Was Adam Smith Crazy?

Was Adam Smith Crazy? PDF Version

Was Adam Smith a conspiracy theorist? It seems he was. So, I suppose that makes him crazy – right? Adam Smith is routinely deemed to be the first economist and the father of free market thought. Should we now disregard everything the man wrote or said? After all, is it not true that all allusions to conspiracy are products of the imagination and must be treated as such? Was Adam Smith just another trouble maker like all conspiracy theorists? Or, was he merely pointing out what is normal human behavior? You decide.

What if Adam Smith was alive today and wrote such a thing? What would today’s big tech fact checkers do with respect to Smith’s observations? Your guess is as good as mine…..but, who is guessing and who is not?

Is it really impossible than the biggest tech corporations would conspire together to mold society in a way that benefits them? According to Adam Smith’s thoughts, it would be close to impossible that they are not.

Notice that stories about cheap medicine and inexpensive cures are also fact checked and discarded. Could that be a sign that that big tech, big pharma and big insurance are also part of big tech’s censorship initiative? Big banks are not complaining. Who else is willing to help?

To what degree do these corporations control the essence of countless other entities and people in today’s economic arena? Who and what within the lower echelons of the economy are in a position to oppose them? Is the general public willing to give up the “free” stuff they get from Google or Facebook? Don’t count on it.

When anyone in society today questions the integrity of the order of things in our world today, Is he trouble maker and a kook? Again, you decide.

 

 

(Visited 31 times, 2 visits today)
0 0 votes
Article Rating

About Fantasy Free Economics

James Quillian independent scholar,free market economist,and teacher of natural law. Who is James Quillian? Certainly I am nobody special, Just a tireless academic and deep thinker. Besides that, I have broken the code with respect to economics and political science. Credentials? Nothing you would be impressed with. I am not a household name. It is hard to become famous writing that virtually no one in the country is genuinely not in touch with reality. But, if I did not do that, there would be no point in my broking the broken the code. If you read the blog, it is easy to see that there are just a few charts, no math and no quantitative analysis. That is not by accident. Given what I know, those items are completely useless. I do turn out to be highly adept at applying natural law. Natural law has predominance over any principles the social science comes up. By virtue of understanding natural law, I can debunk, in just a few sentences , any theory that calls for intervention by a government. My taking the time to understand the ins and outs of Keynes General Theory is about like expecting a chemistry student to completely grasp all that the alchemists of the middle ages thought they understood in efforts to turn base metals into goal. Keynesian theory clearly calls for complete objectivity. Government can only make political decisions. Keynesian techniques call for economic decisions. So, why go any further with that? Fantasy Free Economics is in a sense a lot like technical analysis. Technical analysis began with the premise that it was impossible to gain enough information studying fundamentals to gain a trading advantage. Study the behavior of investors instead. Unlike technical analysis, I don't use technical charts. What I understand are the incentives of different people and entities active in the economics arena. For example, there is no such thing as an incentive to serve with life in the aggregate. In the aggregate, only self interest applies. It is routinely assumed otherwise. That is highly unappealing. But, I am sorry. That is the way it is. I can accept that because I am genuinely in touch with reality. Step one in using Fantasy Free Economics is for me to understand just how little I really know. A highly credentialed economist may know 100 times what I do based on the standard dogma. Compare the knowledge each of us has compared to all there is to know and we both look like we know nothing at all. There is always more than we don't know than what we do know. I am humble enough to present myself on that basis. Why? That is the way it is. I am not bad at math. I have taught math. What I understand is when to use it and when to rely on something else. Math is useless in natural law so I don't use it. While others look at numbers, I am busy understanding the forces in nature that makes their numbers what they are. That gives me a clear advantage.
This entry was posted in Daily Comments. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments