Adam Smith was seriously full of shit. — Vera Mont

Hence the notion of trickle down, and what trickles down.

I recall that cartoon! https://anticap.wordpress.com/tag/trickle-down/

:rofl:

Adam Smith was seriously full of shit. An Economist, was he? — Vera Mont

He was greatly admired by Maggie Thatcher and still is, by the UK tory party!
That's enough to utterly sink him for me forever.

itself having no direct usefulness — Vera Mont

Actually Georg Simmel talks a lot about how money achieves an independent and real function, concretizing the value of the intangible. As one of the "steering media" (Habermas) money has unique and definite influences.

As one of the "steering media" (Habermas) money has unique and definite influences. — Pantagruel

I already stipulated its influence, and its role in screwing up civilization, but direct usefulness means that a dog would understand it.

direct usefulness means that a dog would understand it. — Vera Mont

Arf?!?

"If you can't eat it or play with it, pee on it and walk away" Is the post-modern euphemistic poster version of the dog's approach to encountered objects. But I think we can all tell the difference between direct personal usefulness and second- or third-hand social utility. Here's the test: What five items would you pack to survive on a desert island?

I'd have to say that whether or not money is useful on a desert island isn't relevant to its possessing actual and unique force in the world at large.

I'd have to say that whether or not money is useful on a desert island isn't relevant to its possessing actual and unique force in the world at large. — Pantagruel

I was attempting to illustrate the distinction between what I call "direct utility" and what you call "a unique force" in the modern world. Money is an artificially imposed system for measuring the relative worth of things and people, a system whereby resources are collected and allocated unevenly. That's very different from a life necessity. A monetary system can collapse, can be arbitrarily changed, devalued, even abolished, without any loss to the other.

I was attempting to illustrate the distinction between what I call "direct utility" and what you call "a unique force" in the modern world. Money is an artificially imposed system for measuring the relative worth of things and people, a system whereby resources are collected and allocated unevenly. That's very different from a life necessity. A monetary system can collapse, can be arbitrarily changed, devalued, even abolished, without any loss to the other. — Vera Mont

How so?
Have you lived in a country that has undergone a major monetary change, like in a country that gave up its own currency in favor of the Euro?

The Adam Smith reference was both ironic and not. I think it's an instruction disguised as an "observation" or "explanation". A famous example of such a disguised instruction is "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger". It's obviously not true, for there are many maimed and broken people. But as an instruction saying that one should overcome adverse situations that are anything less than lethal it kind of makes sense. Similar with the Adam Smith reference. It seems it's saying that inequality and competition are natural, the natural order of things and that one must not indulge in compassion for others or otherwise concern oneself with social justice (or with big metaphysical problems), but instead look after one's own interests and cater to one's desires.

How so? — baker

Air stays air, water remains water; food is still edible; clothes and walls keep out the cold, regardless of who owns them or how much they cost. I was born shortly after WWII, when people in my country literally ran from work to the bakery, to buy bread before their money was devalued again. Mostly, they bartered real things for real things, because whatever has direct utility holds its value, regardless of monetary changes: we still need them when we have no money. When we have everything we require for a healthy life, we don't need money.

It seems it's saying that inequality and competition are natural, the natural order of things — baker

Except that the disparity of rich an poor only becomes "the natural order of things" when it's pronounced so by the spokesman for the caste that has grown rich on the labour of the castes below. There is no competition between a slave-owner and his property, nor between the CEO of a shipping company and a navvy in its employ. All that guff about natural competition might make some kind of sense if everyone played on the same field and had a say in making the rules.

What you describe is precisely that artificially imposed system of valuation to which I was referring.

Except that the disparity of rich an poor only becomes "the natural order of things" when it's pronounced so by the spokesman for the caste that has grown rich on the labour of the castes below. /.../ All that guff about natural competition might make some kind of sense if everyone played on the same field and had a say in making the rules. — Vera Mont

Like I've been saying, it seems to be about the difference between an instruction and a description.

Not all poor or otherwise disadvantaged people have a socialist (or some such) outlook. Some have a bourgeois mentality -- and they don't all stay poor for long.

What you describe is precisely that artificially imposed system of valuation to which I was referring. — Vera Mont

How is it artificial, if some people come out as the winners?

Not all poor or otherwise disadvantaged people have a socialist (or some such) outlook — baker

True. Some are brainwashed into believing no other arrangement is possible, or that they have their proper 'place' and should aspire to nothing more, nor envy their 'betters'. Some are deluded into believing that anyone can achieve their goals if only they work hard enough. Some are cajoled into accepting God's will and awaiting their reward on the Other Side.

Some have a bourgeois mentality -- and they don't all stay poor for long. — baker

Sure. One in a thousand work, innovate and elbow their way into the lower echelons of the middle class and their descendants might continue that upward mobility - unless they're wiped out by a bad illness or season or loan - or get caught in a 'market-adjustment' cycle. One in ten thousand get lucky or ruthless enough to make their fortune in the slave-trade, piracy, arms-smuggling, racketeering... and their descendants invest it legally, so that the third or fourth generation join the financial aristocracy. One in a hundred thousand exhibit some lucrative talent; unfortunately their descendants tend to be mediocre middle-middle class. One in a million marry into the aristocracy.

Not instructing here; merely describing, to show I've grasped the difference.

How is it artificial, if some people come out as the winners? — baker

I think I'll frame that.
https://theweek.com/cartoons/429889/editorial-cartoon-percent-playing-field

@Vera Mont
Do you want to be rich or do you want "social justice"?

That's the second most ... ah ... novel question I've been asked today.
Whatever the actual alternatives might be [since I doubt social justice is available atm] , of course I do not want to be rich!

I agree with your overall perspective....if I had to pick it would be social justice over wealth.

Similar with the Adam Smith reference. It seems it's saying that inequality and competition are natural, the natural order of things and that one must not indulge in compassion for others or otherwise concern oneself with social justice (or with big metaphysical problems), but instead look after one's own interests and cater to one's desires. — baker

What is your main source of evidence for the words I have underlined?
Evolution by natural selection and survival of the fittest?
If it is, then was cooperation and altruism, not also essential aspects of that experience as well?

The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better was published in 2009. Written by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson, the book highlights the "pernicious effects that inequality has on societies: eroding trust, increasing anxiety and illness, (and) encouraging excessive consumption". It shows that for each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage pregnancies, and child well-being, outcomes are significantly worse in more unequal rich countries.

Whatever the actual alternatives might be [since I doubt social justice is available atm] , of course I do not want to be rich! — Vera Mont

You kid, right?

The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better

So what do people in those "more equal" societies do with all that social trust, health, wellbeing, etc.? What do they use them for? There has to be some purpose to them.

Similar with the Adam Smith reference. It seems it's saying that inequality and competition are natural, the natural order of things and that one must not indulge in compassion for others or otherwise concern oneself with social justice (or with big metaphysical problems), but instead look after one's own interests and cater to one's desires.
— baker

What is your main source of evidence for the words I have underlined?
Evolution by natural selection and survival of the fittest?
If it is, then was cooperation and altruism, not also essential aspects of that experience as well? — universeness

Like I've been saying all along: It is my understanding that passages like the one quoted from Smith are meant to be taken as instructions, in an ideological sense, not as descriptions based on empirical observations.

You kid, right? — baker

Wrong! Wealth-accumulation is for assholes like Musk.

So what do people in those "more equal" societies do with all that social trust, health, wellbeing, etc.? What do they use them for? There has to be some purpose to them. — baker

They're healthier and happier than the striving, climbing, back-stabbing people. Plus, they're not so assholish. They seem be okay with that.

Like I've been saying all along: It is my understanding that passages like the one quoted from Smith are meant to be taken as instructions, in an ideological sense, not as descriptions based on empirical observations. — baker

AKA wishful thinking.

Like I've been saying all along: It is my understanding that passages like the one quoted from Smith are meant to be taken as instructions, in an ideological sense, not as descriptions based on empirical observations.
— baker
AKA wishful thinking. — Vera Mont

:up:

So, like any instructions that cause very negative outcomes, for the majority of all people, we all need to learn how to better identify such and disregard such.

Wrong! Wealth-accumulation is for assholes like Musk. — Vera Mont

People who say they don't value money are naive, or just lying.

So what do people in those "more equal" societies do with all that social trust, health, wellbeing, etc.? What do they use them for? There has to be some purpose to them.
— baker

They're healthier and happier than the striving, climbing, back-stabbing people. Plus, they're not so assholish. They seem be okay with that.

You didn't answer my question.

So what do people in those "more equal" societies do with all that social trust, health, wellbeing, etc.? What do they use them for?
Sip craft beer, eat organic chips, and watch Game of Thrones?


(And I can't view the video you posted, it's not available where I am.)

So what do people in those "more equal" societies do with all that social trust, health, wellbeing, etc.? What do they use them for? — baker

Living. If you want something different, ask someone else who, if they have different values from yours, are either naive or lying, so you'll never get a satisfactory answer.

(And I can't view the video you posted, it's not available where I am.)

No matter! You wouldn't understand it.

Has anyone ever ever observed this to be the case? It's not even true of the most basic necessities: people are still starving and freezing to death, even in prosperous societies. People are still denied life-saving medicine and clean water. — Vera Mont

Not all prosperous societies are American. :snicker:

Adam Smith was seriously full of shit. An Economist, was he? — Vera Mont

Actually he was a professor of moral philosophy. That and logic is what he taught for a living.

And actually he was against mercantilism and the old feudal society.

Living. — Vera Mont

Living -- doing what?

(And I can't view the video you posted, it's not available where I am.)
No matter! You wouldn't understand it.

This is supposed to be a philosophy forum. You should be able to offer more than your moral indignation.

This is supposed to be a philosophy forum. You should be able to offer more than your moral indignation. — baker

I was asked for an opinion and I gave it.
What moral indignation? If you do not yet understand that making life healthier and happier and more secure for the people living it as sufficient purpose, that video would not get you any closer to understanding it, so there's no point watching it.
And, as I am not a certified philosopher, neither can I give you sufficient explanation.