Генри Хэзлитт цитаты

Генри Хэзлитт фото
1   0

Генри Хэзлитт

Дата рождения: 28. Ноябрь 1894
Дата смерти: 9. Июль 1993
Другие имена:헨리 해즐릿, هنری هزلیت

Реклама

Генри Стюарт Хэзлитт — американский экономист и журналист либертарианского направления. Писал колонки и книжные рецензии для многих газет и журналов, в том числе для «The Wall Street Journal», «The New York Times», «Newsweek» и других.

Подобные авторы

Джон Апдайк фото
Джон Апдайк32
американский писатель
Валерия Ильинична Новодворская фото
Валерия Ильинична Новодворская18
российский политический деятель, диссидентка, правозащитн...
Боб Дилан фото
Боб Дилан47
американский автор-исполнитель песен, поэт, художник, кин...
Эдгар Хау фото
Эдгар Хау30
американский редактор газет и журналов, романист
Карл Маркс фото
Карл Маркс149
немецкий философ, социолог, экономист, писатель, политиче...

Цитаты Генри Хэзлитт

Реклама

„Let us begin with the simplest illustration possible: let us, emulating Bastiat, choose a broken pane of glass.A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Fifty dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $50 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $50 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $50 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace a window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $50 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as a part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.“

—  Henry Hazlitt

„I do not mean to suggest that all those who call themselves monetarists make this unconscious assumption that an inflation involves this uniform rise of prices. But we may distinguish two schools of monetarism. The first would prescribe a monthly or annual increase in the stock of money just sufficient, in their judgment, to keep prices stable. The second school (which the first might dismiss as mere inflationists) wants a continuous increase in the stock of money sufficient to raise prices steadily by a "small" amount—2 or 3 per cent a year. These are the advocates of a "creeping" inflation. … I made a distinction earlier between the monetarists strictly so called and the "creeping inflationists." This distinction applies to the intent of their recommended policies rather than to the result. The intent of the monetarists is not to keep raising the price "level" but simply to keep it from falling, i. e., simply to keep it "stable." But it is impossible to know in advance precisely what uniform rate of money-supply increase would in fact do this. The monetarists are right in assuming that in a prospering economy, if the stock of money were not increased, there would probably be a mild long-run tendency for prices to decline. But they are wrong in assuming that this would necessarily threaten employment or production. For in a free and flexible economy prices would be falling because productivity was increasing, that is, because costs of production were falling. There would be no necessary reduction in real profit margins. The American economy has often been prosperous in the past over periods when prices were declining. Though money wage-rates may not increase in such periods, their purchasing power does increase. So there is no need to keep increasing the stock of money to prevent prices from declining. A fixed arbitrary annual increase in the money stock "to keep prices stable" could easily lead to a "creeping inflation" of prices.“

—  Henry Hazlitt

Реклама
Реклама
Далее
Сегодня годовщина
Лилиан Хеллман фото
Лилиан Хеллман5
американская писательница, сценарист и драматург 1905 - 1984
Эмиль Мишель Чоран фото
Эмиль Мишель Чоран46
румынский и французский мыслитель-эссеист 1911 - 1995
Другие 60 годовщин
Подобные авторы
Джон Апдайк фото
Джон Апдайк32
американский писатель
Валерия Ильинична Новодворская фото
Валерия Ильинична Новодворская18
российский политический деятель, диссидентка, правозащитн...
Боб Дилан фото
Боб Дилан47
американский автор-исполнитель песен, поэт, художник, кин...