I have read Adam Smith's " The Wealth of Nations". It is a very large book. While centuries old it is still relevant. It refutes a lot of economic thinking that is today falsely called conservative. He was labeling the move from feudalism to market driven economics now called capitalism. What a lot not all of the donor class want is a…
I have read Adam Smith's " The Wealth of Nations". It is a very large book. While centuries old it is still relevant. It refutes a lot of economic thinking that is today falsely called conservative. He was labeling the move from feudalism to market driven economics now called capitalism. What a lot not all of the donor class want is a move back to feudalism. A system where a few own everything and everyone else. Thanks but no thanks. If you actually read what Smith said, you know real capitalism is joined at the hip to a strong government and it's regulations. For trust for exchanges to happen you need the government to guarantee property rights and enforcements of agreements. You also need a currency that is stable which only a strong central bank can do. To keep markets open you need regulations and a government strong enough to enforce them. As Smith explain markets tend to monopiles . The seeds of destruction are inherited in capitalism. In my view the culture war is to distract the masses while the system is gigger more and more to feudalism.
One tenet Mr. Smith offered that is never pointed to by vulture-capitalists is that those who control capital have responsibility to a community's welfare, the fair and decent treatment of workers, and shared stewardship of that community.
Seems that Mr. Smith appreciated the opportunity for more persons to have control of the monetary system besides inbred royals, but with that comes responsibility.
Smith actually believed in Ethics. Something that no capitalist in 2023 adheres to. It is all about accumulation and greed. Just looking at bankers bonuses tells the story.
A lot of people like to talk about Adam Smith. Not a lot of people actually have READ Adam Smith (which includes his Theory of Moral Sentiments).
The same can be said for Marx. I do not know a lot of people who have actually read Capital. I will freely admit that I have not read the entire thing (it is three volumes versus the two volumes of Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations).
Both Marx and Smith get cherry-picked a lot (as does the Bible or any "scripture").
It is the three volumes of Das Capital that puts them off! Marx's work was theory based and never fit the world of labor and capitalism as it was evolving in the late 19th century. In 2023 we have a worse problem, fewer Americans understand capitalism or how it actually works.
Which is interesting because most translations of Russian are as bad or worse than translations from German, in my experience (I could read both at one time, but haven't done that much over the last few decades)
Possibly because Lenin's writings were translated into German first? I think he was just a more organized thinker than Marx and he was certainly the more practically oriented of the two.
Certainly the latter --- except for the chapters and verses in the Old Testament with all the smiting of one's enemies and the incest! Both induce a pant snake in certain "religious" types.
You're asking a group that spurns education as being elitist to actually read and study books that define and explain the ideas they are mistakenly promoting.
PJ O'Rouke did a review of Smith's book and remarked that he was surprised that Smith acknowledged how damaging unfettered capitalism can be. I think his surprise came from the usual cherry-picking and word-of-mouth knowledge of this book. He was not disappointed in any way or shape by this. I think he was in full agreement with Smith and had a deeper and better appreciation.
I have read Adam Smith's " The Wealth of Nations". It is a very large book. While centuries old it is still relevant. It refutes a lot of economic thinking that is today falsely called conservative. He was labeling the move from feudalism to market driven economics now called capitalism. What a lot not all of the donor class want is a move back to feudalism. A system where a few own everything and everyone else. Thanks but no thanks. If you actually read what Smith said, you know real capitalism is joined at the hip to a strong government and it's regulations. For trust for exchanges to happen you need the government to guarantee property rights and enforcements of agreements. You also need a currency that is stable which only a strong central bank can do. To keep markets open you need regulations and a government strong enough to enforce them. As Smith explain markets tend to monopiles . The seeds of destruction are inherited in capitalism. In my view the culture war is to distract the masses while the system is gigger more and more to feudalism.
One tenet Mr. Smith offered that is never pointed to by vulture-capitalists is that those who control capital have responsibility to a community's welfare, the fair and decent treatment of workers, and shared stewardship of that community.
Seems that Mr. Smith appreciated the opportunity for more persons to have control of the monetary system besides inbred royals, but with that comes responsibility.
Smith actually believed in Ethics. Something that no capitalist in 2023 adheres to. It is all about accumulation and greed. Just looking at bankers bonuses tells the story.
A lot of people like to talk about Adam Smith. Not a lot of people actually have READ Adam Smith (which includes his Theory of Moral Sentiments).
The same can be said for Marx. I do not know a lot of people who have actually read Capital. I will freely admit that I have not read the entire thing (it is three volumes versus the two volumes of Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations).
Both Marx and Smith get cherry-picked a lot (as does the Bible or any "scripture").
It is the three volumes of Das Capital that puts them off! Marx's work was theory based and never fit the world of labor and capitalism as it was evolving in the late 19th century. In 2023 we have a worse problem, fewer Americans understand capitalism or how it actually works.
It also has to do with the fact that Marx is, at best, a tedious writer.
Being a translation (if you are reading it in English) doesn't help.
That's also true and my German isn't good enough to read the original, but Lenin is much clearer in his contributions.
Which is interesting because most translations of Russian are as bad or worse than translations from German, in my experience (I could read both at one time, but haven't done that much over the last few decades)
Possibly because Lenin's writings were translated into German first? I think he was just a more organized thinker than Marx and he was certainly the more practically oriented of the two.
Same with people invoking Orwell. Or the Bible, apparently.
Unlike Adam Smith or Karl Marx (both OK in small doses), Orwell was and remains a great read. Huxley, too, if you want to go there.
Certainly the latter --- except for the chapters and verses in the Old Testament with all the smiting of one's enemies and the incest! Both induce a pant snake in certain "religious" types.
There's nothing better than people who cite Orwell to argue against socialism.
I have down loaded Moral Sentiments but not read it yet. Eventually I will get around to it.
You're asking a group that spurns education as being elitist to actually read and study books that define and explain the ideas they are mistakenly promoting.
Conservatives today would call Smith a godless communist because of what he said about bankers, landlords, and finance capitalism
Everyone should at least try to read Adam Smith. It may be old but many of his thoughts about how capitalism could be destructive are there.
PJ O'Rouke did a review of Smith's book and remarked that he was surprised that Smith acknowledged how damaging unfettered capitalism can be. I think his surprise came from the usual cherry-picking and word-of-mouth knowledge of this book. He was not disappointed in any way or shape by this. I think he was in full agreement with Smith and had a deeper and better appreciation.
Man, I miss PJ