Contributors

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Good Words

No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. (Adam Smith, 1776)

It's always amused me when conservatives bring up Adam Smith and point to him as the King of Unbridled Capitalism. As is usually the case, they miss the complexity.

Smith was firmly grounded in reality and recognized the dangers of special interests. He concluded that employers "always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages above their actual rate" and sometimes entered "into particular combinations to sink the wages even below this rate." He also condemned the deadening effects of division of labor and that's why he called for government intervention to raise workers' living standards.

So, while he was indeed the father of economic liberalism, he was decidedly not the cold-hearted capitalist that the Right will have you believe he was.


30 comments:

Juris Imprudent said...

M thinks he can impress people by claiming to have read works he never has. It is a painfully transparent lie, which I will now prove with a single question.

What would you say is the dominant characteristic of Smith's writing?

Mark Ward said...

Hee hee, I just left a note to you about this over at TSM. We're not doing it this way...you ask me questions, I give you responses, you critique me, you ask me more questions etc...conveniently avoiding doing any evaluation yourself.

If you don't agree with my post, state your reasons why, using evidence from the source material. Here is Wealth

http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/wealth-nations.pdf

And here is The Theory of Moral Sentiment.

http://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_MoralSentiments_p.pdf

So, something like "I disagree with your assessment of Smith because...." and then list a couple of reasons why with quotes from the source material. Or you can explain why you think his writing style is relevant. After that, I will respond (agreeing or disagreeing) and offer my evaluation with source material as well.

Juris Imprudent said...

Or you can explain why you think his writing style is relevant.

Sure. Because if you actually read his work you would have a simple and ready answer. If you haven't read it - you will fake it.

Mark Ward said...

Look, juris, I welcome having a discussion about Smith if you are willing to be an active participant. If you don't want to or don't have the time, fine. I'm certainly not going to accuse you of not having read the texts or engage in other childish outbursts.

Juris Imprudent said...

I won't discuss something you haven't read. There is a reason you won't answer that simple little question - it would expose you as a liar and fraud.

Mark Ward said...

It seems to me the only one doing the avoiding here is you, juris, not me. It's going to be an equal discussion or none at all. I'm not going to play the game where you avoid offering your opinions. I made an assertion with this post. Agree or disagree with evidence from the text and we can proceed from there. You're putting more energy into baiting me than actual analysis. What a waste but that's what you guys always do.

Juris Imprudent said...

Selectively quoting online references to Smith isn't the same as reading him. You haven't read him which is why you can't characterize his writing style. Had you read him you would have no problem agreeing that his style is concise if a bit rambling.

On top of which, you aren't even actually talking about Smith - you are talking about how other people reference him. I have no interest in discussing what other people have to say, though that is your primary approach to anything. Particularly since you expect me to defend their words. Boring, childish and dishonest.

Anonymous said...

It's fascinating to look at that sentence in context. For example, here is the very next sentence:

It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.

In other words, those who work, should be paid appropriately.

Notice the assumption: "those that work", not "those that are breathing".

Adam Smith—like most men of the time period—does not write in an easily quotable fashion. So you should go read what he wrote for yourself.

The singular sentence Mark proudly quotes as if it supports government mandated cradle-to-grave welfare for those who don't work does nothing of the kind. It is part of a much larger discussion about the interrelationship between the cost of provisions (food and clothing) and wages. Here is the concluding paragraph of that section:

The increase in the wages of labour necessarily increases the price of many commodities, by increasing that part of it which resolves itself into wages, and so far tends to diminish their consumption, both at home and abroad. [Minimum wage laws, anyone?] The same cause, however, which raises the wages of labour, the increase of stock, tends to increase its productive powers, and to make a smaller quantity of labour produce a greater quantity of work. The owner of the stock which employs a great number of labourers necessarily endeavours, for his own advantage, to make such a proper division and distribution of employment, that they may be enabled to produce the greatest quantity of work possible. For the same reason, he endeavours to supply them with the best machinery which either he or they can think of. What takes place among the labourers in a particular workhouse, takes place, for the same reason, among those of a great society. The greater their number, the more they naturally divide themselves into different classes and subdivisions of employments. More heads are occupied in inventing the most proper machinery for executing the work of each, and it is, therefore, more likely to be invented. There me many commodities, therefore, which, in consequence of these improvements, come to be produced by so much less labour than before, that the increase of its price is more than compensated by the diminution of its quantity.

----------

Simple questions Mark refuses to answer:

Is the Constitution law? (46 days and counting)

Even Joe Biden admits that the administration's gun control actions won't stop the shootings. So why do those things? (32 days and counting)

Given your reasoning that any "inconvenient" check and balance can now be discarded to deal with the current crisis du jour, what makes tyranny Not Possible in this country? (14 days and counting)

Is "false" equal to "truth"? (8 days and counting)

Bonus question:

Why would an uninsured person going to the ER cause insurance rates to go up? (6 days and counting)

Mark Ward said...

You haven't read him which is why you can't characterize his writing style.

Ah, because you say so. Right, I forgot. When a right wing poster says something, it must be real. Well, perhaps you forgot about this.

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010/11/lame-ducks-in-every-sense-of-word.html

Or this

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2012/08/on-stiglitz-part-two.html

Or this

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2011/08/crandall-and-putnam.html

Heck, juris, you commented extensively in those threads and had no problem back then.

you are talking about how other people reference him.

No, I wasn't. I offered my view. Agree or disagree? Why or why not?

Mark Ward said...

The singular sentence Mark proudly quotes as if it supports government mandated cradle-to-grave welfare

Wrong. There you go again with the douchey exaggeration when faced with something that doesn't quite mesh with your rigid ideology. My point in this post is that Smith was not an unbridled capitalist and he was more complex than you are making him out to be. Given his other thoughts on collusion and wages (quoted also in this post), a more nuanced view of Smith is more appropriate

Juris Imprudent said...

Mr Black and White whining about nuance?

My point in this post is that Smith was not an unbridled capitalist and he was more complex than you are making him out to be.

No, Smith isn't what the voices in your head make him out to be. That really doesn't have anything to do with anyone here, except yourself.

Juris Imprudent said...

Tell me something M, what chapter is your quoted sentence from? I'd like to see the whole context.

Juris Imprudent said...

Ah, never mind, I found it. Let us examine the entire paragraph rather than M's selected sentence...

Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage, or as an inconveniency, to the society? The answer seems at first abundantly plain. Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part, can never be regarded as any inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged.

Now M what is Smith saying in this paragraph and why is it misleading to only quote one sentence?

The Bubba T said...

Who really cares what this dead Scotsman thinks and says. Its 2013 not 1776. In 1776 90% of people living in America were organic famers. The way our political economic system has evolved is far beyond the scope of Adam Smith. The entire modern capitalist system is set up on constant growth and constant consumption, which is unsustainable. When is the last time an economist put a value on clean air and clean water? We will always have people in America who have a lot and people who struggle to survive. The Walton family of Arkansas has more wealth than 100 million Americans. That is a serious problem. It is those type of numbers that are crazy. I personally live in the top 11% and I feel like it is my duty to carry a message of balance because I’m lucky to have had the opportunities to succeed in America. Most people in our society with monetary wealth don’t live a life that has balance. Life is a circle and when our "free market system" is out of balance it will break. Its just a matter of time. So yes being a liberal is something I’m proud of and helping others is far more gratifying then being a person who just bitches to bitch.

Mark Ward said...

Who really cares what this dead Scotsman thinks and says. Its 2013 not 1776

Actually, that's a good point, Bubba. It's important to look at Smith in the context of his times not in the context of our times. His call for less government regulation was a response to mercantilist policies of the time. Smaller businesses were complaining about the dominance of large companies in the marketplace, particularly regarding overseas commerce. They wanted freer markets and the monarchs and aristocracy at the time were getting in the way. But we don't have that now.

In short, President Obama and the Democrats are not King George and the British aristocracy, contrary to right wing paranoid fantasies.

Mark Ward said...

Now M what is Smith saying in this paragraph and why is it misleading to only quote one sentence?

I've come to the conclusion that your programming doesn't allow you to make your own critical evaluations. Your default is to question me in the childish hope that you can find something to "get me" on and, thus, be able to avoid any real analysis of you own and, conveniently, shut the door to any critical analysis of your thoughts. NMN does the same thing. So, if you don't agree with what I wrote in this post, state your reasons why and use the text to support your argument.

Juris Imprudent said...

I've come to the conclusion that your programming doesn't allow you to make your own critical evaluations.

Ah, so you do know full well how misleading you were attempting to be. But of course you can't just be honest.

The full context makes clear he is talking about the "greater part" enjoying a rising standard of living, made possible by the capitalist organization of industry and the division of labor. Apparently he had to convince the aristocracy that this was a good thing. The clincher (and this part really puts your attempt to the spear) is the last sentence - that runs diametrically opposite your argument.

In short M, you childishly attempted to make a very dishonest use of that quote.

The Bubba T said...

Markadelphia, the hardest part for me is conservatives using people like Adam Smith or the Constitution to justify their warped since of whats happening in America. Its just silly to compare stuff that was written over 200 years ago to the reality of what is happening today. These documents have many flaws and to apply any of them in a literal since is foolish. They should be looked at as guidelines. I love how the gun nuts are using the 2nd amendment and in some delusional way its relevant in a modern America (what the fuck)&( I own guns)&(I don’t have fears). One must not forget how this country was founded, the documents that followed, and how slaves played such a huge role in the white man gaining the political economic power they still have today. Its also crazy how righties look at a guy from the UK and use it. Its a apple and oranges comparison to what was happening state side at the time.

The Bubba T said...

By the way I love how my cock looks in those jeans I'm wearing for this blog profile pic.

Juris Imprudent said...

OK Bubba the sockpuppet, the point here isn't about conservatives and Smith. The point is that M attempted to take a sentence out of context to justify something that M argues in favor of - not what the guy who wrote it was saying.

I know you're just a dumb redneck, but even you ought to have some sense of honesty - unless you aren't any more honest than the mind from which you spring.

So what do you own guns for Bubba? You hunt?

The Bubba T said...

For the record that picture was taken before a Halloween party. Thats not my normal attire nor would I ever consider myself a redneck. I just thought its a great pic and I like how those jeans hug my junk, they might be my wife’s favorite pair. Everybody who comments on Mark’s blog is far out and the direct insults are just useless. I bet you all have a lot in common and the back forth is just done for pissing on each others tree. I do hunt upland game. I love watching a great bird dog work and pheasants, grouse, and quail are a joy to eat. I’m also a bleeding heart liberal who pays a shit load of taxes. Were is the love?

Juris Imprudent said...

A bird hunting liberal named Bubba - will wonders never cease. What breed of dogs do you hunt?

The Bubba T said...

Right now we are behind a German Shorthair Pointer. She is a great dog and what a killer nose. I grew up with flushers and pointers. They are so different to hunt with. The Springer and the Lab you always had to be ready to go but with the GSP you can really enjoy your time outdoors and watching a graceful point is pretty cool. Bubba is also just a nickname I have had since I was 5.

Mark Ward said...

Wow. This thread took a sharp turn:)

Getting back to Smith, I agree with you about context, juris, but not in the way you are going to like. The quote that you put up is from Book 1, Chapter 8 and comes after this larger quote, part of which I also used in my original post.

We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of. Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people. Such combinations, however, are frequently resisted by a contrary defensive combination of the workmen; who sometimes too, without any provocation of this kind, combine of their own accord to raise the price of their labour. Their usual pretences are, sometimes the high price of provisions; sometimes the great profit which their masters make by their work. But whether their combinations be offensive or defensive, they are always abundantly heard of. In order to bring the point to a speedy decision, they have always recourse to the loudest clamour, and sometimes to the most shocking violence and outrage. They are desperate, and act with the folly and extravagance of desperate men, who must either starve, or frighten their masters into an immediate compliance with their demands. The masters upon these occasions are just as clamorous upon the other side, and never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen. The workmen, accordingly, very seldom derive any advantage from the violence of those tumultuous combinations, which, partly from the interposition of the civil magistrate, partly from the necessity superior steadiness of the masters, partly from the necessity which the greater part of the workmen are under of submitting for the sake of present subsistence, generally end in nothing, but the punishment or ruin of the ringleaders.

Mark Ward said...

(cont'd)

It's very clear here that Smith is referring to collusion and what happens when there is unbridled capitalism. In fact, his comments about masters and magistrates reminds me an awful lot of rent seeking, no?

Now, take this passage along with the next two which read

But though in disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have the advantage, there is, however, a certain rate below which it seems impossible to reduce, for any considerable time, the ordinary wages even of the lowest species of labour.

A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation.


and then juxtapose them with your passage from later in the chapter from which I pulled my quote and what do you see? I see less of a free market fundamentalist and someone far more complex than people realize.

And, to expand on what I said above regarding overall context, Smith's book is the result of a century of mercantilism and its disastrous results. The Navigation Acts of that started under Cromwell were having a profoundly negative effect on trade during Smith's time. Certainly, they strengthened colonial empires but they fucked over smaller merchants in favor of larger firms like the East India Company. Smith saw this and reacted strongly against it.

Juris Imprudent said...

It's very clear here that Smith is referring to collusion and what happens when there is unbridled capitalism.

Since "unbridled capitalism" didn't exist at that time, it seems most unlikely that that is what he was talking about. You seem to believe that collusion didn't exist before capitalism - a common mistake for those who derive their economics from Marx.

Smith equally derided the merchants who colluded with the state (as in crown monopolies), and argued that it was not the role of govt to bestow favored status in the market. Odd, but you seem to have missed that part.

I see less of a free market fundamentalist and someone far more complex than people realize.

Most people who have actually read Smith realize he is complex. Those who haven't treat this as a stunning discovery. But notice what you are talking about here: about how you and other people interpret what he wrote - not what he actually wrote (and that in its proper context).

Smith is writing that a rising living standard for the working population is a good thing - which was not a generally held notion in his day. In fact, there were plenty of zero-sum idiots back then too who only believed that someone's gain came at someone else's expense. That is the notion that Smith is abusing, and one you still cling to.

Juris Imprudent said...

Bubba I have a pair of GSPs (both from rescue). The female is the birdiest dog I've ever owned.

Mark Ward said...

You seem to be operating under the assumption that everyone who reads Smith has to become a libertarian. That's pretty much a load of horseshit. Naturally, your emotions over this lead you to screech about Karl Marx for 900th time. I pretty much know that when he comes up, I'm more accurate in my evaluation:)

Juris Imprudent said...

You seem to be operating under the assumption that everyone who reads Smith has to become a libertarian.

I see - making it about me. Don't you bitch when people do that with you? What did I say that led you to that conclusion - or was it too hard to actually think so you just jumped to a handy canard? There isn't a fucking word I said about libertarianism - is there?

Actually, that's a good point, Bubba. It's important to look at Smith in the context of his times not in the context of our times.

Remember saying that? Isn't that exactly what I just did?

That's pretty much a load of horseshit.

If you say so.

Naturally, your emotions over this lead you to screech about Karl Marx for 900th time.

Screech? Really? How fucking retarded are you? See, this is when I don't believe you are near as stupid as you play - but you are every bit as childish and dishonest as you bitterly bitch about.

I pretty much know that when he comes up, I'm more accurate in my evaluation:)

I guess you haven't read Marx as well as Smith. You would know how much Marx credited Smith for his insights. Now, the guy that Marx had no use for was Malthus - funny how alike you are to Malthus: shrill, petty, hypocritical and a pure intellectual thief. Marx's putdowns of Malthus are epic.

You see, I'm a fan of Das Kapital. It is a pretty damn good book. The Manifesto abandoned all the good parts of Kapital to service ridiculous political dreams. In fact it even abandoned the core model of thought of Marx in order to serve his humanitarian ambitions. No surprise at all that you wouldn't understand the difference between the two.

Juris Imprudent said...

Oh my, I appear to have disabled M's ability to rant.