NationStates Jolt Archive

How does one go about disproving the logic and reason of Adam Smith? His well developed theories and explanation of the invisible hand are simply too great to refute.

Also, people say Smith wouldn't support laissez-faire because he wanted some government regulation... waahhh?

Look at Victorian London. The government of the time wanted Laissez-faire. They got it and it was a nightmare.

Boo. If that's laissez-faire then Soviet Russia was pure communism.

Ah, fuck, I helped start a trend.

Ah, fuck, I helped start a trend.
Well done... :)

Ah, fuck, I helped start a trend.
I wonder how long till "Refuting . . ." threads join "Ask a . . ." threads on the list of outlawed topics?
And children worked long hours at dangerous jobs for little pay when everyone was stuck out at the farm. So, nyeh!

*Wanders off into a rant about the glorification of the rural lifestyle and how the Romantics were a pack of clods*

Also, people say Smith wouldn't support laissez-faire because he wanted some government regulation... waahhh?

Such a statement is only true if "laissez-faire" is defined as "absolutely no government regulation or interference." Of course, this definition is bogus because the very institution of private property, upon which a laissez-faire captialist economy would be based, requires the existance of a soverign authority for enforcement and protection, i.e. government.

So, explain what you think would be proper government regulation.

So, explain what you think would be proper government regulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchist

How do you feel about roads/money and monopolies?

Should roads and money be privatized, or left to the government as they are basic infrastructure?

Should the government step in to break up a monopoly (would that be penalizing success?) or should it let it carry on (would that be crushing competition, the goal of the free market?)?

Should the government step in to break up a monopoly (would that be penalizing success?)

Is this "success" built on the back of government interference and favors? Current laws and regulations, especially the whole idea of the corporation, favor the centralization and monopolization of economic power. Eliminate such interference and monopolies are likely to be far less of a problem. Monopolies that continue to occur even after that are likely to represent public goods that should be regulated by the government anyway.

Refuting the most basic tenant of Smith isn't as difficult as it seems...

I'm talking about: If everyone does what is best for them, the optimal outcome for the community will follow.

Prisoner's Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma)

It's by no means universal, but it takes a chunk out of the argument I think. Add to that 200-odd years of technological advances, and you're left with a good book of little relevance today.

Ah, fuck, I helped start a trend.
You mean a copy cat.
dun dun dunnnnnnnnn.