What's Your Favorite Adam Smith Quote?
Reason contributors pay homage to a great thinker.

In honor of Adam Smith's 300th birthday, Reason asked some of our favorite people to share their favorite quotes from the Scottish Enlightenment thinker. It's a tribute to Smith's depth and breadth that the resulting collection covers everything from humility to the division of labor to love to where to get a good wine. — Katherine Mangu-Ward
Dan Hannan

"By means of glasses, hotbeds, and hotwalls, very good grapes can be raised in Scotland, and very good wine too can be made of them at about thirty times the expense for which at least equally good can be brought from foreign countries. Would it be a reasonable law to prohibit the importation of all foreign wines, merely to encourage the making of claret and burgundy in Scotland?"
—The Wealth of Nations
Here is the awkward Scottish bachelor at his best. Anyone can follow his reasoning. His logic is indisputable. Yet at the same time he is overturning an assumption which would otherwise strike many people as simple common sense.
Almost every government, as much in our day as in that of the sage of Kirkcaldy, tries to promote domestic production or, to use the current phrase, to "reshore." Smith, as he so often does, demonstrates the absurdity of that approach by extending it to its necessary conclusion.
Most people feel that their own countries should be self-sufficient in food or steel or some other imagined necessity. That feeling is natural, intuitive—and utterly wrong. The least self-sufficient country in the world is Singapore, which relies on imports for its food, energy, and drinking water. At the other end of the scale is North Korea, which has elevated the doctrine of self-sufficiency ("juche") to be its ruling principle. Where would you rather live?
Less juche! More Smith!
DAN HANNAN is a member of the United Kingdom's House of Lords, an adviser to the U.K. Board of Trade, and a former member of the European Parliament.

James R. Otteson
"The man who has performed no single action of importance, but whose whole conversation and deportment express the justest, the noblest, and the most generous sentiments, can be entitled to demand no very high reward, even though his inutility should be owing to nothing but the want of an opportunity to serve. We can still refuse it him without blame. We can still ask him, What have you done?"
—The Theory of Moral Sentiments
In his Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith discusses the virtue of beneficence and distinguishes it from benevolence. Benevolence means, as its etymology suggests, wishing others well. One can have benevolence toward everyone, hoping things work out well for everyone. But Smith thinks that is cheap. What matters is what one actually does for another, the positive actions one undertakes to improve others' situations. That is what beneficence means: taking action, at some cost to oneself, to benefit others.
This distinction is illustrated in the above passage. What matters for others is not merely wishing them well, not merely performatively expressing the right sentiments, and certainly not merely making oneself feel better by possessing just, noble, or generous sentiments. What matters is acting on those sentiments, and doing the sometimes hard work of using one's time, talent, and treasure to benefit others. Talk is cheap, in other words, and so is tweeting. If all you have done is express the correct sentiments, you have done little of value, and we can still ask you: "What have you done?"
This passage from Smith reminds us that improving the human condition requires work, and it calls on us to go beyond words and engage in positive production and contribution to others' lives.
JAMES R. OTTESON is John T. Ryan Jr. professor of business ethics at the University of Notre Dame. He is a senior scholar at The Fund for American Studies and the author, most recently, of The Essential Adam Smith and Honorable Business: A Framework for Business in a Just and Humane Society.

Eamonn Butler
"Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things."
—Account of the Life and Writings of Adam Smith, LL.D.
Adam Smith understood that people can look after their own affairs far better than any government "man of system." And he understood that they could cooperate together in peace and harmony, producing a society that was not planned or designed by anyone. It was what F.A. Hayek, 200 years later, would call a spontaneous order an order without commands.
Moreover, this spontaneous social order worked and produced prosperity because, in their peaceful cooperation through trade and enterprise, individuals each create value for each other. The more freely that trade and commerce flourish, the greater the value created for the society as a whole.
We should therefore not trust visionaries to design our society; nor do we need governments to run it. They should merely create the conditions ensuring that we are protected from enemies abroad and criminals at home, and at the least possible cost that allow it to thrive.
EAMONN BUTLER is director and co-founder of the Adam Smith Institute in London.

Tom G. Palmer
"If we should enquire into the principle in the human mind on which this disposition of trucking is founded, it is clearly the natural inclination everyone has to persuade. The offering of a shilling, which to us appears to have so plain and simple a meaning, is in reality offering an argument to persuade one to do so and so as it is for his interest. Men always endeavour to persuade others to be of their opinion even when the matter is of no consequence to them. If one advances any thing concerning China or the more distant moon which contradicts what you imagine to be true, you immediately try to persuade him to alter his opinion. And in this manner every one is practising oratory on others thro the whole of his life."
—Lectures on Jurisprudence, March 30, 1763
The division of labor that Smith stressed so much, was the "consequence of a certain propensity in human nature…the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another." The question "belongs not to our present subject to enquire." What a tease! Fortunately, we have his lecture notes above.
Smith held the Chair of Logic and Rhetoric at the University of Glasgow and was deeply interested in persuasion, of which exchange was one form. Persuasion is the alternative to force, although, of course, people are also persuaded to use force on others. Aristotle, who referred to humans as animals that have speech, noted in his Rhetoric that "to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others," that is, to persuade. Cultivating persuasion, whether on a radio show or a tweet or "the offering of a shilling," is central to the future of free societies. Smith's friend David Hume noted: "As force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded."
TOM G. PALMER is the George M. Yeager Chair for Advancing Liberty and executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network.

Russ Roberts
"Man naturally desires, not only to be loved, but to be lovely."
—The Theory of Moral Sentiments
When Smith says "naturally desires," he means we're hard-wired this way. Our desire to be loved is inherent. It's an essential part of who we are.
By "loved," Smith doesn't mean just romantic love. He is saying that we want to be honored and praised and respected and admired. He is saying we want to matter.
Then he adds that we not only want to be loved—we want to be lovely. We want to be worthy of honor, praiseworthy, worthy of respect and admiration. We want to earn those things by truly embodying those virtues.
Smith's not a fool. He knows people are prone to self-deception and that we often see ourselves as better people than we truly are. But deep down, Smith is saying we want to earn the respect of others and to respect ourselves.
Later, he says something similar but adds another twist: "The chief part of human happiness arises from the consciousness of being beloved." The feeling of being respected and admired by others brings the deepest serenity and satisfaction.
RUSS ROBERTS is president of Shalem College, host of the EconTalk podcast, and author of How Adam Smith Can Change Your Life: An Unexpected Guide to Human Nature and Happiness (Portfolio).
Caroline Breashears
"As we have no immediate experience of what other men feel, we can form no idea of the manner in which they are affected, but by conceiving what we ourselves should feel in the like situation. Though our brother is upon the rack, as long as we ourselves are at our ease, our senses will never inform us of what he suffers. They never did, and never can, carry us beyond our own person, and it is by the imagination only that we can form any conception of what are his sensations."
—The Theory of Moral Sentiments
In the first chapter of his first published book, Smith foregrounds imagination as essential to moral judgment. Imagination enables us to understand the situations of others and to begin the process of judging their behavior. It also enables us to step outside of ourselves to form impartial judgments of our own actions. It helps us to write and speak to others, bringing our tone to a pitch with which they can go along. That ability enables us to engage in trade with others, imagining what they seek. As he writes in Wealth of Nations, we "never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages." It all starts in the mind.
CAROLINE BREASHEARS is a professor of English at St. Lawrence University. She is the author of Eighteenth-Century Women's Writing and the 'Scandalous Memoir' (Palgrave Macmillan).

Veronique de Rugy
"To hurt in any degree the interest of any one order of citizens, for no other purpose but to promote that of some other, is evidently contrary to that justice and equality of treatment which the sovereign owes to all the different orders of his subjects."
—The Wealth of Nations
Adam Smith is rightly described as the father of modern economics, but this passage reminds us that he was also a moral philosopher who spent a lot of time thinking about issues of justice and fairness. As a result, Smith wasn't just concerned about the economic inefficiencies of the mercantilist system and the economic consequences of imposing tariffs on consumers to protect producers from foreign competition. He also warned us about the injustice of a government that extends favors to one group of people at the expense of another group of people. Mercantilism, protectionism, and cronyism in general are unfair, as they are the symptoms of a government that elevates some and punishes others.
Contributing Editor VERONIQUE DE RUGY is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Donald J. Boudreaux
"The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."
—The Wealth of Nations
Does there exist anywhere a warning against entrusting government officials with power to intervene into private persons' economic affairs that is as succinct, as thorough, as eloquent, and as powerful as this warning by Adam Smith? If so, in my almost half-century immersion in classical liberal literature I've yet to encounter it. Using only 77 words, Smith resoundingly proclaims that economic growth is best ensured by allowing individuals to use their assets as they judge best, that no government official (or cabal thereof) can possibly outperform markets, and that to entrust the state with such authority to intervene is to give power to individuals who are especially unfit to exercise it. The wisdom of this passage is deep and undeniable. Unfortunately, as attested by the persistent calls for industrial policy and other schemes to put resource allocation decisions into the grip of government officials, this wisdom is also largely ignored.
DONALD J. BOUDREAUX is a senior fellow with the F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and a member of the Mercatus Center board.

Hairuo Tan
"He never assumes impertinently over any body, and, upon all common occasions, is willing to place himself rather below than above his equals. Both in his conduct and conversation, he is an exact observer of decency, and respects with an almost religious scrupulosity, all the established decorums and ceremonials of society."
—The Theory of Moral Sentiments
Quoted above are some characteristics of the Smithian prudent man. The prudent man is far from perfectly virtuous, but he possesses many qualities that are still applicable today.
If we, like the Smithian prudent man, willingly place ourselves below our equals, we will not only pay due respect to others but also allow ourselves the opportunity to discover how we might learn from a peer, a colleague, or a passerby. By observing and learning from others, we practice Smithian sympathy by imagining ourselves becoming another and approximating the sentiment the other person may have in various situations. Putting ourselves below our equals also helps us resist the desire to be praised and applauded; instead we can seek tranquility of mind, which Smith says is the source of true happiness. And if we seriously observe the rules of society, as the Smithian prudent man does, we can avoid conflicts and disputes while interacting with one another. Mutually beneficial transactions will be conducted in a frictionless manner. Social harmony will be spontaneously defended by individuals' voluntary behaviors, producing less need for public funding for the establishment and enforcement of rules.
HAIRUO TAN is a fellow in the Adam Smith Program at George Mason University.

Bhuvana Anand
"The prudent man always studies seriously and earnestly to understand whatever he professes to understand, and not merely to persuade other people that he understands it."
—The Theory of Moral Sentiments
In the world we have come to inhabit, the premium on knowledge for its own sake has dulled; knowledge seems to have become exciting only insofar as it can give you credentials. When you learn something in the pursuit of credentials, you are likely to take shortcuts, learn just enough, or, worse still, wing it. When you learn something for its own sake, when you go deep, when you sincerely put a premium on understanding, you are able to explain it and to apply it. This to me is the prudence Adam Smith speaks of, a fail-safe in a persuasion playbook: Know your subject matter really well, not just well enough to be able to post on social media about it.
BHUVANA ANAND is co-founder of Trayas, an institution helping states in India identify and implement regulatory reform.

Charles Koch
"How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it."
"Man was made for action, and to promote by the exertion of his faculties such changes in the external circumstances both of himself and others, as may seem most favourable to the happiness of all….Nature has taught him, that neither himself nor mankind can be fully satisfied with his conduct, nor bestow upon it the full measure of applause, unless he has actually produced them."
—The Theory of Moral Sentiments
Without these principles that people act on in their daily lives, civilization and human progress would not be possible. These insights of Smith, with those of scholars such as Abraham Maslow and Viktor Frankl, transformed my life.
As Maslow put it, the "best way to help the society" is to "first find out what you can do best and then offer yourself to that. And since that which we can do best is self-actualizing….here is an excellent instance of the transcendence of the dichotomy between selfishness and altruism….of synergy."
Frankl found that "being human always points, and is directed, to something or someone, other than oneself…..The more one forgets himself—by giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love—the more human he is and the more he actualizes himself."
Frankl taught that meaning enables us to "transform a personal tragedy into a triumph, to turn one's predicament into a human achievement." This philosophy enabled him to survive the ultimate personal horrors, his experiences in Nazi death camps.
Smith, Maslow, Frankl, and my own experience convinced me that every individual, no matter the obstacles, can find meaning by helping others improve their lives in ways that are mutually beneficial.
CHARLES KOCH is the co-owner, chairman, and chief executive officer of Koch Industries.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.apprichs.com
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
.
.
.
Just open the link————————>> http://www.pay.hiring9.com
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
Join this most awesome and cool online home based job and start earning everyday more than $500 per day. i made $18521 last month, this is amazing and irecommend you to join and start your money making source from home.
.
.
Now Here ——————————————->> https://Www.Coins71.Com
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.RICHEPAY.COM
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
Free market capitalism is a great theory but unfortunately is overseen by human beings. Nasty, selfish, greedy human beings. And of course regulatory bodies deliberately bring together "people of the same trade" - who do you think is going to wind up running these oversight boards?
Free market capitalism is an ideal state that doesn't exist. Free markets require all actors to be working under the same set of assumptions which doesn't happen globally.
To me those who argue under ideal systems only, without any analysis on secondary effects and chaotic responses, are simply like 8th graders learning the basic outline of physics. They learn initially on frictionless surfaces and then maybe assuming a single friction value system. Now you wouldn't want people who only understand ideal physical systems out designing your airplanes. Not considering CFD and heat effects om the skin altering the drag coefficient.
Yet some libertarians argue for complex macroeconomics to be analyzed from an ideal state. Often this is done when they want to ignore reality or eliminate a truth that would harm their argument. Their argument is so sophomoric that it doesn't even look at second order effects. It happens a lot with reason writers here.
I find that bitching and moaning about "ideals" is nothing but a distraction. Viewed from the position of today's crony capitalist society- where some 70% of our economy is directly price-regulated by fiat- the difference between a libertarian anarchist and a free-market-pragmatist is inconsequential.
Distraction to ideals is used to covered up secondary effects and temper an argument to a limited set of assumptions. That is why many focus on a set of assumptions, generally whichever set best fits their argument. It is a fall back for those whose ideas are not firm to try to butress it against known flaws.
I am fine with people having a set of ideals and then developing a course to change policy towards those ideals. But those who declare an ideal as the end of a discussion in a non ideal system are doing so generally from a weak argument or as an attack on someone else's views.
I can already tell that this discussion is in danger of degenerating to us indicting one another's arguments based on strawmen or notable mistakes of others.
Suffice it to say that I have found very few people define an ideal as the end of an argument. Instead, I have found ideals generally useful as shorthand placeholders- bookmarks for long sets of reasoning. It is a pragmatic device so that we don't have to work from prototypical principles in every discussion we have.
Instead of seeing idealism as inherently flawed, we should see it for what it is: a tool. Yes, I agree that in some contexts, supporting an ideal merely because it is an ideal creates an unhelpful tautology. On the other hand, just because an ideal is being used does not AUTOMATICALLY mean the ideal is wrong, or that a tautology is in play.
This is what I mean when I say that people use ideals as meaningless distractions. You and I probably have close but differing ideals of Freedom of Expression. When we are talking about Government censorship by proxy vis a vis Twitter, our ideals are close enough that we can probably get by without addressing them. It would be wrong for me to insist "Freedom of Expression is an ideal therefore conversation closed." But it would also be wrong for you to say, "Well since you are a freedom of expression maximalist, and that is unworkable, anything you have to say about twitter is going to be wrong anyways."
(I am not saying You, as in JesseAZ, but just a hypothetical you).
And again, I’m not accusing you as well as shown in the consequent post. I did call out jeff. Will add mike and sarc as examples as well.
I dont think you actually do what I’m stating above. In fact you’ve called out secondary effects against an ideal state such as in your discussions on Florida limiting the required training on DEI or the mask/vaccine policies buttressed against the fact the civil rights laws already limit interactions for businesses.
But many will ignore secondary states or current system states in their argumentation. And my arguments against those attempts is what I’m addressing.
The example I mention below is the open borders advocates who always dismiss costs.
It is important the true system states and secondary and tertiary effects are recognized.
Eric Boehm is another example of one who argues as if an ideal state exists in many of his economic treatise.
I'll also note that second order effects and nonlinearities inherent to complex systems (and especially complex adaptive systems) are not "ignored" by most libertarians. What is generally argued is that these effects are notoriously difficult to predict. And even when they can be predicted, I'll note that when you and I often disagree, it isn't because I deny these second order effects exist. It is that I deny they are more important, or deny that they are disqualifying for the first order effect.
Adam Smith's entire moral treatise still acknowledged that taxes exist. But these were times when nations had civil wars due to 2% taxes. Perhaps it isn't that people are slaves to ideals. It is instead that we are all slaves to a present that has made a mockery of history- a present where the idea of tax rates that were the norm 200 years ago is considered foolish idealism.
Secondary effects are important to recognize. I have found, and not accusing you of it but will point to be like saec and Jeff, that many will outright reject secondary effects. Just 2 days ago the open borders mantra came up with the dismissal of the welfare state and secondary welfare costs from imported foreign workers taking jobs of fired Americans. The side who supports this doesn't recognize that h1b holder can qualify for SNAP in some states, has exemptions to some regulatory costs on Americans like ACA exemptions, or that the firing of Americans to hire h1b causes welfare costs on the fired Americans. Those who argue from ideal arguments and attempt to isolate only discussions of ideal systems will never recognize the costs of the real systems.
I can give an example from a real system. Often an IMU (inertial measurement unit) will be designed to a set of ideal assumptions to provide a set of delta v and delta theta to a system. If I designed an aircraft around that type of system the system would be inherently flawed. Usually there are 2nd order effects such as low rate vibrations in the system that cause drift. Looking at a spec sheet there is a known measurement drift rate. So if I design a strap down equation ignoring the secondary effects, my algorithm based on an ideal IMU will fail on a real system. So I have to understand drift, low rate vibrations, design a kalman filter with assumed errors from the system, etc. Ignoring these things causes failures in the system when applied to the real world.
So again, I'm fine with discussions of ideal states when it comes to economics and politics to discuss how policies should move towards. But ignoring the secondary effects to won an argument and ignore flaws of a human based chaotic system is not helpful.
"Those who argue from ideal arguments and attempt to isolate only discussions of ideal systems will never recognize the costs of the real systems."
Well, I don't think these people are actually extrapolating their ideals. They (like most) let ideals become subordinate to tribe. They refuse to consider evidence, or weight it the same as you sometimes due to first principles, but often due to tribal affiliation. This is why I think it is a distraction to indict idealism, when in fact the source of disagreement is a disagreement on first principles or on understanding of the facts.
I also would caution that the gate swings both ways. I have seen many of the same people make the opposite argument. "Since I can imagine this secondary effect based on these specific circumstances, your ideal is invalidated." One does not follow the other- how likely are the specific circumstances? Are those other circumstances more causal than the actual ideal? Should we be focused on changing those circumstances rather than the ideal?
I agree motivation for arguments can get conflicted with ideals. But I think it is more onerous than that.
I’ll give another example where I’m probably in the minority regarding tariffs but have strong assumptions on the ideal states there.
In an ideal free market you want everyone to act on the same set of assumptions. The ideal is everyone is acting in concert to maximize the market to an ideal state. But the market generally requires the ideal of maximizing profit as well. Goods are produced and differentiators in supply are developed through better products or better production of existing products. This is largely based on competition in a free market to create an ideal state. The problem of the idealism of maximizing profit is it can lead to bad acts inside of a market. This clashes with the goal of maximizing the equilibrium state of the full market. So when discussing free markets we often have discussions of certain regulatory behaviors such as tariffs.
Now my take on tariffs is often different than others. I recognize two types of tariffs. Protectionary and reactive tariffs. Protectionary tariffs are done to try to garner an advantage for an actor. To me reactive tariffs are to punish bad acts already occurring in a market.
With the addition of modern game theory to economics we achieve such behaviors as tit for tat engagements in a market. Knowing this I believe reactionary tariffs are appropriate to discourage bad actors in a market from initializing bad acts or impulses to a market. But many disagree with that belief system. It is why I was fine with many of the tariffs Trump did as they were reactionary to other bad actors in a market place. Some will see this as an escalating set of factors that leads to decreasing free market ideals. But to me ignoring bad acts in a market increases bad acts at a larger rate than a reactionary type of system.
We have two sets of ideal beliefs that are both valid but base assumptions from each set of ideals compete and discredit the other. It is based on what you think the system response is that sets up which set of ideals one holds. But in either case the competing set of ideals is not compatible with the other. Which is why I hate arguments like all tariffs are bad. To me ignoring bad acts us much worse than a reactionary tariff. I agree on protection based tariffs, just not reactive ones.
So for me in cases where 2 different idealistic systems are in competition one has to look at the actual facts of the current system and can’t rely on ideal states. If a reactionary tariffs system is causing an escalators state of tariffs, then it is broken. But if one side escalating with bad acts continues to escalate, then that system is broken. So the ideal system requires an understanding of the system and the actors involved. It can’t be solved by arguing from any ideal state.
More simply in a chaotic system there may not be an ideal state.
I understand what you're saying about reactive tariffs, but I've always felt that if Japan wants to tax the Japanese and basically give the money to Americans in the form of subsidizing the price of Japanese cars, we should take their money. I suppose if it's taken to an extreme where American businesses are actually being put under, that's a different scenario. Though I'm truly not sure if it was Japanese subsidies that did in Detroit more than the various unions.
Congratulations! You have neatly and incorrectly reversed cause with effect! Free market capitalism is not now and has never been an ideal. Adam Smith was not trying to convince anyone that they should emulate the ideals in his writing. He was observing the natural state of human beings in the context of society at the time, and trying to draw conclusions of how that state might have arisen. He observed how society had been influenced by various perturbations and, only then, tried to convince us that the better parts of social interaction resulted from the least interventions by official authorities. Free market capitalism is not an ideal state – it is the result of the vast majority of citizens realizing that ownership and use of their own property for their own purposes, being allowed to keep and use the fruits of their own endeavors (including loaning it or investing it at interest) and being free to contract with others to their mutual benefit is essential to their own well-being. More importantly, when almost everyone realizes that it is in their own best interest to extend those benefits to everyone else and protect those rights not only for themselves but for everyone, then the ideal state of society can be approached pragmatically. There is no exception to this principle. All other factors you might try to use to justify intervention by official authorities – externalities or unfairness or equitable distribution, etc. – end up making society worse in the real world. This is not a pipe dream of idealists! It’s the way real humans cooperate in the real world in the absence of outside force. The reason we are not currently near the ideal situation is that busy people failed to notice that regulations were stealing their best interests, failed to take action against the corruptors, and allowed themselves to be divided by those who would conquer them.
Most of this was wrong. Smith did deal with ideal systems. His ideal system was utilizing the effects at the time but markets do adjust over time. His ideal state was minimal governmental intrusions but does not largely account for actors like China that minupulate their markets in their entirety relying often on known responses from free market ideals in the system.
I am always amazed about people who don’t think behaviors adjust from all modifications to a system and believe any market is static and unchanging. To me it is the same as the climate cult who tries to define the ideal climate.
Behaviors change over time. People take advantage of any assumed assumption. People manipulate laws, regulations, and behaviors. Behaviors constantly change. The economy is an evolutionary process, not a fixed one.
And once again because as usual you are intentionally misrepresenting my belief, I believe in a very light hand. But I recognize others do not. And sometimes government power is needed to counter those heavy hands as a response to reign in manipulations by bad actors. Ignoring those items does not magically create an ideal system. There in fact needs to be a response to discourage bad acts.
I can give you decades of AI/algorithmic economic gaming showing this. I can point to real world data showing this. Ignoring it is often worse in outcome than acknowledging reality and responding to it.
I was not trying to misrepresent your belief but, rather, trying to respond to what you were writing. My point was that if others do not believe in a light hand, those who do (who I believe are the vast majority) must use their own power – not the power of government – to reign in the manipulations USING government power. I believe that that is the cause of the problem now. If one group of selfish people tries to use the power of government against others, the proper – and only effective – response is to force government to STOP, not to join the other side in a modified tit-for-tat strategy to gain the upper hand using government authority. There are many ways citizens can resist and oppose abuse of and by government, and all of them are better than accepting the game and trying to win it on the corruptors terms.
Agree 100%. Adam Smith did not explain how this works. Attributing the right outcome of competition and self-interest to the invisible hand makes it sound like magic or occasional luck. Hayek did explain it better. So did Anders Chydenius before Smith.
But yeesh. One would think that commenters here would understand that free markets have nothing to do with ideals or agreements. They are about competition and freedom to enter and exit the market.
Sort of … what I perhaps didn’t say well was that free markets are a RESULT, not an ideal or something you can enforce. Personally I believe that free markets result naturally if you leave people alone to find their own best situations. This doesn’t seem like a magical explanation to me. Since there have always been and will always be some people who, for their own selfish reasons, want to subvert the natural optimax solutions that result from the invisible hand, the question is how to prevent them from doing so. Some of them think it’s unfair that they don’t do very well in a free market; and some of them want the personal power they can get by promising the losers that they will make it more fair. The only way to defeat this tendency is by force – preventing the opportunists and their constituents from using government authority.
Generally I agree that leaving people free to choose the best way forward for themselves will result in a free market.
But that is not simply reversible. Once barriers or distortions or restrictions or subsidies have been introduced, then you don't get back to a free market by then deregulating or freeing up some subset of things. Indeed, distorting some stuff and then freeing up other stuff is exactly how cronyism works.
What’s the threshold? How much interference can free markets stand before we have to get the government involved everything? 5% of free market activity, 50%?, 51%?
There is no threshold where the only option is to give up
Are you saying that once the government gets involved even a little bit with planning the economy, it is giving up to stick to free markets in the remaining areas of the economy?
No. I'm saying that the nanosecond we notice that govt has distorted markets (always at the behest of some special interest), we have to admit to ourselves that:
We have already screwed up real bad.
There ain't no easy way back.
And still - we can't just give up.
Well, you know my answer to what I assume is a rhetorical question: zero percent! Although I try to avoid "slippery slope" arguments, there is no point where regulation of free markets doesn't cause more problems than it solves. There is no point at which deregulation would not improve the outcomes most of us would desire, even if it doesn't quite roll back the clock to the status quo ante. It is never acceptable, in my opinion, to avoid the better because we cannot achieve perfection.
That seems to be the opposite of what JFree is arguing. (And I agree with you.)
I’d taken literally, he seems to be arguing for a one-drop-of-contamination standard where the free market is ruined by the smallest or government intrusions, and therefore full government intrusion is required to set things right.
I’m sure that isn’t really what he meant. Maybe he meant that once government has interfered in a sector of the economy that sector cannot be set right again except by more government interference. Or maybe he meant that once the government has interfered with 51% of the economy more interference is needed. It’s really not clear what he meant, which is why I asked for clarification. “There is no threshold where the only option is to give up” didn’t really clarify anything, unfortunately.
There is no point at which deregulation would not improve the outcomes most of us would desire, even if it doesn’t quite roll back the clock to the status quo ante.
See kleptocracy in Russia. It’s not that that is viewed as an unfortunate cost of achieving a better overall outcome. It is seen as the reason why the vast majority of Russians identify now with the Soviet Union and not with the Russian Federation. That the whole thing was a disaster and should never have happened. That is not just something Putin invented from scratch. And it is not just nostalgia among the older folks (though that is also the case).
Sometimes you gotta take that Maine saying seriously – You can’t get there from here. At least not easily.
Fuck me. I am in 100% agreement with this. Meanwhile,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow
Heh! 🙂
That's why we have to live under the NAP.
My favorite Adam Smith quote demonstrates that Reason stands for nothing but corporate profits. Intellectually empty shills.
They surely know of Adam's Smith's arguments for tariff's to offset local taxes on production, but simply ignore them, as tariffs would cut into Koch Bux and CCP power.
See pages 355-366, Wealth of Nations, http://ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf
*Generally Advantageous Cases*
Case 1 pg 355
There seems, however, to be two cases in which it will be generally advantageous to lay some burden on foreign for the benefit of domestic industry.
The first is, when some particular sort of industry is necessary for the defence of the country.
Case 2 pg 366
The second case, in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry is, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter. In this case, it does seem reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former.
This comes off as a freshman weekend homework assignment.
High school or college? Not that most writing here is much better.
High school.
Bunch of midwits who think they're intellectuals
I wonder how many of them quickly googled "Adam Smith Quotes" when the question was emailed to them.
Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t teach, criticize. I’ve read a lot of criticism from you, but can’t recall a single constructive thing you’ve ever written!
You're an incompetent reader then, or have a poor memory. There's lots of disagreements twixt JesseAz and myself, but unconstructive is not even close to true.
If all you can do is demonize someone so vaguely and incorrectly, you don't know your enemy, and your criticism is worthless.
I mean this thread is full of examples dumdum. Look at the discussion with overt.
Wow.
I apologize for the hasty judgment and retract the offensive comment. The opinions posted may be completely wrong, but they are indeed constructive.
It’s good to know the difference
How are they completely wrong? A bald assertion is not an argument but simply a criticism and we know your thoughts on criticism. Lol.
Are you trying to assert that it's impossible for your opinions to be wrong? My opinions may be completely wrong also, and it would never occur to me to bristle at the suggestion.
> Are you trying to assert that it’s impossible for your opinions to be wrong?
No? He didn't say anything like that. He said "show your work".
Adam Smith "got it" centuries ago, and many people forget that he was not writing an analytical treatise based on pragmatic efficiencies. His works were always rooted in a deep philosophical theory of morality- that markets are merely a manifestation of righteous self action and persuasion. We free markets, not because they are efficient and pragmatically superior (which they tend to be) but because that is the good thing to do.
Once you give up on persuasion, or argue against persuasion, you generally have given up the moral high ground, no matter what your lofty goal. It is a lesson we all should strive to follow, and that we all sadly fail to meet from time to time.
Whose morals?
If you had been paying attention, you would have realized that we are not discussing “whose morals” should be imposed on society. In the context of a discussion of Adam Smith’s contributions, we are discussing whose morals, when they act consistently upon them, lead to an improvement in the condition of society overall, and which moral principles, when acted upon, detract from the social good. In fact, one of the most effective ways to degrade society is to try to impose, through central authority, some set of “morals” on people by punishing their failure to observe and follow them.
Following your comment above... do you realize Smith had many criticisms of systems in place at the times of his writing? Lol. Makes this sound dumb doesn't it?
Those who can’t teach, criticize.
Argumentation requires criticism of competing arguments. That is what debate is. But youre entirely too intellectually deficient to understand that.
Youre basically demonstrating your entire set of intellectualism as an appeal to authority.
So you edge briefly into sentience, only to devolve almost immediately into personal attacks without actually contributing anything to the "debate." Thanks for proving my point so concisely.
Hahahhahaahhahahhaaha
I responded to your personal attack dumdum.
Don’t be like sarc. This is advice.
If you're not intelligent enough to understand that the statement "Once you give up on persuasion, or argue against persuasion, you generally have given up the moral high ground, no matter what your lofty goal. It is a lesson we all should strive to follow, and that we all sadly fail to meet from time to time" 100% assumes a common morality for all, you should save yourself some embarrassment and remain silent.
That you double down on your lack of comprehension with statements about the "condition of society overall" and the "social good" simply reinforces the point.
Yet you remain oblivious, asserting a standard morality and then having the typical progressive gall to close by saying "one of the most effective ways to degrade society is to try to impose, through central authority, some set of “morals” on people by punishing their failure to observe and follow them" without the slightest hint of self awareness.
I have not asserted a "standard morality" but, rather, a pragmatic one. The test is whether the moral standards you practice lead to a better outcome of society or a worse one. It says nothing about what standards you use to measure better and worse for society. Just because I have not specified the measure of a better society does not mean that it cannot be measured. Once people who are debating such things have agreed on the metric they should be able to agree on the outcome and what behavior might have caused it. If you want to assume some measure without my agreement and then pass judgment on the outcome without debate, please be my guest.
"I have not asserted a “standard morality” but,"
"rather, a pragmatic one."
LOL
"The test is whether the moral standards you practice lead to a better outcome of society or a worse one. It says nothing about what standards you use to measure better and worse for society. Just because I have not specified the measure of a better society does not mean that it cannot be measured."
How progressive.
"Once people who are debating such things have agreed on the metric they should be able to agree on the outcome and what behavior might have caused it. If you want to assume some measure without my agreement and then pass judgment on the outcome without debate, please be my guest."
LOL
"Laugh it up, Fuzzball!" 🙂
Natural morals -- do not initiate aggression. Do not interfere in peaceful transactions between others. Don't use government force to try to create specific outcomes. Leave people free to make their own decisions in their own self-interest, as long as they don't trample on the rights of others to do the same.
Where are those particular "natural" morals derived from?
Certainly not nature.
I believe that “natural morals” arise out of experience, that they are not instinctive or deity-granted. Evolutionary instinct led to xenophobia and clannish societies. As societies evolved, people gradually learned how to cooperate to their mutual benefit. Specialization improved efficiency and quality, and trade between specialists led to more and more complex systems, moving from family to tribes to villages to towns to cities and, ultimately, to globalization, allowed at each step by improved technology: communications, transportation, agricultural, monetary and industrial. At the same time those who couldn’t cope with change, even for the better in almost every other way, tried to halt progress by claiming that “it wasn’t fair!” in some way. And some other people tried to take advantage of this specious attitude to promote their own power by promising to make it fair.
"I believe that “natural morals” arise out of experience, that they are not instinctive or deity-granted."
You apparently believe they're crafted by Intro to Humanities adjunct professors who ascribe a modern, thoroughly academic perspective to all peoples in hindsight.
But let's take your model with some credulity and examine a couple implications for 2 modern sacred cows: gays and blacks.
Open/prominent homosexuality doesn't help society in any way, and has often preceded societal collapse/degradation.
Black Americans have a significantly higher violent crime rate than any other demographic, and consistently lower average measured IQ.
You posit utilitarian moral development, thus your model would recommend intolerance of homosexuality and demographic based inequality.
All of your unsupported assertions are hereby summarily rejected! In addition, your conclusions do not logically follow from those assertions. And, finally, my statement is not a model but, rather, an observation of the facts of history (whether correct or incorrect) and, therefore, does not "recommend" anything remotely like intolerance of homosexuality, inequality or anything else in particular, and certainly not as a moral principle.
Like I said, if you're not intelligent enough to understand basic logic (and you definitely are not), you should just shut the fuck up instead of writing out your sniveling temper tantrum.
We free markets, not because they are efficient and pragmatically superior (which they tend to be) but because that is the good thing to do.
And yet when I point out that markets (which are always preferable to managed economies) don't always have great outcomes, I get taken to task.
Well, some people just don't get it. They seem to think that when some things they don't like result from more free markets, it justifies managed - or heavily regulated - economies that produce truly awful outcomes. Go figure ...
This is just a very weird take on markets.
Ethics do not drive our market behavior. If anything they are post-facto. ie we are gonna be self-interested anyway and if we consider that to be good then that just means we prefer to think of ourselves as good rather than bad. Which by the way is yet another manifestation of self-interest.
Personally I prefer a quote by Anders Chydenius (who preceded Smith by a decade or so) to explain the same thing Smith did:
I intend to found thereon the following proposition, i.e. that every individual spontaneously tries to find the place and the trade in which he can best increase National gain, if laws do not prevent him from doing so.
Every man seeks his own gain. This inclination is so natural and necessary that all Communities in the world are founded upon it. Otherwise Laws, punishments and rewards would not exist and mankind would soon perish altogether.
This is not about ethics. It's just the way humans work. ALL humans. Even the ones you purport to oppose by framing this as some ethic/moral issue.
I suggest, however, that there are at least two elements to ethics. Borrowing from Hippocrates: "First, do no harm." The second would be derivative: "Insofar as you can without violating the first principle, do as much good as you can." Improving one's own self-interest through production does not automatically harm anyone else, is likely to improve the situation of almost everyone else around you (e.g. specialization and trade) and "zero-sum" arguments are almost always wrong. Whether you then accept gainful production as ethical behavior is a matter of opinion, I suppose, but seems obvious to me however you define the word.
Hmm, what would Smith say about the orgy of trading with China?
“China has been long one of the richest, that is, one of the most fertile, best cultivated, most industrious, and most populous countries in the world … China is a much richer country than any part of Europe, and the difference between the price of subsistence in China and in Europe is very great. Rice in China is much cheaper than wheat is any-where in Europe … The difference between the money price of labour in China and in Europe, is still greater than that between the money price of subsistence; because the real recompence of labour is higher in Europe than in China, the greater part of Europe being in an improving state, while China seems to be standing still.” https://media.bloomsbury.com/rep/files/primary-source-57-adam-smith-the-wealth-of-nations-on-china.pdf
James R. Otteson
"The man who has performed no single action of importance, but whose whole conversation and deportment express the justest, the noblest, and the most generous sentiments, can be entitled to demand no very high reward, even though his inutility should be owing to nothing but the want of an opportunity to serve. We can still refuse it him without blame. We can still ask him, What have you done?"
—The Theory of Moral Sentiments
MUCH shorter summary of all that: "Work is love made visible." Benevolence is a damned fine thing, yes, sure, but, it you are at all capable of SOME sort of useful work, then... WORK!!!
Benevolence means “work” too, Shillsy.
benevolence
bə-nĕv′ə-ləns
noun
– An inclination to perform kind, charitable acts.
– A kindly act.
– A gift given out of generosity.
– A compulsory tax or payment exacted by some English sovereigns without the consent of Parliament.
PJ O’Rourke, “Everybody wants to save the earth; nobody wants to help Mom do the dishes.”
Oh sure, talk about some dead white guy.
https://twitter.com/shortmagenfield/status/1664973163820613634?t=S-7ydKS_8HUCiXhguEAzng&s=19
Individually, women are more than capable of being good conversationalists. But when you create a panel of them and seek en banc opinions about controversial topics, they hivemind into a type of phalanx and offer only platitudes and safe opinions, which is why this podcast sucks
[Link]
Well that seems a lot like these Reason comments.
Free minds, free markets!
https://www.outkick.com/shemy-schembechler-jim-harbaugh-poor-social-media-vetting/
Jim Harbaugh believes poor social media vetting is largely responsible for the Shemy Schembechler disaster.
Bo Schembechler’s son left the Wolverines just days after being fired after it was discovered he liked tweets some found offensive about race in America, January 6 and other controversial topics.
Some of the tweets at the center of his resignation revolved around Thomas Sowell and Jason Whitlock arguing the breakdown of the nuclear family has caused serious issues for the black family.
The tweets from Whitlock below were at the center of some Schembechler’s likes.
Jim Harbaugh bluntly addressed the situation Thursday, and said the program has to do a better job of vetting social media.
“Once I became aware of things that were offensive — offensive to me, offensive to other members of our team — (we acted). We didn’t want that mindset around…I’ve known Shemy for a long time, but there’s no sacred cow. It’s not who we are — it’s not us,” Harbaugh said at the Sound Mind Sound Body football camp, according to MLive.com.
Prior to Harbaugh pinning the situation on poor vetting and taking responsibility, Shemy Schembechler actually addressed the situation himself and apologized.
“Any words or philosophies that in any way seek to underplay the immeasurable suffering and long-term economic and social inequities that hundreds of years of slavery and the ‘Jim Crow’ era caused for Black Americans is wrong. I was wrong. We must never sanitize morally unsanitary, historical behaviors that have hindered the Black community, or any other community. There are no historical silver linings for the experience of our brothers and sisters,” the son of the legendary Michigan coach said through a PR firm in late May.
Now, he’s gone from the program his father’s last name has become famous with.
"Come on, you spineless Wolverines!"
And he's been publicly outed as "a racist," even if many of the tweets he liked should be uncontroversial.
As a loyal Buckeye, I’ve never hated Michigan. I pity Michigan.
Everyone is now a racist. I could care less. It is all bullshit and lies.
https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1664985467501068288?t=qfanbFuWm09-xhPbuWx5VQ&s=19
It is becoming obvious that the govt is reporting fake numbers initially, then revising them downward in the following months when they think nobody is paying attention.
[Link]
Democrats and media take a weird take defending Joe's fall this weekend, blaming the secret service.
Rachel Wolf ????
@iamrachelwolf
Pissed the Secret Service failed to do their job in clearing a path for President Biden? Some are so corrupt and incompetent that they were easily bribed and duped by federal agent impostors in 2022.
Piyush Mittal ????????????????????
@piyushmittal
The Secret Service is supposed to protect the president. They didn’t. Heads need to roll.
Joyce Alene
@JoyceWhiteVance
The fall happened because the Secret Service left a sandbag obstructing the path he would have to take. What's up with the Secret Service? Small errors on their part have become all too common.
I guess the Secret Service has gone all MAGA.
Video of teacher discussing the pleasures of anal sex and where to buy toys.
https://twitter.com/kellyske/status/1663691373139329027/mediaViewer
It is about teaching kink at this point. Why is this in schools?
Because a significant number of Americans have gone full retard, including activism for extreme ideologies for the sake of personal attention and tribal status?
"teacher discussing the pleasures of anal sex and toys.
Mike says that this is imaginary.
Jeff wants to know why you don’t want kids to know about basic reproduction.
Jeff thinks butt sex is reproduction
He doesn't really, but he deliberately conflates the two for the sake of his narrative. He's incredibly dishonest.
https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1664987400404185088?t=vfhaJNXg0uD7CrcUl-BzqA&s=19
The managerial revolution is a slow-motion coup that no modern democracy can avoid
Even those throughly opposed to biomedical tyranny can’t imagine a world where these decisions aren’t ultimately made by people with the right technical credentials
[Link]
My favorite quote was when he said, "You have twelve seconds to get the hell off of my property."
But since he said it with a Scottish accent, the intruder didn’t understand what the hell Smith was saying and ended up with an arse full of buckshot.
Bow before your lords
https://twitter.com/USDA/status/1664722430487678982?t=0iKeYJZmOGGgrpthRliTAA&s=19
Period.
[Pic]
https://twitter.com/Ben64319554/status/1664779400686993408?t=NCdcgposx06q0dRnx-Hmpw&s=19
This is what AI thinks of us.
1. “Democrat protestor”
2. “Republican protestor”
[Pic]
Except it's "Democrat peaceful protestor" and "Republican deadly insurrectionist".
I'm sure it's assumed
Some of these looks really good outside of the occasional additional finger or whatever. They even had an example for Libertarians; they mostly look like different age ranges of Tony Stark, but still. https://twitter.com/Ben64319554/status/1665006671276515328/photo/1
https://twitter.com/Theo_TJ_Jordan/status/1664963957566722048?t=KD9K1GDfnDTevmsooM8ZWQ&s=19
Want to see something truly horrific? Want to see how badly The Truman Show broke the brains of the left? Scroll these replies.???? This is a form of psychosis.
And yes, I said "the left". Every one of these people will vote DNC, most probably have pronouns in their bio. Eerie.
[Link]
https://twitter.com/PresentWitness_/status/1664818113932828672?t=-ODGlGCh8ifm3K0-mk7nVw&s=19
The 'country' isn't ours anymore. It's owned by international corporations dependent on cheap foreign labor and the creation of consumer debt slaves.
[Link]
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1664998685388820484?t=iix7mey8RuTJhSek-ELx6w&s=19
"Ability to absorb losses" is monopoly language. ESG sets up corporate Hunger Games.
[Link]
"Impeach Garland, impeach Mayorkas, and let's certainly not forget to impeach the worst president in American history Sleepy Joe Biden."
-Adam Smith
Can we also squeeze in a 3rd Trump impeachment? Just for old times sake?
That requires him being elected doesn't it?
Not with a Living Constitution.
I have faith in the Democrats to Find A Way.
THE WALLS MUST CLOSE IN!
Wow, Adam Smith really was a man ahead of his time.
Indeed!
Any EconTalk listener could have told you Russ Roberts’ quote. He has easily quoted that Adam Smith quote a couple of hundred times on the podcast.
My favorite Adam Smith quote isn't a quote, but his contribution to the Labor Theory of Value. It was inspirational for those who would follow in his footsteps.
How about: "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." Send that one to San Francisco.
Libertarian utopia
https://twitter.com/WallStreetSilv/status/1665014882570207234?t=FhgC6kLVQQH4Hy3W1UwwAw&s=19
Shoplifting is getting so bad in some areas, it is going to be online only soon, pay in advance and pick it up at the bulletproof window.
[Link]
And then get mugged for your groceries and sundries.
Or order them online and have them stolen from your porch.
Yea, you don't have to risk getting mugged anymore.
The peasants delivering your groceries do instead.
But Philadelphia already said that bulletproof windows are racist.
I went into this article expecting to feel uplifted by the wisdom of Smith’s writing. Instead, with each quote, I couldn’t help thinking how tragic it was that our society has so thoroughly rejected his teachings. We don’t seek to persuade, we engage in ad hominem attacks, outright lies, and ultimately silencing through cancellation. All a thriving society needs is “peace, easy taxes, and the tolerable administration of justice.” Yet we are still engaged in wars around the world, we have some of the highest taxes in a hugely convoluted tax code, and the supposed “land of the free” has a higher percentage of its population behind bars than any other country on Earth. We still engage in trade wars and “buy American” nonsense. Sad.
I still feel uplifted by the wisdom of Adam Smith's writing. America is still a thriving society. The difference between better and worse is an important one. Society would thrive more if we had peace, easier taxes and a more tolerable administration of justice. Instead we have endless warfare, oppressive law enforcement and insufferable taxation. And we - and the rest of the world - are much better off now than at any other time in human history. It's just too easy for busy, productive people to neglect their role in limiting government, allowing the leeches to divide us into competing constituencies.
It was not by cis or by straight, but by queer, that all wealth of the world was originally purchased.
What would Adam Smirth say, if he were live today?
You mean, they'r still using windmills?
You're going BACK to streetcars?
Completing the First Avenue Streetcar and linking to the South Lake Union and Chinatown International District/First Hill lines, would represent one of the most constructive steps to reviving downtown after the damage of the pandemic and a spike in crime.
There everyone was, minding their own business, when… ALL OF A SUDDEN!
Edit: If you know anything about the area, it ain't because people in First Hill are trapped in First Hill and simply can't find a way to ChinaTown, but for a slow-moving street car that stops every 100 feet, thus devastating the downtown area.
My gosh, how everything would just bounce back if this antiquated form of transportation could be built for a few billion dollars!
Don’t forget the wave of the future, 19th century technology known as trains.
My favorite quote (technically two with ellipsis) of his is:
The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government. Where there is no property, or at least none that exceeds the value of two or three days labor, civil government is not so necessary....
Civil government, so far as it 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
Like all quotes it can be misinterpreted and taken out context. Course the purpose of a quote is to drill down so it can be understood.
"One can have benevolence toward everyone, hoping things work out well for everyone. But Smith thinks that is cheap. What matters is what one actually does for another, the positive actions one undertakes to improve others' situations."
I seem to remember hearing something like this before.
"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." /James 2:14-17 (KJV)
Smith weren’t no H L Mencken.
And he weren't no "libertarian" either. He was an avid free-market guy.
https://twitter.com/loganclarkhall/status/1664665121258364931?t=omQXHa1xE_Fk8y6DFjsZsA&s=19
democrats win because they create and maintain patronage networks for progressive causes. you can get elected, totally wreck a city on purpose, and know you’ll be taken care of after no matter what. it’s a revolving door between woke capital, media, academia, and government.
leftists reward the fringe elements of their coalition. the right punishes theirs.
[Link]
https://twitter.com/lndian_Bronson/status/1665083801549127681?t=pqZSwC2ZTUkoueY5gk9EUA&s=19
None of them get it.
The small-businessman brained GOP donor who demands a “return on investment” is enslaved to incentives as they are.
Soros FLOODS the zone with cash, CREATING incentives of the world that will be.
The right wing *deserves to lose*, and it even subconsciously anticipates this. How similar is the skinflint right wing investor class with its political patronage of “scenes”, to the aging BoomerCon who proudly says he kicked his kids out at 18—then screams about no grandkids?
On a fundamental level the right wing knows it is illegitimate.
“Consenting adults can do whatever they want, uh, but, maybe leave kids alone?”
“No, see I only don’t like *illegal* immigration!”
“Well obviously the US military is always right, just on *this* issue…”
LOSERS
I think I will try again to put into words what my thoughts are concerning free markets: Imagine a place in time where the population and been left alone by outside and internal forces for long enough to achieve a natural situation of society in which specialists efficiently produced a surplus of goods desired by others, and those individuals whose natural capabilities were insufficient to direct production, were able to contribute to production through their labor, contracted by the specialists, sufficient to maintain their own comfortable sustenance. These people, realizing from experience that the factors of their society's overall prosperity and progress should be maintained for their future and the future of their posterity, decide to institute agencies to codify and preserve those factors on their behalf. Realizing that a government that "specializes" in maintaining the property rights, trade rights and soundness of the currency would be more efficient than if each of them had to divert their efforts from production to system maintenance, they decide upon a Constitution specifying the purposes of the agency and limiting that agency to that purpose alone. But, being competent, intelligent people they also realize that government can be a two-edged sword if they don't spend at least some effort to ensure that government does, in fact, stay within the Constitutional limits specified. We might call those efforts "elections" or judicial appeals or, in extremis, insurrection. This thought experiment has been brought to courtesy of Adam Smith.
https://twitter.com/Dissident_Rev/status/1665092188055785474?t=qf3BkPaMpcEiJ9o_HxREKw&s=19
Academics are willing to go as far as erasing entire group identities in order to "dismantle the basis of myths of nationalism"
Their goal is to push the idea that the concept of a "nation" - of having any independence or distinction from others - has never existed.
[Link]
Academics are willing to go as far as erasing entire group identities in order to “dismantle the basis of myths of nationalism”
Toxic whiteness!
https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1664990022871678980?t=RjHryDn2CBR7AtB1RSb1iw&s=19
Ex-Anheuser-Busch exec reveals how lefty investment firms pressure companies to go woke
[Link]
That first quote is interesting, because right now the country has a shortage of life saving drugs because we no longer make them here (despite not needing "hotbed and hotwalls"), but just because the profits aren't high enough for big pharma.
For what it's worth, Adam Smith did suggest a few exceptions, including protecting domestic production necessary for the national defense. On the other hand, your assertion that life-saving drugs are no longer being made in America just because profits aren't high enough for big pharma is, at best, extremely oversimplistic and, at worst, incorrect sloganeering.
The least self-sufficient country in the world is Singapore, which relies on imports for its food, energy, and drinking water. At the other end of the scale is North Korea, which has elevated the doctrine of self-sufficiency ("juche") to be its ruling principle. Where would you rather live?
North Korea: Exists entirely north of the 40th Parallel, is the size of Virginia, with the terrain of West Virginia.
Them trying to be self-sufficient is something of a pipe dream. The US, however, obviously, is significantly larger, with significantly better terrain for farming, manufacturing, mining, etc. We could easily be self-sufficient.
So is Moldova. Are you about to emigrate there?
Adam Smith clearly anticipated the Reason Foundation's Koch captivity when he wrote:
""The overweening conceit which the greater part of men have of their own abilities, is an ancient evil remarked by the philosophers and moralists of all ages. Their absurd presumption in their own good fortune has been less taken notice of. It is, however, if possible, still more universal. There is no man living who, when in tolerable health and spirits, has not some share of it.
I have made $18625 last month by w0rking 0nline from home in my part time only. Everybody can now get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow details here..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> https://www.apprichs.com
Yes, the Chinese people have benefited immeasurably from trade with wealthier, more free economies - just as Adam Smith predicted.
And if the incremental, or even fundamental, increases in benefits for the Chinese people lead to equally significant decreases in benefits for many people in others countries, that's OK?
In what way does improving the lives of the Chinese people through trade lead to significant decreases in benefits for people in other countries? If you could be more specific I could, perhaps, answer your question. Letting cheaper labor make some of the things relatively wealthier people in America want to buy does not seem to harm Americans. Freeing American labor to do more productive jobs here that they wouldn’t be free to do if their labor was diverted to less productive tasks also doesn’t seem to lead to decreased benefits for them. Unless you swallowed the “Made in America (TM)” myth hook, line and sinker you would be able to analyze that more accurately. Believing politically expedient slogans doesn’t add much to the discussion.
Again, how did the slaughter by Maoists result from international trade?
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1665084467684208642?t=hsoTURiB74fuG4VfQA_B0g&s=19
I talked to a worker in China once a few years ago about the shoddy construction of their LEGO-like buildings, and he laughed and said if they built the buildings well there would be no work for the workers in twenty years.
[Link]
My rough day appears to have left you without a logical come-back.