3 ms·
This is disingenuous in a number of places. For example, it quotes the passage in the Wealth of Nations warning of collusion between merchants: >>As he put it
by CryptoPunk 9y ago
This is disingenuous in a number of places. For example, it quotes the passage in the Wealth of Nations warning of collusion between merchants:
>>As he put it in The Wealth of Nations: ‘People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.’
It uses this as a data point to support the contention that:
>>It is an irony of history that Smith’s most famous idea is now usually invoked as a defence of unregulated markets in the face of state interference, so as to protect the interests of private capitalists. For this is roughly the opposite of Smith’s original intention, which was to advocate for restrictions on what groups of merchants could do.
Which is absolute nonsense. Sangar omits the context in which the collusion passage appears. Immediately following that paragraph, we find this:
>>It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. A regulation which obliges all those of the same trade in a particular town to enter their names and places of abode in a public register, facilitates such assemblies. . . . A regulation which enables those of the same trade to tax themselves in order to provide for their poor, their sick, their widows, and orphans, by giving them a common interest to manage, renders such assemblies necessary. An incorporation not only renders them necessary, but makes the act of the majority binding upon the whole.
So Smith very much endorses "unregulated markets in the face of state interference", which Sagar claims "is roughly the opposite of Smith’s original intention".
- yesenadam 9y agoHow on earth do you read that as endorsing unregulated markets in the face of state interference?
- CryptoPunk 9y agoI can't imagine how you don't see it. All of his warnings are against regulations that make collusion more likely, and he explicitly says that it would be impossible for any regulation that would prohibit people from the same trade from meeting to "be executed" or "be consistent with liberty and justice". Every single admonishment was against regulations, whether on grounds of contributing to collusion, or being unenforceable and inconsistent with "liberty and justice".
- yesenadam 9y ago(I'm very much no expert) Thanks. So it seems you don't read that particular quote as endorsing unregulated markets in the face of state interference. It sounded like you did, thus my surprise. Also, people in the 18th C from the same trade having a meeting, is so far from what we imagine by "unregulated markets" that..well, two things could scarcely be more different. edit: Oh, you added your snarky first sentence. That's not an improvement.
- CryptoPunk 9y agoI wasn't trying to be snarky. I genuinely don't see how his multiple warnings about particular regulations in that short passage doesn't contradict the author's claim that he opposed the unregulated market position. If anything, it supports the notion that he supported unregulated markets. >>So it seems you don't read that particular quote as endorsing unregulated markets in the face of state interference. It sounded like you did, thus my surprise. If "unregulated markets in the face of state interference" means that markets being unregulated and free of state interference, yes I do read that particular passage as endorsing that view, for reasons I've articulated. >>Also, people in the 18th C from the same trade having a meeting, is so far from what we imagine by "unregulated markets" that..well, two things could scarcely be more different. I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?
- ScottBurson 9y ago> Every single admonishment was against regulations Every single admonishment was against particular kinds of regulations. It's not at all clear that these amount to an argument against all regulation. In fact that strikes me as a very odd generalization... like saying "Java sucks so let's do away with software".
- CryptoPunk 9y agoYes you're right that he criticizes particular regulations in that passage. My point is that he doesn't endorse any regulations and criticizes several. This is context in which the passage about collusion between merchants, which Sangar claims supports his contention that Smith's intention was the "opposite" of that of modern free market advocates, appears. That passage in no way conveys a position in opposition to the free market. If anything, it only supports it. Moreover, I'd argue statements like "It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice" take a philosophical position against regulations in general, and there are many such statements in the Wealth of Nations.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]