Η σπασμένη τζαμαρία: Η πολιτική οικονομία σε 12+1 παραμύθια

by Frédéric Bastiat, Θάνος Σαμαρτζής (Translator)

«Το κράτος πρέπει να προχωρήσει άμεσα στην εκτέλεση δημόσιων έργων. Ασχέτως τελικού αποτελέσματος, ένα είναι βέβαιο: το χρήμα θα κυκλοφορήσει κι η οικονομία θα κινηθεί!» Σ αυτό συμφώνησαν οι περισσότεροι.
«Να καταργήσουμε τους μεσάζοντες», πρότειναν κάποιοι άλλοι. «Δεν εξυπηρετούν κανέναν παρά μονάχα τον εαυτό τους!»
«Να κλείσουμε τα σύνορα στα εισαγόμενα προϊόντα!», δήλωσε με αποφασιστικότητα μια τρίτη φωνή. «Η κοινωνία θ αναγκαστεί να φτιάχνει τα αγαθά αυτά μόνη της. Θα απαιτηθούν παραπάνω εργατικά χέρια κι η απασχόληση στη χώρα μας μοιραία θα ενισχυθεί».
Βλέποντας πως είναι τόσο εύκολο να κάνεις έναν λαό πιο πλούσιο φτιάχνοντας λίγους νόμους, κάποιοι άλλοι, ριζοσπαστικότεροι, προχώρησαν τον ίδιο συλλογισμό δυο βήματα παραπέρα:
«Αν επιθυμούμε πραγματικά την οικονομική ανάπτυξη, η λύση είναι μία: να απαγορεύσουμε στους ανθρώπους να χρησιμοποιούν το δεξί τους χέρι... Για τις δουλειές που κάνουμε σήμερα, θα χρειάζονται τουλάχιστον οι διπλάσιοι εργαζόμενοι. Το πρόβλημα της ανεργίας θα λυθεί μια για πάντα!»
Σ αυτό το αγέραστο κείμενο, ο φιλοπαίγμων Φρεντερίκ Μπαστιά, ο κατά γενική ομολογία σημαντικότερος εκλαϊκευτής της κλασικής πολιτικής οικονομίας, απαντά: «Έλεος, κύριοι! Πίσω απ αυτό που βλέπουμε, υπάρχει και κάτι που δεν το βλέπουμε».

Genres: Economics, Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Classics, Business, Finance

118 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1850

About the author

Claude Frédéric Bastiat (29 June 1801 – 24 December 1850) was a French classical liberal theorist, political economist, and member of the French assembly.

Reviews

[Jorgina · Rating 5 out of 5]

Frederic Bastiat is one of my heroes. When France, just out of anarchy, was testing new governments and leaning towards socialism, he bravely stood up and tried to warn them of the dangers and sophistic reasoning of such a government type. What is seen... is so perfect to help you understand the failure of government subsidized farms, business, and even art. It explains how free enterprise becomes horribly shackled by government subsidies which actually limits an individual's spending/saving power; though sophists of socialistic programs tend to persuade people to forfeit these freedoms.

[Ricardo Campelo de Magalhães · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wish someone would have offered me this book before my degree.
It would have saved me a lot of trouble...

[Daisy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short pamphlet that states what may be obvious today namely that for every economic decision taken there are consequences that are seen and some that go unnoticed. He’s not much of a socialist and he seems to believe in a trickle-down economy model. After 300 years of this being deemed effective no one has noticed that the rich, when saving a franc, does not spend it in small businesses or on low-income tradesman but rather spends it on extravagances which mean that the money merely circulates the higher echelons rather than trickles down.
While I don’t agree with his economics I commend him on his readability which is easily accessible to all with straightforward language and pertinent examples. It makes me realise how politics and the issues of the day have been turned into something obfuscating for the masses rather than presenting ideas in a way that allows all members of society to form an opinion on issues that directly affect them.
Read it for the novelty of the joy with which Bastiat writes about economic theory and for his insightfulness on voter mentality.
‘Good God! What a lot of trouble to prove that, in political economy, two and two are four and if you succeed in doing in this, the cry is heard: “This is so obvious, it is boring .” And then they vote as though you had proved nothing at all.’

[Clinton · Rating 4 out of 5]

That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen accentuates the unanticipated consequences of government spending where Bastiat distinguishes between what is seen and unseen.
Excessive government spending is typically viewed only as prosperous, for the only perception is beneficial where the positives are seen while the unseen is forgotten or unnoticed. Basically, the seen and unseen ramifications fundamentally can be described as opportunity costs; nobody thinks about what they are foregoing in option B for A or even what harm option A caused or what good it prevented. The unseen is ignored because at the time in making a decision, government spending was the most valued alternative because government spending is viewed with no negative effects where only benefits exist; therefore, it is always praised for flawless economic planning, so nobody then realizes what was missed in alternative options.
Bastiat was a brilliant economist and philosopher as well as a staunch advocate for liberty, for he was clearly well ahead of his time. Even though his treatise on government spending was written in 1850, unfortunately, the seen and unseen in government spending still plagues economic thought even today. Bastiat created the foundations for libertarian and Austrian schools of thought.

[Pedro Jorge · Rating 4 out of 5]

great approach to the topic of the cost of opportunity. even though there were still some unseen consequences that Bastiat didn't mention, mostly related to price adjustments, this essay is still full of gems. it's a must for any man that wants to talk about politics and the effects of Socialism on the long-run.

[Lrigami · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un petit livre d'une densité rare, que l'on ne retrouve plus aujourd'hui. Il m'aura fallu plusieurs jours pour lire et digérer les informations et démonstrations faites au cours de la leçon. Je trouve qu'il fait une parfaite introduction à l'économie politique.

De manière générale, je suis d'accord avec tous les principes, mais j'admets qu'il m'aura fallu déconstruire certaines idées préconçues et réfléchir pour percevoir "ce qu'on ne voit pas" dans plusieurs chapitres. J'aime également le fait que sa pensée soit logique mais également circonstancielle.

Arrivée à la fin j'avais l'impression que l'argent du contribuable devait rester au contribuable et qu'on ne devait en aucun cas louer l'argent pris par l'État pour être redistribué. Me restait alors cette interrogation : "Et les travaux publics alors ? Car il est idéaliste de croire que tout contribuable aurait à cœur le bien général plus que le sien propre." Et la première phrase du chapitre consacré à ce sujet me répondit : "Qu'une nation, après s'être assurée qu'une grande entreprise doit profiter à la communauté, la fasse exécuter sur le produit d'une cotisation commune, rien de plus naturel."

Une remarque cependant sur l'inconséquence. On lit dans le chapitre sur Les Machines ceci : "Dans une fausse voie, on est toujours inconséquent, sans quoi on tuerait l'humanité. Jamais on n'a vu ni on ne verra un principe faux poussé jusqu'au bout. J'ai dit ailleurs : l'inconséquence est la limite de l'absurdité. J'aurais pu ajouter : elle en est en même temps la preuve." L'inconséquence ici n'est-elle pas ce que nomme ultra-solution Monsieur Watzlawick ? Les événements récents, et je pense particulièrement à certains points de la politique de Trump entre autres, me portent à croire que Monsieur Bastiat se soit malheureusement avancé en disant que jamais "on ne verra un principe faux poussé jusqu'au bout."

[Nathan Albright · Rating 5 out of 5]

As someone who happens to be a fan of Bastiat's writing [1], I found this book to be deeply interesting.  Perhaps, as someone who has now read three of the short books of a short-lived but deeply worthwhile French economist of the mid-19th century, I should stop being surprised at how relevant the author's writings are.  Not only does the author provide a firm refutation of the fallacious economic reasoning of socialists and imperialists, continuing his trends in other writings, but the writings also anticipate the sort of ad hominem rhetoric that is still used against those who oppose socialist endeavors.  The author's frustration at the misrepresentation of his position regarding government support and the attacks that were made against capitalists as middlemen while not showing the worse record of government as a middleman is the same sort of frustration that has been shared by many a later thinker who has been viewed as an enemy of humanity for pointing out that what government can do the private sector can generally do far better and far more efficiently, largely because it does so indirectly.

This book is a short one, like Bastiat's work in general, about 50 pages in length and divided into twelve shorter essays that were probably published independently as part of the author's efforts to combat socialism in the early French Second Republic before his untimely death due to tuberculosis.  In these essays, Bastiat discusses the classic example of the broken window that would later become expanded into a much larger economic lesson by Hazlitt.  He talks about the demobilization of troops, taxes, government supported arts, public works, intermediates, restrictions on trade, machinery, credit, Algeria, frugality and luxury, and the right to work and the right to profit.  It is hard to know one's proper approach to Bastiat's clear and lucid economic writing.  Should we cheer on that Bastiat's writing is still relevant to the political arguments of our own time or lament that the poor logic of socialists has not improved in the last 150 years to something better approaching sound reasoning and fair dealing.  The fair reader of this book can take whichever approach they wish, but the results are the same in that this book retains its force and shows Bastiat as a clear thinking person who understands a great deal of what makes political economics such an unpleasant subject.

Again, it should be emphasized that this book is not only short but it is a classic in the best way.  Bastiat shows himself indefatigable when it comes to pointing out that believing that Government should not do something does not mean that it should not be done in the first place.  Our contemporary age shows both that our society is full of broken windows and that government is not very trustworthy at dealing with those broken windows, wherever or whatever thy are.  It is to be regretted that to believe that government should not provide health care--because it does a poor job at it and is very inefficient at it--often is viewed as being against health care being provided to those who cannot pay for its full price themselves.  One has to deal with the question of what happens, though, if charity is insufficient and people are insufficiently creative at solving problems.  How can we make public efforts unnecessary through making private ones more effective?  One wishes that Bastiat had more time in writing about these matters because his writings against socialism and in favor of thrift and industry were deeply profound and worthy of reading today.

[1] See, for example:

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...

https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2018...

[Kaushik · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great treatise on the seen and unseen effects of economic policy. Gives you a new lens to look at almost everything in the world. Highly recommend.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Truly a brilliant work! Written over 165 years ago and so applicable and relevant to today’s economy and political situation. Understanding that this is an English translation of a French work written and translated with somewhat archaic terms, it is still very clear and understandable. Bastiat makes all his points with sound reasoning and clear logical defense in the most succinct way. The book is a quick read and would benefit anyone who wants to better understand government, political economy and the choices and necessary consequences of various programs. Next to “The Law” by the same author, this must be one of my all-time favorites; it should be re-read on a regular basis.

This public-domain work is available for free in various forms, making it an effortless addition to anyone’s library. Electronic versions are available as part of a Bastiat collection from Gutenberg.org as Essays on Political Economy. It is also available as a free PDF and eBook format from Mises.org as
The Bastiat Collection. Finally, audiobook versions are available for free downloads from Mises.org and Libravox.org.

[Kristy · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is amazing how much this book (only 46 pages)can be applied TODAY! Mr. Bastiat was a native of France who lived from 1801-1850. Everyone should read this. EVERYONE! He speaks on the disbanding of troops, taxes, theatres, fine arts, public works, the credit, frugality and luxury ect...

Some favorite quotes, "Your arguments are fashionable enough, but they are too absurd to be justfied by anything like reason." (Don't you love that! Love it!)

Other phrases/quotes I liked:
"But let us get to the root of the matter. We are deceived by money."
"pretend reformer",
"ignorance proclaiming itself infallible",
"injustice perpetrated by the law",
"no good can come from legal or illegal plunder",
"to take by violence is not to produce but to destroy",
"on a wrong road, inconsistency is inevitable",
"In every public expense, behind the apparent benefit, there is an evil which is not so easy to discern".
"...it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse."

[Andreas Freiberger · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you want to read a pamphlet filled with straw man arguments and a myopic view of opportunity cost, this is for you! (Also very repetitive) Bastiat basically argues for laissez-faire economics, for all the good that it’ll do; an extremely naive view. His application of opportunity cost is interesting, but the monetary opportunity cost doesn’t take into account other aspects of life and decision making which are also crucial. People who don’t know what they’re talking about will read this and believe in trickle down economics

[Barry · Rating 3 out of 5]

A great explanation of how a free market is more effective, efficient, and just than government attempts to protect jobs. This should be required reading in high school, and Bastiat's "The Law" in college. The public would no longer be duped into believing that the economy is stimulated by destroying property (ie, Broken Window Fallacy, e.g. Cash for Clunkers), by providing subsidies for certain industries (farming, green energy), or through tariffs on foreign goods.

[Marlon Sena · Rating 5 out of 5]

I just regret of taking so long to open this book to read.
Frédéric Bastiat explained very well some economic/political ideas and the great lesson is that we always need to see more than the obvious to understand the meaning of the things, seek for "Which is not Seen".

[Michael Wu · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is said that a good example has twice the value of a good advice. Well, this little book by Bastiat gives numerous examples of one basic lesson: there’s no such thing as free lunch. The visible benefits we ask from the government comes at a cost not immediately visible to us.

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fabulous.

"In the economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause—it is seen. The others unfold in succession—they are not seen: it is well for us if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference—the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil. In fact, it is the same in the science of health, arts, and in that of morals. It often happens, that the sweeter the first fruit of a habit is, the more bitter are the consequences." p. 1-2

"“Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed;” and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end—To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labor; or, more briefly, “destruction is not profit.”" p. 4

"Have you never chanced to hear it said: “There is no better investment than taxes. Only see what a number of families it maintains, and consider how it reacts upon industry: it is an inexhaustible stream, it is life itself.”" p. 7

"You compare the nation, perhaps to a parched tract of land, and the tax to a fertilizing rain. So be it. But you ought also to ask yourself where are the sources of this rain, and whether it is not the tax itself which draws away the moisture from the ground and dries it up? Again, you ought to ask yourself whether it is possible that the soil can receive as much of this precious water by rain as it loses by evaporation?" p. 8

"All I say is—if you wish to create an office, prove its utility. Show that its value to John Q. Citizen, by the services which it performs for him, is equal to what it costs him." pp. 8-9

"But when John Q. Citizen gives a hundred sous to a Government officer, and receives nothing for them unless it be annoyances, he might as well give them to a thief. It is nonsense to say that the Government officer will spend these hundred sous to the great profit of national labor; the thief would do the same; and so would John Q. Citizen, if he had not been stopped on the road by the extra-legal parasite, nor by the lawful sponger." p. 9

"We have heard Mr. Thiers say, “I have passed my life in opposing the legitimist party and the priest party. Since the common danger has brought us together, now that I associate with them and know them, and now that we speak face to face, I have found out that they are not the monsters I used to imagine them.” Yes, distrust is exaggerated, hatred is fostered among parties who never mix; and if the majority would allow the minority to be present at the Commissions, it would perhaps be discovered that the ideas of the different sides are not so far removed from each other; and, above all, that their intentions are not so perverse as is supposed." Id.

"makes me blush for the intellectual resources of my country." p. 10

"It might first of all be said, that there is a question of distributive justice in it. Does the right of the legislator extend to abridging the wages of the artisan, for the sake of adding to the profits of the artist? . . . [I]f you desire to support everything which is good and useful, where will you stop?" p. 12

"I am, I confess, one of those who think that choice and impulse ought to come from below and not from above, from the citizen and not from the legislator; and the opposite doctrine appears to me to tend to the destruction of liberty and of human dignity.
"But, by a deduction as false as it is unjust, do you know what economists are accused of? It is, that when we disapprove of government support, we are supposed to disapprove of the thing itself whose support is discussed; and to be the enemies of every kind of activity, because we desire to see those activities, on the one hand free, and on the other seeking their own reward in themselves. Thus, if we think that the State should not interfere by subsidies in religious affairs, we are atheists. If we think the State ought not to interfere by subsidies in education, we are hostile to knowledge. If we say that the State ought not by subsidies to give a fictitious value to land, or to any particular branch of industry, we are enemies to property and labor. If we think that the State ought not to support artists, we are barbarians, who look upon the arts as useless." pp. 12-13

"when we say that the State ought to protect the free development of all these kinds of human activity, without helping some of them at the expense of others—we think, on the contrary, that all these living powers of society would develop themselves more harmoniously under the influence of liberty." p. 13

"Our adversaries consider that an activity which is neither aided by supplies, nor regulated by government, is an activity destroyed. We think just the contrary. Their faith is in the legislator, not in mankind; ours is in mankind, not in the legislator." Id.

"The State opens a road, builds a palace, straightens a street, cuts a canal, and so gives work to certain workmen—this is what is seen: but it deprives certain other workmen of work—and this is what is not seen." p. 16

"a public enterprise is a coin with two sides." p. 17

"When a railroad or a bridge are of real utility, it is sufficient to mention this utility. But if it does not exist, what do they do? Recourse is had to this mystification: “We must find work for the workmen.”
"The great Napoleon, it is said, thought he was doing a very philanthropic work by causing ditches to be made and then filled up. He said, therefore, “What signifies the result? All we want is to see wealth spread among the laboring classes.”
"But after having called them together, if you force them to make roads which no one will pass through, palaces which no one will inhabit, and this under the pretext of finding them work, it would be absurd, and they would have a right to argue, “With this labor we have nothing to do; we prefer working on our own account.”
"As a permanent, general, systematic measure, it is nothing else than a ruinous mystification, an impossibility, which shows a little excited labor which is seen, and hides a great deal of prevented labor, which is not seen."pp. 17-18

"Society is the total of the forced or voluntary services that men perform for each other; that is to say, of public services and private services. The former, imposed and regulated by the law, which it is not always easy to change, even when it is desirable, may survive with the law their own usefulness, and still preserve the name of public services, even when they are no longer services at all, but rather public annoyances. The latter belong to the sphere of the will, of individual responsibility. Everyone gives and receives what he wishes, and what he can, after due consideration. They have always the presumption of real utility, in exact proportion to their comparative value. This is the reason why the former description of services so often become stationary, while the latter obey the law of progress." pp. 18-19

How true today: "It was at the time of the scarcity, in 1847, that the Socialist schools attempted and succeeded in popularizing their lethal theory. They knew very well that the most absurd notions have always a chance with people who are suffering; malisunda fames." p. 19

"When the hungry stomach is at Paris, and corn which can satisfy it is at Odessa, the suffering cannot cease till the corn is brought into contact with the stomach. There are three means by which this contact may be effected. First, the famished men may go themselves and fetch the corn. Second, they may leave this task to those to whose trade it belongs. Third, they may club together, and give the office in charge to public functionaries. Which of these three methods possesses the greatest advantages? In every time, in all countries, and the more free, enlightened, and experienced they are, men have voluntarily chosen the second. I confess that this is sufficient, in my opinion, to justify this choice. I cannot believe that mankind, as a whole, is deceiving itself upon a point which touches it so nearly. But let us now consider the subject.
For 36 million citizens to go and fetch the corn they want from Odessa is a manifest impossibility. The first means, then, goes for nothing. The consumers cannot act for themselves. They must, of necessity, have recourse to intermediaries, officials or agents.
But observe, that the first of these three means would be the most natural. In reality, the hungry man has to fetch his corn. It is a task which concerns himself, a service due to himself. If another person, on whatever ground, performs this service for him, takes the task upon himself, this latter has a claim upon him for a compensation. I mean by this to say that intermediaries contain in themselves the principle of remuneration.
However that may be, since we must refer to what the Socialists call a parasite, I would ask, which of the two is the most exacting parasite, the merchant or the official?
Commerce (free, of course, otherwise I could not reason upon it), commerce, I say, is led by its own interests to study the seasons, to give daily statements of the state of the crops, to receive information from every part of the globe, to foresee wants, to take precautions beforehand. It has vessels always ready, correspondents everywhere; and it is its immediate interest to buy at the lowest possible price, to economize in all the details of its operations, and to attain the greatest results by the smallest efforts. It is not the French merchants only who are occupied in procuring provisions for France in time of need, and if their interest leads them irresistibly to accomplish their task at the smallest possible cost, the competition which they create amongst each other leads them no less irresistibly to cause the consumers to partake of the profits of those realized savings. The corn arrives: it is to the interest of commerce to sell it as soon as possible, so as to avoid risks, to realize its funds, and begin again at the first opportunity." pp. 20-21

"and the beauty of this organization, unperceived as it is by the Socialists, results from the very fact that it is free." p. 21

"If, according to the Socialist invention, the State were to stand in the stead of commerce, what would happen? I should like to be informed where the saving would be to the public. Would it be in the price of purchase? Imagine the delegates of 40,000 parishes arriving at Odessa on a given day, and on the day of need: imagine the effect upon prices. Would the saving be in the expenses? Would fewer vessels be required; fewer sailors, fewer transports, fewer sloops? or would you be exempt from the payment of all these things? Would it be in the profits of the merchants? Would your officials go to Odessa for nothing? Would they travel and work on the principle of fraternity? Must they not live? Must not they be paid for their time? And do you believe that these expenses would not exceed a thousand times the two or three percent that the merchant gains, at the rate at which he is ready to treat?
And then consider the difficulty of levying so many taxes, and of dividing so much food. Think of the injustice, of the abuses inseparable from such an enterprise. Think of the responsibility that would weigh upon the Government.
The Socialists who have invented these follies, and who, in the days of distress, have introduced them into the minds of the masses, take to themselves literally the title of superior men; and it is not without some danger that custom, that tyrant of tongues, authorizes the term, and the sentiment that it involves. Superior! This supposes that these gentlemen can see further than the common people; that their only fault is that they are too ahead of their times; and if the time is not yet come for suppressing certain free services, pretended parasites, the fault is to be attributed to the public, which hasn’t caught onto Socialism. I say, from my soul and my conscience, the reverse is the truth; and I know not to what barbarous age we should have to go back, if we were to sink to the level of Socialist knowledge on this subject. These modern zealots incessantly distinguish association from actual society. They overlook the fact that society, free of regulation, is a true association, far superior to any of those that proceed from their fertile imaginations." pp. 21-22

"The more we examine these advanced schools, the more do we become convinced that there is but one thing at the root of them: ignorance proclaiming itself infallible, and claiming despotism in the name of this infallibility." p. 24

"A false principle never has been, and never will be, carried out to the end." p. 30

"The only object I have in view is to make it evident to the reader that in every public expense, behind the apparent benefit, there is an evil which it is not so easy to discern. As far as in me lies, I would make him form a habit of seeing both, and taking account of both." p. 39

"But if the State were to say to him, “I take this money that . . . I may teach your son something that you have no wish that he should learn; or that the Minister may add another to his score of dishes at dinner; I take it to build a cottage in Algeria, in which case I must take more money every year to keep an emigrant in it, and another to maintain a soldier to guard this emigrant, and yet more to maintain a general to guard this soldier,” etc., etc., I think I hear poor James exclaim, “This system of law is very much like a system of cheat!” The State foresees the objection, and what does it do? It jumbles all things together, and brings forward just that provoking reason which ought to have nothing whatever to do with the question. It talks of the effect of this money upon labor; it points to the cook and purveyor of the Minister; it shows an emigrant, a soldier, and a general, living upon the money; it shows, in fact, what is seen, and if John Q. Citizen has not learned to take into the account what is not seen, John Q. Citizen will be duped. And this is why I want to do all I can to impress it upon his mind, by repeating it over and over again." p. 40

"Is not money made round that it may roll?” p. 42

[Evin Ashley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a really interesting economic exploration by Frédéric Bastiat, a French economist, writer and a member of the French National Assembly. He is famous for developing the economic concept of opportunity cost, but not as famous for his emphasis on morality and time in the context of economy, which this text explores.

Full text in English: http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

Premise:

“Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come — at the risk of a small present evil.”

“The only object I have in view is to make it evident to the reader, that in every public expense, behind the apparent benefit, there is an evil which it is not so easy to discern. As far as in me 'lies, I would make him form a habit of seeing both, and taking account of both.”

Art of War:

"Who has calculated with so much precision how much trade would gain by the burning of Paris, from the number of houses it would be necessary to rebuild? (...) What you do not see is this. You do not see that to dismiss a hundred thousand soldiers is not to do away with a million of money, but to return it to the tax-payers (...) The result is — a dead loss to the nation.”

“It may be said, in favor of the system of voting supplies for this purpose, that the arts enlarge, elevate, and harmonize the soul of a nation; that they divert it from too great an absorption in material occupations, encourage in it a love for the beautiful, and thus act favourably on its manners, customs, morals, and even on its industry.”

Invention:

"A curse on machines! Every year, their increasing power devotes millions of workmen to pauperism, by depriving them of work, and therefore of wages and bread. A curse on machines! This is the cry which is raised by vulgar prejudice, and echoed in the journals. But to curse machines, is to curse the spirit of humanity!”

Morality:

“This phenomenon leads to false reasoning. It causes nations to consider their moral and their material interests as contradictory to each other. What can be more discouraging, or more dismal? (...) How far superior is it, if, instead of confining our thoughts to the present moment, we let them embrace a longer period!”

“The providential event appears after the human event. God rises up behind men. Deny, if you will, the supreme counsel; disown its action; dispute about words; designate, by the term, force of circumstances, or reason, what the vulgar call Providence; but look to the end of an accomplished fact, and you will see that it has always produced the contrary of what was expected from it, if it was not established at first upon morality and justice."

[Nikos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Τι μπορεί -καταρχήν- να πει κανείς για ένα βιβλίο που γράφτηκε το 1850 και διαβάζεται μέχρι σήμερα με τη μία χωρίς να υποπτεύεσαι την ηλικία του; Πόσο μάλλον αν είναι ένα βιβλίο οικονομικών, τόσο εύληπτο που μπορεί να γίνει κατανοητό και από ένα παιδί Λυκείου.

Ο Bastiat έγραψε ένα εκπληκτικό βιβλίο οικονομικών, αλλά πιο πολύ ένα βιβλίο κοινής λογικής. Με δώδεκα απλά παραδείγματα αποστομώνει όλους αυτούς που (από τόσο παλιά) εκφράζουν λογικοφανή αλλά ουσιαστικά παράλογα επιχειρήματα. Για παράδειγμα: γιατί δεν διορίζουμε εκατό χιλιάδες στρατιώτες αφού και η ανεργία θα μειωθεί και οι στρατιώτες θα δώσουν ζωή στα μέρη που θα ζήσουν ξοδεύοντας; Ή γιατί δεν αυξάνουμε τα δημόσια έργα αφού αυξάνουν την απασχόληση; Μη μου πείτε ότι ακόμα και σήμερα δεν υπάρχουν πολιτικές δυνάμεις που έχουν υποστηρίξει τέτοιες απόψεις;

Ο συγγραφέας μας διδάσκει να μην επικεντρωνόμαστε στο προφανές, αλλά να εξετάζουμε τις συνολικές συνέπειες στην οικονομία, να βλέπουμε κάθε πρόβλημα σφαιρικά και όχι επιδερμικά.

Απαραίτητο ανάγνωσμα στην εποχή μας που (κυρίως μέσω διαδικτύου) οι λαϊκίστικες θεωρίες θεριεύουν και κοντεύουν να μας πνίξουν...

[Mike Cheng · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although Bastiat addresses a wide range of issues (taxes, intermediaries, public vs. private sector services) in this monograph, the two biggest takeaways for me were: (1) the Broken Window Theory; and (2) a reminder to stay cognizant of second order effects (i.e., that which is not seen). The Broken Window Theory disabuses the shortsighted notion that a broken window which requires fixing can be a net benefit to society - while yes, the windowman gets work (and thus puts money into circulation), this ignores the simple fact that the homeowner has lost money that could have been spent elsewhere (or saved - to be used as capital elsewhere). Society as a whole has lost the value of the broken window. Destruction / waste is not profit. As to second order effects, the lesson of seeing that which is not seen is important not only on a policy level, but also on an individual level. The philanderer sees only a lustful pleasure but does not see the detrimental effect to family; the glutton sees only temporary satiation but does not see the ill health effects; and the sloth sees only transient and superficial respite but does not see the opportunity cost of time far better spent.

[Jonathan Vincent]

This was super interesting to read- it's basically a pamphlet from a liberal French economist in the early 1800s yelling at the world that they don't understand economics. Bastiat really helped push forward economic thinking (he's best known for the broken window paradox) but the key theme of this pamphlet is opportunity costs. It's such a basic concept today that essentially everyone who has any knowledge of economics or finance should understand well, but he makes it clear that in his time it was an entirely foreign concept to most people, including businessmen, people in government and some economic theorists. A lot of the pamphlet is just giving example after example. Really interesting how concepts need to be pushed into the public. But this is a really good formulation of it and the section on tariffs is lookin' pretty timely.

[Rabin Rai · Rating 5 out of 5]

What an economic genius. The man who introduced opportunity cost.

Although some paragraphs are a bit difficult to understand, I got 80 percent of his explanations in the form of parables.

If only our incumbent economic planners have studied and applied his work, our world would be wealthier.

[Jai Parera · Rating 5 out of 5]

Everyone should read this atleast once.

[Sneha Divakaran · Rating 3 out of 5]

Is it even decent to rate a treatise of this kind? I still did because I felt that the examples were a bit trite, but then again, it was meant for the common audience who don't care for too much nuance. Should probably give it another read to appreciate it better.

[Bobparr · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dopo il primo saggio, che da' il titolo alla raccolta, non ho trovato qualcosa di altrettanto interessante. La logica di Bastiat è tenera, ma inossidabile. Lungi da me voler dare torto o ragione alle idee espresse: d'altronde, il vecchio Galbraith una volta ebbe a dire che l'esistenza delle previsioni economiche rendeva l'astrologia una scienza rispettabile. Per induzione, lo stesso potremmo dire delle teorie espresse dagli economisti tutti. Anche se sulla presunta superiorità del liberismo potremmo avere qualcosa da dire... Gli altri saggi li ho sbocconcellati, ma dopo averne provati due li ho trovati non accattivanti per il mio gusto, e le pagine sono rimaste vergini alla lettura.
**
Abbandonato, data imprecisata

[Христо Блажев · Rating 4 out of 5]

Фредерик Бастиа и неговите разсъждения за държавата, законите и бизнеса
http://www.knigolandia.info/2010/06/b...

“О, прощавайте велики писатели, които не се спирате дори и пред противоречията. Виновен съм безспорно и се оттеглям доброволно. Най-много от всичко искам, бъдете сигурни, да откриете добродетелното и неизчерпаемо същество, наричащо се Държава, което да дава хляб на всички, работа за всички, капитали за всички фирми, кредити за всички проекти, лек за всички рани, балсам за всички мъки, отговори на всички въпроси, решения на всички съмнения, истините за всички умове, разруха за всяко отегчение, мляко за децата, вино за старците, задоволява всички нужди и всички желания, задоволява всяко любопитство, поправя всички грешки, помага ни да предвиждаме, да бъдем предпазливи, справедливи, прозорливи, опитни, подредени, пестеливи, умерени и дейни.”

[Tyler · Rating 3 out of 5]

The content of this book is great. Bastiat is a great writer and economist. The biggest quarrel with this book is that it's extremely repetitive. You have it figured out within the first two or three chapters. The content of this book, however, is EXTREMELY important and valuable. This is a good book to give to people who are interested in delving out of mainstream economics or making the people who are interested in mainstream economics a little bit weary of everything they've been taught. Bastiat makes a very compelling, logical, and reasonable case for these counterintuitive cases. I recommend Bastiat to just about anyone and I would this book to them, too. Simply because the information in it is crucial to understand.

[Richard Hannay · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un libro fundamental. Escrito con asombrosa claridad desmonta las fábulas que nos cuentan para justificar la rapiña estatal y demuele el keynesianismo 25 años antes de que naciera Lord Keynes. Accesible a todo el mundo sin necesidad de conocimientos previos de economía. Es decir, que hasta Krugman podría entenderlo, si quisiera. Hágase un favor a Ud.mismo y lealo para comprender porqué el Plan Renove, las Viviendas de Protección Oficial y la inversión pública no son sino trampantojos para esquilmar al trabajador. Y porqué el Estado ni ha creado ni creará nunca un sólo puesto de trabajo productivo.

[Rgusterman · Rating 2 out of 5]

Of particular interest is the concept of second and third order consequences. However the libertarian notion that societies can effectively function without any meaningful governing body is simply absurd. To argue for strict standards of good governance is another matter entirely, but instead we see a confused proposition that sees social protections for the vulnerable and weak in society as Socialism and something to be discouraged at all costs. A deeply amoral economic view, which by its very nature verges on immoral (an economic ideology that absolves society from formalising the need to look after those less fortunate)- not for me...

[Yash Arya · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bastiat.org - That Which is Seen and that Which is Not Seen

This booklet (written in 1850) was the inspiration for Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson (written in 1946). It's amazing to see how many economic fallacies Bastiat identified and Hazlitt later expanded on that still exist today.

Also read Louis E. Carabini's article Bastiat's "The Broken Window": A Critique in the Journal of Libertarian Studies that further strengthens Bastiat/Hazlitt's analysis of the Broken Window Fallacy.

[Anima · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Two very different masters teach him this lesson: experience and foresight.

Experience teaches efficaciously but brutally. It instructs us in all the effects of an act by making
us feel them, and we cannot fail to learn eventually, from having been burned ourselves,
that fire burns.

I should prefer, in so far as possible, to replace this rude teacher
with one more gentle: foresight. For that reason I shall investigate the consequences of
several economic phenomena, contrasting those that are seen with those that are not
seen."

[Manolis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Μολονότι εμφανώς ανεπίκαιρο, δεδομένου ότι θεωρεί ως υποχρεωτική την επανεπένδυση στην αγορά των αξιών που δημιουργούνται έτσι καθώς δεν μπορούσε τότε να προβλέψει την χρησιμοποίηση του ίδιου του χρήματος ως μέσου παραγωγής χρήματος, έχει μια συμπαγή απλή επιχειρηματολογία και θέτει με χιούμορ και κατανοητό τρόπο τη βάση "αυτό που βλέπεις και αυτό που δε βλέπεις". Πολύ ευκολοδιάβαστο. Ακόμη και από δικηγόρο.