The Real Adam Smith

[Drake Tungsten]

Too soon.

[MrFun]

You need to read Wealth of Nations, not watch a TV show, Kid.

I understood Kid saying, "I didn't think I would learn anything new," in that he may have already read the book. Maybe more than once.

[MrFun]

That makes no sense. In light of his theories he should have no problem with big buisness as long as it is conforming to free market forces. He may not have liked or trusted big buisness, which makes sense given that big buisness in his day refered almost exclusively to state sanctioned monopolies like the East India Trading Company, but they are not at all at odds with his theories.

Holy-agreement-with-Patty, Batman!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think most people who read the Wealth of Nations are more surprised by Smith's somewhat pro-union outlook:

We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate...Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy till the moment of execution; and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people" In contrast, when workers combine, "the masters..never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combination of servants, labourers, and journeymen

And support for proportional taxation:

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

[Kidlicious]

That makes no sense. In light of his theories he should have no problem with big buisness as long as it is conforming to free market forces. He may not have liked or trusted big buisness, which makes sense given that big buisness in his day refered almost exclusively to state sanctioned monopolies like the East India Trading Company, but they are not at all at odds with his theories.

There are two different definitions of egalitarianism. Consider his belief that producers should have no benefits except those that benefit consumers. Clearly he favors consumers over producers. So he was not the kind of egalitarian that believed in equal rights. He was the second kind that believed that believed in economic equality. If you are still not convinced, consider that he believed that people only required the basic economic necessities to be truely happy, and that he said that civil defense is always instituted against the poor.

[Kidlicious]

I dont follow that interpretation? Quite a while ago i wanted to quote Mr. Smith regarding companies, unfortunatly i had forgotten that Adam Smith doesn't mention private corporations at all. True he argues companies (Like East India and Hudson) subsidized by monopolies ( spoiler: He was against them ) Yet large businesses? Which Book are they discussed in?

He elaborates on Manufacturies (sp?) and international Trade, but Big Business? I dont think so. The Reason is quite simple, in 1776 when his original Book was written, the incorporation of companies was still a political act which required royal/ parlament admission in Great Britain.

Limited liability FTW

The point is to debate what Adam Smith would support in this age.

[Arrian]

The point is to debate what Adam Smith would support in this age.

Which is, of course, pointless because we'll never know.

It's just like digging up quotes from George Washington or Thomas Jefferson and then asserting that clearly they would have supported/opposed a 3% increase in a particular income tax bracket. Not only is it something we cannot know, it's absurd because the first thing they both would have done is freak out that there is an income tax. And that would only be the beginning. It would take zombie Washington years just to learn about all the stuff that's happened since he died.

Adam Smith was writing in a world where people thought Mercantalism was a good idea.

-Arrian

[DaShi]

China?

[Ben Kenobi]

I understood Kid saying, "I didn't think I would learn anything new," in that he may have already read the book. Maybe more than once.

I understood that as, "Commies regard Adam Smith as the devil", and then finding out that he's been lied to.

[MrFun]

I understood that as, "Commies regard Adam Smith as the devil", and then finding out that he's been lied to.

I understand this statement of yours as you acting like an idiot.

[Ben Kenobi]

Kid hasn't said anything to the contrary.

[Elok]

Kid hasn't said anything to the contrary.

What, he hasn't said you're not an idiot?

I haven't read TWON, because I understand it's ginormous and boring. Also, what Arrian said. You show Adam Smith the world today, he'd take about five years just catching up on enough science to fathom the internet. Also, I'm not sure anyone from his era would be terribly keen on the women voting thing.

[Kidlicious]

Which is, of course, pointless because we'll never know.

I don't know if it's going to rain tomorrow, but I'd like to know what the weatherman thinks just the same.

[Kidlicious]

I understood that as, "Commies regard Adam Smith as the devil", and then finding out that he's been lied to.

I'm not a communist and I never thought Adam Smith was the devil.

So it's seems pretty obvious that you aren't going to even try to say anything intelligent in this thread, which is just fine with me, because I remember the last time we discussed Adam Smith and it was like getting teeth pulled.

[Kidlicious]

Kid hasn't said anything to the contrary.

Yes, you are indeed acting like an idiot. MrFun is correct.