Adam Smith and the Birth of Economics | Lawrence Reed
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J85N9zozYz8&fs=1&rel=0]
Lawrence Reed, President of FEE, discusses Adam Smith’s role in the development of economic thought. Mr. Reed outlines how Smith’s background in moral philos…
Video Rating: 4 / 5
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9YVqZN9LJk&fs=1&rel=0]
George H. Smith was formerly Senior Research Fellow for the Institute for Humane Studies, a lecturer on American History for Cato Summer Seminars, and Execut…
A key characteristic of both feudalism and mercantilism was monopoly. And,
for most of this part of history (to paraphrase Winston Churchill) “land
monopoly was the mother of all monopolies.” Adam Smith detailed the
consequences of these monopoly-prone societal structures. His treatment of
how land comes to be owned and the privatization of the rent of land is a
portion of “The Wealth of Nations” that has been ignored, particularly once
European-trained economists began to replace political economists in the
colleges and universities.
Also, Adam Smith argued that the proper role of government was to prevent
monopoly, to prevent cartels from destroying competitive market conditions.
What history reveals is that Smith’s warnings were not heard. The systems
of law and taxation in country after country were and still are designed by
those who gained power to deepen the privilege which they enjoy. Thus,
every society (the United States included) is plagued by an entrenched
rentier elite that successfully enjoys huge subsidies (i.e., rental income
flows or imputed rental income is taxed at very low effective rates of
taxation). The result is that actual producers of goods and services are
taxed heavily to pay for public goods and services. This is exactly the
opposite of what Adam Smith argued for.
This parrotting cunt face discovered some fossils ideas. Adam smith was a
broke moron telling people what they wanna hear. I feel the invisible hand
up all your asses right now feeling around for nuggets of gold. You feel
it? You feeli it you scholarly cock suckers?
Adam Smith and the Birth of Economics | Lawrence …:
http://youtu.be/J85N9zozYz8
Libertarian Socialist, I recall that the position Smith holds is that 1
people are fundamentally equal, it is the division of labour which makes
them unequal in a social sense. 2 the free market would MAKE everybody more
or less equal, as the rich would in a free market invest their wealth and
improve the lives of everybody. In effect, making everybody equal. He did
maintain that wages are determined in part by bargaining power but that is
a far cry from everybody having to be equal.
how in the world did america become the number one economic superpower
again?
Reviewing Adam Smith’s landmark On the wealth of Nations and the birth of
modern economics.
very good .well delivered and good audio
if this guy actually read adam smiths works he would have understood adam
smiths position on the poor. in fact adam smith stipulates that in order
for a free market to work the people would need to be equal.
What is ‘free trade’ anyway. No country has ever engaged in ‘free trade’.
Even when the corn laws were abolished, the British Empire still charged
premiums on scarce goods through its imperium. The countries in the world
today that benefit from ‘free trade’ promote it, those that do not are
described as subverting the market. As if the market cares if it is being
subverted or not. The cold war is at a stand still between North and South
Korea. So, technically it is not over as you suggest.
The institution of slavery varies considerably time to time, culture to
culture, society to society. 19th century chattel slavery was different
than Northern Iroquoian Slavery where captives could eventually be adopted
as a full member of the tribe.
Hey Fee, I am having a very hard time finding the postal law he is
referencing. A little help please.
Well…Rothbard was an advocate and a leading pioneer in something called
“anarcho-capitalism”, so i’m assuming he sees socialism wherever there’s
government.
Those are good points, like the Amish communities in the US. I don’t think
a true free market economist would have anything against voluntary
communalism so long as people were not being forced into against their will
and weren’t able to own property by law. The artificial standards are more
of a bureaucrat thing. Take for example the case in North Carolina of
building inspectors shutting down the primitive but liveable camp of a
life-long mountain man because it “didn’t meet code”.
We are the children of Rome and Athens. Hunter-gathering just won’t do for
us. A life without any sense of progress is oblivious and not worth living.
Yes, but it’s these Western ‘modern standards’ that should be challenged.
Believe it or not, there exist economies based on trust, in which
communities live from public commons and get along just fine without a
service economy in the mode of Western modernity. Are these people ‘poor’,
or are they perfectly content. Why should our definition of poverty be a
desirable goal? Are we not merely casting the ‘developing’ world as passive
subjects desirous of Western civilisation?
Socialism comes from Adam Smith.
If you were born anytime between the dawn of mankind and 1850 AD, there is
a 99% chance you would have been poor, at least by modern standards. Only
with the rise of capitalism has there been a high standard of living for
people outside the ruling class and aristocracy.
Starvation is an economic problem not a food problem.
Rothbard’s work on Economics prior to Adam Smith. I don’t have the title in
front of me, but the resource can be found on the Mises site itself. He
lay’s out who and how everything was influenced and where it spawned. It’s
a good read IMO.
What is the difference between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class mail?
I agree with some of this. We have to accept that we have benefited from
the imaginings of ‘primatives’ and lectures about Adam Smith tend to boil
down to hubris rather than acknowledgement – heaven forbid that other
cultures and ways of knowing can actually enlighten the Westerner.
Take for example the market price of slaves being traded as global
commodities. Economists estimate the going price of an Asian youth is ~
$40. The real danger in capitalism is that fact we can and will marketise
everything – even fresh water. Adam Smith foresaw this and prescribed
education as the moral conviction of a good society. Free market or command
economy – people need education. The best education is not ideological but
artistically and scientifically meaningful.
Food isnt the issue. Money is. The starving arent capitalists. We buy our
burgers.
My point exactly.
On the contrary. I’ll quote from Allan Bloom’s “The Closing of the American
Mind”: The scientific study of other cultures is almost exclusively a
Western phenomenon, and its origin was obviously connected with the search
for new and better ways, or at least for validation for which there is no
felt need in other cultures.[…] The reason for the non-Western
closedness, or ethnocentrism is clear. Men must love and be loyal to their
families and their people in order to preserve them.
Go read some books is a terrible retort. It just shows that the books you
read didnt provide you with good arguments. Otherwise you could use them.
The relationship of economics and morale is that economics created morals.
Our natural moral tendencies are a result of mutation that won the genetic
battle that happened in our ancestors social environment. Evolution follows
economics just as much in moral then in body design.
David Friedman lookin’ like a cocaine pimp
If everyone wanted the world to be a better place, the world would be no
more libertarian than it is right now. If everyone understood that less
government made the world a better place, the world would be libertarian
tomorrow. Obviously the economic arguments are the only effective
arguments.
George H. Smith Debates David D. Friedman: Ethics vs. Economics (1981)
wow…George says Hitler was a libertarian? C’mon people…read Mein Kampf,
please…he’s a statist that libertarians abhor…this is not a debate,
this is one intelligent man, Friedman, and a monkey named George who
doesn’t know anything about Hitler. He is using Godwins Law like a Pavlov
Dog.
I need to use the word eschewing more.
*George H. Smith Debates David D. Friedman: Ethics vs. Economics (1981)*
Published on Aug 22, 2013 by +Libertarianism.org 1:55:01
*George H. Smith** was formerly Senior Research Fellow for the Institute
for Humane Studies, a lecturer on American History for Cato Summer
Seminars, and Executive Editor of Knowledge Products. Smith’s fourth book,
The System of Liberty, was recently published by Cambridge University
Press.*
*David D. Friedman** is an economist, political philosopher, and the author
of many books including The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical
Capitalism, wherein he lays the groundwork for a society based exclusively
on voluntary transactions.*
*In this video from a 1981 Libertarian Party of Texas event, Smith and
Friedman have a debate over whether economics or ethics–whether natural
rights or rule utilitarianism–forms a better basis for libertarian ideas.*
h/t +The Cato Institute +Libertarian Party +Reason
Was that Wendy McElroy at the end? Damn she was smoking! I suppose as a
feminist she would say I’m being oppressive. 😛
David Friedman = George Costanza
I thought the same, so I read a bit of what she writes. First, individual
feminism really seems to be at the roots of the movement, while the
socialist feminists of today are a deviation from the original ideas
(although a very populuous deviation). Most 19th century (and the few
before) feminists were much closer to individualist views. Basically they
simply want legal equality of gender (which does not exist anymore,
although it is now tipped in “favour” of women mostly), and…
What exactly do you define as first world then? The British empire was huge
and powerful before the liberalization, that is true. But so was the Roman
Empire, or the Soviet Russia. All of them were powerful. The Roman
empire,at the peak of its power, had absolutely no competitors militarily
in the world (that is even beyond their known world of the time) that it
could not easily crush with concentrated effort. But that says nothing
about the desireability of living in such a society.
Wow do you seriously buy the idea that economics is a profession of
doctrinaire free marketeers? Economics is one of the few areas of the
social sciences that actually has a wide range of opinion unlike
anthropology or sociology where opinion is rather uniform and unchanging.
That’s wierd. I did not delete that comment. Here it is in full length: Do
you have any arguments about why in particular economy as a whole is wrong
or just a few quotes and wild claims? Because I can find famous people who
said mathematics is just useless nonsense for example. And that would
hardly be an argument against mathematics. Rather an evidence suggesting
that those people don’t understand what mathematics is about.
I just realized you were talking not about GDP but about per capita
GDP…there the situation is almost exactly the same You have an increase
of about 50 1960 US dollars a decade in the UK until 1850, then it doubles
and is steadily that way until the beginning of the 20th century. The boost
between 1910 and 1913 is most likely artificial – state military expenses
before the Great War (WW1) which have little to do with the quality of
life. Google list of regions by past gdp per capita in wiki.
FWIW, the questioner at 1:32:00 is Tom Glass, current vice chair of the LP
Texas.
Let me just conclude with this: I don’t aree on a lot of things with Rand
or Rothbard…your argument here is a real strawman. Does economics consist
of Rothard and Rand (who was not even an economist)? Of course, I could
pick a book. And it could contain interesting critique of some ideas and a
critique based on arguments. but you personally did not present them. It
would be nice for you to say “here is a critique – link to a book”. But you
said “economics is religion” and mentioned 2 quotes.
Why? Because anyone can shout out slogans, phrases and quotes. But without
arguments, they are pretty empty. One can react to arguments with
counterarguments, or – if they are persuasive – actually accept them. But
what you do is rather meaningless howling into the void of the internet. I
agree that youtube comments below a video are not a good patform for a
serious discussion. Better have it elsewhere then.
oman im so stoked. thanks so much!
she still is
Moral philosophy is not the sum of a myriad of right and wrong decisions.
Can I ask where you get the data from? I just made a quick look at the UK
GDP development in history. Use wikipedia and google “list of regions by
past GDP, scroll to Europe 1830-1938. There is a consistent increase in the
GDP over time and a significant boost after 1850 (after which the growth
has doubled) which stops only at the WW1 (for obvious – and state induced –
reasons). These are rough estimates of course, but entirely inconsistent
with your claim.
er…beaUtiful not beatiful…nothing to do with beats or beatnicks 🙂
She was smoking back in the day