Tags
Adam Smith, Charles Scamahorn, Karl Marx, Nassim Talab, Pamela McCorduck, Ultimate importance for living things
The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith got it right way back in 1776. Just now Nassim Taleb, with his new book Antifragile, seems to be discovering anew just how prescient Smith’s ideas were and still are. My friend back in the 80s, Pamela McCorduck, had it right also, as you can see in her video. I haven’t been totally remiss about my debt to Smith, and I visited his grave when in Edinburgh.
Adam Smith and Charles Scamahorn in Edinburgh Scotland
Adam Smith was a primogenitor of Darwinism, as well as functional evolution-driven economic theory. Karl Marx‘s books Capital and The Communist Manifesto were efforts to go beyond the seemingly cold Invisible Hand of Adam Smith, but unfortunately Mark’s optimistic theories didn’t work out well in application, and tens of millions of people died as a result of what seemed to be misapplication of his hopeful ideas. Perhaps Marxist’s approach to human behavior is impossible to apply for reasons which we can’t fully comprehend, and Smith’s free market system gives better results. It is now 236 years (2012 —1776) since Smith published, and even with all of that experience it seems that governments and people in general can’t help but try to close the gap on the chaos (as described by McCorduck and Taleb) of the marketplace and replace it with a rational system which seems to make more sense. Living in chaos, in between randomness and rigidity as described by Smith, creates the most adaptive and thus most productive living force and that force is maximized by encouraging the processes of natural selection to work their benefits.
Adam Smith was the most important person in history. Gasp?
I have not read this book, but fear that I have already been spoiled by Smith’s “invisible hand” notion of economics, due to its dilution of a couple of hundred of year’s usage. I might misunderstand it entirely, in fact.
See this interesting article relevant to your post:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/sleight-of-the-invisible-hand/
Opines John Paul Rollert from The Opinionator:
“The wealthy, says Smith, spend their days establishing an “economy of greatness,” one founded on “luxury and caprice” and fueled by “the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires.” Any broader benefit that accrues from their striving is not the consequence of foresight or benevolence, but “in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity.” They don’t do good, they are led to it.
The moral paradox of the invisible hand often seems lost on those who speak loudest in its favor. Take the stubborn rhetoric of the “jobs creators.” Insofar as it portrays a conspicuous group of people who act with conscious moral purpose, it bears no resemblance to the phenomenon Smith describes.” -(Rollert, 2012, The Opinionator).
Moral paradoxes are fun, if disturbing.
Thanks for the book recommendation. Interesting to note how long Smith revised before publication, and that his invisible principle is the lasting artifact for laypeople.
Pingback: December 2012 – Probaway.wordpress.com – web posts | Probaway - Life Hacks
Pingback: Condensed thoughts 2012 | Probaway - Life Hacks