6 ms·

This article is mostly accurate about Smith (although the man himself was much more favorable to entrepreneurs and innovators than is presented), but fairly ina

This article is mostly accurate about Smith (although the man himself was much more favorable to entrepreneurs and innovators than is presented), but fairly inaccurate that “Right-wing” politics is some perversion of Smith. At the end, we get a taste of what he means in that Thatcher privatized various state industries during her run as Prime Minister in the '80s. Otherwise, an entire sub-field of economics (it would be a sub-field of "political economy" if that term were widespread today) is Public Choice, which demonstrates rather well that often state intervention is at the behest of the "merchant interests." Public Choice is a direct descendent of Adam Smith’s thinking. Indeed, the very term "state capture" that the author invokes frequently probably derived from "regulatory capture," a term Public Choice helped propagate. There is also a misunderstanding that Smith’s "invisible hand" concept implies some sort of Utopian paradise, when in fact, Smith meant more that aspiring monopolists who are nonetheless in competition with each other (and often in cooperation with others) lead to an increase in social gains, which on its own seems paradoxical and is highly counterintuitive. Modern economics seems founded on maximizing or minimizing every possible variable of interest, so I suppose some people may actually argue that the invisible hand is a statement about maximization, which it definitely isn’t. In practice, the only people I see invoke the "Invisible Hand" in this manner are harsh critics of any sort of free enterprise regardless of the context, and always advocates of state intervention and thus regulatory capture ("[people] of the system", indeed). I am most surprised that Smith's sympathies for labor do not appear in this essay, as they seem to be quite strong. Smith discusses the effects of specialization that happens during industrialization, and goes so far as to say it makes workers with repetitive tasks "stupid." In context, his sympathies are clearly with the worker. I guess as someone with relatively Smithian-Hayekian views, I am missing the overall point of this article, other than to hand-wring that so-called Neoliberalism (I have never met a Neoliberal) is actually unrelated to Smith’s ideas and are a perversion. He is entirely unconvincing, even if one accepts for the sake of argument that "neoliberalism" exists as a coherent philosophy or even ideology (it doesn't).

thanatropism 9y ago
> never met a neoliberal "Neoliberal" is typically a term of abuse, but I've seen a movement (from econ professors to /r/neoliberal) to appropriate as a term for centrist radical pragmatism. These self-proclaimed neoliberals are very progressive socially and (claim to, at least) support any policies that have actual firm evidence for it. Of course, this makes them pro-trade and pro-"globalism".
- sprafa 9y ago
  there's plenty of evidence that globalism has not worked out for substantial parts of the population in most developed countries.
  - briandear 9y ago
    There is also substantial evidence that it has. The poor in America are richer and have higher living standards than the poor of less-globalized places. Absolute poverty in developed countries is far lower than at any possible by in history. In fact the same could be said for absolute poverty globally. And that, is a direct result of globalization.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      Was it globalism that made them richer? They weren't already richer pre-globalism (say, 15 to 20 years ago)?
    - YPCrumble 9y ago
      > The poor in America are richer and have higher living standards than the poor of less-globalized places. This is complete nonsense and makes you sound like someone who should take some time volunteering with America's poor. Clearly you have no idea what poverty is like and should earn some perspective. Are you trying to say that hunger in America is any different from hunger in a "less globalized place"? How so? How about homelessness? Is that different in America vs. other places? How about dying of disease because you don't have health care? Is that different in America somehow?
      - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
        Extreme. The poor can refer to the bottom quintile of socioeconomic class. We don't have to jump to the bottom tenth of a percent. In that view, the comment is valid. The bottom earners in America earn more than most people on the planet. And have better infrastructure.
YPCrumble 9y ago
The article gives a good description of a major facet of Neoliberalism: "[a] movement that seeks (as Thatcher hoped) to ‘roll back the frontiers of the state". If you have heard someone whining about the nefarious "Big Government" and the need for deregulation, then you've met a Neoliberal. The point of the article is summarized by the author in a paragraph: """ The message that Smith conveys cuts across party and ideological lines, and applies to both Left and Right. It is about a pathological attitude that politicians of all stripes are prone to. If not kept in check, this can be the source not just of disruption and inefficiency but of cruelty and suffering, when those who find themselves on the wrong side of the plan’s consequences are forced by the powerful to suffer them regardless. Smith in turn urges us to recognise that real-world politics will always be too complex for any prepackaged ideology to cope with. What we need in our politicians is careful judgment and moral maturity, something that no ideology, nor any position on the political spectrum, holds a monopoly on. """ The dogma of today's right-wing "mercantile" politicians is a perversion of Adam Smith. These politicians state that the invisible hand requires complete government deregulation in order to function. They ignore Smith's point that the invisible hand requires both free markets and government regulation of monopoly to function. The article states that "According to Smith, the most pressing dangers came not from the state acting alone, but the state when captured by merchant elites." If you've followed US politics at all over the last year you could see how the article's point is extremely convincing.
- dmix 9y ago
  > If you have heard someone whining about the nefarious "Big Government" and the need for deregulation, then you've met a Neoliberal. That is an very inaccurate generalization, liable to be wrong at least ~50-75% of the time these days, maybe not in the 1980s or 90s and earlier, but certainly today as it's become a catchall for everything the (new?) left doesn't like.
- nickik 9y ago
  > then you've met a Neoliberal. By your definition. But the term has been used for a whole lot more in many different context and that makes it so useless. > The dogma of today's right-wing "mercantile" politicians is a perversion of Adam Smith. These politicians state that the invisible hand requires complete government deregulation in order to function. They ignore Smith's point that the invisible hand requires both free markets and government regulation of monopoly to function. No. That's not what they ignore. These "mercantile" politicians never had the slightest interest in Adam Smiths ideas or in limiting power of the state and or business in the first place. The point of Smith and his fellows (like Hume) at the time was that business would try to capture the state and that was one reason they tried to limited the power of the state and strengthen individual freedoms. Sure they might have been in favor of some regulation but what we have now is so far beyond the wildest dreams of Smith that it is hard to argue that, this is what he meant. The problem is that the state is forever growing and that no democratic procedures can prevent business (and voters) from competing to capture these rents, rather then the rents from the state. I would recommend 'Public Choice' economics because they think threw these different intensives very systematically.
RobertoG 9y ago
>"I have never met a Neoliberal" That's because neoliberalism is not an ideology, but a label used to try to understand a historic period. Neoliberalism would be the bastard child of neoclassic economics and liberal ideology and it can be defined by events and people that definitely exist. The intellectual parents would be the economist in the orbit of Milton Friedman and the 'Chicago school' and the political parents would be Reagan and Thatcher. The playground rules would be the Washington Consensus [1]. The foundational charter would be the Powell Manifesto [2], that I recommend to read to everybody that want to get and insight about the last forty years. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus [2] http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/ http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/
- nickik 9y ago
  > That's because neoliberalism is not an ideology, but a label used to try to understand a historic period. No its not. Its a term that is used by pretty much anybody for whatever they felt like. > The intellectual parents would be the economist in the orbit of Milton Friedman and the 'Chicago school' and the political parents would be Reagan and Thatcher. That is just false. Friedman never called himself a neoliberal. The actual word is derived from Post-WW2 German economists, but that term is not used today. It was after the Pinochet coup that the political left has started to use the term 'neoliberal' as a politcal slur against anybody who they don't like. The use of the term has exploded since then and has be now become to mean about the same thing as 'evil'. There is no actual 'neoliberal' philosophy or any neoliberals. Only people who leftists politics accuses of such, that includes everybody from some left supply-siders to crypto-anarchists. The amount of different polices and ideas that are 'neoliberal' by some definition are so broad that the term is meaningless. This has been shown in research on the use of the term across many fields. > > The playground rules would be the Washington Consensus [1]. The idea that the 'Washington Consensus' derive from the same basic ideas as the classical liberal ideas (such as Friedman) are also wrong. Classical liberals have been among the people who have very much opposed things like IMF and World Bank. You make your live very easy by just throwing everything you don't like into some big evil 'neoliberal' bucket without an detailed understanding of the different people, schools of thought, historical events and so on that influenced and/or shaped any one or all of the things you don't like. This is not all part of some grand 'neoliberal' conspiracy.

thanatropism 9y ago

> never met a neoliberal "Neoliberal" is typically a term of abuse, but I've seen a movement (from econ professors to /r/neoliberal) to appropriate as a term for centrist radical pragmatism. These self-proclaimed neoliberals are very progressive socially and (claim to, at least) support any policies that have actual firm evidence for it. Of course, this makes them pro-trade and pro-"globalism".

sprafa 9y ago
there's plenty of evidence that globalism has not worked out for substantial parts of the population in most developed countries.
- briandear 9y ago
  There is also substantial evidence that it has. The poor in America are richer and have higher living standards than the poor of less-globalized places. Absolute poverty in developed countries is far lower than at any possible by in history. In fact the same could be said for absolute poverty globally. And that, is a direct result of globalization.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    Was it globalism that made them richer? They weren't already richer pre-globalism (say, 15 to 20 years ago)?
  - YPCrumble 9y ago
    > The poor in America are richer and have higher living standards than the poor of less-globalized places. This is complete nonsense and makes you sound like someone who should take some time volunteering with America's poor. Clearly you have no idea what poverty is like and should earn some perspective. Are you trying to say that hunger in America is any different from hunger in a "less globalized place"? How so? How about homelessness? Is that different in America vs. other places? How about dying of disease because you don't have health care? Is that different in America somehow?
    - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
      Extreme. The poor can refer to the bottom quintile of socioeconomic class. We don't have to jump to the bottom tenth of a percent. In that view, the comment is valid. The bottom earners in America earn more than most people on the planet. And have better infrastructure.

YPCrumble 9y ago

The article gives a good description of a major facet of Neoliberalism: "[a] movement that seeks (as Thatcher hoped) to ‘roll back the frontiers of the state". If you have heard someone whining about the nefarious "Big Government" and the need for deregulation, then you've met a Neoliberal. The point of the article is summarized by the author in a paragraph: """ The message that Smith conveys cuts across party and ideological lines, and applies to both Left and Right. It is about a pathological attitude that politicians of all stripes are prone to. If not kept in check, this can be the source not just of disruption and inefficiency but of cruelty and suffering, when those who find themselves on the wrong side of the plan’s consequences are forced by the powerful to suffer them regardless. Smith in turn urges us to recognise that real-world politics will always be too complex for any prepackaged ideology to cope with. What we need in our politicians is careful judgment and moral maturity, something that no ideology, nor any position on the political spectrum, holds a monopoly on. """ The dogma of today's right-wing "mercantile" politicians is a perversion of Adam Smith. These politicians state that the invisible hand requires complete government deregulation in order to function. They ignore Smith's point that the invisible hand requires both free markets and government regulation of monopoly to function. The article states that "According to Smith, the most pressing dangers came not from the state acting alone, but the state when captured by merchant elites." If you've followed US politics at all over the last year you could see how the article's point is extremely convincing.

dmix 9y ago
> If you have heard someone whining about the nefarious "Big Government" and the need for deregulation, then you've met a Neoliberal. That is an very inaccurate generalization, liable to be wrong at least ~50-75% of the time these days, maybe not in the 1980s or 90s and earlier, but certainly today as it's become a catchall for everything the (new?) left doesn't like.
nickik 9y ago
> then you've met a Neoliberal. By your definition. But the term has been used for a whole lot more in many different context and that makes it so useless. > The dogma of today's right-wing "mercantile" politicians is a perversion of Adam Smith. These politicians state that the invisible hand requires complete government deregulation in order to function. They ignore Smith's point that the invisible hand requires both free markets and government regulation of monopoly to function. No. That's not what they ignore. These "mercantile" politicians never had the slightest interest in Adam Smiths ideas or in limiting power of the state and or business in the first place. The point of Smith and his fellows (like Hume) at the time was that business would try to capture the state and that was one reason they tried to limited the power of the state and strengthen individual freedoms. Sure they might have been in favor of some regulation but what we have now is so far beyond the wildest dreams of Smith that it is hard to argue that, this is what he meant. The problem is that the state is forever growing and that no democratic procedures can prevent business (and voters) from competing to capture these rents, rather then the rents from the state. I would recommend 'Public Choice' economics because they think threw these different intensives very systematically.

RobertoG 9y ago

>"I have never met a Neoliberal" That's because neoliberalism is not an ideology, but a label used to try to understand a historic period. Neoliberalism would be the bastard child of neoclassic economics and liberal ideology and it can be defined by events and people that definitely exist. The intellectual parents would be the economist in the orbit of Milton Friedman and the 'Chicago school' and the political parents would be Reagan and Thatcher. The playground rules would be the Washington Consensus [1]. The foundational charter would be the Powell Manifesto [2], that I recommend to read to everybody that want to get and insight about the last forty years. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus [2] http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/ http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/

nickik 9y ago
> That's because neoliberalism is not an ideology, but a label used to try to understand a historic period. No its not. Its a term that is used by pretty much anybody for whatever they felt like. > The intellectual parents would be the economist in the orbit of Milton Friedman and the 'Chicago school' and the political parents would be Reagan and Thatcher. That is just false. Friedman never called himself a neoliberal. The actual word is derived from Post-WW2 German economists, but that term is not used today. It was after the Pinochet coup that the political left has started to use the term 'neoliberal' as a politcal slur against anybody who they don't like. The use of the term has exploded since then and has be now become to mean about the same thing as 'evil'. There is no actual 'neoliberal' philosophy or any neoliberals. Only people who leftists politics accuses of such, that includes everybody from some left supply-siders to crypto-anarchists. The amount of different polices and ideas that are 'neoliberal' by some definition are so broad that the term is meaningless. This has been shown in research on the use of the term across many fields. > > The playground rules would be the Washington Consensus [1]. The idea that the 'Washington Consensus' derive from the same basic ideas as the classical liberal ideas (such as Friedman) are also wrong. Classical liberals have been among the people who have very much opposed things like IMF and World Bank. You make your live very easy by just throwing everything you don't like into some big evil 'neoliberal' bucket without an detailed understanding of the different people, schools of thought, historical events and so on that influenced and/or shaped any one or all of the things you don't like. This is not all part of some grand 'neoliberal' conspiracy.