Spread — —is a symptom of Euro-disease

Only the Soviets would succeed in ending the Stone Age with a shortage of stones. Soviets and the European Commission…

European Union
European Union

Spread — — it is said that it cannot be spread ——. The EU institutions have decided so. However, this is not all that the EU institutions deal with in agriculture. Subsidies for the breeding of new cows and subsidies for the abolition of breeds apply. The EU is trying as well control the price of sugar - to make it a little more expensive, poor sugar mills to have something to eat. It allocates quotas to individual member states, how much sugar they can produce. Here he pays for the closing of sugar factories, and here for the opening of sugar factories. However, the price of sugar has slipped out of the hands of the European Commission, it is too high because sugar is deficient.

Milton Friedman has already said that Economists may not know much, but what they are guaranteed to do is create surpluses and surpluses - just set price caps or minimum prices. However, yes, the European Commission is certainly not to blame for sugar shortages and rising prices. Surely there are some behind it"Objective causes."

Um, that's central planning par excellence.

Who plans for whom?

Let's answer a very basic question: What is the difference between a market and a socialist economy? The question of planning is absolutely cardinal.

In a market economy, everyone is their own planner. I plan for myself, you plan for myself, they plan for myself… and so on. As a person, it's a unique plan and unique decisions. We can call this system "economic democracy", As a clever gentleman named Ludwig von Mises once said.

In economic socialism, on the other hand, an elite group is chosen that plans for everyone else. Regardless of needs, desires and individuality, one plan rules everyone. With one stroke of the pen, you decide whether, for example, 5 million people will have a croissant or bread for breakfast, how much sugar it will cost, or how several dozen producers will call their products. This system is usually called central planning, but we can also call it "economic oligarchy. "

It is clear, that no judge can call the current situation in the EU a "market economy".

That planning difference has interesting consequences. In a market economy, you different plans compete in many areas, thus refining, improve. In many areas, people work together voluntarily to reach different goals, leading to a kind of "harmonization" of plans. She also voluntarily refines the plans themselves - simply because cooperation will not take place unless it is mutually beneficial.

so in a market economy (in economic democracy) we will buy spreadable butter if we want spreadable butter. If we didn't want spreads butter (because we would find out that it is not butter), and we would like to have a spread, for example, we would buy a spread.

In economic socialism, there is de facto no competition and voluntary cooperation - individuals' plans are not refined, they are not harmonized. Because they have no chance of realization, individuals must submit to the oligarchy that has infected their plan through the state.

So people who do not want to work together and people who want to do so cannot work together. For example, uranium must be imported for free somewhere, or a pile of sugar factories must be closed down somewhere (if you don't know - the first example is from the USSR, the second from the EU).

Whereas the there are no voluntary exchanges in the central plan system, so we don't even know what is and what is not effective. What comes out of voluntary exchange is effective, because voluntary exchange is the result of some individual (subjective) economic calculation, into which each individual inserts his subjective variables. Only when the subjective result of the calculations of all participants in the shift is "positive" will the shift take place (because it is beneficial for everyone).

This process is missing in the central system - therefore it is centrally controlled system inefficient. Theoretically, the central system can achieve, for example, the same standard of living as the market system, but under conditions of infinite cost. But we only have one planet here, which, however, the comrades would notice too late. For oil, for example, only when they found out that nothing was actually benefiting anymore - there would be nothing. Prices wouldn't tell them anything - if any, they would only reflect the sudden deliberation of the central planner, not the real market situation.

Only the Soviets would succeed in ending the Stone Age with a shortage of stones. Soviets and the European Commission.

So in a centrally planned economy (economic oligarchy) you you buy maximum "spread", even though you will want to buy spreadable butter. AND you may not even buy because no one would know you want to buy it.

Schedule is not a problem, scheduler is the problem

The problem really is not the "plan" itself. Everyone is planning, even those who say they don't want a plan have just created a plan.

The problem is "who" should plan. A group of elects for everyone else, or each for himself? This is the primary and fundamental difference between a centrally-planned economy and capitalism.

The diversity and multiplicity of plans is required in capitalism - it is the driving force of the market system, the engine that makes the whole system just as effective.

In central management, that diversity is suppressed - it is the competition of the chosen ones. Competition that disrupts the Master Plan, thereby disrupting the entire central system. The centrally controlled economy is thus inextricably linked to repression, violence, enforcement and repression of all alternatives. Simply because competition destroys the whole system as such.

In the economy it is the ideology of the economic oligarchy, in the area of ​​personal freedom it is the ideology of unification - competition is a problem, everything must be the same, clearly distinguishable, uniform.

The ideology of unification in the EU is irreversibly connected with the idea of ​​integration - we can only integrate (unite) by the fact that everything will be the same everywhere, that there will be no competition. That is the reason for the EU's economic faltering and its inefficiency. Effort drive sugar market or the direct setting of the names of goods offered on the market are only clear symptoms of the European Union's disease.

We got back from socialism to socialism.

PS: What do you call margarine?

0 comments

  1. Sorry, but a government of experts is the same nonsense as a government of politicians. By what mechanism do you determine who the expert is, and that he thinks well of us instead of just wanting to grease his own pocket? See the example of warming: at the top are several experts with a mountain of diplomas - and certainly just a complete coincidence of the shares of companies that are vital to the panic over warming, or run such companies. And in what field is it supposed to be an expert? Expert in naming spreadable butter ??

    The problem, in my opinion, is that we have governments, we decide on every piece of crap, and too high. At European level, it may make sense to decide whether to declare war on Iraq. But we already have NATO and the UN here. Plus, how often does something like that have to be decided? The European Commission could easily meet once a year to draw up an inaction report + the right of national parliaments to convene an extraordinary meeting. There is nothing to the European government, the national government, or the city council as to what trade name I will write on a box of vegetable fat. If someone feels deceived, I will not sell and go bankrupt next time - it is enough if the law requires, in addition to the trade name, also to state the specific composition of the product. How is the 1% limit set? Is there a medical or agricultural study that proves that it should not be 80%? It is just a decision of an official who cannot accept that "NO decision is needed in this area" and slaps a round number there. As in countless other areas.

  2. re lawondyss:
    I would also not pour out a bath with a child… after all, 60 years of peace between Germany, France, Spain, Britain and Italy is not at all as a matter of course as we consider it today

    however, I am afraid that politicians and various officials are sitting so deep in their seats (and they still have the sympathy of some simple citizens…) that either there will be almost nothing to reform or we will have to pour out the tub completely and hope that the power vacuum will not bring any more to power freak ala hitler, stalin, polpot…

  3. The European Union is a good idea. Of course, as such, it also needs its European Commission. The mistake, however, is that politicians, not experts, usually sit in it.
    Politicians can only pretend that they understand the problem, so they do what they do best. "Thinking" of your fellow citizens and "making life" easier for them. They are willing to discuss nonsense for weeks: Should spread butter be called butter? Because some small percentage of stupider individuals might think it's real butter.
    I'm not talking about the fact that they have no idea how the market economy works and yet (or rather that's why) they try to manage it.
    I am not against the EU, I am against individuals who are trying to govern it.

  4. Who plans for whom .. That's exactly what it's about. See two fun videos from EconStories almost at the bottom of the page http://www.zvara.cz/odkazy/ (I do not mean Milouš Jakeš with his speech in '89 now).

    Won't they look for a new name for the street or better for the square or the waterfront? I have a suggestion: FAHayeka square / embankment

Comments are off.