Get him and that other dude, Freeman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory
I can't recommend any book, but those were basically the two that I had in ethics for businesses or whatever.
The Wealth of Nations
Das Kapital
Proposed Roads to Freedom
Capital in the Twenty First Century
The Deficit Myth
The Shock Doctrine
Capitalist Realism
Manufacturing Consent, which is tangentially related too
NTA, but you'd be assuming wrong. Not so much for Adam Smith, though he has his place, but you shouldn't assume the meaning of "economics" from modern books. All of economics is basically trying to solve problems that have been obscured by time but were majorly set out by William Petty, since he was basically the foundational influence that would spawn the tradition for later "political economists" like Smith. Petty basically conjured up a model of the "economy" so to speak for purposes of arguing different methods of taxation for the crown, because Petty received a lot of land in Ireland after the Irish Rebellion from Cromwell along with a bunch of other English settlers there. The crown was tax farming in Ireland and Petty felt it was fricking with his ability to generate income off of his land, so he came up with a model of the economy that set out to capitalize the "value" of different factors of production (land and capital) in order to compare them and then suggest where taxes should be levied.
Then for another 200 years political economists argued about this denominator on the economy because Petty didn't really theorize it much, he just asserted that there had to be a denominator that could compare productive factors because he needed there to be one, so he could get his taxes down. But since it was made up there was no satisfying answer, and later economists came up with marginalism to sidestep the issue even though that was actually impossible because the whole basis of "economy" was the idea that factors were capable of being made equivalent across time. So the Cambridge Capital Crisis happened and exposed that modern economics was just putting its fingers in its ears and pretending the problem had been solved.
There is no answer to the problem because all economics ever was was the tool of people like Petty to argue for a particular tax structure to their benefit, which in reality is just a justification for a certain structure of power in society. Transactions aren't equivalent, they're in sequence across time. The "economy" can't be constructed through imputed monetary equalities that exist across time, there is nothing equivalent actually being "measured". It's just a succession of transactions, economics is justification for a tax structure. Nobody needed "economics" to do business or public policy for thousands of years. Their problems in administrating those things were usually technical.
11 months ago
Anonymous
Okay, then why many people pointed Smith when started talking about economy? Is there more authors who talk about the same as Smith did ?
11 months ago
Anonymous
I couldn't say for sure, I'd give a just so story right now. Petty's work was very directly about taxation, Smith's had an appearance of being more broad. His book was coupled with his work on morals, I think it was received as a more compelling story of the world. But economics is always just a story to justify public policy, it doesn't really drive it much. Fiscal principles are pretty common sense, it just depends on whose interests are being served, but insofar as an interest group is being catered to its obvious that they oppose burdensome taxes no matter what point in history you're observing, because any particular powerful interest that has obligations to the state simply understands that when the state takes from them it means they accumulate less. And of course they like it when the sovereign buys shit from them. And they don't like it when the sovereign controls their flows of people and goods too much, unless the sovereign does it in a way that is favorable to their competitive position. Probably the biggest area with a veneer of "economic theory" actually being informative is monetary policy, but the principles of central banking have been practiced for centuries by merchants who would clear payments against accounts with eachother and pool consequent debts there, essentially opting to extend credit to each other to keep everyone in business. Walter Bagehot wrote the book on central banking and he got most of his knowledge from a career as a banker and businessman, and ended up laying out the basic principles of the "lender of last resort" just by experience. Further innovations in how that institution functions have again been majorly technical, just matters of how the various global and national banks interact through new technologies and changing circumstances of global commerce. Draping economic flimflam over it after the fact is just how people try to tell a story about what is going on that sounds "rigorous" and "factual". The British Empire didn't need Adam Smith, it needed guns and boats to enter places like India and America. Europe was well into colonialism and accumulation of people and assets by the time "economists" were writing books about why citizens should be free to make as much money as possible. They were just saying what was already happening was a good thing, nobody has learned much by ruminating on concepts of the economy. Just a series of dreary tracts about abstractions with no substance.
Candide by Voltaire
Get him and that other dude, Freeman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory
I can't recommend any book, but those were basically the two that I had in ethics for businesses or whatever.
Leftypol is down the hall to the left
The Wealth of Nations obviously
The Wealth of Nations
Das Kapital
Proposed Roads to Freedom
Capital in the Twenty First Century
The Deficit Myth
The Shock Doctrine
Capitalist Realism
Manufacturing Consent, which is tangentially related too
All high order. You need to read industrial and class social history.
Do you have a book recommendation?
If you're new either
Hammond & Hammond Village Labourer (2nd ed)
or
Engels Condition of the Working Class
Personally I prefer Hammond & Hammond because I like wages and conditions more than picking the rat shit out of chewing tobacco. But there you go.
>capitalist realism
Have you read it? For I didn't see anything worth written about capitalism at all...
Mein Kampf by Herr Hitler.
William Petty and Cantillon
You can't be capitalist and a social conservative. Daily reminder.
why not?
Because you're working against your own interests.
.........
how so?
say something this time i'm getting bored slike pulling teeth with you
not all these but enough
Where is The Wealth of Nations? Probably the first book everyone should read.
i figure i'm getting everything important from that in other books that aren't 250 years old and 1000 pages long
NTA, but you'd be assuming wrong. Not so much for Adam Smith, though he has his place, but you shouldn't assume the meaning of "economics" from modern books. All of economics is basically trying to solve problems that have been obscured by time but were majorly set out by William Petty, since he was basically the foundational influence that would spawn the tradition for later "political economists" like Smith. Petty basically conjured up a model of the "economy" so to speak for purposes of arguing different methods of taxation for the crown, because Petty received a lot of land in Ireland after the Irish Rebellion from Cromwell along with a bunch of other English settlers there. The crown was tax farming in Ireland and Petty felt it was fricking with his ability to generate income off of his land, so he came up with a model of the economy that set out to capitalize the "value" of different factors of production (land and capital) in order to compare them and then suggest where taxes should be levied.
Then for another 200 years political economists argued about this denominator on the economy because Petty didn't really theorize it much, he just asserted that there had to be a denominator that could compare productive factors because he needed there to be one, so he could get his taxes down. But since it was made up there was no satisfying answer, and later economists came up with marginalism to sidestep the issue even though that was actually impossible because the whole basis of "economy" was the idea that factors were capable of being made equivalent across time. So the Cambridge Capital Crisis happened and exposed that modern economics was just putting its fingers in its ears and pretending the problem had been solved.
There is no answer to the problem because all economics ever was was the tool of people like Petty to argue for a particular tax structure to their benefit, which in reality is just a justification for a certain structure of power in society. Transactions aren't equivalent, they're in sequence across time. The "economy" can't be constructed through imputed monetary equalities that exist across time, there is nothing equivalent actually being "measured". It's just a succession of transactions, economics is justification for a tax structure. Nobody needed "economics" to do business or public policy for thousands of years. Their problems in administrating those things were usually technical.
Okay, then why many people pointed Smith when started talking about economy? Is there more authors who talk about the same as Smith did ?
I couldn't say for sure, I'd give a just so story right now. Petty's work was very directly about taxation, Smith's had an appearance of being more broad. His book was coupled with his work on morals, I think it was received as a more compelling story of the world. But economics is always just a story to justify public policy, it doesn't really drive it much. Fiscal principles are pretty common sense, it just depends on whose interests are being served, but insofar as an interest group is being catered to its obvious that they oppose burdensome taxes no matter what point in history you're observing, because any particular powerful interest that has obligations to the state simply understands that when the state takes from them it means they accumulate less. And of course they like it when the sovereign buys shit from them. And they don't like it when the sovereign controls their flows of people and goods too much, unless the sovereign does it in a way that is favorable to their competitive position. Probably the biggest area with a veneer of "economic theory" actually being informative is monetary policy, but the principles of central banking have been practiced for centuries by merchants who would clear payments against accounts with eachother and pool consequent debts there, essentially opting to extend credit to each other to keep everyone in business. Walter Bagehot wrote the book on central banking and he got most of his knowledge from a career as a banker and businessman, and ended up laying out the basic principles of the "lender of last resort" just by experience. Further innovations in how that institution functions have again been majorly technical, just matters of how the various global and national banks interact through new technologies and changing circumstances of global commerce. Draping economic flimflam over it after the fact is just how people try to tell a story about what is going on that sounds "rigorous" and "factual". The British Empire didn't need Adam Smith, it needed guns and boats to enter places like India and America. Europe was well into colonialism and accumulation of people and assets by the time "economists" were writing books about why citizens should be free to make as much money as possible. They were just saying what was already happening was a good thing, nobody has learned much by ruminating on concepts of the economy. Just a series of dreary tracts about abstractions with no substance.
Midwit.
you know the one
JR
How the frick am I the only person ITT to mention it?