Why do Capitalists circlejerk over Adam Smith so much?
Not only are Adam Smiths economic theories based on an incredibly basic LTV completely bunk, many of the moral arguments he used for market interactions, such as The Invisible Hand, were completely and utterly debunked by Globalization and Capitalist Imperialism.
It also seems bizarre I keep getting Libertarians and Austrian Econ fags throwing "But muh the Invisible hand" at me when they don't even know what the fuck The Invisible Hand even refers too from The Theory of Moral Sentiments and how it refers to reinvestment into domestic production because of "muh nationalist feels" (generalizing it of course)
I honestly don't get the circlejerking over him, he wasn't even talking about fucking Capitalism as it's modern definition from the 19th century for fuck sake.
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.
Show me on the doll where the invisible had touched you
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.
>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The Wealth of Nations is completely outdated and was refering to a merchantalist economy.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.
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.
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
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.
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
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?
>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
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.
>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.
the fact is that the government doesn't have its hands on the economy enough.
>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.
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.
Thanks to Adam Smith and capitalism you now have the technology to post on the Internet.
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.
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.
>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. "
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.
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.
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.
Am I doing this right?
Now, that's patently not true. I'm a gommunist and not a crypto-stalinist. I'm openly stalinist.
> So how do we distinct old capitalism from new?
Is there any difference?
> 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.
This. Even communists consider Adam Smith to be relevant (as a part of English economic thought that inspired Marxism, at the very least).
>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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
Talks like this might start Cold War any day!
Lenin didn't listen to Marx! The 20th century revolutionaries should've followed Marx to the T, if they did they wouldn't fail!
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
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.
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.
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.
I knew it this board is full of fucking idiots
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.
.> 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
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
Austrian is not the mainstream alternative to Keynes.
>by the austrian insider
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
All of this other than the reference to "who is funding them", which I am not so sure about.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
>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.
Can I just say this has been an awesome thread, thus far, from economicsboos and economic historyboos.
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.
This book should be required reading for any western civ class
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
>I travel through their circles because we share the same ideological views.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
>Why do Capitalists circlejerk over Adam Smith so much?
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
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.
>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
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.
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.
>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
>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.
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.