5 ms·

Worse, I think a lot of people quoting him have never read him and don't realize he would condemn a lot of their ideas.

MaxGanzII 5y ago
I was speaking once to a Dutch acquaintence, who told me that in his economics class at Uni, they were taught Smith was in favour of large State subsidies...!
- guerrilla 5y ago
  I don't specifically remember that form Wealth of Nations, I know he argued against some cases, but he did argue for all kinds of other intervention for sure. "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue but something more than in that proportion."
  - cherrycherry98 5y ago
    Smith very much supported the existence of the state for several purposes. If I recall correctly they are things pretty non controversial like defense, infrastructure, property rights, regulations that enable markets to operate effectively (providing necessary transparency so that people can make informed choices, protections against monopolies and rent seeking behavior). He correctly identifies that while some regulations are necessary, some will seek to use them to protect their own position, ie regulatory capture. Overall, his message is decidedly pro freedom and against top down economic planning and intervention. People are naturally self interested, and enabling them to voluntarily trade with others as they see fit enhances the life of each partner of the trade. Scale that up and society advances itself with an centralized arbiter to guide it. As for taxes, the reason he felt that the rich should pay more is because they derive the most benefit from the existence of the state.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      You don't think it's a bit weird to try to explain a book to someone who just said they read it? Your behavior here is quite strange.
      - cherrycherry98 5y ago
        Apologies if I came across in any way patronizing, my intent was to add some details for others in the context of Smith's views on the role of the state, which I felt were lacking in the wider thread in general. Your original comment sparked those thoughts for me, which is why I replied there. My comment was not intended for you personally so much as for the wider audience. If my etiquette was at all inappropriate I apologize.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Large state subsidies in what context? That's a rather critical point. Smith certainly envisioned a significant role for government, even though he was also critical of much government intervention.
  - MaxGanzII 5y ago
    > Smith certainly envisioned a significant role for government No, he did not. Quote me anything in WoN where he says this should happen. He writes about where it does happen, but that's all; he describes the situation. That's all.
sokoloff 5y ago
I’m not as generous as to assume this is innocent ignorance but think it’s often willful and knowing misrepresentation (then amplified and regurgitated by the ignorant, perhaps).
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Well yeah, some pundits obviously do that but I don't think most pawns do.
- hnhg 5y ago
  Or using him to help with their branding, as in the case of the Adam Smith Institute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith_Institute
  - Camas 5y ago
    https://www.adamsmith.org/the-wealth-of-nations https://www.adamsmith.org/the-wealth-of-nations
    - ahartmetz 5y ago
      Great example! That seems like exactly the "government bad, deregulation good" pop Adam Smith that the original article criticizes. It's surprising how shamelessly they are doing it. I would have expected more sophistry.
      - guerrilla 5y ago
        I just looked briefly and it looks like you're right.
      - JetSetWilly 5y ago
        Is it? It says things like "Smith is critical of government and officialdom, but is no champion of laissez-faire" and "A further theme of The Wealth Of Nations is that competition and free exchange are under threat from the monopolies, tax preferences, controls, and other privileges that producers extract from the government authorities". I would say that is fairly accurate. I've noticed that when it comes to Adam Smith there's no shortage of people who try to make out he was some kind of proto-communist while smugly telling off straw man economists for cherry picking him - but it doesn't seem true to me.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

I was speaking once to a Dutch acquaintence, who told me that in his economics class at Uni, they were taught Smith was in favour of large State subsidies...!

guerrilla 5y ago
I don't specifically remember that form Wealth of Nations, I know he argued against some cases, but he did argue for all kinds of other intervention for sure. "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue but something more than in that proportion."
- cherrycherry98 5y ago
  Smith very much supported the existence of the state for several purposes. If I recall correctly they are things pretty non controversial like defense, infrastructure, property rights, regulations that enable markets to operate effectively (providing necessary transparency so that people can make informed choices, protections against monopolies and rent seeking behavior). He correctly identifies that while some regulations are necessary, some will seek to use them to protect their own position, ie regulatory capture. Overall, his message is decidedly pro freedom and against top down economic planning and intervention. People are naturally self interested, and enabling them to voluntarily trade with others as they see fit enhances the life of each partner of the trade. Scale that up and society advances itself with an centralized arbiter to guide it. As for taxes, the reason he felt that the rich should pay more is because they derive the most benefit from the existence of the state.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    You don't think it's a bit weird to try to explain a book to someone who just said they read it? Your behavior here is quite strange.
    - cherrycherry98 5y ago
      Apologies if I came across in any way patronizing, my intent was to add some details for others in the context of Smith's views on the role of the state, which I felt were lacking in the wider thread in general. Your original comment sparked those thoughts for me, which is why I replied there. My comment was not intended for you personally so much as for the wider audience. If my etiquette was at all inappropriate I apologize.
zozbot234 5y ago
Large state subsidies in what context? That's a rather critical point. Smith certainly envisioned a significant role for government, even though he was also critical of much government intervention.
- MaxGanzII 5y ago
  > Smith certainly envisioned a significant role for government No, he did not. Quote me anything in WoN where he says this should happen. He writes about where it does happen, but that's all; he describes the situation. That's all.

sokoloff 5y ago

I’m not as generous as to assume this is innocent ignorance but think it’s often willful and knowing misrepresentation (then amplified and regurgitated by the ignorant, perhaps).

guerrilla 5y ago
Well yeah, some pundits obviously do that but I don't think most pawns do.
hnhg 5y ago
Or using him to help with their branding, as in the case of the Adam Smith Institute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith_Institute
- Camas 5y ago
  https://www.adamsmith.org/the-wealth-of-nations https://www.adamsmith.org/the-wealth-of-nations
  - ahartmetz 5y ago
    Great example! That seems like exactly the "government bad, deregulation good" pop Adam Smith that the original article criticizes. It's surprising how shamelessly they are doing it. I would have expected more sophistry.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      I just looked briefly and it looks like you're right.
    - JetSetWilly 5y ago
      Is it? It says things like "Smith is critical of government and officialdom, but is no champion of laissez-faire" and "A further theme of The Wealth Of Nations is that competition and free exchange are under threat from the monopolies, tax preferences, controls, and other privileges that producers extract from the government authorities". I would say that is fairly accurate. I've noticed that when it comes to Adam Smith there's no shortage of people who try to make out he was some kind of proto-communist while smugly telling off straw man economists for cherry picking him - but it doesn't seem true to me.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]