3 ms·

The whole point of his book is that if there are proper functioning markets is that these conversations are not actually effective. Compared to a system of merc

by nickik 5y ago

The whole point of his book is that if there are proper functioning markets is that these conversations are not actually effective. Compared to a system of mercantilism that he was opposing.

int_19h 5y ago
Sure, but "proper functioning markets" in this case means competitive markets, not laissez-faire as such, as modern libertarians like to imagine. That's kind of the problem of taking the words of someone writing at the time when governments were granting monopolies, and trying to apply them to the time when governments are busting them.
- nickik 5y ago
  You vastly underestimate 'modern libertarians' probably because your exposure to them is based on angry twitter or whatever. In reality during the last 200 years classical liberal tradition has thought more about markets and how they work then anybody else. Constitutional economics, institutional economics, law&economics, market process theory are partly built on Smith work and are explorations of the context of markets. So I don't really know what you are referencing with 'Sure, but "proper functioning markets" in this case means competitive markets, not laissez-faire as such' as I don't know what definitions you for these words. People like FA Hayek, Armen Alchian, Ronald Coase and many others have done a lot of work and all look back and build on Adam Smith. The idea of some people in this thread that modern libertarians only read the understand Adam Smith as 'invisible hand' is nonsense. 'Invisible hand' was adopted because it is a good shorthand for the idea of processes that are not centrally guided are very important. There was also a lot of historical work done on English Common law and its evolution and how modern market relations evolved and actually functioned.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    My exposure to them is based on having been one. And I know for a fact that most of them believe that whatever a laissez-faire - defined as completely unregulated - market produces, is inherently optimal. Some will argue that it will not have monopolies; but many will argue that when it does, that's because a monopoly is more efficient, and so it's a good thing overall.

by nickik 5y ago

The whole point of his book is that if there are proper functioning markets is that these conversations are not actually effective. Compared to a system of mercantilism that he was opposing.

int_19h 5y ago

Sure, but "proper functioning markets" in this case means competitive markets, not laissez-faire as such, as modern libertarians like to imagine. That's kind of the problem of taking the words of someone writing at the time when governments were granting monopolies, and trying to apply them to the time when governments are busting them.

nickik 5y ago
You vastly underestimate 'modern libertarians' probably because your exposure to them is based on angry twitter or whatever. In reality during the last 200 years classical liberal tradition has thought more about markets and how they work then anybody else. Constitutional economics, institutional economics, law&economics, market process theory are partly built on Smith work and are explorations of the context of markets. So I don't really know what you are referencing with 'Sure, but "proper functioning markets" in this case means competitive markets, not laissez-faire as such' as I don't know what definitions you for these words. People like FA Hayek, Armen Alchian, Ronald Coase and many others have done a lot of work and all look back and build on Adam Smith. The idea of some people in this thread that modern libertarians only read the understand Adam Smith as 'invisible hand' is nonsense. 'Invisible hand' was adopted because it is a good shorthand for the idea of processes that are not centrally guided are very important. There was also a lot of historical work done on English Common law and its evolution and how modern market relations evolved and actually functioned.
- int_19h 5y ago
  My exposure to them is based on having been one. And I know for a fact that most of them believe that whatever a laissez-faire - defined as completely unregulated - market produces, is inherently optimal. Some will argue that it will not have monopolies; but many will argue that when it does, that's because a monopoly is more efficient, and so it's a good thing overall.