"The Wealth of Nations"

[Murky]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

So was Adam Smith right or was he totally off base? If our economic system is based on his thinking when did we get off track?

Free Market Economist and Libertarians often cite Smith in their own books and articles but they selectively ignore some of his philosophies. For example; he was for a progressive tax system, was against lobbying for special interest and believed in helping the poor at the expense of the rich.

 

[Perfection]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

So was Adam Smith right or was he totally off base?

That's a false ultimatum.

If our economic system is based on his thinking when did we get off track?

Free Market Economist and Libertarians often cite Smith in their own books and articles but they selectively ignore some of his philosophies. For example; he was for a progressive tax system, was against lobbying for special interest and believed in helping the poor at the expense of the rich.

Accepting a person's view on one thing doesn't mean we have to accept his views on everyting else.

 

[Murky]

That's a false ultimatum.

I don't see how. Either you trust what someone says is right or you believe they are totally off base in their thinking.

Accepting a person's view on one thing doesn't mean we have to accept his views on everyting else.

It seems like a lot of economist idolize Smith for some of his ideas but still selectively ignore others that don't correspond to their own philosophies. That seems similar to saying you believe in Darwin's theory of evolution but then selectively ignore anything you don't agree with. It seems somewhat incredulous and hypocritical.

 

[Godwynn]

I don't see how. Either you trust what someone says is right or you believe they are totally off base in their thinking.



It seems like a lot of economist idolize Smith for some of his ideas but still selectively ignore others that don't correspond to their own philosophies. That seems similar to saying you believe in Darwin's theory of evolution but then selectively ignore anything you don't agree with. It seems somewhat incredulous and hypocritical.

Maybe he was only partly right.

 

[newfangle]

For the record, most libertarians are fond of von Mises and Friedman, rather than Smith. His contribution was invaluable, but his views are now dated.

 

[Perfection]

I don't see how. Either you trust what someone says is right or you believe they are totally off base in their thinking.

No you don't. I can totally pick and choose which parts you find right and which parts you find incorrect.

It seems like a lot of economist idolize Smith for some of his ideas but still selectively ignore others that don't correspond to their own philosophies.

So? First off, you don't have to think somone was completly right to idolize them. Second, ignoring other views in the same field is fine. There's no need to agree 100% with a person.

That seems similar to saying you believe in Darwin's theory of evolution but then selectively ignore anything you don't agree with. It seems somewhat incredulous and hypocritical.

No it isn't. Adam Smith's public policy views can be seperated from his economic theory, while componants of a theory and the theory itself cannot (why you specefically chose Darwin's theory and phrased this as an analogy is beyond me), also with Smith there are modified theories that can be used in place of his that are similar in many ways, evolution does not have that.

 

[GinandTonic]

Well scientists have expanded on Darwin's theories, poked holes in elements and proposed soloutions. Evoloutionary theory has not been frozen since the passing of the bearded one.

Perf would have better examples Im sure, but growth triggers etc come to my mind.

 

[Murky]

No you don't. I can totally pick and choose which parts you find right and which parts you find incorrect.

So? First off, you don't have to think somone was completly right to idolize them. Second, ignoring other views in the same field is fine. There's no need to agree 100% with a person.

No it isn't. Adam Smith's public policy views can be seperated from his economic theory, while componants of a theory and the theory itself cannot (why you specefically chose Darwin's theory and phrased this as an analogy is beyond me), also with Smith there are modified theories that can be used in place of his that are similar in many ways, evolution does not have that.

If you "pick and choose" wouldn't you then be taking some of what he said out of context?

 

[Murky]

Well scientists have expanded on Darwin's theories, poked holes in elements and proposed soloutions. Evoloutionary theory has not been frozen since the passing of the bearded one.

Perf would have better examples Im sure, but growth triggers etc come to my mind.

True, but it hasn't been drastically altered from it's basic fundamentals the same way that economics has been altered since the time of Adam Smith.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

I don't see how. Either you trust what someone says is right or you believe they are totally off base in their thinking.



It seems like a lot of economist idolize Smith for some of his ideas but still selectively ignore others that don't correspond to their own philosophies. That seems similar to saying you believe in Darwin's theory of evolution but then selectively ignore anything you don't agree with. It seems somewhat incredulous and hypocritical.

Adam Smith was on the right track for the most part. He changed the paradigm of how people thought about markets.

Both Adam and Charles made some obvious "leaps of faith" with their conclusions but they both did overhaul the conventional wisdom in their fields quite significantly (in different ways, of course). Adam didn't have foreknowledge of electronic markets and Charles didn't have foreknowledge of genetic biology.

Any philosophy or worldview obviously takes ideas from what came before and attempts to form a coherent whole. I'm not sure what is hypocritical about trying to improve on the past, even if I don't agree with their conclusions. I thought being a hypocrite was stating a belief and doing the contrary.

 

[cthom]

from schooldays, i seem to remember that Keynes was the name in economics. that was the 1970's though.

 

[Murky]

Adam Smith was on the right track for the most part. He changed the paradigm of how people thought about markets.

Both Adam and Charles made some obvious "leaps of faith" with their conclusions but they both did overhaul the conventional wisdom in their fields quite significantly (in different ways, of course). Adam didn't have foreknowledge of electronic markets and Charles didn't have foreknowledge of genetic biology.

Any philosophy or worldview obviously takes ideas from what came before and attempts to form a coherent whole. I'm not sure what is hypocritical about trying to improve on the past, even if I don't agree with their conclusions. I thought being a hypocrite was stating a belief and doing the contrary.

Maybe hypocritical was too strong a word. I'm not sure exactly what to call it. It just seems like a lot of libertarians cite authors like Adam Smith out of context to support whatever political agenda they are promoting.

 

[amadeus]

For the record, most libertarians are fond of von Mises and Friedman, rather than Smith. His contribution was invaluable, but his views are now dated.

Agreed.

 

[GinandTonic]

Maybe hypocritical was too strong a word. I'm not sure exactly what to call it. It just seems like a lot of libertarians cite authors like Adam Smith out of context to support whatever political agenda they are promoting.

Is the point you are trying to make that those who come across as Smith fanboys are those most agains progressive taxation. That his views are quoted to agrue against unions where they are not against lobbiests. That they are used to claim greed-is-good where he really pointed out greed-is?

 

[Murky]

Is the point you are trying to make that those who come across as Smith fanboys are those most agains progressive taxation. That his views are quoted to agrue against unions where they are not against lobbiests. That they are used to claim greed-is-good where he really pointed out greed-is?

Something like that, yes.

 

[JerichoHill]

For the record, most libertarians are fond of von Mises and Friedman, rather than Smith. His contribution was invaluable, but his views are now dated.

Correct.

Smith started economics, essentially. So alot of what he wrote about has gotten updated.

(Ask an Economist thread Dood)

 

[JerichoHill]

from schooldays, i seem to remember that Keynes was the name in economics. that was the 1970's though.

Yeah, Keynes was the man until Stagflation hit, then Friedman became the man.

One day we'll have a new man. or woman, or alien.

 

[JerichoHill]

Something like that, yes.

Dude, if that's what you're after than you've got about ... .000001% of economists.

The only place I hear Smith mentioned nowadays is either a cigar and alcohol filled backroom of a hotel at a conference at 3AM, or this board every few weeks.

So, he's not really in the discussion anymore. Economics moved forward.

 

[Murky]

Dude, if that's what you're after than you've got about ... .000001% of economists.

The only place I hear Smith mentioned nowadays is either a cigar and alcohol filled backroom of a hotel at a conference at 3AM, or this board every few weeks.

So, he's not really in the discussion anymore. Economics moved forward.

I realize that a lot of people have moved on but there are still books being written in regard to Smith's writings and economic theory.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Hmm, sounds like Smith is to economics as Plato is to science (or as Darwin is to Biology). A founding and influential leader of the field but long since supplanted by a more complete concept.

I can buy that!