Has rampant capitalism hijacked the promise of the digital age? -Future Tense- ABC Radio National #u3abenallatss https://t.co/Lyi2aOqb42
— Bev Lee (@lee_bev) March 25, 2016
A thought provoking article discovered during local café browsing of the Melbourne Age two days ago ... 'Economists are out of touch with climate change'. Venture on to the 'Comments' area to ponder about the thinking of people who decry climate change...
(Click here for a 'print friendly' PDF of the article if you can't access the web link.) From time to time an article is read or broadcast heard reminding us of the tendency towards sloganeering of core concepts emanating from philosopher Adam Smith and the need to read his original writing and consider the depth and complexity of his ideas. One such article, originally posted in the Economist by C.W. on November 11, 2013, reappeared this month on my Facebook feed from 'The Economist'. Here's a segment of the article (which includes further reading suggestions) titled Economic History: Smith's word - Economic history Smith's word Nov 1st 2013, 14:10 by C.W. | LONDON ADAM SMITH is known as the father of economics. Most people think of him as the archetypal free-marketeer. But Smith is often misquoted. This post will give a few examples of how people have misinterpreted Smith’s ideas—and show what he really meant. Smith sowed the seeds of his own problems. He tended to write pithy soundbites that left his ideas open to distortion. One of his best-known quips: It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Journalists and economists frequently use this quotation. Most people think that Smith was advocating pure egoism. In fact, according to Athol Fitzgibbons, an economic historian, the reader can only understand the quotation within the context of the passage. And deeper analysis shows that Smith was making a subtle point, rather than advocating pure selfishness. In the "Theory of Moral Sentiments", his second most famous book, Smith discusses the position of philosophers in society. He argues that it would be contradictory and unjust for them just to think about their self-interest. Instead philosophers needed to cultivate a sense of public duty in order to be any good at helping to solve the world’s most pressing problems. But butchers, brewers and bakers did not need such lofty aspirations—unlike philosophers, they could probably do their job well by acting selfishly. So according to Mr Fitzgibbons, when Smith mentions "their own interest", he is arguing that “not all occupations are pursued with the same low motive in mind”. Smith certainly did not intend to suggest that self-interest was the only driving force of human behaviour. And other evidence suggests that Smith had a more complex view of human action than most people give him credit for. This quotation appears on the very first page of the "Theory of Moral Sentiments": How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it except the pleasure of seeing it. Smith voices similar opinions when he mentions the “invisible hand”. The metaphor is used today for the idea that selfish individuals, operating independently, will bring about the best possible outcome. But this is a misinterpretation of Smith. The phrase "invisible hand" is used only three times (here, here and here) in Smith’s works. And according to Emma Rothschild, an expert on 18th century economic thought, its use was “ironical on each of the three occasions". So much for selfishness. Smith’s ideas of the division of labour were .... (click here to continue reading-- http://www.economist.com/node/21589054/print ) I left the radio (ABC Radio National) on last night and woke up listening to a 'Big Ideas' program in which Dr Rachel Griffiths, in her Royal Economics Society 2015 lecture, intertwined a case study of Starbucks throughout to present an engaging, extremely informative lecture 'Does Starbucks Pay Enough Tax'.
It explored concern that multinational firms are not paying their 'fair share' of tax looking at questions including - How much tax do firms pay? What would be a fair amount for them to pay? Where do they pay it and where should they pay it? Thanks, Big Ideas, for broadcasting this lecture - I'd recommend it highly. Dr Griffiths is able to communicate 'big economic ideas' in an accessible way which addresses the issues while at the same time providing or updating the listener's understanding of the field of taxation economics and public finance. The 'Big Ideas' RN audio stream of the program can be downloaded at http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bigideas/does-starbucks-pay-enough-tax/7193308 Additional notes by Dr Griffiths on the topic are available at http://live.wavecast.co/does-starbucks-pay-enough-tax/2015/10/30/does-starbucks-pay-enough-tax/ The video stream of the lecture is available at http://live.wavecast.co/does-starbucks-pay-enough-tax/live-feed/ Reading The Age's Green Guide at a café recently I discovered an article 'Uni Turns Dismal Science into a Game - Playconomics' .... intrigued, as I had always enjoyed Petty's conceptualisation of The Money Game in the 70's, had developed an economics curriculum for Year 11 which had used a games analogy and taken an interest in games theorists such as Yanis Varoufakis, I read the article and when I got home, watched the video it referred to. There is more on the web on Playconomics, including some sample game sequences from the program. I wonder how it handles 'political economy'? values? climate change? imputed values for eg. unpaid work? etc.... |
Blog
This blog reflects issues and events which interest me, the sources which help in my continuing quest for 'lifelong learning' about economic and social issues and education.
@Lee_BevArchives
January 2020
Categories
All
|