Why leftist hate economics so much?

Post Reply New Topic

Umm..... yeah....

No, that isn't true. Intelligence is important for the acquisition of wealth, but it isn't the only variable at all. Not even close.

People who advocate "pure" laissez faire are acting on faith..

1. It has never been practiced fully anywhere.

2. Even when practiced partially it has not always produced the promised results.

Clearly laissez faire does not capture what is required for a properly working economy over the long haul. Neither does socialism. If anything socialism is worse in laissez faire when it malfunctions which it almost always does.

ruveyn

I really love your calibre of thought. "Because some rich Premier wants to cut in line, that means the system doesn't work". The main problem with Canada's healthcare is that the Federal Government stopped funding it sufficiently.

And I love that one anecdote about some autistic not being able to get into an Edmonton emergency room, as many American Health Insurance companies consider "Asperger syndrome" a pre-existing condition and HMO death panels use that to deny them coverage.

Let me, a Manitoban Aspie, describe why I love my Manitoba Health Card:

1) I was diagnosed with Type I diabetes on the basis of it.
2) I was diagnosed with Asperger's early on thanks to the healthcare system.
3) I was "skipped ahead" in line after a car accident because of potential complications from my Type-I Diabetes.
4) I was diagnosed with Celiac thanks to it.
5) I was provided - for a brief time - with a Mental Health worker thanks to it.

Actually, I think his claim is this:
Free things are used beyond the point where the marginal benefit exceeds the marginal cost. That actually is a basic point in economics.


His point can be restated in a belief that a person's willingness to take care of themselves likely responds to incentives. This doesn't mean "they'd go nuts", but if we are charitable, we could argue that people respond to costs. There are problems with the argument, but "incentives matter" isn't entirely silly, even if it is proven psychologically wrong, which it very well could be. (Actually, I'd bet he has a point, but not enough of one to be that powerful)


Y'know, with people who just don't seem to get it, I don't really bother with that policy.

It is from the Wealth of Nations. It is a legitimate quote. Basically, this quote is one of the reasons there are tensions in Adam Smith's actual views on things. He also is quoted in that book as saying that every gathering of business men ends in a conspiracy against the common good.

Adam Smith was not vile. He likely wasn't that hard-nosed, as his work "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" is often praised as a relatively holistic account of human morality.

I really will have to ask you what you mean by "faith". I think an intelligent person really can advocate this position for intellectually solid reasons.

My grand-daughter, Hannah, received all of these benefits without a pinko stinko socialist health care card right here in the U.S.A.

That is why I love the absence of a government issued health care card.

ruveyn

You mean this guy?! !

"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of the workman. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book I, Chapter VIII, pg.80

"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book I, Chapter IX, pg.117

"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workman,its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book I, Chapter x, Part II, pg.168

"But what all the violence of the feudal institutions could never have effected, the silent and insensible operation of foreign commerce and manufactures gradually brought about."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book III, Chapter IV, pg.448

"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book III, Chapter IV, pg.448

"Goods can serve many other purposes besides purchasing money,but money can serve no other purpose besides purchasing goods."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book IV, Chapter I, pg.471

"The commodities of Europe were almost all new to America, and many of those of America were new to Europe. A new set of exchanges, therefore, began..and which should naturally have proved as advantageous to the new, as it certainly did to the old continent. The savage injustice of the Europeans rendered an event, which ought to have been beneficial to all, ruinous and destructive to several of those unfortunate countries. "
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book IV, Chapter I, pg.481

"To expect, indeed, that the freedom of trade should ever be entirely restored in Great Britain, is as absurd as to expect that an Oceana or Utopia should never be established in it."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book IV, Chapter II, pg.505

"The government of an exclusive company of merchants is, perhaps, the worst of all governments for any country whatever."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book IV, Chapter VII, Part Second, p. 619

"To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers, may at first appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers; but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book IV, Chapter VII, Part Third, pg.667

"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book IV, Chapter VIII, pg.719

"According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to; three duties of great importance, indeed, but plain and intelligible to common understandings: First, the duty of protecting the society from violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice; and, thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit would never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book IV, Chapter IX, pg. 749

"Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book V, Chapter I, Part II, pg.770

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book V, Chapter I, Part II, 775

"The tolls for the maintenance of a high road, cannot with any safety be made the property of private persons."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book V, Chapter I, Part III, Article I, pg.786

"Though the principles of the banking trade may appear somewhat abstruse, the practice is capable of being reduced to strict rules. To depart upon any occasion from these rules, in consequence of some flattering speculation of extraordinary gain, is almost always extremely dangerous, and frequently fatal to the banking company which attempts it."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book V, Chapter I, Part III, pg.820

"The education of the common people requires, perhaps, in a civilized and commercial society, the attention of the public more then that of people of some rank and fortune."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book V, Chapter I, Part III, pg.845

"For a very small expence the public can facilitate, can encourage, and can even impose upon almost the whole body of the people, the necessity of acquiring those most essential parts of education."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book V, Chapter I, Part III, Article II, p.847

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities, that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book V, Chapter II, Part II, pg.892

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

"Every tax, however, is to the person who pays it a badge, not of slavery but of liberty. It denotes that he is a subject to government, indeed, but that, as he has some property, he cannot himself be the property of a master."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book V, Chapter II, Part II, pg.927

"But bounty and hospitality very seldom lead to extravagance; though vanity almost always does."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Book V, Chapter III, Part V, pg.987

Did she receive 1&2 when living in a household that earned less than $15,000 a year?

Right, M_P, it is sort of interesting, as the copy I have of the Wealth of Nations talks about a debate between two figures on whether Adam Smith would have favored the minimum wage. The mere fact that this is even a question strongly suggests that Adam Smith isn't a libertarian god. There are other historical figures that have greater relevancy to Austro-libertarians.

Ruveyn's grand-daughter was quite lucky. We were denied an evaluation for my son (since diagnosed with AS) several times before finding a doctor who didn't mind a little "creative coding." In NY, the gov. recently vetoed a bill that would require insurance companies to cover autism treatments. This was a significant reason to why we chose to leave the state.

Oh very impressive.

I'm smarter than 99% of the world population. If I take your claims at face value, then there are nearly 300 million people in this world who are smarter than you, but dumber then me. I am not going to be extremely wealthy, and it has nothing to do with government intervention. In fact, I would be significantly worse off economically if not for government intervention. I know some true idiots who are going to be extremely wealthy thanks to family connections rather than their own alleged genius. Wealth is not decided on the basis of intelligence.

I'm starting to wonder whether LibertarianAS is really just a parody troll. I mean, his whole "my 95th percentile IQ means I should be a billionaire" belief seems like something these guys would write were they parodying the right-libertopians.

The title of this thread is misleading, I'll have you know that I'm left handed and I like economics!

I live in Canada and many peoples there are concerned about they health, it's not like peoples WANT to be sick. Also, even with the most perfect healthcare system of the world good habits still give you a better longevity.

And for the moral question... I must say welcome to WrongPlanet, here you will see many smart and decents peoples unable to get a decent job and/or sucess in college study. Things like depression and executive disfunctions can really put down your live. I'm myself live under welfare, at least it's pay for my antidepressants.
Hoh come are you assuming that peoples in Ghetto are lazy anyway? I don't think you have any idea what it's like to living there. (I don't know this life personally, but open your eye on this reality and you will understand tha it's a hard life.)


So because you're "smarter" that most peoples you think that you're better and that you're deserve more that most peoples? What kind of reasonning is that!? Something inflating your ego, I guess

Pretty standard, really. Most people consider ability, knowledge, and experience to be owned by the individual, and thus consider that person to have right to the full rewards of that. An argument is usually not needed. The major person to first question this is probably John Rawls.