Daan wrote:I guess i have been taken by those who misrepresented Adam Smith. Maybe it should be Ricardo versus Marx, because there is definitely some alienation between two camps on economic issues within atheism. On the other hand, the so-called adherents of adam Smith are often lyers. Another topic could be if it is okay to lie about the truth.
Daan wrote:I hardly ever lie, i should do it more often. But lying is too boring.
Daan wrote:While Adam Smith believed in a free market that improves individual lives, Karl Marx was against the exploitation of ordinary people by employers and customers on the free market.
Suppose there is no god, and we want to improve life for most people, how should we use the important tool of the organization of the economy?
Daan wrote:I only saw the first 15 minutes of Amartya Sen, but i did see the whole other video.
psikeyhackr wrote:The problem is that the second industrial revolution was just getting going when Karl Marx died. For instance the transformer was invented in 1876 and Marx died in 1883. Transformers are a fundamental component in the use of electricity.
Henry Ford comes up with the Model-T in 1908.
What did Karl Marx say about the effect of planned obsolescence on the Gross Domestic Product? Planned Obsolescence is a 20th century economic phenomenon. Marx and Smith did not have a clue about it. Keynes was born the year Marx died. I am not aware of Keynes having said anything about it. He died in 1946. The world population was less than 3 billion.
So we are currently in a state where most of the historical ideas do not apply. Galbraith wrote about PO in 1959 in his book The Affluent Society. I think we need to stop focusing on quite dated economic thinking and figure out how technology has changed the economic environment.
But Smith did talk about ENLIGHTENED SELF INTEREST though. Who is supposed to be enlightened? Double-entry accounting is 700 years old. We have cheap computers everywhere. Why shouldn't EVERYBODY know accounting now? Maybe the Economic Wargame depends on most people not knowing how to play. Maybe we need more Game Theory via John von Neumann.
http://www.amazon.com/Neumann-Morgenste ... nskepti-20
It is very interesting what an economist says about accounting though.
cavarka9 wrote: , I knew that most other people would watch the other video, it refreshes the mind, then one can decide whether they want to go the full distance or say gud bye.
The Plc wrote: Reading Wealth of Nations is actually quite a shock when your preconception of Smith is based on the image constructed by right wing think tanks and such. Smith was strongly opposed to excessive concentration of capital for example, and worker inequity. It's particularly notable for it's examination of mercantilism and imperialism. He advocated what we would call today social democratic or democratic socialist policies, such poverty relief, better working standards, economic democracy, and iinterestingly secular education for children and adults, free from the 'mad enthusiasm' of the religious.
Despite all Smith did to explain and defend the constructive role of the market, he was deeply concerned about the incidence of poverty, illiteracy and relative deprivation that might remain despite a well-functioning market economy. He wanted institutional diversity and motivational variety, not monolithic markets and singular dominance of the profit motive. Smith was not only a defender of the role of the state in doing things that the market might fail to do, such as universal education and poverty relief (he also wanted greater freedom for the state-supported indigent than the Poor Laws of his day provided); he argued, in general, for institutional choices to fit the problems that arise rather than anchoring institutions to some fixed formula, such as leaving things to the market.”
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest