Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

white_wolf

(6,238 posts)
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 01:24 PM Jun 2012

So Conservatives, you want us to follow Adam Smith? Okay, we can do that,but you won't like it.

Conservatives love Adam Smith, but I wonder if they've read much of him. I was doing some research on him and I game across a few quotes from Wealth of Nations that I thought I would share here. Granted this is a long post, but I thought some people might find these quotes interesting.


From Chapter 1, Book 5:

"Wherever there is a great property, there is great inequality. For one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excited the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate, that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil magistrate, continually held up to chastise it. The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government. Where there is no property, or at least none that exceed the value of two or three days labours, civil government is not so necessary. . . . Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is, in reality, instituted for the defence [sic] of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."


Chapter 1, book 5:

"In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is , of the greay body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations; frequently to one or tow. But the undertsandings of the greater part of men are ncessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simply operations, of which the effects, too, are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention, in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. . . . His dexterity at his own particular trade seems, in this manner, to be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. But in every improved and civilized society, this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it."


Chapter 2, book 5:


"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

Chapter 2, book 5:


"Every tax, however, is, to the person who pays it, a badge, not of slavery, but of liberty."

Chapter 4, book 3:


"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."

Chapter 9, book 1:

"[E]Employers constitute the third order, that of those who live by profit. It is the stock that is employed for the sake of profit, which puts into motion the greater part of the useful labour of every society.The plans and projects of the employers of stock regulate and direct all the most important operation of labour, and profit is the end proposed by all those plans and projects. But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interests of this third order, therefore, has not the same connexion with the general interest of the society, as that of the other two. Merchants and master manufacturers are, in this order, the two classes of people who commonly employ the largest capitals, and who by their wealth draw to themselves the greatest share of the public consideration. As during their whole lives they are engaged in plans and projects, they have frequently more acuteness of understanding than the greater part of country gentlemen. As their thoughts, however, are commonly exercised rather about the interest of their own particular branch of business than about that of the society, their judgement, even when given with the greatest candour (which it has not been upon every occasion), is much more to be depended upon with regard to the former of those two objects, than with regard to the latter. Their superiority over the country gentleman is, not so much in their knowledge of the public interest, as in their having a better knowledge of their own interest than he has of his. It is by his superior knowledge of their own interest that they have frequently imposed upon his generosity, and persuaded him to give up both his own interest and that of the public, from a very simple but honest conviction, that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the public. The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be again it, and can only serve to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who according have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So Conservatives, you want us to follow Adam Smith? Okay, we can do that,but you won't like it. (Original Post) white_wolf Jun 2012 OP
modern "conservatives" don't like capitalism at all. they like fascism and economic anarchy. unblock Jun 2012 #1
bookmarking this one OKNancy Jun 2012 #2
He Is Far More On Our Side Than Theirs, Sir The Magistrate Jun 2012 #3
Yup, and then 200 years worth of literature on "Das Adam-Smith Problem." malthaussen Jun 2012 #4
Now you know why I just luuuve to cite nadinbrzezinski Jun 2012 #5
It appears the HAND of Adam Smith is not the only thing about him invisible to RWers Martin Eden Jun 2012 #6
Regarding the Invisible Hand... white_wolf Jun 2012 #8
Good video Thank you. PufPuf23 Jul 2012 #9
"Property" meant just that. Igel Jun 2012 #7
Whoa. Great excerpts. freshwest Jul 2012 #10
Here's my collection: chaska Jul 2012 #11
Yup, the Baggers would hate the real Adam Smith. Odin2005 Jul 2012 #12

unblock

(52,328 posts)
1. modern "conservatives" don't like capitalism at all. they like fascism and economic anarchy.
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 01:29 PM
Jun 2012

capitalism is based on competition, which they absolutely loathe.

they seek government support for the downside of competition at every turn.
they seek to consolidate industry to reduce competition.
they seek to deprive consumers and workers of information needed to properly judge competition.

they like the mantle and the name and the image of capitalism, adam smith, etc.
but they sure as hell don't want to actually live it.

The Magistrate

(95,255 posts)
3. He Is Far More On Our Side Than Theirs, Sir
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 03:22 PM
Jun 2012

Well worth reading, not only 'Wealth of Nations' but 'Theory of Moral Sentiments'.

malthaussen

(17,216 posts)
4. Yup, and then 200 years worth of literature on "Das Adam-Smith Problem."
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 03:41 PM
Jun 2012

Smith is like every other text and pundit the RW refer to: they only highlight those bits that interest them.

Personally, I think his letters are a great read, too. I love the very first one, sent from college, which basically amounts to "having a wonderful time, please send more money." I guess not a lot has changed for college students since the mid-18th century.

-- Mal

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
5. Now you know why I just luuuve to cite
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 03:43 PM
Jun 2012

The Wealth to those who pray at the altar, but have not read the holy writ!

Martin Eden

(12,875 posts)
6. It appears the HAND of Adam Smith is not the only thing about him invisible to RWers
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 03:56 PM
Jun 2012

Today's "conservative" mind is a terrible thing, wasted.

white_wolf

(6,238 posts)
8. Regarding the Invisible Hand...
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 11:11 PM
Jun 2012

in this video Chomsky points out the the Invisible Hand was actually an argument against what we now call neo-liberalism or free trade, and had nothing to do with the usual explanation of the market allocating the best product.

Igel

(35,359 posts)
7. "Property" meant just that.
Sat Jun 30, 2012, 04:40 PM
Jun 2012

Real estate. That part doesn't apply, except as analogy (and we all know how valid reasoning by analogy is).

Interestingly, where it could apply it doesn't, usually: Large farms and ranches. Would be in the 1700s that large farms had lots of fallow land (which is what Smith really railed against: Lots of fallow land while there are un(der)employed and therefore destitute workers). Then the civil magistrates had to deal with extensive squatters. Now, not so much: Most squatters are in the city, where property holdings aren't extensive and fallow.

As for the civil magistrates being there to protect those who have some property against those who have none, with that most would agree. If you think of property as just real estate, many DUers have houses or condos. If you think if it as somewhat more (because the civil authorities protects vehicles and the contents of apts. as well), then it still holds. Hardly an archconservative idea.

Profits these days are low. We think of "high" profits as 5%. Perhaps 10%. But in a poor economy you can't afford to have a mere 5% investment on an investment because you're going to be losing so much money on other investments. You'd aim for 40, 50, 60% profit. Per year.

As for the idea of a law that narrows competition, I fully agree with Smith (I'm unclear on patents in the modern sense). Strictly speaking, I don't think government should be in a position of awarding monopolies or being one. This is frequently done: Often you find that large companies are in favor of greater regulation or in aligning fairly lax US regulations with European regulations. This has a chilling effect on competition: To compete in Europe the companies already compy with the regs, or by virtue of size have mechanisms that can be easily tweaked to conform with the regulations. Smaller and purely domestic businesses, however, need extensive revision to their processes and products to come into alignment, and that's expensive and that makes the regulations anticompetitive. A la Smith.

chaska

(6,794 posts)
11. Here's my collection:
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 01:06 PM
Jul 2012

ADAM SMITH QUOTES:

Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people. Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations; Book I, Chapter IX, pg. 117

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty or justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.
Book I, Chapter X, Part II, pg.152

Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters. Book I, Chapter x, Part II, pg.168

The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers.
Book I, Chapter XI, Part III, Conclusion of the Chapter, pg.292

To widen the market and to narrow the competition is always the interest of the dealers... The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
Book I, Chapter XI, Part III, Conclusion of the Chapter, pg.292

The government of an exclusive company of merchants is, perhaps, the worst of all governments for any country whatever.
Book IV, Chapter VII, Part Second, p. 619

Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men.

Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality.
Book V, Chapter I, Part II, pg.770

Though the principles of the banking trade may appear somewhat abstruse, the practice is capable of being reduced to strict rules. To depart upon any occasion from these rules, in consequence of some flattering speculation of extraordinary gain, is almost always extremely dangerous, and frequently fatal to the banking company which attempts it.
Book V, Chapter I, Part III, pg.820

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

When national debts have once been accumulated to a certain degree, there is scarce, I believe, a single instance of their having been fairly and completely paid. The liberation of the public revenue, if it has ever been brought about at all, has always been brought about by bankruptcy; sometimes by an avowed one, but always by a real one, though frequently by a pretend payment.
Book V, Chapter III, Part V, pg.1012

From The Theory of Moral Sentiments:
This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise or, at least, neglect persons of poor and mean conditions, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.

No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. Adam Smith 1723-1790; Wealth of Nations 1776

Quotes about Adam Smith:
He's pre-capitalist, a figure of the Enlightenment. What we would call capitalism he despised. People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits.
Noam Chomsky, Class Warfare, p. 19-23,

Even today — in blithe disregard of his actual philosophy — Smith is generally regarded as a conservative economist, whereas in fact, he was more avowedly hostile to the motives of businessmen then most New Deal economists.
Robert Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers, Chapter III, p. 62

Wikipedia: Noam Chomsky has argued that several aspects of Smith's thought have been misrepresented and falsified by contemporary ideology, including Smith's reasons for supporting markets and Smith's views on corporations. Chomsky argues that Smith supported markets in the belief that they would lead to equality, and that Smith opposed wage labor and corporations.

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)
12. Yup, the Baggers would hate the real Adam Smith.
Mon Jul 2, 2012, 01:27 PM
Jul 2012

He was first and foremost an observer of human behavior, especially regarding behavior with a moral or ethical component. He was not a propagandist for the elites.

The Wealth of Nations was essentially a polemic against powerful established economic elites of his time, such as the East India Company.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So Conservatives, you wan...