Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in More Enlightement from Adam Smith

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

dg lesvic — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:40:05 -0000

Daniel Kuehn,

Perhaps I've missed something, for, admittedly, I can barely stand to read anything of yours, let alone reams of it, but it seems to me that, from what little I have read of your debate with Prof. Boudreaux, you have been letting him off too easily.

You had told me that,

"Words obscure and promote unfounded assumptions. Math bring clarity to your assumptions so you can't hide behind bad assumptions."

Why are you allowing him to hide his unfounded assumptions behind words when you could bring clarity to the discussion by means of the mathematical allusions and Black Holes in OuterCyberSpace that you employed so successfully against me?

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

The State — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:12:47 -0000

off topic but this is a pretty clever twitter

http://twitter.com/ourenemy

it’s from the point of view of the state, kinda funny

thought you guys might enjoy it :)

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

Don Boudreaux — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:55:19 -0000

At the University of Virginia, its founder was -- and still is -- called "Mr. Jefferson." I like the non-elitism of that tradition. Were I to meet him, I'd call the president of Microsoft "Mr. Ballmer" -- not "President Ballmer."

Why should the president of one branch of one level of government in one country be treated as if he's something special? He's certainly no more worthy than is the president of the local Rotary Club - and likely much less honorable. (By the way, I'd say this about the president of the executive branch of the United States government regardless of which self-important pooh-bah happens to occupy that office's oval stage.)

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

Gil — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:21:20 -0000

T'is interesting to note you referred to Obama as 'Mr. Obama' as though he were some guy on the street. Don't want to refer to him as the President, eh? ;)

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

indianajim — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:45:32 -0000

Daniel wrote: "but many additional "special theories" have been successfully offered."

Well that depends what you mean by "successfully offered." If you mean that the "special theories" have failed time and time again to be refuted by empirical investigation after empirical investigation, then it is interesting to discuss. But if you mean that the "special theories" have merely been embraced by the gatekeepers in the top journals in whatever discipline you like (say economics), then please, please don't waste my time with "beautiful", "elegant", "innovative", "insightful", "nuanced" theories that cannot be challenged with ugly facts.

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

vidyohs — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:14:29 -0000

Daniel,

Here is an example of why I have so little regard for your intellectual ability, however prolific your writing output may be.

----

"And I've fully granted that I and Obama and many others look at the market and say "sometimes it doesn't work under this condition" or "sometimes it doesn't work under that condition"............. I think Smith would be convinced by many of those arguments - and unconvinced by others if he had the chance to have them posed to him."

Posted by: Daniel Kuehn | Apr 13, 2009 4:25:00 PM"

You can think that, you can write that and entirely miss the really good idea is to blame the condiditions, not blame the market, for Chirst's Sake!

I buy, you sell, we have created a marketplace; now name one condition, other than misrepresentation or fraud, that could interfere with that if we are left alone.

Sans misrepresentation or fraud, our marketplace will operate successfully 100% of the time. The conditions you speak of are always the interference of government either through its own stupidity or through the purchase of its force by envious competitors to one or the other of us.

Left alone, there are no, I repeat no, conditions that can cause our market to fail.

Weather won't do it, sickness won't do it, fatigue won't do it, diversity of race won't do it, differences in education won't do it, bandits won't do it, nor any other will do it. As long as I am buying and you are selling, we effect satisfactory exchange of goods as agreed, then the only "condition that can interfere is government.

No market has failed until one makes payment and the other can not, or does not, deliver agreed upon goods or service.

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

Guest — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:28:15 -0000

I recall Obama's saying that he would support raising capital gains taxes, even if it resulted in lowering government revenues, because the incidence of the tax would fall most heavily on the relatively wealthy, which would advance the cause of fairness.

"That wisdom which contrived the system of human affections, as well as that of every other part of nature, seems to have judged that the interest of the great society of mankind would be best promoted by directing the principal attention of each individual to that particular portion of it, which was most within the sphere both of his abilities and of his understanding."

Birds of a feather? No.

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

Phil — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:25:24 -0000

Its funny that people who are arguing about the 'relative obtrusiveness' of the current administration. Hey, I like to look at pyramids built by government just as much as the next guy, but it doesnt help an economy.

The travesty we have from this administration is that they refuse to learn from history. They are using the same master plan that was used to prolong the great depression over a decade. It is truly sad.

And, yes - Obama does think that he knows better than the individuals within an economy how to use the fruits of their own labor. If he didnt, he would not confiscate these same fruits and transfer them to there areas.

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

S Andrews — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:47:52 -0000

Come on, he worked for one of the proxies of communists in this country - ACORN. He is an outright socialist.

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

JV DeLong — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:28:52 -0000

Some people appreciate Smith -- see the Economist (Mar. 19:

"Adam Smith’s disciples

"Throughout the crisis China’s leaders have railed against the dangers of protectionism, knowing that trade with the West is vital. Much to the chagrin of China’s online leftists, Mr Wen has repeatedly sung the praises of Adam Smith in speeches and meetings with journalists. In London he revealed to the Financial Times that he was carrying Smith’s “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” in his suitcase.

"As Mr Wen explains it, an important message of this book is that if the fruits of economic development are not shared by all, that is “morally unsound”, as well as a threat to social stability."

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

Methinks — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:24:15 -0000

I agree, that given Obama's understanding of his options (which, as a Leftist politician, are between Keynesian and Marxian policies), that Obama is choosing the (relatively) non-interventionist path.

Yes, I too agree that Obama thinks he's taking the less interventionist path. I just don't give two figs what he believes in his heart of hearts. That's for his wife to worry herself with, not me.

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

Daniel Kuehn — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:13:41 -0000

indiana jim -

RE: "No we are not ignoring the "time factor"; the fact is that a the most important of Smith's propositions have failed to be refuted time and time again (this is what makes them his most important propositions)."

Right. That's why I agree with the most important of Smith's propositions. What the time factor introduces are primarily "special cases". Nobody has debunked or seems interested in debunking Smith's "general theory", but many additional "special theories" have been successfully offered. My point is simply that we oughta recognize that Smith would probably be interested in and agree with a lot of these "special theories", so nobody should go around using Smith's fundamental insights to chastise a Keynes or a Friedman or anyone else that agrees with Smith on the fundamentals.

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

yetanotherDave — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:04:23 -0000

...given his understanding of his options, Obama is choosing the non-interventionist route.

I have absolutely no idea what his understanding is, but it's ludicrous on it's face to claim he's in any way choosing a non-interventionist route. So far, everything he's doing is very dangerous and wrong. (OK, maybe he's done something I don't know about, so everything is possibly overstating my case.) I sincerely hope I'm wrong about him, but I truly wish you were less trusting and forgiving of politicians. They are far more dangerous than you give them credit for.

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

Sam Grove — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:55:43 -0000

But take a step back and put yourself into the shoes of someone who does have a Keynesian/mainstream understanding of recessions. Given the options that are available under that understanding of recessions, the Obama administration is going for the least interventionist route.

So, within the context of Keynesian/mainstream economics, he's taking the "least" interventionist route. Are we supposed to commend him?

What are you suggesting?

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

brotio — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:55:23 -0000

Daniel,

I agree, that given Obama's understanding of his options (which, as a Leftist politician, are between Keynesian and Marxian policies), that Obama is choosing the (relatively) non-interventionist path.

It is unfortunate that he limits himself to those two choices.

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

indianajim — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:51:26 -0000

Daniel does it again with the "you're not still talking about that old Adam Smith stuff":

"I think you're really ignoring the time factor as well - the fact that a lot has happened since 1776."

No we are not ignoring the "time factor"; the fact is that a the most important of Smith's propositions have failed to be refuted time and time again (this is what makes them his most important propositions).

Keep saying 1776, 1776, 1776 as many times as you like Daniel and it is just as devoid of meaning as it was the first time.

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

Daniel Kuehn — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:48:39 -0000

Michael Smith -

RE: "That's exactly like arguing that a criminal, who sees no alternative to supporting his life by theft, is taking the "non-criminal" route if he chooses shoplifting over bank robbery."

Intervention into the economy has somewhat more convincing apologists and exponents than living a life of crime does.

OK - I can hear the stampede of "taxation is theft" posts rumbling in now.

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

Sam Grove — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:45:43 -0000

12) Force all businesses to pay 100% of their employee's healthcare costs.

Which is much like the farce that employers pay 1/2 the SS withholding.

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

michaelsmith — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:40:37 -0000

Daniel Kuehn wrote:

So PLEASE try to differentiate your disagreement with him on what the available options are from your disagreement with me that given his understanding of his options, Obama is choosing the non-interventionist route.

Obama is choosing the non-interventionist route? Preposterous.

Your argument amounts to the claim that since Obama thinks the only options open to him are interventionist, he is choosing the non-interventionist route when he picks one of those "lesser" interventions.

That's exactly like arguing that a criminal, who sees no alternative to supporting his life by theft, is taking the "non-criminal" route if he chooses shoplifting over bank robbery.

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

Daniel Kuehn — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:31:21 -0000

S Andrews -

RE: "Raising taxes is the only way a Smithian can make an unsustainable budget sustainable. ROTFLMAO"

Did I stumble into a "Gossip Girls" chatroom? What's with all these abbreviations?

No - raising taxes is not the only way a Smithian can make an unsustainable budget sustainable. It is one of two ways that I can think of. What gave you the impression it was the only way?

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

Daniel Kuehn — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:28:50 -0000

OK - regarding "an administration that is trying to do as little as they feel they possibly can to direct industry"... I knew that would be a tough sell to this crowd. That's why I said "as they feel they possibly can", and even then I probably should have said "as they THINK they possibly can", because obviously this government isn't run on feelings.

Given the Obama administration's understanding of the causes and consequences of the current situation, they are trying to do as little to intervene as they think they can manage without throwing the economy into a depression.

I acknowledge that you guys don't understand recessionary dynamics the same way that the Obama administration or most of the rest of the discipline do - I know that.

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

S Andrews — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:27:58 -0000

A great deal of them are tax issues. Our budget was unsustainable before he came in. His budget is now unsustainable.

Raising taxes is the only way a Smithian can make an unsustainable budget sustainable. ROTFLMAO

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

Daniel Kuehn — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:18:51 -0000

Michael -

I'm not going to address all 15 of those things. Some - like suggesting a renegotiation of NAFTA amounts to protectionism, or that he proposed to nationalize the health care system, - are ludicrous on their face.

A great deal of them are tax issues. Our budget was unsustainable before he came in. His budget is now unsustainable. Raising revenue doesn't suggest ignorance of or opposition to the free market. All economists recognize that taxes hurt the economy. A willingness to levy taxes doesn't suggest that that fact is misunderstood or disagreed with.

I think I said quite clearly that Obama is an interventionist and that Smith would disagree with him on a lot of his policies, didn't I? I can't predict how Smith would modify his views if he were alive today (I imagine he would quite a bit), but I think I would disagree with him on many things as well. Are Obama's taxes too high? is something Smith might disagree with him on. Should unions change the way they hold election is something that Smith would probably, and I would definitely disagree with him on.

One thing Smith and Obama wouldn't disagree on is that:

To suggest that they would disagree (or that any major economist since Adam Smith with the exception of the Marxists would disagree) on this insight is far overstating your case about specific policy disagreements that have emerged out of Coasian, Keynesian, or monetarist modifications to the Smithian message.

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

yetanotherDave — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:17:30 -0000

...an administration that is trying to do as little as they feel they possibly can to direct industry.

ROFLMAO

Do you really believe that??!!??!??!!????????

Really???!?!?!!?

Re: More Enlightement from Adam Smith

Seth — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:14:53 -0000

This thread reminds me of the Drucker quote, "Management is doing things right, leadership is doing the right things."

I've witnessed firsthand the decline of several organizations where leadership did the wrong things very well. Now I get to see it on a grander scale.