Would Adam Smith be a Republican or a Democrat today?

C

Cypress

Well-known member
On the one hand,

Smith though humans had a natural propensity to trade, most people are motivated by self-interest, excessive meddling by the government in trade was harmful, and an "invisible hand" in the market would ensure that trade benefits all parties involved - it is not a zero-sum game.

On the other hand,

Smith was not a dogmatic believer in laissez-faire economics, he believed businessmen exploited others and created monopolies, he believed the government should implement certain public works projects, provide public education, and establish certain regulations on trade.






sources used: Timothy Taylor, "Legacies of Great Economists" and Jeremy Shearmur, "Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition"
 
Cypress said:
On the one hand,

Smith though humans had a natural propensity to trade, most people are motivated by self-interest, excessive meddling by the government in trade was harmful, and an "invisible hand" in the market would ensure that trade benefits all parties involved - it is not a zero-sum game.

On the other hand,

Smith was not a dogmatic believer in laissez-faire economics, he believed businessmen exploited others and created monopolies, he believed the government should implement certain public works projects, provide public education, and establish certain regulations on trade.






sources used: Timothy Taylor, "Legacies of Great Economists" and Jeremy Shearmur, "Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition"
Click to expand...

He'd be an independent, because Smith's writing has elements of libertarianism, modern and classic liberalism, and conservativism, and combinations of these, depending on the subject.
 
Cypress said:
On the one hand,

Smith though humans had a natural propensity to trade, most people are motivated by self-interest, excessive meddling by the government in trade was harmful, and an "invisible hand" in the market would ensure that trade benefits all parties involved - it is not a zero-sum game.

On the other hand,

Smith was not a dogmatic believer in laissez-faire economics, he believed businessmen exploited others and created monopolies, he believed the government should implement certain public works projects, provide public education, and establish certain regulations on trade.






sources used: Timothy Taylor, "Legacies of Great Economists" and Jeremy Shearmur, "Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition"
Click to expand...
where was he on sound currency versus fiat money totalitarian fascism?

what would you imagine?

what would he think of banker bailouts?
 
Kamala Trump said:
where was he on sound currency versus fiat money totalitarian fascism?

what would you imagine?

what would he think of banker bailouts?
Click to expand...
You tell me, Einstein. I'm not an expert on Adam Smith.

What I read is that he did not think gold bullion was really the source of a nation's wealth (which is what the Mercantilists claimed), and that labor was the ultimate source of value.
 
Cypress said:
On the one hand,

Smith though humans had a natural propensity to trade, most people are motivated by self-interest, excessive meddling by the government in trade was harmful, and an "invisible hand" in the market would ensure that trade benefits all parties involved - it is not a zero-sum game.

On the other hand,

Smith was not a dogmatic believer in laissez-faire economics, he believed businessmen exploited others and created monopolies, he believed the government should implement certain public works projects, provide public education, and establish certain regulations on trade.






sources used: Timothy Taylor, "Legacies of Great Economists" and Jeremy Shearmur, "Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition"
Click to expand...
Everyone is motivated by self interest. I don't trust anyone who says they aren't. They are going to me of themselves. Free trade is the best system that has helped the most people. Every time govt sticks their hand in it they screw things up.
 
Cypress said:
You tell me, Einstein. I'm not an expert on Adam Smith.

What I read is that he did not think gold bullion was really the source of a nation's wealth (which is what the Mercantilists claimed), and that labor was the ultimate source of value.
Click to expand...
Labor is the ultimate source of value. The question is who is best suited to decide how it's used.
 
Cypress said:
You tell me, Einstein. I'm not an expert on Adam Smith.

What I read is that he did not think gold bullion was really the source of a nation's wealth (which is what the Mercantilists claimed), and that labor was the ultimate source of value.
Click to expand...
yes labor is the ultimate source of real value but fake value totalitianism comes from fiat currency.
 
Yakuda said:
Everyone is motivated by self interest. I don't trust anyone who says they aren't.
Click to expand...
People who rescue stray cats, people volunteer who in animal rescue shelters, people who volunteer to stock and maintain church food pantries for the poor are not acting out of self-interest.
 
zymurgy said:
If Adam Smith is a democrat in 2024, we would have to have a communist party for Scamala to join
Click to expand...
Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin despised liberals.
They considered them collaborators with capitalism.
They feared liberals would undermine the communist cause by promising the proletariat modest incremental reforms in labor conditions while still maintaining the institutions of religion and capitalism.
 
Cypress said:
On the one hand,

Smith though humans had a natural propensity to trade, most people are motivated by self-interest, excessive meddling by the government in trade was harmful, and an "invisible hand" in the market would ensure that trade benefits all parties involved - it is not a zero-sum game.

On the other hand,

Smith was not a dogmatic believer in laissez-faire economics, he believed businessmen exploited others and created monopolies, he believed the government should implement certain public works projects, provide public education, and establish certain regulations on trade.

sources used: Timothy Taylor, "Legacies of Great Economists" and Jeremy Shearmur, "Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition"
Click to expand...

He would be a Republican. Who on this planet argues for or implements laissez-faire economics?

Laissez-faire is an economic theory dating back to the 18th century that opposes any government intervention in business affairs. The driving principle behind laissez-faire economics is that the less the government is involved in the economy, the better off business, and society as a whole, will be.

It is a French term that translates to "leave alone," or more literally to "let you do."
 
Yakuda said:
Everyone is motivated by self interest. I don't trust anyone who says they aren't. They are going to me of themselves. Free trade is the best system that has helped the most people. Every time govt sticks their hand in it they screw things up.
Click to expand...
where were you on banker bailouts?
 
Cypress said:
Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin despised liberals.
Click to expand...

That's because the term "liberal" has been so badly misused in modern times to describe those who are idealistically leftists. Yourself for example.

[ lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl ]

Phonetic (Standard)IPA

adjective​

  1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
  2. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.
  3. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
  4. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression:
    a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
Cypress said:
They considered them collaborators with capitalism.
They feared liberals would undermine the communist cause by promising the proletariat modest incremental reforms in labor conditions while still maintaining the institutions of religion and capitalism.
Click to expand...

Liberalism has nothing to do with capitalism or Laissez-faire economics.
 
Yakuda said:
Free trade is the best system that has helped the most people. Every time govt sticks their hand in it they screw things up.
Click to expand...

Free trade without oversight or controls leads to very bad things. Things no American actually wants. We know this because we lived through it in the late 19th century and we saw what free-market laissez faire capitalism can result in without oversight and controls.

Trust me: YOU would not be one of the robber barons. You'd be with the rest of us living in a crowded disease-infested tenement working 7 days a week 18 hours a day (as well as our children) and the food you bought at the store was just as likely to kill you as nourish you.

Americans stood 4-square against that and DEMANDED controls be put on the markets. WE DEMANDED IT.

We continued to demand it throughout the 20th century as we asked for worker safety to be included, consumer safety, hazardous waste management (the kind that didn't wind up with masses of children with strange brain cancers dying horribly).

All the "regulations" you Trumpists scream about all the time WERE PUT IN PLACE BECAUSE AMERICANS DEMANDED IT. WE DEMANDED IT.

YOU demanded it.

You know how I know? Let me ask you: do you think a chemical company should be able to poison your drinking water without any real guilt on their part? How many of your children would you allow to die from cancer before you thought regulations were a good thing?

If we can find out how many of your kids you are willing to watch writhing in agony as they die of cancer then maybe we can figure out what a good regulatory scheme is that works for you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top