Articles En Anglais ?

[Good Signal Strength]

Bonjour a tous,

J'ai recemment rencontrer 3 jeunes filles tawanaises et j'ai pu decouvrir qu'elles etaient extrement sensibles au idees poliques et l'une d'elle se montre meme interessee par les idees libertariennes. Seul probleme : leur pratique du francais reste encore tres moyenne et elles ne peuvent donc comprendre le message de pascal salin dans le trends tendance par exemple. Je vous demande donc conseil, j'imagine que plusieurs d'entre vous sont habitues a selectionner de bons articles en anglais, qu'elles pratiquent tres bien.

Nota bene : Loin de moi l'idee de me servir du liberalisme pour me faire des asiatiques, non non !

Je vous remercie !

[Mobius]

ici

PS/ on avait pas un forum en anglais dans le temps?

on pourrait éventuellement remettre ca, non?

[Ash]

Haaa taiwan…. have fun

[Fredo]

Elles pratiquent bien "l'anglais" ? Intéressant …

Sinon, j'ai fait vite mais voilà un début :

  Citation

Traduction Babel Fish

In English:

What one sees and what one does not see

Frederic Bastiat

In the economic sphere, an act, a practice, an institution, a law do not generate only one effect, but a series of effects. [ 1 ] Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause, one sees it. The others proceed only successively, one does not see them; happy if they are envisaged.

Between bad and a good Economist, here all the difference: one sticks to the visible effect; the other holds account and of the effect that one sees and of those which should be provided.

But this difference is enormous, because it almost always arrives that, when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. - From where it follows that the bad Economist continues a small current good which will be followed of a great evil to come, while the true economist continues a large future estate, to the risk from a small current evil.

Remainder, it is thus in hygiene, morals. Often, more the first fruit of a practice is soft, more the others are bitter. Witness: vice, idleness, prodigality. At the time thus that a man, struck effect which one sees, did not learn how yet to distinguish those which one does not see, it gives up oneself with disastrous practices, non-seulement by leaning, but by calculation.

This explains the fatally painful evolution of humanity. Ignorance surrounds its cradle; thus it is determined in its acts by their first consequences, only, at its origin, which it can see. It is only with long that it learns how to hold account of the others [ 2 ]. Two Masters, quite various, teach this lesson to him: the Experiment and Precaution. The experiment regent effectively but brutally. It informs us of all the effects of an act by making us feel them, and we cannot miss finishing by knowing that fire burns, by burn us. With this hard doctor, I would like some, as much as possible, to substitute softer: Precaution. This is why I will seek the consequences of some economic phenomena, opponent with those which one sees those that one does not see.

I The Broken Pane

Were you ever pilot of the fury of the good middle-class man Jacques Bonhomme, when his terrible son managed to break a square of pane? If you attended this spectacle, undoubtedly you will have as noted as all the assistants, were thirty, seem to have given each other the word to offer to the unfortunate owner this uniform consolation: "With something misfortune is good. Such accidents make go industry. It is necessary that everyone lives. What would become the glaziers, if panes were never broken? "

However, there is in this formula of condolence a whole theory, which it is wise to surprise obvious delicto, in this very-simple case, waited until it is exactly the same one as that which, by misfortune, governs the majority of our economic institutions.

To suppose that it is necessary to spend six franks to repair the damage, if one wants to say that the accident makes arrive six franks at industry metal framing, that it encourages in the measurement of six franks aforesaid industry, I grant it, I do not dispute in any way, one reasons just. The glazier will come, he will make work, touch six franks, will rub the hands and will bless of sound c?ur the terrible child. It is what one sees.

But if, by way of deduction, one manages to conclude, like one too often makes it, that it is good that the panes are broken, that that made circulate the money, that it results an encouragement for industry from it in general, I am obliged to clean me: halt! Your theory stops so that one sees, does not hold account of what one does not see.

One does not only see, since our middle-class man spent six franks with a thing, it will not be able any more to spend them with another. It is not seen that if it had not had of pane to replace, it had replaced, for example, his well-worn or put shoes a book moreover in his library. In short, it would have made these six franks an unspecified employment which it will not make.

Thus let us make the account of industry in general.

The pane being broken, industry metal framing is encouraged in the measurement of six franks; it is what one sees. If the pane had not been broken, industry cordonnière (or very other) had been encouraged in the measurement of six franks; it is what one does not see.

And if one took into account what one does not see because it is a negative fact, as well as as one sees, because it is a positive fact, one would understand that there is no interest for industry in general, or for the whole of national work, so that panes break or do not break.

Let us make now the account of Jacques Bonhomme.

On the first assumption, that of the broken pane, it spends six franks, and has, neither more nor less than in front of, the pleasure of a pane. In the second, that where the accident had not arrived, it would have spent six franks in shoe and would have had all at the same time the pleasure of a pair of shoes and that of a pane.

However, like Jacques Bonhomme forms part of the company, it should be concluded from there that, considered as a whole, and any made balance of its work and its pleasures, it lost the value of the broken pane.

By where, while generalizing, we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "the company loses the value of the unnecessarily destroyed objects," - and with this aphorism which will make draw up the hair on the head of the protectionists: "To break, break, dissipate, it is not to encourage national work," or more briefly: "destruction is not profit"

What will you say, industrial Moniteur, which you, followers of this good Mr. de Saint-Chamans, who calculated with as well precision as industry would gain with the fire of Paris, at a rate of the houses that will say would have to be rebuilt?

I am annoyed to disturb his clever calculations, the more so as it made some pass the spirit in our legislation. But I request it to start again them, while making enter in line of account what one does not see beside what one sees.

It is necessary that the reader sticks to well noting that there are not only two characters, but three in the small drama which I subjected to his attention. One, Jacques Catch, represent the Consumer, reduced by the destruction with a pleasure instead of two. The other, under the figure of the Glazier, shows us the Producer whose accident encourages industry. The third is the Shoe-maker (or any other industrialist) whose work is discouraged of as much by the same cause. It is this third character whom one always holds in the shade and which, personifying what one does not see, is a part necessary of the problem. It is him which soon will teach us that it is not less absurd to see a profit in a restriction, which is after only one partial destruction. - Also, go at the bottom of all the arguments that it is agreed in his favour, will find there you only the paraphrase of this vulgar saying: "That would become the glaziers, if panes were never broken? "[ 3

[Mobius]

babelfish cay le mâl

[A.B.]

  Mobius a dit :

babelfish cay le mâl

Surtout que http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

Sinon essaye ca (tjs babelfish)

殘破的窗口有您曾經被目擊好店主, 詹姆斯B. 的憤怒, 當他粗心大意的兒子偶然打破玻璃正方形? 如果您是存在在這樣場面, 您最確定地將負擔證人對事實, 每一個觀眾, 明顯地在那裡均勻三十他們, 由共同的同意, 提供了不幸的所有者這不變的安慰- "這是吹沒人好的不適的風。大家必須居住, 並且玻璃剪裁工怎麼樣如果玻璃鏡框從未打破了?" 現在, 這個弔唁的形式包含一種整個理論, 它將是很好出現在這個簡單的案件, 看見, 這像那精確地是一樣哪些, 怏怏不樂地, 調控我們的經濟機關的更加偉大的部分。假設它花費六法郎修理損傷, 和您事故帶來六法郎給玻璃剪裁工的貿易的言- 那它鼓勵那貿易對相當數量六法郎- 我授予它; 我有不是一個詞說反對它; 您辯解。玻璃剪裁工來, 執行他的任務, 接受他的六法郎, 摩擦他的手, 和, 在他的心臟, 保祐粗心大意的孩子。所有這是那被看見。但如果, 另一方面, 您像太經常案件走向結論, 這是一件好事打破窗口, 它導致金錢流通, 並且產業的鼓勵總之將是結果的它, 您將迫使我召集, "停止那裡! 您的理論被限制對那被看見; 它不採取那帳戶沒被看見。" 它沒被看見因為我們的店主花費了六法郎在一件事, 他無法花費他們在另。它沒被看見如果他不是有一個窗口替換, 他, 或許, 會替換他的老鞋子, 或增加其它書來他的圖書館。簡而言之, 他會使用他的六法郎在某個方面, 這次事故防止了。依照由這情況影響讓我們採取產業觀點總之, 。窗口打破, 玻璃剪裁工的貿易被鼓勵對相當數量六法郎; 這是那被看見。如果窗口不是殘破的, 鞋匠的貿易(或某一其他) 會被鼓勵對相當數量六法郎; 這是那沒被看見。並且如果那沒被看見被考慮到, 因為這是一個消極事實, 並且那被看見, 因為這是一個正面事實, 它被瞭解, 不產業總之, 亦不國民勞方總額, 是受影響的, 不管窗口是殘破的。現在讓我們考慮詹姆斯B. 。在前假定, 那窗口打破, 他花費六法郎, 和有不更多亦不較少比他有前面, 窗口的享受。在秒鐘內, 我們假設窗口不是殘破的, 他會花六法郎在鞋子上, 和同時會有一雙鞋的享受和窗口。現在, 因為詹姆斯B. 構成社會的部分, 我們必須走向結論, 一共採取它, 和做估計它的享受和它的勞方, 它喪失了殘破的窗口的價值。當我們到達在這個意想不到的結論: "社會喪失無用地被毀壞事的價值;" 並且我們必須同意對將做頭髮保護貿易主義者站立在末端- 的格言打破, 對掠奪物, 對廢物, 不是鼓勵國民勞方; 或, 更加簡要地, "破壞不是贏利。" 您將說什麼, Industriel 先生-- 什麼您說的意志, 好M. F. Chamans 的門徒, 非常計算了以精確度多少貿易會獲取由燃燒巴黎, 從它會是必要重建房子的數量? 我抱歉干擾這些巧妙演算, 只要他們的精神被介紹了入我們的立法; 但我乞求他再開始他們, 由採取入帳戶那沒被看見, 並且安置它在旁邊那被看見。讀者必須小心記得, 沒有二個人唯一, 僅三有關在小的場面哪些我遞交了給他的注意。他們的當中一個, 詹姆斯B., 代表消費者, 被破壞行動減少, 到一種享受代替二。另在玻璃剪裁工之下的頭銜, 顯示我們生產商, 貿易由事故鼓勵。三是鞋匠(或某些其它匠人), 勞方proportionably 遭受由同樣起因。這是總被保留在陰涼地, 並且, personating 那沒被看見, 是問題的一個必要的元素的這第三人稱。這是他顯示我們多麼荒謬它將認為我們看贏利在破壞行動。這是他比部份破壞很快將教我們它不是較不荒謬看贏利在制約, 是, 終究, □什麼。所以, 如果您只將去舉例在它的厚待所有論據的根, 所有您將發現將是這個粗俗說法釋義- 什麼會情況玻璃剪裁工, 如果沒人曾經打破了窗口?

[Fredo]

[Mobius]

@ A.B. : tu as bien mis chinois traditionel et pas simplifié? sinon G.S.G il va se faire trucidé si les 2 filles sont inscrites au Kuomintang (à moins que ce soit volontaire? )

[A.B.]

  Mobius a dit :

@ A.B. : tu as bien mis chinois traditionel et pas simplifié? sinon G.S.G il va se faire trucidé si les 2 filles sont inscrites au Kuomintang (à moins que ce soit volontaire? )

Tradi bien sur…