Economics did not become ‘a hard science’; its proponents confused ‘hard science’ with economic models that were bereft of the presence of human being

TO BE NOTED: From Adam Smith's Lost Legacy:

"Ethical Crisis - What Crisis?

MURRAY WHYTE write in Toronto Star (The Star.com HERE)

‘Closed due to the recession’

“U of T's Lind, whose central field of study is economic ethics, points out that this is a relatively new quandary. Until the industrial revolution, ethics and economics were a unified field. Adam Smith, who described the advent of market economics as being guided by "an invisible hand," is often misconstrued as the early progenitor of the Milton Friedman-spawned, market-knows-all Chicago School. "But really, he was making a moral argument, because to him, there was no distinction."
As the 20th century dawned and economics turned away from the philosophical and more toward hard math, the separation grew. "The field of ethics went into crisis just as economics turned to mathematics," Lind says. "Economics became a hard science, whereas ethics became a confusion."

Comment
From where do they get these muddled ideas? Economics as a subject did not exist in the 18th century, certainly not as Adam Smith wrote about what was called ‘police’ (ensuring subsistence for a society).

Political economy was a title coming into vogue when Smith wrote Wealth Of Nations, which lasted a century until the 1870s when mathematical analysis began to appear. That title too declined in the 20th century.

Smith wrote about ‘commercial society’ and market, but did not mention The Metaphor of an ‘invisible hand’ in his analysis of how markets functioned (Books I and II of Wealth Of Nations). He certainly never said ‘the advent of market economics as being guided by "an invisible hand" ’.

It is, however, true that The Metaphor is ‘often misconstrued as the early progenitor of the Milton Friedman-spawned, market-knows-all Chicago School’.

Indeed, the modern myth of The Metaphor was virtually invented by ‘Chicago’ in the environs of 59th street (see Oscar Lange, 1946 and Paul Samuelson, 1948) and has become universally misconstrued as ‘markets always produce socially beneficial outcomes’, despite the presence of monopolistic practices, protectionist policies, tariffs and non-tariff barriers, pollution, and other negative externalities.

Economics didn’t turn ‘to mathematics’; scholars calling themselves economists ‘turned to mathematics’. Economics did not become ‘a hard science’; its proponents confused ‘hard science’ with economic models that were bereft of the presence of human beings.

And ‘ethics’ did not become ‘a confusion’ – the basic ideas of ethics (partly summarized by Adam Smith in his Moral Sentiments) remain valid.

The absence of people in mathematical modeling of the kind dependent on 19th-century calculus eliminates ethics from the equations. People are given objectives that lead to determinate solutions; the ‘solutions’ have little operational value.

I am not sure that ethics is in ‘crisis’; people without ethics are in crisis. The ‘U of T[oronto]’ should be teaching its students to think about the differences in the tone of this article and the reality of the dead-end where economics has come to rest.

posted by Gavin Kennedy at 12:46 PM"

It’s not that these regulations are all bad – though some are barmy – it’s that their existence contradicts assertions about ‘free markets

TO BE NOTED: From Adam Smith's Lost Legacy:

"A Myth of Free Markets

Dan McLaughlin posts (17 April) a book review of “Free Lunch” By David Cay Johnston in Citizen Economists HERE: http://www.citizeneconomists.com/blogs/2009/04/17/free-lunch-by-david-

“Quotations from Adam Smith are generously sprinkled throughout the book, and made to sound as though the champion of free markets would have supported Johnston’s proposals for big government and heavy regulation of business.

According to Johnston’s analysis, the problems that modern America faces are due to alleged “deregulation”. The author summarizes his confusion early on when he says “In the past quarter century or so our government has enacted new rules that have created not only free markets, but rigged ones.” If the markets are “rigged”, they are not free in any sense. The regulators rig the market and make it un-free. It shouldn’t be that hard to make the connection. The regulation that he longs for has always been written by the regulated, to the detriment of competitors, taxpayers and the buying public.”

Comment
Dan McLaughlin makes a good point about ‘deregulation’. There is mantra circulating that ‘deregulation’ being bad and ‘regulation being good, wrapped in an assertion that the capitalist economies have been too laissez-faire and that the government has to intervene in the so-called ‘free markets’ supposed to exist all around us, summed as the government must introduce tighter regulation.

The problem with this debate is that the premise is incorrect. Markets are hardly free when the existing regulation (supported by laws, such as in the European Union, covering everything from hours of work, overtime, consultation over social issues, Health and Safety, discipline, redundancies, human rights, race, feminism, labelling, testing, supervision, insurance, minimum wages, pensions, copyrights, patents, planning procedures, banking and finance, and so on and on).

It’s not that these regulations are all bad – though some are barmy – it’s that their existence contradicts assertions about ‘free markets’, and I have only mentioned a few of them. Capitalist markets are dominated by Big Government, hence we do not have anything remotely like laissez-faire (which, contrary to assertion, never featured in Adam Smith’s political economy). It’s more accurately described as State Capitalism, with governments intervening with ever more legislation to impact on businesses, egged on or resisted by armies of professional lobbyists.

Not everybody who quotes from Adam Smith respects his legacy, nor do they all understand it. Dan McLaughlin appears to do so more than the author of the book he reviewed.

posted by Gavin Kennedy at 7:43 PM"

All constitutions of government, however, are valued only in proportion as they tend to promote the happiness of those who live under them.

TO BE NOTED: From Adam Smith's Lost Legacy:

"The Man of Public Spirit Praised by Adam Smith

I was asked recently by a correspondent if I knew of anything written by Adam Smith on ‘public spirit’. I replied:

It depends of what is meant by 'public spirit'. I assume it is something to do with acting in a manner that has public welfare benefits.

Adam Smith addressed this possibility in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). To understand Smith’s idea, you should read the whole of chapter 1 in Book IV, in which he discusses the role of 'beauty' in relation to 'utility', and asserts that the beauty of a contrivance is more valued than its utility (which he claimed, uncharacteristically, as his original development of an idea from David Hume).

First, he sets out his proposition that the ‘fitness’ of a contrivance is valued more than the ‘very end for which it is intended’ by giving everyday examples of disordered chairs in a room which the owner would tidy up angrily, though it makes no difference to their utility as chairs; and of a two-guinea timepiece that runs two-minutes slow, so that the owner buys fifty-guinea watch that runs only second slow, but which runs perfectly for its the possessor. Or a hovel, which keeps the inhabitants dry, compared to a palace that does the same task and costs immense amounts of money, but enhances its owner’s prestige

This leads him to discuss the parable of the 'poor man's son whom heaven in its anger has fired with ambition', who is driven to work hard to become rich because he imagines the rich have the means to happiness. It also covers the rich landlord who surveys his fields and feels good, even though he cannot eat any more than poor man.

Having noted the significance of these delusions, Smith describes their social implications: these are the delusions that created civilisation.

He then turns to the ‘public spirited’ man and discusses what drives such a man; Smith asserts a driver is his admiration for the workings of a great society, which incentivised him to devote his time and his own money to improving society in some manner to make it even better. And it is appropriate that they should do so. It is not all down to a stark choice between that perennial antipathy of private enterprise versus public spending. There are additional sources of enterprise that are significant today.

Individuals can be affected by a sense of public spirit to bring about improvements in what private and public spending has done, so far, on their own. Apart from foundations that disperse funds to what they consider worthy ends and charities that mobilise resources to fill gaps in current provision, there are publicly-spirited individuals who make donations to selected objectives or take the initiative to undertake beneficial public projects on their own account. All these, and others, are well within the ambit of Smithian political economy for commercial societies.

Here is Smith’s (much neglected) explanation of the efficacy of ‘public spirit’:

“The same principle, the same love of system, the same regard to the beauty of order, of art and contrivance, frequently serves to recommend those institutions which tend to promote the public welfare. When a patriot exerts himself for the improvement of any part of the public police, his conduct does not always arise from pure sympathy with the happiness of those who are to reap the benefit of it. It is not commonly from a fellow-feeling with carriers and waggoners that a public-spirited man encourages the mending of high roads. When the legislature establishes premiums and other encouragements to advance the linen or woollen manufactures, its conduct seldom proceeds from pure sympathy with the wearer of cheap or fine cloth, and much less from that with the manufacturer or merchant. The perfection of police, the extension of trade and manufactures, are noble and magnificent objects. The contemplation of them pleases us, and we are interested in whatever can tend to advance them. They make part of the great system of government, and the wheels of the political machine seem to move with more harmony and ease by means of them. We take pleasure in beholding the perfection of so beautiful and grand a system, and we are uneasy till we remove any obstruction that can in the least disturb or encumber the regularity of its motions. All constitutions of government, however, are valued only in proportion as they tend to promote the happiness of those who live under them. This is their sole use and end. From a certain spirit of system, however, from a certain love of art and contrivance, we sometimes seem to value the means more than the end, and to be eager to promote the happiness of our fellow-creatures, rather from a view to perfect and improve a certain beautiful and orderly system, than from any immediate sense or feeling of what they either suffer or enjoy. There have been men of the greatest public spirit, who have shown themselves in other respects not very sensible to the feelings of humanity. And on the contrary, there have been men of the greatest humanity, who seem to have been entirely devoid of public spirit. Every man may find in the circle of his acquaintance instances both of the one kind and the other. Who had ever less humanity, or more public spirit, than the celebrated legislator of Muscovy? The social and well-natured James the First of Great Britain seems, on the contrary, to have had scarce any passion, either for the glory or the interest of his country. Would you awaken the industry of the man who seems almost dead to ambition, it will often be to no purpose to describe to him the happiness of the rich and the great; to tell him that they are generally sheltered from the sun and the rain, that they are seldom hungry, that they are seldom cold, and that they are rarely exposed to weariness, or to want of any kind. The most eloquent exhortation of this kind will have little effect upon him. If you would hope to succeed, you must describe to him the conveniency and arrangement of the different apartments in their palaces; you must explain to him the propriety of their equipages, and point out to him the number, the order, and the different offices of all their attendants. If any thing is capable of making impression upon him, this will. Yet all these things tend only to keep off the sun and the rain, to save them from hunger and cold, from want and weariness. In the same manner, if you would implant public virtue in the breast of him who seems heedless of the interest of his country, it will often be to no purpose to tell him, what superior advantages the subjects of a well-governed state enjoy; that they are better lodged, that they are better clothed, that they are better fed. These considerations will commonly make no great impression. You will be more likely to persuade, if you describe the great system of public police which procures these advantages, if you explain the connexions and dependencies of its several parts, their mutual subordination to one another, and their general subserviency to the happiness of the society; if you show how this system might be introduced into his own country, what it is that hinders it from taking place there at present, how those obstructions might be removed, and all the several wheels of the machine of government be made to move with more harmony and smoothness, without grating upon one another, or mutually retarding one another's motions. It is scarce possible that a man should listen to a discourse of this kind, and not feel himself animated to some degree of public spirit. He will, at least for the moment, feel some desire to remove those obstructions, and to put into motion so beautiful and so orderly a machine. Nothing tends so much to promote public spirit as the study of politics, of the several systems of civil government, their advantages and disadvantages, of the constitution of our own country, its situation, and interest with regard to foreign nations, its commerce, its defence, the disadvantages it labours under, the dangers to which it may be exposed, how to remove the one, and how to guard against the other. Upon this account political disquisitions, if just, and reasonable, and practicable, are of all the works of speculation the most useful. Even the weakest and the worst of them are not altogether without their utility. They serve at least to animate the public passions of men, and rouse them to seek out the means of promoting the happiness of the society.”

[Theory of Moral Sentiments, Book IV.I.II pages 185-87 (Glasgow Edition, Oxford University Press, 1976; Liberty Fund edition, 1982)]

that they apparently believe that their economies are ‘free markets’ is astonishing

TO BE NOTED: From Adam Smith's Lost Legacy:

"Myths of Free Markets

Erik Kirschbaum writes in Cota 1061 HERE:

“German ‘cash for clunkers’ shows free market perils”

“THE INVISIBLE HAND
Scottish economist Adam Smith coined the term “the invisible hand” in the 18th century to describe the positive effects of the free market on individuals.
Yet the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression has led governments around the world to re-evaluate that belief in the “invisible hand” and to prop up sagging economies.”

Comment
In an otherwise reasonably sensible piece, Erik Kirschbaum, writes this nonsense about Adam Smith and the metaphor of ‘an invisible hand’.

Adam Smith did not ‘coin the term “the invisible hand”. The metaphor was well-known in the 18th century and widely used in literature, and had been known since classical times (Greece and Rome). It was used by Shakespeare (in Macbeth: ‘thy bloody and invisible hand’), and Defoe used in twice (Moll Flanders and Colonel Jack). Even Voltaire, among others. used it.

Adam Smith most certainly did not use the metaphor ‘to describe the positive effects of the free market on individuals’, which he discussed in detail in Books I and II of Wealth Of Nations (he only used in once, and not in reference to markets; it was about risk and uncertainty, Book IV of Wealth Of Nations).

Modern economists who ‘believe’ in the myth of the invisible hand have been misled by leading US economists (in Chicago in the 1930s; Oscar Lange (146); Paul Samuelson, 1948); Milton Friedman (serially from the 1950s); and hundreds of thousands of graduates from academe influenced by the scores of graduates who ‘believed’ what their tutors told them (without them, or their tutors ever reading Wealth Of nations for themselves.

That governments came to believe the myth of ‘an invisible hand’ is the fault of prestigious modern economists (including Nobel Prize winners) advising them.

Moreover, that they apparently believe that their economies are ‘free markets’ is astonishing, given that even a casual look at modern markets in economies with Big Governments would show they were as un-free as commercial markets were in Smith’s day, not just internaly, but also externally through tariff protection.

posted by Gavin Kennedy at 6:10 AM"

The players do not behave as the mythical Homo economicus prescribes, and neither do all the other players in all the levels below them

TO BE NOTED: From Adam Smith's Lost Legacy:

"Thought for the Day - 3

One benefit, at least, of not being able to work for a few days, which included not reading my email alerts on Adam Smith across the world’s media, is the time it created for reflection. Not that this produced much retained sense; more a dream-like flow of unrelated thoughts, among which were strings of thoughts about roosting chickens.

There is a debate underway among historians of economic thought on whether economists really need to study the history of ideas in what we may loosely term our discipline. Those economists who take the view that the history of economic ideas really has nothing to do with modern economics, point to it being unnecessary for ‘real scientists’ to read the works of Isaac Newton, and his lesser luminaries, so why bother with Adam Smith and the rest?

My views on this debate (I have not joined in, so far) are predictable. The physical world is fairly constant – each and every carbon atom is assumed to behave the same way, and has done so through the ages, and unless that changes in known circumstances, its properties and relationships with other atoms are not expected to change. Knowledge gains in hard sciences build upon earlier knowledge gains, and future knowledge gains continue the process.

Turning to economics – part of human sciences – it is quite different. We hardly know about past economic history; even recent history is controversial and is wll sshort of arriving at a settled view. There are political views of economic behaviours – as far as I know, we do not have ‘leftwing’ or ‘rightwing’ carbon atoms – and we do not have a settled view on what constitutes economic society or on what would constitute a society that could be said to be the basis for all further societies without (controversial) changes.

As economics was derived from political economy, shedding within a century, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, history, politics, psychology, and such-like, though, unfortunately not shedding mysticism, idealism, utopianism, and, eventually, all traces of real human beings, an imaginary world has replaced the real world.

Now, that there were great gains from this process is not disputed, of course, but questions arise as to the costs in what the great ‘gains’ do not explain. Apart from which there is genuine concern about the usefulness of the abstract when directed at policy-making in real human societies. Even among the most mathematically-oriented of economists there is no agreement as to whether policy A is ‘better’ than policy B (or policy C to Z).

It is not as if modern economists are better fitted in 2009 to understand (stepping down from ‘to advise’) than their predecessors, already starting down the road we’ve travelled, in 1909 (or for that matter 1809). The current ‘global crisis’ has not produced a consensus among the brightest in our profession (Nobel prize winners stand on opposite sides with different prescriptions) as what should be (could be) done, even if the players in the mix of, say, the G20 were minded to accept whatever advice the equations would give them.

And that’s the rub. The players do not behave as the mythical Homo economicus prescribes, and neither do all the other players in all the levels below them. The aggregates in an economy, however expressed neatly in well-behaved functions, do not capture what the models require of them. And their authors are impotent to make them do so.

It is not as if we are talking about wildly improbable outcomes from clearly defined categories (the effect of heat on molecules of a specific quality as taught in Physics 101). For a ‘hard science’, surely we can expect a straight answer to a simple operation like ‘quantitative easing’ and its likely affect on activity? My colleagues among the historians of economic ideas are debating, hotly, just now about what constitutes money. Unlike, the physicists, who agree on the role of gravity, modern economists are not so sure about the venerable role of money.

No wonder, that ideas of modern economics fall foul to the barely understood ideas of past economists, where they are not simply made up (as has been the fate of Adam Smith among many modern economists who assert his so-called ideas shamelessly without reading him). We may not need to read Newton’s Principia to add to the knowledge base (so far it has not let us down, though it has been improved upon safely because its foundations were so strong), but where did our ideas about money, for instance, come from, and where may our ideas about money be built on less secure foundations than the ‘certainties’ we were taught recently?

I leave these thoughts for the thoughtful readers of Lost Legacy.

posted by Gavin Kennedy "

In these circumstances I feel permitted to use the term 'risk aversion' as being the cause of the merchants' conduct

TO BE NOTED: From Adam Smith's Lost Legacy:

"Thought for the Day 2

‘Security, therefore, is the first and the principal object of prudence. It is averse to expose our health, our fortune, our rank, or reputation, to any sort of hazard. It is rather cautious than enterprising, and more anxious to preserve the advantages which we already possess, than forward to prompt us to the acquisition of still greater advantages. The methods of improving our fortune, which it principally recommends to us, are those which expose to no loss or hazard; real knowledge and skill in our trade or profession, assiduity and industry in the exercise of it, frugality, and even some degree of parsimony, in all our expences.'
(TMS VI.i.6: 213)

Comment
I have made many references to the use by Adam Smith of the metaphor of ‘an invisible hand’ in Wealth Of Nations (1776) and I thought it relevant to quote the above passage from Smith’s Moral Sentiments [1759, ed 6. 1790].

He discusses security and specifically mentions how security is ‘averse’ to exposing ourselves and ‘our health, our fortune, our rank, or reputation to ‘any sort of hazard’.

I was recently criticised by a academically respected referee for using the more modern term, ‘risk averse’, to describe the motivation for why some (but not all) merchants, discussed by Smith in Chapter IV (ii.9: 456) of Wealth Of Nations, preferred to trade and invest locally rather than take the risks of trading or investing abroad, particularly in the American colonies.

The referee considered ‘risk-averse’ as being about the utility functions of players in modern game theory and not applicable to the merchants that Smith identified in his famous ‘invisible-hand’ paragraph.

Despite my reservations, I accepted the referee’s assertion, not being able to lay my hands of the relevant quotation at the moment I needed it. But I found it this morning while looking for something else.

I consider Smith’s comments on the ‘prudence’ of ‘security’ and ‘aversion’ excuse my original mentions of ‘risk aversion’ as the direct cause of these merchants investing locally and thereby, on the arithmetical law that the whole number is the sum of its individual parts, the behaviour of these merchants, which unintentionally made domestic national output and employment larger in total than it otherwise would be, completely explain what motivated them to do so.

The outcome was brought about, and is eminently explained by the causes identified by Adam Smith before he used The Metaphor of 'an invisible hand', thus making The Metaphor redundant as an explantion, and with its redundancy ,all the subsequent chatter that The Metaphor itself was an explanation are shown to be wrong.

The modern myths of invisible and disembodied hands, including the 'Hand of God' and other mysteries, were not part of Adam Smith's original explanation for the phenomenon, the merchant's 'risk-aversion' ('he intends only his own security' (WN IV.ii.9: 456).

The real mystery, in my mind, is why so many respectable and senior fellow economists can read the same passage from Wealth Of Nations and endorse the modern myth.

In these circumstances I feel permitted to use the term 'risk aversion' as being the cause of the merchants' conduct, without implying any connections to elements of modern games theory.

The same should appeal to left-of-centre-minded people too.

TO BE NOTED: From Adam Smith's Lost Legacy:

"Adam Smith, Neither Left Nor Right

James R. Otteson, author of Adam Smith’s Market Place of Life, 2002, Cambridge University Press, (in my view a seminal approach to Adam Smith’s work) write on his Blog, HERE (17 March):

This Just In: Poverty and the Right

"I was asked (challenged?) by a reader to provide examples of right-of-center political or economic theorists who are genuinely interested in the poor. There are many, but let me mention one classical source and one contemporary source.

The classical source: Adam Smith in his 1776 An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Smith's concern for the poor there is palpable and undeniable. Now some scholars argue that, partly because of that, Smith would not quite qualify as a right-of-center thinker (Samuel Fleischacker, for example, but there are many others), but I think Smith's defense of free trade, markets, and limited government do qualify him. He is not an anarchist or even a libertarian, and he does not subscribe to a theory of natural rights that, as in Locke or Nozick, give principled restrictions on state activity: Smith is too practical and pragmatic for that. But that makes him what is usually called a "classical liberal," not a progressive liberal.

The contemporary source: Deirdre N. McCloskey's The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce. McCloskey's argument is that capitalist institutions are not amoral but are, instead, positively encouraging of virtue. But a large part of her argument in that book is that capitalism has brought substantial and often unappreciated benefits to millions of people, including especially the poor. McCloskey draws explicitly on Smith in making her case.


The classical source: Adam Smith in his 1776 An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Smith's concern for the poor there is palpable and undeniable. Now some scholars argue that, partly because of that, Smith would not quite qualify as a right-of-center thinker (Samuel Fleischacker, for example, but there are many others), but I think Smith's defense of free trade, markets, and limited government do qualify him. He is not an anarchist or even a libertarian, and he does not subscribe to a theory of natural rights that, as in Locke or Nozick, give principled restrictions on state activity: Smith is too practical and pragmatic for that. But that makes him what is usually called a "classical liberal," not a progressive liberal.

The contemporary source: Deirdre N. McCloskey's The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce. McCloskey's argument is that capitalist institutions are not amoral but are, instead, positively encouraging of virtue. But a large part of her argument in that book is that capitalism has brought substantial and often unappreciated benefits to millions of people, including especially the poor. McCloskey draws explicitly on Smith in making her case.

Comment
I fully appreciate Jim’s the line of argument. I have often posted on Lost Legacy about Smith’s ‘neutral’ approach to the labour-capital divide, when chastising writers from both left of centre and right of centre, and others at either of their extremes, who try to hijack Smith into being in favour of one side of the other.

Smith is a much more complex advocate for his approach to political economy than his critics appreciate.

He favoured reforms of the policies of mercantile political economy because they inhibited the full power of commercial society to grow, and in doing so, to put the unemployed to gainful and productive employment and, for those taking the initiative, to save towards an amount of capital stock and put it into productive activity, thus widening opportunities for increasing opulence, the beneficiaries of which would largely be the labouring poor.

Right-of-centre-minded people are, or should be comfortable with Smith’s policies for labour, and for commercial enterprise, and for government interventions at the macro-level. The same should appeal to left-of-centre-minded people too.

Extreme libertarians, of right and left (yes, they do exist) and traditional anarchists or Marxists may not be comfortable with anything less than their ideal utopias (or nightmares).

Smith was not an ideologue, of left or right (the concepts of left or right were unknown in his lifetime).

AND NEITHER AM I.

"In civilized society he [man] stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes"

From Adam Smith's Lost Legacy:

"A Financial Advisor who Understands Adam Smith

Michael Hennigan, Founder and Editor of Finfacts (Ireland) HERE, writes a most encouraging post : ‘The "free market" in these calamitous times’, containing this gem:

“Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, in his 1776 book The Wealth of Nations, identified the importance of individual self-interest, but contrary to what some critics have claimed, his emphasis was that you serve your own self-interest by serving the self-interest of others. It is not what is generally concluded because the last line of the following extract is what is most often quoted, in isolation:

"In civilized society he [man] stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

Comment
Regular readers of Lost Legacy will recognise this familiar quotation from Wealth Of Nations (WN I.ii.2: pp 26-7; Edwin Canaan, 1937 edition, p 14).

Michael Hennigan is absolutely right in his reading of this famous passage. Congratulations.

Don said...

Thank you for this post. I also liked this:

"Irish writer George Bernard Shaw is said to have remarked that Christianitymight be a good thing if anyone ever tried it. A pure free market wouldn't but in an imperfect world, in an economy untainted by cronyism, corruption and poor regulation, the delivery of most goods and services is better provided by competitive private sector firms than State-owned ones. However, the nexus between the political and business sectors has been an enduring feature of most modern economies before the recent period of taxpayer bail-outs and in the US, Wall Street has for long provided the greatest example of the extent of the departure from free market principles"

I have been arguing this using a thread of this Wittgenstein quote:

"if a lion could speak, we could not understand him. (PI, p.223)"

If a free market existed, our investor class and bankers could not compete in it.

This blog touches on so many themes by focusing on Adam Smith. It's wonderful. I used to spend some time correcting people about the views of Edmund Burke, but I'm not up to the level of doing a blog like yours on his views. I wish I were.

Don the libertarian Democrat

4:36 PM

The ‘religion’ of rational man is due for a quiet burial.

From Adam Smith's Lost Legacy:

"Evolution Challenges Homo Economicus

Gary Marcus, a professor of psychology at New York University, is author of "Kluge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind" (Houghton-Mifflin, 2008), tell us to: “Forget About Survival of the 'Fittest'” in Wall Street Journal, HERE:

“Evolution usually makes do with 'good enough'”

“To the extent that evolution has often been forced to make do, contemporary economics has a serious problem. A great deal of contemporary economic theory has been premised on the assumption that individual human beings are "rational agents," people capable of reliably acting in their own self-interest, assessing costs and benefits with a sure eye toward making optimal choices.

If we were really creatures that invariably acted in the interests of our "selfish genes," the so-called homo economicus or "rational man" theory would have some substance. It would make sense to try to predict the actions of the multitudes by assuming that each individual would act in the interest of his (or her) own selfish genes.

In reality, we often don't. Although any fool will instantly realize that winning $5,000 is better than $500, daily life is filled with decisions that cannot be said to be rational, optimal or otherwise maximally fit. At the micro-level, we'll drive across town to save $25 on a $100 microwave, but not to save the same $25 on a $1,000 flat-screen TV, showing both that we are blind to the cost of our own labor, and confused about the fact that money is an absolute rather than relative commodity.
The average American watches three to four hours of television a day, which does nothing for our "reproductive fitness" or even for our happiness (regular TV viewers are actually less happy than those who watch rarely, as several studies have shown). Our brains often have trouble keeping our minds on track, even when vital decisions are at stake. We procrastinate on important projects until we have too little time to complete them properly, often making careless errors as a result, and we frequently sabotage long-term goals (like living a long, healthy life) in favor of ephemeral short-term pleasures (like smoking cigarettes). Such self-defeating choices afflict even the powerful and the brilliant (witness the decline and fall of Eliot Spitzer -- or the many who lost millions by investing in Bernie Madoff).
All this matters because endeavors like economics and social policy are all built around theories about what human beings are and how they function. We allow consumers access to credit cards, for example, because we assume (despite ample evidence to the contrary) that they will be smart enough to balance their short-term needs as consumers with their long-term capacity to maintain a fiscally sensible reality.

The new discipline of behavioral economics is aimed at addressing these issues, but is not taken seriously enough. Even now, in the eye of the worst fiscal storm in recent memory, we trust citizens to do the "right thing," without factoring in the quirks of our evolved psychology.

As we deal with the current crisis and in the years to come, it will behoove us as a society to recognize that evolution equipped us not with foolproof, steel-trap rational minds, but something more like a "kluge," a clumsy and inelegant mental patchwork that is good enough to get the job done, but far from perfect.

If humans were truly the fittest possible creatures one could imagine, the rational-man model would make sense. But the "fittest" that survived are not necessarily the fittest possible. We are flesh and blood creatures, filled with cognitive quirks that are the detritus of evolution. If we are to move past perpetual cycles of fantasy-driven booms followed by devastating busts, we must recognize evolution's limits, and confront them head-on.”

Comment
I am a regular critic of Homo economicus and rational agents, so I feel able to offer a correction to the statement from Gary Marcus, without being misunderstood:

“A great deal of contemporary economic theory has been premised on the assumption that individual human beings are "rational agents".

The correct statement is slightly, but importantly, different. Gary Marcus should have written:

“A great deal of contemporary economic theory has been premised on the assumption that individual agents in their theoretical models "rational agents".

There can be no pretension that in the real economy individuals act as ‘rational agents’, nor that ‘Homo economcus’ is other than a theoretical abstraction first postulated in the late 19th century when the first steps were made by ‘smart’ economists to abandon ‘political economy’ in favour of mathematical make-believe.

Gary Marcus is absolutely correct in the general tenor of his article. Myths of ‘rational agents’ being representative of human beings are now so firmly entrenched in our discipline (often with a mixture of enthusiastic pride and disdainful put-downs to those who protest that far too much is concluded about so much of economic life from too narrow a connection with reality).

Any study of evolutionary theory, and of human history (and pre-history!) shows how varied are any species in their behaviours in their multiple environments, including at, and beyond, their normal localities.

Indeed, natural selection shows many biological cul-de-sacs, so to speak; social evolution among humans shows as many ‘dead-ends’ in social forms, of which the large stone detritus strewn around Europe and beyond, and small stone artifacts, cave paintings, and ‘grave goods’, strewn everywhere else, are strong reminders.

The ‘religion’ of rational man is due for a quiet burial. It offers little as a reliable explanation of the current crisis (it caught its exponents ‘off-side’, as we say in football). Whether ‘behavioural’ economics is the answer remains to be seen, but it certainly looks like a step forward.

[I have ordered Gary Marcus's "Kluge: The Haphazard Evolution of the Human Mind" and shall report in due course on its merits.)"

Me:

Don said...

I look forward to your review. For interested readers, here are a couple of links on behavioral economics, if that's kosher:

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/thaler_sendhil08/thaler_sendhil_index.html

http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/course/527/ec527075.rl.htm

Don the libertarian Democrat

4:51 PM

The open and obvious aim of such a tariff policy is to improve the fortunes of the US

From Adam Smith's Lost Legacy:

"A Reckless Optimist Writes Pete Murphy posts on Five Short Blasts Forum HERE:
His recent post is on “Clumsy Trade Policy” and it expounds a new theory of ‘safe’ protectionism by weighting tariffs on manufactured goods by an index of the population of a country – the larger a country’s population the more the imposed tariff. It's not difficult to work out who he is aiming at.

His assurances are also predicated on a ‘hope’ and ‘assumption’, but not much more, namely that countries (I see Germany is included!) affected by a substantial fall in their exports to the USA would not retaliate.

History shows that there is no fire-safe way in which imposing tariffs is ‘safe’ from retaliation, and retaliation is more likely when there is economic distress, of which all affected parties are aware. It called a ‘beggar thy neighbour’ strategy. Moreover, all US trading partners will be aware of the aims of the policy – they read the US press, watch Fox News and CNN, and their diplomats keep tabs of Congressional Debates.

The open and obvious aim of such a tariff policy is to improve the fortunes of the US while necessarily worsening the economic performance of those upon which the weighted tariff policy would be applied.

Pete Murphy includes these assertions in his post:

“The problem is that we’ve held fast to our free trade policy for decades, in spite of the mountain of evidence that something is wrong - culminating in global financial collapse, without ever questioning why. We’ve taken the 18th century theories of Adam Smith, David Ricardo and others, fathers of free trade theory, at face value without ever researching factors that may limit their application - like population density, for example. And without an understanding of what makes free trade work in some instances while producing horribly skewed results in others, we then have a tendency to lash out at all trade. At least the blunt force application of protectionism would restore a balance of trade, but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is correct in warning of backlashes.”

And:

“Any policy that moves us toward a balance of trade and restores manufacturing jobs is better than what we have now, but an elegant approach that’s rooted in logic can avoid the unnecessary collateral damage of a trade war that would only buttress arguments for a pendulum-like swing back to the opposite end of the clumsy trade policy spectrum.”

Comment
The trade policies of the US (which are not free trade) are not there because of what Adam Smith wrote in 1776 or David Ricardo wrote in 1817 (that gives far too much credit to them); they take their current forms because it is in the interests of the US to apply such policies.

I should think that international trade policy is the most researched area of economics imaginable, from all sides of the arguments about it, from people of significant standing in the subject, plus not a few ‘scribblers’ who believe they have spotted some missing element the theory and practice of internation trade (I remember as a student almost only having time to read the titles of all the books and articles written on the topic, never mind their contents) backed by endless econometric analyses, in what thousands of these lifetime-scholars did not manage to spot, in two or more hundred years.

International trade is highly political, and has been since medieval times. European countries went to war many times with neighbours over all kinds of issues, including the trivial and the momentous, and trade relations were often the cause of, first ‘jealousy of trade’, then angry resentment, and almost always in the spirit of mere speculation by scribblers about which side would ‘win’ as a result of the contest of arms, or a contest of those surrogate arms, called tariffs and retaliatory prohibitions. Trade wars are not a one round game.

Pete Murphy describes his proposal as “an elegant approach that’s rooted in logic”, which he assures readers “can avoid the unnecessary collateral damage of a trade war”.

It’s a safe bet he is wrong."

And I comment:

Don said...

"His assurances are also predicated on a ‘hope’ and ‘assumption’, but not much more, namely that countries (I see Germany is included!) affected by a substantial fall in their exports to the USA would not retaliate."

I think that he's on to something. The Spender Country / Saver ( Exporter ) Country Symbiosis is going to be hellishly hard to break apart without serious social dislocation and disruption. I expect to see some form of agreed upon default by the Spender Countries. The choices include:
1) Let the Spender Countries export more
2) Allow some debt cancellation
3) Allow the Spender Countries to inflate their currency
I'd like to be proven wrong, but getting the Chinese, savers who've just seen the negative consequences of spending to spend, is a difficult task.

Don the libertarian Democrat

Gavin responds:

Gavin Kennedy said...

Hi Don

Apologies. I wrote a response but must have deleted it before posting. Ny PC has been on and off today as I have had family chores and I always switch it off when absent.

I wrote something like this:

I don’t think this is a runner, as my racing friends would say.

The issue is any arrangement that worsens some trading partners at the expense of others is bound to provoke retaliation by edict, which once started becomes uncontrollable. This started the decline in world trade in the 1930s once the depression was underway, i.e., reciprocal ‘beggar thy neighbour’ trade wars, making the depression deeper and longer lasting.

For ‘spenders’ to export more, the question is to whom are they exporting more and of what?

Who allows what ‘debt cancellations’, for how much and for how long?

Inflation is a monetary phenomenon – a currency is worth what I is worth in terms of other currencies.

Chinese savers can act in China only; their government decides its exchange rates.

I am inclined to think that there will be “serious social dislocation and disruption”, especially from what Pete Murphy proposes.

The US is not a free-trade economy, neither is Europe, nor China and India, or Brazil. Becoming even less free is a high-risk ‘solution’ for which the precedents are not kind to optimists.

So not only are there no invisible hands guiding or preserving ‘the biosphere’; there ain’t one guiding or preserving markets either.

From Adam Smith's Lost Legacy:

"A Scientist Rejects Belief in Invisible Hands

Simon A. Levin writes on the Essential Talks (Docs) Blog HERE:

Simon A. Levin is the George M. Moffett Professor of Biology and director of the Center for BioComplexity at Princeton University, where he founded the Princeton Environmental Institute.

"Ecosystems and Socioeconomic Systems as Complex Adaptive Systems"

“Yet while we may believe in the “invisible hand” that according to 18th-century economist Adam Smith steers our markets, we can’t leave the environment up to fate, Levin says: “There is no invisible hand that guides or preserves the biosphere.”

Comment
Simon should know that Adam Smith said no such thing. His use of the metaphor of an invisible hand was not about how markets work (as outlined in Books I and II of Wealth Of Nations – where the metaphor is never mentioned).

He used the metaphor in Book IV of Wealth Of Nations, not about it ‘steering markets’; in fact, not about markets at all.

His single use of the metaphor was in relation to the consequences of the risk-avoidance of some merchants impelling them to invest their capital locally and not to take the greater risks of sending it abroad to such as the British colonies in North America.

Check it out in Book IV, chapter ii: ‘Of restraints upon the importation from foreign countries of such Goods as can be produced at Home’, pp 452-72.

Smith’s only reference to ‘an invisible hand’ is on page 456, after his full explanation of the merchant’s motivation, ‘he intends only his own security’, add the unintended consequences that as a result domestic output and employment are increased (the whole is the sum of its parts).

So not only are there no invisible hands guiding or preserving ‘the biosphere’; there ain’t one guiding or preserving markets either. That’s a modern myth invented in the 1950s by modern economists and believed now by many more who have not read the entire chapter ii in Book IV of Wealth Of Nations.

The invisible poster:

Don said...

In Smith's sense, is the Paradox Of Thrift a result of an invisible hand, only in reverse. By saving, the consumption is decreased.In other words, could the invisible hand result in the Paradox of Output in Smith's example?

Don the libertarian Democrat

2:31 AM

Gavin replied:

Gavin Kennedy said...

Thanks Don
I don't think so. For every 'paradox' there is an explanation (as with the original use s of the metaphor: Jupiter's invisible hand' is the credulous beliefs of Roman citizens; delusional rich landlords it was their confusing the beauties of ownership with the imperative that their labourers/serfs/slaves/retainers had to consumer a sufficient amount of his food in order to survive to work for hum again; in Wealth Of nations the merchants were driven to invest lcoally by their risk-avoidance from the higher risks, despite the higher profits, of foreign trade.

In short, the invisible hand was not mystical, dismebodies or a 'Godly' spirit.

In thrift, the revenue receiver 'saves' some portion to invest in interest earning (productive) lending; the borrower of the saving uses them by spending on productive uses, which generates employment and purchases equipment, buildings, materials, to earn profts, part of which return to the savers.

Whether consumption is 'decreased' is moot; they could spend it; refrain from spending and hide in a box; refrain from spending and lend it for profitable interest earnings. Smith said they would be prodigal if they chose the fiest option; 'crazy' if they chose the second; and 'normal' if they chose the first.

Motivations can be identified and the 'paradox' vanishes, and with it 'invisible hands'

3:16 PM

That is not what Adam Smith wrote. He did not write anything about “as if by an invisible hand”.

From Adam Smith's Lost Legacy:

"Misreading Adam Smith, I hope Accidentally From the Princeton University press Blog, announcing a new economics title HERE:

“Adam Smith, Meet Captain Hook: The Upside of Pirate Greed” by Peter Leeson

“In 1776 Scottish moral philosopher Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations. In it, he described the famed “invisible hand.” According to Smith, individuals pursuing their self-interests are led, “as if by an invisible hand,” to promote others’ interests as well.

Your grocer, for example, wants to serve his own interest—he wants to make money. But to do so he must serve your interest as well. He must provide you with the highest quality groceries at the lowest possible price or you’ll patronize a competitor that does instead. The grocer doesn’t care about you, of course; he doesn’t even know you. He cares about himself, but in serving himself he serves you too.”

Comment
Peter Leeson, BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and author of the new book, The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates and he also blogs at The Austrian Economists, is almost right and spoils the accuracy of his interpretation of the grocer’s pursuit of his self-interest in serving her customer’s self-interest, which in turn serves hers.

Yes, we serve our self-interest best in exchange by serving the interests of others.
But, I am not sure of his accuracy of interpretation in his first paragraph:

“According to Smith, individuals pursuing their self-interests are led, “as if by an invisible hand,” to promote others’ interests as well.”

That is not what Adam Smith wrote. He did not write anything about “as if by an invisible hand”. The quotation marks around this statement suggests that Adam Smith wrote those words; he most certainly did not.

There is no ‘as if’ attached to ‘led by an invisible hand’. Peter Leeson has added them and incorrectly wrapped them in quotation marks.

Also the way the sentence is written implies that Adam Smith was making a general statement applying to all individuals in all cases; he wasn’t.

He wrote about a specific set of individuals (some but not all wholesale merchants) whose risk aversion to foreign trade led them to prefer to deploy their capitals in their domestic locality, despite the higher monopoly-driven profits from trading with the British colonies in North America under the protection of the Navigation Acts, enforced by the Royal Navy.

These individual decisions meant domestic annual product was higher than it otherwise would be, and because the whole is the sum of its parts, the domestic economy, and resulting employment and output, were greater than they would otherwise be.

Having explained all this clearly and adequately, Smith summarises his explanation, with the well-known 18th-century literary metaphor of ‘led by an invisible hand’ (WN IV.ii.9: 456), which applied in this one specific case and ‘in this, as in many other cases’, but not all cases, as the over 70 examples he mentions along the way of self-interests not being beneficial to society in Books I, II and III of Wealth of Nations.

In fact, Smith analyses how prices are determined, how markets work, and how the ‘great orders’ go about their business without mentioning ‘an invisible hand’ at all.

Professor Peter Leeson should have written his sentence as:

“According to Smith, SOME individuals pursuing their self-interests are led IN MANY BUT NOT ALL CASES, “by an invisible hand,” to promote others’ interests as well.”

By generalising Smith’s thinking in the manner he did, Professor Leeson repeats the mantra of some ultra-conservative-minded propagandists for State Corporate Capitalism( I AGREE WITH THIS LABEL. ) (which they are perfectly entitled to assert in their own names), but their assertions are their own and have nothing to do with Adam Smith."

The same thing happens with Burke.

"assemble general principles that seem to be of practical benefit to assumed goals, and apply them to current events and trends."

From Adam Smith's Lost Legacy:

"Adam Smith On State Expenditures and Interventions

A correspondent asks:

“I'm still puzzled as to where Smith draws the line with regard to government intervention. In Book V, Chapter I, he talks about justice, defence and public works but it seems that he has a wider application for the state in market matters. I'd be very interested to hear your viewpoint on this.

To which I replied:

Yes, it is widely believed, even by some top academic economists, especially on Blogland, that Adam Smith favoured small government, often represented by the phrase, the 'night watchman state', which in fact was coined in the late 19th century by a firebrand socialist.

I have posted this list from my book, Adam Smith: a moral philosopher and his political economy' (2008, pp 247-48, Palgrave Macmillan):

"● The Navigation Acts, blessed by Smith under the assertion that ‘defence, however, is of much more importance than opulence’; (WN464)
● Sterling marks on plate and stamps upon linen and woollen cloth (WN138-9)
● Enforcement of contracts by a system of justice; (WN720)
● Wages to be paid in money, not goods;
● Regulations of paper money in banking; (WN437)
● Obligations to build party wars to prevent the spread of fire; (WN324)
● Rights of farmers to send farm produce to the best market (except ‘only in the most urgent necessity’);(WN 539)
● Premiums and other encouragements to advance the linen and woollen industries’; (TMS185)
● ‘Police’, or preservation of the ‘cleanliness of roads, streets, and to prevent the bad effects of corruption and putrifying substances’;
● ensuring the ‘cheapness or plenty [of provisions]’; (LJ6; 331) ( YES )
● patrols by town guards, fire fighters and of other hazardous accidents; (LJ331-2)
● Erecting and maintaining certain public works and public institutions intended to facilitate commerce (roads, bridges, canals and harbours); (WN723)
● Coinage and the Mint; (WN478; 1724)
● Post office; (WN724)
● Regulation of institutions, such as company structures (joint stock companies; co-partneries, regulated companies); (WN731-58)
● Temporary monopolies, including copyright, patents, of fixed duration; (WN754)
● Education of youth (‘village schools’, curriculum design); (WN758-89)
● Education of people of all ages (tythes or land tax) (WN788);
● Encouragement of ‘the frequency and gaiety of publick diversions’; (WN796)
● The prevention of ‘leprosy or any other loathsome and offensive disease’ from spreading among the population; (WN787-88)
● Encouragement of martial exercises; (WN786)
● Registration of mortgages for land, houses, and boats over two tons; (WN861, 863)
● Government restrictions on interest for borrowing (usury laws) to overcome investor ‘stupidity’; (WN356-7)( INTERESTING )
● Laws against banks issuing low-denomination promissory notes; (WN324)
● Natural liberty may be breached if individuals ‘endanger the security of the whole society’; (WN324)
● Limiting ‘free exportation of corn’ only ‘in cases of the most urgent necessity’ (‘dearth’ turning into ‘famine’); (WN539)
● Moderate export taxes on wool exports for government revenue; (WN 879)

Jacob Viner concluded, unsurprisingly, that Adam Smith was not a doctrinaire laissez-faire advocate.

[From Viner, J. 1928. ‘Adam Smith and Laissez-faire’, In ‘Adam Smith, 1776-1928: Lectures to Commemorate the Sesquicentennial of the Publication of Wealth Of Nations, p 53, August M. Kelly, Fairfield, NJ; I provided the references to Wealth Of Nations.]

Second Question:

“How exactly does Smith make a distinction between permissible and unacceptable government intervention? I could justify some of this divergence by considering that much of his criticism of government involvement stems from actual experience rather than theoretical reasoning (which, if used, could rule out regulation all together!). What's your take on it?”

Smith, remember, wrote (Book V) of ‘public works and public institutions’ that ‘facilitated commerce’. It was, and I think, remains, an empirical test( YES ), not a theoretical outcome. Markets do not work because of theory, or ‘rational thought’, or who wrote books about it. ( MY POINT )

He didn’t sit down and think great thoughts about gaps in knowledge from his appreciation of the explanations of others and himself of real world events. That is the way of ‘shamans’, priests and inventors of religious explanations, with everything they cannot explain shunted into the mysteries of ‘invisible beings’ or gods.

The pure theory of markets, such as neoclassical economics and general equilibrium as much that it is meritorious, but it is a theory( YES ) not a description of how markets actually work( YES ).

The players in markets are real human beings( YES ), not variables that operate within narrow confines of deterministic mathematics( MY POINT ). Consider how Smith chided some of the Physiocrats (mentioning Dr Quesnay by name) for their apparent insistence that the ‘political body would thrive only under a precise regimen, the exact regimen of perfect liberty and perfect justice’… ‘if a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could ever have prospered’. (WN IV.ix.28: p 674)

The message is clear: start with the history, how things arrived at their present day circumstances and arrangements, and observe how they operate, drawing on lessons of how they worked, more or less, well in the past and what that teaches us selectively about what works and what doesn’t( MY METHOD ), assemble general principles that seem to be of practical benefit( MY METHOD ) to assumed goals, and apply them( YES ) to current events and trends.

Of course, everything depends on the selection and the objectives. Machiavelli, the Italian political practitioner drew on history to show how rulers ruled in the past and selected common aspects that could apply to rulers in his present (1500s), where the objective function was to remain ‘safe’ in power.

Smith’s objective function was how an economy, the State, and the people, could spread opulence from commerce to the nation, especially the poor majority( YES. THIS IS WHY I FOCUS ON THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET AND THE MIDDLE CLASS. ), drawing on how nations remained stable( MY BURKEAN FOCUS ) (justice and the distinction of ranks), became prosperous (the desire of people to ‘better themselves’) given as much freedom to do so (Liberty) without it degenerating into monopoly, restrictive protectionism, and opulence for a minority using their political influence over the State( OUR SYSTEM ), while leaving the poor as they had been left throughout all history as serfs, slaves, and penurious labourers.( ALL STILL TRUE )

Smith believed that a commercial society was the best opportunity for continual growth and the spread of opulence, and showed in his critique of mercantile political economy, as it had operated since the 15th century and was operating up to the Fall of Rome in the 5th century, what changes might be made by the legislature to let commerce do its work as speedily as was practicable in the real world and not in some kind of impossible utopia.( YES )

He was not an ideologue( MY POINT ). His understanding of history demonstrated what was possible among real men as they were( MY VIEW ), not ideal ‘guardians’ of public interest who usually made everything worse than it need be.

Hence, his proposals for ‘public works and public institutions’, which were written in is inimitable style, were apparently quite modest (the incorrect ‘take’ on them by laissez-faire ideologues), though they added to a level of state expenditure that was actually quiet ambitious, with separately argued cases for the items listed by Jacob Viner in 1928 above, which together extended the agenda of appropriate expenditure by a classical liberal state (and even one ran by quite illiberal personnel)."

Smith knew the difference between Politics and Political Theory, and Economics and Political Economy. Sadly, many people today do not.

"The majority, and their families, are poor already before taxation hits them"

From Adam Smith's Lost Legacy:

"Stop Taxing the Poorest Incomes at 20 Per Cent

Joseph Stiglitz write in FT.com (via Economist’s View, Mark Thoma):

“Do not squander America’s stimulus on tax cuts

and

“Joseph Stiglitz: Just Say No to Tax Cuts”

“Do not squander America’s stimulus on tax cuts, by Joseph Stiglitz, Commentary, Financial Times”:

“As news of the US economy worsens, he worries about whether a stimulus could restart the economy ...”

“We are in uncharted territory in this crisis. But household tax cuts, except for
possibly the poorest, should have no place in the stimulus.”

Comment
It seems to me that Joseph Stiglitz does not emphasis the correct and moral policy. Across the board tax cuts may not be efficacious in the current climate, but the case for removing the poorest consumers from the taxation system is convincing. ( I AGREE WITH THIS IN GENERAL )

Raising the personal, non-taxable allowance from about £6k to £16k (even higher) would largely be passed on in spending and stimulate the economy fairly quickly.

Reducing tax rates in the higher income brackets may not have an such an immediate, or lasting, effect.

The poor spend; they do not save much as a group. Legends of poor-pensioner, miserly ‘millionaires’ are news, when revealed, because they are so rare.

The majority, and their families, are poor already before taxation hits them, if they have jobs, and raising the tax threshold will not make them rich; only a little less poor.

It’s not that this change would ‘solve’ poverty. The moral compulsion for removal is that paying income tax (20 per cent, thanks to the ‘Labour’ government) when they already very poor is itself immoral.( I AGREE )

Removal of the income tax from the very poor may mean that the richer would pay ‘proportionally’ more on their much larger incomes, which Adam Smith said was appropriate in other contexts, and not at the expense of the poor, ‘who are least able to supply it.’ [WN V.i.d.13: p 728; Edwin Canaan, 1937 edition, Random House, p 686]

posted by Gavin Kennedy at 3:16 PM 0 comments"

I agree with this post in principle, which is why I support a Guaranteed Income. However, a sales tax cut or payroll tax cut which will be phased out in the future does help the poor and give the better off an incentive to spend now. This doubly effective aspect of both of these tax cuts goes very far in recommending them.