Misplaced Pages

Talk:Trickle-down economics: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:50, 21 June 2004 edit67.127.55.79 (talk) From the Ministry of Truth← Previous edit Revision as of 07:10, 22 June 2004 edit undo68.122.41.184 (talk) From the Ministry of Truth: cleaned and civilizedNext edit →
Line 3: Line 3:
<blockquote>To Smith, the "well-governed society" is one in which free markets replace state command as the main method of resource allocation. Smith's argument is that increased division of labor (specialization) raises labor productivity. This in turn leads to lower costs, which are passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices (correcting for inflation). <blockquote>To Smith, the "well-governed society" is one in which free markets replace state command as the main method of resource allocation. Smith's argument is that increased division of labor (specialization) raises labor productivity. This in turn leads to lower costs, which are passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices (correcting for inflation).
</blockquote> </blockquote>
This blockquote may seem uninformed, but I believe its inacuracies are intentional and politically motivated.


* '''"replaces state command"''' - Smith was speaking out against any and all special interests. The state was cited as an example, but not portrayed as the sole nor primary offender. A more accurate view is that Smith saw ''much'' corruption. And what corruption existed in the state was a product of all parties benefitting - whether in our out of government. ] was written before ]. Therefore the reference to a controlled economy is anachronistic and I believe manipulative. The commerce that Smith witnessed and wrote about was a market economy, the complaint he made was that it was fettered by special interest. The state - ''which was feudalistic, not communist, by the way'' - had their fingers in it, but so did many players outside of nobility and royalty. Visualize gangsters paying off police, or a modern day scandal of some sort. Further more, Eisenhauer's Highway program was a state project which improved the transportation network of the United States, very much in accord with ''Nations'', Chapter III, "the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market". The author of this paragraph is either uninformed or spinning politics. The railroads of the U.S. is an other example of State Sponsered improvements to transportation (through subsidized land). * '''"replaces state command"''' - ] was written before ]. Using the term "The state" instead of ''Nobility'' or ''Aristrocracy'' comes off as awkwardly anachronistic. "state command" is the language normally and appropriately used in describing controlled economies - communism. The rhetoric of the McCarthy Era. A more accurate portrait of ''Nations'' is that Smith made a solid case against corruption - as imbodied by feudal corporations, apprenticeships, monopolies, tarrifs, exclusive rights etcetera. For example, the nobility favored apprenticeships because the nobility was being paid royalties. The commerce that Smith witnessed and wrote about was a market economy, the complaint he made was that it was corrupted by special interest. Nobility (the state) - ''which was feudalistic, not communist'' - had their fingers in it along with many players outside of nobility and royalty. Any such arrangements in modern day U.S. would be illegal, scandalous and even reminiscent of organized crime.
As for "state command of resource allocation": Eisenhauer's Highway program was a state project which improved the transportation network of the United States, very much in accord with ''Nations'', Chapter III, "the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market", wherein Smith explains how water carriage (boats) extend the market and therefore support improved productivity and dexterity of the labor force via greater specialization and division of labor. A better, older example is state subsidies promoting railroads. Smith made one exception to controls / incentives in the economy: incentives to the military. And the phrase "tolerable degree of security" is frequent in the work. The U.S. military is quite impressive and it is state controlled. Further Reagan increased military spending. On the other hand Eisenhauer warned of the 'military-industrial complex'.

* '''"well-governed society"''' - this, and "a tolerable degree of security" are qualifications. They are not central to his themes. For example, the free market economy he describes is wonderful ''assuming'' goods aren't stolen in transport. * '''"well-governed society"''' - this, and "a tolerable degree of security" are qualifications. They are not central to his themes. For example, the free market economy he describes is wonderful ''assuming'' goods aren't stolen in transport.

* '''"correcting inflation"''' - costs were unnaturally high, ''not'' costs unnaturally rose. Whether or not inflation was a problem on top of an unfair market is a completely separate issue. Stagflation was a political hot button when supply-side economics came about, and to tack on 'inflation' to Smith's work for political points is manipulative - ''as is citing Smith in the first place.'' Quite the contrary to this orwellian interpretation, free markets often overheat and are characterized by rapid growth, heavy borrowing and inflation. In fact the Fed is currently keeping its eye on inflation due to very attractive interest rates. * '''"correcting inflation"''' - costs were unnaturally high, ''not'' costs unnaturally rose. Whether or not inflation was a problem on top of an unfair market is a completely separate issue. Stagflation was a political hot button when supply-side economics came about, and to tack on 'inflation' to Smith's work for political points is manipulative - ''as is citing Smith in the first place.'' Quite the contrary to this orwellian interpretation, free markets often overheat and are characterized by rapid growth, heavy borrowing and inflation. In fact the Fed is currently keeping its eye on inflation due to very attractive interest rates.



Revision as of 07:10, 22 June 2004

From the Ministry of Truth

This is an interesting sentence, and I've seen similar sentiments for two decades:

To Smith, the "well-governed society" is one in which free markets replace state command as the main method of resource allocation. Smith's argument is that increased division of labor (specialization) raises labor productivity. This in turn leads to lower costs, which are passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices (correcting for inflation).

This blockquote may seem uninformed, but I believe its inacuracies are intentional and politically motivated.

  • "replaces state command" - Nations was written before Das Capital. Using the term "The state" instead of Nobility or Aristrocracy comes off as awkwardly anachronistic. "state command" is the language normally and appropriately used in describing controlled economies - communism. The rhetoric of the McCarthy Era. A more accurate portrait of Nations is that Smith made a solid case against corruption - as imbodied by feudal corporations, apprenticeships, monopolies, tarrifs, exclusive rights etcetera. For example, the nobility favored apprenticeships because the nobility was being paid royalties. The commerce that Smith witnessed and wrote about was a market economy, the complaint he made was that it was corrupted by special interest. Nobility (the state) - which was feudalistic, not communist - had their fingers in it along with many players outside of nobility and royalty. Any such arrangements in modern day U.S. would be illegal, scandalous and even reminiscent of organized crime.

As for "state command of resource allocation": Eisenhauer's Highway program was a state project which improved the transportation network of the United States, very much in accord with Nations, Chapter III, "the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market", wherein Smith explains how water carriage (boats) extend the market and therefore support improved productivity and dexterity of the labor force via greater specialization and division of labor. A better, older example is state subsidies promoting railroads. Smith made one exception to controls / incentives in the economy: incentives to the military. And the phrase "tolerable degree of security" is frequent in the work. The U.S. military is quite impressive and it is state controlled. Further Reagan increased military spending. On the other hand Eisenhauer warned of the 'military-industrial complex'.

  • "well-governed society" - this, and "a tolerable degree of security" are qualifications. They are not central to his themes. For example, the free market economy he describes is wonderful assuming goods aren't stolen in transport.
  • "correcting inflation" - costs were unnaturally high, not costs unnaturally rose. Whether or not inflation was a problem on top of an unfair market is a completely separate issue. Stagflation was a political hot button when supply-side economics came about, and to tack on 'inflation' to Smith's work for political points is manipulative - as is citing Smith in the first place. Quite the contrary to this orwellian interpretation, free markets often overheat and are characterized by rapid growth, heavy borrowing and inflation. In fact the Fed is currently keeping its eye on inflation due to very attractive interest rates.

== More from the Ministry of Truth == I pasted the following sentence from the article. It follows a line of reasoning that Smith advocated Supply-Side Economics.

A major variant of trickle-down theory would say that tax cuts for the rich, special benefits for them, subsidies for corporations, and in general, government/business cooperation would not simply provide direct benefits to business but would also help the middle classes and even the poor. In effect, it says that "what's good for business is good for the country."

Read the book! Incentives like these are EXACTLY what smith was critical of. It's the major theme of Nations. If an incentive benefits one group of producers over another, it's not a free market, and that's exactly what Smith's postion is.