FREE DOWNLOAD Æ Siyasal İktisadın ve Vergilendirmenin İlkeleri ô eBook or Kindle ePUB free

FREE DOWNLOAD ⚝ Siyasal İktisadın ve Vergilendirmenin İlkeleri  David Ricardo A Smith le ba lay p JS Mill ile sona eren ngiliz Klasik Okulu nun doruk noktas n olu turdu u kabul edilir Siyasal ktisad n ve Vergilendirmenin lkeleri nde ekonomi bilimi ve politikan n bug n de u ra t sorunlar iki y zy l nce ele alan Ricardo, bu yap t yla K Marx tan JS Mill e kadar farkl izgide bir ok d n r derinden etkilemi tir After Adam smith, one name that has changed the concept of the market economy is undoubtedly David Ricard It s hard to believe that he was not introduced to economics even he was thirty years old His book political economy and taxation ahs change the discourse of many theories of economics ad paved the way for further analysis in this field He laid the foundation of public finance and the market economy in his book. In an age where undergraduates around the world are forced, cajoled and encouraged to take a course in Keynesian economics as presented by some vulgarizer most notably Paul Samuelson the brilliant writing of David Ricardo is virtually unknown to the general reading public There are two good reasons for reading Ricardo First he proposed several important theses that were used by later economists such as Marx in this case the labour theory of value and Keynes in this case the law of diminis In an age where undergraduates around the world are forced, cajoled and encouraged to take a course in Keynesian economics as presented by some vulgarizer most notably Paul Samuelson the brilliant writing of David Ricardo is virtually unknown to the general reading public There are two good reasons for reading Ricardo First he proposed several important theses that were used by later economists such as Marx in this case the labour theory of value and Keynes in this case the law of diminishing marginal returns from increasing production The second reason, for reading Ricardo is that by doing so one gains insight in the theoretical framework used by politicians most notably in England to manage and stimulate the economy.Students who major in economics are discouraged from reading pre Keynesian economists known as classical economists primarily because they provide no assistance in understanding how to manage an economy in the normative Keynes manner The second reason may be subconscious Economists who today are all Keynesians prefer to think that Economics is a science which it is not Keynesian economics is a mathematical game or a model that can be used to effectively manage the normal economic cycle if properly applied by governments The danger of studying classical economics is that it highlights the fact that Keynesian economics was simply a stage in a long intellectual process aimed at understanding our economy and not a science built on immutable truths I think that anyone who has studied economics should at some time delve into the classics Doing so will not undo your understanding of Keynes It may however prepare you for the time when some new genius appears to take us to the next stage of understanding beyond Keynes For the moment however we are all still Keynesians The fact that the Marxist model of a command economy has been thoroughly discredited does not mean that there will never be a new revolution in economic thinking.Read Adam Smith s Wealth of Nations and then read Ricardo s Principles of Political Economy and Taxation This is a terrible, long winding and boring book Economist David Ricardo published The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation 1821 to pick up where Adam Smith according to Ricardo had left The treatise is a comment on Smith and in lesser degree Jean Baptiste Say and it is in this antagonism that Ricardo s position becomes clear.Ricardo advocates free trade, since every country or economy should produce what they produce best, according to land, skill and other environmental fac This is a terrible, long winding and boring book Economist David Ricardo published The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation 1821 to pick up where Adam Smith according to Ricardo had left The treatise is a comment on Smith and in lesser degree Jean Baptiste Say and it is in this antagonism that Ricardo s position becomes clear.Ricardo advocates free trade, since every country or economy should produce what they produce best, according to land, skill and other environmental factors So for example, even though England might produce better wines and cloth than Portugal, it pays both economies to produce what they re best at Portugal produces wines and England produces cloth, they exchange these goods and both are better off than they would be if they both produced both types of commodity This is, in short, what modern day economists call the law of comparative advantage.But how do we know what the exchange value of commodities is Well, according to Ricardo there s no absolute exchange value The most stable means of exchange is gold supposing that the production costs of gold coins remains stable, something which is not as rigid as Ricardo supposes All commodities can be compared to gold and hence gold is the medium by which to value the commodities But whence derives the value of commodities in gold According to Ricardo the value of commodities is determined by the costs of production,specifically the labour costs that are necessary to produce these commodities And how are these labour costs determined Uhm, well they re determined by the necessary costs labourers have to make to subsist primarily food, drink and shelter It follows from this that, according to Ricardo at least, the labourer is the metaphorical fool The costs the labourer has to make to subsist food, drink, clothing, shelter are rather stable and hence the labourer is dependent on population growth If the population grows, the demand for food as an example will increase, while the agircultural production doesn t necessarily increase or is rather limited This means food will becomeexpensive, so the labourer has to cut down on food, or starve or both after a short time and population will decline, leading to lesser demand for food and hence to lower prices of food One can see that Ricardo is heavily influenced by Thomas Malthus s theory of population checks population growth is exponentially higher than increase of means of production, leading to starvation and decreasing populations But labour costs or wages aren t the only component of the economy There s also profits without profit capitalism wouldn t work and capital always seeks the most profitable means of production It follows from the above mentioned facts that again, according to Malthus the higher the means of subsistence are, the higher the wages will be or else labourers wouldn t work , and consequently the lower the profits for the capitalist are High wages equal low profits Now that we know the antagonism between labourer and capitalist it isn t a miracle that Karl Marx was heavily influenced by Ricardo we see why Ricardo fulminates against the Corn Laws and the Poor Laws of his time The Corn Laws were initiated by the British government to protect the home grown production of corn against imports from abroad by applying tariffs According to Ricardo, this artificially created British monopoly on the production of corn led to lower rents and hence to less production of corn Less corn means higher prices, higher corn prices means higher wages, higher wages means less profit in other words the Corn Laws destroy capital Ricardo dresses this capitalistic theory in ethical motives the poor suffer from higher corn prices and less job opportunities because the British government wants to protect them The British poor were not only hurt by their government with the Corn Laws, but evenso by the Poor Laws These laws were instituted by the government to garantuee the labourer a bare minimum of subsistence If he or she couldn t find work, he or she could go their parish and ask for help This help meant forced labour in a workhouse in exchange for the bare minimum of food, cloth and shelter According to Ricardo, this system was destroying the labour market by artificially creating higher wages Labourers had something to fall back on so wages had to be relatively higher than before, leading again to less profit for capital Again, it is a serious question how sincere Ricardo is when dressing his economic arguments in ethical language Garantueeing a bare minimum of subsistence for the poor leads to suffering of the poor Let s do away with the workhouse it s better for the poor to starve to death, since this will lead to a decreased population and hence to lower food prices Ricardo, the liberal and free trade promoter that he was, saw the Corn Laws and the Poor Laws as a means of taxing the capitalist not the landlord, mind you rents weren t taxed by these laws and transferring their wealth to the poor This would lead, inevitably, to the destruction of the capitalist class all of Britain would end up as one class the poor because of good intentions of the government This, of course, is ridiculous, and disproved with hindsight It sometimes, at least pays to pay labourers , since they then can buy your products, meaning a larger business Men like Henri Ford saw this practical significant fact, while principled economists like Ricardo were clinging to their theories A large part of the book is devoted to Ricardo s views on taxes, but this can be summarized rather easily Ricardo sees taxes as not really disturbing international trade since this is governed by bills of exchange and gold and is a staunch advoce of taxing consumers to spread taxation equally For this last point he gives obscure arguments taxing rents and profits would lessen the productive capital of a nation or economy , while taxing commodities would lessen the consumptive capital It is better to decrease consumptive than productive capital, since productive capital is used to put labourer to work There s truth in this view, yet it is too simplistic There are numerous problems involved in taxing consumers and leaving capital relatively un taxed, but theprincipled one is the following You can only make money with money This means that the capitalist has the means to perpetually increase his or her property by investing it and making profits This leads to the accumulation of wealth, over generations, in the hands of a few individuals and families especially when inheritance is left un taxed Adam Smith, not really a socialist one would argue, already warns against the forming of monopolies And besides the danger of monopolies, how liberal or meritocratic is it to be born in wealth and be able to do anything that your fellow human beings aren t able to do, without this having anything to do with your own merits To sum up Ricardo advocates free trade based on the law of comparative advantage and low no taxation claims the exchange value of commodities is determined by the costs of production the labour theory of value and disproves of government intervention to alleviate the suffering of the lower classes If you understand these points, there s no need to read this book especially since it s a terrible book to read Ricardo isn t a gifted writer and it s hard to get through the chapters with all the repetition and abstract reasoning I consider myself a liberal, but I am not convinced and actually a little bit shaken by cold, rational calculations to let the poor suffer in order for the restoration of economic balance I believe Ricardo even says somewhere in the book can t remember the exact chapter and passage that, even though it is inhuman to witness, it s better for the population to let poor people starve Government intervention will only make things worse, since the problems arise from unbalance in the economy too much population growth, too high wages I think economic principles are important to understand the economy better, and even to guide policy But we shouldn t look away from suffering human beings just because it suits our theories better I think a price can be asked to pay by the community to help people in distress And since we live in a democracy, let the voters decide partly how much this price will be There s also a major problem with rational analyses of the economy First, human beings aren t rational decision makers, so one of the assumptions of this rational economic approach is plain wrong Second, andimportantly, rational economics leaves out selectively a lot of important factors in life For example, sociological studies clearly show that higher inequalities of income strongly correlate with higher rates of crime, higer rates of disease and poverty, lesser well being of large masses, etc So, from a perspective of political economy the ambition of people like Ricardo it can be just as rational to apply progressive income taxes and taxation of capital and inheritance, if this leads to a society in which average well being, health and safety are higher than before These are political goals that can be democratically legitimated and hence are just as rational as excluding these soft factors from your theories It is strange that economists like Ricardo, who were so closely affiliated with utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, were so blind to these soft factors.Utilitarians strive for the greatest happiness of the greatest number, so it isn t really obvious to me that the economic disadvantages of workhouses on taxation of capital weigh heavily against the social and political advantages of a happier and healthier society One can dispute, of course, whether workhouses really were a better alternative for the poor than starvation, but the point is that utilitarianism is at least in principle inclusive towards soft parts of the economy, so it s strange that brilliant men like Ricardo couldn t make the connection One suspects Marx was partly right in viewing the bourgeousie as a hindrance to aequal society someone like Ricardo and Malthus, and Mill, etc wasbent on protecting the status quo, which was for him a good situation, than on trying to enlighten and emancipate the lesser fortunate in society Again, when reading Ricardo s arguments on things like the Poor Laws and Corn Laws, I cannot help but suspect that he dresses his cold opportunistic arguments in ethical language, to make it seem he cares for the poor, while he really cares for his own class.A final remark on my own part I believe Ricardo, and after him Marx, were the last ones to fully advocate the labour theory of value Economists nowadays believe that the value of commodities isn t related to the costs of production, but purely to the law of supply and demand This is, inherently, an irrational process, since human beings are, almost by definition, irrational This explains the many crises and speculative bubbles when it goes well, we believe heaven has descended on earth when it goes bad, we believe the world is about to end We behave accordingly I m no economist, so please take my comments with a grain of salt and refute me on my misstaken assumptions