Smith vs. Keynes

Methinks the OP has not actually read that much, if any, adam smith

Adam smith's books are far from being anything libertarian

__________________
Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most — that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least.

The most barbarous fact in all christendom is the labor market. The mere term sufficiently expresses the animalism of commercial civilization. They who buy and they who sell in the labor market are alike dehumanized by the inhuman traffic in the brains and blood and bones of human beings.

The bottom line is that money has no meaning anymore, and therefore classical economic theories that depict money as a currency are all in failure. It makes no sense that a construction worker earns twenty times less than a simple banking accountant, and it makes even less sense that a couple of billionaires earn a hundred thousand times that share for doing nothing. What our economies need is to come back to reality, if we are to advert the next crisis, and if we want to fight poverty in the world.

I have not read much on economic theory, no. Just a little, and very little by A. Smith. What I am left with however is the impression that Smith's approach to economy is hardly at all short of religious. With currency being his deity. Now, I have not read much, as I said, but that is my impression after reading but a little.

__________________

Your impressions are incorrect and if you have the time and drive to power through it, give wealth of nations a looksie.

__________________
Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most — that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least.

The most barbarous fact in all christendom is the labor market. The mere term sufficiently expresses the animalism of commercial civilization. They who buy and they who sell in the labor market are alike dehumanized by the inhuman traffic in the brains and blood and bones of human beings.

I don't at this time. But I do intend to read it when I do. It's an important work, and thus I have it up on my list of musts. Along with Das Kapital, Mein Kampf, The Origin of Species, The Art of War, etc. I also intend to do a study on philosophy next year. I know (and delight in) that I have a lot to learn. How dull life would be if that was not so.

Obviously you have read some of Smith's work however. So, what would you call Smith's statements regarding the invisible hand? To me they seem more than slightly religious. Wouldn't you say that when Smith says:
"…he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. […] By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. […] every individual, it is evident, can, in his local situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him." this gives an impression that his belief in free market is somewhat mystic/religious?

__________________

>We are plenty smart enough to run 50 experiments in parallel,

AMEN, but it will not happen without a shooting revolution.

The origin of species is dumb, you'd do better to actually look at a modern textbook. The art of war is likewise pretty stupid as it's a giant book of common sense phrases which such genius as "Don't go to war unless you're prepared" Oh really, sun tzu? How astute.

Das kapital is incredibly boring and very, very hard to read. I wasn't able to get through it but good luck. It's informative but reading it is on par with getting a tooth pulled.

__________________
Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most — that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least.

The most barbarous fact in all christendom is the labor market. The mere term sufficiently expresses the animalism of commercial civilization. They who buy and they who sell in the labor market are alike dehumanized by the inhuman traffic in the brains and blood and bones of human beings.

Smith is irrelevant to the modern economy.

Smith's entire analysis is predicated on an economy consisting of a large number of small businesses which are largely immobile (i.e. labor is more mobile than capital).

Well none of that is true anymore.

The economy consists of a couple very very very large corporations in each sector which can move easily leaving labor less mobile than capital.

Why would anyone use an analysis for which none of the premises are true anymore?

I mean I know economics is the art of ignoring reality to reach politically correct solutions but this is ridiculous.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Originally Posted by faith guardian

I have not read much on economic theory, no. Just a little, and very little by A. Smith. What I am left with however is the impression that Smith's approach to economy is hardly at all short of religious. With currency being his deity. Now, I have not read much, as I said, but that is my impression after reading but a little.

Milton Friedman was a great economist. He is of the Chicago School of Economics. I like a lot of his ideas.

__________________
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

-George Washington

per·son noun \ˈpər-sən\
1: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes

Keyne's economics is logical enough, and can actually be helpful in moderating the worst effects of economic downturns. There is, however, one fatal flaw. In order for Keynesianism to be viable over the long run, government must be careful to sluice as much money out of the economy when times are good as it sluices in when times are bad. And here's where the wheels come off: since pulling money out is unpopular, we end up with more and more sluiced in.

This is why our national debt is $12 trillion and counting, and the price of everything seems to go up and up.