Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2018 20:46:13 GMT
Earlier this month I posted about “free speech rights" that Christian conservatives & libertarians (and their allies, such as Bari Weiss) believe are being denied them. I then re-examined the words of their most illustrious intellectual forefather, Adam Smith. His idea that we should trust the wisdom of the “invisible hand” of the market has a religious quality of its own. He uses it in Chapter II against restraints on importation. According to Smith, such restraints interfere with the “principle” that those who trade in their own unfettered self-interest will benefit the most people. I don’t see that he proves this "principle" – especially since he says elsewhere that this same market destroys "a great part of the children” which the fruitful marriage of workers (or “commodities,” as Smith calls them) produce. He further undermines his argument by quoting Locke that labor, rather than nature, is what provides the only value. These quotes dovetail well with an article I read a couple years ago on how market fundamentalists view freedom. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 31, 2018 1:15:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 1, 2018 4:41:19 GMT
Earlier this month I posted about “free speech rights" that Christian conservatives & libertarians (and their allies, such as Bari Weiss) believe are being denied them. I then re-examined the words of their most illustrious intellectual forefather, Adam Smith. His idea that we should trust the wisdom of the “invisible hand” of the market has a religious quality of its own. He uses it in Chapter II against restraints on importation. According to Smith, such restraints interfere with the “principle” that those who trade in their own unfettered self-interest will benefit the most people. I don’t see that he proves this "principle" – especially since he says elsewhere that this same market destroys "a great part of the children” which the fruitful marriage of workers (or “commodities,” as Smith calls them) produce. He further undermines his argument by quoting Locke that labor, rather than nature, is what provides the only value. These quotes dovetail well with an article I read a couple years ago on how market fundamentalists view freedom. Supply and demand can set an "optimal" price for all parties concerned but there are things that can interfere with it. If one seller has a monopoly of some good or service, the interests of buyers can be overridden. There must be choices for buyers. Similarly if buyers cannot choose to decline a purchase at all, the interests of buyers can be overridden. For example you cannot choose to decline the purchase of water for very long in the same way you can decline the purchase of potatoes or fabrics made of cotton. Another requirement for supply and demand to work effectively at setting an optimal price for all parties concerned is called "perfect information." If buyers are not made aware of their choices, for example through advertising, it is much the same as not having those choices. Advertising can advance the interests of sellers in much the same way. Imperfect information can result in haphazard prices. Other things that can influence the optimal price are the "externalities" of transactions. Most transactions only affect the buyer and the seller. Some transactions affect other parties. If someone buys a product responsible for pollution there is a negative effect on other parties, a "negative externality." If someone buys health care some of those purchases have a positive effect on others insofar as they are also less likely to catch some disease, a "positive externality." Often times government will try to help find an optimal price by taxing things with negative externalities and subsidizing things with positive externalities. It requires more skill than government often demonstrates. In quite most things supply and demand does work rather automatically. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2018 12:00:44 GMT
I recently found an article discussing a book by scholar David Harvey allowing us to see the faithful's "invisible hand," so I thought I'd post it here.  A book review in The Guardian points out a hopeful sign that many others can see it, too: Perhaps this ability will finally liberate the concept "freedom" - a concept that Smith and his descendants had abducted to serve them and their masters. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 20:37:51 GMT
Some recent Beatle-and-related threads brought this video to mind:
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on May 28, 2018 20:40:45 GMT
I am a fan of Adam Smith. That said I am a Smith fan only when it comes to pure economic strategies. My social views lean more toward leftism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2018 19:37:45 GMT
I am a fan of Adam Smith. That said I am a Smith fan only when it comes to pure economic strategies. My social views lean more toward leftism. Most people I know who like Smith are Objectivist, “anarcho”-capitalist, or lean a bit to the right, so yours sounds like an interesting take - what do you like about his strategies? |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jun 1, 2018 20:08:55 GMT
it's all useless rhetoric unless the minimum wage is raised to at least fifteen dollars an hour.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 1, 2018 20:40:38 GMT
I am a fan of Adam Smith. That said I am a Smith fan only when it comes to pure economic strategies. My social views lean more toward leftism. Most people I know who like Smith are Objectivist, “anarcho”-capitalist, or lean a bit to the right, so yours sounds like an interesting take - what do you like about his strategies? Keep in mind that my teachers (when I did my Bachelors in Economics) were strong advocates of free market so there may be some amount of bias in me.
There are two primary reasons that I favour the hands free approach. One is that I was inspired to some degree by Austrian school and second is that through my own reasoning I have come to an understanding that no matter what form of government rules over people, the people who are in government are not just corrupt but also inefficient at what they do. I strongly dislike democracy because the past and present is ripe with examples of how democracy puts people like Trump in power. These people are not best people to be had in government. Even if qualified people do the actual policy making, the fact that unqualified people have ultimate authority over them is enough to tell me that democracy is an efficient form of government. So is communism or socialism for various reasons.
Now, when I have already concluded that people who are in charge of economy are inefficient the best approach that I see is minimise the amount of government intervention. Austrian school believes that government intervention causes business cycles. I do not completely agree with them. I believe government intervention may cause business cycles but other factors like external shocks and technological change can also cause business cycles. However, I strongly believe that even if government intervention may not be sole reason for cycles or recessions, they play a good part in exacerbating a problem and extending a problem that an economy may face. So ultimately the best thing that can happen is minimal government intervention. The invisible hands of free market is our best bet.
* I have an examination on 23rd June. I may expand a bit more and tell what form of government I would like to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 1, 2018 21:03:11 GMT
I covered my views on economic system in my last post. For social matters I lean towards left but I have an aversion with people who are championing the left and I don't want to be associated with them. The existence Democratic Party of America (even though it follows right wing economics system) just about sums up how utterly corrupt are those who are championing the left. Not to forget that the other party (Republicans) is perhaps made of insane people.
I have come to an opinion that people who actively support Democratic party of America are only slightly less contemptible than those who support the Republican party. The biggest reason behind why I think so is that Democrats almost always concentrate on short comings of Republicans. They forget to clean their own house which has seen people like Bill or Hillary Clinton in position of authority. These Democrats have not been behind in following the footsteps of Republicans in doing acts such as Libya intervention (idiotic step that led to 100s of thousands of lives and displacement of many many people). So in my book the people who are championing the left are all show and no stuff. Okay some of them are fine I might be exaggerating a bit.
Now on personal note do I support abortion, woman rights, freedom of speech, gay rights, transgdender rights etc. etc.? Of course I strongly support all such causes that leftists champion. In that regard I am a leftist myself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 11:33:05 GMT
I covered my views on economic system in my last post. For social matters I lean towards left but I have an aversion with people who are championing the left and I don't want to be associated with them. The existence Democratic Party of America (even though it follows right wing economics system) just about sums up how utterly corrupt are those who are championing the left. Not to forget that the other party (Republicans) is perhaps made of insane people. I have come to an opinion that people who actively support Democratic party of America are only slightly less contemptible than those who support the Republican party. The biggest reason behind why I think so is that Democrats almost always concentrate on short comings of Republicans. They forget to clean their own house which has seen people like Bill or Hillary Clinton in position of authority. These Democrats have not been behind in following the footsteps of Republicans in doing acts such as Libya intervention (idiotic step that led to 100s of thousands of lives and displacement of many many people). So in my book the people who are championing the left are all show and no stuff. Okay some of them are fine I might be exaggerating a bit. Now on personal note do I support abortion, woman rights, freedom of speech, gay rights, transgdender rights etc. etc.? Of course I strongly support all such causes that leftists champion. In that regard I am a leftist myself.
 |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 2, 2018 12:11:20 GMT
I personally try to avoid taking any tags but I can understand if I sound like a neo-liberal or anything else.
So what you? You simply don't like ideas of Adam Smith or you don't like how the right wingers have utilised Smith's ideas for their own benefit and to the detriment of society?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2018 12:41:10 GMT
I personally try to avoid taking any tags but I can understand if I sound like a neo-liberal or anything else. So what you? You simply don't like ideas of Adam Smith or you don't like how the right wingers have utilised Smith's ideas for their own benefit and to the detriment of society? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2018 14:03:05 GMT
~Thank the invisible hand...~
|
|
