Wealth of Nations

[untermensche]

Smith says that the division of labor will reduce humans to stupid nonthinking animals.

He said we should do everything to prevent the rich from reducing humans in this way.

Our jobs have gone the other direction though, where more thinking is required. The jobs during Smith's time weren't the ones needing today's college degrees.

What jobs? Fast food worker?

Most people do not have a college degree.

And capitalism has so polluted education and reduced it to the extent that most college degrees are worth very little except as a means to acquire a job.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Our jobs have gone the other direction though, where more thinking is required. The jobs during Smith's time weren't the ones needing today's college degrees.

What jobs? Fast food worker?

Most people do not have a college degree.

And capitalism has so polluted education and reduced it to the extent that most college degrees are worth very little except as a means to acquire a job.

And back in Smith's day all the peasants were rocket scientists?

 

[untermensche]

What jobs? Fast food worker?

Most people do not have a college degree.

And capitalism has so polluted education and reduced it to the extent that most college degrees are worth very little except as a means to acquire a job.

And back in Smith's day all the peasants were rocket scientists?

They were human beings differing from the rich only by circumstance.

And today the corrupted educational system helps capitalists more easily exploit many.

 

[coloradoatheist]

And back in Smith's day all the peasants were rocket scientists?

They were human beings differing from the rich only by circumstance.

And today the corrupted educational system helps capitalists more easily exploit many.

That educational system back in Smith's days.....Please tell me what they were taught and learned through their years of schooling that are better than today's educational system?

 

[untermensche]

They were human beings differing from the rich only by circumstance.

And today the corrupted educational system helps capitalists more easily exploit many.

That educational system back in Smith's days.....Please tell me what they were taught and learned through their years of schooling that are better than today's educational system?

In Smith's day most people could read and write much better than they do today, if they had an education.

Read the surviving letters of ordinary people of the time.

 

[bilby]

Where the going wage rate is substantially below the profit margin, profit maximising firms pay the going rate, not the marginal value of the labour.

If the cost of the labor is less than the marginal value, then profits can be increased further by increasing production and hiring more people.

There you go again with your mythical infinite pool of demand! [/Loren]

 

[coloradoatheist]

That educational system back in Smith's days.....Please tell me what they were taught and learned through their years of schooling that are better than today's educational system?

In Smith's day most people could read and write much better than they do today, if they had an education.

Read the surviving letters of ordinary people of the time.

I did like how you said if they had an education...you didn't quantify which percentage. So even though our education system goes beyond just teaching reading and writing it's worse off then a system that taught people how to read parts of the Bible?

 

[Bomb#20]

The OWS protestors were attacked and assaulted by the police.

Broad-brush much? Most of the OWS protesters were not assaulted by police. Most of the police didn't assault any protesters. Among the small number of protesters who were assaulted by police, most of those were not peacefully protesting, but were committing crimes. Assaulting people to stop them from committing crimes is what police are for.

Any attempt to create equality and freedom, like Social Security and Medicare are attacked and under continual threat.

Hmm, yes, nothing says "freedom" like telling people how much they have to save for retirement, how it has to be invested, and what portion has to be spent on medical care. Calling an attempt to create equality an "attempt to create freedom" doesn't make it one. Freedom and equality are a trade-off.

I have read it; and no, he didn't. He gave division of labor most of the credit for the productivity gains that increase general standards of living. But as usual, Smith saw nuance where ideologues prefer to see black and white -- the same as with corporations, which people often erroneously claim Smith condemned. No, what Smith did was point out both advantages and disadvantages. In the case of division of labor he advocated government interventions such as public education to deal with the downsides.

Smith says that the division of labor will reduce humans to stupid nonthinking animals.

Um, that would be an example of black and white thinking. That's not Smith. That's all you.

He said we should do everything to prevent the rich from reducing humans in this way.

Um, no. "Do everything" would include outlawing division of labor and outlawing rich people. Smith did not advocate such measures. Smith said we should take reasonable moderate steps such as public education to get a better balance of consequences from division of labor.

 

[bilby]

Broad-brush much? Most of the OWS protesters were not assaulted by police. Most of the police didn't assault any protesters. Among the small number of protesters who were assaulted by police, most of those were not peacefully protesting, but were committing crimes. Assaulting people to stop them from committing crimes is what police are for.

Any attempt to create equality and freedom, like Social Security and Medicare are attacked and under continual threat.

Hmm, yes, nothing says "freedom" like telling people how much they have to save for retirement, how it has to be invested, and what portion has to be spent on medical care. Calling an attempt to create equality an "attempt to create freedom" doesn't make it one. Freedom and equality are a trade-off.

I have read it; and no, he didn't. He gave division of labor most of the credit for the productivity gains that increase general standards of living. But as usual, Smith saw nuance where ideologues prefer to see black and white -- the same as with corporations, which people often erroneously claim Smith condemned. No, what Smith did was point out both advantages and disadvantages. In the case of division of labor he advocated government interventions such as public education to deal with the downsides.

Smith says that the division of labor will reduce humans to stupid nonthinking animals.

Um, that would be an example of black and white thinking. That's not Smith. That's all you.

He said we should do everything to prevent the rich from reducing humans in this way.

Um, no. "Do everything" would include outlawing division of labor and outlawing rich people. Smith did not advocate such measures. Smith said we should take reasonable moderate steps such as public education to get a better balance of consequences from division of labor.

Assaulting people to stop them from committing crimes is NOT what police are for.

Deterring crimes is what police are for. When police assault people to stop them from committing crimes, that is a failure of the system, not its intended mode of operation.

Nuclear weapons are not for destroying Moscow.

 

[untermensche]

Broad-brush much? Most of the OWS protesters were not assaulted by police. Most of the police didn't assault any protesters. Among the small number of protesters who were assaulted by police, most of those were not peacefully protesting, but were committing crimes. Assaulting people to stop them from committing crimes is what police are for.

What planet were you living on? OWS protesters were attacked by the police all across the country.

And it had nothing to do with violence. It was because of the message of the movement.

Hmm, yes, nothing says "freedom" like telling people how much they have to save for retirement, how it has to be invested, and what portion has to be spent on medical care. Calling an attempt to create equality an "attempt to create freedom" doesn't make it one. Freedom and equality are a trade-off.

The freedom is the freedom to not have to starve in retirement or suffer because you get sick or be a burden to your children.

Those freedoms are a little more important than the freedom to be a fool and not have anything when you retire.

I have read it; and no, he didn't. He gave division of labor most of the credit for the productivity gains that increase general standards of living. But as usual, Smith saw nuance where ideologues prefer to see black and white -- the same as with corporations, which people often erroneously claim Smith condemned. No, what Smith did was point out both advantages and disadvantages. In the case of division of labor he advocated government interventions such as public education to deal with the downsides.

You seem to have read about 50 pages of the book.

Smith strongly condemned the division of labor. But you have to read the whole thing to find his commentary. In the beginning of the book he merely discusses the causes of the division of labor and how it exists.

Here's one quote from 'Wealth of Nations" that makes my point:

The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects 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.

Smith is talking about the division of labor and it's effects .

Smith says that the division of labor will reduce humans to stupid nonthinking animals.

Um, that would be an example of black and white thinking. That's not Smith. That's all you.

No it is Smith, but you have to read past page 50.

 

[untermensche]

In Smith's day most people could read and write much better than they do today, if they had an education.

Read the surviving letters of ordinary people of the time.

I did like how you said if they had an education...you didn't quantify which percentage. So even though our education system goes beyond just teaching reading and writing it's worse off then a system that taught people how to read parts of the Bible?

?

Today many people with a so-called high school education can barely read.

Especially if they have the bad luck to be poor and live in one of the many huge ghettos capitalism creates.

 

[Starman]

I did like how you said if they had an education...you didn't quantify which percentage. So even though our education system goes beyond just teaching reading and writing it's worse off then (sic) a system that taught people how to read parts of the Bible?

?

Today many people with a so-called high school education can barely read.

Especially if they have the bad luck to be poor and live in one of the many huge ghettos capitalism creates.

I could not agree with you more on your first sentence. For this we can thank the left.
"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - Milton Friedman

History and reality prove you absolutely wrong on your second point. Capitalism does not "create" ghettos.
Capitalism elevates everyone, most particularly the poorest. History is absolutely clear on this point, as
Milton Friedman said on television many years ago Look him up on YouTube, destroying Phil Donahue.

The poorest quintile in America live far better than the average communist or socialist in the cesspools all
over the world. That is the reason that they sneak into America by the millions.

People who take advantage of available opportunities, work hard, get married, and don't get into trouble with the law
live the American dream. I'm one of them.

 

[untermensche]

?

Today many people with a so-called high school education can barely read.

Especially if they have the bad luck to be poor and live in one of the many huge ghettos capitalism creates.

I could not agree with you more on your first sentence. For this we can thank the left.
"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - Milton Friedman

Just because Milton said something doesn't make it so. You can't just post his opinions as if they have any weight except to his fans.

History and reality prove you absolutely wrong on your second point. Capitalism does not "create" ghettos.
Capitalism elevates everyone, most particularly the poorest. History is absolutely clear on this point, as
Milton Friedman said on television many years ago Look him up on YouTube, destroying Phil Donahue.

What lifted most working people to a decent life were unions, and capitalists fought against every effort to improve the lives of working people, as they still do.

The poorest quintile in America live far better than the average communist or socialist in the cesspools all
over the world. That is the reason that they sneak into America by the millions.

Thanks to unions, workers, not capitalists. If it were up to capitalists we would still have children laboring 14 hours a day for next to nothing in extremely dangerous conditions.

People who take advantage of available opportunities, work hard, get married, and don't get into trouble with the law
live the American dream. I'm one of them.

Yes I know, you are alright therefore the world is alright, because the world rotates around you and your comforts.

 

[untermensche]

Here's another quote from 'Wealth of Nations'.

“In regards to the price of commodities, the rise of wages operates as simple interest does, the rise of profit operates like compound interest.

Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. 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.”

An interesting quote in these times of record profits and shrinking opportunity.

 

[Bomb#20]

What planet were you living on? OWS protesters were attacked by the police all across the country.

And all across the country other OWS protesters were not attacked by the police. And all across the country some OWS protesters went beyond peaceful protest and committed crimes. And all across the country cops arrested criminals mixed in with the peaceful protesters. And all across the country there were some cops who overreacted and hurt innocent people they should have let alone. Why do you assume gross overgeneralization is a sensible approach to description?

And it had nothing to do with violence. It was because of the message of the movement.

The bulk of it was property crimes. No doubt you don't count vandalism as violence -- please yourself on that -- but that doesn't make the police response "because of the message".

Hmm, yes, nothing says "freedom" like telling people how much they have to save for retirement, how it has to be invested, and what portion has to be spent on medical care. Calling an attempt to create equality an "attempt to create freedom" doesn't make it one. Freedom and equality are a trade-off.

The freedom is the freedom to not have to starve in retirement or suffer because you get sick or be a burden to your children.

Huh? People already had the freedom not to have to starve or suffer or be a burden to their children -- they could save and invest all that soon-to-be-SS/Medicare money privately. SS and Medicare just made it compulsory. No doubt that's a good idea -- freedom is good but it's not the only good -- but don't kid yourself that making saving for old age mandatory is anything other than trading away some freedom in return for some safety.

Those freedoms are a little more important than the freedom to be a fool and not have anything when you retire.

Every freedom is the freedom to make a decision for yourself that somebody else thinks he can decide for you better because you're a fool. To channel Noam Chomsky, if you don't care about other people's freedom to be a fool then you don't care about their freedom at all. Please yourself; but when you decide what you want people to do is a little more important than what they want to do, it's a sick joke for you to call what you're deciding on their behalf "an attempt to create freedom". Call it what it is: an attempt to make sure they have something when they retire, at the cost of making sure they'll have less when they retire than they'd have had if they would have invested their money in something better than T-bills, and at the cost of their present quality of life if they would have spent it.

You seem to have read about 50 pages of the book.

Smith strongly condemned the division of labor. But you have to read the whole thing to find his commentary. In the beginning of the book he merely discusses the causes of the division of labor and how it exists.

Here's one quote from 'Wealth of Nations" that makes my point:

The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects 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.

Smith is talking about the division of labor and it's effects .

Smith says that the division of labor will reduce humans to stupid nonthinking animals.

Um, that would be an example of black and white thinking. That's not Smith. That's all you.

No it is Smith, but you have to read past page 50.

Oh for the love of god! Did you cut and paste that excerpt from an Adam Smith quotes website? Do you have any idea of what context it was in?

In his massive tome on "Causes of the Wealth of Nations", among which one of the leading causes is division of labor, your excerpt is from the chapter "On the Expense of the Institutions for the Education of Youth". After depressingly documenting the sorry quality of work government-paid teachers of the time performed in England, Smith wrote:

"Ought the public, therefore, to give no attention, it may be asked, to the education of the people?"

Then he explains why "some attention of government is necessary, in order to prevent the almost entire corruption and degeneracy of the great body of the people."

Then he includes the bit you quoted in his counterargument.

Then he continues, "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."

Then he contrasts this situation with not having division of labor.

"It is otherwise in the barbarous societies, as they are commonly called, of hunters, of shepherds, and even of husbandmen in that rude stateof husbandry which precedes the improvement of manufactures, and the extension of foreign commerce. In such societies, the varied occupations of every man oblige every man to exert his capacity, and to invent expedients for removing difficulties which are continually occurring. Invention is kept alive, and the mind is not suffered to fall into that drowsy stupidity, which, in a civilized society, seems to benumb the understanding of almost all the inferior ranks of people.
...
Though in a rude society there is a good deal of variety in the occupations of every individual, there is not a great deal in those of the whole society. Every man does, or is capable of doing, almost every thing which any other man does, or is capable of being. Every man has a considerable degree of knowledge, ingenuity, and invention but scarce any man has a great degree. ..."

So he is clearly not condemning division of labor, not even with respect to its effects on mental quality. Rather, as usual with Smith, he is pointing out the upside and the downside -- and he is talking about what needs to be done to ameliorate the downside. He goes on to make policy recommendations:

"The education of the common people requires, perhaps, in a civilized and commercial society, the attention of the public, more than that of people of some rank and fortune. ...

But though the common people cannot, in any civilized society, be so well instructed as people of some rank and fortune; the most essential parts of education, however, to read, write, and account, can be acquired at so early a period of life, that the greater part, even of those who are to be bred to the lowest occupations, have time to acquire them before they can be employed in those occupations. For a very small expense, the public can facilitate, can encourage and can even impose upon almost the whole body of the people, the necessity of acquiring those most essential parts of education. ...

In Scotland, the establishment of such parish schools has taught almost the whole common people to read, and a very great proportion of them to write and account. ...

The public can impose upon almost the whole body of the people the necessity of acquiring the most essential parts of education, by obliging every man to undergo an examination or probation in them...".

This is not about whether division of labor is bad. This is about whether public education is good.

 

[untermensche]

And all across the country other OWS protesters were not attacked by the police. And all across the country some OWS protesters went beyond peaceful protest and committed crimes. And all across the country cops arrested criminals mixed in with the peaceful protesters. And all across the country there were some cops who overreacted and hurt innocent people they should have let alone. Why do you assume gross overgeneralization is a sensible approach to description?

Show me the evidence of actual known OWS protestors who actually committed crimes.

I know the police claimed and always claims crimes are being committed as they assault and even kill their victims.

Huh? People already had the freedom not to have to starve or suffer or be a burden to their children -- they could save and invest all that soon-to-be-SS/Medicare money privately. SS and Medicare just made it compulsory. No doubt that's a good idea -- freedom is good but it's not the only good -- but don't kid yourself that making saving for old age mandatory is anything other than trading away some freedom in return for some safety.

It is about GIVING people freedom in their retirement. It is about adding a freedom to the lives of people.

The freedom you want is the freedom for people to have nothing in retirement and to be a burden to everyone else.

And there is nothing compulsory about it. You are free to not work and therefore not pay anything. You are free to move to a place that doesn't have any Social Services.

Stop griping and find that paradise where the government offers no social services to citizens. Before you do, show me the place where a lack of government services makes the lives of people better.

The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects 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.

Oh for the love of god! Did you cut and paste that excerpt from an Adam Smith quotes website? Do you have any idea of what context it was in?

It's a direct quote from the text. And it has nothing to do with education. It is about reducing humans to nonthinking animals by making them perform the same mindless task over and over. It is about the division of labor between so-called thinkers and laborers who only labor as ordered. Ultimately it is a condemnation of the entire artificial division that exists in capitalist institutions between management and labor. A division that squanders human capital and turns most into the working slaves of others.

 

[arkirk]

The term Wealth of Nations....what an idea! Nations are not uniform collections of people with equal rights. They become stratified and those who benefit from the stratification smile and say their "nation" is wealthy though there are many who are cut off from that wealth. So we should perhaps not be so concerned about the "Wealth of Nations."

 

[laughing dog]

The term Wealth of Nations....what an idea! Nations are not uniform collections of people with equal rights. They become stratified and those who benefit from the stratification smile and say their "nation" is wealthy though there are many who are cut off from that wealth. So we should perhaps not be so concerned about the "Wealth of Nations."

Adam Smith wrote his tome as an argument the prevailing policy of the time: mercantilism. His book is an argument that the "wealth of nations" is not the value of the assets but the well-being of its citizens.

 

[laughing dog]

I could not agree with you more on your first sentence. For this we can thank the left.
"Public education is a socialist monopoly, a real one." - Milton Friedman

Adam Smith was in favor of public educations, and I have never seen anyone characterize Adam Smith as a member of "the left".

Furthermore, it is mind-boggling that anyone can argue that public education means fewer people can read.

People who take advantage of available opportunities, work hard, get married, and don't get into trouble with the law live the American dream. I'm one of them.

There are plenty of people who meet those criteria and who do not live the American dream.

 

[Bomb#20]

Show me the evidence of actual known OWS protestors who actually committed crimes.

Are you seriously suggesting they don't exist?!? Heck, one of our local Occupy Oakland organizers, Mike Spencer, came right out and complained, "Property damage is not violence. The reality was, no cops got hurt. It looks like more than it was."

Fine. Dozens of Occupiers got arrested in San Francisco for taking over a building and trying to turn it into a homeless shelter without the owner's permission; they did a lot of damage and grafitti before they were removed. There was a similar incident in Atlanta on a smaller scale. Groups were arrested in San Francisco and in New York for setting up Occupy encampments on private land. The same thing happened in Mountain View at Google's headquarters -- in fact they literally called themselves "Occupy Google". Some "Occupy the Farm" guys tried to stop UC Berkeley from building on university land by camping on it and setting up an urban farm. And some Occupy Cleveland guys got convicted of trying to blow up a bridge.

It is about GIVING people freedom in their retirement. It is about adding a freedom to the lives of people.

"Giving"? This is Social Security we're talking about, not welfare. You have to pay into the program to be eligible, you have a personal account, and the more you pay the more you get back. So what they're "giving" you is your own money back. Without SS you were already free to save that money for retirement anyway, probably at a better rate of return. So that's not freedom they're giving you; that's security from making a stupid mistake that far too many people would make if the government didn't put a damper on short-sightedness. It's probably why they call the program "Social Security" and not "Social Freedom".

The freedom you want is <more of the same strawman snipped>

I understand that you have far less interest in keeping up your standards of reading comprehension than in putting words in other people's mouths, but exactly which part of "SS and Medicare just made it compulsory. No doubt that's a good idea" don't you understand? You even quoted it back to me. I'm not criticizing Social Security. I don't want to get rid of it. Some things are important enough to be worth trading away some of our freedom. What I want is for you to stop telling fairy tales about it.

And there is nothing compulsory about it. You are free to not work and therefore not pay anything.

Good grief! This, from the guy who calls employees "the working slaves of others". Have you ever considered laying off the hypocrisy for a while?

Oh for the love of god! Did you cut and paste that excerpt from an Adam Smith quotes website? Do you have any idea of what context it was in?

It's a direct quote from the text.

Duh! That's where quote websites get quotes from. What they don't get is context, which would account for you appearing totally unaware of the context your Smith quote was in.

And it has nothing to do with education.

Hmm, yes, that would explain why it was in the chapter entitled "On the Expense of the Institutions for the Education of Youth".

Ah well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Enjoy your faith.