Why do Capitalists circlejerk over Adam Smith so much? Not only

>>589151
Sure is TANKY in here tonight.

He's the founding father. People still consider Darwin and Tesla geniuses even though their ideas have been updated. Why should Adam Smith be treating differently? You can admire Smith and Hayek you don't have to choose the most recent guy.

>>589151
>fags throwing "But muh the Invisible hand" at me
that's a pretty basic indication that the person talking to you doesn't know what you're talking about desu

File: show-me-on-the-doll-where-you-felt-the-feel.jpg (45KB, 920x459px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 920x459px

Show me on the doll where the invisible had touched you

>>589151
Dude The Wealth of Nations is literally the backbone of the world economy. It's tried and true a hundred times over.

Also Smith advocated for free public education so calm your tits you commie fuck.

>>589171
>The Wealth of Nations is literally the backbone of the world economy.

The Wealth of Nations is completely outdated and was refering to a merchantalist economy.

Das Kapital is where Capitalism came into it's own as a system. This isn't opinion, it's fact, it's why Capitalism is literally named after Marx's economic analysis.

>>589185
As a dyed-in-the-wool opponent of all revolutionary ideologies, even I have to admit that this tanky fuck is onto something.

>>589185
If you're going to compare the two by their economic ideologies, there's already a very clear winner.

>>589185
>This isn't opinion, it's fact
It's not. Marx was a bougie retard and capitalism predated the industrial revolution.

>>589198
I'd say knowing Marx is like knowing Freud. Of course they don't mean shit now, their theories have been compromised and, in Marx's case, lead to a bunch of fucked up shit but it's good to know that there was someone like that.

I honestly can't see a single problem with Adam Smith's philosophy apart from the LTV.
Why was the concept of the Invisible Hand debunked by Globalisation?

>>589151
I just bought his book, the non abridged version and I'm gonna read it.

I heard he actually cared a lot about the workers and how they get fucked over by the factory owners and such.

>>590550
His basic idea was that workers should be free to form unions and negotiate with their employers for better work conditions, as long as the governemnt does not interfere. Fine by me.

Bcause Adam Smith provides them with a comfortable fantasy. Say what you want about him, the invisible hand is a great imagine, even though it's mostly wrong.

Also, the fact that he wrote about one problem, one solution and a linear relation between the two, and that it's something we're all familiar with makes his work so successful

>>590568
What makes it wrong?

>>590584

His invisible hand doesn't account for manipulation and deception. Bankers, pharmaceutical companies and food companies have taken massive advantage from this.

>>590608
That's not even what makes it wrong. Businesses have price fixing ability

>>590608
What do you mean "manipulation and deception"? What exactly do they do?

>>590610
Price-fixing is a possibility only when the market is too concentrated.

>>589151
But the Invisible Hand is clearly just a euphemism he uses for some kind of self-regulating equilibrium in supply and demand.

It's not that he is wrong, it's more that it's an incomplete picture.

>>590683
Not really. By "Invisible Hand" he means that each economic agent doing things for their own self interest will contribute to the development and well-being of society.

>>590652

Usually, they prop up the advantages and hide the risks in the product they're selling. This is true for SSRIs, Volkswagen cars with 'ecofriendly' emission levels and mortgage packages where great mortgages are mixed with really shitty ones to still get a AAA rating for them

>>590782
Financial firms do that because they know that the government will bail them out everytime it goes wrong. If the government kept its hands out of the economy, the problem wouldn't exist.

So how do we distinct old capitalism from new?

libcaps to neocaps?
capitalists to national capitalists?
laiisez faire capitalism to free market capitalism?
capitalist imperialism to global capitalism?

File: citarum-polluted-river-in-Indonesia-is-the-most-polluted-river-in-the-world.jpg (257KB, 600x333px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 600x333px

>>590889
>If the government kept its hands out of the economy, the problem wouldn't exist.

That's demonstrably false. They do this in third world countries. It's one of the main reasons why their so shitty

>>589151

because he advocated for laissez-faire policies in defiance of conventional wisdom at the time and emphasized the superiority of manufacturing over agriculture. He also laid the foundations for numerous highly important theories such as comparative advantage, market price mechanisms, monetary theory, the laffer curve, and a bunch of others.

He was an incredibly prescient thinker who practically invented economics, and you're just a contrarian hipster if you think otherwise.

The Invisible Hand is literally 'Free Markets are the most beneficial for the objects in the free market.'

In a strict commodities sense, I believe this to be true.

But Adam Smith had some things to say also about the influence of trading merchants and landlords on the legislature, which was for that time very important to progress government. There are some times when free competition might not be preferred to custom in the short run, as Mill would say, so the Invisible Hand is not applicable if you would like to have an economy not indoctrinated into a system of globalization and material wealth.

>>589151
Uh, because the theories he put forward that worked seem so obvious now that we fail to credit him for coming up with them?

>>591045
>The Invisible Hand is literally 'Free Markets are the most beneficial for the objects in the free market.'
No, he means the only time Adam Smith uses the phrase "invisible hand", it's in reference to a sense of nationalism that producers will have, who will want to buy goods from their statesmen instead of abroad.

Which is proved beyond false.

No other time does Smith use the phrase. It's been bastardized by elementary school teachers.

File: image.jpg (150KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 640x640px

>>590889
the fact is that the government doesn't have its hands on the economy enough.

>>591062
>who will want to buy goods from their statesmen instead of abroad

Maybe he meant that domestic product will always and forever be cheaper than imports given an equitable system and lack of interference from governing bodies. Which is true.

>>590759

Which in the context Smith was writing meant the efficient distribution of resources, which is what the market is supposed to accomplish.

>>591062
Right, so he's saying the free market encourages manufactures and producers to create more goods. So exactly what I said. He uses the term once in The Wealth of Nations and a lot more in his other works which I'm never going to read.

File: image.png (123KB, 680x583px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 680x583px

>>589151
>t. Gommie
Thanks to Adam Smith and capitalism you now have the technology to post on the Internet.

>>591094
But that's not true, History is full of examples where different populations did the same thing for different pay. Look at how immigrant railroad workers on the U.S trans-continental railroad worked for different pay and safety standards depending upon if they came from Ireland, China etc.

>Why do Capitalists circlejerk over Adam Smith so much?

Austrians consider him an idiot, for one.

>>589157
>>589190
>tanky
I don't think that means what you think that means.

>>591127
Thats a garbage argument. Just because capitalism brought good things, doesnt mean its good or better, or worse for that matter, than other systems. Marx even complimented capitalism on its merits.

Come back when youve graduated high school.

>>591127

I'm not sure you can say that is true.

Both the World Wide Web and the Internet were developed by government funded agencies.

>>590926
Third-world countries tend to have a higher degree of government intervention.

>>591162

Nah, all gommunists are crypto-stalinists, don'tcha know?

>>591072
>literally the president himself has his hands in the economy
>free-market
All right.

>>591177
>Third-world countries tend to have a higher degree of government intervention.
Can we please stop with this retarded meme where bad shit happening must be connected to gov. intervention somehow? I swear, you sound like commies with their "communism not performing like in theory means the bourgeoisie's corrupt influence still exists in some form. "

>>590926
>They do this in third world countries.
This is demonstratably false.

>India
Yeah, you have no clue what you're talking about. Probably an American.

Same reason why Locke is circlejerked over. Most of his ideas are really simple and even at points he doesn't even go to lengths of explain something and just says "Because god wills so". Plus the confusion with slavery. But because his works might have influenced people who put in motion one of the largest remakes of society, he is generally considered to be circlejerked over. Same with Adam Smith. State intervention in personal life was argued with Smith, and for long time it provided good results.

>>591097
This desu

why do people still post about these irrelevant fucks like marx and smith

>>591225

Because neither are irrelevant.

Like any great thinker the vast majority of Smith's work has been superseded, however his insight into people acting in their own self interest being beneficial to the greater good as part of a market is a stunning insight as valid now as it was then.

It may seem banal to you, now, much like the concept of gravity does, but to actually notice and try and come to an understanding of that was pretty incredible.

>It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Adam Smith

>>591225
why do people still post about irrelevant fucks like bush and nixon

>>589185
> it's why Capitalism is literally named after Marx's economic analysis.
no it's not. that's why Marx's economic analysis was named after the base of capitalism, the capital

File: 10419061_10202391037015973_4103477194115505009_n.jpg (23KB, 600x353px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x353px

Smith talks about The Impartial Spectator in the TMS, not the invisible hand.

Nothing about globalization or "capitalist imperialism" rebuffs Smiths justifications for a market economy. They only emphasize that human societies are holistic and markets exist in a legal framework that ought to emphasize justice to protect the weak.

He wasn't talking about capitalism at all because Marx invents that term. He was talking about markets.

i get jerked by the invisible hand daily

File: soviet_creed.gif (2MB, 600x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 600x480px

>>589157
> TANKY
Am I doing this right?

>>591178
Now, that's patently not true. I'm a gommunist and not a crypto-stalinist. I'm openly stalinist.

>>590911
> So how do we distinct old capitalism from new?
Is there any difference?

>>591201
> I swear, you sound like commies with their "communism not performing like in theory means the bourgeoisie's corrupt influence still exists in some form. "
Who exactly made this argument? It makes not sense. Communism is literally impossible at this point of time and Marx didn't really elaborate on Communism per se.

>>591249
This. Even communists consider Adam Smith to be relevant (as a part of English economic thought that inspired Marxism, at the very least).

>>591676
>Only communists consider Adam Smith to be relevant

Fixed.

https://mises.org/library/adam-smith-myth

>LTV
>lele it means 8 hours making a painting is worth the same as 8 hours making cars meme

Does anyone actually even read Smith, or even Marx? I'm not saying LTV is correct, but LTV does not have a constant definition across writers, and it certainly isn't what memesters think it means.

I mean, it goes to show you haven't even read the wiki page, much less read any of the actual source material, but instead probably got your information from Austrian infographics designed to retcon Smith's opinions or some shit.

>invisible hand meme
Pretty much goes to show you have no idea what Smith was writing about in his one mention of the invisible hand, and only know what Austrians tell you it means.

>>591700
>mises.org

>>591735
What's the problem? OP's assertion was that "capitalists circlejerk over Adam Smith" and you won't find more hardcore capitalists than Austrians.

>>591731
>Austrian infographics designed to retcon Smith's opinions

Austrians hate Smith. I'm not the first person to mention it ITT and judging by how dull you are, probably won't be the last.

File: 1453446762134~2.jpg (13KB, 220x278px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 220x278px

>not circlejerking over this handsome hunk o' hunk

>>591743

Austrians are Anarcho-Capitalists and you won't find Smith making any such claim that the state should be abolished.

Austrian [school of though] economists are as bad as Marxists with their utopian idiocy.

>>591797
>Marx wrote against utopian idealism
>Lenin wrote against utopian idealism
>Stalin wrote against utopian idealism
> Marxists with their utopian idiocy.

Le sigh.

>>591797
No, I agree with you. Austrians are crackpots. I'm just trying to demonstrate that this notion about Adam Smith being the Marx of capitalism and Wealth of Nations being the capitalist bible is absolute horseshit, he's disregarded by most modern pro-market people.

>>591809
>Lenin wrote against utopian idealism

And then tried to implement it. I guess we should be paying attention to what people do instead of what they write.

>>591757
>implying people should be well read on austrians but not smith
No one actually takes Austrians seriously.

>>591820
>what is the New Economic Policy
>what is a vanguard party

File: 1413604290273.png (779KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

779KB, 960x540px

>>591809

Shut up, Karl.

No matter how much you complain the abolishment of currency will always be the death knell to establishing suitable supply and demand for goods and services.

>>591820
> attempting any improvement is the same as trying to create a utopia
Seriously?

>>591837
>someone says Austrians love Smith
>well, they actually don't
>NOBODY CARES

lol


>>591838
It's shit.

>>591127
you mean thanks to a gay dude in WWII

>>591811

I almost entirely agree with you. No one treats his work as 'a bible' but the idea he is 'disregarded' is wrong. See >>591249

>>591841
Where did I suggest to actually abolish currency?

Even during Communism currency would exist in some form, though it will become much less relevant than it is today.

>>591845
>starting a bloody civil war that kills millions of people
>killing off your former allies (the mensheviks)
>handing off Russian territory to the Germans because you're a German Trojan horse
>halting any technological progress pretty much until Stalin
>collectivization of assets and monopolization of the market while paying the peasants dick in return for what they produce
>it makes the peasants go apeshit so much they think it's a "second serfdom"
>implement shit like SLON which makes the tsarist labor camps look like a picnic

Sure sounds like improvement.

File: Slowpoke_184b79_603910.png (31KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x600px

>>591861
Talks like this might start Cold War any day!

>>591861
>former allies (the mensheviks)

The Mensheviks and Bolsheviks were created and named because of a split into the Party. Bolshevik means majority and Menshevik minority

>>591854

>Marx didn't consistently argue for the abolishment of money.

>>591871
Quotes would be appreciated.

>Orthodox Marxist
Lenin didn't listen to Marx! The 20th century revolutionaries should've followed Marx to the T, if they did they wouldn't fail!

>Marxist-Leninist
Lenin was an economic genius who improved Russia tremendously but after a few years he died, then evil Stalin came, messed it all up and tarnished Lenin's legacy

>Stalinist
ALL WESTERN SLANDER, STALIN DINDU NUFFIN, HE A GUD BOI

I love how the core of being a communist is the art of shifting the blame for communist fuckups.

>>591881
This is the post you wanted so much. Please, enjoy it.

>>591743
>rothbard
>more important than mises an hayek in austrian

>>591903

That doesn't even come close to answering him.

This isn't /pol/ or /int/ or Reddit. This is /his/.

Answer with a post that makes sense rather than cryptically greentexting you dumb fuck.

>>591838
>>591861
He didn't implement utopianism, Lenin was very pragmatic. Had he followed Marx to a tee he would have tried to incite revolution in germany or england, not agrarian russia. That's why he revised marx and proposed a vanguard party to cease power in the name of the emerging proletariat. All of his actions after taking power were, for the most part, also pragmatic. A Civil War is always a bloody affair but the Bolsheviks triumphed with superior tactics and organization. The dogmatic nature of Bolshevism led to the shunting of the Menshevik party, but as it was, the Mensheviks put up a pathetic resistance and were shown as dispensable to the war effort at the end of the day. Brest-Litovsk was also pragmatic on a number of levels. It delivered on the Bolshevik's promise to end the war, something the Provisional government failed to do despite promising otherwise, and it was also that the Bolsheviks were in a weak position at that time. After all, the Germans were bombing the outskirts of Petrograd as the treaty was negotiated. Lenin also believed that the significant losses would be made up when the "international revolution" broke out. And indeed, Lenin almost did attempt to reconquer Poland, and successfully reoccupied the Ukraine... Can't speak to the rest of your points as my memory is fuzzy, but all of them are far from implementing a Utopia but consolidating power really.

>>592215
oos meant for you
>>591849
>It's shit.
I'm not arguing whether they were good ideas or not, just that Lenin far from implemented utopianism; though iirc he did toy with communist ideas for a short time after seizing power.

File: 1452403131824.jpg (71KB, 782x684px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 782x684px

>>591676
>I'm communist
I knew it this board is full of fucking idiots

>>592261
Your image sums up the whole college of humanities at my university.

>>592261
This is not a USA-only board, you know. Quite a few people are from the states where propaganda of communism is punishable by prison sentence or high fines.

Not to mention, their versions of communism are markedly different from delusional ranting of some American communists.

>>590759
.> By "Invisible Hand" he means that each economic agent doing things for their own self interest will contribute to the development and well-being of society.
No, he's talking alone about prefering the national to the international because of security concerns

>>595370
>Prefering national to the international
What on earth are you talking about?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand

>>595370
Yeah you are horribly incorrect.

>>595370

Congratulations. You are spectacularly wrong.

>>595370
>>595988
>>596019
>>596048

The chapter in which the term appears is about domestic investment; the term itself, however, taken contextually, suggests the popular interpretation.

This is a dumb argument.

>>589151
>such as The Invisible Hand, were completely and utterly debunked by Globalization and Capitalist Imperialism.
Explain?

File: 1451245784160.jpg (2MB, 1300x4080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1300x4080px

So then /econ/, what's your opinion on the whole Keynesian and Austrian thing? It seems to me that people are either in one camp or another when it comes to the two ideas with little cross over which seems odd, I'm not an economics genius so forgive me if I'm wrong but I think a mixture of the two present some good ideas, for example, I agree that spending is what stimulates the economy, but I also agree with the Austrians that interest rates are hugely important and have a direct impact on spending.

>>596157

Austrian econ is extremely heterodox in the academy (and among private economists).

>>596157
this >>596178, what you're looking or is neoclassical and schools derived of it.
>I agree that spending is what stimulates the economy, but I also agree with the Austrians that interest rates are hugely important and have a direct impact on spending.
Keynes never said they didn't.

>>596157

This is wrong though. There are many more varied schools of thought in economics than Keynesian vs Austrian.

Austrian School economists make some interesting points but taken to extremes their ideology is as bad as Marxism.

Personally I think Monetarism is basically solid with very small doses of pragmatic Keynesianism chucked in and also a general recognition that social issues are valid as well.

I also tend to shy away from the Austrian School idea that Economics can be considered a pure science rather than something that has to mold itself to the realities of society and changes over time based on changes in technology and society etc.

File: image.png (11KB, 382x385px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 382x385px

>>596178
Interest rates are important for both schools, mate. And spending is just one of the things that can stimulate the economy, and only in the short run.
I'd consider myself partially Austrian. I think there is place for government regulation in cases such as natural monopolies and government concessions to private enterprises (parks, zoos, roads...). Still, the Austrian business cycle is unbeatable.

>>596189
>Keynes never said they didn't.
I expressed myself poorly, maybe I'm misinterpreting Keynes but it would seem to me that interest is far more important in Austrian schools than it is with Keynes, the importance of interest rates is something I personally agree with.
>>596212
monetarism sounds interesting, I'll look into it, as I said, I'm not a genius on economics, I'm always looking to learn more about it.

>>596219
Meant for >>596157

>>596157
Austrian is not the mainstream alternative to Keynes.

>by the austrian insider
>sources mises.org

>>596212
Considering most people who choose to self-identify as Austrian disavow Hayek (who was anti-praxeology, among other things) and would rather follow in the footsteps of Mises and Rothbard, modern day Austrians are batshit insane heterodoxes, and it's pretty obvious who is funding them.

And of course Schumpeter is more significant than any Austrian School economist, despite being an actual Austrian, but not Austrian School.

>>596219
>unbeatable
>empirically wrong
>b-but you cant apply empirics to praxeology!

>>596243
Who is funding them?
>inb4 the Rothchild family, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Comission, Goldman Sachs and the Reptilian race.

>>590943
>because he advocated for laissez-faire policies
He didn't though.

>>596232
>I expressed myself poorly, maybe I'm misinterpreting Keynes but it would seem to me that interest is far more important in Austrian schools than it is with Keynes, the importance of interest rates is something I personally agree with.

That sounds more like Monetarism, which is strongly free market and believes in controlling the economy via the money supply, such as interest rates.

Extreme Austrian Schoolers are more like anarcho-capitalists that believe in a utopia where the state can be got rid of, which is why I compared them to Marxists, because that is pretty much the supposed end goal of Marxism as well, just without the money and the free market.

An Austrian School economist would be more interested in having something like gold currency, which is also retarded in a modern economy, than they would be in the government manipulating interest rates.

>monetarism sounds interesting,

Take a look at Friedman. It sounds like his Monetarism is more what you are thinking of when you refer to Austrians in the first place. If you want to see how retarded Austrians are have a look at Rothbard and his idea of a market for children.

>>596250
I don't quite agree with praxeology, but their cycle seems to have been empirically proven numerous times. The first one that to my mind is the actual subprime mortgage crisis.

>>590568
>>590608
A good portion of the book is literally how capitalists manipulate the economy. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you think Smith is the Reagan-era caricature of free-market enterprise where people wore Adam Smith ties. Adam Smith does not place nearly as much emphasis on the invisible hand as people pretend he did.

>>596243
>Considering most people who choose to self-identify as Austrian disavow Hayek (who was anti-praxeology, among other things) and would rather follow in the footsteps of Mises and Rothbard, modern day Austrians are batshit insane heterodoxes, and it's pretty obvious who is funding them.
>And of course Schumpeter is more significant than any Austrian School economist, despite being an actual Austrian, but not Austrian School.

Ayye.

All of this other than the reference to "who is funding them", which I am not so sure about.

>>591849
Rothbard is not all Austrians.

>>596276
>tfw now feel like an idiot
Thanks for the recommendations though, I have a copy of Capitalism and Freedom that I've never got round to reading, will be sure to make a start.

>>596232
For Keynes, afaik, the interest rates, capital's earnings (for physical investments) and liquidity are the different yields for different assets an investor is faced.

I'm sorry I don't know these jargon, English isn't my first language

>>596302

>tfw like an idiot.

Not at all mate.

>>589151
even though we gommies don't agree on Smith's LTV he was still a pretty big influence on marx Don't see why you'd hate on him. Fuck lolbertarians though

>>591854
what the fuck are you talking about? Communism means the sublation of private property, capital and thus the money-form.
Jesus fucking christ don't listen to this guy

>>591881
Marxist-Leninist = Stalinist
There are no real "leninists" as Lenin himself considered himself a marxist and his legacy was hijacked right after his death, making bolshevik-leninism trotskyism and marxism-leninism stalinism.

>>596256
>>596288
Considering Austrians reside in think tanks, the answer is private interests who benefit, but may or may not believe, from that ideology.

I know /pol/ likes to meme that academics is controlled by Marxist SJWs. People tend to forgt that think tanks are usually pretty much the research wing of advocacy groups, because the outreach wing is much more visible.

There probably is a culture leftist bias in universities, part of that is because conformation bias. But the truth of the matter is an economist can make significantly more in the private sector as a consultant, and selling out and writing what people pay them to write. Economists in academia usually do so because they want to research something where it is difficult to get private funding, and instead rely on grants, or they want the intellectual freedom to not have to write what others tell them to write.

>>596349

Ayye.

I can agree with most of this as well.

I was a bit concerned you were merely making some /pol/esque refernce to "the Juice", which was why I queried that part.

>>596349
I don't agree with you. Interest groups have more to gain with corporativism than with free-market.
I'm part of various liberal think tanks (in both economic and social meaning) in latin america. Most of them are funded by some pretty wealthy individuals, but because they actually believe that free-market reforms will benefit everyone in society. They bring their Atlas Shrugged books to meetings and discuss how avarege people could be helped with economic liberalism with real excitment. Here in the third-world, the government has its hands in every sector and the only way for a company to prosper is by being granted privileges and benefits from the government, mostly through lobbying and personal connections. You can imagine how bad that is for consumers, business competition and ethics in politics. Honeslty, if those wealthy guys wanted to, they could easily partner with government and start receiving money from state banks with subsidised interest. That is not what they are after.

>>596443
>latin american austrians

>>596443
another anon here but:
>Most of them are funded by some pretty wealthy individuals, but because they actually believe that free-market reforms will benefit everyone in society.
This is exactly the power of ideology though. The ideology of Ayn Rand or classical liberal ideas more generally align so perfectly with the rich's worldview that of course these people think they're "helping" society. It's the path of least resistance to think that your wealth and your ability to spend it is good for everyone else. Their argument is made more legitimate by the fact that your governments are badly run. They also don't partner with the government because other rich folks people beat them too it, and they might have foreign government/business connections that encourage them to lobby on behalf of opening up the economy

>>596505
to add, its a classic story that when a goverment "liberalizes," it sells off state own companies, from which the rich always stand to benefit. just look how the Russian oligarchs made billions buying oil companies for pennies on the dollar.

>>596513
The problem isn't that it sells public assets, it's all about how. Normal government would just put them all on a stock market, while Russian crony fucks just sold it to their friends and cousins.

>>596259

educate yourself

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN13.html

>>596544
I don't think you know what laissez-faire means.

>>596505
I personally know lots of those guys. I am friends with most of them. I know exactly why they are supporting economic liberalism: they are well-travelled and smart people. They know how the world is run and they came to the conclusion that it better works, with less corruption, inefficiency and more prosperity for everyone, with a free-market. There are no secret agendas. They are basically children excited with comic superheroes. Except the heroes are Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. Sure, you might argue that the ideolgoy "adapts to their world view". Well, it adapts to mine and to various other people as well, and we are not rich.
>>596513
Honestly, the selling of companies went back to the government. Who were the oligarchs? Influential people inside the commmunist party and friends of the government. Corporatism wins again. Still, if I had to choose whether to live in the Russia of today's oligarchs or of soviet state-companies, I'd choose the former.

>>590943
>>596259
>>596544

He laid the foundations of free market economics, but yeah, he was not laissez-faire. He was a mercantilist.

>>596569
I think he does actually.

>>596588
>destroying tarriffs
>mercantilism

>>596587
Just to add, I'm no fan of Rand. Objectivism is a shit philosophy.

>>596588
>mercantilist
Wut.
How so?

>>596602
Maybe he forgot an anti-?

>>596591
>>596609

Sorry, to clarify.

I was placing him in the historical context, pretty much all of Smith's thought would be Mercantilist by today's standards, even if he attacked specifc policies.

>>596639
You're going to have to clarify a lot more than that if you want to make that assertion.

>>596569

Do you?

How is railing against protectionism and supporting an economic "natural order" determined by market mechanisms not laissez-faire?

>>596543
I agree to an extent. Selling off state assets can work. But Russia isn't the exception to the rule. The same thing happened in many other countries.

>>596587
I understand and you obviously have more connections to these think tanks than I do.

>There are no secret agendas
I don't doubt the conviction of you or your friends. However, faith in Rand and Friedman has, as far as I'm concerned, rarely translated into hard gains for people in the Global South where you reside.

>Well, it adapts to mine and to various other people as well, and we are not rich.
well considering you travel through liberal circles, and likely keep abreast in the works these people read, and are on good personal terms with them, you're bound to share their ideological sympathies. That isn't to say that your not a bright and independent-minded person. But social connections and patronage is one hell of a drug senpai

>>596644

In 'Lectures on Jurisprudence' he outlines cases such as the Navigation Act where government intervention is beneficial.

He was always more pragmatic, such as great economists are, about policy and economics and was against the abuse of individual and government power, such as monoplies in India, rather than being that much of a seismic break from the past.

>>596667
>Friedman has, as far as I'm concerned, rarely translated into hard gains for people in the Global South where you reside.

Friedman was only influential in Chile.
The economists that really influenced Latin America are Prebisch and Furtado.

>>596505
For really rich people, state intervention is very profitable.
We could see that in Brazil, in the last few years.

>>596686

There's a handful of instances, but the main body of his work is overwhelmingly against state intervention to such an extent that the label laissez-faire is appropriate.

If Smith's not laissez-faire then no economist is, save maybe some of the more eccentric Austrians.

>>596157
>a mixture of the two present some good ideas
It does. It is great to have a broad understanding of every aspect of economics if you are trying to predict when oil prices will bottom out. However it is not very useful when trying to ensnare voters.

In politics you have to talk solely about the advantages of your position and the disadvantages of all the others. You don't have to actually be right, only convince people you are.

In business and finance you need to be ruthlessly practical just to compete. If you make a mistake, no one gives a shit.

An analogy might be admitting you are wrong. You might cover up your mistake to avoid being dissed for it, but in your own mind you are going to acknowledge it and do everything you can to avoid it.

This is why "muh profits" is such a strong driving force in humanity compared to "muh ideals", despite the fact the majority of people should care more about their immediate poverty than beating the market average. This includes libertarian ideals as much as those of the godless commies. Libertarian ideologues do not represent the views of real capitalists.

>>596667
>you're bound to share their ideological sympathies.
It's the opposite, actually. I travel through their circles because we share the same ideological views. I was the one who went to them to interact with similar-minded people.
Sure, maybe they will put in a good word for me with one of their acquaintances. That happens inside every network, but I did not choose to stay and help those think tanks because of it.
>faith in Friedman has not worked well where you reside.
The only latin american country to apply monetarist policies was Chile. Was it under a brutal and cruel dicatorship? Yes, but you have to learn to separate its social aspects from the economical.
Look at Chile now. Best quality of life in LA, most stable economy, sustainable growth...
I'd say it has worked pretty well.

File: People_are_good.png (127KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 300x300px

Can I just say this has been an awesome thread, thus far, from economicsboos and economic historyboos.

>>596789

Yeah, actually, you are right. I withdraw my comment about him being Mercantilist.

I know Smith mainly from the pin factory (divsion of labour) and the invisible hand.

He was more radical for his time than I thought.

>>596884
Yeah it's been great
I'm in the middle of my Econ degree and next sem i'm doing an economic history subject can't wait to do more

File: 81y4y-dK-tL[1].jpg (373KB, 1328x2054px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1328x2054px

This book should be required reading for any western civ class

>>596828
I wish people would stop using Chile as an example of everything. The highs and lows of both Allande and Pinochet peg almost precisely to copper prices.

Copper prices went up, Chilean economy went up by the same percentage. Copper prices went down, Chilean economy went down by the same percentage.

>>589185

Oh God, if this is a real post I need to leave

There is not a single good idea in the whole of Das Capital. Not one. The only thing Marx ever excelled at in life was spending other people's money.

File: copper and chile.png (61KB, 988x1034px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 988x1034px

>>596983

hmmmm

Does the need of new inventions break down Adam Smith's perfect competition idea?

The idea of perfect competition is it leads to the best allocation of resources when P=MC, this doesn't recover the fixed cost of doing the research to invent a new product. Which leads to P>MC giving firms a positive profit as an incentive to invent new products but also has economic welfare loss and not the optimal allocation of resources.

>>597032

Yet Argentina remains no.1

Does this one retarded country with endless idiotic policies fromt the left and the right ruin all of our understanding of whether economics even works, anons?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_American_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

>>597026
Did you actually read it? I think there are some pretty good ideas in there, like organizing labor in a way that the owners of the means of production are different people than the individuals that actually do work with the means of production is generally a pretty bad idea.

>>596282
Why did Greenspan a self described Libertarian keep the fed rate so low in the early 2000s
were Americans that scared about 9/11

File: unemployment-percent-79-present.png (81KB, 838x740px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 838x740px

>>597026

I'm not even a Marxist or a Socialist or a Labourboo but you should calm down and shut the fuck up, Maggie.

You would have been out on you're arse with your shitty economic policies if the opposition hadn't been idiots and you hadn't won a war, which was started by your own stupidity through withdrawing military forces from the Falklands.

>>596747
the 90s was full of IMF ass fucking though. Argentina and Brazil did all the typical neo liberal stuff like Chile and their economies are still limping, though I admit they grew significantly from 2000-2010ish when global commodity prices rose.

>Look at Chile now. Best quality of life in LA, most stable economy, sustainable growth...
I'm bound to dislike Pinochet, so I'm biased here... but Chile, as the other anon pointed out, is still heavily reliant on copper. And while Chilean standards of living are good, inequality is becoming horrendous there. Many Chileans dislike the fact that their system heavily favor the rich and well-connected. I haven't just seen this sentiment expressed in newspaper articles on the subject, but from Chilean posted on 4chan.

>>597042
I'm pretty sure he mentioned government support for fledgling industries. I think the point people miss about Smith is it was not comprehensive, it's a foundation.

>>596828
>I travel through their circles because we share the same ideological views.
Ergo
>you're bound to share their ideological sympathies.
You wouldn't meet these people if you didn't agree with them, whether or not the reason you agree with them is because of them or not.

>>596157
>that quote from ron paul
>not an economist
>retarded quack politician

>>597076

He wanted to restart a housing bubble.

>>597082

Right because things are so much better now in Britain with government chewing up half the GDP

Fuck off you dumb cuck.

>>597063
Argentina has had almost no growth the past few years, combined with a huge inflationary problem, unsustainable populist social programmes and economic data censorship. It has also recently defaulted on its debts.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 2559x1690px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2559x1690px

>>597092
>the 1990s
Best years in history for the economy. Do you have any idea how things were before the reforms? After them we got stable currencies, cheaper products, fiscal responsability laws, less bureaucracy, more efficiency in both the public and private sectors, more business competition, more foreign investiment, more international trust, a bigger focus on government's main roles...
It laied the foundations for the commodity-driven growth in the 2000s. Unfortunately, our the leftist governemnts ruined the economy with unsustainable spending, corruption, protectionism... Now we have negative growth, inflation reaching double digits, unemployment soaring, states going bankrupt, industrial production sinking... They destroyed the legacy of the 1990s in a decade.
>Chile is still heavily reliamt on copper.
And Australia is heavily reliant on iron, Norway is heavily reliant on oil... it's not really an issue, specially considering they still are growing at a reasonably fast rate and have everything under control.
>inequality
Not really an issue as long as everyone is prospering. Some might be getting rich faster than others, but I fail to see how that is supposed to be a problem.
>their system favorites the rich and well-connected
Just like everywhere? You don't think the Venezuelan or Cuban systems favor friends of the government and influential party employees? Economic liberalism is still the system that better makes possible the rise in one's quality of life.

you are so ignorant it's hard to believe. read economics in one lesson by Henry Hazlitt and then get back to us.

>tfw libertarian
>tfw it pains me to see people so ill-informed
it's tough accepting the fact that smart people can hold such faulty political beliefs. not only is libertarianism the most consistent political belief of all, it is the most ethical and humane. in fact, countries which place the least restrictions on human liberty are the ones that are most prosperous. if you have any doubts about libertarianism, please at least read ONE book about libertarianism. just one. that's all it takes.

>>589151
>Why do Capitalists circlejerk over Adam Smith so much?
Political capital.

That's why hardcore capitalist politicians harp about trickling down despite trickling down being absolute bullshit and the fact that it's bullshit is one of the rare instances where Austrian Economics and Keynesian Economics schools and their successors agree on something.

>>589160
>People still consider Darwin and Tesla geniuses even though their ideas have been updated
Tesla's research was hardly ever updated.

In fact some of it was proven to be ineffective, he was proponent of 2 phase system after all, but most of his work is more or less still relevant. Outside of all those bullshit miracle inventions late in his life of course.

>>598524
>the 1990s
>Best years in history for the economy.
Worse years in history of economy of my country.

>>591177
They have higher degree of government intervention if you define government intervention as giving tax cuts for global companies outsourcing their production there.

But you know why it won't fly too far.

>>598645
None of those schools necessarily disagrees about "trickle down".

>>591861
>collectivization of assets and monopolization of the market while paying the peasants dick in return for what they produce
That was Stalin.
Lenin introduced NEP which liberalised farming.

>>598656
You are still lucky to have Macri.

>>597076
its because people have generally a very austrian perspecitve on interest rates. In reality interest rates are just a tool to control inflation. In reality most modern economists recognize that how easy money is depends on inflation, not interest rates.

>>598524
>And Australia is heavily reliant on iron, Norway is heavily reliant on oil... it's not really an issue, specially considering they still are growing at a reasonably fast rate and have everything under control.
It's not a problem for Russians that they rely on oil so much that Saudi Barbaria can smash their economy by releasing their oil reserves, it's no problem at all.

If you want to build working economy, you need diverse basis for it or very, very stable, government enacting long-term policies. In Norway they're saving huge part of their petrodollars so when they'll run out of oil or global peak oil will be behind us, they're still not going to hell.

Meanwhile Brazil is currently going to hell and all that was needed was single government that mismanaged everything and let corruption which is natural in poorer countries to run loose on top of main Brazilian economical partner - China - having economic problems.
Australia also suffers from current situation in China btw.

Politicians that made their economies post-colonial because that's what made sense in short term should be hanged on regular basis.
>Some might be getting rich faster than others
>muh trickle down

>>591177
The scale of the "intervention" is negligible. The problem with Austrians is that they insist that these 3rd World examples are in any way shape or form like the institutions in the West - a fatal assumption. In addition, they seem completely oblivious to the fact that the powerful bend the rules in their favor - it's as if Friedman and Mises not only seem to think the elite in a nation do not exist, but that government is the only variable worth meaningful consideration as a negative input. I'm not here to defend communism, as its numerous failures suggest it cannot be implemented (and is therefore meaningless), but we need to recognize these faults as well.

>>598572
Wow you sound very smart.

If you keep that better-than-you attitude, you will never be able to change your mind. Plus you come across as a huge cunt.

>>598645
>trickle-down

This is one of those things that has no precedent. Advocates of low tax, free markets have never advocated the "trickle-down" theory.

It's a term coined by William Jennings-Bryan. Stop judging people by the stereotypes that you hear on MSNBC.

>>589198
>>589208
Holy shit you two know nothing about /his/tory

Try catalonia you fat fucks.

>B - B - But Marx was wrong, look at UDSSR, North Korea and China
Holy shit. That was state centered capitalism at best

>>599032
>This is one of those things that has no precedent. Advocates of low tax, free markets have never advocated the "trickle-down" theory.

They never say explicitly that they support trickle-down economics, but trickle-down is an attempt to make the result of free-market low tax policy more palatable to the majority of the population. A strict free-market position with mass deregulation and low taxes will always favor those who already have the most power. This is supported by the evidence presented by the "liberation" of many ex-Soviet countries' economies which resulted in a massive asset grab by those who already possessed the means to do so. In a strict free-market there will always be those who win everything and those who lose everything (not trying to make it sound zero-sum), and what determines the winners is frequently who started off with an advantage not derived by market forces.

>I live at the base of a mountain
>A bunch of rocks have been immobilized by government efforts to stop landslides
>The people on the mountain want the rocks gone so their land can be worked better
>Government support for allowing the rocks to be removed is curried by the people on the mountain
>Rocks end up rolling down the mountain in a landslide killing me, but freeing up the land
>IT WAS JUST GRAVITY GUYS

>>597092
>the 90s was full of IMF ass fucking though. Argentina and Brazil did all the typical neo liberal stuff like Chile and their economies are still limping

I can't say a lot about Argentina, but I can about Brazil.

FHC was not a Milton Friedman supporter. He ran a normal, mainstream Keynesian policy, which was a huge improvement over the Post-Keynesian idiocy that reigned on Brazil before. And he was arguably one of the best Presidents we ever had.

Basically, under FHC, we controlled inflation, the deficit and we had plenty of reforms that were helpful for our growth.


You should study the particular countries before talking about them.

File: image.jpg (23KB, 496x297px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 496x297px

>>599500
>you fat fucks

File: 14534564729891.jpg (173KB, 960x889px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 960x889px

>>599948
Is this "retarded pics" thread now?

>>599500
> state centered capitalism
Okay. Can anyone explain to me what is the difference between "state capitalism" and "socialism"?

I mean, besides the obvious co-ops.

>>599972
Socialism = government owns all means of production
State capitalism = capitalist system with heavy government intervention.

File: HomepageBanner_quote-billygraham.png (420KB, 1024x300px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1024x300px

>>589151
Because people only read Cliff's Notes, or worse, form opinions based on what some guy said about him.

People revere Adam Smith in the way they do the Founding Fathers: a cursory glance that ignores the things they don't like and glorifies the things they do. He's an icon, a legend; the patron saint of the intellectually lazy.

>>599948
Because clearly the only two ways to govern are let Rome burn or burn it down yourself.

>>600017
Rome wasn't a socialist shithole.

>>600041
...

The Roman state was the quintessential example of state-sponsored public works programs and survived on the public grain dole.

>>600056
Private property was still a thing.
There can be government spending in a capitalist system as well, you know.

>>600085
Which was my original point you nitwit.

>>600001
bullshit
socialism = no private property at all, means of production are controlled by the whole society
state capitalism = state runs value production by owning means of production

>>589151
>"muh nationalist feels"
>circlejerk
>"But muh the Invisible hand"
English, please?

>>596157
>Keynesian vs Austrian
>implying Austrian economics are even close to being the behemoth in academia that is Keynesianism

File: world_copper_demand.jpg (28KB, 409x295px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 409x295px

>>599948
>just copper
>JUST copper

>>598572
Sounds like a religion. So, no I won't, fuck you