3 ms·

The Wealth of Nations was not written by a 'socialist' by any means. It describes Supply and Demand in a mechanical way, illustrates the power of comparative v

The Wealth of Nations was not written by a 'socialist' by any means. It describes Supply and Demand in a mechanical way, illustrates the power of comparative value, the 'invisible hand' etc.. Smith was a Ethicist and a heavy duty Christian, and so he also realized how the system could be imbalanced, and definitely took the concerns of the plebes to heart etc.. But by no means was this a social treatise, or an attempt to validate social theory or 'socialism' (which didn't really exist). And I think your comment about Scotland/UK is not true at all. The 'Supply and Demand' bit that Krugman said 'all econs agree on' is really from Adam Smith. Marx basically evaluated that in the context of the fact that some small group apparently had all the capital, while others had none, which creates an inherent power/class struggle and so it turns into a political issue. Smith and Marx probably would have agreed on 'the problem' though almost surely not the solution :)

cmdrfred 10y ago
This was always my understanding. I am a free market proponent, but a Adam Smith style free market proponent. In that I believe in a market that is actually free, not one with thickets of patents, generous subsidies for corporations, and bailouts while all at the same time a laissez-faire stance on workers rights. You don't get to scream free market while cutting wages and then cry for regulation because a union committed an "illegal strike", or an important worker failed to give you 2 weeks notice and is headed to your direct competitor with knowledge of "your clients". Nobody owns a worker or client in a true free market system. I've always thought the problem with the major economic systems isn't that either of them is inherently flawed, just that they haven't really even been implemented in a large enough scale for any decent period of time. In America we pay socialist taxes and get capitalist benefits, that's the problem. We have to pick one and commit to it.
- edblarney 10y ago
  Regulations and taxation are essential. There used to be a 'free market' it was called 'feudalism'. Not quite, but almost. If you believe in 'Adam Smith' then you understand under a totally free system, one person would end up with all the wealth. Adam Smith was not a libertarian, or a 'laissez faire' kind of dude. He was an Ethicist and heavy duty Christian and to him capitalism was a moral issue. Unlike the 'Chicago School' and Libertarian types who really state that corps exist for the shareholders, that's it, end of story. As noted above, Smith invented progressive taxation. Get this - do you know what Smith said the #1 quality of a CEO is? Get this: 'Benevolence' Not something you'd hear too often in America. Onerous regulation is obviously a problem, and wasted taxation inefficient government is also a problem. But there's no doubt they have to exist. There's a 99.9% chance you'd be a serf were there to be a truly free and open, 'laissez faire' market. You wouldn't even have a chance at going to a good Uni. You know Trump's son-in-law, Kushner? He only got into Harvard after his parents gave $2.5M to the school. Maybe 1/3 Harvard students buy they way in. In a totally capitalist system, 100% of top spots would be 'bought' - industrialists want to ensure their legacy, and that their kids get into the top schools, and that would guarantee the longevity of their Empire. Anyhow, that taxes can be too high and spent inefficiently does not mean they should not exit.

cmdrfred 10y ago

This was always my understanding. I am a free market proponent, but a Adam Smith style free market proponent. In that I believe in a market that is actually free, not one with thickets of patents, generous subsidies for corporations, and bailouts while all at the same time a laissez-faire stance on workers rights. You don't get to scream free market while cutting wages and then cry for regulation because a union committed an "illegal strike", or an important worker failed to give you 2 weeks notice and is headed to your direct competitor with knowledge of "your clients". Nobody owns a worker or client in a true free market system. I've always thought the problem with the major economic systems isn't that either of them is inherently flawed, just that they haven't really even been implemented in a large enough scale for any decent period of time. In America we pay socialist taxes and get capitalist benefits, that's the problem. We have to pick one and commit to it.

edblarney 10y ago
Regulations and taxation are essential. There used to be a 'free market' it was called 'feudalism'. Not quite, but almost. If you believe in 'Adam Smith' then you understand under a totally free system, one person would end up with all the wealth. Adam Smith was not a libertarian, or a 'laissez faire' kind of dude. He was an Ethicist and heavy duty Christian and to him capitalism was a moral issue. Unlike the 'Chicago School' and Libertarian types who really state that corps exist for the shareholders, that's it, end of story. As noted above, Smith invented progressive taxation. Get this - do you know what Smith said the #1 quality of a CEO is? Get this: 'Benevolence' Not something you'd hear too often in America. Onerous regulation is obviously a problem, and wasted taxation inefficient government is also a problem. But there's no doubt they have to exist. There's a 99.9% chance you'd be a serf were there to be a truly free and open, 'laissez faire' market. You wouldn't even have a chance at going to a good Uni. You know Trump's son-in-law, Kushner? He only got into Harvard after his parents gave $2.5M to the school. Maybe 1/3 Harvard students buy they way in. In a totally capitalist system, 100% of top spots would be 'bought' - industrialists want to ensure their legacy, and that their kids get into the top schools, and that would guarantee the longevity of their Empire. Anyhow, that taxes can be too high and spent inefficiently does not mean they should not exit.