for being the one born her son!

Many males adore their moms much more than their wives, however that doesn’t start to check to the extent of affection they’ve obtained from their moms within the first place to earn this degree of admiration.

A person could need to carry out many wonderful feats to earn the love of his spouse, however he did completely nothing to earn the even larger love of his mom.

  via Blogger https://ift.tt/3k60UbL

[scvpubliclib]

In which we consult the Book Review’s past to shed light on the books of the present. This week: Seymour E. Harris reflects on the need to check unbridled power of corporations.

[pastorralffriedrichs]

Where Is Your Treasure? Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven . . . —Matthew 6:20 Many young people are building their lives on the rock of materialism. I find across the country a deep economic discontent among people in every walk of life. People want more and more things. They forget that we are enjoying the highest standard of living the world has ever known. We still have poverty, and hundreds of agencies are trying to do something about it; but we are dissatisfied. We want more, more, more. But Jesus said, “You cannot serve God and money.” He said that a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of the things that he possesses. Adolf Berle, in his study of power, points out that riches often make people solitary and lonely and, of course, afraid. Many times a rich man knows loneliness and fear, because when he makes wealth his god, it leaves him empty. You see, without God life loses its zest and purpose and meaning. Prayer for the day Knowing You, my heavenly Father, brings richness to my life and soul. #takeyourlifebacktodayshow https://www.instagram.com/p/CDrGuNTJgUG/?igshid=a6lnoay1f6sz

[minarquia]

Sexagésimo aniversario de The Failure of the «New Economics» de Hazlitt, por Mises Hispano.

[El 11 de septiembre de 1959, el Christian Science Monitororganizó un «Simposio sobre Keynes» impulsado por la publicación del libro de Henry Hazlitt The Failure of the «New Economics» a principios de ese año. Los colaboradores invitados son una lista ilustre de economistas de las universidades más prestigiosas del momento: Ludwig von Mises; Arthur F. Burns; Seymour E. Harris; Calvin B. Hoover; Adolf A. Berle, Jr.; Neil H. Jacoby; Sumner H. Slichter; Friedrich August von Hayek; y John Kenneth Galbraith. Las contribuciones de Mises, Hayek, Burns y Galbraith aparecen a continuación. Es notable que Ludwig von Mises sea el único no académico invitado a contribuir al simposio y, por la razón que sea, sea la primera contribución que aparezca en el artículo].

Basta con mencionar el nombre Keynes en casi todos los círculos de economistas y en la mayoría de los círculos de hombres de negocios informados en los Estados Unidos o Gran Bretaña y Europa hoy en día y luego sentarse a ver cómo vuelan las chispas. Han pasado 13 años desde que Lord Keynes (John Maynard Keynes) falleció, sin embargo, los autores cuidadosos dedican años a la investigación de su trabajo, ya sea para alabarlo o para argumentar la solidez de sus teorías.

Este año [1959] Henry Hazlitt, editor de negocios de la revista Newsweek, agitó las viejas brasas que arden en la economía keynesiana con la publicación de su libro, The Failure of the «New Economics», publicado en Nueva York por Van Nostrand, $7,50.

El libro de Hazlitt propone terminar el debate sobre Keynes discutiendo de cerca y finalmente la validez de las teorías británicas. La posición del Sr. Hazlitt no está en medio del camino. Despega desde un punto totalmente central.

Nunca le gustaron las teorías de Keynes. Las ha criticado durante mucho tiempo en sus escritos, y su libro desarrolla esta tesis a fondo y bien. Para aquellos que nunca vieron nada bueno en el New Deal de Franklin Roosevelt, por los conceptos de bombear, de gastar para ganar la recuperación, de usar la política monetaria para combatir la depresión, de bajar los tipos de interés para fomentar el gasto, la tesis de Hazlitt es una prueba final de que hubo y no es bueno en Keynes.

~~~~

Sin embargo, de alguna manera uno no se deshace tan fácilmente de la provocativa obra de Briton, ni siquiera en un libro tan exhaustivamente investigado como el de Henry Hazlitt.

La mayoría de la gente está de acuerdo en que Lord Keynes era un expeditista, que intentó tratar contemporáneamente con problemas especiales — principalmente la depresión — y que si hubiera estado aquí hoy, habría abandonado completamente sus propios puntos de vista por otros nuevos para los problemas de hoy. El peligro, según el Sr. Hazlitt, en un trabajo de este tipo es que pueda ser aceptado como dogma final.

Keynes pronto sorprendió al mundo argumentando que estaba desesperadamente mal que los Aliados trataran de obtener reparaciones de Alemania después de la Primera Guerra Mundial, en un momento en que muchos querían colgar al Káiser. Durante la década de los veinte le preocupaba el auge de los Estados Unidos y aprobó las medidas de la Junta de la Reserva Federal para tratar de amortiguarlo.

Durante la década de los treinta, cuando el mundo fue arrasado por el caos económico, Keynes buscaba constantemente maneras de ayudar a su propio país, Gran Bretaña, a salir del pantano. La mayoría de sus ideas eran provocativas. Algunas eran nuevas, otras viejas pero reelaboradas. Debido a que Gran Bretaña y los Estados Unidos estaban tan vinculados económicamente, trabajó duro en ideas para ayudar a los Estados Unidos a salir de la depresión.

Keynes fue un buen escritor y un excelente publicista por sus ideas. Muchas de sus ideas se consideran hoy en día que han sido calentadas o reformuladas con un giro especial para resolver problemas de depresión. Cada vez que Keynes escribía o decía algo, los líderes del gobierno de la década de los treinta se daban cuenta.

Keynes visitó los Estados Unidos, habló sobre algunas de sus ideas con el presidente Roosevelt. El ardiente Secretario del Interior del New Deal, Harold L. Ickes, adelantó los programas de gasto del Estado, especialmente en proyectos de recuperación y energía para contrarrestar la depresión. ¿Fue Ickes o Keynes?

Pero Keynes no era simplemente un defensor del gasto del Estado para terminar con la depresión. En primer lugar, quería que las propias empresas planearan los gastos de capital necesarios para combatir la depresión. Quería que los consumidores compraran. Se trata de una política económica que fue impulsada por la administración de Eisenhower el año pasado. No hay nada espectacular en ello, pero el hecho de que Keynes lo instara de manera constante y consistente le hizo merecedor de un crédito que probablemente podría ser reclamado por muchos otros economistas menos publicitados. Cuando las empresas y los consumidores no respondieron, Keynes instó al Estado a gastar.

~~~~

Los archivos de los periódicos están llenos de truenos del ocupado economista de la Universidad de Cambridge. Pero los recortes, cuando se colocan juntos hoy, muestran que Keynes siempre estuvo buscando una solución temporal a un problema dado. Era un experimentador. Muchas veces no sabía cómo funcionaría una propuesta. Estaba dispuesto a arriesgarse al fracaso y a la condena. Pero lo único que no arriesgaría durante los oscuros días de la depresión era la inacción.

Hoy en día, cuando un cuerpo de doctrina es etiquetado como keynesiano, es difícil determinar con exactitud lo que se quiere decir. Por lo general, significa una acción gubernamental de algún tipo para prevenir una depresión o para frenar un auge. El término keynesiano carece casi de significado real, debido a la naturaleza temporal de los esfuerzos de Keynes por encontrar maneras de poner fin a la depresión de los años treinta. …

~~~~

La mayoría de los críticos más severos de Keynes le atribuyen haber provocado un cambio de base en el pensamiento humano. Keynes probablemente se alegraría, pero no se contentaría con haber hecho esto, aunque muchas de sus ideas se volvieran locas.

En cualquier caso, el debate sobre Keynes, que el Sr. Hazlitt ha reavivado tan vigorosamente este año, parece seguro que continuará durante algún tiempo.

Para el Sr. Hazlitt, no hay término medio en Keynes, y para los que se oponen al New Deal de Roosevelt, no hay término medio. El desafío de Hazlitt, lanzado en su libro, se resume de la siguiente manera:

La literatura keynesiana ha crecido hasta convertirse en cientos de libros y miles de artículos. Hay libros dedicados en su totalidad a exponer la Teoría General en términos más sencillos y comprensibles. Pero en el lado crítico hay una gran escasez. Los no-keynesianos y anti-keynesianos se han contentado con artículos cortos, algunas páginas parentales, o con un brusco despido sobre la teoría de que su obra se desmoronará de sus propias contradicciones y pronto será olvidada. No conozco ninguna obra que se dedique a un análisis crítico del libro capítulo por capítulo o teorema por teorema. Es esta tarea la que estoy llevando a cabo aquí. …

Ahora bien, aunque he analizado la Teoría General de Keynes en las siguientes páginas teorema por teorema, capítulo por capítulo, y a veces incluso frase por frase, a lo que para algunos lectores puede parecer una longitud tediosa, he sido incapaz de encontrar en ella una sola doctrina importante que sea a la vez verdadera y original. Lo que es original en el libro no es verdad; y lo que es verdad no es original. De hecho, como veremos, incluso mucho de lo que es falaz en el libro no es original, pero se puede encontrar en una veintena de escritores anteriores.

En vista de muchos de los actuales usos aceptados del poder del gobierno para controlar la inflación o frenar la depresión, ideas que fueron publicadas o promovidas por Lord Keynes, parece seguro que el libro de Hazlitt no pondrá fin al debate sobre Keynes.

Al comentar sobre la contribución de Keynes en el momento de su fallecimiento en 1946, el Monitor redactó un editorial:

Sus contribuciones al pensamiento económico serán objeto de un debate violento durante algún tiempo. Como ha observado un escritor de la revista Fortune en los años treinta, «se había ido abriendo una profunda brecha entre los preceptos de la economía clásica y el hecho observable de la desocupación crónica», y John Maynard Keynes dio «la respuesta más provocativa» a la pregunta de qué y por qué se planteó en aquel momento.

Y el New York Times tomó las propias palabras de Keynes en su libro, que había despertado tanto disenso, La Teoría general del empleo, el interés y el dinero, por su tributo editorial:

Los hombres prácticos, que se creen exentos de toda influencia intelectual, suelen ser esclavos de algún economista desaparecido. Locos de autoridad, que oyen voces en el aire, están destilando su frenesí de algún escritor académico de hace unos años.

Estoy seguro de que el poder de los intereses creados es muy exagerado en comparación con la invasión gradual de las ideas. … Tarde o temprano, son las ideas, no los intereses creados, las que son peligrosas para el bien o para el mal.

Ludwig von Mises Economista, Ciudad de Nueva York

Lord Keynes no era un innovador ni un precursor de nuevos métodos de gestión de los asuntos económicos. Se limitó a revivir viejos y centenares de errores para dar una justificación aparente a las políticas populares, cuyos efectos desastrosos se hicieron cada vez más perceptibles.

Si bien es obvio que el aumento de la productividad y la consiguiente mejora del nivel de vida medio sólo pueden lograrse aumentando la cuota per cápita de capital invertido, desacreditó el ahorro y la formación de capital. No hay otro medio para aumentar la productividad marginal del trabajo y, por lo tanto, las tasas salariales de todos aquellos que desean encontrar un empleo, que acelerar la acumulación de capital frente a la población.

~~~~

Keynes no se dio cuenta de que el libre mercado laboral y sin obstáculos tiende a determinar las tasas de salario para cada tipo de trabajo a una altura que hace posible que cada buscador de empleo encuentre empleo. No vio que el fenómeno del desempleo duradero es la consecuencia inevitable de los intentos de los gobiernos y los sindicatos de fijar las tasas salariales por encima de las tasas potenciales del mercado. Abogó por la expansión del crédito y la inflación y no se dio cuenta de que estas políticas no pueden continuar sin fin y que el auge artificial creado por ellas necesariamente debe provocar una crisis económica.

Keynes trabajó bajo la ilusión de que prevalece una escasez de oportunidades de inversión. Sin embargo, mientras no hayamos convertido la tierra en un Huerto del Edén, siempre habrá personas cuyas necesidades no hayan sido plenamente satisfechas y que estén ansiosas por adquirir más y mejores bienes. Nada más que inversiones adicionales puede suministrar lo que estas masas indigentes están pidiendo.

~~~~

Las paradójicas enseñanzas de Keynes fueron aclamadas con entusiasmo por los gobiernos y los partidos políticos que, mediante el gasto imprudente, se esfuerzan por alcanzar la popularidad. El presupuesto desequilibrado es la médula del keynesianismo. Pero no hay que exagerar la siniestra influencia de Keynes.

Sus preceptos habían sido adoptados y practicados por demagogos mucho antes de que Keynes se comprometiera a reivindicarlos. Los métodos que sus adeptos llaman la «nueva economía» o la «revolución keynesiana» ya estaban en pleno apogeo cuando Keynes publicó su doctrina.

Su gran éxito publicitario se debe precisamente al hecho de que no fue un pionero de las nuevas políticas, sino el apologista de esquemas que —desgraciadamente— ya habían sido extremadamente populares durante mucho tiempo.

El difunto Benjamin M. Anderson y muchos otros autores han desenmascarado con éxito las falacias de la filosofía económica de Keynes. Pero su crítica más devastadora fue dada por Henry Hazlitt en su brillante libro The Failure of the «New Economics», que ha demolido por completo los conceptos erróneos keynesianos.

Arthur F. Burns Profesor de economía de la Universidad de Columbia; presidente de la Oficina nacional de investigación económica; ex presidente del Consejo de asesores económicos del presidente Eisenhower.

Keynes es y seguirá siendo una figura controvertida. Se puede cuestionar su originalidad, condenar su amor a la paradoja, criticar su tendencia a hacer generalizaciones arrolladoras, cuestionar su apego al capitalismo. Pero no se puede negar que es una figura sobresaliente en la historia del pensamiento económico.

El pensamiento de Keynes ha conmovido al mundo profundamente, tan profundamente como lo hizo laRiqueza de las Naciones de Adam Smiths en su tiempo. Algunos hombres y gobiernos sin duda han sido engañados por Keynes. Sin embargo, en general, todo aquel que ha estudiado cuidadosamente sus escritos ha ganado, creo, una comprensión más firme de los principios económicos en el proceso.

Y en cuanto al mundo en el que vivimos, me inclino a pensar que es un lugar mejor de lo que hubiera sido si Keynes no hubiera vivido.

Friedrich August von Hayek Economista, Universidad de Chicago

Sería injusto culpar demasiado a Lord Keynes por el indudable daño que sus teorías han causado, pues estoy convencido por el conocimiento personal de que, de haber vivido, habría sido uno de los líderes en la lucha contra la inflación de la posguerra. Sin embargo, en gran medida tiene la responsabilidad de ello.

Sus grandes dotes han hecho posible que sus teorías ejerzan durante los últimos 25 años una influencia inmediata y penetrante que es única en la historia del pensamiento económico.

Sin embargo, estos dones no eran principalmente los de un teórico económico y, aunque sus ideas parecían constituir una revolución para la generación a la que cautivaron, probablemente no aparecerán más que como una fase pasajera en la historia del pensamiento económico.

~~~~

El principal reproche al que Keynes se abrió fue que presentó como una «Teoría General» lo que era esencialmente un tratado para la época.

Fue el éxito de los repetidos intentos que hizo para justificar sus inclinaciones prácticas con argumentos teóricos. Tuvo éxito en parte porque proporcionó un apoyo muy sofisticado a las demandas que siempre son populares en tiempos de depresión y en parte porque se expresó en una forma acorde con las modas científicas del momento.

Sin embargo, se basaba en suposiciones aún menos realistas que las que Keynes atribuyó a lo que él llamó economía clásica. Si fue un defecto de este último que asumió para un primer acercamiento que no existían reservas de recursos no utilizados. Keynes era aún más irrealista al asumir que siempre existían amplias reservas de todos los recursos.

En resumen, asumió esa escasez de recursos que es la raíz de todos nuestros problemas económicos. En consecuencia, aunque de dudosa aplicación incluso en tiempos de depresión, su teoría original es totalmente inaplicable en tiempos de prosperidad.

~~~~

Desde entonces, los discípulos de Keynes han logrado purgar la versión original de la mayoría de sus supuestos poco realistas e inconsistencias internas y la han convertido en un aparato formal de análisis que es en gran medida neutral en las aplicaciones de las políticas.

Sigue gozando de popularidad porque está más de acuerdo con las modas metodológicas actuales que con el enfoque clásico. Es utilizado por muchos que no sacan las conclusiones que Keynes sacó de él. Sin embargo, dudo que incluso esto resulte ser una contribución permanente a la economía.

Pero aparte de los peculiares supuestos fácticos de Keynes, no conduce a conclusiones esencialmente diferentes del análisis clásico. El más significativo de estos supuestos era que los trabajadores se resistirán a una reducción de sus salarios monetarios, pero que soportarán una reducción de sus salarios reales provocada por una caída en el valor del dinero.

~~~~

De hecho, el motivo último de los esfuerzos de Keynes fue encontrar un método redondo para reducir los salarios demasiado altos como para permitir el empleo de todos los que buscan trabajo. Ahora sabemos mejor que nunca que los trabajadores se dejarán engañar por mucho tiempo de esta manera. Este, sin embargo, era el elemento más distintivo de la visión keynesiana de los años treinta.

Fue este argumento el que rompió la resistencia intelectual a las tendencias siempre presentes hacia la inflación progresiva. Sin embargo, este elemento crucial ya ha perdido toda su plausibilidad.

Si se puede juzgar por los primeros informes del último documento programático sobre la política monetaria británica, el «Informe Radcliffe», recientemente publicado, el keynesianismo en su sentido original parece haber perdido su atractivo aún más en su país de origen que en otros lugares.

John Kenneth Galbraith Paul M. Warburg, profesor de economía, Universidad de Harvard

Por supuesto, la posición de Keynes en la historia está perfectamente asegurada. Y así, en la práctica contemporánea están las políticas que él defendió. La tesis central de Keynes era que la economía moderna no encuentra necesariamente su equilibrio en el pleno empleo y que, en consecuencia, debe estar dispuesta a intervenir para superar la depresión o prevenir la inflación. Esto es ahora aceptado e incluso común.

La administración de Eisenhower se enfrentó a la reciente recesión con un déficit récord en tiempos de paz. En el último año fiscal, los gastos en efectivo excedieron los ingresos en $13.200.000.000. El poder adquisitivo vertido en la economía por este déficit superó con creces el gasto total en tiempo de paz del gobierno federal en cualquier año bajo Roosevelt.

Esta era una política keynesiana directa. Gran parte de ello se logró a través de los llamados estabilizadores —pagos de compensación por desempleo, apoyo a los precios agrícolas, otros pagos de asistencia social, la reducción de los tipos impositivos efectivos a medida que la gente pasa a niveles de ingresos más bajos con la disminución de los ingresos—, que se convierten automáticamente en apoyo del poder adquisitivo privado a medida que la producción y los ingresos disminuyen en la recesión.

Todas estas medidas fueron heredadas del New Deal. Son la esencia misma de una política keynesiana y no menos porque ahora son utilizados por una administración republicana. Cabe señalar, por cierto, que parecen haber funcionado.

Lo que es realmente interesante es este curioso esfuerzo por afirmar la insignificancia de Keynes. Pasará y no dejará huella ya que el esfuerzo de reescribir la historia para degradar a Roosevelt ha pasado. Pero es un homenaje a la nostalgia evocada quizás no tanto por Adam Smith como por Adam.

Fuente.

de Centro Mises https://ift.tt/2UncwM0 https://ift.tt/348PDjE

de nuestro WordPress https://ift.tt/2zIBnA4 Difundimos las ideas liberales, libertarias, minarquistas y anarcocapitalistas. https://ift.tt/348PDjE September 01, 2019 at 08:03AM

[antoine-roquentin]

It is a cliché that the United States and Britain are obsessed with Middle East oil, but the reason for the obsession is often misdiagnosed. Anglo-American interest in the enormous hydrocarbon reserves of the Persian Gulf does not derive from a need to fuel Western consumption. Britain used to import considerable quantities of Saudi oil, but currently gets most of what it needs from the North Sea and hasn’t imported much from the Gulf since the 1980s; Saudi oil currently represents around 3 per cent of UK imports. The US has never imported more than a token amount from the Gulf and for much of the postwar period has been a net oil exporter. Anglo-American involvement in the Middle East has always been principally about the strategic advantage gained from controlling Persian Gulf hydrocarbons, not Western oil needs. In 1945, Gordon Merriam, the head of the State Department’s Near Eastern Affairs division, made this clear: the Saudi oilfields, he said, were first and foremost ‘a stupendous source of strategic power’. The assistant secretary of state, Adolf Berle, sketched out what remains US strategy: the US and Britain would provide Saudi Arabia and other key Gulf monarchies with ‘sufficient military supplies to preserve internal security’ and ensure that they were permanently guarded by Western navies.

Other parts of the world – the US, Russia, Canada – have large deposits of crude oil, and current estimates suggest Venezuela has more proven reserves than Saudi Arabia. But Gulf oil lies close to the surface, where it is easy to get at by drilling; it is cheap to extract, and is unusually ‘light’ and ‘sweet’ (industry terms for high purity and richness). It is also located near the middle of the Eurasian landmass, yet outside the territory of any global power. Western Middle East policy, as explained by Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was to control the Gulf and stop any Soviet influence over ‘that vital energy resource upon which the economic and political stability both of Western Europe and of Japan depend’, or else the ‘geopolitical balance of power would be tipped’. In a piece for the Atlantic a few months after 9/11, Benjamin Schwarz and Christopher Layne explained that Washington ‘assumes responsibility for stabilising the region’ because China, Japan and Europe will be dependent on its resources for the foreseeable future: ‘America wants to discourage those powers from developing the means to protect that resource for themselves.’ Much of US power is built on the back of the most profitable protection racket in modern history.

The developed Asian economies are heavily reliant on Persian Gulf oil and Qatari natural gas. Three-quarters of Gulf oil exports go to Asian economies, and the five largest importers of gas from Qatar are Japan, South Korea, India, China and Singapore. US dominance in the Gulf gives it decisive strategic influence over any potential Asian rival. The US has a huge military presence in the region: United States Central Command is based at al-Udeid airbase in Qatar, the largest air force base in the world, with more than ten thousand US troops. Bahrain is the permanent dock of the Fifth Fleet, as well as having a US airbase and seven thousand US military personnel. The US has five thousand permanent troops, two naval bases and an airbase in the United Arab Emirates. In Kuwait, it has access to three army bases and an air force base. In Oman, it has four airbases and two naval bases. In Iraq, the US still has troops stationed at al-Asad airbase north-west of Baghdad (once nicknamed ‘Camp Cupcake’ for its luxuries). In Saudi Arabia itself, the US operates a military training mission based in Eskan village. Only Iran, which broke away from the US system in 1979, houses no American military bases.