Hello Craig
[chris earlier]
> At the time when the USA was founded, there were tons of wild theories
> about economy and government flourishing.
[Craig]
But in the marketplace of free ideas, Adam Smith's survived the other 1999
pounds of theories.
[Chris]
Ah, well, not really. As I said, it didn't work the way he thought - not
strange because it had never been tested, still a very smart man. Good
theories, but they was de facto modified of necessity
[chris]
> the Guys that had been sitting in cafes in Paris discussing how they could
> create the perfect society of only they got the chance - they got the
> chance
> and they tried their ideas.
[Craig]
With the help of the guillotine.
I don't know what you mean really. I was referring to Washington and
Jefferson, both of whom took impression of the intellectual movements in
Paris, and as for the remark about guillotine and regarding the French
Revolution, well, I don't know what needs to be said about this major
Dynamic Event really. Or the guillotine.
[chris]
> Mr Smith's economic ideas are praised by so-called liberals all over
> the world as the perfect ideas for a free market.
[Craig]
Though some may say they are prefect, most just recognize that they
constitute strong argument for a free market.
Hmm, I really don't think that you will find many that would say that the
model proposed by Smith is a very good idea, especially since people have
seen what an unchecked "free market" produces in human suffering. Quite
objectively this is, although I know it may sound like left-wing propaganda
to some. This is however a quite standard analysis derived from the lectures
and literature I have read/listened too here at Lund University (History
Department).
[chris]
> Because the British Empire realized that they were superior in
> production they soon started propagating for "free trade" - because
> it was a cheaper way of knocking out other countries production
> than destroying them with military force. Simple.
'Simplistic' is a better description. Many agree with Smith for moral
reasons not just because of power.
[chris]
> some of Smiths theories were tested, but after a while it was realized
> that there were some huge gaps in it - namely the humanitarian side to it.
[Craig]
I think it is better to look at it this way: The free market allocates
profits in
proportion that they are earned. The humanitarian use of those profits is
not part of the free market. That is up to the profiteer.
{Chris]
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you expand?
Regards
Chris
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
