Comments on: Adam Smith Institute Blog

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:39:57 +0000

Amen, Daniel. And you can tell who those people are by how quick they go running to the government for favorable intervention when their own interests are threatened. I’m noticing this right now among my friends in the tech sector.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Thu, 18 Sep 2003 08:31:36 +0000

A hoary young chestnut would presumably be the result of an early frost in a chestnut grove. Meanwhile: If you’re right, and nobody really advocates the free market for valid intellectual reasons, then defeating them on substance should be easy. This is a complete non sequitur. It is my own, frequently stated position, that there are powerful and compelling arguments for free markets, but that most of the people who actually argue for them do so from a position of hypocrisy. The second, sociological fact, has little or nothing to do with the first.

By: Maria

Maria — Thu, 18 Sep 2003 07:30:43 +0000

Jonathan – thanks and apologies, link is now fixed. As Kieran has it, I’m not arguing against ‘free markets’, not arguing at all really – which is a bit of a cop out, I’ll happily admit. Just observing that there is a difference between ‘free’ markets and competitive ones.

By: Kieran Healy

Kieran Healy — Thu, 18 Sep 2003 04:45:20 +0000

Hey Bill – “hoary old chestnut”? What would a hoary young chestnut be? (Just trying to make my splenetic quota for the day.) Probably your own good self as a grad student. :-) Sorry, but you set yourself up for that one. If you’re right, and nobody really advocates the free market for valid intellectual reasons, Whoops, didn’t notice Maria arguing for that at all. I took her as implying that while there are all kinds of good reasons for genuinely free markets, such markets are not in the interests of the likes of Halliburton or Microsoft and those companies are well aware of that. It’s a bit like how, say, 19th century capitalists like John D. Rockefeller had essentially the same analysis of the destablising and self-undermining nature of capitalist markets as Marx, and saw monopolies and cartels as the natural solution.

By: Arnold Kling

Arnold Kling — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 22:28:35 +0000

I have a modest request. Try actually debating free-market advocates on substance, rather than engaging in reductionism—treating them as puppets whose strings are pulled by some conspiracy of the evil rich. If you’re right, and nobody really advocates the free market for valid intellectual reasons, then defeating them on substance should be easy. You should not have to resort to delegitimizing someone with whom you disagree.

By: metafizum

metafizum — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 22:04:45 +0000

the economist made a point a couple of months ago of differentiating between pro-business and pro-market views. i guess the ASIs usually tend to be pro-market and not pro-business. that is why the “bedazzlement” statement is not really representative. i guess. (is it even an ASI statement?…)

By: Nicholas Weininger

Nicholas Weininger — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:24:21 +0000

It’s certainly true that many rich people have no personal interest in the free market. Supporting the interests of rich people is very different from supporting the system which makes people rich; it’s the difference between being in favor of capitalism and being in favor of capitalists.

By: metafizum

metafizum — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 19:54:44 +0000

oh, i see now which. it is not an ASI that is saying that, it is the ASI.

By: metafizum

metafizum — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 19:30:30 +0000

I wonder which ASI is “saying embezzlement and fraud should be dealt with by companies, not law enforcement”…

By: Jonathan Ichikawa

Jonathan Ichikawa — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 19:25:37 +0000

Your link is wrong.

By: PG

PG — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:45:45 +0000

Smith did indeed say something of the sort.

By: Doug

Doug — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:44:43 +0000

“Maybe there?s a joke in there, but I was too down-trodden to see it.” There is, but unfortunately the joke is on us. GWB unites all three wings of the Republican party (and if you think it’s an unnatural beast that has three wings, by George, you’re onto something): * The Bolshevik wing (Tom DeLay) that mostly believes in power for its own sake, secondarily believes in one-party Republican government, and uses any means it can to bring along the first two; * The monarchist wing (GHW Bush) that believes that the people who have always had power should always have power because they have always have power – they can also be counted to defend inherited wealth and other elements of privelige; * The Taliban wing (Rick Santorum) that believes that God has directly sanctioned their party’s agenda, and that it is vitally important that government be present in the bedroom to protect the people’s morals. The base is so hot for GWB it doesn’t know whether to kneel, salute or just fall prostrate at the mere mention of his name. The American republic will survive GWB, but it is a pity that it has to.

By: William Sjostrom

William Sjostrom — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:08:07 +0000

“hoary old chestnut”? What would a hoary young chestnut be? (Just trying to make my splenetic quota for the day.)

By: C.J.Colucci

C.J.Colucci — Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:01:05 +0000

Didn’t Adam Smith himself say much the same thing?