Is Adam Smith right or wrong ?

[CultureCitizen]

"Every species of animals naturally multiplies in proportion to the means of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply beyond it. But in civilized society it is only among the inferior ranks of people that the scantiness of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of the human species; and it can do so in no other way than by destroying a great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce."

VIII. Book I. Of the Wages of Labour. Smith, Adam. 1909-14. Wealth of Nations. The Harvard Classics.

Is scantiness the only way to stop poor people from reproducing?
Or have the last 200 years proved him wrong?

 

[oldfart]

"Every species of animals naturally multiplies in proportion to the means of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply beyond it. But in civilized society it is only among the inferior ranks of people that the scantiness of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of the human species; and it can do so in no other way than by destroying a great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce."

VIII. Book I. Of the Wages of Labour. Smith, Adam. 1909-14. Wealth of Nations. The Harvard Classics.

Is scantiness the only way to stop poor people from reproducing?
Or have the last 200 years proved him wrong?

Thomas Malthus advanced the argument, calling for moral instruction as a curb to population growth to avoid a population so high it outran its resources. Today the argument has become rather peculiar. Much of the developed world has birth rates below replacement level, especially Japan and Northern Europe) and Russia is projected to decline in population to 150 million. At the same time birth rates in Africa remain higher than projected, raising questions about the models that predicted declining birth rates with economic development. So the jury is still out!

 

[georgephillip]

"Every species of animals naturally multiplies in proportion to the means of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply beyond it. But in civilized society it is only among the inferior ranks of people that the scantiness of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of the human species; and it can do so in no other way than by destroying a great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce."

VIII. Book I. Of the Wages of Labour. Smith, Adam. 1909-14. Wealth of Nations. The Harvard Classics.

Is scantiness the only way to stop poor people from reproducing?
Or have the last 200 years proved him wrong?

Are you using scantiness as a synonym for scarcity?

"Examples of Scarcity

"Scarcity is fewer resources than are needed to fill human wants and needs. These resources can be resources that come from the land, labor resources or capital resources. Scarcity is considered a basic economic problem."

Maybe we also have to consider what Smith's use of the word "naturally" meant in the 18th Century versus the effects that today's corporate speculators have on poor peoples means of subsistence?

 

[CultureCitizen]

"Every species of animals naturally multiplies in proportion to the means of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply beyond it. But in civilized society it is only among the inferior ranks of people that the scantiness of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of the human species; and it can do so in no other way than by destroying a great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce."

VIII. Book I. Of the Wages of Labour. Smith, Adam. 1909-14. Wealth of Nations. The Harvard Classics.

Is scantiness the only way to stop poor people from reproducing?
Or have the last 200 years proved him wrong?

Are you using scantiness as a synonym for scarcity?

"Examples of Scarcity

"Scarcity is fewer resources than are needed to fill human wants and needs. These resources can be resources that come from the land, labor resources or capital resources. Scarcity is considered a basic economic problem."

Maybe we also have to consider what Smith's use of the word "naturally" meant in the 18th Century versus the effects that today's corporate speculators have on poor peoples means of subsistence?

Not me... they are the words of Adam Smith , not mine.

 

[CultureCitizen]

"Every species of animals naturally multiplies in proportion to the means of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply beyond it. But in civilized society it is only among the inferior ranks of people that the scantiness of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of the human species; and it can do so in no other way than by destroying a great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce."

VIII. Book I. Of the Wages of Labour. Smith, Adam. 1909-14. Wealth of Nations. The Harvard Classics.

Is scantiness the only way to stop poor people from reproducing?
Or have the last 200 years proved him wrong?

Thomas Malthus advanced the argument, calling for moral instruction as a curb to population growth to avoid a population so high it outran its resources. Today the argument has become rather peculiar. Much of the developed world has birth rates below replacement level, especially Japan and Northern Europe) and Russia is projected to decline in population to 150 million. At the same time birth rates in Africa remain higher than projected, raising questions about the models that predicted declining birth rates with economic development. So the jury is still out!

What about China and India? They are still poor contries and their birth rates are declining.

 

[georgephillip]

"Every species of animals naturally multiplies in proportion to the means of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply beyond it. But in civilized society it is only among the inferior ranks of people that the scantiness of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of the human species; and it can do so in no other way than by destroying a great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce."

VIII. Book I. Of the Wages of Labour. Smith, Adam. 1909-14. Wealth of Nations. The Harvard Classics.

Is scantiness the only way to stop poor people from reproducing?
Or have the last 200 years proved him wrong?

Are you using scantiness as a synonym for scarcity?

"Examples of Scarcity

"Scarcity is fewer resources than are needed to fill human wants and needs. These resources can be resources that come from the land, labor resources or capital resources. Scarcity is considered a basic economic problem."

Maybe we also have to consider what Smith's use of the word "naturally" meant in the 18th Century versus the effects that today's corporate speculators have on poor peoples means of subsistence?

Not me... they are the words of Adam Smith , not mine.

What do you think Smith meant when he used the words "free market?"

 

[CultureCitizen]

Are you using scantiness as a synonym for scarcity?

"Examples of Scarcity

"Scarcity is fewer resources than are needed to fill human wants and needs. These resources can be resources that come from the land, labor resources or capital resources. Scarcity is considered a basic economic problem."

Maybe we also have to consider what Smith's use of the word "naturally" meant in the 18th Century versus the effects that today's corporate speculators have on poor peoples means of subsistence?

Not me... they are the words of Adam Smith , not mine.

What do you think Smith meant when he used the words "free market?"

I know the modern definition of free market , but I am clueless about Adam Smith's definition.

Modern definition : Market economy based on supply and demand with little government intervention. I'll have to add that conditions akin to perfect competition need to exist for this principle to work.... but I think this "free market" discussion is rather tangencial to the topic of the thread.

 

[oldfart]

Thomas Malthus advanced the argument, calling for moral instruction as a curb to population growth to avoid a population so high it outran its resources. Today the argument has become rather peculiar. Much of the developed world has birth rates below replacement level, especially Japan and Northern Europe) and Russia is projected to decline in population to 150 million. At the same time birth rates in Africa remain higher than projected, raising questions about the models that predicted declining birth rates with economic development. So the jury is still out!

What about China and India? They are still poor contries and their birth rates are declining.

India and China being the only nations with populations of over a billion (and #3 being under a quarter of that) present some special problems. Even very low birth rates with a very large population become problematic. China seems to have its population under control and is generating solid economic growth. If they don't literally drown in their own garbage they should become a relatively advanced economy. India on the other hand may be a basket case.

 

[oldfart]

Not me... they are the words of Adam Smith , not mine.

What do you think Smith meant when he used the words "free market?"

I know the modern definition of free market , but I am clueless about Adam Smith's definition.

Modern definition : Market economy based on supply and demand with little government intervention. I'll have to add that conditions akin to perfect competition need to exist for this principle to work.... but I think this "free market" discussion is rather tangencial to the topic of the thread.

Adam Smith was writing in opposition to both the physiocrats and mercantilists who proposed severe government controls of international trade to gain national advantage. He also had a healthy antipathy to collusion, combinations, and monopoly. So his concept of free markets was pretty close to classical perfect competition.

 

[whitehall]

Life (and economics) was simpler back in the days of powdered wigs and slavery. Smith was the darling of the Scottish aristocracy and died a year after the US Constitution was ratified. How did Scotland turn out?

 

[CultureCitizen]

Thomas Malthus advanced the argument, calling for moral instruction as a curb to population growth to avoid a population so high it outran its resources. Today the argument has become rather peculiar. Much of the developed world has birth rates below replacement level, especially Japan and Northern Europe) and Russia is projected to decline in population to 150 million. At the same time birth rates in Africa remain higher than projected, raising questions about the models that predicted declining birth rates with economic development. So the jury is still out!

What about China and India? They are still poor contries and their birth rates are declining.

India and China being the only nations with populations of over a billion (and #3 being under a quarter of that) present some special problems. Even very low birth rates with a very large population become problematic. China seems to have its population under control and is generating solid economic growth. If they don't literally drown in their own garbage they should become a relatively advanced economy. India on the other hand may be a basket case.

That would somehow proove that scantiness is not the only way to control growth. More likely is through education and health care that such goal can be achieved.

 

[william the wie]

Well considering peak population was expected to hit in 2100 in the 1990s but now the latest date is 2050 I think the question is the wrong question. Adam Smith was definitely wrong but that was due to a lack of data. The real problem is too much GIGO in population debates. It has only been in the last 20 years or so that demographers knew enough to collect useful data so it will be a while before we know what we don't know about the subject.

 

[whitehall]

Simple minds cling desperately to simple solutions to complex problems. That's why we are enduring the 2nd term of an amateur presidency.

 

[oldfart]

India on the other hand may be a basket case.

That would somehow prove that scantiness is not the only way to control growth. More likely is through education and health care that such goal can be achieved.

I'm going to be politically incorrect here so those easily offended can go have some wine and brie or whatever (I'm a Guinness, pumpernickel, and Emmentaler man myself).

The productive capacity of every society depends on a number of factors. The classic ones are labor, capital, and technology. I think that even more important are aspects of social organization. A modern economy presupposes a body of law for resolving economic disputes, certain government action such as definition of weights and measures and disclosure and labeling so market participants know what is being sold, and a set of habits and beliefs loosely called labor discipline. What erodes these things and will bring an economy to a grinding halt is a pervasive culture of bribery, corruption, litigiousness, deceitful dealing, and exploitation.

The common denominator of these corrosive tendencies is the belief that the only personal interactions that are valid are economic ones, the only motives are pecuniary, and that the future is divorced from how we behave today. In other words, take the money and run.

So rich people who make a living screwing consumers and workers wax eloquent about the moral failings of the lower classes who live on the dole, and bitching about government regulation that limits how much they can steal (while lobbying for more government contracts). Street hustlers feel entitled to commit identity theft and tax fraud because, hey, the fat cats get away with it so why not us stiffs? Everybody justifies their own bad behavior and then wonders why the underpaid and disrespected law enforcement can't stop the other guys from getting away with it.

News flash. Dysfunctional third-world cultures are not a good role model for economic development. Oppression of women, exploitation of child labor, casting a blind eye to intellectual property theft, labor and environmental standards, will kill you when the $5000 clot-buster drug in the ER turns out to be a fake made in Bangladesh. But hell, somebody in the supply chain made a killing due to the substitution.

So friends, we get away with this shit if we are the only ones doing it; but we aren't the only ones doing it. Rights without community is simply another name for collective suicide with today's technology. "If our children knew what we were really doing, they would murder us in our sleep".

[/rant]

Now we return to the regularly scheduled programming.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The productive capacity of every society depends on a number of factors. The classic ones are labor, capital, and technology.

And lets not forget Hernando Desoto who says most countries are held back because the ownership of land is not organized. He claims if it was easy to buy land and record deeds to that land everyone would then be responsible, have access to credit (against the land) and would be law abiding for fear of attachments to their property.
Jeff Sacks claims China disproves Desoto, but he fails to consider how obedient the Chinese are thanks to decades of totalitarianism.