5 ms·
Adam Smith is very selectively quoted by "free market" types...
by ahartmetz 7y ago
Adam Smith is very selectively quoted by "free market" types...
- LMYahooTFY 7y agoHow is your comment relevant? Smith's words are extremely apt here, and don't speak to a "free market" ideology at all.
- wmeredith 7y agoI think that IS the the point
- bnegreve 7y agoQuotes are made by people and it is often relevant to know who these people were to understand the quote. It applies in this particular case: I'm not very familiar with Smith's work, and I am a bit puzzled that this quote is from him.
- dnautics 7y agoIt's totally adam smith, also the author of "the theory of moral sentiment" which is a fantastic exposition about why as societies we coordinate our morals and ethics. "Free market type"s are often the first to complain about regulatory capture.
- mpweiher 7y agoGuessing: the comment you replied to was referring to those who do not include the words quoted here
- andrewflnr 7y agoMaybe I'm a weirdo, but I think that quote is in general extremely apt for free market ideology. Businesses don't like free markets as much as they like markets tilted in their own favor. If you want an actual free market, you have to watch out for businesses trying to break it through legislation.
- njacobs5074 7y agoI thought that the “free” in “free markets” meant that corporations are free to do what they want.
- ahartmetz 7y agoYes.
- stuaxo 7y agoThat's how it's interpreted, but of course it is the opposite of a free market as it means they are free to stop new entrants into that very same market.
- marvin 7y agoNot an economist, but I rather figured it means that markets are regulated in a way that properly allows and encourages competition. No monopolies, no anti-competitive practices, no pricing or wage collusion, no regulatory capture etc. I'm sure this can be interpreted in as many ways as there are special interest groups, though. E.g, radically, labor markets in the absence of a basic income system are not really free, since employees starve and lose their homes if they do not accept the best available offer. Hence companies' competition for paid labor is not really free, and most groups have an existential threat if they do not accept the terms of the employers that are willing to employ them. There are a million aspects to this that I'm not an expert in, but many of the "free market" principles are considered in the context of contrasting a market economy vs. a planned economy.
- x86_64Ubuntu 7y agoWell, maybe. In common discourse, "free market" is used to downplay the need for government regulation concerning things like labor rights, pollution and anti-consumer/predatory behavior.
- goatlover 7y agoWhich means Adam Smith was not a proponent of "free markets".
- agumonkey 7y agoAll early thinkers are. Curse of applied myopia.
- stuaxo 7y agoSure, though he has "The Adam Smith Institute" being selective for him.
- endtime 7y agoAs a free market type, I don't see the supposed conflict at all. A free market is more or less orthogonal to the legislative process. Free market types should absolutely want the legislature to be careful not to adopt laws which subtly distort the market in favor of some versus others.
- pytester 7y agoI'm pretty sure it'd be impossible to point to any market anywhere and say "that's distortion free". By arguing that congress shouldn't adopt laws that "subtly distort" you're kind of making an appeal to conservatism (small c) rather than economic efficiency.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- chongli 7y agoPolitics itself is part of the market. Politicians participate in the marketplace of ideas, they require money to market their ideas (campaign financing), and they compete with one another for power and influence. Government both regulates and participates in the market through contracts, causing prices to change, just as any other large participant does. The criticism I offer for all “free market” types is this: it is naïve to ask, let alone hope, for government to act as an impartial referee. Government is a player with its own agenda. It always has been and, for as long as it is made up of self-interested human beings, it always will be.
- ImprovedSilence 7y agoSome of us free market types realize there is a difference between the corporatism of today’s world, and the capitalism of where we’d like to be. And that often regulation needs to be in place to protect capitalism from the tyranny of corporatism. Unfortunately the “free market” and “capitalism” are exactly the words corporatists use to get voters on their sides.
- beefield 7y agoI'm quite sure there are communists who realize a difference between the communism of the soviet union and the communism they would like to be in. Unfortunately you are not allowed to pick only the good side of the people that supports the feasibility of your chosen ideological utopia.
- coldtea 7y ago>Some of us free market types realize there is a difference between the corporatism of today’s world, and the capitalism of where we’d like to be Yes, the difference is one exists and is bad (like "really existing socialism" existed and was bad), and the other is an unrealistic utopia like communism. A utopian market without sucker consumers, without business people willing to exploit it and without powerful companies taking advantage of it, and somehow, with less government as well...
- anigbrowl 7y agoCapitalism is by definition the idea of capital as the organizing principle of society. No matter how idealistic a conception of capitalism you hold, it's still the reification of profit over people.
- cle 7y agoMy understanding of capitalist arguments is that they think "profits" vs. "people" is a false dichotomy.
- doyoulikeworms 7y agoThis is like describing socialism as being about authoritarian governments and centrally planned economies. Everybody misuses labels to their advantage.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoYes, they always seem to neglect his views on corporations for some peculiar reasons.
- dmix 7y agoWhat free market type supports individual corporations writing laws that benefit themselves over their customers and competition? Boeing is already the only player in town, they aren't writing laws to benefit anyone but themselves, they aren't trying to increase competition or open up the markets. Markets are built both on corporations openly trading value to customers for money and competition keeping that system alive and healthy as markets/products/technology/organizations naturally grow and die and economies fluctuate. Stasis and one-sided deals are unsustainable, which is what this type of arrangement buys you. Corporations being allowed to use state power for their own benefit (at the expense of their customers and/or competition) has nothing to do with free markets. All you're left with then are companies who rake in money from customers without trading full value or excluding competition from existing. That's not a market or a useful system for any society. Regulations to serve some higher public good that markets can't practically account for are very different from individual corporations writing laws to benefit only themselves in the marketplace. Boeing selling more dangerous airplanes (even if that happens through government coordinated processes) and losing Airline customer's trust would be terrible for any real business, assuming there is competition and customers who aren't forced to buy from them.
- sonotathrowaway 7y agoThey take his ideas and apply them to healthcare markets, then specifically ignore his ideas about healthcare markets.