$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ociety, however, cannot subsist among those who are at all times ready to hurt and injure one another. The moment that injury begins, the moment that mutual resentment and animosity take place, all the bands of it are broke asunder, and the different members of which it consisted are, as it were, dissipated and scattered abroad by the violence and opposition of their discordant affections. If there is any society among robbers and murderers, they must at least, according to the trite observation, abstain from robbing and murdering one another. Beneficence, therefore, is less essential to the existence of society than justice. Society may subsist, though not in the most comfortable state, without beneficence; but the prevalence of injustice must utterly destroy it. (TMS II.ii.3.3)
What chiefly enrages us against the man who injures or insults us, is the little account which he seems to make of us, the unreasonable preference which he gives to himself above us, and that absurd self-love, by which he seems to imagine, that other people may be sacrificed at any time, to his conveniency or his humour. The glaring impropriety of this conduct, the gross insolence and injustice which it seems to involve in it, often shock and exasperate us more than all the mischief which we have suffered. To bring him back to a more just sense of what is due to other people, to make him sensible of what he owes us, and of the wrong that he has done to us, is frequently the principal end proposed in our revenge, which is always imperfect when it cannot accomplish this.(TMS II.iii.1.5)
No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged. (WN I.viii.36).
An educated populace can, to a degree, regulate political actors who may wish to take advantage of inequalities for their own benefit. The uneducated are easily misled and suffer for it. The more the ‘inferior ranks of people’ are instructed, Smith says,
the less liable they are to the delusions of enthusiasm and superstition, which among ignorant nations, frequently occasion the most dreadful disorder. An instructed and intelligent people besides are always more decent and orderly than an ignorant and stupid one. They feel themselves, each individually, more respectable, and more likely to obtain the respect of their lawful superiors, and they are therefore more disposed to respect those superiors. They are more disposed to examine, and more capable of seeing through, the interested complaints of faction and sedition, and they are, upon that account, less apt to be misled into any wanton or unnecessary opposition to the measures of government. In free countries, where the safety of government depends very much upon the favourable judgment which the people may form of its conduct, it must surely be of the highest importance that they should not be disposed to judge rashly or capriciously concerning it.(WN V.i.f.61)
PeakOil is You
The ignored Adam Smith
The ignored Adam Smith
by Cid_Yama » Sat 24 Jul 2010, 23:45:28
link
Smith does have a lot to say about Social Justice, but it is ignored by those who's actions would not be justified by it.
If Capitalism is to survive, it must work hand-in-hand with social justice. To ignore that part of the equation, invites dissent and revolution that will reduced us to the equality of poverty.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
-
Cid_Yama - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 7169
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Re: The ignored Adam Smith
by americandream » Sun 25 Jul 2010, 00:40:32
Capitalism by its very nature, inculcates those impulses that are the antithesis of the socialised. With the increasing commodification of the commons in globalisation, these impulses increasingly overwhelm the socialised to the point where the personal reigns supreme and finally confronts it's ultimate contradiction, the necessity for the socialised.
Any tinkering on the march to full globalisation is merely superficial and cannot be sustained. Sentiments such as social justice become as empty as rhetoric that promises change.
Any tinkering on the march to full globalisation is merely superficial and cannot be sustained. Sentiments such as social justice become as empty as rhetoric that promises change.
- americandream
- Permanently Banned
- Posts: 8650
- Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Re: The ignored Adam Smith
by Sixstrings » Sun 25 Jul 2010, 01:15:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged.
Good post, Cid. This is just good common business sense. Henry Ford understood this when he caused a national stir by overpaying his workers. He thought that the men making his cars should be able to afford them (without a loan). When workers earn a truly livable wage, they can afford to purchase the products and services that other workers produce. The economy as a whole benefits. When workers earn a living wage, they can also pay taxes to the government rather than draw checks from the government.
In a closed system, a natural balance would be achieved since it's not sustainable for workers to earn too little to afford the product of their own labor. The problem we have now is globalism -- it's no longer a closed system. And so, the marketplace has become a race to the bottom. And since the world is mostly very very poor and will work for pennies, in this new globalist system we are doomed to becoming a third world nation.
The funny thing here is that globalist capitalism is essentially global communism -- a planetary race to the bottom, a global leveling out of living standards. Or, an almost-leveling out I should say, since the rich will continue to do quite well for themselves.
EDIT: Some more info on Henry Ford:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')enry Ford was a pioneer of "welfare capitalism", designed to improve the lot of his workers and especially to reduce the heavy turnover that had many departments hiring 300 men per year to fill 100 slots. Efficiency meant hiring and keeping the best workers.
Ford announced his $5-per-day program on January 5, 1914. The revolutionary program called for a raise in minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers. It also set a new, reduced workweek, although the details vary in different accounts.
Ford and Crowther in 1922 described it as six 8-hour days, giving a 48-hour week,[24] while in 1926 they described it as five 8-hour days, giving a 40-hour week. (Apparently the program started with Saturdays as workdays and sometime later it was changed to a day off.) Ford says that with this voluntary change, labor turnover in his plants went from huge to so small that he stopped bothering to measure it.
When Ford started the 40-hour work week and a minimum wage, he was criticized by other industrialists and by Wall Street.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_ford#Labor_philosophy
See, in a closed system things work out. Turnover gets too high so finally somebody like Henry Ford decides to FREAKING TREAT THE WORKERS BETTER. But under globalism, equitable balance can never be reached since employers don't have to worry about turnover -- they have access to 6 billion people to burn through.
-
Sixstrings - Fusion
- Posts: 15160
- Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Re: The ignored Adam Smith
by Pretorian » Sun 25 Jul 2010, 01:36:19
Do you read sometimes what you are quoting? Its says tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged. And not just any shmuck from down the street but they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour. Got that?
In America, where an absolute majority of working force does not produce anything of value whatsoever, all people regardless of whether they pretend to be busy or not, are fed , cloathed and lodged with obscene quantities of real valuables thrown on them in exchange for nothing. No nation in the world in any period of its history wasted as much food, clothes and construction materials as USA does now. No nation in the world in any period of its hsitory had as many morbidly obese people that throw away brand-new clothes with tags attached to them and had enormous amounts of non-occupied living space taht is heated during the winter and chilled during the summer.
So what do u want Sid? You want them to be able to throw away twice as much food and clothes as they do now? You want them to make addition to their houses so they can heat and chill more space? What?
In America, where an absolute majority of working force does not produce anything of value whatsoever, all people regardless of whether they pretend to be busy or not, are fed , cloathed and lodged with obscene quantities of real valuables thrown on them in exchange for nothing. No nation in the world in any period of its history wasted as much food, clothes and construction materials as USA does now. No nation in the world in any period of its hsitory had as many morbidly obese people that throw away brand-new clothes with tags attached to them and had enormous amounts of non-occupied living space taht is heated during the winter and chilled during the summer.
So what do u want Sid? You want them to be able to throw away twice as much food and clothes as they do now? You want them to make addition to their houses so they can heat and chill more space? What?
- Pretorian
- Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 4685
- Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Somewhere there
Re: The ignored Adam Smith
by americandream » Sun 25 Jul 2010, 01:44:23
Good post sixstrings. Important point.
Economies are cyclical at a number of levels. Two important cycles are earnings and resourcing. The one without the other in an apparently steady state, is illusory.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged.
Economies are cyclical at a number of levels. Two important cycles are earnings and resourcing. The one without the other in an apparently steady state, is illusory.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged.
Good post, Cid. This is just good common business sense. Henry Ford understood this when he caused a national stir by overpaying his workers. He thought that the men making his cars should be able to afford them (without a loan). When workers earn a truly livable wage, they can afford to purchase the products and services that other workers produce. The economy as a whole benefits. When workers earn a living wage, they can also pay taxes to the government rather than draw checks from the government.
In a closed system, a natural balance would be achieved since it's not sustainable for workers to earn too little to afford the product of their own labor. The problem we have now is globalism -- it's no longer a closed system. And so, the marketplace has become a race to the bottom. And since the world is mostly very very poor and will work for pennies, in this new globalist system we are doomed to becoming a third world nation.
The funny thing here is that globalist capitalism is essentially global communism -- a planetary race to the bottom, a global leveling out of living standards. Or, an almost-leveling out I should say, since the rich will continue to do quite well for themselves.
EDIT: Some more info on Henry Ford:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')enry Ford was a pioneer of "welfare capitalism", designed to improve the lot of his workers and especially to reduce the heavy turnover that had many departments hiring 300 men per year to fill 100 slots. Efficiency meant hiring and keeping the best workers.
Ford announced his $5-per-day program on January 5, 1914. The revolutionary program called for a raise in minimum daily pay from $2.34 to $5 for qualifying workers. It also set a new, reduced workweek, although the details vary in different accounts.
Ford and Crowther in 1922 described it as six 8-hour days, giving a 48-hour week,[24] while in 1926 they described it as five 8-hour days, giving a 40-hour week. (Apparently the program started with Saturdays as workdays and sometime later it was changed to a day off.) Ford says that with this voluntary change, labor turnover in his plants went from huge to so small that he stopped bothering to measure it.
When Ford started the 40-hour work week and a minimum wage, he was criticized by other industrialists and by Wall Street.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_ford#Labor_philosophy
See, in a closed system things work out. Turnover gets too high so finally somebody like Henry Ford decides to FREAKING TREAT THE WORKERS BETTER. But under globalism, equitable balance can never be reached since employers don't have to worry about turnover -- they have access to 6 billion people to burn through.
