The Real Adam Smith • Hacker News Board

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#61

Post by thanatropism » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 5:12 PM UTC

YPCrumble wrote: post #15

thanatropism wrote: post #6

Earlier 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".

> 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…

This reads to me like: "globalization hasn't solved the problem of economic jealousy". That it sucks to see someone become 200X richer whereas you have only become 40% richer. (But richer nonetheless).

I mean, sure. It hasn't fixed sexual jealousy either. Witness the impressive phenomenon of "incel rage" on the internet: not rage at pressing personal need unmet, but at the relative sexual deprivation that results from the fact that attractive women will usually prefer attractive men.

This is what you find at the bottom of Pikettyism: economic incel rage.

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#62

Post by nickik » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 5:39 PM UTC

RobertoG wrote: post #53

nickik wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's because neoliberalism is not an ideology, but a label used to try to understand a historic period. No its not. Its a term that is used by pretty much anybody for whatever they felt like. > 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. That is just false. Friedman never called himself a neolibera…

Well, of course, now that the label it's fashionable, it's going to be used by everybody for everything. A little like using "nano" a few years ago, or "AI" nowadays. That doesn't mean that the term was originally void of meaning as you claim. >"This is not all part of some grand 'neoliberal' conspiracy." I beg to differ. Perhaps, conspiracy it's not the word, but very concrete policies have been imposed all around t…

> That doesn't mean that the term was originally void of meaning as you claim.

Historically it goes back to Post-WW2 German economist. You are also not using that definition.

The point is that the word 'neoliberalism' has gone threw a number of different definitions, and you are just focusing on one that was coined and almost exclusively used in a far left political movement, because they were unhappy with all classical liberals, everybody on the right and even the center left.

To be more exact the research shows pretty clearly that it was after the Coup in Chile where the left started criticizing that government any anything they saw related to it as 'neoliberal' and after that the term exploded and became ever broader in meaning.

There are a few papers that study the history and use of the word that you can search for.

> I beg to differ. Perhaps, conspiracy it's not the word, but very concrete policies have been imposed all around the world by very powerful actors.

Yes but if you look at those then you will notice that is was implemented by a wide variety of different parties with different ideologies. The reasons given were also different in different places with different goals.

The people who recommend the polices also came from different schools of economics and different backgrounds.

If you sum this all up as 'neoliberalism', is a waste oversimplification that mostly serves as a political 'its was better before neoliberalism' and has not much content otherwise.

> Maybe they don't derive from the same basic ideas, but, for sure those ideas have been used to justify it.

Again, sure, but if you just throw all into the same 'neoliberal' bucket then you will never understand the differences between the wide variety of opinion on these things. Development economics has a long an complex history with many different economists giving their input, the 'Washington Consensus' was one particular idea written down by one set of people with a wide variety of opinions inspired by lots of different ideas from the history of development economics and economics more broadly.

This of course includes Friedmans and many others. Many economists would agree with part of the WC and others would agree with the idea but not with the way it was implemented. Others disagree with the whole approach. All of them are often called 'neoliberal'. The opinions are very different, labaling it all 'neoliberal' is only helpful for politics, not for understand the how and why of individual polices.

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#63

Post by ionised » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 5:40 PM UTC

mikojan wrote: post #58

0xCMP wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, this is a discussion forum, so can we please not appeal to authority here just to say (in so many words) "I don't care what your opinion on this linked article is because he's an expert and you're not." What's the point of discussion if you simply say "Oh, but they know more so just shut up"?

There's nothing wrong with an appeal to authority in response to an appeal to authority.

Why not?

How does a logical fallacy become okay if it is in response to the same logical fallacy?

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#64

Post by ionised » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 5:47 PM UTC

jbooth wrote: post #42

sprafa wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's plenty of evidence that globalism has not worked out for substantial parts of the population in most developed countries.

> globalism has not worked out for substantial parts of the population in most developed countries Pardon my language, but that's crap. Every developed country has seen yuuuuge profits from globalism. What, not all of it trickled down you say? That's a distribution problem. It's not a problem with globalization. Shrinking the pie in order to pursue a more fair distribution is some ass-backwards, rube-goldberg-machine…

What gives you the impression the 'distribution problem' isn't inherently linked with the deregulation that enabled these massively increased profits that only find their way to a select few?

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#65

Post by nickik » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:10 PM UTC

phaemon wrote: post #49

nickik wrote: post #27

Ah, we have the Adam Smith article again. As somebody interested in these for many years, there is a periodic rewriting of this article. The beats are always the same, Smith not actually like evil neoliberals (whoever that is) think. He also wrote 'The Theory of Moral Sentiments' and so on. Admittedly this is by far the best one I have seen in many years. Nothing in the article is really wrong, and it is completely c…

From Paul Sagar's bio (the author of this article): "i am lecturer in political theory in the department of political economy, king’s college london i completed my doctorate at the university of cambridge (2014), after receiving an ma in intellectual history and the history of political thought from the university of london (2010), and a ba in politics, philosophy, and economics from the university of oxford (2008).…

Everybody has a bias, his interpretation where it goes away from his words does so too. His own opinions color his view of Smith, as does mine.

My point was that his text was not wrong, but it played to people who interpret it in certain ways. A naive reading of his article would lead one to conclude that Treacher and Stalin were the same in the eyes of Smith.

I was just point out that just because they are the same in this one aspect of his thought, it is still a very large and important difference in the content. There is no question if Smith would prefer a more market oriented framework with stronger individual liberty then we have now.

I mean the state spends around ~50% of GDP in the developed world and has major regulatory powers in every aspect of the economy. I think he would admit that as well. Most scholars who work in the tradition of Smith tend to agree on that.

You will not that the podcast (and book) I linked are are equally authoritative as he is.

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#66

Post by RobertoG » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:11 PM UTC

nickik wrote: post #62

RobertoG wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, of course, now that the label it's fashionable, it's going to be used by everybody for everything. A little like using "nano" a few years ago, or "AI" nowadays. That doesn't mean that the term was originally void of meaning as you claim. >"This is not all part of some grand 'neoliberal' conspiracy." I beg to differ. Perhaps, conspiracy it's not the word, but very concrete policies have been imposed all around t…

> That doesn't mean that the term was originally void of meaning as you claim. Historically it goes back to Post-WW2 German economist. You are also not using that definition. The point is that the word 'neoliberalism' has gone threw a number of different definitions, and you are just focusing on one that was coined and almost exclusively used in a far left political movement, because they were unhappy with all classi…

>"Historically it goes back to Post-WW2 German economist. You are also not using that definition."

I don't know about other users of the word. Part of the wikipedia definition, that I agree with, and I think reflects the current consensus of the word is:

"These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980."

So, what make neoliberalism, as a word, informative is that it represents a change from another period. That makes, in my opinion, the word useful and informative. If you recognize there was a change, how do you call this period if not 'neoliberal'?

>"Yes but if you look at those then you will notice that is was implemented by a wide variety of different parties with different ideologies. "

Maybe we are looking to different things, but when I look to it what I see, for instance, is the IMF and a few other "american and european" institutions imposing development paths, that they didn't follow in the past, as the 'obvious' solution. And keep insisting in it, never mind the results.

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#67

Post by jbooth » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:13 PM UTC

ionised wrote: post #64

jbooth wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> globalism has not worked out for substantial parts of the population in most developed countries Pardon my language, but that's crap. Every developed country has seen yuuuuge profits from globalism. What, not all of it trickled down you say? That's a distribution problem. It's not a problem with globalization. Shrinking the pie in order to pursue a more fair distribution is some ass-backwards, rube-goldberg-machine…

What gives you the impression the 'distribution problem' isn't inherently linked with the deregulation that enabled these massively increased profits that only find their way to a select few?

'Inherently linked' is a misnomer. We're in the driver's seat here, we're not at the mercy of the weather. If we can set our trade policy, then we can set our tax policy and budget.

Raise taxes on the rich (short of making globalization a net loss to them), fund infra projects that put lots of blue-collar people to work, and in a generation we've got a bunch of cool shit on top of increased mobility and a better consumer economy. Everyone wins.

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#68

Post by kolbe » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:17 PM UTC

I've never been clear on why people who know nothing about Smith other than a few quotes appeal to his expertise. This article does a little to help, but really everyone should read Theory of Moral Sentiments and Wealth of Nations instead of some blog post if they want to be informed on the topic.

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#69

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:26 PM UTC

randcraw wrote: post #56

yedava wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree it has to be a democracy. The right points to harms of government overreach to argue for less government. The left points to exploding inequality and argues for more government in order to tackle it. A good faith assumption could be that both are trying to decentralize power and maybe putting it that way will make it easier to reach across the ideological divide.

I think there's an increasingly compelling argument to be made at this moment in history, with the rise of powerful increasingly intelligent software that can 1) rigorously shape policy to ensure that ends are met and that 2) the means to those ends employ minimal bias, and 3) do so adaptively, shifting policy dynamically as circumstances evolve. I believe it's time to start planning for the day when we shutter the v…

I agree with your analysis of the problem. However, I deeply distrust your solution.

Two problems: One, do we really get unbiased software? Or do we get software that's claimed to be unbiased, but has actually been quietly biased according to the authors' prejudices (and all attempts to criticize it get shot down because "it's really unbiased, so the problem is with you")? Or do we really get a good-faith attempt to write unbiased software, that winds up biased in ways and for reasons that we don't understand?

Second, how are you going to make this happen? It's going to involve taking power away from the existing powers-that-be. And you don't sound like you're going to do it by democratic means, since you see democracy as broken. How do you propose to do it? ("Bottom up" isn't enough of a plan. At each step, it's going to be a war against entrenched interests. How are you going to win?)

Re: The Real Adam Smith

#70

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Jan 18, 2018, 6:28 PM UTC

adynatos wrote: post #59

this describes the current "capitalist" system we have today, where powerful individuals can lobby the state to create laws favouring them directly. the problem is, of course, the existence of the state.

There's no "of course" about it. If you're going to claim that the problem is the existence of the state, you need a lot more evidence than "of course".

Certainly you cannot claim the support of Adam Smith in your assertion.