Topic: Adam Smith was right. Free markets are moral
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 month ago #134,530
Adam Smith was right. Free markets are moral
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/pierre-poilievre-adam-smith-was-right-free-markets-are-moral
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/pierre-poilievre-adam-smith-was-right-free-markets-are-moral
Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 10 minutes later[^] [v] #1,431,883
Fuck you, LNB! Government regulation is necessary to prevent wealth and power being concentrated into the hands of a privileged few! The Libertarian fantasy of total freedom and lack of regulation being good is naive!
(Edited 29 seconds later.)
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 3 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,912
@previous (Killer Lettuce🌹 !HonkUK.BIE)
> Fuck you, LNB! Government regulation is necessary to prevent wealth and power being concentrated into the hands of a privileged few! The Libertarian fantasy of total freedom and lack of regulation being good is naive!
A lot of tech bros and other autocrats feign libertarian ideals. It’s another dead end utopian ideology.
> Fuck you, LNB! Government regulation is necessary to prevent wealth and power being concentrated into the hands of a privileged few! The Libertarian fantasy of total freedom and lack of regulation being good is naive!
A lot of tech bros and other autocrats feign libertarian ideals. It’s another dead end utopian ideology.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 16 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,917
Darkness joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 3 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,930
@1,431,912 (C)
I’m not really a libertarian. Mostly because I’ve noticed most libertarians are actually just authoritarians who want freedom from our checks and balances.
I’m not really a libertarian. Mostly because I’ve noticed most libertarians are actually just authoritarians who want freedom from our checks and balances.
(Edited 42 seconds later.)
Darkness double-posted this 1 month ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,931
However, I think this one paragraph of the article is noteworthy:
"Smith did not invent the free market economy. He discovered it operating around him just at the moment in history when it began to flourish. Trade and labour mobility were beginning at that time to triumph over servitude and serfdom. The result of this change was an extraordinary growth in wealth. It was that growth that Smith set out to explain."
He lived during the 18th century, which was the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The advent of industry turned peasants with no social mobility whatsoever in feudal societies into wage laborers. This began to create what we now know as the middle class. People who can earn wages and buy mass produced goods. Adam Smith thought that free market capitalism was moral because the only thing he had to compare it to was autocratic feudalist societies where there was no social mobility whatsoever and people lived exactly the same way as their parents did, as their grandparents did, and as their great grandparents did, going back hundreds of years with no concept of progress.
"Smith did not invent the free market economy. He discovered it operating around him just at the moment in history when it began to flourish. Trade and labour mobility were beginning at that time to triumph over servitude and serfdom. The result of this change was an extraordinary growth in wealth. It was that growth that Smith set out to explain."
He lived during the 18th century, which was the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The advent of industry turned peasants with no social mobility whatsoever in feudal societies into wage laborers. This began to create what we now know as the middle class. People who can earn wages and buy mass produced goods. Adam Smith thought that free market capitalism was moral because the only thing he had to compare it to was autocratic feudalist societies where there was no social mobility whatsoever and people lived exactly the same way as their parents did, as their grandparents did, and as their great grandparents did, going back hundreds of years with no concept of progress.
Darkness triple-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,932
So the thing is Adam Smith wasn’t wrong since in the context that he lived in, it actually was better. But the generation of thinkers the century after is when you started getting people who criticized capitalism, since people started noticing flaws.
Darkness quadruple-posted this 1 month ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,934
If you were feudal English peasant and you went to 18th century Britain, and realized you could earn a wage in a factory, you’d think it was brilliant, if you were a modern person and you went back in time to 18th century England and saw the conditions of those factories, you’d think it was horrific. It’s all relative.
Darkness quintuple-posted this 1 month ago, 7 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,936
Especially when you compare the capitalist idea that somebody can be an entrepreneur to the idea of the great chain of being. People used to believe that everyone and everything in the universe had its natural place put there by God that was right that way because God decided it. People used to believe that a king was born a royal, and that was just because they were put in their place by God, animals were below humans, peasants were below nobles, and this was static and unchanging, and to be a good person, you were best off accepting your role in life by being a good peasant. And naturally, racism is sort of a logical next step from that sort of thinking. Economics contradicts slavery because there is an argument that if you pay someone a wage, they’ll then buy goods and services, which has greater benefit for the economy at large than if they don’t earn a wage. So in the past, some people who supported slavery and racial hierarchies rejected economics as a social science. (Which is really stupid and part of why racists lost so many wars.)
Darkness sextuple-posted this 1 month ago, 27 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,431,937
Although, even if he had good advice for the 18th century, in the 21st century, saying Adam Smith was right about everything and we should revert all our progress since then might be a dumb idea.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 4 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,072
@1,431,930 (Darkness)
> I’m not really a libertarian. Mostly because I’ve noticed most libertarians are actually just authoritarians who want freedom from our checks and balances.
You see it too. Like how you put that. We see it with the oligarchs. No wonder. They’re all rich kids whose only reading appears to be Ayn Rand and Tolkien.
> I’m not really a libertarian. Mostly because I’ve noticed most libertarians are actually just authoritarians who want freedom from our checks and balances.
You see it too. Like how you put that. We see it with the oligarchs. No wonder. They’re all rich kids whose only reading appears to be Ayn Rand and Tolkien.
Darkness joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,135
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,141
@1,431,912 (C)
> It’s another dead end utopian ideology.
much like allowing government any say over anything other than dealing with other countries.
> It’s another dead end utopian ideology.
much like allowing government any say over anything other than dealing with other countries.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 2 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,200
@1,431,937 (Darkness)
> Although, even if he had good advice for the 18th century, in the 21st century, saying Adam Smith was right about everything and we should revert all our progress since then might be a dumb idea.
Half of these people extolling the virtues of the “invisible hand,” 1) never read The Wealth of Nations, which promotes the idea of broad availability of information (leveling the playing field) to allow broad participation, and 2) want support and bailouts for themselves, their pet industries, or projects.
> Although, even if he had good advice for the 18th century, in the 21st century, saying Adam Smith was right about everything and we should revert all our progress since then might be a dumb idea.
Half of these people extolling the virtues of the “invisible hand,” 1) never read The Wealth of Nations, which promotes the idea of broad availability of information (leveling the playing field) to allow broad participation, and 2) want support and bailouts for themselves, their pet industries, or projects.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 17 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,435
Ironic given how protectionist the cpc is protectionist with nobody dare dismantling the walls we've encircled our oligopolies into.
Anonymous H replied with this 1 month ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,483
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 1 month ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,432,484
@1,432,435 (J)
> Ironic given how protectionist the cpc is protectionist with nobody dare dismantling the walls we've encircled our oligopolies into.
We’re Chinese?
你好！
> Ironic given how protectionist the cpc is protectionist with nobody dare dismantling the walls we've encircled our oligopolies into.
We’re Chinese?
你好！