The Economist as Philosopher: Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes on human nature, social progress...
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 พ.ค. 2024
- The Economist as Philosopher: Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes on human nature, social progress and economic change
Speakers: Nicholas Phillipson, Professor Lord Skidelsky
This event was recorded on 6 October 2010 in Old Theatre, Old Building
Robert Skidelsky and Nicholas Phillipson discuss how the philosophies of Keynes and Smith helped shape their influential economic ideas and examine how each has influenced social and political change.
Robert Skidelsky's insights span economics, history and politics as very few of his contemoraries have, especially in the United States...
This is most great lecture and discussion. Thanks a lot
great lecture about Adam Smith and J.M.Keynes--Thanks.
I am always surprised how the Marginal Revolution and the writings of von Mises and Hayek can be ignored in such a discussion. While in this discussion human selfishness and social interaction are debated as nobody has thought about it before, while the concept of social cooperation was described by Mises in Hayek while keynes was still alive.
I'm surprised your surprised, but Im security guard so what do I know
@@frederick3467 . Irrelevant, u may know an awful lot. Just saying. Kind regards.
@@frederick3467 Doesn't matter what your occupation in the framework of idea discussion
You're right - LSE is notoriously Keynesian, and some more Chicago thoughts would have balanced it - but then again, it might have erupted into a less clear debate, than the clear lecture that it became..
I love Skidelsky - it's as if Keynes himself were orating. He kind of channels what I imagine the great man himself to have been like: a posh progressive.
Great discussion.
Smith and Keynes were both concerned about the macro functioning of the society in general and economy in particular. It is the ethical humanistic principle that is mainstay of their seminal contribution.
MANOHAR RAO Janga Strongly recommend Hayek.
Ty
In many perspectives, Adam Smith had a superior understanding of how societies are organized and how markets are affected by these organizational dynamics. One of the great differences between the two was their appreciation of the significance of land markets and the potential benefits of land rent taxation over other methods by which government might raise revenue. Keynes concluded (without any statistical evidence that I have found in his work) that "rent" was no longer important because of the shift from agrarian to manufacturing production. Keynes paid no attention at all to the consequences of land rent monopoly by owners of land in a nation's cities and metropolitan areas.
What also gave Adam Smith superior insight was his association with the major French political economists of his time, the Physiocrats, Quesnay and Turgot. The thinking of these French writers challenged conventional wisdoms and entrenched moral doctrines with respect to the claim of land rent by private individuals and interests.
Landed interests were well entrenched by Smith's time. By the time Keynes was writing the power of landed interests over political discourse was more hidden but even more destructive to the stated objectives of societies ostensibly committed to social democracy and to a high degree of equality of opportunity. Landed privilege was and is the source of "scarcity" -- at least for a large portion of the world's population, while others enjoy conspicuous consumption.
Good comment. Also Keynes seems to think that public spending must imply "deficit" spending rather than government spending using debt free money.
awesome
It says much that they lived before 'specialisation', i.e. stove piping, which defines the contemporary education system, where virtually nobody has a clue about the greater system as a whole.
Highlights what's going on in the Economics Departments! Adam Smith isn't an economist as philosopher, but a moral, philosopher as economist, or more precisely a philosopher who included the economy as one of his philosophical interests. If you wanted to find a better name for the lecture: "Keynes and Smith - quoted, but not read. -How a lack of history leads an entire subject astray - and why almost no economist have the faintest idea of what their most important thinkers actually thought of the economy.
They didn't misspell, it actually is called a bald assertion.
I think I love you.
You seriously didn't bother to even google both? It's called a bald assertion, nothing to do with being bold.
long life in the human race is important
Time has its toll and Smith was important for free trade in his epoche.
Let's learn IPE through smithian speech ^_^ 🌐🇬🇧♥️
Trampa para ovejas ambas propuestas, como hacer cuidar el rebaño a los lobos.
1:17:15 Great comment/question... too bad the answers weren't satisfactory.
Ossified economic theory gives rise to superstition; superstition gives rise to a priestly class, e.g., the Chicago School?
look out for the next Christopher Hitchens :)
I assume he had Green Marseillas Soap? I guess upside down we are looking for a soap that returns the pads on your hands not the other way around. Children's economy.
Nope, it's called a bold assertion
John Maynard Keynes died in 1946.
Did Keynes ever see a television commercial? How much money has been spent on TV advertising since 1960?
If he had a radio, then he might have heard thousands of radio commercials. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Radio advertising was going strong in the 1920s. He died in 1946.
@@psikeyhackr6914 Awhh... now you are feeling really sorry for yourself, aren't you? ;-)
@@schmetterling4477
I do not comprehend your point. You did not cause me to think of anything I did not already know.
@@psikeyhackr6914 I simply pointed out that you are making foolish statements to attract attention. ;-)
cla o pide unmn prestamo y vas aver
What kind of car did Adam Smith drive? How much did he lose on depreciation each year on the machine as it wore out? Obviously Smith didn't buy things like cars, televisions and computers but our brilliant economists today can't discuss the depreciation of all of these Durable Consumer Goods. But the billions of dollars lost annually means those things must be replaced and those purchases get added to GDP.
Well put bud
Economists should be forbidden from making their bald assertions about human nature.
I don;t believe you! Unless you DM me a link to a trustworthy source evidencing the existence of the expression 'a bald assertion', I'm not gonna back down on this one! I couldn't find anything trustworthy on Google. I think you're wrong, my friend. I will admit defeat if you can prove otherwise, of course!
These two guys are totally different and they approached their society and the economic times that they lived in differently. Smith seems to have been affirming the world that he lived in while Keynes was criticizing his environment. Smith was an empty vessel albeit a proud empty vessel, one who approved of the world in which he lived. To study Smith is to ignore the contextual forces that molded his lack of vision. Keynes saw problems and sought to provide solutions to the problems Smith would have us ignore. No comparison as to intellectual value between these two writers.
I'd suggest you read the Wealth of Nations, Smith was very critical of capitalism - he didn't see it as an unalloyed good and has interesting leftish critiques of it
Yes it's very rude! Especially when human nature is trying so hard to pretend it's not a wig.
O
All I hear is "uhm", these speakers should learn the mechanics of speech from viewing great speakers. Just cause you know how to speak doesn't mean you know how to speak to an audience.
your argument is flaccid and unraveling before your eyes, you mad bro?
All those who sponge on human society will talk about ethics just to attach that to their rotten thieving ideas which they propound to parasite on the gains of the worklives of people. Taxes usury and insurancing were useful at one stage of societal progress, but it should now be dumped. Rulers have to make rules and laws for the sake of equity, not for controls which bring them profit and usurps the prerogative of Creation - which has PROGRAMMED every aspect of its Creation to deliver profit from work. Note well that the rigours and risks of huntergatherer lifestyle was replaced with the minimal effort to plant a seed to get 100s of seeds as grains and as fruits. This bounteousness, the kings usurp and make it available only to their cronies by misuse of persons like smith keynes or the above, who appear on the scene and produce scholarly stuff for regimes. This tyranny of ideas misused, is controlled today, by their tyranny of force and tyranny of control over media/education.
Adam Smith was not an economist! ..he was a philosopher. But nowadays everything is falling within the ambit of Philosophical method of scientific enquiry.