Adam Smith’s Recommendation To End Illegal Immigration

[Brown_Pride]

On Adam Smith's relevance... Smith knew better than people misappropriating him for their own ends care to admit.

For instance, see, from Wealth of Nations: "For one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many."

He also knew that many market relations are fundamentally coercive. For example, as any of us non-rich folks know, a labor dispute between a worker and a boss will typically end with the employer winning. Says Smith, on this point: "It is not..difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms."

Of course, Smith had a hope for markets. But it was a humanist, rationalist hope. And it was tempered by the above kinds of realistic understandings. Today, in retrospect, we might even call his humanist and rationalist hope unrealistic.

Anyway, my point is that those we typically call 'the founders of capitalism' would not endorse our present reality. And before we start proposing market solutions for all kinds of problems, we have to think about: "why, market solutions?" And, "Whose interests are being served?" If our answer to the first question is "because markets are fair, natural, and self-ordering", then its obvious that we aren't thinking hard enough about the second question "Whose interests are being served?" because if you look at history, its hard to see any market or institution that did NOT come about through the triumph of particular interests that like to call their winning the product of "natural" events.

Also, I'd scarcely call the 'solution' provided in the article "Smith's" solution. That solution is just the basic 'rational choice' game: mess around with incentives considering certain constraints. Its really got nothing to do with Smith.

...wow. Most coherent post i've read on HL.

The tendency for people, particularly politicians, to justify actions based on "the markets" or "what's good for business" is arguably the biggest hindrance to sustainable growth in this country. It's also responsible for many of the nonsensical issues our government faces; immigration, health care, filibusters, bi partisan cooperation, etc, etc, etc.

As you point out the irony of using the talking point version of Adam Smith is that it does misappropriate his total message, one where the division of labor ultimately destroy human beings. Chomsky does a great job here: Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare) discussing the your point. To piggy back off your comment on who's interests are being served....

He simply observed in passing, because it's so obvious, that in England, which is what he's discussing -- and it was the most democratic society of the day -- the principal architects of policy are the "merchants and manufacturers," and they make certain that their own interests are, in his words, "most peculiarly attended to," no matter what the effect on others, including the people of England who, he argued, suffered from their policies.

The myth of Smith really does not give his humanist work the justice it deserves.

And yes the Article invokes Smiths name to gain support and lay a foundation for the new dialog the republicans are launching in an effort to win latino votes.

The solution itself, in my opinion, is the most reasonable approach to the "immigration problem"

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

I'd say so breh. I mean even as a "leftist" I have to understand the importance of allowing the market to function properly. The market as described by Smith is more of a force for freedom and allowing the efficient transfer of goods and services between individuals. Context is important but Smith is just about as relevant as Marx in 2013 in my opinion.

Das Kapital is probably one of the best breakdowns of capitalism I've ever seen. I definitely think Marx is relevant.

 

[theworldismine13]

I think the "Adam Smith" in the title threw people for a loop,

i thought it was obvious that the use of Adam Smith in the title of the article was a stretch and maybe even a little tongue in cheek. The use of Adam Smith in the title was just a way signifying that the idea was based on the idea of applying a free market structure to the immigration system

I didn't realize it was gonna bring all the marxists out, I posted it because it seemed liked an interesting idea but i think its an idea that can be considered on its merits and without having an additional discussion on the relevancy of Adam Smith

 

[Professor Moriarty]

I think the "Adam Smith" in the title through people for a loop,

i thought it was obvious that the use of Adam Smith in the title of the article was a stretch and maybe even a little tongue in cheek. The use of Adam Smith in the title was just a way signifying that the idea was based on the idea of applying a free market structure to the immigration system

I didn't realize it was gonna bring out all the marxists out, I posted it because it seemed liked an interesting idea but i think its an idea that can be considered on its merits and without having an additional discussion on the relevancy of Adam Smith

Word. Fair enough. But you should also then consider proposals that you might immediately dismiss as "Marxist" on their own merits too right?

 

[The Real]

Das Kapital is probably one of the best breakdowns of capitalism I've ever seen. I definitely think Marx is relevant.

It's strange how people quote Smith all the time, claiming that he's relevant, but then act like Marx is irrelevant despite him being an expert on Smith, Ricardo, and the other economists of his time.

 

[theworldismine13]

It's strange how people quote Smith all the time, claiming that he's relevant, but then act like Marx is irrelevant despite him being an expert on Smith, Ricardo, and the other economists of his time.

Wrong thread