When a wealthy person increases investor salaries and purchase houses or jet planes that money doesn't just disappear, it continues to circulate, one aspect of that is paying the people who built the things you purchased, who then buy food, products, pay rent with it, which then goes to other people who do the same. I think his point in #9 would be that if you sit on money and just bury it in a ditch or keep it in a vault, rather than investing it and spending it, then you are decreasing the value of the broader economy, because that money a ceased to circulate. Modern banking solves that issue by circulating the money held by them in the forms of loans, investments, credit, and such so even keeping your money in a bank is being productive in the economy.
Totally. I did realize before this was posted that that would be the natural response to what I said - which I was making overly hyperbolic for *humor reasons* but didn’t acknowledge that of course consumption by the ultra-rich feeds into the economy to some degree. The better question (IMO) is not whether increasing top executive/top earner wealth feeds back into the economy AT ALL, but whether this is the best method of having more money circulate in the economy? Or are the investments made by top earners larger and/or more valuable than the investments made if that capital were allocated to the middle class? What percentage of wealth is actually sitting in banks to be used for investments? Are the types of investments made by banks actually ideal for society ?? Thanks for creating discussion in the comments 😍 -Lina
@@ChapterbyChapter Thank you for pinning and responding! Those are fair questions to ask and it might be fun to see some discussion on that outside of heated political theater we typically get.
Great discussion! But I think everything Smith says needs to be seen in a pre-Industrial Revolution context. Repeating the point he makes in a new historical context dominated by capital (especially monopoly capital) is inadequate, in my opinion. What appeared to Smith as the growth of the wealth of the nation turned out to become the valorization of value. Most liberals/conservatives who praise Smith nowadays are mistaken... he was very radical in his own time!
With number 6, and I hope I'm not coming across as a dick, I just like participating in the conversation, I have heard the argument at churches that the "Love others as you love yourself" in the Bible means you have to put yourself before others, it says as yourself not more than yourself. The argument I've heard from those Christians is that you need to be able to take care of yourself before you can begin to take care of others, they also cite the "remove the log from your eye before commenting on the speck in another" and the section about tithes that says you should only give willingly what you are comfortable to give, that doing it unwillingly makes the gift meaningless. All of those have been cited by the crowd that is self above others, I personally am still on the fence, I like to make my own interpretation and I haven't read the full Bible yet. Though the counter argument could be made that the whole theme of the Bible is self sacrifice, but maybe the counter back would be that the self sacrifice was in their self interest because of the whole human free will thing, people who embody that part of the faith maybe found it personally and spiritually valuable for them to sacrifice as their eyes were on a place in Heaven over things on the earth.
Exactly, it takes more time and effort for a single person to craft a shoe 👞, but the work of crafting the shoe could be simplified and divided in very small and simple tasks that can be easily done one step at a time by 100 people and craft the shoe in second, machines are way better than people doing this, computers too. So we can have enough shoes for everyone. Satisfying the shoe demand in the world for instance here in chile you can find a pair of shoes for 10 dollars. That is the marvel of capitalism and industrialization it can provide everything we need
I think you're right on number 7 lol, investing in public works might as well be saying "I don't think the government should be involved in the economy.... unless it wants to be" though I will say, Adam Smith isn't the only idol on the American right, I can't speak to the right in other countries, but Ayn Rand and John Locke are other examples of idols they have, Ayn Rand's objectivism being a more boiled down version of Locke and Smith's ideas of restricting government. Then there are some that they look up to who were straight up anarchists
@@ChapterbyChapter oops, I added some edits as the segment played on and I thought it through. Nice video though, I love seeing people discuss this stuff
Strongly disagree with point #8. In Adam Smiths time, the sheer cost of global shipping acted as a virtual tarriff on imported goods. Also, the USA used protective tarriffs to promote domestic manufacturing during its first century of existence. Grape growing is a bad example. I would look at textile manufacturing instead. Any country can set up a manufacturing base, but if they are flooded with cheap imports, there is no incentive to do so. Sure, the consumers pay the same price, but the profits end up leaving the country.
Much of Smith's writings have been intentionally misconstrued over the past centuries. Even the idea of the "invisible hand," in which he mentions a few times doesn't really refer to "free-market" principles, it's a critique on modern neoliberalism, where the manufacturers and merchants of mankind would prefer to invest domestically in England, rather than abroad, as if guided by an "invisible hand." Investors would turn abroad to enrich only their profit, while England would suffer, but their home bias would prevail.
When a wealthy person increases investor salaries and purchase houses or jet planes that money doesn't just disappear, it continues to circulate, one aspect of that is paying the people who built the things you purchased, who then buy food, products, pay rent with it, which then goes to other people who do the same. I think his point in #9 would be that if you sit on money and just bury it in a ditch or keep it in a vault, rather than investing it and spending it, then you are decreasing the value of the broader economy, because that money a ceased to circulate. Modern banking solves that issue by circulating the money held by them in the forms of loans, investments, credit, and such so even keeping your money in a bank is being productive in the economy.
Totally. I did realize before this was posted that that would be the natural response to what I said - which I was making overly hyperbolic for *humor reasons* but didn’t acknowledge that of course consumption by the ultra-rich feeds into the economy to some degree.
The better question (IMO) is not whether increasing top executive/top earner wealth feeds back into the economy AT ALL, but whether this is the best method of having more money circulate in the economy? Or are the investments made by top earners larger and/or more valuable than the investments made if that capital were allocated to the middle class? What percentage of wealth is actually sitting in banks to be used for investments? Are the types of investments made by banks actually ideal for society ??
Thanks for creating discussion in the comments 😍 -Lina
@@ChapterbyChapter Thank you for pinning and responding! Those are fair questions to ask and it might be fun to see some discussion on that outside of heated political theater we typically get.
Thanks for the video! Can you do some more das Kapital???
Great discussion! But I think everything Smith says needs to be seen in a pre-Industrial Revolution context. Repeating the point he makes in a new historical context dominated by capital (especially monopoly capital) is inadequate, in my opinion. What appeared to Smith as the growth of the wealth of the nation turned out to become the valorization of value. Most liberals/conservatives who praise Smith nowadays are mistaken... he was very radical in his own time!
With number 6, and I hope I'm not coming across as a dick, I just like participating in the conversation, I have heard the argument at churches that the "Love others as you love yourself" in the Bible means you have to put yourself before others, it says as yourself not more than yourself. The argument I've heard from those Christians is that you need to be able to take care of yourself before you can begin to take care of others, they also cite the "remove the log from your eye before commenting on the speck in another" and the section about tithes that says you should only give willingly what you are comfortable to give, that doing it unwillingly makes the gift meaningless. All of those have been cited by the crowd that is self above others, I personally am still on the fence, I like to make my own interpretation and I haven't read the full Bible yet. Though the counter argument could be made that the whole theme of the Bible is self sacrifice, but maybe the counter back would be that the self sacrifice was in their self interest because of the whole human free will thing, people who embody that part of the faith maybe found it personally and spiritually valuable for them to sacrifice as their eyes were on a place in Heaven over things on the earth.
Exactly, it takes more time and effort for a single person to craft a shoe 👞, but the work of crafting the shoe could be simplified and divided in very small and simple tasks that can be easily done one step at a time by 100 people and craft the shoe in second, machines are way better than people doing this, computers too.
So we can have enough shoes for everyone. Satisfying the shoe demand in the world for instance here in chile you can find a pair of shoes for 10 dollars. That is the marvel of capitalism and industrialization it can provide everything we need
I think you're right on number 7 lol, investing in public works might as well be saying "I don't think the government should be involved in the economy.... unless it wants to be" though I will say, Adam Smith isn't the only idol on the American right, I can't speak to the right in other countries, but Ayn Rand and John Locke are other examples of idols they have, Ayn Rand's objectivism being a more boiled down version of Locke and Smith's ideas of restricting government. Then there are some that they look up to who were straight up anarchists
Haha yep😄
@@ChapterbyChapter oops, I added some edits as the segment played on and I thought it through. Nice video though, I love seeing people discuss this stuff
Strongly disagree with point #8.
In Adam Smiths time, the sheer cost of global shipping acted as a virtual tarriff on imported goods.
Also, the USA used protective tarriffs to promote domestic manufacturing during its first century of existence.
Grape growing is a bad example. I would look at textile manufacturing instead. Any country can set up a manufacturing base, but if they are flooded with cheap imports, there is no incentive to do so.
Sure, the consumers pay the same price, but the profits end up leaving the country.
Much of Smith's writings have been intentionally misconstrued over the past centuries. Even the idea of the "invisible hand," in which he mentions a few times doesn't really refer to "free-market" principles, it's a critique on modern neoliberalism, where the manufacturers and merchants of mankind would prefer to invest domestically in England, rather than abroad, as if guided by an "invisible hand." Investors would turn abroad to enrich only their profit, while England would suffer, but their home bias would prevail.
If possible please do a series with Black book of communism.
I don't see how is this a discussion. If this topic bores her out why did she join?
I’m not bored, I’m just feeling sassy
Idiocy.