Wild misunderstanding of Smith. He considered it a moral defect, wrote several pieces criticizing gambling, and criticized state run gambling.
"The over-weening conceit which the greater part of men have of their own abilities, is an ancient evil... their absurd presumption in their own good fortune, is even more universal."
Par for the course for many who mention Adam Smith. Another classic libel is bringing up his name in cases of gross misconduct by a business or a businessman, but he was very critical of the excesses of merchants. Smith was a moral philosopher first and an accidental economist second.
Yes! As a beginner-level, amateur armchair economist who hated philosophy class in high school, I have to admit I was surprised to learn about this when reading https://store.abramsbooks.com/products/economix by Michael Goodwin. The book overall seems to lean liberal whenever there's a political choice to be made, and yet it paints Adam Smith in a much more positive light that one would imagine, if all you've learned about him is the criticism of today's political left.
> if all you've learned about him is the criticism of today's political left.
Leftists I've known are more likely to quote Smith than criticize him. He seems to be seen by leftists as an important figure in political economy (flawed in not reaching certain important questions, perhaps, but not much in how he addressed those questions he did consider.) Even his argument that the class whose understanding of their own interests is best aligned with the common interests is the landed aristocracy (the bourgeoisie having interests opposed to the common interest, while the working class shares—by its sheer size, defines—the common interests but lacks an understanding of what their real interests are in the domain of interest) [0] is seen as describing exactly a problem than the Left (see, e.g., Marx and discussions of class consciousness) sees as central to solve, rather than being a regressive idealized preference.
The Left criticizes a lot of the arguments people who appeal to a mythologized caricature of Smith use his name to defend, sure, but that's a different thing than criticizing Smith.
[0] Which is about as far as you can be from leaning liberal where there is a political choice to be made, though given the complete displacement of the landed aristocracy as an economically-meaningful distinct class it is largely irrelevant in practical terms in the 21st century.
Some in the Left, including Marx - perhaps most of the well-read Left - do this. Then there is an entire category of people who throw his name around in the mud and call “Adam Smith liberal” anything they view as immoral or excessive.
It's funny as a economist people thinking that the free market is some kind of god, that the invisible hand is infallible. He never argued markets work without institutions. He believed governments must enforce justice, prevent monopolies, and provide public goods for markets to function properly.
His ownership percentage is similar to Elon's stake in Tesla, you can quibble over details (Series B vs A). His associates are teaming over Polymarket and now Palantir is in charge of policing the market.. sort of a fox guarding the hen house situation?
I don't think there's any issue with asking when no explanation is provided and it's unclear to you. Whereas complaining about it is just tedious and doesn't add anything of value.
I do take Adam Smith out of context, that is the precise point -- the invisible hand of self-interest is the salient idea that has endured and shaped modern Hypercapitalism. It doesn't matter if he is rolling in his grave at audio frequencies due to my and, more importantly, society's alleged misappropriation of his work and misunderstanding of his many moral considerations. He was effectively soundbited centuries ago and we are still struggling to manage the implications. Saying he was a good guy makes it more difficult to fix the problem.
Maybe you have a valid point here, but by intentionally taking him out of context, it perpetuates the misunderstanding. We'd be better off actually understanding Smith, reading Smith, and grappling with limitations of the invisible hand. Otherwise it is just an exercise in nihilism and blowing everything up.
It's not about whether he is a good guy or not, it is about what we can learn from his writings.
I know he is always associated with the 'invisible hand of the market' idea, but a lot of his writings were about the PROBLEMS that arise because of this invisible hand. He had a lot of good insights into what we have to be careful of when the free market does what it does. We should actually take some of those lessons to shape policy to protect us from the invisible hand.
Noam Chomsky explains (I won't say 'apologizes for') Adam Smith frequently, but I think it is more important to allow modern, living thinkers space and consideration to reflect upon what is happening in our time, rather than relying excessively on canonical figures who didn't have our contemporary context available in their writings. Sadly there is plenty of timelessness, problems recognized in 1776 that still remain unsolved, but too many use the weight and respect for Adam Smith disingenuously to advocate for insane market policies.
Now we're discussing "audio frequencies"? My gosh, you really are off the deep end, aren't you.
If you want to effect change, then state your critique precisely, or not at all. Your looney top-level comment has derailed what should be a discussion of how to reign in Polymarket, because you've overstated your case, messed up your references to authority, and apparently you've slandered Aleister f*cking Crowley, too, such that his defenders are arguing about him here, instead of about how to reign in Polymarket.
When you make your side appear detached from all sense and reason, you are functionally no better than controlled opposition.
Much like Marx, who had a lot of very insightful observations.
Whether what was done in his name is or isn't directly attributable to his writings is somewhat academic. That has taken on a life of its own, and overshadowed all his other ideas.
It has also certainly made talking about class in America very difficult.
Very good comparison. I do have more respect for Marx, the modern concept of life/work balance owes much to his concept of estranged labor ("Life itself appears only as a means to life"), as I haven't had to live in a society afflicted by his excesses and misappropriations, unlike the case of Adam Smith.
Adam Smith mentions something similar as well. He talks about how the worker's attachment to the work is different when he's working in a super specialised part of a production process rather than making the whole product like an artisan.
The main non free market societies are communist like North Korea, or tribal people say in the Amazon who don't have markets. Neither have very high standards of living.
A better compromise might be scandinavian countries but Adam Smith would probably have approved of those.
>Trump Says He Will Have the ‘Honor’ of ‘Taking Cuba’
>President Trump’s words came amid a nationwide blackout and as a top Cuban official said his country would move to open the economy to foreign investors.
It's strange - if we're so confident that our ideology is superior then wouldn't we welcome a small neighbor on our doorstep trying something different as a sort of experiment expected to reaffirm our views? Celebrate them the way you might a silly child, occasionally support them, all while pointing to them as an example of why we don't do what they're doing.
That was an awful long time ago and doesn't reflect the current situation.
> Cube prevents its citizens from leaving.
What's your point? If they suddenly changed that policy do you believe we would immediately walk back the sanctions and the oil blockade? That isn't how it looks to me.
The only way I can think to interpret current US policy is either one of petty insecurity or else an attempt at coercive commercial exploitation.
You gatekeep your bike, you keep it behind a gate, you don't let anyone else ride it.
Your neighbor got a nicer bike for Christmas, rode it by your house and now you are sad because you aren't the special kid with the bike any more, you are just regular kid like your neighbor.
Yeah, if you studied and mastered all of the various disciplines required for fabricating a bicycle, and then fabricated your own by hand and offered to do likewise for others, sometimes in exchange for compensation, sometimes for free (provided others could use the bike), only for some machine that mass produces bikes to (informal) spec that was built by studying all of the designs you used for the bikes you made to suddenly become widely and cheaply available.
The US manufacturing situation is much worse than you suggest, and is top heavy with low margin boring industrial stuff. Largest sector for US manufacturing is Chemicals, which includes fertilizer, petrochemicals, pesticides, and some pharma. The second largest sector is Tobacco, Food, and Beverages.
I think some more "low margin" computer and chip manufacturing would be healthy.
The responsibility is on the parent; the parent should recuse themselves from decisions or discussions where there could be a conflict of interest involving their family members.
Or better yet, the parent should not be appointed to the position in the first place. If members of your immediate family occupy important positions in the industry you'd be involved with, then you don't get the job. Very easy solution, if the people in power were willing to do it.
This is kind of an absurd rule. The kids of the people who are seen as so good at their jobs to be appointed to public office are all the more likely to follow in their parents’ footsteps.
So? Is there nobody who would be good at the job who wouldn't have a gigantic conflict of interest due to family? What's so absurd about saying you can't have massive conflicts of interest if you're going to be an important government official?
Seamus Culleton is allowed to leave detention, he just can't stay in the US. He is choosing to stay in detention while he pursues legal challenges to his deportation order.
that wouldn’t survive if a significant share of that production wasn’t smuggled into Latin America
Let's look at actual numbers. ATF says 50,000 guns were smuggled into latin america between 2015 and 2022. So about 7,200 a year. There are about 15-20 million new firearm sales per year in the US.
So assume ~.03% of production gets smuggled out. I think the industry would survive if that was cut that off. It actually would be better for them because it would make lies and slanders about the industry harder to make.
It’s not even close to 0.3%, the last time the Obama administration tried to get accurate numbers the republicans blew a head gasket. The fact that supposedly every American owns 4 or 5 guns should hint at how bad the smuggling problem is, and Americans are supporting it with a wink and cooked statistics, they are basically willingly exporting death.
0.03% is ten times less than 0.3%, so I agree it is not even close. The money to manufacturers from smuggling is a rounding error. The numbers are from anti-gun activists, so they are incentivized to over state, not understate the smuggling.
The fact that supposedly every American owns 4 or 5 guns should hint at how bad the smuggling problem is
I think it shows how disconnected non-gun owners are from people who own guns. None of my liberal gun owning friends in California have fewer than 4-5 guns. My conservative gun owning friends in Texas have 20-30 guns. I've never met a gun owner that had 1-2.
I know people who don't like guns don't want to hear it, but guns are tools. You wouldn't ask a carpenter if the only tool he needed was one saw. You don't just need a saw, you need a hammer, a screwdriver, a drill. And you don't just need one saw, you need a few specialized saws, and many screwdrivers. Maybe one hammer is enough.
I am #3 and there are a lot of us (every close friend I have is #3). we don't talk about them publicly so every non-close friend I have would lose a house betting against me owning a gun (I am as non-conservative politically as it gets)
reply