Stroggoz New Zealand. Apr 11 2013 13:15. Posts 5296
So an interesting coincidence came across me today
i was reading a noam chomsky excerpt which basically says the chicago school of economics ignored a huge part of adam smiths philosphy when nobel prize winner, geroge stigler wrote: selections from the wealth of nations.
'It's likely he never opened The Wealth of Nations. Just about everything he said about the book was completely false.'
'Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be.'
so i take another attempt at reading the wealth of nations. One of the most difficult books i've tried to read to be honest. I look up division of labor on wikipedia.
so i find that quote in the wealth of nations at page 410.
'The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life... But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it''
adam smith goes on to talk alot about more about this, but i don't want to quote a whole chapter. You can read this yourself.
Karl marx also has a very similar view, you can find this on page 4 of his economic and philisophical manuscript.
'The accumulation of capital increases the division of labor, and the division of labor increases the number of workers. Conversely, the number of workers increases the division of labor, just as the division of labor increases the accumulation of capital. With this division of labor on the one hand and the accumulation of capital on the other, the worker becomes ever more exclusively dependent on labor, and on a particular, very one-sided, machine-like labor at that. Just as he is thus depressed spiritually and physically to the condition of a machine''
The 2nd interesting part is that straight after i this i watch a good ted talk about motivation in work.
The last two minutes of the ted talk is the interesting thing, he doesn't really bring up that Adam Smith was as much into meaning as Karl Marx was. So this is just another very subtle example, imo at how even the most intelligent, scientific people are indoctrinated.
Im just going to delve into my own speculation now.
Our indoctrination is partly from a massive surplass of information. If we are to even try to decipher history and indoctrinated public opinion and attitudes it takes a lot of reading. Something that almost no one can do as they have too many distractions in their life already. There is also an increasing amount of concision in todays media, people have degrading concentration spans. Twitter only allows you to post 140 characters for example. it seems to me that indoctrination is just going to become more and more easy as information increases and the dehumanization of the human concentration span increases too. There is an interesting opinion written about the distintegration of humans aljazeera, which covers this a little bit. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/201332882423542636.html
I hope I'm wrong though.
0 votes
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
i am advocating that if there will be a government, that it should be controlled by the people. My views are actually similar to that of an libertarian scoialist(or even anarcho sydnaclism), something that's been forgotten from history, which basically advocates minimal government control, and any sort of big institution should be controlled from the bottom-upwards instead of top down. I'm against illegitimate governments, and im against illegitmate corporations, which is 99% of them.
the invisible hand is something that is in the wealth of nations, written by adam smith. It is used to describe the self regulatory behavior of a market. But if you apply it today it's a bit of a joke.
milton friedman is wrong based on common sense. You cannot disprove that corporations are totalitarian, because it's obviously true. You know, if oil companies get together to buy out, crush any sort of competition from the electric car, is that fair? That's hindering progress. That's controlling people to keep buying oil.
You should take a deep look at how economies were regulated for countries that became rich in the past. America from 19th century-preww2. South korea from 1960-80, Japan ect.
just lol, why are you repeating the same stuff over and over again?
if someone sees the opportunity on the markey he will start producing electric cars etc
do you even know how much in debt 'the rich' japan is? it just shows how you have no clue wt are you talking about
The degradation of society is such a cop-out statement used to support so much bullshit. I know stupid people but don't worry I'm smart! This is the sort of arrogance you get from nerds bullied in high school. http://xkcd.com/603/
I'm going to make a few claims and if someone actually wants a debate on it I'll expand further.
1. Humans are the smartest they've ever been.
2. Humans are better educated than ever.
3. Humans are more aware of themselves and their society than ever before.
4. There is nothing to this indoctrination claim.
So where in all this am I now a mindless consumerist shell with no attention span loyal only to "the man".
Last edit: 11/04/2013 14:38
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Apr 11 2013 14:49. Posts 5296
i am advocating that if there will be a government, that it should be controlled by the people. My views are actually similar to that of an libertarian scoialist(or even anarcho sydnaclism), something that's been forgotten from history, which basically advocates minimal government control, and any sort of big institution should be controlled from the bottom-upwards instead of top down. I'm against illegitimate governments, and im against illegitmate corporations, which is 99% of them.
the invisible hand is something that is in the wealth of nations, written by adam smith. It is used to describe the self regulatory behavior of a market. But if you apply it today it's a bit of a joke.
milton friedman is wrong based on common sense. You cannot disprove that corporations are totalitarian, because it's obviously true. You know, if oil companies get together to buy out, crush any sort of competition from the electric car, is that fair? That's hindering progress. That's controlling people to keep buying oil.
You should take a deep look at how economies were regulated for countries that became rich in the past. America from 19th century-preww2. South korea from 1960-80, Japan ect.
just lol, why are you repeating the same stuff over and over again?
if someone sees the opportunity on the markey he will start producing electric cars etc
do you even know how much in debt 'the rich' japan is? it just shows how you have no clue wt are you talking about
and now you are quoting marx ...
Take a look at everything in this blog you'll find it's fact. The bit at the end is just my opinion, but the quotes and all are facts. i think it's in the best interest for people to know these facts.
Was talking about japans economic growth from early-mid 20th century, when it did protect the development of it's industries like toyota.
as for Karl Marx. Your argument is what exactly? to imply that hes wrong? I simply quoted him because he had similar beliefs to Adam Smith. A lot of people don't know this and I'm presuming the guy in the ted talk didn't know this.
To simply imply anyone is wrong just by saying its from them is a pathetically weak argument. Was Hitler wrong about animal rights?
I won't argue anymore unless you actually debunk my points made in this blog.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Last edit: 11/04/2013 14:52
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Apr 11 2013 15:03. Posts 5296
On April 11 2013 13:36 TheLink wrote:
The degradation of society is such a cop-out statement used to support so much bullshit. I know stupid people but don't worry I'm smart! This is the sort of arrogance you get from nerds bullied in high school. http://xkcd.com/603/
I'm going to make a few claims and if someone actually wants a debate on it I'll expand further.
1. Humans are the smartest they've ever been.
2. Humans are better educated than ever.
3. Humans are more aware of themselves and their society than ever before.
4. There is nothing to this indoctrination claim.
So where in all this am I now a mindless consumerist shell with no attention span loyal only to "the man".
well i think i'm highly indoctrinated as well, so not sure why you think i have that attitude.
there is some good education, you learn some good stuff in school but school is also used to teach people not to think to much, you basically spend all your time preparing, memorizing for tests. That's not good for creativity. My degradation claim can be wrong, depending on your morality. But adam smith and karl marx both agree with me and i think most people do, you can disagree that it's degrading, i have no problem with that, But it is not supported by bullshit. all you have to do is read my points which all have correct sources.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On April 11 2013 13:49 Stroggoz wrote:
Take a look at everything in this blog you'll find it's fact. The bit at the end is just my opinion, but the quotes and all are facts. i think it's in the best interest for people to know these facts.
its not that these 'facts' are necessarily wrong, its just you try to come up with the most fcked up solutions and claim they are right
On April 11 2013 13:49 Stroggoz wrote:
Was talking about japans economic growth from early-mid 20th century, when it did protect the development of it's industries like toyota.
so you are AGAINST corporations and use pre-ww2 japan as example, pls educate yourself on this subject
On April 11 2013 13:49 Stroggoz wrote:
well, i made an electric car an example because it happened in reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy So, ok the electric car was crushed by 4 bigger companies that conspired against them.
see this is exactly what happens in highly regulated market dominated by corporations, ie irrelevant to freemarket example
On April 11 2013 13:49 Stroggoz wrote:
as for Karl Marx. Your argument is what exactly? to imply that hes wrong? I simply quoted him because he had similar beliefs to Adam Smith. A lot of people don't know this and I'm presuming the guy in the ted talk didn't know this.
again im not saying hes not right, but his solutions are wrong on so many lvls. dont you believe in division of labor?? do you suggest ppl should be 'entertained' in work or whats your point really? do you suggest the state should take responsibily for ones personal developemnt? (wtf really)
and btw as you think freemarket benefits corporations, why are they not pushing for it???? clearly you still doesnt understand how they work and gain power and therefore making fcked up asumptions about free market
why are you constantly quoting chomsky whos a linguist?
On April 09 2013 02:32 Stroggoz wrote:
Or that the neoliberal economic polcies enforced everywhere in the world has shrunk economic growth and created vast inequality, the media would definitely say your crazy for saying that. But just look at the stats.
i didn't see the part about Toyota i have no idea what you guys are talking about
but....after the ww2 period, toyota was making 15 million cars per year after embracing open markets while hindutsu motors was making 18,000 due to government planning...
why are you constantly quoting chomsky whos a linguist?
This is the rawest evidence of your ignorance borne and promoted by modern, nerdified culture. You might as well dismiss Albert Einstein as not having a valuable opinion in regards to physics, or how to live a productive and creative life, because he is also a "driver" (of cars).
BTW Stroggoz, your understanding about what Adam Smith's Invisible Hand represents is incorrect. Same problem as Chomsky was talking about with people reading the first paragraph and not getting through the book
why are you constantly quoting chomsky whos a linguist?
This is the rawest evidence of your ignorance borne and promoted by modern, nerdified culture. You might as well dismiss Albert Einstein as not having a valuable opinion in regards to physics, or how to live a productive and creative life, because he is also a "driver" (of cars).
Stroggoz New Zealand. Apr 12 2013 12:46. Posts 5296
On April 11 2013 22:08 2c0ntent wrote:
BTW Stroggoz, your understanding about what Adam Smith's Invisible Hand represents is incorrect. Same problem as Chomsky was talking about with people reading the first paragraph and not getting through the book
The invisible hand thing i thought was just adam smith talking about how free markets are to go whichever way they want, when they arn't controlled by some outside influence like a government. The problem i have is the distortion of history, and the libertarians who are growing in numbers and don't seem to realize that corporations are a system of power, just like a government, or a family. They have the ability to control a market just like a government does. So their beliefs that minimal government would lead to a free market doesn't make sense at all. It's just transferring of power over to a bunch of totalitarian regimes known as corporations.
My solution would be to try to democratize these institutions one by one.
