4 ms·

Wild misunderstanding of Smith. He considered it a moral defect, wrote several pieces criticizing gambling, and criticized state run gambling. "The over-weeni

Wild misunderstanding of Smith. He considered it a moral defect, wrote several pieces criticizing gambling, and criticized state run gambling. "The over-weening conceit which the greater part of men have of their own abilities, is an ancient evil... their absurd presumption in their own good fortune, is even more universal."

aerhardt 7mo ago
Par for the course for many who mention Adam Smith. Another classic libel is bringing up his name in cases of gross misconduct by a business or a businessman, but he was very critical of the excesses of merchants. Smith was a moral philosopher first and an accidental economist second.
- ihaveajob 7mo ago
  Yes! As a beginner-level, amateur armchair economist who hated philosophy class in high school, I have to admit I was surprised to learn about this when reading https://store.abramsbooks.com/products/economix https://store.abramsbooks.com/products/economix by Michael Goodwin. The book overall seems to lean liberal whenever there's a political choice to be made, and yet it paints Adam Smith in a much more positive light that one would imagine, if all you've learned about him is the criticism of today's political left. A really fun book, also!
  - dragonwriter 7mo ago
    > if all you've learned about him is the criticism of today's political left. Leftists I've known are more likely to quote Smith than criticize him. He seems to be seen by leftists as an important figure in political economy (flawed in not reaching certain important questions, perhaps, but not much in how he addressed those questions he did consider.) Even his argument that the class whose understanding of their own interests is best aligned with the common interests is the landed aristocracy (the bourgeoisie having interests opposed to the common interest, while the working class shares—by its sheer size, defines—the common interests but lacks an understanding of what their real interests are in the domain of interest) [0] is seen as describing exactly a problem than the Left (see, e.g., Marx and discussions of class consciousness) sees as central to solve, rather than being a regressive idealized preference. The Left criticizes a lot of the arguments people who appeal to a mythologized caricature of Smith use his name to defend, sure, but that's a different thing than criticizing Smith. [0] Which is about as far as you can be from leaning liberal where there is a political choice to be made, though given the complete displacement of the landed aristocracy as an economically-meaningful distinct class it is largely irrelevant in practical terms in the 21st century.
    - aerhardt 7mo ago
      Some in the Left, including Marx - perhaps most of the well-read Left - do this. Then there is an entire category of people who throw his name around in the mud and call “Adam Smith liberal” anything they view as immoral or excessive.
zymhan 7mo ago
There are far better examples they could use.
- infinitewars 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - infinitewars 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - tim333 7mo ago
      I might have done - you claim questionable reasons for Thiel's actions without evidence. For one thing he didn't start it.
      - infinitewars 7mo ago
        His ownership percentage is similar to Elon's stake in Tesla, you can quibble over details (Series B vs A). His associates are teaming over Polymarket and now Palantir is in charge of policing the market.. sort of a fox guarding the hen house situation? https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/why-trump-backing-betting-market-polymarket-might-be-a-scam/articleshow/114552529.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/why-trump-backi...
    - yownie 7mo ago
      wonder no further!
    - switchbak 7mo ago
      I'll downvote that WITH commenting, also HN rules encourage against ranting about downvotes, fyi.
      - fc417fc802 7mo ago
        I don't think there's any issue with asking when no explanation is provided and it's unclear to you. Whereas complaining about it is just tedious and doesn't add anything of value.
waffletower 7mo ago
I do take Adam Smith out of context, that is the precise point -- the invisible hand of self-interest is the salient idea that has endured and shaped modern Hypercapitalism. It doesn't matter if he is rolling in his grave at audio frequencies due to my and, more importantly, society's alleged misappropriation of his work and misunderstanding of his many moral considerations. He was effectively soundbited centuries ago and we are still struggling to manage the implications. Saying he was a good guy makes it more difficult to fix the problem.
- shermantanktop 7mo ago
  Much like Marx, who had a lot of very insightful observations. Whether what was done in his name is or isn't directly attributable to his writings is somewhat academic. That has taken on a life of its own, and overshadowed all his other ideas. It has also certainly made talking about class in America very difficult.
  - waffletower 7mo ago
    Very good comparison. I do have more respect for Marx, the modern concept of life/work balance owes much to his concept of estranged labor ("Life itself appears only as a means to life"), as I haven't had to live in a society afflicted by his excesses and misappropriations, unlike the case of Adam Smith.
    - lordnacho 7mo ago
      Adam Smith mentions something similar as well. He talks about how the worker's attachment to the work is different when he's working in a super specialised part of a production process rather than making the whole product like an artisan.
    - WalterBright 7mo ago
      [flagged]
      - 7mo ago
frereubu 7mo ago
There's a great podcast about Adam Smith here, debunking some of those oversimplifications: https://www.ppfideas.com/episodes/what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-political-philosophy%3F-learning-from-adam-smith https://www.ppfideas.com/episodes/what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-...
braiamp 7mo ago
It's funny as a economist people thinking that the free market is some kind of god, that the invisible hand is infallible. He never argued markets work without institutions. He believed governments must enforce justice, prevent monopolies, and provide public goods for markets to function properly.

aerhardt 7mo ago

Par for the course for many who mention Adam Smith. Another classic libel is bringing up his name in cases of gross misconduct by a business or a businessman, but he was very critical of the excesses of merchants. Smith was a moral philosopher first and an accidental economist second.

ihaveajob 7mo ago
Yes! As a beginner-level, amateur armchair economist who hated philosophy class in high school, I have to admit I was surprised to learn about this when reading https://store.abramsbooks.com/products/economix https://store.abramsbooks.com/products/economix by Michael Goodwin. The book overall seems to lean liberal whenever there's a political choice to be made, and yet it paints Adam Smith in a much more positive light that one would imagine, if all you've learned about him is the criticism of today's political left. A really fun book, also!
- dragonwriter 7mo ago
  > if all you've learned about him is the criticism of today's political left. Leftists I've known are more likely to quote Smith than criticize him. He seems to be seen by leftists as an important figure in political economy (flawed in not reaching certain important questions, perhaps, but not much in how he addressed those questions he did consider.) Even his argument that the class whose understanding of their own interests is best aligned with the common interests is the landed aristocracy (the bourgeoisie having interests opposed to the common interest, while the working class shares—by its sheer size, defines—the common interests but lacks an understanding of what their real interests are in the domain of interest) [0] is seen as describing exactly a problem than the Left (see, e.g., Marx and discussions of class consciousness) sees as central to solve, rather than being a regressive idealized preference. The Left criticizes a lot of the arguments people who appeal to a mythologized caricature of Smith use his name to defend, sure, but that's a different thing than criticizing Smith. [0] Which is about as far as you can be from leaning liberal where there is a political choice to be made, though given the complete displacement of the landed aristocracy as an economically-meaningful distinct class it is largely irrelevant in practical terms in the 21st century.
  - aerhardt 7mo ago
    Some in the Left, including Marx - perhaps most of the well-read Left - do this. Then there is an entire category of people who throw his name around in the mud and call “Adam Smith liberal” anything they view as immoral or excessive.

zymhan 7mo ago

There are far better examples they could use.

infinitewars 7mo ago
[flagged]
- infinitewars 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - tim333 7mo ago
    I might have done - you claim questionable reasons for Thiel's actions without evidence. For one thing he didn't start it.
    - infinitewars 7mo ago
      His ownership percentage is similar to Elon's stake in Tesla, you can quibble over details (Series B vs A). His associates are teaming over Polymarket and now Palantir is in charge of policing the market.. sort of a fox guarding the hen house situation? https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/why-trump-backing-betting-market-polymarket-might-be-a-scam/articleshow/114552529.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/why-trump-backi...
  - yownie 7mo ago
    wonder no further!
  - switchbak 7mo ago
    I'll downvote that WITH commenting, also HN rules encourage against ranting about downvotes, fyi.
    - fc417fc802 7mo ago
      I don't think there's any issue with asking when no explanation is provided and it's unclear to you. Whereas complaining about it is just tedious and doesn't add anything of value.

waffletower 7mo ago

I do take Adam Smith out of context, that is the precise point -- the invisible hand of self-interest is the salient idea that has endured and shaped modern Hypercapitalism. It doesn't matter if he is rolling in his grave at audio frequencies due to my and, more importantly, society's alleged misappropriation of his work and misunderstanding of his many moral considerations. He was effectively soundbited centuries ago and we are still struggling to manage the implications. Saying he was a good guy makes it more difficult to fix the problem.

shermantanktop 7mo ago
Much like Marx, who had a lot of very insightful observations. Whether what was done in his name is or isn't directly attributable to his writings is somewhat academic. That has taken on a life of its own, and overshadowed all his other ideas. It has also certainly made talking about class in America very difficult.
- waffletower 7mo ago
  Very good comparison. I do have more respect for Marx, the modern concept of life/work balance owes much to his concept of estranged labor ("Life itself appears only as a means to life"), as I haven't had to live in a society afflicted by his excesses and misappropriations, unlike the case of Adam Smith.
  - lordnacho 7mo ago
    Adam Smith mentions something similar as well. He talks about how the worker's attachment to the work is different when he's working in a super specialised part of a production process rather than making the whole product like an artisan.
  - WalterBright 7mo ago
    [flagged]
    - 7mo ago

frereubu 7mo ago

There's a great podcast about Adam Smith here, debunking some of those oversimplifications: https://www.ppfideas.com/episodes/what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-political-philosophy%3F-learning-from-adam-smith https://www.ppfideas.com/episodes/what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-...

braiamp 7mo ago

It's funny as a economist people thinking that the free market is some kind of god, that the invisible hand is infallible. He never argued markets work without institutions. He believed governments must enforce justice, prevent monopolies, and provide public goods for markets to function properly.