About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Friday, April 10, 2009 - 5:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'd like to add another AS quote, which underscores the importance of savings through parsimony:

"Parsimony, and not industry, is the immediate cause of the increase of capital. Industry, indeed, provides the subject which parsimony accumulates. But whatever industry might acquire, if parsimony did not save and store up, the capital would never be the greater."

The Wealth of Nations, Book II, Chapter III

http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/quotes.htm

Tyson

Post 1

Saturday, April 11, 2009 - 10:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
On the whole this quote seems to have a strong influence of Kant's observances. Convoluted to imply that the efforts of the many are for the good of the few. When you have to choose between the Sheriff of Nottingham and Robin Hood the only thing that means is one has been forced into a corner. The choice not being the focus of debate but realizing how one got into that position in the first place. Was it outside influence or was it simply complacency?
  The adventurous John Law was of the opinion that capital was only one side of wealth. Money being the symbol of efforts. What is the source of capital? Providing goods or services. Fine Who will buy these goods and services. The folks that have had their sources of capital retarded in the name of increased profits.
  Economics ought to study the Law of conservation of matter. This states that matter can not be created or destroyed, openly converted to energy and back again. You have your energy i.e. money and you have your matter,i.e. goods and services. Then you have your infrastructure. i.e. the population that will pass the first two back and forth in their daily living. Neglect the infrastructure and  the first two have no way of flowing back and forth.


Post 2

Sunday, April 12, 2009 - 9:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's a valuable observation, but I don't think Rand herself would have appreciated it.  She would have taken it as an attack on reason per se, just as she took similar statements by Hayek.  I don't think she'd be right in either case.

(Don't see what you mean in #1 about the influence of Kant.  They were contemporaries, but do we have any evidence that Smith knew about Kant?  What, in any case, is the influence?)


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.