It is really hard for even professional historians to gain a good understanding of old technical works. There is just too much unavailable context. In the end, you get to ascribe whatever motivations you want by picking and choosing your quotes. So if Neoliberals want to use The Wealth of Nations as some sort of theological text, then more power to them. They just can't use it as some sort of appeal to authority as that particular world no longer exists. That applies to this article as well.
The Real Adam Smith
11–20 of 125 posts
Re: The Real Adam Smith
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
> never met a neoliberal "Neoliberal" is typically a term of abuse, but I've seen a movement (from econ professors to /r/neoliberal) to appropriate as a term for centrist radical pragmatism. These self-proclaimed neoliberals are very progressive socially and (claim to, at least) support any policies that have actual firm evidence for it. Of course, this makes them pro-trade and pro-"globalism".
there's plenty of evidence that globalism has not worked out for substantial parts of the population in most developed countries.
There is also substantial evidence that it has. The poor in America are richer and have higher living standards than the poor of less-globalized places. Absolute poverty in developed countries is far lower than at any possible by in history. In fact the same could be said for absolute poverty globally. And that, is a direct result of globalization.
Re: The Real Adam Smith
#13This article is mostly accurate about Smith (although the man himself was much more favorable to entrepreneurs and innovators than is presented), but fairly inaccurate that “Right-wing” politics is some perversion of Smith. At the end, we get a taste of what he means in that Thatcher privatized various state industries during her run as Prime Minister in the '80s. Otherwise, an entire sub-field of economics (it would…
>"I have never met a Neoliberal"
That's because neoliberalism is not an ideology, but a label used to try to understand a historic period.
Neoliberalism would be the bastard child of neoclassic economics and liberal ideology and it can be defined by events and people that definitely exist.
The intellectual parents would be the economist in the orbit of Milton Friedman and the 'Chicago school' and the political parents would be Reagan and Thatcher. The playground rules would be the Washington Consensus [1].
The foundational charter would be the Powell Manifesto [2], that I recommend to read to everybody that want to get and insight about the last forty years.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus [2] http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/
Re: The Real Adam Smith
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
there's plenty of evidence that globalism has not worked out for substantial parts of the population in most developed countries.
There is also substantial evidence that it has. The poor in America are richer and have higher living standards than the poor of less-globalized places. Absolute poverty in developed countries is far lower than at any possible by in history. In fact the same could be said for absolute poverty globally. And that, is a direct result of globalization.
Was it globalism that made them richer? They weren't already richer pre-globalism (say, 15 to 20 years ago)?
Re: The Real Adam Smith
#15This article is mostly accurate about Smith (although the man himself was much more favorable to entrepreneurs and innovators than is presented), but fairly inaccurate that “Right-wing” politics is some perversion of Smith. At the end, we get a taste of what he means in that Thatcher privatized various state industries during her run as Prime Minister in the '80s. Otherwise, an entire sub-field of economics (it would…
> never met a neoliberal "Neoliberal" is typically a term of abuse, but I've seen a movement (from econ professors to /r/neoliberal) to appropriate as a term for centrist radical pragmatism. These self-proclaimed neoliberals are very progressive socially and (claim to, at least) support any policies that have actual firm evidence for it. Of course, this makes them pro-trade and pro-"globalism".
> support any policies that have actual firm evidence for it
A Neoliberal candidate lost the last US election because people from states whose middle class has been hollowed out by free markets and deregulation voted against them. I haven't seen them take that as "firm evidence" that economic policies that ignore important indicators of social well-being into account, like the level of inequality.
Today's Neoliberal believes that if you take everything from a poor person except their (now cheaper) imported TV and iPhone, they will be happy...because the GDP and stock market are growing. "The pie is bigger, so even though your slice is a smaller percentage, you're still better off," they say. It's too bad that they seem to think there is firm evidence that people are robots who would believe that nonsense.
Re: The Real Adam Smith
#16Relevant excellent TV series [1]. After Raegan/Thatcher privatization there was a 2nd wave Clinton/Blaire of liberalisation. The idea was to dismantle "old hierarchy" / Big Government and replace it with market formed by everyone maximizing their individual self-interest.
Re: The Real Adam Smith
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
there's plenty of evidence that globalism has not worked out for substantial parts of the population in most developed countries.
There is also substantial evidence that it has. The poor in America are richer and have higher living standards than the poor of less-globalized places. Absolute poverty in developed countries is far lower than at any possible by in history. In fact the same could be said for absolute poverty globally. And that, is a direct result of globalization.
> The poor in America are richer and have higher living standards than the poor of less-globalized places.
This is complete nonsense and makes you sound like someone who should take some time volunteering with America's poor. Clearly you have no idea what poverty is like and should earn some perspective.
Are you trying to say that hunger in America is any different from hunger in a "less globalized place"? How so? How about homelessness? Is that different in America vs. other places? How about dying of disease because you don't have health care? Is that different in America somehow?
Re: The Real Adam Smith
#18When one wants a “real” person or theory, one strays as far as possible from the unreality-generator that is “academic” economics.
If one would mount an axle on Smith’s grave, we could live off free energy for millenia.
Re: The Real Adam Smith
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is also substantial evidence that it has. The poor in America are richer and have higher living standards than the poor of less-globalized places. Absolute poverty in developed countries is far lower than at any possible by in history. In fact the same could be said for absolute poverty globally. And that, is a direct result of globalization.
> The poor in America are richer and have higher living standards than the poor of less-globalized places. This is complete nonsense and makes you sound like someone who should take some time volunteering with America's poor. Clearly you have no idea what poverty is like and should earn some perspective. Are you trying to say that hunger in America is any different from hunger in a "less globalized place"? How so? Ho…
Extreme. The poor can refer to the bottom quintile of socioeconomic class. We don't have to jump to the bottom tenth of a percent. In that view, the comment is valid. The bottom earners in America earn more than most people on the planet. And have better infrastructure.
Re: The Real Adam Smith
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
there's plenty of evidence that globalism has not worked out for substantial parts of the population in most developed countries.
There is also substantial evidence that it has. The poor in America are richer and have higher living standards than the poor of less-globalized places. Absolute poverty in developed countries is far lower than at any possible by in history. In fact the same could be said for absolute poverty globally. And that, is a direct result of globalization.
>"Absolute poverty in developed countries is far lower than at any possible by in history. In fact the same could be said for absolute poverty globally. And that, is a direct result of globalization."
Actually that it's not true. Absolute poverty better global numbers are due mainly to China. A little also to India. For the rest, it could be argue that they are equal or, in some cases worst.
You could argue that China have benefited from globalization, and, in a way is true. Except that their strategy is almost the opposite of the strategy recommended by the champions of globalization (IMF, etc..)