I thought I'd start a thread here in this sub-forum discussing economic thought from Smith to Stuart Mill and from Friedman to the Physiocrats. I could then split it into separate threads as it develops. Since this site aims to discuss the systems under-pinning all that is around us, I thought it would be appropriate to focus the discussion on how these economic thinkers' ideas would affect the social, political and economic systems which surround us today.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

I thought I'd start a thread here in this sub-forum discussing economic thought from Smith to Stuart Mill and from Friedman to the Physiocrats. I could then split it into separate threads as it develops. Since this site aims to discuss the systems under-pinning all that is around us, I thought it would be appropriate to focus the discussion on how these economic thinkers' ideas would affect the social, political and economic systems which surround us today.

I must admit, a discussion on market mechanisms without having to fight off a thousand accusations of being a neoliberal fascist would be nice.

Can you be a neoliberal fascist?

ibis wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

I thought I'd start a thread here in this sub-forum discussing economic thought from Smith to Stuart Mill and from Friedman to the Physiocrats. I could then split it into separate threads as it develops. Since this site aims to discuss the systems under-pinning all that is around us, I thought it would be appropriate to focus the discussion on how these economic thinkers' ideas would affect the social, political and economic systems which surround us today.

I must admit, a discussion on market mechanisms without having to fight off a thousand accusations of being a neoliberal fascist would be nice.

Let's have it then, yeh libertarian loony!

I'm particularly fascinated by the re-birth of Keynesianism ever since the credit crunch. Government support, fiscal expansion and interventionist monetary policy have all combined to create a new paradigm in global markets. I blame Friedman, if he hadn't died in 2006, he'd have kept us to the faith in the invisible hands of markets!

ibis wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

I thought I'd start a thread here in this sub-forum discussing economic thought from Smith to Stuart Mill and from Friedman to the Physiocrats. I could then split it into separate threads as it develops. Since this site aims to discuss the systems under-pinning all that is around us, I thought it would be appropriate to focus the discussion on how these economic thinkers' ideas would affect the social, political and economic systems which surround us today.

I must admit, a discussion on market mechanisms without having to fight off a thousand accusations of being a neoliberal fascist would be nice.

An now, I'm proudly neo-liberal but a fascist too. How terrible.

Good thread though, but I fear it's a thinker thread, slowly developing a host of interesting and lengthy posts.

ibis wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

I thought I'd start a thread here in this sub-forum discussing economic thought from Smith to Stuart Mill and from Friedman to the Physiocrats. I could then split it into separate threads as it develops. Since this site aims to discuss the systems under-pinning all that is around us, I thought it would be appropriate to focus the discussion on how these economic thinkers' ideas would affect the social, political and economic systems which surround us today.

I must admit, a discussion on market mechanisms without having to fight off a thousand accusations of being a neoliberal fascist would be nice.

You won't have to, I can simply delete the offending(and off-topic) posts and we're all good.

Locke sank into a swoon;
The Garden died;
God took the spinning-jenny
Out of his side.

Where got I this truth?
Out of a medium's mouth,
Out of nothing it came,
Out of the forest loam,
Out of dark night where lay
The crowns of Nineveh.


W.B. Yeats, fragment

Do you think you can discuss the history of money without referring to the history of machinery, alchemy and war?

(alchemy=science - I was trying to be poetic)

Auditor #9 wrote

Quote :

Do you think you can discuss the history of money without referring to the history of machinery, alchemy and war?

Actually, alchemy is probably a well chosen word in the context because it's a bit more specific than just science -the art of turning base metals into precious ones is what commerce does by putting a monetary value on almost every dull thing. Machinery is a means of creating more dull things, directly or indirectly and war creates situations where those who might like to are no longer in a position to control the value of (and access to) goods. I'd say you're spot on.

The history of money theory seems dominated by men, according to my limited memory and knowledge of the subject, but can you hypothesise what an economics canon would have been like if it had been dominated by women instead? Is this the right thread for this discussion?

Auditor #9 wrote:

The history of money theory seems dominated by men, according to my limited memory and knowledge of the subject, but can you hypothesise what an economics canon would have been like if it had been dominated by women instead? Is this the right thread for this discussion?

I wouldn't think this thread to be exactly suited to the discussion you outline above, Auditor #9. While it is a valid debate we could have, I felt this thread should discuss, for example, the relevance of Plato's The Republic to the statist development plans pursued by China. We could speculate on Jean-Baptiste Say's reaction to the protectionist instincts of his modern countrymen. We could also discuss the failure of Marxism in the constext of Vietnamese and (inevitably) Cuban and North Korean economic liberalisations. I thought by putting economic thought in a modern context, we could identify its relevance to the world today.

I'll start a thread on that topic all the same. It is a worthy discussion.

I believe I said in the OP that we were discussing economic thought in the context of social and political systems through time. I think we can allow wars to be discussed in the context of economic history on foot of that.

My God. What were ye thinking leaving Ard-T to moderate an economic forum! Aaaaaaargh.......................

kn wrote:

My God. What were ye thinking leaving Ard-T to moderate an economic forum! Aaaaaaargh.......................

You are welcome to create your own space kn we won't let Ard-T wreck your buzz.

kn wrote:

My God. What were ye thinking leaving Ard-T to moderate an economic forum! Aaaaaaargh.......................

I was wondering how long it would take you to make a comment like that! I am a fair and impartial Moderator. I am a believer in free speech and will only trammel your bearish instincts in the interests of spelling, grammar and relevance to the topic. This is an off-topic comment, remember to keep all comments posted on topic. This is a first warning.

Well, could someone start the discussion somewhere so that those of us who know damn all about economics (and science - why am I here?) can begin to educate ourselves?

Pick a theory, any theory...

Just to go back before Adam Smith and the Industrial Revolution, was there any coherent body of thought/theories about economics (if there is now) around then or was it just monarchies levying taxes, currencies, incipient banks, conquesting armies and colonising nations?

When was banking invented, for example (the Medici's come to mind during the Renaissance in Venice) and was there any coherence about economic thought in Rome/Greece?

Francis Bacon and Thomas More are also coming into mind (New Atlantis and Utopia) but off the top of my head I couldn't say anything about their views on economics. Also Hobbes about whom I can say even less...except that he said that life in a state of nature was nasty brutish and short..

I've been inspired to Read An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, again.

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production... smashing stuff.

cookiemonster wrote:

I've been inspired to Read An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, again.

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production... smashing stuff.

I can't help feeling the word 'profit' is missing from that equation somewhere.

Which one is the most true ?

Consumption is the purpose of all production...
Consumption and profit is the purpose of all production...

I'm confused now.

Why not add 'providing life-long pensionable jobs' to the list, ya capitalist pig-dog?

905 wrote:

Why not add 'providing life-long pensionable jobs' to the list, ya capitalist pig-dog?

That's a by-product of production, not a purpose of production ?

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

cookiemonster wrote:

I've been inspired to Read An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, again.

Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production... smashing stuff.

I can't help feeling the word 'profit' is missing from that equation somewhere.

Which one is the most true ?

Consumption is the purpose of all production...
Consumption and profit is the purpose of all production...

I'm confused now.

On this type of thing, I wonder do economists regularly stray into psychology by assuming that there are special human motivations for production, which affect their equations?

There is nothing like sex and death to get people producing. But somewhere along the way we sublimated those base passions into the sophisticated and complicated social/mechanical fabric all around us...

Survival and war/power are other great passions which have stirred us to produce, invent, fix, make. Curiosity less so but could be gaining ground ...

So, in the end, everything comes down to survival.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

So, in the end, everything comes down to survival.

yes and no

Auditor #9 wrote:

Just to go back before Adam Smith and the Industrial Revolution, was there any coherent body of thought/theories about economics (if there is now) around then or was it just monarchies levying taxes, currencies, incipient banks, conquesting armies and colonising nations?

The Physiocrats and Mercantilists predated Adam Smith and the Classical School of Economics. The Physiocrats provided the inspiration to Adam Smith's opinions and his time with Quesnay and Turgot in Paris who were prominent Physiocrats were a formative experience.

Quote :

When was banking invented, for example (the Medici's come to mind during the Renaissance in Venice) and was there any coherence about economic thought in Rome/Greece?

Aristotle and Plato had some ideas on how society should be organised, how goods should be produced and who should own them. They also had views on what was wealth and what was not.

Quote :

Francis Bacon and Thomas More are also coming into mind (New Atlantis and Utopia) but off the top of my head I couldn't say anything about their views on economics. Also Hobbes about whom I can say even less...except that he said that life in a state of nature was nasty brutish and short..

Indeed. That's in his work Leviathan. Thomas More is also a good source of opinion since his work, Utopia, could be defined as an economic treatise as it relates to human experience.