• novibe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I love how Adam Smith was literally mocking market absolutists when he coined the term “invisible hand”. Like he was mocking people who believed the market was a self regulating divine entity, and likened how they saw the market regulating itself to how god would “regulate” nature, with his “invisible hand”.

      None of these nerds ever read Adam Smith and keep using his words to support them…

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Smith also agreed with Marx that under capitalism the wage for most labor will spiral down to the lowest amount capable of keeping a human being alive, damning the proletariat to live in filth regardless of how much wealth they’re actually able to produce. If you look at modern libertarian arguments against wealth redistribution, they all tacitly admit that the system is designed to keep an army of people fighting with one another to be the one who lives with the least. That’s what their inflation argument is, it’s an admission that no matter how much wealth labor creates, or even how much they’re allowed to keep, the cost of living under capitalism will simply rise to ensure that that amount is the new bare minimum. That’s what happened in America after WWII, it took less than one generation of unfettered capitalism to go from “one member of a family can make enough money to keep that family in relative luxury” to “between the two of us we have four jobs and we still go to bed hungry to afford our kids’ medicine”.

        • novibe@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Smith was almost an anti-capitalist, but dude was too optimistic. He foresaw how things could go wrong, and how some were already going wrong, but he saw capitalism as the material manifestation of enlightenment ideals (as did most liberals) and thought in the end, when it won out, it would bring the ideals into reality.

          I’m sure if he was born a century or more later, he would be a socialist lmao.

      • My Rum is Vodka!@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yup, pretty much. People do the same with other authors too, not just in economy. (Machiavelli comes to my mind.) Except that for economy you always have this bullshit in the defence of someone’s interests, that may or may not be the one babbling it.