RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
I appreciate the elaboration on Smith's moral philosophy, but the context of this discussion was whether Nader and populists were more like Smith than not. My clipped summary of Smith emphasized the contrast. No embroidery of Smith's moral thought can find any contact with the basic thrust of political populism, either 19th century style or Naderite. Restoring or creating fair market competition is not the most pressing theme in Nader's repertory, though it is not absent either. We should be at least as interested in accurately gauging current political trends as we are in rehabilitating dead economists. mbs Unfortunatetly, quoting of the butcher and baker passage out of context is exactly what the 1980s Adam Smith tie-wearing Reaganite Gordon Greed is Good Gekko types did to promote the idea of Smith as an unabashed promoter of self-interest. . . .
Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
I would say, Max, that while Smith may not approve of the populists, the populists saw themselves as in line with a Smithian interpretation of the world. On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 02:30:26PM -0500, Max Sawicky wrote: I appreciate the elaboration on Smith's moral philosophy, but the context of this discussion was whether Nader and populists were more like Smith than not. My clipped summary of Smith emphasized the contrast. No embroidery of Smith's moral thought can find any contact with the basic thrust of political populism, either 19th century style or Naderite. Restoring or creating fair market competition is not the most pressing theme in Nader's repertory, though it is not absent either. We should be at least as interested in accurately gauging current political trends as we are in rehabilitating dead economists. mbs Unfortunatetly, quoting of the butcher and baker passage out of context is exactly what the 1980s Adam Smith tie-wearing Reaganite Gordon Greed is Good Gekko types did to promote the idea of Smith as an unabashed promoter of self-interest. . . . -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
Michael Perelman writes:I would say, Max, that while Smith may not approve of the populists, the populists saw themselves as in line with a Smithian interpretation of the world. the above makes sense to me: in the U.S., at least, the late 19th century Populist movement was one of the little guys against the power of the elites (Eastern bankers, etc.) The cry was that the Big Corporations were rigging the market against the little guys. This suggests that the markets needed to be unrigged rather replaced by something different and better. That fits with the general Smithian viewpoint (though not necessarily with the _laissez-faire_ interpretation of his ideas). (Populism generally means a conflict between the mass of little guys against the elite, rather than a battle between classes or to end class domination.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
The observation about the populist theme of the many and the few, in contrast to class, is accurate. So much the worse for hackneyed class analysis. (Workers and peasants of the Bronx!) The way the Pops chose to 'unrig' the market included a) nationalizing the railroads; b) co-ops allowing farmers to band together in buying supplies and selling their output; and c) a new monetary system to replace the extant chaos of private banks. Laying this to Adam Smith is quite a stretch, sort of like looking for crucifixion symbolism in Hemingway. -- mbs the above makes sense to me: in the U.S., at least, the late 19th century Populist movement was one of the little guys against the power of the elites (Eastern bankers, etc.) The cry was that the Big Corporations were rigging the market against the little guys. This suggests that the markets needed to be unrigged rather replaced by something different and better. That fits with the general Smithian viewpoint (though not necessarily with the _laissez-faire_ interpretation of his ideas).
RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left
I agree that characterization of Smith as populist seems peculiar to me. That said, I think many other characterizations of Smith are also wrong. Advocating markets in the 18th c., when the fetters of euro-feudal life were still in force strongly, and advocating markets in the late 20th c., are two very different things. But I understand that Max is interested in characterizations of Nader and not Smith, though his crack about 'dead economists' misses the point that many of us are interested in the writers of the past because we believe the issues they raised, and even debates about how we are to understand them, are relevant to the current political economy. I'm not interested in history of thought like admiring antique furniture or whatever--I'm interested in the ideas, and unlike most economists today I don't assume that whatever is more recent is better. Mat -Original Message- From: Max Sawicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 1:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:24586] RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: We are what's left I appreciate the elaboration on Smith's moral philosophy, but the context of this discussion was whether Nader and populists were more like Smith than not. My clipped summary of Smith emphasized the contrast. No embroidery of Smith's moral thought can find any contact with the basic thrust of political populism, either 19th century style or Naderite. Restoring or creating fair market competition is not the most pressing theme in Nader's repertory, though it is not absent either. We should be at least as interested in accurately gauging current political trends as we are in rehabilitating dead economists. mbs Unfortunatetly, quoting of the butcher and baker passage out of context is exactly what the 1980s Adam Smith tie-wearing Reaganite Gordon Greed is Good Gekko types did to promote the idea of Smith as an unabashed promoter of self-interest. . . .
