Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
C-Pac
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 692529" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>My bad. I thought you were asking me for what reason I stated Locke and Smith inflluenced Marx. No argument Smith has influenced many economist across the spectrum. While influencing Marx on the one hand, his concept of the "invisible hand" in relation to the free market has also equally had influence. His ideas in opposing the concentration of economics because it distorts the markets natural ability to regulate itself IMO have proven itself over the last several decades if not the last century as we've resorted to central planning type economics, Hamiltonian mercantilism if you will (a type americanized Elizabethan system) and the culmination over time is the results we are now observing. If the great Austrian economists like Mises, Hayek, Rothbard predicted where we are now, Smith it can be said predicted it first. Again, to your point, from Marx to Mises, there was Smith.</p><p> </p><p>I find Smith of interest in that in his day he was known as a teacher of Moral Philosophy and held high teaching positions in that dicipline. Smith himself always felt his greatest work was not Wealth of Nations but rather his Theory of Moral Sentiments was his greatest work. As I've gotten deeper and deeper into the study of political and econoimic freedom always there staring back at you in the face is the philosophy of moral and ethics and it's clear to me now you can not have individual freedom and liberty without first having individuals that are moral and ethical. Although our own founders had their obvious shortcomings as we do, they none the less seem to always stress this most important point. There too again might we find the influence of Smith as well.</p><p> </p><p>In reading about Smith I also found it of interest that after traveling to Geneva and meeting with Voltaire, he traveled to Paris and hungout with Ben Franklin and more importantly, Quesnay, the head of the french <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12067a.htm" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">Physiocrat</span> </a>school. Physiocrat in greek means rule by nature and these were economists who rejected the mercantilist way of wealth creation in which wealth came from the accumulation of gold and maintaining a balance of trade in the goal of maintaining the ruler's wealth. Physiocrats believed wealth came from the land and agriculture. Slavery aside, if you look at this country's founding, you'll see an obvious conflict between the engish mercantilist school and the french Physiocrats manifested in the great Hamiltonian/Jeffersonian conflict. 100 years later these 2 schools would take a nation to war against itself and the war was continued to some degree into our day in the political arena where we find a republican party held strong to a Hamiltionian/Lincoln thought and the democrat party who holds to a Jefersonian tradition put truth be told, both parties pretty much now hold to a mercantilist theory but all told throughout, you'll still find Adam Smith if only for use in name only to grant some form to itself of legit standing in historical connection. I'd assert this contention by both political schools of our day is only illusionary to maintain an ignorance among the masses.</p><p> </p><p>Good point on your part as to the larger Smith influence even though I assert they do so for propaganda reason rather than actually holding to his true ideals.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 692529, member: 2189"] My bad. I thought you were asking me for what reason I stated Locke and Smith inflluenced Marx. No argument Smith has influenced many economist across the spectrum. While influencing Marx on the one hand, his concept of the "invisible hand" in relation to the free market has also equally had influence. His ideas in opposing the concentration of economics because it distorts the markets natural ability to regulate itself IMO have proven itself over the last several decades if not the last century as we've resorted to central planning type economics, Hamiltonian mercantilism if you will (a type americanized Elizabethan system) and the culmination over time is the results we are now observing. If the great Austrian economists like Mises, Hayek, Rothbard predicted where we are now, Smith it can be said predicted it first. Again, to your point, from Marx to Mises, there was Smith. I find Smith of interest in that in his day he was known as a teacher of Moral Philosophy and held high teaching positions in that dicipline. Smith himself always felt his greatest work was not Wealth of Nations but rather his Theory of Moral Sentiments was his greatest work. As I've gotten deeper and deeper into the study of political and econoimic freedom always there staring back at you in the face is the philosophy of moral and ethics and it's clear to me now you can not have individual freedom and liberty without first having individuals that are moral and ethical. Although our own founders had their obvious shortcomings as we do, they none the less seem to always stress this most important point. There too again might we find the influence of Smith as well. In reading about Smith I also found it of interest that after traveling to Geneva and meeting with Voltaire, he traveled to Paris and hungout with Ben Franklin and more importantly, Quesnay, the head of the french [URL="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12067a.htm"][COLOR=red]Physiocrat[/COLOR] [/URL]school. Physiocrat in greek means rule by nature and these were economists who rejected the mercantilist way of wealth creation in which wealth came from the accumulation of gold and maintaining a balance of trade in the goal of maintaining the ruler's wealth. Physiocrats believed wealth came from the land and agriculture. Slavery aside, if you look at this country's founding, you'll see an obvious conflict between the engish mercantilist school and the french Physiocrats manifested in the great Hamiltonian/Jeffersonian conflict. 100 years later these 2 schools would take a nation to war against itself and the war was continued to some degree into our day in the political arena where we find a republican party held strong to a Hamiltionian/Lincoln thought and the democrat party who holds to a Jefersonian tradition put truth be told, both parties pretty much now hold to a mercantilist theory but all told throughout, you'll still find Adam Smith if only for use in name only to grant some form to itself of legit standing in historical connection. I'd assert this contention by both political schools of our day is only illusionary to maintain an ignorance among the masses. Good point on your part as to the larger Smith influence even though I assert they do so for propaganda reason rather than actually holding to his true ideals. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
C-Pac
Top