• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So did private ownership

    That wasn’t what Capitalism was about

    In the wealth of nations Smith talks great lengths about the labourer being king of the market not the landowners and that with advancement in technology costs should go down except land owners prevent that

    The whole system is supposed to favour the labourer compared to Mercantilism where the rich got richer because they owned the production

    It also praised the American colonies for open immigration saying they could double their population faster than anyone in Europe and that would double their economy

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      I think one of the main problems with Smith’s conception of capitalism is that he didn’t account for how huge and pervasive and intrusive advertising would become. He naively assumed that the best product would dominate the market when actually people will buy whatever is thrust in front of the their eyes a thousand times a day.

      And of course corporate lobbying wasn’t such an issue in his time.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        We have term limits for governments but not for corporations

        Their ability to last indefinitely allows them more control than anyone thought possible

        And no matter what system you choose; they will act in self interest that will allow them to expand/erode the system to benefit themselves

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        No, the problem with Smith’s capitalism is that he’s constantly misrepresented

        He was descriptive, not prescriptive. He was not an advocate of capitalism, he was explaining it - and if you read the wealth of nations and your takeaway was “Lassie Faire capitalism is a good idea”, reread it

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          I appreciate your critique but I’ve got to be honest and say that I’m not going to spend any more time in my life trying to justify late stage capitalism. It will eventually be replaced and pass into history like every other economic system, if it doesn’t kill us first. 💣

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            My point is that Adam Smith wasn’t really an advocate of capitalism, he explained it and made a strong case for the necessity of regulation

    • @rockSlayer
      link
      31 year ago

      Smith can talk all he wants, that doesn’t make his analysis correct.

        • @rockSlayer
          link
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          And we know now that his analysis on the outcome of capitalism is incorrect. Capitalism exists for the private property holders to extract as much wealth and power as possible from their privileged position. That unrelenting pursuit of profit has led to even worse inequality, and is collapsing entire ecosystems. It’s a disaster of an economic system full of contradictions. Those contradictions are now causing capitalism to collapse in on itself.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            So you realize that the problems with capitalism are what it set out to prevent

            That doesn’t make the core of capitalism the opposite

            That means it’s not true capitalism

            The problem is greed that will exist in any system because people with power will degrade/morph any system to be self serving