Great Adam Smith Quote

[The Muckraker]

Ah, the founder of capitalist philosophy, heralded by conservatives the world over. Doesn't someone here have an Adam Smith quote as a signature? Try this one:

"Businessmen are an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it....Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality. For one rich man, there must be at least five hundred poor."

I feel sorry for the Smith fatihful, actually. They fail to realize that capitalism, just as much as socialism, is a socio-economic system. Economics can no more be separated from society than wet can be separated from water.

[kidicarus20]

Yah, he still belived in free-market theory he just wouldn't say something like "everybody always wins in free-markets" or "free-markets are the freest and bestest system in the world for everybody" like some conservatives who refuse to accept some problems with capitalism.

Heres one I like:
"People of the same trade hardly meet together even for merriment and diversion but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices."

Ie the public and the workers will end up getting screwed because of the combination of CEO's greed.

For instance with coal the capitalists in the past have prevented the production of too much of raw materials allowing them to drive up prices. So they kept down the workers wages, and raised the price of coal for people to use. This is capitalism's "efficiency", it would never happen in communism.

[Tkinter1]

He seems to be acknowledging a truth(a problem). That doesn't mean something can't be done to correct it.

[Robot Rebellion]

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Adam Smith, An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

In a society of an hundred thousand families, there will perhaps be one hundred who don't labour at all, and who yet, either by violence, or by the more orderly oppression of law, employ a greater part of the labour of society than any other ten thousand in it. The division of what remains, too, after this enormous defalcation, is by no means made in proportion to the labour of each individual. On the contrary those who labour most get least. The opulent merchant, who spends a great part of his time in luxury and entertainments, enjoys a much greater proportion of the profits of his traffic, than all the Clerks and Accountants who do the business. These last, again, enjoying a great deal of leisure, and suffering scarce any other hardship besides the confinement of attendance, enjoy a much greater share of the produce, than three times an equal number of artisans, who, under their direction, labour much more severely and assiduously. The artisan again, tho' he works generally under cover, protected from the injuries of the weather, at his ease and assisted by the convenience of innumerable machines, enjoys a much greater share than the poor labourer who has the soil and the seasons to struggle with, and, who while he affords the materials for supplying the luxury of all the other members of the common wealth, and bears, as it were, upon his shoulders the whole fabric of human society, seems himself to be buried out of sight in the lowest foundations of the building.
Adam Smith, first draft of Wealth Of Nations

Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.
Adam Smith

The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.'
Adam Smith

Our merchants and master manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effcts of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.
Adam Smith, "The Wealth Of Nations", pg. 104

Ground rents are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Ground rents are, therefore, perhaps a species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them.
Adam Smith



(Edited by Robot Rebellion at 9:47 am on May 12, 2003)

[The Muckraker]

Tkinter1,

Surely you're not suggesting that the State become involved in a capitalist economy!!!!

Of course, that's the problem, isn't it? Some people, right on this very board, suggest that capitalism in the USA does not exist, because the State is involved. That, however, is a fool's argument, for the State embodies the ideas of the Ruling Class, and the capitalist class is the Ruling Class in the USA. Very often class traitors and other bourgeois swine argue for "pure" capitalism under the guise of libertarianism, but they choose to ignore Smith when it comes to this subject.

Smith was a product of Enlightenment thinking and envisioned a world of "healthy" competition taking place on a level, for his day, playing field, all the while expecting that a sense of noblesse oblige would keep the worst atrocities from happening.

It didn't.

Smith's modern day defenders call the solution to the problem that Smith himself cites socialism.

Like I said, that's the problem, isn't it?

[Tkinter1]

Just as too much state involvment is detrimental, too little is as well.

[The Muckraker]

Well, Tkinter1, since you accept State involvement in the economy, just whose interests should the State be protecting?

[Tkinter1]

It should protect the rights of everyone, and maintain a non-exploitative society.

[Guest1]

socialism

[Tkinter1]

Che, history tends to dictate otherwise.

I find the idea of a business owner, the one who conceived the business, created the business plan, financed it with his own money, and running it properly(the way he sees fit), only to be overrun by workers as very much expolitative of the mind and efforts of an intelligent individual by the mediocre.

[The Muckraker]

It should protect the rights of everyone, and maintain a non-exploitative society.

The rights of everyone, you say?

Does that include the right of collective bargaining for the working class? Or does that in and of itself violate the rights of the owning class? If a majority of workers want to be heard, does the owner constitute a majority of one? Where should the State stand on this issue?

And what, exactly, counts as "exploitation" for you? You say you want society to be "non-exploitative," but you don't define your term. At what stage does someone start to exploit someone else? That's a vital question, for you say it's the State's job to ensure that does not happen, correct?

Barbara Ehrenreich, in her book Nickel and Dimed, showed repeatedly that many workers do not earn a living wage. That is, they work full-time, but can not afford to live in US society. Is that "exploitative?" The bosses lived fine, it was the workers who couldn't pay rent.

So you clearly see the need of defining what exactly qualifies as exploitation and what does not. Perhaps others allow sloppiness on such things, but that serves no one well, as I'm sure you will agree.

Please define what you mean a bit more clearly in regard to what exactly exploitation means to you, as well as how a State could work in the interest of everyone when classes may very well have conflicting interests.

Thank you.

[Tkinter1]

You needed all that to ask me to define key terms?

anyway...

- Exploitation of the working class - Not allowing them a livable wage/conditions.

- Exploitation of the business owning class - Overruning of a self made business by unworthy recipients.

I use the term 'rights of everyone' loosely. Morality defines the rights of everyone.



(Edited by Tkinter1 at 6:34 am on May 12, 2003)

[The Muckraker]

You needed all that to ask me to define key terms?

No, I needed all that to ensure you wouldn't misunderstand me. Also, because I wanted answers that wouldn't be smarmy and inaccurate. I lead by example, you see, and you have not followed. Let's look at where you went astray.

Exploitation of the working class - Not allowing them a livable wage/conditions.

Not allowing them? Or not paying them? Everyone is, of course, allowed to earn a living wage, but not everyone does even though they work full time. Are you saying that minimum wage should be a living wage? And if so then in what community? Living in San Francisco is MUCH more expensive than living in Cheyenne. In my city, studies say a living wage is $10-$12 an hour, but there are plenty of jobs that pay less. Should those employers be forced by the State to pay more than the market demands? Is that your solution?

Exploitation of the business owning class - Overruning of a self made business by unworthy recipients.

Unworthy? What makes who unworthy? That's a value judgment, and as such the burden is upon you to state the criteria used in determining who is worthy and who is not. You seem to like to make pronouncements, but you don't seem to like to be clear when making them, which is too bad for you.

You're again light on specifics. Does a union contract constitute "overruning" a business? After all, a contract makes demands on the "business owning class" that it may not like.

If this "argument lite" is the best you capitalist symathizers can do, then you're really not needed here, are you? Your platitudes don't mean a damned thing, and when I challenge you, all you give me are complaints about the length of my posts?

HA!

You are the one's who have come here to enlighten us poor misguided socialists, but when challenged, you have nothing to say.

How very sad for you.

[Tkinter1]

You're blowing this way out of proportion... we're just talking loosely about issues(at least thats what I thought), I'm not writing a fucking book here, and I'm not trying to answer all the questions... at 15 I don't think I have them.

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 6:51 am on May 12, 2003)

[The Muckraker]

You're blowing this way out of proportion... we're just talking loosely about issues(at least thats what I thought), I'm not writing a fucking book here...

Are we?

You wanted to play before, and we know that because you gave actual, if inept and inadequate, responses. Now you're denying the very substance of the thread. Rather than answer me, you whine.

That's not a very good example.

Game, Set, Match.

The Muckraker

[The Muckraker]

You're blowing this way out of proportion...

Know what? I'm not done.

How, exactly, am I "blowing this way out of proportion?" By demanding that you explain yourself when you are unclear? Suddenly that's "blowing" things "way out of proportion?"

What nonsense.

You can't answer, so you blame me. Typical Republican: never take responsibility.

Your ilk are sad and pathetic, unable to even explain the bullshit that spews for your own lips.

Dismissed.

[Tkinter1]

For every thing I say you could ask more and more questions, it would lead us to the reality that there are no perfect answers.

But I will admit, I don't have the expierence to argue this in depth with you. :)

[Anonymous]

Vox.

[The Muckraker]

For every thing I say you could ask more and more questions, it would lead us to the reality that there are no perfect answers.

Yes, you're right, I probably could ask more and more questions.

But that's not what I've done at all.

Rather, I've asked you to define your stance, and you have not been willing to do so.

YOU, not me, stated what exploitation was, but your definition was unclear, and most likely unsound. You didn't even attempt to correct it.

YOU, not me, stated that some people are just "unworthy." When I asked how we arrive at a determination of who is and who is not unworthy, you've nothing to say.

The reality is that I've only asked you to clarify what you've already said. In what circumstances and by what definition is what you state true? You don't reply to that at all.

Do not even attempt to try to paint me as the one who is avoiding the issue. Do not even attempt to suggest that I am somehow arguing things you never said.

I am trying to discover exactly what you mean.

It's not my fault you prefer not to answer.

[Tkinter1]

When I try to define my stance exactly, questions come into my mind about what I've just stated. When I try to answer those questions more and more come(you've really made me think). How should I define my stance in an acceptable way for you? Is my stance not sound because I don't have all the answers?

Or am I blowing this way out of proportion now?

[vox]

HA HA HA!!!

DC, you little prick!

You spoiled all my good clean fun. Thhhpppt. :P

Fact is, though, I'm still right, you're still wrong. I can't help it that I'm the most brilliant, the most enlightened, the most goddamn WONDERFUL motherfucker around.

That's just me.

You should, however, be rewarded for being the first to guess correctly.

And even you have to admit, you fucking NEED me. Say it, baby. Say it to me soft and sexy-like.

Kisses,

The One,

The Only,

The Most Ultimate and Terrible of All Possible Vocis,

vox

[Anonymous]

Goddamn you drunk piece of shit! :biggrin:


I knew it was you, I could tell by your writing style.

[vox]

When I try to define my stance exactly, questions come into my mind about what I've just stated. When I try to answer those questions more and more come(you've really made me think). How should I define my stance in an acceptable way for you? Is my stance not sound because I don't have all the answers?

Of the two questions you offer, neither answer provides anything new.

I would say that your stance is unsound because you cannot define it at all. It's not about whether it's to my personal satisfaction, hell, you could have said something you believe that I disagree with and now we'd be talking about that, but we're not.

It's also not about having all the answers. No one has all the answers, and if someone thinks he does, he's a fool.

It is, though, about being able to take into accont many different aspects of various economic situations and providing a response that satisfies all of them. You've not done that, and when challenged on specifics, you backed down.

Now, I don't think I'm going to turn you into a Marxist, but if you want to dance with me, you'll have to become a much more informed capitalist.

vox (evil, hateful, vindictive, and usually right)

[vox]

DC,

I was waiting to see how long it would take. I could have changed my style, that's not too hard to do, but I thought it would be more fun for me this way, and it was.

You go to college, DC? If so, what was your major? Just curious. Style recognition isn't as common as you might think. Seems to be concentrated in those damned bleeding heart English Majors!!! You a Liberal Arts guy, DC?

You a bleeding heart?

vox

[Tkinter1]

"It is, though, about being able to take into accont many different aspects of various economic situations and providing a response that satisfies all of them."

So what you're saying is we should get as close as we can to answering all the questions? How do we know when we've come close?

[Anonymous]

I'm sixteen.

[vox]

So what you're saying is we should get as close as we can to answering all the questions? How do we know when we've come close?

When people like me have to take more than twenty seconds to challenge you on things.

Sorry if that sounds rough, but it's the truth. Seriously, what you said before was without merit. Had it any merit, you could have shown it, but you didn't, see?

Some may object that I'm now in the easy role of the critic, but the critic has to be able to see flaws and explain, as I have, why they are flaws.

Tkinter1, what it comes down to is this: you believe certain things, but, from what you've shown here, you can't really say why you believe them.

Obviously, that's bad.

When it comes to socio-economic reality, very little is self-evident. One needs to study it very closely to arrive at any understanding, and I'll tell you something, I'm as hard on so-called "leftists" who simply say "capitalism sucks" without being able to say why as I am on you. It doesn't really win me any friends, but I feel good about it.

Let's face it. You set up two standards to be followed, and when asked to explain why those standards were the best, you couldn't. If you did that in a board room you'd be fired, and rightly so.

When we post on a board like this, we are saying to THE ENTIRE WORLD that we know what we're talking about. We damn well better, huh?

vox

[Liberty Lover]

It seems that some of you lack a comprehensive understanding of Smith’s philosophy and its relevance to today’s world.

The central thesis of The Wealth of Nations is that capital is best employed for the production and distribution of wealth under conditions of governmental noninterference and free trade. In Smith's view, the production and exchange of goods can be stimulated, and a consequent rise in the general standard of living attained, only through the efficient operations of private industrial and commercial entrepreneurs acting with a minimum of regulation and control by governments.

To explain his concept of government maintaining a laissez-faire attitude toward commercial endeavors, Smith proclaimed the principle of the "invisible hand": Every individual in pursuing his or her own good is led, as if by an invisible hand, to achieve the best good for all. Therefore any major interference with free competition by government is almost certain to be injurious.

As I mentioned earlier, although Smith’s views have undergone considerable modification by economists in the light of historical developments since his time, many sections of The Wealth of Nations, notably those relating to the sources of income and the nature of capital, have continued to form the basis for theoretical study in the field of political economy. The Wealth of Nations has also served, perhaps more than any other single work in its field, as a guide to the formulation of governmental economic policies.

Personally I support minimal Government interference in people's daily lives, except where it is shown to be against the public interest or where the lack of Government intervention would work against the basic principles of free enterprise.

[IHP]

Liberty Lover you pathetic hunk of crap, this is the second time I'v epulled you up for this. The first being the Syria situation and now this.

Comrades, look here: http://www.free-cliffnotes.com/data/da/emr45.shtml

about ten lines down or so.

STOP STEALING OTHER PEOPLES WORK AND PRESENTING IT AS YOUR OWN!! Think you can manage to make your own arguments?

--IHP

sorry about the caps gys but plagiarism really pisses me off.

[Liberty Lover]

I stole it from Encarta 99, these guys must have as well.

[vox]

LL,

How do you reconcile your account of Smith with his own words? Example:

"Businessmen are an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

Another example:

"People of the same trade hardly meet together even for merriment and diversion but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices."

Clearly, this is a clarion call for regulation, no?

No.

Rather, as I stated previously and you seemed to ignore entirely, Smith was a product of enlightenment thinking who relied on the now forgotten notion of noblesse oblige to ensure the fairness of the market.

Smith's "invisible hand" is not a helping hand but rather one which chokes the proletariat.

As I've already stated, Smith's devotees lack the recognition that economics is strictly tied to the role of the State, and those with economic power therefore have unelected political power. One may be able to forgive Smith, living when he did, for such an error, but one can't forgive such denial now.

Too, when you say that "The Wealth of Nations has also served, perhaps more than any other single work in its field, as a guide to the formulation of governmental economic policies," I simply think you're wrong, for Keynes' General Theory had a profound impact on the entire Western world. Smith's imaginative work has influenced far-right ideologues, but the fact is that Keynes influenced entire nations. That in the USA radical extremists now hold sway is not proof of Smith's ideas, only of the corruption of the US Republic's voting system by a small band of revolting men and women.

vox

[Tkinter1]

"what it comes down to is this: you believe certain things, but, from what you've shown here, you can't really say why you believe them."

I'm starting to wonder if I believe them anymore.

[vox]

Tkinter1,

I'm too cynical to think that a month from now you and I will be agreeing with one another, but if you're thinking about things, that's good. What a lot of people don't realize is that answering people like you makes me think, too, and that's also good.

Leftists who don't want a genuine understanding of economic reality leave me as cold as right-wingers who drape themselves in the flag to justify whatever policy they wish, regardless of how silly it may be.

If I may be so bold, there is one thing I think you, and all of us, should remember. Economics is not gravity. It's not some sort of Natural Law. We create economics. We define it. We can change it. Economics does indeed have rules, but those rules are ONLY in place after we agree on the institutions that enforce them. They can change at any time, and they have. Even in what people like me would call "bourgeois economics," the change in the focus of the Federal Reserve from unemployment to interest rates had a profound effect, and you can look that up on Google if you want to know more, there's a lot about it.

Some people bow at the altar of The Market. I do not.

I bow at the altar of humanity and proclaim that The Market serves People, not the other way around. That may be the biggest difference between me and the bourgeoisie. It's a matter of priorities, I suppose.

vox

[Liberty Lover]

Vox,

The exerts of Smith's work you provided contradict what I am familiar with:

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

"He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand, to promote and end which was no part of his intention. . . . By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good."

I don't think there are many modern day 'Smith's devotees'. As I mentioned earlier, Smith’s views have undergone considerable modification by economists in the light of historical developments since his time.


(Edited by Liberty Lover at 10:49 am on May 12, 2003)

[vox]

LL,

So we can quote Smith contradicting himself? Yes, apparently we can.

Now you seem to want to take back what you said about Smith's influence, saying that there are no modern Smith devotees, though the Cato Institute might argue with you on that one I won't, but you didn't mention Keynes' influence at all, and he was surely one who believed that the State has a large role to play in the economy, no?

You may not want to recognize the coercive powers of business on society, but anyone who is seriously interested in economics has to take that into account, or the analysis is worthless.

Much like your "philosophy."

[Liberty Lover]

I never went back on what I said about Smith's influence.

His influence was his contribution to the belief that the economic powers of governments should be limited and that there exists a natural order of liberty applicable to the economy. It was Smith who opened the way for industrialization and the emergence of modern capitalism in the 19th century.

It does not make sense that a philosophy devised in 1776 be implemented in today's world. The case is the same for Marxism. Alterations are necessary in light of historical events. The depression of the 1930's was an event that proved to Keynes that there was no self-correcting mechanism to lift an economy out of a depression. He therefore proposed alterations to the current capitalist status quo. Perhaps if Smith were around in the depression years he would have done likewise.

Today's capitalism involves minimal (not non-existent) Government interference in people's economic lives.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from The Muckraker on 3:49 am on May 12, 2003
Tkinter1,

Surely you're not suggesting that the State become involved in a capitalist economy!!!!

Of course, that's the problem, isn't it? Some people, right on this very board, suggest that capitalism in the USA does not exist, because the State is involved. That, however, is a fool's argument, for the State embodies the ideas of the Ruling Class, and the capitalist class is the Ruling Class in the USA. Very often class traitors and other bourgeois swine argue for "pure" capitalism under the guise of libertarianism, but they choose to ignore Smith when it comes to this subject.

Smith was a product of Enlightenment thinking and envisioned a world of "healthy" competition taking place on a level, for his day, playing field, all the while expecting that a sense of noblesse oblige would keep the worst atrocities from happening.

It didn't.

Smith's modern day defenders call the solution to the problem that Smith himself cites socialism.

Like I said, that's the problem, isn't it?


That, however, is a fool's argument, for the State embodies the ideas of the Ruling Class, and the capitalist class is the Ruling Class in the USA

Not really, Adam Smith believed in a complete Laissez Faire socioty. Which in short means that NO outside interferance should affect buisness or buisnesses. This was directed at the government especially to stop any interferance. This is the VERY basis or freetrade.

Unless it is completely free of outside interferance then buisness will never be completely in line with Smiths theorys.

[Harmless Games]

Meh, Adam Smith. What to say about Adam Smith. I Suppose all my words have been taken

[peaccenicked]

Bring back Reagan lives. All is forgiven.

[antieverything]

Wow...this is a great discussion!

Welcome back, Vox. I've said it before, you're an asshole and I hate you but you are one of my favorite boardies.

I think its sort of sad that people still cling to the economic theories of a guy who lived before the ideas of supply and demand were introduced. Perhaps in discussions of philosophy, this would be admissable (even though I personally don't have much use for philosophy for the most part) but in economics it is silly. If Smith published a book like "Nations" today, it would be laughed at simply because of the methodology. As the saying goes, "theoretically, anything can be theorized"...meaning, don't theorize in a vacuum. Sadly, some conservatives still haven't learned this lesson.

While I do tend to criticize orthodox Marxists as well, Marxism is a little different. Marx was describing visible trends in advanced industrial societies. Obviously, Marx wasn't a seer and predicted that the working class would "get wise" before the capitalist class did...he banked on the very real socio-economic phenomenon of capitalist ultra-conservativism (you can look it up!)...not a bad idea but it didn't actually work out that way...the ruling classes were able to, in an amazing display of class consiousness, make sacrifices in order to save the system--the veins through which they drew blood from the host societies. As FDR once said, "I'm not a revolutionary. I'm fighting against the conditions which breed revolution." ... or something like that, this being off the top of my head ;)

Even today when economic conditions move more towards the way they were when Marx was writing, we see the same trends that he saw: a thirdworldization of America, for instance, over the last few decades. Interestingly enough, we still can't dismiss Marx's views on the origins of economic cycles (as stated in Das Kapital) because even today economists can't agree on what causes growth in the first place (and some conservatives won't even admit that there is any such thing as an economic cycle)!

Well, I don't think that I actually covered what I originally meant to...and I'm not really sure what I meant to cover any way so I'll wrap it up.

DISCLAIMER: any statements concerning Marx are not to be taken as if I know everything about the guy...so if I made a mistake and you feel it necessary to ream me--please be gentle, I bruise easy.

[antieverything]

Oh, I remember what I was going to say...

Free markets are great for op-ed pages and economics departments but in the real world they are simply what they are described as being in Vox's quote.

Every major industry in which America is capable of being competitive in the international market is heavily subsidized by the government or was even created by government (telecommunications)!

[Liberty Lover]

I think its sort of sad that people still cling to the economic theories of a guy who lived before the ideas of supply and demand were introduced. Perhaps in discussions of philosophy, this would be admissable (even though I personally don't have much use for philosophy for the most part) but in economics it is silly. If Smith published a book like "Nations" today, it would be laughed at simply because of the methodology. As the saying goes, "theoretically, anything can be theorized"...meaning, don't theorize in a vacuum. Sadly, some conservatives still haven't learned this lesson.

Are you accusing me of doing this?

[antieverything]

I'm not accusing anyone of anything...all I'm saying is that there are some people who still declare that Smith is someone who can't be argued with...he has--for some reason--become a rigid orthodoxy for some people and that isn't something I think makes sense. I think it is sad that people feel that economics can be so simplified as to fit in a small box of "this is how it always works and I can explain it to you using logical, simplified models" like one of those syndicated economists that I read in my local paper arguing for the wonders of NAFTA for American and Mexican workers. It's self-delusion and it isn't acceptable.